In their recent meeting in Cairo, Arab information ministers agreed on a document called the Principles for Regulating Satellite TV in the Arab World. The document introduces a set of regulations meant to govern satellite television and radio broadcast and gives governments the right to penalise offenders. Was there a need for such a document? In short, yes. In the past few years, as radio and television satellite broadcast stations proliferated in the region, we've seen some practices that were as unfortunate as they were damaging to society at large. Two types of abuse are worth mentioning here. One is incitement to sedition and violence, a practice detrimental to the fabric and social cohesion of Arab societies, as many would agree. Another is related to sexually explicit material that can be harmful to the young. So there is an argument for regulation on these two areas. Even in the most open of Western countries such regulation exists. In many countries, there are major agencies that monitor television and radio broadcasts and hold transgressors against public morals to account. Even ordinary citizens are entitled to complain about or sue any media organisation deemed to have harmed them in any way. The problem with the document approved by Arab information ministers is that it has a political edge. The document urges the media to "respect the dignity of countries and avoid lampooning its leaders and national and religious symbols". This is a very elastic expression, to say the least. What exactly is "the dignity of countries"? And what exact tone should media channels maintain when talking about Arab leaders? Many would agree that slander or insults of a personal nature are beyond the pale. But things are not that simple. Arab information ministers appear to be saying that any criticism of public policy can be taken as a sign of disrespect for the state. Equally that criticism of leaders and national figures, clerical or secular, is unacceptable. Uncovering corruption and mismanagement appears to them to be undesirable. Should this be the case, the document would be a major setback for freedom of opinion and expression in the Arab region. Who exactly has the right to determine whether a violation has been committed? Who is to determine whether an instance of disrespect for national dignity has been committed? The document suggests that governments, as represented by information agencies or ministries, have the final say. But how can the government be victim, judge and jury? Regulation, whenever needed, must be handled by agencies that are independent from Arab regimes and governments. Otherwise, we would be stepping back into the dark ages of dictatorship and totalitarianism. We would be turning satellite channels into a pale image of our government-run stations. And Arab viewers would thus lose the variety and pluralism they enjoyed over the past few years. Either that, or Arab satellite channels would hire non-Arab transmitters and air their broadcasts from locations beyond the reach of Arab governments. Turning back the clock through official powers is no longer an option. Better to start a societal and professional dialogue among journalists, media owners and the public. After all, the latter is the ultimate beneficiary of free media. A professional code of honour, produced through such a dialogue, could then be adopted by all broadcasting channels. Government-sponsored regulations are of no help whatsoever, for the simple reason that they lacked credibility and muzzled freedom in the past.
