The Arabic Network documented 25 advertisements published over eight newspapers and magazines, including state-run and national, a number of parties' newspapers and independent newspapers. These advertisements took place between 2006 and 2007 in:

1. State-run and national newspapers and magazines: Alahram, Akhbar, Aljomhoria, Rosa Alyosef
2. Independent newspaper Al-Osbou
3. Partisan newspapers Alahrar, Alaraby, Alahaly

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information had sent since March 21st 2007, official letters to the editors-in-chief of five newspapers and magazines: Alahram, Alakhbar, Rosa Alyosef, Alosbou, Alaraby, urging them to explain the nature of the materials published on Tunisia in their newspapers or magazines. The Arabic Network also offered to provide them with files and issues about the reality of human rights in Tunisia and urge them to give a space in their newspapers for Tunisian activists and journalists to express their opinions on a larger Egyptian, Arab and international public scale so they can provide a real picture about the deterioration of human rights at the hands of the Tunisian government.

None of these newspapers gave attention to HRInfo's requests. All these news papers and magazines continued such a practice i.e. publishing advertisements disguised as news stories and editorials.

1. State-run national newspapers and magazines: Alahram, Alakhbar, Aljomhoria, Rosa Alyosef

A grave error - some newspapers may extenuate their way out by relating a number of justifications, used to reduce the seriousness "not to deny" the error e.g. the ignorance of the reality of the situation in Tunisia or a tattered financial situation or assuming that using the phrase "Tunisia exclusive" or using a zigzagged frame, placing the phrase "special report" on top of the page - all these are assumed to be enough of indications. Some newspapers claim that the report is the work of a journalist and the editor wasn't fully aware of the report's credibility and the reasons behind it.

These might be justifications used by some to bail themselves out. Yet in the case of national magazines and newspapers, it isn't enough at all. These newspapers and magazines are not suffering from any lack of advertising money as they dominate the majority of the advertising market in Egypt and have more than they need. They also are kept in good financial shape thanks to the incessant support of the government. The lack of information also cannot be used as a justification as HRInfo offered to provide those newspapers with editorial material in addition to those materials. Were those materials produced by a certain journalist and the editor forgot to refer to its advertising nature? This is a grave repetitiously-adhered to mistake

This is an indication of the ineffectiveness of those newspapers and magazines and this necessitates their replacement.

Are there any other justifications? We don't think so. So it is a mistake and a prevarication.

2. Independent newspaper: Al-Osbou

Al-Osbou: an established old newspapers with a lot of advertisements, keeps repeating slogans about the freedom and independence of the press. It has its own loyal readers so there are questions about those ads. Is it okay to talk about the freedom of the press in Egypt while it promotes a government that represses journalists? Do you keep good relations with Tunisian journalists as you do with the Tunisian government? Are you ignorant of the deteriorating conditions of human rights in Tunisia? Are your readers aware that the "exclusive reports" placed on top of Tunisia's and Ben Ali's news page are advertisements? We don't think so; the mistake is intentional and is improper.

3. Partisan newspapers: Alahrar, Alaraby, Alahaly

1. Alahrar: a daily issued by the Egyptian Ahrar party, which is one of the oldest parties in Egypt, was supposed to adhere to the values of the free and fair press, Alahrar made all the mistakes and didn't even pay attention to the customs that halt the law either by using the zigzag, the frames or placing the phrase "exclusive report or exclusive Tunisia" in a clear position.
2. Alaraby: the mouthpiece of the Arab Democratic Nasserist Party, it made a smaller mistake but it happened. The paper suffers from financial problems and published less material and referred equivocally to these reports as ads especially by using the frame technique. Yet the credibility of the newspaper has to be preserved - the reader who supported Alaraby, when it defended the independence of the judiciary and press freedom, and also stood up against corruption and torture in Egypt, expects Alaraby won't give up this historical struggle and give a government that eradicated all these principles the chance of credibility and deceive the reader.
3. Alahaly: the mouthpiece of the Democratic Progressive Unionist party, a weekly issued every Wednesday, suffered from confiscation and prosecution many times as a punishment for its bold reactions. Alahaly made the same mistake, a huge colored advertisement in its last page in November 2002, surrounded by a frame and inside the frame "Tunisia exclusive Alahaly"

Alahaly in that case had to mention that was an ad especially when the headline is a value the newspaper is calling for. The headline was "Multiparty is Tunisia's choice for a successful take-off". A newspaper like Alahaly, whose editor knows more than anyone else the reality of the situation in Tunisia, should have indicated that it was an advertisement.