Finally, the Grey Lady – as they call the New York Times –
seems to be making an effort to behave like a lady. It is not at the hundred
percent level yet, but it is moving in the right direction. The occasion is an
editorial that came under the title: “Bloodshed in Egypt ” and was published on July 9,
2013.
Here, the editors of the Times present the facts as they
know them, and discuss opinions that mean what is expressed in the lines
without there being insulting messages hidden between them. Thus, the editorial
can be classified as good speech. It contrasts with two other articles that do
not carry insulting messages either but fall in the category of bad speech
because they can do more damage than good. They will be discussed later but for
now, let us look at the difference between good speech and bad speech.
To begin with, we must acknowledge that freedom of speech is
a wonderful thing because without it we can only be the “Naked Ape” that does
not communicate. But there is a problem with free speech because – like
everything else – it can be abused; something that happens too often
unfortunately. In fact, abuse can take place in one of several ways.
To begin with, speech can be abused inadvertently by well meaning
people when they describe events that turn out to be not very accurate. These
people could also express innocent opinions that may injure someone. Speech is
also abused deliberately by people harboring malicious intent. This happens
when such people lie about events they claim to have witnessed, or when they
express opinions they know will injure someone.
There is a remedy to all this, and it is encapsulated in the
saying: the solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy. We can
paraphrase that saying and express it this way: the remedy to the problems of
free speech is more free speech. For example, when someone tells a lie
inadvertently or tells it deliberately, the remedy would be to expose the lie
at which point the well meaning “liar” will acknowledge their mistake and
apologize. As to the deliberate liars who may refuse to acknowledge their
mistake or apologize, they will lose credibility in the eyes of the public.
This will neutralize what they say; and that should be a satisfactory solution.
When it comes to expressing an opinion, however, the
situation is somewhat different because it is said that everyone is entitled to
their opinion. Thus, if the available facts are stated correctly, any opinion
that is expressed based on them will have to be considered legitimate. But
opinions can be destructive especially if they are of the inciting kind, and
there happens to be an audience that may not be mature enough or smart enough
to see the intent behind them and be able to dismiss the destructive messages
they spread.
The way to deal with these situations is to refute the
destructive opinions the best way we can by offering alternative analyses of
the facts, and by reaching different conclusions. Sometimes, however, this
cannot be done effectively because all relevant facts may not be available even
if they could be inferred by the reasonable people in the audience – which is
something we cannot count on in every situation, anyway.
For these reasons, we must appeal to the opinion makers of
the world such as the journalists, commentators, and public figures who have at
their disposal a megaphone of some kind, to heighten their sense of
responsibility when it comes to saying the things that have the potential to
motivate the immature or the mentally unbalanced to commit acts that may be
injurious to others.
The most common mistake made by well meaning people in those
categories is to speculate about something bad happening when the hope and the
prayer are to the effect that it does not happen. The mere fact of saying that
it can happen may convey to the immature and the mentally unbalanced the
message that they have a chance at succeeding if they take up the challenge and
act to make the thing happen. The suggestion alone can thus become the catalyst
that will motivate these people to see the unlikely as being likely, thus
encourage them to act.
Two examples show how this can come about. First, there is:
“The Price of Terminating Democracy in Egypt ,”
an article by Behzad Yaghmaian that also came under the subtitle: “Algeria endured
10 years of civil war after its military blocked an Islamist election victory.”
It was published on July 7, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal. You can see
immediately what is wrong with it in that the subtitle itself articulates a
speculation that might encourage the immature and the mentally unbalanced to
act. And so the question we must ask is this: In return for taking that chance,
what good can a speculation of this kind possibly accomplish?
Second, there is: “Next Up in Egypt : Ramadan,” an article written
by Walter Russell Mead and published on July 8, 2013 in The American Interest.
What is wrong with this author is not that he is an evil man but that he is a
pessimist who sees history as a series of zero-sum games. He has America and
those who love it in the column of the good guys, and has everyone else in the
column of the evil guys. And he sees the unfolding of history as a battle
between good and evil.
This is reflected in his latest article with consequences that
can be calamitous if the speculations it contains are taken up by the immature
or the mentally unbalance. Look what the man is speculating: “Morsi and his
allies had an impossible task: to make Egypt work. Now they have an easier
one: watch it fail.” And he tells why this is so even if he has shown time and
again that he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to economic
matters. But here he is, talking about the subject again: “The economic
prospects stink.”
He now moves from speculation to incitement: “The uglier the
military looks, the harder it will be for the West to shovel billions into the
Egyptian money pit.” But to make the military look bad, it must be provoked.
Thus, someone should be told how to provoke the military. Here it is: “Ramadan
has come. The mosques will be packed and emotions high. From the Brotherhood's
point of view, the military could have done it no greater favor than creating
martyrs at the start of the holiest month in the year.” And then comes his
promise for a spectacular catharsis: “Stay tuned, this isn't over.”
What good will that do to you or to