EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NEWS EGYPT, EGYPT

Leaks and the ethics of journalism

CAIRO: As Egypt oscillates between waves of absolute chaos and tense calm, the role of the media in steering public opinion and street action in this critical transitional moment in our history must come under closer scrutiny.

On Tuesday, the privately-owned Al-Shorouk newspaper published as its lead story an article titled “Mubarak Requests Amnesty.” The title alone was enough to trigger the ensuing feelings of indignation that rocked the nation and resulted in a call to go back to Tahrir Square for a million man march Friday for “Rejecting the Apology and the Manipulation of the Revolution.”

And if anyone had taken the time to read the article, then the calls to go back to Tahrir would have been even more justified. Citing anonymous “official and Arab sources,” the paper claimed that ousted president Hosni Mubarak (currently detained and under investigation in a hospital in Sharm El-Sheikh) is preparing a speech to be recorded and aired on both Egyptian and Arab TV channels in which he will apologize on behalf of his family — especially his wife Suzanne — for any wrong-doing based on false information imparted to him through his aides and advisers.

Getting into more detail, the alleged news piece said that the speech-writer was the same person who wrote Mubarak’s emotional televised speech aired on Feb. 1, which divided public opinion over Mubarak and which arguably led to the Feb. 2 attack on Tahrir protesters in what came to be known as the Battle of the Camel.

In the alleged speech, the article continues, Mubarak will propose relinquishing all his property and assets to the Egyptian people in the hopes of being remembered “for his role as an army officer who protected the nation” and who never sought power, but on the contrary had to put up with the burdens of the presidential office.

Al-Shorouk’s unnamed sources went on to say that the purpose of offering to relinquish his property was to later request amnesty from the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

The article then quotes an anonymous military source as saying that several currents, some Egyptian and some Arab, are trying to broker such a deal within a legal framework that will garner popular consensus, stressing that any decision by the SCAF will bear in mind public opinion and Egypt’s best interests. Sources also told Al-Shorouk that the amnesty request will also include sons Alaa and Gamal Mubarak — now detained and under investigation for corruption in Tora Prison — but that it is unlikely for any amnesty to be considered for the two sons.

Quoting unnamed Gulf sources, the paper highlights that several regional capitals are uncomfortable with the idea of seeing Mubarak and his wife in prison, adding that the Egyptian military source reinforced this view when he said that a significant portion of the Egyptian military shared this opinion and are loathe to see one of their own military leaders thrown in jail but that the SCAF “does not want to provoke the people’s anger.”

As the editor of a daily newspaper, my reservations about this story were compounded when Daily News Egypt spoke to the editor of Al-Shorouk Amr Khafagy, who was summoned by the SCAF Wednesday along with two reporters who wrote the story.

Khafagy said that the 30-minute appearance before the military prosecution merely involved a reminder of Article 85 of the penal code that bans publishing news on the military except following the approval of the Morale Affairs Department. Khafagy also denied that the armed forces constituted any part of the story — which is clearly untrue since the article cited an anonymous military source and said that Mubarak’s alleged speech was to prepare for a request for amnesty from the army council.

My technical qualms about the article are first based on the lack of adherence to accuracy standards for factual reporting, which emphasize the reporter’s duty to seek reliable sources and rigorous fact-checking.

According to commonly subscribed ethical standards, “professionalism, reliability and public accountability of a news organization are three of its most valuable assets. An organization earns and maintains a strong reputation, in part, through a consistent implementation of ethical standards, which influence its position with the public and within the industry.”

On many of those fronts, Al-Shorouk has not had the best of records, the most recent incident being eerily similar in its claims to this one. Last April the paper reported that German magazine Der Spiegel interviewed the head of the SCAF General Tantawy who said that Arab countries are forcing the council not to prosecute Mubarak. Der Spiegel’s Cairo office denied unequivocally that any such interview was conducted in the first place. It was also announced by official sources that Tantawy had not given any interviews to date, corroborating Spiegel’s denial.

While publishing fake news that could ultimately lead to a diplomatic crisis between two countries is bad enough, republishing very similar false information can only reinforce the suspicions by vigilant readers and observers that the said newspaper does not in fact have the public interest in mind.

The question of whether this news was leaked by the army or by sources close to Mubarak who has a vested interest in stirring divisions both within Egyptians and between the people and the military, is only part of the issue. In this case within 24 hours the SCAF officially denied any plans to even consider such an amnesty, which mitigated the situation, but did not stamp out the seeds of doubt that had already been sown by the story, especially at such volatile times when the general sentiment is seeped in a crisis of confidence against anyone in power.

As an editor in such extraordinary times, one has an ethical obligation to weigh the issue very carefully: Is it in the public interest to publish such explosive claims despite their potential impact? Doesn’t the fact that my sources refuse to be identified raise suspicions over their credibility and motives? Am I serving my readers and society in general by printing claims that I cannot independently verify?

What the newspaper could have done is to at least contact the SCAF and get an official, on the record response to these claims.

The lure of getting a “scoop” is not an excuse for bad and irresponsible journalism. While freedom of the press must be enshrined in any society that aspires for true democracy, editors and journalists must ensure that their publications are not exploited as a platform for players on either side of Egypt’s increasingly polarized society, and in so doing, sacrifice both truth and public interest, and put your own credibility on the line.