What is the difference between free media discourse and hate speech that rejects opposing views and can descend to the level of incitement and defamation?
The pre-2011 Arab media discourse saw sporadic incidents that tested the fragility of our worn-out media covenants.
The Arab Spring revolutions and their strong aftershocks in the region, led by the deep state, proved that hate speech in the media is a strategic tool for counter-revolution.
George Orwell said: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” The broadcast of hate speech in our era of global deception through the Arab and Islamic world’s media is an art that yields better positions and high profits.
Media no longer just broadcasts that kind of bad rhetoric, it has even become a tool to justify and legitimise violence and hatred to destroy the opposition.
Previously, we have seen how the media was used to polish the government’s image, but nowadays the media is used to demonise the opposition to eventually get rid of it.
It is very clear that the hate speech cycle goes through three phases. It starts with a political decision, marketed by paid reporters, to return to the politician who takes a hard decision against the media-created devil.
I am sorry to say this, but politicians use the media to achieve their goals and to take revenge on their opponents just as soldiers use weapons against unarmed civilians.
What I am talking about is an American effort, initiated by US President Woodrow Wilson during his election campaign in 1916.
That year, Wilson started his “peace without victory” campaign, but it collided against the fact that the American people were peaceful in nature and rejected war.
So Wilson formed the Creel Committee, whose mission was to convince Americans about US participation in World War I.
In just six months, the commission succeeded in changing American public opinion and creating war frenzy, with people developing a strong desire to destroy all that was German and fight the war to save the world.
I am not questioning the media here, but the political power with its financial tools that were used to manipulate public opinion.
Since our amateur governments are good copiers who follow the ways of the West, all our regimes without exception have succeeded in cloning the Creel Committee according to their needs and circumstances.
Following the cold media and political wars between countries in the region, we find that a huge amount of money is pumped into media channels and newspapers, which have succeeded in creating defences to protect the deep states.
What I mean by deep states is the corrupt regimes who refuse to reform and depend for their survival on the continuation of the dishonest gatekeeper, the media, which feeds on the dissemination of hatred and incitement.
We cannot eliminate the mercenaries of hate speech in our societies unless we break the idols of the deep state inside us; then we will be able to unite and break it.
Note: We often find that the head of state is not tainted by political and media corruption, it is the advisers who hover around the political powers who are corrupt.
The author is a columnist and researcher
