It is only natural for a political party's newspaper to express the party's principles and goals, and for its readers to realize when reading it that the opinions it puts forward express a certain political orientation, that the topics it addresses have perhaps been formulated in a manner that does not contradict the party's ideas or goals, and that some news are not featured because they would be harmful to the party's stances or popularity. The same applies to satellite television networks owned by businessmen. Indeed, no matter how much care those running such networks put into abiding by the standards of their profession, the way in which they address the events and topics being debated are supposed not to affect the interests of these businessmen. The outcome thus depends on the audience of each media outlet. Indeed, general knowledge, level of education and advancement, as well as economic and social circumstances, are all factors that determine the extent to which the media influences people, as well as their awareness, with what it presents to them. The media thus remains party to political conflicts, and an instrument used by each party to weaken the other party or parties, and to strengthen or suggest the strength of the party using them. Even in institutions that give great care to credibility, professional standards and codes of honor, such rules are breached, broken and overstepped if the institution becomes party to political plans. This may explain the resignations of some colleagues after the institutions that employed them became party to political battles, as they refused to be used and turned into shields in this political machine. This also explains the campaigns of assassinations targeting dozens of journalists and reporters because of their opinions, their stances or their integrity. And because journalism is a profession built on competition, the race to pursue events and broadcast them to the receiving public can force media outlets to address issues which their owners would rather ignore or obscure, but which it is no longer possible to skip over, because other media outlets will bring them up. The decision to broadcast them comes after retouching or “servicing” them by gathering techniques, facts and opinions that refute everything that does not agree with “the newspaper's policy” or the “station's” orientation. And the more professional and skilled those running the media outlets are, the greater their ability to falsify and convince, since they have in the first place accepted to turn into instruments for a ruling regime, a businessman, a political party, group, movement or coalition. As for those who are incompetent, they are easy to uncover. Regarding the rule that states that media reporters or journalists during wars are, like doctors, doing their job, and are supposed to move between zones of conflict and to have relations with all parties in order to obtain information and provide it to the public, it has become an exception… That is because this does not only require neutrality on the part of the journalist or reporter and the newspaper or channel they work for, but also understanding, on the part of the receiving public and the sources of information and news, of the nature of their profession, and these are all matters that can no longer be found. In Egypt, for example, when Tahrir Square was crowded with tens of thousands of demonstrators protesting the violence that was used against women and against those demanding for the goals of the Revolution to be achieved, the media was present to cover the event, which included in the details criticism of or attacks against media outlets that showed contempt for the Revolution or the revolutionaries, or loyalty to the “remnants” of the former regime, even if they have turned and become revolutionaries. Meanwhile, a few kilometers away in Abbasiya Square, hundreds were gathering and raising slogans opposed to “Tahrir”, among them demands to “execute” reporters who were considered to be saboteurs or shape-shifters! And on social media websites, thousands of videos have been uploaded to celebrate and praise reporters, and others to insult and harass them. Some of them retrace the transformation of this or that reporter from one extreme to the other. Others poke fun at those who held a certain discourse before the Revolution then changed it, or who adopted stances loyal to Mubarak's regime then changed them. There are also videos that expose in one way or another the “scandals” of this or that reporter, when they used to kiss the hand of this or that official, or fawn over the First Lady. And according to the party that uploaded the video to Facebook or Twitter, one realizes what the point of the video or the scene is, and understands even before viewing it what is intended from broadcasting, publishing or promoting it. Indeed, if the one promoting the video is a Socialist or Liberal revolutionary, the point would of course be to “expose” a journalist or reporter who supports the Islamists or sympathizes with the Muslim Brotherhood or with the Salafists, or to prove that they are “agents” of the military. If the one promoting it is an Islamist, on the other hand, then the point would be to “brand as heretic” liberal reporters, or to prove that they are agents of foreign forces or connected to certain businessmen. And if the one promoting the video is from among the “remnants” (of the former regime), then the targeted journalist is certainly loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists, supports the Tahrir “gangs”, or has connections to “the business” or to a foreign party! Some are not aware of the nature of the media's work, whether they are from among the receiving public or the political elite, but this does not at all negate the fact that the phenomenon spreads dangerously every time a media outlet renounces its nature and accepts to become party to a formula it is supposed to be outside of. And when journalists mix their job with their political positions, reporters become political activists and political activists become reporters, then the race becomes one not to publicize the facts, but rather to… contend stances.
