Tuesday, 23 December 2008
By Elias Harfoush
Now that most Lebanese print and visual media have turned into confronting military trenches ready for shooting at any moment, it is not surprising that the confrontations between "colleagues" reach the street. No wonder in this case that attacking a journalist from the other camp simply because he is doing his job becomes the alternative to writing a column or expressing an opinion.
I belong to a generation that lived the civil war. I worked as journalist during the worst military confrontations. I recall journalists, who, before, during and after the war, were assaulted on the backdrop of their positions and opinions, sometimes even assassinated as was the case with Al-Hayat's founder Kamel Mroueh, and other senior journalists, like Nassib al-Matni, Salim al-Lawzi, Riyad Taha, Gibran Tueini and others. However, these assaults were committed by perpetrators whose job was to commit such acts, that is, armed men, militants and security agents who have little if any appreciation for the word. Yet I cannot recall, and I hope I am right, that a reporter assaulted a fellow reporter over a position or political view. On the contrary, throughout the war, Lebanese reporters from all sides were the more capable of using the word in their dialogue, while weapons were the only language used by others.
Yet, for a political party to admit that one of its members described as a reporter, was the one behind assaulting a colleague for working at an institution opposed to the party, this can only indicate the level of despise to the profession of journalism in Lebanon. This is mainly attributed to the fact that such institutions have welcomed anyone without any consideration for the fundamental professional and moral standards. This is not to mention political (and sometimes sectarian) affiliation at most media institutions, which have turned them into direct substitutes at times of military truces as the case is today for the street wars in Beirut and other regions during the mobile confrontations.
It is sufficient to follow the news reports on Lebanese channels or to read the main headlines in the morning newspapers to realize the extent of polarization among the media in Lebanon, to the point that even a news story can be used for misinformation as need be. This is despite the fact that we have long learned that the news is sacred and that it is up to the reader or viewers to judge while opinions are supposed to be left for interpretation and evaluation within the standards of respecting the word and avoiding the exchange of slander and vulgarity.
There is no harm if Lebanese newspapers and media institutions become platforms for different or contradicting political parties and ideologies because this is natural and happens all over the world. In fact, it is an indicator through which we boasted the health of the Lebanese system that can tolerate diversity in opinion and orientations. However, when the culture that rests on accusing the other of betrayal expands and when the governing rule becomes that whoever is not with you is a collaborator, silencing the other opinion becomes legitimate in the eyes of those who commit such acts as the case has recently been in Lebanon, whether through burning down institutions, assaulting their members, or accusing others of collaborating with the enemy as a preemptive step before legitimizing their murder.
