There is a kind of program which is common to approximately all satellite TV channels. Its title can be different, but the shape is the same. In this kind of program, the host asks viewers a question concerning an issue, a problem or a crisis keeping busy the public opinion and the viewers call the program to have their say. In some programs, the host welcomes his or her guests to the studio and speaks to them about a certain issue. From time to time, viewers are given the chance to comment on the guests' opinions on the phone or to put forward other opinions concerning the same issue. The channels offering this kind of programs rely on a well-known professional justification. Freedom of the media can be achieved only if people have the right to express their opinions freely, which creates a bond between the viewers and their favorite channel. Channels, though, also have a very good financial reason to adopt this method and this is well known to those who take part in a program instead of just listening to it. The price paid by the viewers for the phone call, including the waiting – which is usually long – is equally shared by the phone company and the channel according to an agreement between the two of them. Such agreement also includes the price of the phone call per minute, which is much higher than for a normal phone call. Yes, freedom of the media must include people's right to express their own opinions on public issues. People, though, are supposed to have, first of all, opinions shaped by their own efforts to learn the facts concerning that issue. However, this is not the case in most of these phone calls, as they often express mere impressions based on imprecise information or false news. When it comes to such false news, hosts do not usually correct it either because they do not have enough information about the issue being discussed or because the channel they work for wants to spread this kind of lies. Hosts do not even intervene to remind people that they must discuss ideas and policies without attacking anyone and that they must use a polite language with no insults or vulgarities, as they are speaking in front of millions of viewers and not in a pub. Many times, though, people just phone to court the hosts live on TV. On other occasions, political factions call to promote their political ideas or to take their revenge on those who disagree with them. For example, Hizb al-Tahrir [the Liberation Party] used to phone every program – wherever possible – to say that the solution consisted in reviving the Islamic Caliphate, regardless of whether the issue concerned potato prices, the energy crisis or finding a cure to bird flu. Likewise, al-Ahbash group in Lebanon attacked Sheikh al-Qaradawi on the phone at a program broadcast by al-Jazeera because they disagreed with his doctrinal ideas. As a result, the program had to suspend viewers' phone calls. Over the past three weeks, since the beginning of Israel's aggression on Gaza, some Arabic TV channels, especially those with an Islamic tendency sympathetic with Hamas, have gone mad, have been spreading lies and have lost all professionalism in monitoring and commenting on the events. They have also given the floor to people launching insults and inciting to civil wars and military coups in all Arab countries and to a total regional war. Yet, don't they understand that such a war would devastate all Arab capitals as it has destroyed Gaza? Instead, what they do not do is to give reasonable, practical and feasible ideas to relieve the Gazans of the terror they are living. Obviously, this campaign of Islamic-oriented insults is topped by this kind of programs which now broadcasts the most impolite phone calls, so much so that the hosts now just ask questions to define the domains where the viewers can shout insults. One of these programs is "al-Ra'i al-Hurr" [Free Opinion], on al-Hiwar, a London-based TV channel run by Tunisians. The host is called Brother Saleh. A person, called Sherif, phoned the program from Paris. He said the treachery started with the October War in 1973, adding he had taken part in that conflict. When Brother Saleh asked him whether he was Egyptian, Sherif said he was Tunisian, as clearly proven by his accent, with the French passport. He went on to say that he was an officer in the Egyptian Army in 1973, that he was stationed in Damietta Port and that the chief of the operation room at the time was Hosni Mubarak. He said that Israeli frogmen appeared in the port and that he called Mubarak on the phone to inform him, but the latter did not care and did not do anything. Sherif also described himself as a military expert and said he was ready to tell many more incidents of this kind. Strangely, Brother Saleh did not understand that the man was just lying and indeed making fun of him. Instead, he even asked Sherif to leave his phone number as he would be called back.
