By Salama A Salama Every now and then, sporadic battles break out in the media world, usually started by those who wish to limit the freedom of the press and extinguish any lingering journalistic ambition. Why run after a story, after all, when government sources can give you all the information you need? Some wonder. Campaigns of slander are championed by journalists who work for the government, fuelled by editors who get to travel abroad at every official occasion, and are kept alive by publications that receive advertising income from state-run agencies. It's a closed circle. These are the type of people who made a profession out of hunting down the free media. For them, any independent writing, any attempt to deviate from the government's line, is suspect. The latest organised attack launched by government publications was against Dream TV, a private and successful satellite television channel. Dream TV, it turned out, had the cheek to interview US President Bush before his regional tour, scooping all state-run televisions and newspapers in the process. Then the accusations started. Dream TV has failed to obtain government permission before talking to the US president, some pointed out. The US Embassy must have helped Dream TV get the interview, or at least got it into its head that such an interview would be a good idea, roared others. The minister of information was also to blame, apparently. Why is he not clamping down as he should? Why is he not preventing irresponsible media from going behind the back of the government? Why is he letting questionable journalists talk to the Americans face to face? Why did all Arab ministers gather and sign a document regulating media broadcast if not precisely to control instances such as this? The whole thing is ludicrous. What Dream TV's critics are really after is press freedom. They want all journalistic rivalry to disappear, so we may settle down and sing the praises of the government, commending every policy it launches. Yes, let's all sit down and pen pages upon pages of hypocritical junk, then come the next day and write some more. Forget about the independent and private media. It is just too "sensationalist", as some of the government's friends recently said. Well, I've got news for you. Reporting on corruption and financial regularities is not sensationalism. This is called "objectivity", if you care to know. Also, can we really blame international figures for choosing objective journalists to interview them over talking heads known for their connections to the government and its security agencies? A similar thing happened during Jimmy Carter's recent regional tour. Wishing to explore prospects for peace and gauge current impediments, the former US president visited Egypt and Israel where he met with representatives of Palestinian factions, including Hamas. While in Egypt, Carter met with a limited number of journalists and civil and political rights activists to discuss the peace process, democracy and human rights. The meeting sent the usual crowd of pro-government journalists up the wall. Why would Carter meet anyone unless they are agents of the Americans? Some writers wondered. Actually, government hacks are not the only ones who care about this country, and they surely have no monopoly on truth. The media scene in Egypt is not hard to fathom. We all know who's working for whom, and for what. We all know who is professional and who is a hack. And readers and viewers know too. That's why they shift from one paper to another and from one channel to another. If you don't believe me, look at the viewing and readership figures, or are these censored too?
