Professionalism in Kurdish media and politics
We celebrated the 118th anniversary of issuing the first Kurdish paper this year. In recent years, debates emerged as a new model of dialogue—a common platform for exchanging opinions and making ground for different opinions. This could include professionalism, identifying the duties and roles of the characters in the media. We can say that professionalism has become a model nowadays, being professional in thinking and making decisions, but those who talk about professionalism may not necessarily be committed to the professionalism of their work. In fact, some of those who have chosen to work in journalism are as unfit as a doctor who wants to work as a shoemaker, or a shoemaker as an engineer.
In order to overcome problems of journalism and media, the scope of democracy, freedom of expression, reducing censorship and widening the scope of delivering information to the audience via professionalism should be offered and broadened. Journalists themselves should understand his or her duty, message and commitment to the principles, powers and rules. They should be professionals in the domain; this is true for politics too.
It’s not an exaggeration if we say that every Kurdish individual has become a politician or political analysts, and behaves like political actors. All the while we have a Kurdish parliament, with a political eagerness that we should demand our rights from Al-Abbadi’s government in a diplomatic way, and claims for negotiations to resolve the crises. It’s normal if the mentioned MP is a doctor, engineer or a philosopher in his field, but according to all professional measures of politics he’s short-sighted and unexperienced. Just like journalism, this is also considered as a prob- lem in politics. Professionalism in politics is nothing less than in the media. Politics and media are two common and overlapping professions. Newspapers cannot stand alone without politics; and without conveying aims and goals, political works would become weak and restricted.
The politician who doesn’t understand the principles, power and duty of a term such as “negotiation” and is mixed up with other terms of “dialogue, meetings, and forums,” is a politician who does not understand the duty of diplomacy and he will not understand the duty of politics. Likewise when an editor in chief, journalist or a reporter, has become involved in journalism for any political reason or just as an accident, and has nothing to do with journalism, of course we can imagine that he doesn’t even differentiate between writing news, reports and other genres of media writing. He could also have little understanding of the ethics of journalism, rules of conduct and rights of delivering information to the people.
Professionalism is an important principle. It means being expert and experienced in the field. I think before being committed to the work, and showing off in the political process, we should first think of specialty, proving the skills and qualifications in the profession. A person may find strong remarks and effective opinion theoretically for defining the professionalism of media and politics, but practically he may not be able to find the professionalism in even a word of a politician, a page of newspaper or word of a reporter or a presenter. So professionalism flows out from confidence and qualification of people, rather than the masked purposes of a political figure on the screen, or an analyst in a debate.