Kashaf examines the gap between the official promises that accompanied the announcement of Syria's new draft media law and the actual right of access to information: from the texts of the law and their implications, through the reality of the restrictions journalists face in the field, to the conditions required for a free and transparent media, in an attempt to answer whether the new law reflects the reality of journalistic work in Syria.
What the Draft Law Provides
According to what the Ministry of Information announced and media outlets reported in early September 2026, the new draft media law provides for abolishing prison sentences in cases related to journalistic work and replacing custodial penalties with fines, alongside protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sources and providing an environment in which media work can be carried out freely. Information Minister Khaled Zaarour presented the draft as a law that abolishes prison sentences for journalists and guarantees their right of access to information.
The Right to Information Between Text and Practice
The draft law guarantees the right to obtain information, but this right runs up against the absence of a declared, unified mechanism for submitting requests for it to official bodies. Journalists and fact-checking platforms face practical difficulties in obtaining official responses on a number of files, alongside weak or non-existent media communication channels inside some government institutions, which leaves the right set out in the text dependent on how it is applied.
Daily Obstacles for Journalists and Fact-Checking Platforms
The daily work of journalists and fact-checking platforms runs into recurring obstacles that move the debate from the text of the law to the practice of institutions, as follows:
- Response: slow replies to inquiries on public affairs, and some requests for comment or clarification ignored.
- Responsibility: inability to reach the official in charge of the file in question.
- Data: a shortage of detailed official data on issues in public circulation.
A Statement Is No Substitute for a Document
Obtaining a comment or an oral clarification is not the same as accessing the original document, as the absence of written reports, statistics and decisions deprives journalists of the possibility of independent verification. A journalist's reliance on an official's account alone also makes them hostage to what is said rather than what is documented, and in this sense real transparency means making the source available, not merely interpreting it, a standard that goes beyond announcing openness to actually practising it.
From Absent Information to Absent Trust
The effects of the absence of information do not stop at journalists: it widens the space for speculation and rumours, produces conflicting accounts of the same event that are hard to settle, and erodes the public's ability to distinguish accurate from misleading content. Keeping information away from journalists and the public also affects more than media work, as it weakens trust in official institutions themselves.
Between Official Discourse and the Reality on the Ground
Official statements affirm media openness and guaranteed access to information, while testimonies from journalists and fact-checking platforms reveal persistent obstacles on the ground. Freedom of expression cannot be complete without a real right of access to information and sources, which requires clear legislation guaranteeing the right to obtain information and documents, regular publication of data, statistics and decisions in their original form, official spokespeople in ministries and public institutions, and a set deadline for answering media inquiries, leaving the true measure of any reform the ease of reaching the truth, not the declaration of intent.
