In the press history of Egypt, exceptions to the rule have long held the attention of researchers keen to confirm a mythicised vision of the journalistic profession. In setting out to study the editors who contributed to Ruz al-Yusuf between 1925 and 1937, and in the belief that an understanding of the publication's development is impossible without an acquaintance with those who ‘made’ it, I favoured the collective approach by retaining from individuals’ careers only that which might serve to highlight common features in the cultural surroundings of the two generations as well as in the changing perception of the role of the press and of the professional practice of journalism. In order to do this, my approach was to compile information about those who signed the articles, irrespective of the number of times they wrote and of the nature of the text.

Methodologically, such an investigation is impeded by a number of constraints. The more notoriety Ruz al-Yusuf gained, the less often its articles were signed. Even some of its most significant editors, such as Mustafa Amin and Muhammad ‘Ali Gharib, are only known to have contributed to the newspaper because they are mentioned in other sources and mainly in journalists’ memoirs. These editors signed none of their writings. There are, in addition, great disparities in the information available on these editors. Some of the most regular collaborators have nonetheless fallen into obscurity because, their name aside, little or no information exists about them. In short, articles written anonymously, those signed off with a pseudonym or those with no signature whatsoever make up the majority of those to be found in the newspaper. Beyond these methodological constraints – and in the light of available evidence – I first sought to study the ways in which those from ostensibly opposite cultural world(s) as well as different careers met and interacted in a way that allowed for debate amongst editors as to the ultimate function of the ‘newspaper’. While for some the newspaper represented a means to participate in public debate, others saw it as ‘a product’ to be commercialised.