In every country, journalism is a demanding profession that enlightens society, guides public opinion, monitors and criticises governments. In other words, journalists burn themselves out to light others’ paths. Journalism has never been a profession for the privileged or a field for those seeking wealth; nevertheless, it has become an indispensable fourth estate
in any country seeking democracy and development. In recent years, Mauritania has experienced substantial media growth in both quantity and quality.
While respecting everyone, especially veteran journalists—or “elders”, as they like to be called—the following points should be noted:
First: the press has never received as much support and care as under President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz. For the first time, a fund of hundreds of millions was established for private press, a unique initiative even worldwide. Private press organisations are private businesses that the state is not responsible for supporting with public money; instead, it taxes them, as happens throughout the world. Supporting private press with taxpayers’ money is therefore an initiative for which this administration deserves thanks.
Second: talk of depriving journalists of livelihoods, drying up their resources or financially besieging them is greatly exaggerated. What happened is that the state collected on their behalf the money journalists used to receive from state institutions and placed it in a fund overseen by journalists themselves, who distribute it under their own criteria without state involvement. This will anger some who monopolised everything through personal relationships and influence within state institutions, leaving nothing for young journalists who work hard and produce but have no connections in the corridors of power. This is exactly like civil servants’ housing: a few received large amounts to rent homes while the overwhelming majority received none. The money was then fairly divided among all entitled recipients, and those who had taken the whole cake naturally became upset.
Third: attacking the government and the Prime Minister personally with inappropriate descriptions is not the best way to fill pockets. It lends support to the view that current denunciations of the end of state institutions’ press support aim at personal gains for particular parties and individuals. This decision was issued months ago, so why denounce it belatedly today? Reports circulating say that senior government authorities refused personal requests from certain parties, who then attacked the government under the pretext of defending the press.
Fourth: driving a wedge between the President and his government and separating the two truly reflects “political stupidity”, to use thinker Mohamed El Mokhtar Chinguitti’s expression. The government is ultimately the President’s: he appointed its head and members, it follows his instructions literally and consults him on everything. Anyone imagining it acts separately and implements policies unknown to him ignores the truth for personal motives. This is therefore a wretched approach that brings no results.
Fifth: the main question is what the press has achieved for the country and its citizens that justifies demanding state support from the people’s money ??..
Should we support it with the people’s money because it spreads rumours, practises blackmail and sometimes promotes news that harms the country’s highest interests? Should the state pay media barons to fund pointless trips abroad, drive Japanese four-wheel-drive vehicles and build apartment blocks in Soukoukou and Sahraoui, in exchange for spreading false news in salons and offices and manufacturing misleading public opinion?
Should the state support press that fragments society, sets its parts against each other, fuels discord, bigotry and racism, and attacks individuals’ reputations and institutions’ integrity ??...
Is state support for private press from the people’s money a gift from one who does not own it to one who does not deserve it?
We are not putting all the press in one basket or judging it as a whole. There are certainly leading national press organisations that work honourably and fulfil their noble mission. I will not name any, either negatively or positively.
In conclusion, the government’s decision to end institutions’ press support while increasing the private press support fund is correct, fair and in the press’s general interest. The proof is that those protesting are a few who monopolised everything and are now forced to compete transparently with colleagues. They have lost the privilege of relationships with directors and intermediaries and become equal to everyone else. That is the crux of the matter.