Does Tawfiq Bouachrine Dream of Returning to the Royal Court of Journalism?
Najiba Jalal
The question may be shocking, but it arises insistently each time Tawfiq Bouachrine appears before us with a troubled discourse, draped in the cloak of the "angry journalist," forgetting that the media body that expelled him did not do so arbitrarily, but in response to an ethical and moral earthquake that cannot be overlooked or justified, no matter how much he tries to shirk or evade.
In his recent outing, Bouachrine returned, behind his small camera, to delve into issues of public media with a rhetoric laden with populism, attempting to settle old scores with national institutions and figures who have maintained their commitments and positions, while he chose to descend into cheap sensationalism.
Criticism of media policies is legitimate, even commendable when it comes from a place of knowledge and integrity. However, when criticism turns into a means to undermine the symbolism of the institution, devalue the efforts of its personnel, and belittle significant transformations recognized by both adversaries and allies, it falls under what is known as incitement masked with the powders of intentions.
Bouachrine, in attacking the public media hub and its institutions, ignored that public media is not a commodity subject to market logic or viewership calculations, but rather a sovereign facility, guided by roles related to public service and the protection of strategic balance in an increasingly complex regional and international media landscape.
Furthermore, his reduction of the trajectory of figures like Faisal Al Araichi in truncated statements taken out of context represents a blatant act of injustice, denying a pivotal phase in the history of Moroccan media that witnessed fundamental reforms and institutional transformations set forth under a clear royal vision, approved by a ministerial council, and today aims towards establishing a 2030 Morocco in its media and cultural representations.
The painful paradox lies in the fact that someone who spent years inciting against public media, and then faced moral and legal collapse, now tries, after losing all professional or literary legitimacy, to dictate the state’s choices and grants himself what is not his: the authority to pass judgment on state officials who served the nation silently in moments when shouting was easy, and loyalty was difficult.
Faisal Al Araichi, as attested by knowledgeable individuals, adversaries, and allies alike, is a distinguished statesman. His experience cannot be measured by biases, but by what he has accumulated in terms of institutions, faces, and successes despite the challenges. His experience deserves to be studied, not vilified. It should be dissected with integrity, not minimized with hollow slogans from a podium that has shifted from ink to hatred.
As for Bouachrine, any statements made by him today, outside the context of acknowledging the wrongs he has committed against his victims and against the noble profession he betrayed, remain words of no value or significance, no matter how colorful their headlines or how adorned their phrases may be.
