Media Sustainability Index (MSI) - Middle East & North Africa (MENA)

Media Sustainability Index 2006/2007

Syria

Introduction
Objective 1: Freedom of Speech
Objective 2: Professional Journalism
Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources
Objective 4: Business Management
Objective 5: Supporting Institutions
Panel Participants

Introduction

Overall Country Score: 1.31

The past year was a period of continued unrest for Syria after the turmoil resulting from the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, which the international community swiftly blamed on Syria. The international community continued to point a finger of condemnation at Syria, and, in February 2007, the United Nations and the Lebanese government took the first steps toward establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon, a step Syria strongly opposed. The United States continued to impose economic sanctions.

At the same time, instability in neighboring Iraq and Lebanon prompted a regime tightening and increased security measures aimed at preventing an over-spill of sectarian violence. The year saw the most drastic effect of the Iraq war on Syria as Iraqi refugees starting pouring into the country. By the end of 2007, it was estimated that up to one million Iraqis had taken refuge in Syria, imposing a huge social, political, and economic burden on the country.

Journalists say that the consequence of these instabilities was an increased siege mentality, as the country found itself internationally isolated and regionally threatened. The media were a key tool in mobilizing popular support behind the regime, and journalists seen as criticizing the regime were accused of treason. Nonetheless, following the trend established since Bashar Al-Assad took power following the death of his father, Hafez, in 2000, journalists pointed to a continued slow opening.

The MSI panel scored Syria’s media sector at 1.31 overall, leaving it unchanged from last year in the lower half of the “unsustainable, mixed system” scoring as defined by the MSI methodology. All objectives received similar scores, pointing to a legal and governmental system opposed to a free-media system. The role of supporting organizations was seen as being particularly weak, scoring 1.08 as a result of a very weak structure of support, lack of protection for the media, and little available training for journalists. Panelists gave the highest score to the indicator of professionalism, which scored 1.58, still a weak and unsustainable mark. Professionalism was widely seen to be undermined by a government system determined to maintain the official line.

Note: MSI panelists in Syria agreed to participate only if they were not named publicly. Rather than hold a group discussion that might call attention to panelists’ participation in the study, the chapter is based on responses to individual questionnaires and the moderator’s individual interviews with the panelists.

Objective 1: Free Speech

Score: 1.36

Freedom of speech remains highly restricted in Syria, according to MSI panelists. Journalists report that the government maintains a stranglehold over what can be said and that red lines are ever-present. Although the constitution guarantees “the freedom of the press” and states that “every citizen has the right to freely and openly express his views,” censorship is endemic, with those crossing red lines subject to investigation and even prison. Journalists, however, do report that because of the Internet and increasing ease of access, more topics are open to public discussion. Panelists scored most indicators relatively close to the overall average, with Indicator 1, legal protections for free speech and the press, the lowest and Indicator 8, media access to foreign news sources, the highest.

Although there are laws guaranteeing the right of free speech, they are widely regarded as nonexistent. “We have media laws to ensure free speech, but in fact they lack any real standard,” said a journalist from a government newspaper. “There are laws, but in practice they do not exist.”

Journalists say that the government and security agencies strictly enforce the limits of free speech to ensure that the government line is maintained at all times. “Nothing is open; they are always watching you,” said a television producer. However, the exact parameters of what is and is not allowed are not always clear. Journalists talk of “red lines,” but they remain ill-defined. Among the clearer red lines are the president, the army, and issues related to security or minorities.

As an example, the September 2007 Israeli air strike on Syrian facilities went relatively unreported. Journalists were neither allowed to talk about the subject in detail, nor investigate the matter.

Accordingly, it is felt that journalists, and particularly editors, practice a high level of censorship. “Censorship comes from the editors-in-chief. They apply the red lines given to them by the government, but they overemphasize them to give themselves greater margins,” said one reporter, echoing a widely expressed belief.

Major media outlets are mostly government owned. New licensing laws have permitted the establishment of a few independent publications; however, licensing permission remains strict, and ownership is restricted to regime associates. “The government knows about the power of information, so it knows it can’t give control to anyone. Private media are controlled by former officials and businessmen with connections to the regime,” commented a writer for an independent paper.

Outlets and journalists who cross the red lines face censure from the security agencies who maintain a vigil over public discourse. In May 2007, Baladna, an independent newsmagazine, was banned for one week after it printed political cartoons mocking parliamentary elections. Journalists are invited into security service offices where they are questioned and warned not to repeat perceived offenses. Where the crime is deemed more severe, journalists can be imprisoned, as was the case with eight students who were given jail sentences of between five and seven years in June 2007 for Internet articles advocating political reform.

Nonetheless, journalists say the presidency of Al-Assad has seen an opening. “I know many cases where security agencies called journalists in to question them, and where they used to harass us and use violence, now they are very polite with us,” said one panelist who writes for opposition news sites. Subjects previously deemed as off-limits can now be broached. “The circle of what you can’t talk about is getting smaller. Now we can talk about the prime minister, whereas before we couldn’t.”

Many cite the role of the Internet, banned until 2000, and satellite channels for the opening. “Al-Jazeera and the Internet have pushed the lines because the information gets out so quickly now, which means that we can also cover the stories as well,” observed one panelist. However, often it is merely a reactive response, allowing the government to publicize the official lines on matters in the public domain.

While international news is more available because of new technology, domestic news remains tightly controlled. “In law we should be able to access information, but in reality anyone can say no and the government will not give you information,” said one panelist. Accordingly, the gathering of information is conducted mostly through informal sources and channels.

There are no barriers to entry into the journalism trade, but employment possibilities remain slim.

Objective 2: Professional Journalism

Score: 1.58

Professional standards in the media sector are very weak, according to MSI panelists. The government view dictates the editorial line, which impairs objectivity and prevents thorough practices and fair sourcing from being implemented. Journalists censor themselves to meet the government line, predominantly out of fear. Corruption is said to be widespread, with journalists selling favorable articles or coverage because pay rates are so low. Overall, panelists did not rate any indicators noticeably higher or lower than the objective average. Indicator 3, self-censorship, received the lowest score of all indicators, while Indicator 6, news and entertainment balance, received the highest.

“If you want to be a good and independent journalist here in Syria, it is a very bumpy road,” commented a writer for an independent newsmagazine.

Practices of objective investigation and analysis are discouraged by a system that demands editorial conformity and punishes those who do not comply. “On government papers, it is very difficult to find objectivity because they represent the government line. There are objective journalists within the system, but the machine kills their objectivity,” said one panelist. Another panelist labeled most government-owned media-outlet employees “civil servants who are just there to collect their salaries.”

Reporters talk of having their stories altered or dropped because the editorial line did not meet the official position or challenged a person or institution with connections to the regime. “I was working on an investigative report on a hospital, but the manager had very strong connections with the presidential palace and he called my editor, who dropped the article,” said one investigative journalist.

Panelists say fear-induced self-censorship is widely practiced across the profession. “It is well known that every one of us has a police officer inside him,” said one panelist, explaining that “there is self-censorship because we don’t want to be sacked or questioned by security.” Journalists report being pressured by their editors to approach a story in a certain preconceived manner. “Normally, our editor-in-chief pushes us to use certain sources, but we know he has an agenda.”

While the media outlets cover most major events, interpretation and analysis are confined to the set official agenda.

Low pay is a further problem that impedes ethical journalistic practices. Journalists do not make much more than $300 per month, and, according to one observer, “every journalist has more than one job because of bad pay.” The result is fear and corruption. “All Syrian journalists are warned about being sacked at any moment and therefore write on the safe side,” commented a panelist, while another noted that “some journalists don’t write stories unless they receive money. They don’t go to conferences unless they are paid.”

According to a number of panelists, there is only marginally greater objectivity and ethical practices in some of the newly established independent outlets. They, too, are forced to toe the government editorial line, and, as one panelist commented, “owners of companies massage private media owners and journalists, who become like beggars.”

Newsgathering and production facilities remain poor and dated in most media outlets, but they are improving as investment is being poured into some of the new private outlets. However, several panelists noted that practical facilities in universities and training centers were particularly weak, meaning that graduates enter the sector ill-equipped. Most journalists do now have access to the Internet.

Quality niche and investigative reporting remains undeveloped. “Investigative journalism is new in Syria. We have some eager reporters, but we are in a difficult situation,” said one investigative journalist, pointing to the political pressures that work against serious investigation of political and economic matters. Across the board, panelists did agree that niche reporting on cultural, religious, and historical matters was far more advanced because they are not sensitive topics.

Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources

Score: 1.24

A wide variety of news sources and views are now available to most Syrians, thanks to satellite television and the Internet. However, domestically, the spectrum remains extremely limited, with the government maintaining a firm grip over the sector and its output. All but two of the indicators scored close to the overall average. The exceptions were Indicator 2, citizen access to the media, which scored nearly a point higher than the average, and Indicator 3, state media reflect the views of the political spectrum, which scored nearly a point lower.

Through satellite television channels such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, as well as the Internet, information is now freely disseminated. Although the government tries to block oppositional websites, it is unable to keep up with the flow of new sites and savvy young Syrians increasingly find a way to circumvent technological obstacles. The result is that Syrians have an increasingly well-informed perspective on international events.

According to official figures, nearly 65 percent of Syrian homes have a satellite dish, compared with 18 percent in 2000, and the Internet is becoming increasingly accessible and popular. In the past year, it became possible for private homes to gain Internet access, and Internet cafés have blossomed across the major cities. There are an estimated 1.1 million Internet users across the country.

One of the key elements emerging from the growth of Internet access has been foreign-based opposition sites that critique the regime. “You can now access all information, including oppositional material via the Internet, even if you cannot republish it,” said a human-rights activist.

However, while providing a large amount of international news, these news sources do not provide in-depth domestic reporting. Here, Syrians continue to rely on Syrian newspapers and television, which, particularly on political and economic issues, provide only the government line and ignore other views. “It’s enough for you to read one paper, as all the others will say the same thing,” said one panelist.

There are three government daily newspapers—Al Bath, Tishreen, and Al-Thawra—an independent daily, al-Watan, as well as a small number of independent newsmagazines, such as Abyad wa Aswad, Al Iqtissad, and Baladna. Up until recently, state-run Syrian TV was the only television channel that operated; however, it has now been joined by Dunya TV. Syria’s first private channel, Sham TV, was shut down in 2006 after being accused of financial irregularities.

Domestic news outlets rely on the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) for much of their news, particularly political developments. “In the public arena, the only source of political information is SANA, and if they don’t publish it, no one can,” said one panelist. However, according to panelists, SANA lacks journalistic objectivity and does not represent a wide spectrum of ideas, restricting itself to the government line. “SANA takes articles directly from the foreign ministry. All the ministries have offices that write the news directly for SANA,” commented one panelist.

Panelists reported that Syrian news outlets do not provide a comprehensive picture of domestic events, avoiding debate, controversial political and economic issues, and subjects that might shine a poor light on the authorities. For the most part, headlines and news bulletins focus on the daily itinerary of the president and leading officials, as opposed to any considered analysis. “Syrian news is not enough to know what’s really happening,” said one television producer. “When we have news on TV, it’s never about Syria: less than 10 percent covers Syrian news.”

There is some variety, and opposing views are represented on non-sensitive and localized issues. “For politics and sensitive issues, the newspapers give the same line, but for other issues and local stories, there are differences,” said a journalist who contributes to oppositional news sites.

In smaller cities and the countryside, only government publications can be found. Limited selections of international publications are available in the two major cities of Damascus and Aleppo. However, they are censored: pages containing a negative article on Syria are sometimes missing.

Minority issues are a firm no-go area. The Syrian regime, ever fearful of upsetting the delicate balance among different religious and ethnic groups, especially as violent sectarianism has raged in neighboring Iraq and Lebanon, neither tolerates the discussion of minorities nor allows them room for community publications. “We do not write about minority issues, like the Kurds, because these are red-line stories,” said one panelist.

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 1.27

MSI panelists gave the Syrian media sector a weak 1.27 for business management, reflecting the fact that revenues, even for independent publications, are largely channeled through the government or regime associates and that business practices and advertising remain hugely inefficient. Most indicators received scores close to the objective score. Slightly ahead of the others was Indicator 4, the ratio of advertising revenue to other income. Trailing the others a bit was Indicator 7, circulation and audience measurement.

All official media outlets—print, television, and radio—receive 100 percent government funding. Other than ensuring editorial complicity with the government line, this has prevented the emergence of efficient and self-sustaining business models. Advertising, normally the main revenue source within the media sector, is almost non-existent within government outlets because the revenue is not needed. “Public media are already sponsored by the government, and so they don’t need to look for advertising,” commented a panelist, reflecting the view that no one worries about costs or efficiencies because the government covers all losses.

New independent media have much better business practices, with the search for profit and advertising revenues playing a significant role. The past year has seen even more colorful and glitzy ads seeping into small-scale social magazines in Damascus. Although there are only a small group of advertising agencies in Syria, the number of consumer advertisements is increasing rapidly, even if agreements are mostly struck directly between business and media outlets and leave advertising agencies out of the loop.

Nonetheless, because independent outlets are allowed to be owned and funded only by those close to the regime, private outlets remain quasi-official. Critics complain that independent outlets are merely alternate voices for the government line and that private owners use the outlets as means to gain favor rather than to inform and contribute to the public debate. According to one panelist, “most private media are owned by corrupt people who want to launder money,” reflecting the widely held belief that successful businessmen make their fortunes from regime contacts. “If they are not getting money from the government, they are getting it from big businesses that are close to the government through sponsorship or advertising. So if you say the wrong things, you will not get money,” judged one panelist who writes for an independent newspaper.

Because advertising remains relatively limited, advertisers maintain huge power over media outlets to the extent that editorial lines will be accommodated to match their interest. “Syriatel advertises in most publications, so it’s impossible to do any investigation on the telecommunications industry,” said one panelist, an investigative journalist. “So now it’s not the power of security forces but the power of money.”

According to journalists with independent outlets, the turn toward advertising also has affected the type of stories being produced. “It is difficult to present cultural stories because it’s difficult to find sponsors. It’s easy for music or religious programs, but there is no support for cultural programs,” said a radio producer.

Calculated research, from consumer trends to reliable circulation figures, is not available.

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions

Score: 1.08

According to panelists, institutions that support and train journalists are few in number and lacking in substance. While there is a government-run journalists’ union, it is essentially a regime mouthpiece that does not stand up for journalists’ rights. Both Indicators 1 and 2, trade and professional associations, scored equally low, more than a half-point lower than the overall objective score. University degree programs and shorter training courses are widely viewed as ineffective; despite this, Indicator 5, short-term and in-service training, was the leading indicator by a noticeable margin.

All the panelists dismissed the state-run journalists’ union. “The journalists’ union does nothing. It doesn’t represent or protect journalists,” said a journalist for a government paper. “The union represents the government line; it is just a structure, but it does nothing meaningful.”

According to panelists, membership in the union is restricted to those who follow the official line, and even then, the union will not interfere on behalf of its members if they are arrested or face other legal difficulties. “If you are in court, the union rarely interferes. They provide journalists with medical aid and assistance with other economic issues, but not political issues.”

“There was a debate discussing imprisoning journalists, and the head of the union supported keeping the law to imprison journalists, asking what would happen if journalists wrote articles destroying the country,” commented one panelist.

Domestic organizations and NGOs representing journalists are all banned. Some groups, like the banned National Organization of Human Rights, do advocate for journalists when they face difficulties. For the most part, however, journalists are forced to find their own means of legal representation and support if they encounter problems. “Help only comes through one’s own contacts and friends,” said one panelist.

Some support, however ineffective, may be provided by foreign organizations. “Journalists depend on foreign organizations, like Amnesty and Reporters without Borders; but even with international pressure no one here is listening,” commented a human-rights activist.

Journalistic training in Syria is not advanced. Undergraduate degrees in journalism are available from universities; however, courses are based on Soviet-era textbooks, and practical training and facilities are very limited. According to one panelist, “at the college of journalism you can buy your degree, so it’s not about quality.”

Short-term training courses in Syria are rare. Newspapers and official organizations do provide some courses, especially within the developing economic field; however, selection for participation is based on contacts. According to one participant, “the training courses are done by old journalists, so there is no dynamism.”

Foreign organizations and embassies do occasionally arrange training courses, both in Syria and across the region, but journalists are pressured not to participate in foreign-funded events. “I did a training course in Jordan and was warned not to do it, as it was partly funded by the US, and that’s a red line,” commented a young journalist on the panel. He was, however, allowed to go, showing that pressure does not mean a complete ban on attending these events.

The government controls all channels of media distribution.