Activism vs. Publishing – Again
Ritzy's Weekly Eye – a Look at the English Press in Cairo: For the second time in the holiday month when most of its readership is outside the country anyway, upcoming weekly Cairo magazine has again challenged the state censors and managed to get its print issue blocked – the third time in its three month history. It serves the purpose of highlighting the restrictions on freedom of expression which in such is an honorable task. Some years ago, the punch they are swinging would not have been as superficial as it is today.
Apparently recycling previously censored material and presenting it in a new package to big brother’s eye, Cairo’s web site says the censor objected to a story about the July 30 demonstrations. It turns out to be same report that the government blocked last week (Aug. 5 issue). Cairo said then that the problem was a quote by a protester who was calling the president a dog. This week it is reported that the front cover was the threshold; it portrayed armed security forces meeting the demonstrators.
Censorship is wrong for several reasons. It is blocking development by restricting distribution of information, free thought and exchange of ideas. It is a tool for governments that has something to hide. It should be fought and Cairo is taking on this task in the footsteps of earlier English language publications based in Cairo: the Cairo Times and the Middle East Times (the former bankrupt and the latter dwindling in exile). They are not alone on the road though, Arabic language publications are frequently censored and sent to court; Egyptian journalists are in prison.
Cairo’s track record as an activist is quite impressive: for reasons of permissions it took more than a month from its start before the print copies were actually distributed by news agents; with three issues banned since then, some thirty percent of its publishing attempts have failed.
The censor’s rules are well known and quite obvious. For example, you do not criticize the president and you certainly do not call him a dog; you do not portray Egypt as a military state, even if it is. The publishers’ task is to find a balance: to deliver the publication to its expecting readers without getting the issue pulled by the censor. If you are on good terms with big brother you might be able to rephrase or replace a piece that does not meet their approval.
Unfortunately, these are the only options it if you want to keep your commitment to your readers and get the issue to the news stand. Pushing the limits and then hoping you’ll get your issue through when you appear at the censor’s door but without knowing how things will turn is utterly unprofessional. Commercial publishers can not afford anything else than getting their issue to the market. Advertisers might put money in your publication to support your cause and hope future changes in the country will improve their operational environment, but ultimately they advertise to sell and their marketing efforts are worthless if you do not deliver your product; soon enough they will not pay.
Perhaps sometimes, getting the issue out is not the main objective. A blocked issue could be beneficial if you are seeking fame for your brand. Or if you want to show the big-wig editors abroad that you would rather work for that you do not fear authority. If so, it hardly matters anyway that few will miss the recent issues of Cairo that has not been delivered: sales for any foreign language publication rarely go above a few hundred copies a month – and that is outside the holiday months. Even in a good month, Cairo, like any other publication, would have hard times meeting their printing cost. This week’s issue, available on the Internet, did not have a lot of new material. The contributors’ blog has not been updated for a week. Cairo (the city) is always quiet in August and Cairo (the magazine) has made a political point instead of publishing its issue.
Before the Internet and satellite TV became the main sources of information, the local paper’s struggle to deliver the truth to the readers in a country where the president personally appoints the editors at the dominating media outlets was essential. Today, when stories meet the audiences in seconds, it hardly matters if print reports that were scheduled to appear a week after an event took place do not appear at all. Taking the reports about the July 30 demonstration as an example, stories and pictures were available on the Internet within an hour after the police attack on demonstrators. Politically incorrect pictures, such as those revealing the massive scale of armed forces present, can be retrieved by anyone via a news search on Yahoo! or Google. (A few less impressive images are also published here). Days or weeks after a release on the Internet or on TV you need to have something good or new to say if you shall be heard at all. Cairo rarely, if ever, does.
Cairo has a clear agenda but the banner for freedom that it seeks to hold is already waved by others around the world. As a local media it is restricted by local laws (in contrast to correspondents representing foreign media that only has to worry about lost opportunities with officials if they are deemed to represent Egypt unfairly). As an English-language publication, Cairo is not mainly competing with stiff government mouth-pieces like Al-Ahram Weekly but with international giants such as The Guardian and the New York Times, CNN and the BBC. Unfortunately but not unsurprisingly, Cairo is dwarfed.
An independent foreign language magazine could provide a refreshing voice for expats as well as locals. But the days when the weekly news format really mattered are definitely over: others do it better and faster. Even in Arabic, independent news, critical information and politically incorrect pictures travel through the air from the Arab Gulf to living rooms in Egypt. Cairo’s ‘offensive’ material is old news by the time they knock on the door to the censor’s office. The refreshing voice and compelling insight Cairo could provide is not on offer. Not because the censor is blocking every other issue, but because Cairo instead of choosing to provide insight and revelation is trying to push what we already know in a harder language and in the restricted circumstances that are the reality for local media – even if it is technically foreign.
Instead of pretending that they are the frontrunners for change and freedom – a banner that other media are carrying higher and further, Cairo could attempt to tell us what we already do not know. Its message could be too important to risk having censored by insisting on the most controversial quotes and pictures that we have already seen.
Apparently recycling previously censored material and presenting it in a new package to big brother’s eye, Cairo’s web site says the censor objected to a story about the July 30 demonstrations. It turns out to be same report that the government blocked last week (Aug. 5 issue). Cairo said then that the problem was a quote by a protester who was calling the president a dog. This week it is reported that the front cover was the threshold; it portrayed armed security forces meeting the demonstrators.
Censorship is wrong for several reasons. It is blocking development by restricting distribution of information, free thought and exchange of ideas. It is a tool for governments that has something to hide. It should be fought and Cairo is taking on this task in the footsteps of earlier English language publications based in Cairo: the Cairo Times and the Middle East Times (the former bankrupt and the latter dwindling in exile). They are not alone on the road though, Arabic language publications are frequently censored and sent to court; Egyptian journalists are in prison.
Cairo’s track record as an activist is quite impressive: for reasons of permissions it took more than a month from its start before the print copies were actually distributed by news agents; with three issues banned since then, some thirty percent of its publishing attempts have failed.
The censor’s rules are well known and quite obvious. For example, you do not criticize the president and you certainly do not call him a dog; you do not portray Egypt as a military state, even if it is. The publishers’ task is to find a balance: to deliver the publication to its expecting readers without getting the issue pulled by the censor. If you are on good terms with big brother you might be able to rephrase or replace a piece that does not meet their approval.
Unfortunately, these are the only options it if you want to keep your commitment to your readers and get the issue to the news stand. Pushing the limits and then hoping you’ll get your issue through when you appear at the censor’s door but without knowing how things will turn is utterly unprofessional. Commercial publishers can not afford anything else than getting their issue to the market. Advertisers might put money in your publication to support your cause and hope future changes in the country will improve their operational environment, but ultimately they advertise to sell and their marketing efforts are worthless if you do not deliver your product; soon enough they will not pay.
Perhaps sometimes, getting the issue out is not the main objective. A blocked issue could be beneficial if you are seeking fame for your brand. Or if you want to show the big-wig editors abroad that you would rather work for that you do not fear authority. If so, it hardly matters anyway that few will miss the recent issues of Cairo that has not been delivered: sales for any foreign language publication rarely go above a few hundred copies a month – and that is outside the holiday months. Even in a good month, Cairo, like any other publication, would have hard times meeting their printing cost. This week’s issue, available on the Internet, did not have a lot of new material. The contributors’ blog has not been updated for a week. Cairo (the city) is always quiet in August and Cairo (the magazine) has made a political point instead of publishing its issue.
Before the Internet and satellite TV became the main sources of information, the local paper’s struggle to deliver the truth to the readers in a country where the president personally appoints the editors at the dominating media outlets was essential. Today, when stories meet the audiences in seconds, it hardly matters if print reports that were scheduled to appear a week after an event took place do not appear at all. Taking the reports about the July 30 demonstration as an example, stories and pictures were available on the Internet within an hour after the police attack on demonstrators. Politically incorrect pictures, such as those revealing the massive scale of armed forces present, can be retrieved by anyone via a news search on Yahoo! or Google. (A few less impressive images are also published here). Days or weeks after a release on the Internet or on TV you need to have something good or new to say if you shall be heard at all. Cairo rarely, if ever, does.
Cairo has a clear agenda but the banner for freedom that it seeks to hold is already waved by others around the world. As a local media it is restricted by local laws (in contrast to correspondents representing foreign media that only has to worry about lost opportunities with officials if they are deemed to represent Egypt unfairly). As an English-language publication, Cairo is not mainly competing with stiff government mouth-pieces like Al-Ahram Weekly but with international giants such as The Guardian and the New York Times, CNN and the BBC. Unfortunately but not unsurprisingly, Cairo is dwarfed.
An independent foreign language magazine could provide a refreshing voice for expats as well as locals. But the days when the weekly news format really mattered are definitely over: others do it better and faster. Even in Arabic, independent news, critical information and politically incorrect pictures travel through the air from the Arab Gulf to living rooms in Egypt. Cairo’s ‘offensive’ material is old news by the time they knock on the door to the censor’s office. The refreshing voice and compelling insight Cairo could provide is not on offer. Not because the censor is blocking every other issue, but because Cairo instead of choosing to provide insight and revelation is trying to push what we already know in a harder language and in the restricted circumstances that are the reality for local media – even if it is technically foreign.
Instead of pretending that they are the frontrunners for change and freedom – a banner that other media are carrying higher and further, Cairo could attempt to tell us what we already do not know. Its message could be too important to risk having censored by insisting on the most controversial quotes and pictures that we have already seen.
posted by ritzy @ 3:39 pm
<< Home