It is no longer convincing to justify the state of freedoms in Jordan by comparing it to Israel, as if the problem is solved simply by pointing to another model. These selective comparisons do not express self-confidence as much as they reveal an inability to confront reality. Instead of focusing on a genuine demand to raise the freedom ceiling, we slip into a sterile debate that changes nothing.
We often doubt international reports and describe them as biased — which is understandable in some contexts — but this skepticism turns into blatant selectivity when we accept the rankings that serve us and reject those that expose our faults. Here a logical question arises: if we do not trust these reports, why don’t we compare ourselves with other countries on the same indicators, like Mauritania for example, instead of settling for comfortable approaches that do not reflect the complete picture?
The deeper problem is not with these reports, but with the way they are handled. With every report indicating a decline in freedoms, official institutions rise up, joined by part of the media, in a rapid campaign to attack and doubt, without considering the methodologies of these reports or trying to understand their criteria. This behavior does not address the dysfunction but rather entrenches a culture of denial.
More dangerously, this denial is directly reflected in the reality of the media itself. The absence of genuine freedoms weakens the role of the press, which often ends up in a realm of praise and promotion, rather than being a supervisory authority that monitors, holds accountable, and exposes faults. And here, we all lose: the state, the society, and the media.
A genuine defense of Jordan does not come from angry responses or seasonal campaigns that quickly fade, but from a courageous stance that acknowledges the problem and works on addressing it. Media freedom is not a luxury or an elitist demand, but a supreme national interest, because it forms the first line of defense against corruption and deviation, and contributes to correcting the course before the mistakes escalate.
The path to a strong and influential media does not start with justifying the status quo, but with recognizing it. It does not proceed by attacking the reports, but by reforming the environment that produced these results. Between denial and truth, a healthy media future cannot be built… and the choice must be clear.
