Some readers, perhaps in good faith, object on that the newspaper writers write about specific topics and are silent about others. I won't take in my consideration any bad faith, and those with special agendas. Two points we should beware of when reading this article; the first is that a newspaper is an organization. The send point is that the writer's tendencies. Any organization is first based on the rules and regulations of the country, and then on its internal system. And any worker than joins such an organization should abide by its rules. If the worker is not satisfied with the system of the organization, then he/she should move to another one that fits his/her tendencies. The last words are ideal. However, they do not match the reality. The difference between newspapers is very marginal and does not allow a real transfer for the writer. The limits of freedom are almost the same in every newspaper. Thus the writer would think. This difference was true before a few couple of days, as will be shown later. As for the second point, namely, the writer's tendencies, the writer is not a machine producing articles to fit the taste of the audience. I did not write one single article about Jeddah latest crises, as I did not have anything to say. The opinions I wrote last year about Jeddah's previous crises were the maximum limit I could reach. I won't add anything to the crises of this year except for my cries. I reached the maximum limit of the organizational frame under which I work, and my personal opinion should be revealed in another place. Satellite networks have provided obvious views. On behalf of myself, I claim that my views that follow an independent trend appeared on such networks, but not on the newspaper pages. Satellite networks are also policy-based organizations. I remember that I once appeared on a satellite TV in an event where I positively expressed myself about the Kingdom, and what happened is that they cut off the contact with me. I did not get angry; I respected the policy of that channel. The amazing thing is that the modern age that we are lucky to reach and live in opens new horizons for the freedom of the individual opinion. A few years earlier, forums were born. Every community group or sect would have an open forum; pro-Islam, extremists, liberals, folk poetry fans, etc. These forums annoyed the control systems in every Arab country. In my opinion, these forums acted as a training institute for party; training participants (people) to express itself with a sense of responsibility, and training the officer to abandon his oppressive past. The key fault and the reason of lacking popularity for these forums, which is agreed by all, is that writings there come under false names. So no matter how good and responsible is the proposal, they remain unreliable sites for everybody, because they work in the dark. Those who operate them are phantoms, and the level of freedom they provide is not trustworthy, as freedom is a tree that does grow only in the light. I noticed that a lot of western writers write in the newspaper, and at the same time, you they would be active participants on twitter and facebook. What is more important is that most of them have their own blogs where they express themselves through articles that are independent from the newspaper where he/she writes. A blog provides all the conditions where freedom can grow. A writer's view in a newspaper or on a TV is not only his/her own view; it is rather the view of the organization; the view on the blog is his/her own view. And this leads us to the question: why have not the Saudi writers opened their blogs so far?! I believe the level of freedom provided by organizations is still on the same level of what the Saudi writer is capable of, and up to the limits of his/her ambitions.
