The Daily Star Editorial

In recent months, top officials and politicians in Lebanon have reiterated thier firm commitment to the principle of no interference in the internal affairs of Syria. This stance is usually justified as reflecting a wise policy of seeing a healthy bilateral relationship between Beirut and Damascus.

But in recent days, the public has been treated to a tragic comedy across the border, where Syrian President Bashar Assad summoned two senior Lebanese politicians for what one would expect to be discussions of the situation in Lebanon, since the two figures have no influence or say in Syrian affairs.

One of the two, former Prime Minister Omar Karami, was accompanied by his son, who is also a Cabinet minister. Karami and former Prime Minister Salim Hoss are both sympathetic to the authorities in Damascus, and both were used by Assad to send the following message, irrespective of what was actually discussed in their meetings: The popular uprising in Syria has ended.

The news that was relayed by Karami and Hoss coincided with further violence in Syria, where the unrest is causing casualties in nearly a dozen Syrian villages, suburbs, towns and cities, and a particularly fierce round of fighting between government troops and army defectors in the center of the country.
Several observations can be made after the latest “important visits.”

One is that the Syrian-Lebanese relationship remains depressingly the same. Syrian authorities can still pick up the phone and arrange an immediate visit by Lebanese politicians, who will dutifully relay the latest news and views of their neighbor.
The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of traffic in the other direction, as no Lebanese politician enjoys similar clout.

A second is that the value of such statements is practically nil. There is no reason to believe that they reflect anything other than a propaganda ploy, to claim that everything has calmed down in a country where all signs indicate the opposite. Meanwhile, they do nothing for the credibility of the figures who relay such “news.”

A third element is the general lack of respect for the media in this part of the world. Senior politicians are loathe to meet with media professionals and allow the kind of scrutiny that is required by serious developments. Instead, they issue short statements that provide scant details about previously unannounced visits, and the topics that were supposedly discussed.

The media outlets that play along with this game, toeing the official line and relaying verbatim the solemn declarations, are considered friendly. Those that seek to interpret what is really taking place, and dare to add their own spin, earn the label of enemy media.

And when a political or religious figure offers controversial or unwise views, the media can be accused of misquoting or taking the words out of context. Such events enrich neither politics nor the media.