One of the dear readers said in comments on what I write about the interactive site of Al-Masry Al-Youm that my style has become softer in criticizing the government over the last month, considering this to be a change in my position, as if the only acceptable position is to be critical and to write nothing except if it is against someone or something, even if this critical position does not conform with the opinion of that cherished reader, whether this is in my own views or the views of other writers in different newspapers who do not belong to any political party or religious trend. I was one of the people who were very happy by the fact that the website has been converted into an interactive site because this affords an opportunity for dialogue and acquaintance with the tendencies of public opinion as well as for listening to the other view points which cannot find a chance to express themselves. Nevertheless I had some fears that the site may change into a field for trading accusations or for fanaticism just as happens in some famous web sites like the site Arabianet which sometimes turns into a war zone between readers particularly if the issue relates to the dignity of a certain country or the actions of its rulers or leaders. Nevertheless, my bet was on the cultured and capable Egyptians who have a capacity for respectable and positive dialogue. I cannot say that I have been disappointed because this experience has a positive face that revealed enlightened minds which can engage in aware dialogue and enlightened visions. There is, however, another face of the experience that deserves a pause. Some readers do not accept to hear anything except what they like. If the writer has another opinion different from that of the reader, this means from the viewpoint of the latter that the former has become a traitor or an agent or that he has been bought by some powers. It is as if for the writer to please his reader he must take a one-way course. It is as if the writer should have only one eye that sees nothing except the errors of NDP, the government and the regime. What can the writer do if he repeats the criticisms hundreds of times with other writers making the writings as one similar tune? Doesn't he have a right to discuss other issues? Doesn't he have the right to raise anything which she sees deserving praising? Or has he become the prisoner of one view and one idea? Some writers have become closed on themselves and decided not to receive any comments on their articles, while others are thinking of doing the same because they are subject to psychological pressures during their writing. These pressures have made them lose the freedom of thinking because they put in their calculations what pleases the public and what makes the public angry. They can no longer bear insults that have nothing to do with dialogue and the respect of the other opinion. Sometimes a reader starts attacking the writer and this invites a wave of successive attacks until another voice enters to change the direction of the wave in another way. What I fear is that the new experience will be foiled and writers will close their windows with the readers to rest. The writer has the freedom to write what he wants and what he feels because he is expressing the point of view in which he believes, and the reader has the right to differ and to pose another point of view. He has the right to discuss but not to insult and make accusations just because his favorite site does not express what he wants to hear. I call upon our dear readers to engage in a calm and balanced dialogue that preserves the relationship between the two parties because all visions are capable of being right or wrong.
