Unbreatedly a description of a description launched by a (previously) press figure to the members of the Association of Journalists who were recently elected.
The question that was posed in this form “Who You” indicates those who ask about them are unknown denials of the questioner, and we regret that this immoral, inhuman and non -professional description is issued by those who work in a field that is supposed to be based on human rights and justice and fairness, for colleagues that we have all the respect and appreciation.
Rather, it is an opportunity to talk about political and professionalism, which has become a (Qadafafi) disease in relation to President Muammar Gaddafi, who represented in the question of “Who are you?”
That question immortalized a dictatorial figure more than all of his last history, so his question summarized the true meaning of the monopoly of power, a question he posed in one of his sermons on the last days of his rule, when the people revolted against him and asked them, “Who are you?” The paradox comes to ask this question in a context that matches a deposed leader of the people and a previous professional personality for professionals.
A real problem, when you put yourself in the place of those who monopolize the first row, and blind to seeing attempts and jurisprudence of this row regardless of the results of attempts, and when you certainly see them, you will not see their owners, and it is natural then to ask them who you are?
The biggest problem, when you think that you have the sukuk and first -class licenses, cherish in it who you want and humiliate in it, so you believe that it is your powers to decide if someone who tries to reach visible or invisible is worth reaching, or not worth!
“The monopoly of power” is a goal for decades, which is a legitimate goal that deserves the struggle, but you have forgotten that the authority that you are trying to prevent monopoly of its first row is not reduced to political positions only, so the profession “has an authority that has its first ranks as well, and national action has an authority that has its first ranks as well, and when you sad some of the gains, and you believed that you are in its first row, you monopolized it for yourselves Her paradise and fire?
In this case, you deserve to fight against you – former heads who do not want to abandon their authority – in order to prevent your monopoly of power, and your acquisition and uniqueness.
But if you defend that you did not appoint yourselves as leaders of the profession, then like you, leaders said it that believed that they are certain of the gods.
We understand that you evaluate the level of the press in general, evaluate the ceiling of freedoms, and evaluate the professionalism of performance, we understand until you evaluate the press performance of those who nominated and won a professional evaluation that deals with the performance and the work they accomplished, all of this is permissible, legitimate and professional, but rather the evaluation of colleagues with this arrogant superiority is totally unacceptable under any name.
