This document describes results of a media survey done by ALQuds Center for Political Studies in Jordan on the freedom and independence of the media. The document summarises facts and figures on the media, describes and identifies the occurrence of "soft containment", identifies and discusses censorship and harassment, and gives general media-related indicators. "Soft containment" is described as  actions by government staff members, as well as political and economic activists, who aim to employ the media to serve certain personal and sectoral purposes and objectives, or to influence the press and the media so that they forgo their monitoring  or "watchdog" role.

The study, conducted from October 2008 to February 2009, hypothesised that the "soft containment via tempting and attracting methods" was more a prevalent and effective method of limiting media freedom than hard containment methods, including methods of using laws and practices that overtly restrict media freedom and can cause angry local and international responses. The researchers studied previous relevant literature, obtained press contact information, and sent out a survey questionnaire that had been tested and submitted for scrutiny to media professionals before it was implemented.

The population of 1,382 journalists and media professionals in Jordan was divided into 4 classes: journalists and media professionals working for the governmental sector; those working for media institutions in the private sector; those working for political parties; and those working in the mixed sector. A sample designed to include a proportion of women and of journalists from all sectors included 500 journalists: 346 men and 154 women. In addition, an opinion leader group was selected from the results and studied separately. It included 12% of the media: editors-in-chief of newspapers; regular columnists; chief editors and heads of departments; producers and presenters of radio and TV news and talk shows; those in charge of main websites; and correspondents used by influential Arabic and international media. An initial audit of these opinion leaders showed that almost half of them (49%) have some (permanent or temporary) position in governmental or quasi-governmental institutions; or, they have regular and declared "grants and assistance" in the form of ads and contracts for commercials, or "support subscriptions."

The document cites soft containment methods as being "in violation of the law. For instance, there are grants, donations, exemptions, and 'cronyism'. These patterns also include an intended violation of rules and laws such as appointment in governmental and quasi governmental positions." Further, the document finds that “soft containment” is not limited to Jordan but is "an Arab universal with wider international  extension. The press and media domain is not the only sector... with soft containment patterns and methods. The other sectors that comprise the political, social and cultural elite are more or less subjected to similar soft containment methods. These produce and reproduce the existing ruling and dominating patterns; which severely impedes change and reform in our region and makes it much harder."

In short, the study's objectives were the following:

1. Measure the degree of independence of the press from the government and study the impact of soft containment on the ability of journalists and media professionals to do their job duties.
2. Detect the emergence of "clientelism" between the government and journalists.
3. Identify the forms of control, pressures, and temptations that journalists and media professionals are exposed to while doing their job.
4. Explore the status of female journalists and media professionals and detect some of discrimination forms against them while doing their job (if any).
5. Provide a database that highlights the patterns of soft containment for those working in the press and the media and raises its profile. As stated here, "[i]t is hoped that this study will help establish the legal rules and draft codes of conduct that put an end to dominance of government and other agencies exercising 'soft containment' over those working in the press and the media."

Among the document's findings from the survey on "Patterns and Degree of Prevalence of Soft Containment" are the following:

1. Respondents' belief that the government uses soft containment methods:  70% - used to a high degree; 27% - not used or used minimally.
2. Methods used by the government include: permanent and temporary appointment in governmental and quasi-governmental jobs (32%); grants and financial donations (17%); disclosing information to certain journalists and media professionals rather than others (7%); and the invitation to attend meetings and gatherings with senior officials (6%). In addition, there are exemptions from customs duties, medical treatment beyond the medical insurance schemes, and scholarships to children and relatives (3%); and all the above mentioned (33%).
3. Respondents belief that the other agencies use soft containment methods:  83% agreed, 11% disagreed.
4. The nature of the agencies was ranked as: businessmen (96%); influential figures (90%); parliamentarians-deputies and senates (70%); civil society organisations (64%); political parties (51%); security departments (38%); tribal figures (35%); others including embassies, international agencies, and artistic and cultural agencies (18%).
5. 43% answered that they have been exposed to such patterns; 57% said that they had not been exposed to such patterns.
6. Of those exposed to soft containment, 58% mentioned that they were promised financial grants and donations; 27% were promised a job, a governmental, or quasi-governmental position; 5% medical treatment and custom duties exemptions; and 2% were promised travelling abroad and tourist trips. 
7. 9% of respondents exposed to soft containment attractions/temptations said that such attractions/temptations had a negative impact on their performance; 6% said that they had been of a positive impact; and 83% stated that they held neither a positive nor a negative impact.
8. 15% of respondents obtained a permanent or temporary government position; 85% did not. Of the 15%, one-quarter of respondents (26%) stated that they had assumed governmental positions because the government wanted to “contain” them; the others (70%) attributed the reason to competence and qualification of those appointed in such positions; 4% abstained from responding.

The document also details statistics on censorship and harassment in tables available on pages 10 and 11. On pages 12 and 13 are tables of information on press knowledge of and confidence in Jordanian Law of Press and Publication, Law of Securing the Right to Access to Information, and Law of the Jordanian Press Association. The document concludes with data for which the respondents rank the degree of press and media freedom in Jordan on a ten point scale (1 being low) - the index of press and media was 5.9 compared with a previous 5.3 from a study implemented by the former Higher Media Council, which was dissolved in 2007.  The document also ranks satisfaction with media ownership and media performance, and describes characteristics of the press and media sector.

ALQuds Center for Political Studies website on March 25 2009.