Media between freedom of expression and content chaos

Tweet by Ibrahim Al-Tasan

At a sensitive media moment, in which the speed of publication intersects with the power of platforms, the statements of the Minister of Information, Salman Al-Dosari, came to put the dots on the letters, and redefine the line between freedom of expression and professional responsibility. The statements were not fleeting, nor were they directed at a temporary circumstance. Rather, they carried clear messages to everyone who works or is at the forefront of the media scene, that the next stage cannot tolerate frivolity or flattery.

When the Minister of Information asserts that the laws in the Kingdom guarantee freedom of expression, he is not defending a theoretical principle, but rather establishing an existing reality. Freedom of opinion in Saudi Arabia was never in question, but it was – and still is – linked to the limits of the regime and respect for the public interest. However, the problem today does not lie in freedom itself, but rather in its misuse, transforming it from a legitimate right into a tool to create chaos or achieve personal gain at the expense of public awareness.

Populist discourse, as the minister described it, is no longer just a superficial media tactic. Rather, it has become a disturbing phenomenon that invests in emotion, fuels division, and searches for “trends,” even at the expense of truth. This type of discourse does not serve society, and does not reflect media maturity, but rather reveals a professional vacuum that tries to hide behind slogans of freedom.

What is striking about the Minister of Information’s statements is their clarity and firmness. The emphasis on “zero tolerance” for those who use freedom of expression to create chaos in the media space reflects an institutional awareness that the media is no longer a secondary matter, but rather an influential force in shaping public opinion and shaping societal thought, and it may – if misused – be a direct cause of undermining confidence and spreading confusion.

Inflaming public opinion, as the minister pointed out, is a prohibited media practice, because it goes beyond constructive criticism to incitement, and goes beyond conveying information to misleading it. Here, the media person or content creator becomes a partner in the error, not a neutral transmitter. Professionalism is not only measured by the boldness of the proposition, but also by the integrity of the goal, the accuracy of the information, and respect for the mind of the recipient.

In the age of open platforms, not everyone with an influential account is qualified to lead public debate. The responsibility today is double, because word spreads faster than verification, and impression precedes correction. Hence the importance of resetting the media compass, not through restrictions, but rather by establishing the concept that freedom does not mean chaos, and that disagreement does not mean incitement.

The Minister of Information’s statements can be read as an explicit call for a mature media that does not get carried away by sensationalism, does not trade on people’s feelings, and does not hide behind the slogan of “freedom of expression” to justify transgression. It is a message that the state that protects the right to opinion, at the same time protects the stability of society, and preserves the balance of public discourse.

In the end, the media is not an arena for conflict, nor a platform for settling scores, but rather a tool for awareness and construction. When the boundaries are clearly drawn for him, as the Minister of Information did, the goal is not to restrict him, but rather to protect him from himself, and to protect society from noise that does not produce knowledge, does not create awareness, and does not serve the nation.