The Egyptian Press – From the Mouthpiece of the Mubarak Regime to the Mouthpiece of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF)

During the first days of the protests against Mubarak, the Egyptian government press loyally echoed the position of the regime. The leading government papers – Al-Ahram, Al-Gumhouriyya, Al-Akhbar, and Roz Al-Youssef – stated that the protests were a sign of the democracy promoted by Mubarak, and proof of the extensive freedom allowed by his regime. Articles repeatedly emphasized that Egypt would not suffer the same fate as Tunisia, and that the regime meant to enact reforms and solve the unemployment problem.[2]

As the pressure to oust Mubarak increased, the papers began to change their tone and support the demands of the revolution. After his resignation, they launched an unprecedented attack on his regime and policies, and on his family and associates, and published numerous stories about corruption among the Egyptian leadership. Journalists in the government press loudly protested the editorial policies of their superiors, calling to fire editors who were associates of Mubarak and party to the corruption of his regime. The leading daily Al-Ahram even apologized to its readers for its previous support of Mubarak's regime.[3]

Criticism: The Regime Has Changed, the Press Hasn't

In March 2011, Sammah 'Abdallah, a columnist in the government daily Al-Ahram, wrote that the media's intense criticism of the deposed Mubarak regime did not reflect a profoundly positive change in its character: "It is a mistake to think that the performance of the Egyptian press has improved since the revolution, based on the increase in articles and reports that attack the previous president, his family, and his aides and accuse them of corruption. The press has not changed. [Only] the president has changed... The blind and absolute support for every decision and policy of the president and his governments, without distinction between true and untrue [claims], has [simply] been replaced by an unrestrained attack against them, which is [equally] unprofessional...

"The Egyptians are following the news in their country, as well as the events in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain, through non-Egyptian channels, for they have no faith in the Egyptian media. This is unfortunate. Where is Egypt's media status? It is unacceptable that the role of the government papers should be limited to praising the regime in a blunt and straightforward manner that disgusts the readers and causes them to turn to alternative channels. The day foreign media race each other to quote important reports from the Egyptian press, and exclusive investigative articles by Egyptian TV reporters throughout the world, [will be the day we know] the Egyptian media has really changed, attained an international level, and embarked upon the road toward regaining its local and regional role."[4]

B. Reshuffle among Top Media Executives

The mounting protests from journalists in Egypt's press, television, and news agencies prompted Egyptian Prime Minister 'Essam Sharaf to carry out a reshuffle among the country's top media executives.[5] The editors and board directors of all the government papers were replaced, though many of them continue to be employed at the same papers, authoring daily or weekly columns.[6] Sami Al-Sharaf, who was appointed director of Egypt's broadcasting service, carried out a reshuffle in this institution.[7] He subsequently resigned and was replaced by a SCAF member General Tareq Al-Mahdi. All the senior presenters on Egypt's government television channels were replaced as well. The Ministry of Communications was dismantled in February 2010, but reestablished only a few months later, in July, which was perceived as the restoration of direct government control over the media; Osama Haykal, formerly the editor of the Al-Wafd party's newspaper, was nominated minister of communications.[8]

Criticism: Media Executives Should Not Nominated by the Authorities

These reshuffles sparked much criticism, especially since the new executives were all nominated by Egypt's leadership, rather than elected by their fellow journalists. Egyptian journalist Sabri Ghanem wrote: "How long will the editors of the leading newspapers be nominated by the leader?... We do not want to continue the [tradition of] previous eras, in which the presidents treated the nation's papers as their private property... By putting chief editors up for election... we can create a chance for innovation and originality, and generate an atmosphere of competition in journalism... We would like the chief editor to be nominated by [his colleagues], rather than by the state. These papers are no longer government papers. They belong to the people..."[9]

Some questioned the personal qualifications of the new nominees and their ability to carry out a revolution in the Egyptian media. Publicist Al-Sayyed Al-Babli wrote: "The new directors of Egyptian television will not lead it toward a breakthrough. They are mediocre and lack experience or a capacity for originality and innovation. They are incapable of creating a new reality in the media. We do not know what principles and criteria guided their selection, who suggested them as candidates, and who accepted [the suggestion]..."[10]

Egyptian journalist Qutub Al-'Arabi questioned whether the reshuffle heralded a long-term change of policy: "More important than a change in personnel is a change in policy, because the national press must once again become [truly] national, namely the voice of society as a whole, and not just of the ruling party or current government. The government press has perhaps [improved], compared [to its behavior in the past], but there is no guarantee that [the improvement] will last. What is happening today may [only] be the result of the [leadership] vacuum, and the fact that there is no leader for these papers to praise. Let us hope that the current policy will continue, take root, and become permanent... The bigger problem is [Egypt's] national television, whose huge buildings house 43,000 employees, and which was formerly the mouthpiece of the Mubarak regime. Now, it must be transformed into a mouthpiece of the people. It is trying to fulfill [this role], but some think this [behavior] stems from the absence of any leader to obey..."[11]

C. Egypt's Former Opposition Takes Center Stage

One of the striking changes that occurred following the revolution was that figures from the former opposition were suddenly allowed expression in the government press. This was evident in press interviews and on the leading TV talk show "Egypt Today," which hosted figures who, prior to the revolution, were banned for their political opinions, including liberals, leftists, Muslim Brotherhood members, and Salafis. Prominent among them were author Alaa Al-Aswani, publicist and historian Muhammad Hassanein Haykal, journalist Ibrahim 'Issa, Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi', former IAEA chief and presidential candidate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as 'Aboud and Tareq Al-Zummar, convicted of involvement in Sadat's murder, who were recently released from prison. Articles began to appear in the government press expressing sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood and calling to allow this movement to take an active part in Egypt's political and public life.[12] The government daily Al-Akhbar even published weekly articles by senior Muslim Brotherhood member 'Issam Al-'Ariyan.

Criticism: No Room for Dissenting Voices

The dominance of the opposition discourse was so complete that it sparked criticism. For example, Egyptian journalist Mahmoud Nafadi wrote: "Pre-prepared accusations are [automatically] hurled against all dissenting and opposing opinions – [and I do not mean] opinions opposed to the government, but [opinions] opposed to the political, party, and religious views that are currently dominating the political and media arenas [in Egypt]... Those who staged a revolution for freedom and in defense of dissenting opinions... are now [suppressing] all opinions different from their own, and keeping them from being heard or expressed. More than that, they demand to marginalize those who espouse these opinions, exclude them from the political arena, and deny them the right... to appear in the media or even defend themselves...

"The majority of citizens are tired of seeing the satellite channels and the government, oppositionist, and private press dominated by one [uniform] opinion. It makes no sense that we should see [the same people] in the press and the media every day, [namely former oppositionists] 'Abd Al-Mun'im Abu Al-Fatouh, 'Issam Al-'Ariyan, Safwat Hijazi, Ayman Nour, Hamdeen Sabahi, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Hisham Al-Bastawisi, [Muslim] Brotherhood [General] Guide Muhammad Badi', and the leaders of the Salafi [stream] and of Al-Gama'a Al-'Islamiyya – as though Egypt were limited to these people, and nobody else [existed]. Lately, the media has been open to them alone. The media and the papers in general, and those of the government specifically, have not changed, but have merely replaced their [old] roster of interviewees with a new list, without asking the viewers and readers which group they prefer to see..."[13]

D. New Channels and Papers Open

After the revolution, Prime Minister Al-Sharaf announced the lifting of constraints on the establishment of new television channels and newspapers. Since then, several new channels have started pilot broadcasting, none of which would have received a license in Mubarak's Egypt, including the Al-Tahrir channel, aka the Revolution Channel; Al-Masri, the channel of the Al-Wafd party, owned by party chairman Sayyed Al-Badawi; Channel 25, associated with the young people of the revolution, which has a liberal and secular orientation; the "Egypt 25" channel of the Muslim Brotherhood; and CBC, owned by businessman Muhammad Al-Amin.[14] One new paper, Al-Tahrir, has been established, edited by Al-Dustour's former editor, Ibrahim 'Issa. In addition, private television channels (most of them religious channels) that were closed by the regime prior to the 2010 parliamentary elections have been allowed back on the air.[15]

Criticism: Many Channels, but No Diversity of Opinion

Coptic activist Magdi Khalil wrote about these developments: "Has the Egyptian media truly changed since the revolution? Sadly, the answer is no... True, the number of papers and satellite television channels has grown... but that does not mean that any significant positive change has occurred in the Egyptian media. The real questions regarding freedom of the media are still unanswered, or else have an answer that does not inspire optimism.

"Why hasn't the Supreme Press Council been dismantled, and why can't a [new] paper, television channel, or radio station be established [simply] by announcement, [rather than through a complicated licensing procedure]?... Why have figures from the security apparatuses been handpicked to [direct] the Ministry of Communications, and why has an army officer been placed at the head of the TV and Radio Broadcast Authority? What does it mean that the state owns so many of the media institutions? Why do the members of the Journalists Union receive monthly payments from the state, and what are we to call these payments, if not 'bribery'?...

"Are young and qualified journalists allowed to find a place [in the media], or are we still employing the [methods of] the old regime, [with journalists hired based on] cronyism, connections, go-betweens, and recommendations by the security apparatuses? What does it mean that the same faces who lavished praise on the members of the old regime – to the point of portraying [the leaders] as saints – are the same [people still] dominating the media, and who are [now] lavishing the same praise on the new leaders, [i.e.,] the army? Are the ties between the journalists and the security apparatuses a thing of the past, or is the media still given orders to promote this [journalist] or hobble that one?...

"Nothing has changed in Egypt... Everything is still the same. The change is much too small to be termed a 'revolution' or a 'breakthrough.' The security [apparatuses], the judiciary, the intelligence [services], the media and, the foreign ministry are still run according to the principles that were introduced by the July [1952] military regime, and became more brutal in the era of Mubarak's corrupt regime. Egypt will change only if these institutions undergo a profound transformation, if they are dismantled and rebuilt [from scratch]."[16]

2. Criticism against the Military Regime – A Red Line Not to Be Crossed

A. Journalists Investigated for Criticizing the Army

In the initial stages of the revolution, there was a sense that anything could be published in the government media, including criticism of the regime, but later on, it transpired that the military administration had its own "red lines," one of which was criticism of its policies. The following are examples of Egyptian journalists who were punished or summoned for questioning by the military prosecution for criticizing the authorities:[17]

• Blogger Hossam Al-Hamlawi and journalist Rim Magd were questioned after the former said on her television talk show that the military police was violating human rights and torturing citizens.
• Journalist Nabil Sharaf Al-Din was questioned after he suggested on the ONTV channel that the military may be conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood and planning to hand over the government to this movement.[18]
• 'Adel Al-Hamouda, editor of the independent weekly Al-Fagr, and Rasha 'Azb, who writes for the paper, were questioned for reporting on a meeting between the SCAF and a group of activists who protested the regime's policy of trying civilians in military courts. The article mentioned that the activists had accused the military police of persecuting citizens, including by checking women's virginity, and carrying out arbitrary arrests.[19] The Minister of Justice ordered to investigate three judges who had appeared on the media without permission and called to stop trying civilians in military courts.[20]
• The chief editor of the Al-Wafd party's weekly, Al-Wafd, Sayyed 'Abd Al-'Ati, and another of the weekly's editors, Hosam Al-Sawifi, were interrogated for publishing an article criticizing the SCAF.[21]
• Journalist Buthaina Kamal was questioned after announcing her intention to run for president.[22]
• The editor of the independent daily Al-Shurouq, 'Amr Khafagi, and two journalists at his paper were interrogated for reporting that deposed president Mubarak had intended to give an apology speech to the Egyptian people and ask for a pardon in return for relinquishing all his capital and property. Khafagi reported that he had been required to sign an affidavit stating that he would refrain from reporting on anything connected to the army.[23] A statement published by the paper following the incident said: "The homeland takes precedence over the media, and since Al-Shurouq has no desire to cause destructive disagreement... it has decided to refrain from publishing additional details on this incident [of Mubarak's intended speech]..."[24]
• A presenter on Dream TV, Dina Abu Al-Rahman, was fired after she confronted her guest, General 'Abd Al-Mun'im Kato, during an interview.[25]
• The SCAF recently decided to subject Asma Mahfouz, a political activist accused of slandering the armed forces, to military trial, after she posted condemnatory remarks regarding the SCAF on Facebook and Twitter. The decision aroused criticism in various circles in Egypt over the repeated trial of citizens in military courts.[26]

B. New Regime, Old Tyranny

Critics responded to this series of investigations by stating that they violated freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Egyptian journalist Sa'id Shu'aib wrote: "It is true that the military prosecution's investigation of several of my fellow journalists ended with a pot of coffee and a calm chat. Nevertheless, why were they summoned for questioning in the first place? And why did the summons come from the military prosecution and legal system, rather than as part of a broad dialogue between journalists and the SCAF, for example?

"I believe that the purpose was to send a message, and I believe that it was indeed conveyed, the message being that criticism of the political conduct of the SCAF, or publication of anything that has to do with it, would not be tolerated. I and many others like me have said over and over again that there is a difference between the army as a military institution and its political conduct. Therefore, all Egyptians have the right to criticize it as they wish, and the SCAF must bear this [criticism] as long as it continues in its temporary role of running the country, for this is the nature of politics..."

In another article Shu'aib wrote: "I think that the SCAF's political conduct must be examined immediately. There are troubling signs regarding its attitude toward public and private freedoms, including, for instance, [the new law] revoking the right to nonviolent demonstration and protest, and the intimidation of judges and journalists. None of this happened [under Mubarak]. Where is the country's interim leadership taking us?"[27]

Reacting to the firing of television presenter Dina 'Abd Al-Rahman, journalist Ahmad Al-Sawi wrote: "The journalist and member of the media is still required to be loyal to the regime or to the plutocracy, without a third option, while the swords of prohibition, omission, and exclusion are brandished before anyone who tries to be loyal to the public by means of freedom or to serve the public by means of the truth... [The case of Dina 'Abd Al-Rahman] reflects the air of tyranny inherent in the government, no matter who stands at its head..."[28]

3. The Press is Working in Service of the Military Regime

Open and direct criticism of the SCAF was increasingly heard in the Egyptian media from May 2011, coinciding with a wave of widening protests against it.[29] Some writers pointed to the SCAF's use of the government press for its own ends. For instance, Wael Qandil, columnist for the independent Egyptian daily Al-Shurouq, wrote: "One day, our friend 'Abd Al-'Azim Hammad, editor of the well-established newspaper Al-Ahram, decided to descend from his throne and attach his name to a front page article... The item had to do with 12 coalitions that had refused to participate in the Protest of Millions [a mass demonstration held May 27, 2011, to protest the interim government's laggardness in meeting the demands of the revolution].

"It is lamentable that, from a professional and political standpoint, the wording of the item was suited to the situation [prior to the revolution], by way of suggesting that dubious elements seeking to destroy Egypt were the ones behind the call for protest [against the SCAF]. This is despite the fact that, were it not for the Friday protests of millions, Hammad would not have become editor of Al-Ahram – [which is a newspaper] of the entire Egyptian people and not merely the SCAF... Egypt has returned to the era prior to January 25, and has resumed using fear tactics... in the same manner they were used by Mubarak and his sons against their opponents..."[30]

4. SCAF: The Media Have Complete Freedom

In an announcement posted to its Facebook page, the SCAF explained that it was striving to strengthen the Egyptian media as a whole and to restore its status as a leading force in the Arab and Muslim world. The announcement said that the SCAF respected the media's right to publish anything and address any issue it saw fit. It also said that since the revolution, the SCAF had taken pains not to interfere in the various media outlet's content or media policies and had granted them complete freedom.[31] A SCAF representative at a conference on the future of the Egyptian media denied that any oversight had been imposed on Egypt's media outlets. He explained that the media had been requested not to cover issues having to do with the armed forces because these were matters of national security.[32]

*L. Azuri, N. Shamni, and E. Marcus are research fellows at MEMRI.