Dr. Abdel Azim Awad
Social media platforms were preoccupied this week with the measures taken by a Sudanese satellite channel against some of its staff, actions that the channel’s management deemed as crossing the boundaries of its editorial policy, particularly regarding national security amidst the current aggression facing our country.
During the debate on this issue, I noticed that some participants expressed objections to the measures, considering them an attempt to muzzle voices and suppress opposing views, which they regard as a violation of media freedoms.
While we value this concern for upholding the principles of media freedoms and the right to expression, which are embraced by all media charters and legislations in times of peace and normal circumstances, the standards undoubtedly shift during wartime. They are reshaped by the prevailing security conditions and the requirements of defending the homeland and its citizens. There is no dispute that what Sudan is experiencing now is not a conventional war but rather an aggression aimed at the very existence of the Sudanese state, the identity of its people, and its historical entity. This aggression employs all tools of destruction, weaponry, and hordes of mercenaries, in addition to propaganda and moral support both inside and outside Sudan. Amid such unprecedented aggression, talking about ‘opposing views’ becomes naïve or intentionally misleading. Each situation demands an appropriate approach, and each event requires a fitting response.
It is only natural that Sudanese media strategy in this phase is based on wartime media methodology, both theoretically and practically. This positions national media alongside the armed forces, sometimes even leading the frontlines through guidance and awareness tools to mobilize all national energies. Its mission is to shed light on the dimensions of the aggression and instill the spirit of sacrifice, patriotism, and national unity.
In this context of national mobilization, there is no room for hollow slogans disguised as “freedom of opinion” or “the other opinion,” which belong to the theoretical framework of media in peaceful and secure circumstances.
Given the current situation, our media must focus on a single, unified vision with one ultimate goal: the army, the people, and the nation. This approach will contribute to building a cohesive and unified internal front, leading to the victory that citizens aspire to, by God’s will, and with the determination of our army, fighters, and mobilized forces.
We must also consider the following directives:
1. Minimize the harmful effects of social media by enacting local legislation and orders that lead to deterrent measures.
2. Combat fake news and rumors by keeping the public promptly informed of developments.
3. Counter empty slogans like “No to war,” as stopping the war can only be achieved through strength and deterrence, not through chants and rhetoric.
4. Combat hate speech using all available means, including soft power tools such as music, drama, and art.
Finally, we remind advocates of “the other opinion” in times of war of the poet’s words:
“The sword’s wound may heal with time,
But the wound of words bleeds forever.
The spear’s injuries can find a cure,
But not the pain caused by the tongue.”
