Close up: The Eissa case By Salama A Salama The way in which Ibrahim Eissa -- founder of Al-Dostour and a man who fashioned the newspaper's style of writing -- lost his job is educational. Several quarters collaborated in creating reasons leading to his dismissal, which took place after the newspaper acquired new owners. It had happened before, to Amr Adib in Orbit. In the case of Eissa, he first lost his television programme on the Sawiris- owned OTV channel, and then he was thrown out of Al-Dostour over a mundane difference of opinion with Chairman of the Board El-Sayed Al-Badawi and CEO Reda Edward, a dispute over whether a certain article should be published. When differences escalated, Al-Dostour's management removed all the layout and technical equipment, forcing Al-Dostour journalists to go to the website and publish details of what happened from their point of view. They also reacted to the statements issued by El-Badawi. The latter had quit the board chairmanship but -- believe it or not -- maintained his power and kept his name on the mast. Capital doesn't act of its own accord. It gets the green light from the security and political authorities, which are intent on creating an atmosphere of tranquillity and compliance ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections -- irrespective of who gains from the power transfer. The authorities wish to silence the opposing and loud voices that those in power found to be upsetting. Or else, how can one explain the fact that the Supreme Media Council would announce, right after the crisis, that Al-Dostour could be printed and distributed without an editor-in-chief? An invisible hand is in control of the media. This invisible hand determines the degree to which freedom of expression and publication is permitted. This invisible hand uses the owners of the media, forcing them to shut down mouths that talk and to break pens that have gone too far. The whole thing is designed so that those in power look innocent from what is described as "media clashes", and "internal disputes" involving papers, owners and writers. The whole thing is designed so that those in power don't look as if they were clamping down on the press or on private and independent satellite stations. The dispute between Eissa and Edward is said to have started over an article by Mohamed El-Baradei on the memory of the October war. Eissa wanted to publish the article and Edward said that Al-Dostour has gone too far and will lose advertising unless it tones down its rhetoric. Admittedly, before El-Badawi and Edward bought Al-Dostour, it had suffered from financial problems. So this was the justification given for gagging Eissa and Al-Dostour, for decimating a newspaper that had grown tall and succeeded against all odds. It is easy to pressure the owners through taxes or security or sovereign agencies, or what have you. It is easy to force the owners to change the editorial line of the media and curb its freedom. It is easy to make the owners lean hard on writers to make them watch their tongues. Instances are too numerous to mention. Rupert Murdoch may have been an early example of the control of capital over the media. But there is a difference between what goes on abroad and what goes on here. Abroad, there are laws and a history of democracy and human rights that keeps those with power -- political and financial -- in check. Here, we don't have that. What happened to Eissa was meant as a lesson for all newspapers and independent media. It was meant to show them who's boss.
