If you ever felt a sense of incongruity when reading an
article that seemed to say one thing while the title was saying something else,
I have news for you; the Wall Street Journal ran an article on May 9, 2013 that
would stand as a good example for that kind of event. It shows how the intent
of a reporter who is in the field can be supplanted by the intent of an editor
sitting in his office who would highjack the text with the simple trick of
publishing it under a misleading title. He would thus use the article – even
exploit it – to express an editorial message that the reporter never envisaged.
Written by Matt Bradley who has been living in Cairo for a while, the article was given the title:
“Islamists Rely on TV Sheiks to Woo the Masses in Egypt ” even though nothing in the
article indicates that such editorial message was on the mind of the reporter
in the field. In fact, Bradley begins the article by exposing the fraud that
this whole matter is. He put it this way: “Islamists are gaining sway because
of TV sheiks like Khaled Abdullah. Mr. Abdullah, a bearded 48-year-old, isn't a
real sheik.” So then, why call him a sheik? The impersonator himself answers
the question: “'Here, anyone who has a beard can be called a sheik,' said a
smiling Mr. Abdullah.”
Later in the article, Bradley mentions Mr. Gawad, the
manager of the TV station carrying the show who admitted: “I wasn't thinking to
do something for my religion; I was looking to do good business for me.” And the
result has been that: “Within 10 days, half of the employees had grown beards
just like the TV preachers,” Gawad said to Bradley. Sounds familiar? Try this:
When someone pays your salary, you flatter him by imitating him. All is fake
but it puts food on your table and helps feed your family – many people, here,
there and everywhere go for that.
But what does it do to the audience at large? “Nobody knows
how many people watch the TV preachers because the TV ratings don't include the
rural areas where such shows are popular. The total viewership of the preachers
is much smaller than the mainstream channels,” writes Bradley. But he goes on
to say: “Still, the TV sheiks have tremendous influence with certain segments
of Egyptian society.”
If you're not confused by now, Bradley makes sure that you
are by this: “At the Gohary Grill in the middle-class Cairo neighborhood of Agouza, the volume on
Mr. Abdullah's nightly show is turned up.” Why so, Bradley wanted to know, and
Gohary explained: “When some things are unclear, he clarifies them.” You
scratch your head at this point and try to figure why the total viewership of
the preachers is low but that they are popular both in the rural areas and in
the middle-class Cairo
neighborhoods. Does this not indicate that the total viewership should be high?
Math is math, my friend, and if the two halves of something are large, the
thing cannot be small.
If this were not enough, Bradley hits you with the
following: “The TV preachers advocate restrictive views on women, railing
against female protesters and even advising audiences of what they see as the
Islamically correct way for a husband to beat his wife. Even so, many viewers
of TV preachers are women. During the runoff of presidential elections last
June, 76% of women voted for the Brotherhood's Mr. Morsi.” Does this mean some
women ask to be beaten up?
Or does it sound like the women do not believe the preachers
and Mr. Morsi see eye to eye. But this is not what Bradley was saying earlier:
“The religious channels also supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate,
Mohammed Morsi, in his successful bid last year and backed the Islamist-tinged
constitution that passed last year.” So you ask: What is going on?
Luckily, you get a hint at what the answer to that question
may be when you read this passage: “Under Hassan Elwan, who took over the
channel's management, viewership has grown. He added sports, medical shows with
frank discussions of sex and cooking shows.” So that's what gets the people,
especially the women, to watch. It is not that other stuff which is something
nobody can take seriously.