Review: The Press in the Arab Middle East

Press freedom was problematic in the Arab world for much of the 19th and 20th century. Press censorship wasn’t just legislated and economically motivated. Many times the harshest censor was the press itself.

Culturally, many Arabs saw freedom of expression as a weapon that could either be used beneficially or destructively. Rafiq- al-Maqdisi, a Syrian author, told the following story to illustrate it’s destructiveness:

It happened in 1908, following the restoration of the Ottoman constitution, in the Banyas district of the province of Ladhiqiyya. An angel walking from the town to the country met a villager on his way to Banyas, who asked him:
“What is new in town?”
“Freedom has been declared.”
“How come?”
“Our lord the Sultan has restored the constitution and imparted freedom.”
Whereupon the villager shouted at the top of his voice: “The world is free then!” and immediately grabbed a stick and started beating the angel for the world had become free! (Ayalon 132)

Ayalon’s history of the Arab Press makes the case that the Arab press was largely progressing along the western world’s path, albeit a century or two behind (Ayalon 249) until the fall of the Ottoman Empire which sent it back to tabula rosa. Ayalon proposes that the Arab press has always been a step behind the western press because of the religio-cultural obstacles that had to be overcome for press freedom. She noted that even among the most educated arab journalists, there is a desire to self-censor to protect their country (Ayalon 136).

This self-censorship is perhaps rooted in religion. Before the rise of news publications in the Arab world, the primary means of communication happened through the mosque (Ayalon 4). The mosque was not just a place for religious devotion but a locale to learn about current events. Well, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the people who took charge of countries in the Arab world, appeal to their constituents religious beliefs—but depicting themselves as faithful religious people. Those elected officials then at once affirm press freedom as long as it “obeyed the law” and also largely supported or disapproved of the press according to their whims. Since these officials were seen in the same role as religious leaders – those who traditionally gave the news anyway – the concept of writing copy which might be in opposition to them was an obstacle for journalists (Ayalon 126).

Culturally, not only was critical journalism itself seen unfavorably, but any type of journalism was viewed negatively (Ayalon 221).

One serious disadvantage in being a journalist was the low public image of the occupation, which remained so throughout much of the period under consideration. When Jurji Zaydan joined al-Muqtataf as an administrator in 1887, his father’s reaction was, typically, strongly adverse. He wanted his son to study something more ‘decent,’ such as medicine or law. Still an amorphouse activity, journalism had none of the prestige of either of the other two professions (Ayalon 221).

The job seemed odd. It required no special certifications, it was denounced by religious leaders and it dealt with words and opinions.

Overall, Ayalon admits that the idea of a free press assimilated slowly into the Arab world and said the press faced numerous cultural and religious obstacles perhaps not faced in the West.