Coverage of the first round of elections saw the Egyptian press pinning its bias to its sleeve,writes Fatemah Farag Follow the press coverage of the first round of parliamentary elections and in the same week you will find Sawt Al-Umma blasting the president, his son and those members of the cabinet running -- and winning -- in the first round of parliamentary elections while Al-Ahr a m 's editorial extols the virtues of the electoral process and Gamal Mubarak. At a time when the Egyptian press is increasingly characterised by the polarisation between state-owned and privately- owned newspapers, the nature of the alliances of the various players has become clear to all. According to a study released this week by the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies (CCHRS) state-owned media coverage of the elections has been "flagrantly in favour of the candidates of the ruling party". In addition to eight government TV and two joint-venture channels the study focused on 17 state- and privately-owned newspapers. It found that "bias was strongest in the press owned by the state." CCHRS identifies Al-Ahram as the main offender, dedicating 95 per cent of coverage to National Democratic Party (NDP) candidates. Al-Akhbar came a close second, with 86 per cent. The study notes that half of Al-Ahram 's front page was repeatedly dedicated to NDP candidates in addition to extensive, high profile coverage within the paper. Favouritism is difficult to quantify and a legitimate counter argument is that the NDP is fielding the greatest number of candidates and therefore warrants more coverage. According to Bahieddin Hassan, head of CCHRS, "the percentages were calculated by centimetre with a ruler... no one can claim the methodology is 100 per cent fool-proof. However, it is the best method to date, and has been tested in Europe and in several Arab countries, including Palestine and Tunisia." Indeed, Hassan argues that "these measurements underestimate the extent of bias within the state-owned media because they do not take into consideration that throughout the year these papers cover the ruling party exclusively." The private press exhibits its own prejudice. Papers owned or managed by candidates such as Al-Osbou', headed by Mustafa Bakri, Al-Karama headed by Hamdeen Sabahi and Al-Ghad headed by Ayman Nour, support the campaigns of their leaders. Then there is Al-Dostour and Sawt Al-Umma, characterised by extreme anti-regime and anti-NDP stances diametrically opposed to the state-owned press. According to Ibrahim Eissa, editor-in-chief of both Al-Dostour and Sawt Al-Umma, "while private papers have every right to be biased the national press should not exhibit such partiality. These papers are publicly owned which means I have a stake in them along with everyone else. They should adhere to an objective policy. That they do not is an abrogation of professional ethics." Eissa is adamant: "We are vehemently against the ruling party and as long as we do not present false information, adhere to professional standards and state our leanings clearly we have every right to our biases. Neutrality in the face of corruption is to be biased in favour of the devil." The report notes that bias in the state-owned press coverage of parliamentary elections exceeds that exhibited during the presidential elections. "It is as if we have returned to the mid-seventies and the times of Musa Sabry [then editor-in-chief of Akhbar Al-Yom ]. This blatant bias [in favour of the regime] and the continuous maligning of the opposition were things that had all but disappeared from the state-owned press. What we are witnessing is clear degeneration within media institutions," says media expert Khaled El-Sirgani. One reason for this, suggests El-Sirgani, is the fact that those in charge of state-owned papers are presidential appointees with little interest in reflecting the breadth of public opinion. "They are concerned with the opinion of those who have brought them into office. That is in addition to the network of business contacts that link them to the system." Many of the candidates receiving extensive coverage in the state-owned press, El-Sirgani points out, are businessmen who spend a lot of money on advertising. "If you want to figure out what is happening in the elections you would have to read all the papers and then contextualise their coverage in accordance with their leanings," suggests El-Sirgani. As far as Hassan is concerned the regression in press coverage "runs parallel with the deterioration in the electoral process. Intervention, which has reached the point of forging election results, cannot help but be reflected in the media." According to Eissa "if there is anything worse than these elections then it is the coverage of the elections." Yet the privately-owned press has witnessed a proliferation in titles and enjoyed a wide margin of freedom of expression. But the private press, argues Hassan, is a "margin within a margin", incapable of redrawing the equation of power. "In my opinion they are allowed to exist only as a tension release mechanism." Eissa might disagree. "Our existence is not a gift," he says, "but a right we wrench for ourselves. However, we can sense the shrinking of the regime's patience and their willingness to abort this experiment." In the meantime the measurement tools are out and focused on the upcoming round of elections.
