Polishing Assad dictatorship: Between scoop and ethical code?

The circulating news of a television interview with the head of the Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad, has sparked a storm of controversy and harsh criticism, particularly from human rights organizations and Syrian activists.

This controversy was not a spur-of-the-moment debate; rather, it is an embodiment of a broader struggle over media ethics and its responsibility in dealing with figures accused of committing the most heinous crimes against humanity. The mere thought of granting a media platform to a figure with such a criminal record is a grave mistake that undermines the very essence of professionalism and ethics.

Perhaps even worse is the promotion of this interview by some as if it were a normal media event, as important as an interview with any other political figure. This promotion contributes to normalizing the idea that perpetrators of war crimes can become talk show guests, blurring the line between victim and executioner.

The fundamental problem with this interview is not the very notion of "interview", but the context in which it is conducted.

Bashar al-Assad is not just a political leader with a different point of view; he is the primary suspect in a long record of crimes that have shocked the human conscience. These crimes include suppressing peaceful protests with live ammunition, using chemical weapons against civilians, and systematically destroying cities, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands under torture and bombardment, and the displacement of millions. Ignoring these horrific facts and granting Assad a "normal" platform to discuss his version of events is, in fact, a blatant political whitewash.

The ethical and professional priority was and still must be to amplify the voices of victims, shed light on human rights violations, and launch fair investigations into the crimes committed. Giving the platform to the executioner instead of the victim is a moral shift and a violation of all professional standards.

In turn, the channel conducting the interview finds itself in a difficult position, facing accusations of seeking media sensationalism at the expense of ethical considerations.

Some may defend the channel's right to conduct any interview, considering it part of press freedom and presenting diverse viewpoints. However, media freedom is not absolute; it must be bound by professional ethics and its responsibility to society.

Professional responsibility requires media outlets not to engage with figures accused of war crimes in a manner that legitimizes them or contributes to whitewashing their image.

This type of interview does not contribute to a deeper understanding of the Syrian crisis as much as it contributes to legitimizing a regime that has committed the most horrific crimes. There is a vast difference between seeking the truth and giving a media platform to a person who represents lies, deception, and murder.

History and horrific facts are sufficient to refute any attempt to whitewash Assad's image. The images of destruction, the poison gases that suffocated children, and the stories of the victims will remain more powerful than any word he could utter. Ultimately, no television interview can erase a history of murder and destruction, and the voice of justice remains louder than any media platform.