Syria’s media is silent on the questions that matter

Following the victory of the Syrian revolution, the country entered a period of political change. Among the most anticipated transformations was the arrival of a “post-liberation” media landscape. Many Syrians had hoped that it would finally move beyond its dismal legacy and become a genuine space for criticism, accountability, and reflection of public concerns and aspirations.

That promise, however, remains largely unfulfilled. To many observers, the performance of the Syrian media today is weak. Its engagement with political, economic, and service-related realities is superficial, and its coverage of sensitive national issues timid at best. Investigative journalism is almost entirely absent, as are serious political analyses of the most pressing issues confronting the country.

One of the most serious problems facing Syrian media today is the lack of field and editorial expertise. Many of the newly recruited journalists that were hired under the banner of “renewal” lack the practical experience required for investigative reporting, rigorous field coverage, or nuanced understanding of Syria’s complex social, political, and economic realities.

This deficiency keeps media output trapped in a cycle of shallow, repetitive news.

The official newspaper Al-Thawra, despite its long history, illustrates this malaise clearly. Recently relaunched in print after months as a digital publication, it shows little evidence of robust editorial practice. More often than not, it merely rephrases official statements, without unpacking events, examining their background, or offering meaningful interpretation. The result is content that resembles a government news bulletin more than proper journalism.

This weakness is hardly surprising. It is the cumulative result of decades of institutional control under the former regime, the absence of a culture of critique or investigative work, and reliance on outdated journalistic forms. Were it not for the occasional opinion pieces contributed by external writers, the paper would attract little reader interest at all.

The Media Ministry was expected to lead a serious reform of Syria’s media sector, making it more professional and open. Instead, its performance suggests a rigid, centralised management style ill-suited to a new and more open political era.

The silence of Syrian media on major political issues is telling. Take, for example, the 10 March agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, perhaps one of the most significant political files today. It receives only cursory mention, stripped of analysis or context, leaving citizens vulnerable to rumours and speculation, and forcing them to rely on external channels that often inflame anxiety.

Ironically, despite its limited media apparatus, the SDF has been far more forthcoming, regularly commenting on the progress of talks through official statements and keeping its supporters abreast of developments. The same pattern appears in coverage of Syrian-Israeli negotiations: Syrians learn about them primarily through foreign agencies, international newspapers, or Arab satellite channels, while domestic media treats the issue as if it were of marginal relevance.

The minister may speak of “achievements”, but words are no substitute for decisive action, whether in addressing the exclusion of seasoned journalists or closing the skills gap among journalists who often possess theoretical knowledge but little practical experience, and lack guidance from veterans.

Perhaps the most troubling feature of post-liberation Syrian media is its failure to engage in constructive criticism of government performance. Instead of scrutinising mistakes or exposing shortcomings, it has largely become a promotional arm for the government.

A national media should function as society’s mirror and voice, and an instrument of oversight and improvement. When it reduces itself to an extension of government authority, society loses its ability to understand national issues in depth. What remains is a hollow performance that betrays the very purpose of a free press.