At a recent gathering that brought together senior government officials, journalists and writers, discussion touched on the relationship between the authorities and the media and whether officials see anything worth considering in what is written in the newspapers.
The journalists argued that the majority of officials show hardly any interest or care about what writers and columnists say; they think the articles are merely a means of giving vent to what the writers feel. They said there was rarely a serious response from a government official to what is being written about their department.
The officials, from their side, expressed mixed opinions when responding to the accusation.
While some sought to politely refute the accusation, others were frank in saying that only a handful of writers are being taken seriously.
The majority of the officials, however, were united in saying that some writers rush into publishing information and expressing views without bothering to verify the facts or double-check with some who may be able to give them a clearer picture. By doing so, these writers risk losing their own credibility, and as a result officials avoid dealing with them at all. Unsubstantiated articles are easily dismissed, and the writer can be disregarded.
Journalists accuse officials of responding favorably only when newspapers publish their statements and pictures. As long as the papers continues publishing what the official wants them to publish, the two-way relationship continues, the official providing the paper with statements and the paper publishing these with a nice picture to go with them.
It is difficult to weigh one view over another. But it is obvious that this gives a true picture of the relationship between the press and officials.
If we want to address any issue, we have to find the suitable language for it. The wrong language can backfire.
An example is the language some officials use when they talk about the performance of their departments. You often hear that an official has “instructed his staff to remove all the obstacles to ensure that peoples’ interests are served without delay.”
The first impression you form when reading such a statement is that the official must have been fully aware of every obstacle long before issuing those instructions. This may not be true. The question is: If the official indeed knew of the obstacles all along, why didn’t he take steps to address them much earlier?
If the public discovers that the obstacles were not removed long after the official has issued his instructions, they will not trust any future statements, and the official loses credibility.
Failure to monitor the performance of employees to reduce bureaucracy renders such statements ineffective — and the staff go on behaving the way they have always done, knowing they have immunity from punishment.
Such statements are soon forgotten by those who read them. Mistakes continue to be committed; things go from bad to worse. Officials should weigh their words carefully and ensure that they are followed by deeds.
* * *
It is now six months since the fall of Baghdad. Six months have faded away like a dream, and during this short time a country that for years had been in the forefront of world affairs was quickly subjugated and occupied, its tyrannical leaders either arrested or on the run, its army dissolved, its resources plundered and its people plunged into a state of confusion and uncertainty.
The people of Iraq never thought that they would one day find themselves in an even worse situation than under the ousted regime.
When the regime fell they celebrated its demise and remained intoxicated with joy for a month or two, only to wake up and discover they have been under the influence of anesthesia all this time.
If the Iraqis were asked now to choose between going back to their former life under Saddam or continue living in the current state of confusion, many would find it difficult to give a clear answer. These are people who never stopped demanding to be freed from the large prison that was Iraq and who were ready to strike a deal with the devil himself to free themselves. Now, they have found out that the devil was not who they thought he was — merciful, sincere and just. The devil turned out to be brutal, unfair and dishonest.
Day by day the Iraqis discover that by allying themselves with the devil they sent their resources and the potential of future generations down the drain.
Yet there are still among us some people who see no harm in striking an alliance with the devil. They aren’t doing this out of ignorance or misjudgment but for the sake of personal gain.
And to achieve their goal these people are ready to go to any length, even if it means selling out their countries.
Meanwhile a two-day conference aimed at drumming up cash to rebuild Iraq began in Madrid yesterday. The countries taking part will seek to determine the size and kind of their contribution to the reconstruction effort. Attention is likely to focus on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, with everyone wanting to know what their position is.
When it comes to giving grants and providing assistance, Gulf countries are automatically listed among the “very rich”. But every country should determine what is best for it when deciding the size of its contribution, governed as the matter is by ethical and political considerations.
The criteria each donor country follows and the guarantees it seeks are of great importance, too.
— Muhammad Al-Shibani is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah.
