Close up: Information gap By Salama A Salama The predicament of the Egyptian blogger Esraa Abdel-Fattah, the young woman accused of arranging the 6 April strike in Egypt, drew much political and media attention. Finally, the whole affair was handled in the usual manner. The security services detained her on flimsy legal grounds for a few days before letting her go. Meanwhile, an Arab Media Forum gathered in Dubai to discuss new media, that's to say electronic media. Participants debated the challenges new media is posing to conventional, especially printed, media. Recent technological changes, which gave rise to satellite television, the Internet, and mobile phones that can handle both Internet and television reception, are leaving an indelible mark on the way this and future generations disseminate and receive information. The story of Abdel-Fattah tells us much about the way the lines of battle are being drawn. On one side we find those who defend conventional media to the hilt, however lame in form and subservient in content. On the other we find those who argue that digital and multimedia communication offers a welcome change from outmoded practices. Regardless of which side you're on, it is hard to deny that new media is here to stay. Within a few years, some predict, the world will no longer need satellite broadcast. Television channels, films and songs will all be available on the Internet. Websites such as Facebook, U-tube, and various blogs will replace the print press, or at least depress its circulation. The day will come when the Internet eclipses print media. New media recognises no barriers in space. It doesn't care much about political regulations or social taboos. Bloggers can write what they want and publish their views in complete freedom. This is the day controlling states hoped would never come. They never thought that a whisper in cyberspace could turn into a deafening uproar, which is apparently what happened on 6 April. Governments are in two minds on the communications revolution. While some scramble for political and ethical pretexts to justify blocking websites, and thereby maintaining control over people's minds and hearts, others are embracing change and using it to better their political, economic and social standing. In India, growth rates have surged by 5.4 per cent thanks to the surge in communication technology. While there is a need to curb the use of the Internet for pornographic or criminal purposes, repressive measures disguised as moral and social prudence are utterly unacceptable. According to international reports, Arab countries in general, from Tunisia to Bahrain, are among the worst repressors of Internet freedoms worldwide. Not long ago, Arab information ministers came up with an ingenious formula to control more than 500 Arab satellite television services. They issued a Satellite Broadcast Charter tailored for government control. In the charter they threatened to close down satellite services that refused to toe the official line. We all know that television broadcast must follow certain professional standards. But these standards must be reached through consensus among governments, civil society representatives and professional media experts. They cannot be imposed by decree from government officials. While the Dubai media gathering peered into the future, some journalists in Egypt urged tight control of the Internet, calling for bloggers, such as Abdel-Fattah, to be brought to account. They even succeeded in banning one television programme. Simultaneously, Sweden was calling for a gathering to discuss the intellectual rights of websites and bloggers. So here we have people who want the bloggers banned and, better even, imprisoned. And elsewhere we have people who are worried about the intellectual rights of bloggers and other Internet users. That's quite a gap, I would say.
