AKEED-Anwar Ziadat

Although sending invitations to Arab kings and presidents to the summit meeting that will be held in Amman is an ordinary matter of protocol and its news is covered within this context, the invitation to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, emir of Qatar, to attend the summit has been the focus of a variety of news items, which warranted some analysis and had some repercussions in the media due to an erroneous piece of information published by an Arab media outlet.

On 3 January, the London-based Rai al Youm, a site whose chief editor is journalist Abdel Bari Atwan, carried a story headlined "Arab Summit: Emir of Qatar Does Not Want To Receive Nasser Judeh; Sisi Putting Pressure on Jordan To Invite Damascus." The story, published as an exclusive, said: "Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, emir of Qatar, has declined to receive Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, a move which Jordanian authorities deemed a significant indicator that the Qatari emir had already decided to boycott the summit in its Jordanian version, especially since Judeh was planning to visit Doha to deliver the invitation card officially."

The story was carried by many local sites, attributed to the media outlet from which they copied the news and under the same headline: "Emir of Qatar Does Not Want To Receive Nasser Judeh; Sisi Putting Pressure on Jordan." However, another site verified the information contained in the story and obtained a statement from a relevant Jordanian source, in which he denied "news speaking about the State of Qatar declining to receive Foreign and Expatriate Affairs Minister Nasser Judeh to hand him an invitation to take part in the Arab summit." What this site did was a correct professional practice in handling such a story.

Six days after this story had been in circulation, media outlets carried a report about the emir of Qatar receiving the foreign minister, who handed him a letter from King Abdullah II, inviting him to attend the summit. The report was published locally, but the London-based Rai al Youm ignored the new report and did not apologize for the incorrect story it had published previously. In fact, it kept the old story unchanged. It also did not say, for example, that its story was correct at the time, but that there are new developments.

Given the current political circumstances, making a mistake involving such news is not considered a simple media affair. The story had indeed generated a lot of public reactions as seen on social media. This is because refusing to receive the invitation, if it were true, would normally have a lot of political and other repercussions.

If a foreign media outlet thinks that it is not bound by professional rules when the matter has to do with other countries--of course this is professionally impermissible--then this raises the possibility of seeking to achieve objectives that are unrelated to the mission of the media of publishing news. This is especially true given the fact that the media outlet in question has refrained from correcting its mistake. Besides, the same outlet, which is run by a well-known journalist, has been committing such "mistakes" repeatedly.

However, it is worth noting here that the professional flaw multiplied when local media outlets reported it extensively without verification. Professional practice necessitates that when a local media outlet is faced with a piece of news that has local content, but comes from a vague source, this outlet should do follow-up with the relevant parties to confirm the accuracy of the information or at least publish the story of the concerned party so as to maintain balance.

It is true that national media outlets do not have to respond to political agendas by embracing reciprocal agendas. In other words, they should not reciprocate one professional violation with another. However, the patriotic role of local media outlets can be carried out through correct professional practice. Media outlets can be professional and patriotic at the same time.