Qatar's high & low roads to freedom of press
Here's an article discussing Qatar's freedom of press, the Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and the Doha Centre for Media Freedom, from the UAE's The Nation newspaper.
We've discussed to death on QL the problems with Qatar's newspapers, journalism and media freedom, but do we think that Mr. Roth and the Doha Centre for Media Freedom will be able to change anything? It's undoubtedly good that they're turning their attention to the issues in their host country, but will it make a difference?
Qatar’s high and low roads to freedom of the
by Keach Hagey
The Qatar campus of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism rises formidably out of the desert like a temple to something grand, mysterious and exotic. And in a way, that is what it is.
Despite the reputation for outspoken journalism that Qatar has built up over the years by hosting the feisty Al Jazeera network, the local press is still a long way – legally and culturally – from being able to practise the kind of sceptical, American-style journalism that Medill is now teaching. The country is still operating under a 1979 media law that allows journalists to be jailed, helping to create a situation that the Doha Centre for Media Freedom recently said “encourages self-censorship and makes it difficult to criticise the government”.
But the opening of the journalism school last year and the media advocacy centre in 2007 – both with government backing – indicates that there is political will at the highest levels for things to change for Doha’s local press.
“In my visits over here before I came, I would see the emir’s picture on the front page every stinkin’ day,” says Richard Roth, the senior associate dean of the journalism school. “And I’d say to the editors, ‘why do you put his picture on the front page every day?’ And they’d say ‘well, they sent it over from the diwan [the seat of government], I guess we’re supposed to’. I said ‘well, stop doing that’. Nobody wanted to be first to do it, but they’ve stopped doing that finally.”
Mr Roth says the mission of the school, which was brought to the country as part of the Qatar Foundation’s ambitious Education City project, includes engaging with the country’s four Arabic and three English-language newspapers as much as possible. He already serves as a kind of de facto mentor for many local journalists who turn to him for advice on politically sensitive stories, and is looking into rolling out continuing education courses for reporters and editors working in the country.
Although he has seen an improvement in the local papers in the past year, he believes there is still work to be done to raise them to international standards. “I’ve sent over to the papers press releases during the last seven to eight months, and they published them essentially verbatim, except they went and changed the spelling and essentially screwed things up,” he says. “So I’m going to try to participate in this community of journalists to help them do things better.”
Part of this participation means getting involved in the movement to change the country’s 30-year-old media law. Although changes have been discussed for several years, the movement has been given new urgency with the opening of the Doha Centre for Media Freedom, created with funding from the Qatari government, and the country’s plans to host World Press Freedom Day on May 3.
The centre recently wrote a draft version of a new media law and has been lobbying officials to pass it before the international celebration.
“The current law is completely outdated,” says Hajar Smouni, the research co-ordinator at the centre. “It doesn’t even take into consideration something like [satellite] television. For a country that welcomes Al Jazeera, it’s really problematic.”
So far, there has been little more than talk about changing the law, she says, probably because officials are satisfied with the status quo.
“They are happy with the image that Qatar is sending abroad, thanks to having Al Jazeera, which has become known throughout the world and which is giving Qatar good credentials,” Ms Smouni says. “But if you come to the situation of print media, the situation is completely different. The journalists of Al Jazeera have some sort of special status in the country. Obviously they focus totally on outside issues. They don’t deal with issues in Qatar, whereas local print media, they have to deal with that, and they are facing more pressure in their daily work.”
Print journalists tend to support the centre’s efforts, while keeping a keen eye on the progress of the new media law in the UAE, which was designed to replace a law of the same generation as Qatar’s. “We are certainly advocating” for a new law, says Neil Cook, the managing editor of Gulf Times, the country’s oldest daily newspaper.
“We are watching what’s going on in the UAE very closely. We are hoping that the government is inclusive when discussing the law.”
While his newspaper has at times called for changes to be made to the law, in practice it is rarely enforced, he says. “If the letter of law was addressed on a daily basis, I wouldn’t be here.”
Bringing Medill’s faculty to the country is “a positive step”, he says, but ultimately the country will need to make up its mind about where it stands regarding its media. “Like the UAE, the government has this modern outlook, there’s no doubt about that. And for issues such as human rights and education and health, they are very forward-thinking. So it begs the question: if media is part of the plans for the future here in Qatar, what kind of modernisation will there be?”
The local press reported last year on long-term plans for a media city in Qatar, but there have been few public statements about it since.
Prakash Jha, the production editor of the Qatar Tribune, which was launched two-and-a-half years ago, says he does not feel too constrained by the law, but “on certain issues, you will have to maintain a bit of discretion, like with news related to the royal family”.
But Ms Smouni says that the chilling effects on the local media go far beyond that. In a report she helped write earlier this month, she pointed out that foreign journalists are beholden to their employers, who hold their passports.
Mr Jha, whose company holds his passport, says this is a normal practice across all industries in the country, and he has never had any trouble getting it back when he needs to travel. But Ms Smouni argues that journalists are not like other workers because their ability to serve the public good is diminished if they are too frightened to fully report a story.
The centre is being particularly vocal about the obstacles to free speech in Qatar because, as an international advocacy organisation based there, it feels it cannot convincingly criticise the press freedoms of other countries without first looking in its own backyard.
“It is a matter of credibility for us,” Ms Smouni says. “We cannot keep on saying that the Doha Centre is criticising the situation in Tunisia and here at home we are being silent about the situation. That’s why we are pushing hard here.”
Mr Jha supports the push for more press freedom, but urges advocates to tread lightly. “This part of the world is very different,” he says. “If they had the kind of freedom implemented that we have in India, I think it would be catastrophic here... People here are not very information friendly. The society is very closed. They don’t like news going out, or that people should know what is happening.”
But as the country in the GCC likely to be most protected from the economic downturn – and therefore any decrease in advertising sales – the local press in Qatar has great opportunities to flourish in the coming months. Although most Qatari newspapers say they have experienced a small decrease in advertising sales, it is only about 10 to 15 per cent, less than half of the average decrease in the UAE. This relative economic strength is allowing new projects, such as the relaunch of Gulf Times into a full-colour edition this Sunday, to move forward on schedule.
Mr Roth hopes it is also helping to create a vibrant press industry, where some of his students can work after graduation. “Journalism isn’t dying,” he says. “There’s more demand for journalists now than probably ever; for the skills they have, the ability to write clearly, the ability to be critical thinkers and to be able to be storytellers in the effective medium. There’s a demand for that.”
Source: http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090225/BUSINESS/704397445/-1/ART
Hi I'm a student from the Philippines taking up International Studies. One of our requirements is to interview someone from Qatar about freedom of Press. I can conduct the interview by sending the questions through e-mail. I hope someone can help me on this.
You can send me a message.
Thanks to all!
Well said PaulCowan
Your statement “democratic Qatar would be a fundamentalist one” sums it all. There will be no freedom of press whatsoever if an Islamic party wins. And yes, most potential intellectuals in Qatar are islamists
Yes I'm after the ideal, but I realise that's obviously not possible, even in my home country.
I'm not saying that changing to a democracy would be beneficial to Qatar, but as it currently stands there's no way press freedom can take steps in the right direction if anything that may hint at the country not being ruled correctly is going to be censored or punished.
I personally think the cultural traditions of the country are the real barrier to free press. People just don't want to see people being openly criticised and held accountable for their actions.
It is indeed a question of finding the fine balance between the ruling family's interests and what's best for the country as a whole. But unfortunately things seem to be heading in the wrong direction of late.
We're more or less in agreement but to get anywhere you have to look at what is possible rather than what is ideal. I'm not sure that changing the way the country is ruled is either necessary for press freedom or (if you mean democracy) would be beneficial to it. There's a strong possibility that a democratic Qatar would be a fundamentalist one. What you get out of a democracy depends on who you put into it. An electorate educated in liberal free-thinking will give one sort of parliament, an electorate steeped in religious traditions will give another. I've long suspected that the educational reforms are intended to indoctrinate the population with more Westernised, liberal ideas before the democracy genie finally escapes from the bottle.
The Emir's Georgetown University speech about Gulf rulers needing to give some power to the people, otherwise the people would take it all, may well reflect a sincere view, in which case he is engaged in a race against time to prepare the people in a way that protects the ruling family's interests and avoids a complete political dislocation. Washington's/Bush's attempts to steamroller reforms through the Gulf were really very dangerous, as they belatedly realised after the Palestinian elections.
I would like to see everything you listed. But as I said earlier, that wont happen until the traditions of the country change and the way it's ruled is changed.
And just because papers here don't claim to be examples of media freedom doesn't mean we can't wish they were. And if the country wants to develop into a respected, developed nation it needs to achieve certain levels of media freedom, rather than just touting that it has this already when it clearly doesn't.
The passport issue may not be relevant to freedom of press, but it's a very serious issue nonetheless. To take such an important document is unacceptable. In the UK the recommendation is to never let your passport out of your sight. Even if you check into a hotel and they say they're going to keep it for an hour to take down the details you should insist on staying with it while they do it.
Incidentally, I think the passport issue is completely irrelevant. Since you can't leave the country without an exit permit it makes not the slightest difference whether you have your passport or your employer has it. You can't get out, either way.
Even if there was no exit permit needed, you could still be stopped at the border if you wrote something that offended the State or if someone made a case against you.
The difference with The Times is that it is meant to be a beacon of journalism in the free world, which is certainly not a claim made by the papers here. For that reason, I consider the behaviour of The Times to be far more reprehensible. The censorship that happens here is far more pervasive but it is not really different in principle from what The Times accepted.
I think it is worth asking what people want from press freedom here, because there are all sorts of different kinds and levels of freedom. Is it freedom from political censorship, social censorship or commercial censorship or all three? If you expect freedom from commercial censorship (you will print my press release or I won't advertise/you won't print that the health people closed my meat counter or I won't advertise) how do you control the use of threats and inducements by private companies. If you want freedom from social censorship, how do you deal with actions by outraged families if you expose "shameful" behaviour by their members - should you print something that might lead to an honour killing? Or are social outrages off the agenda.
Then there is political censorship - in a way that is the easiest to tackle. But it gets tangled up in social issues, since challenging any decision of the Ruler is seen as insulting him and therefore causing loss of face for Qatar and its people as a whole.
So what do you want press freedom to give you? Accurate road accident data (road accidents can be reported if you find out about them, but the police and hospital won't tell you about them, the way they do in the West)? Full details of what crimes are committed (regardless of who is involved? Penetrating analysis of political issues? Reports of injustices suffered by workers? Economic analysis of the state of different public companies and the markets they serve? Critical religious debates? Exposes of violations of health and safety regulations by named companies? Accurate TV guides? Information about which shops have sales or special offers? News of social gatherings?
It would be great to have everything, of course, but what is it that really affects the expatriate communities and is of greatest importance to them? Until there is a consensus on that, you don't know which bit of press freedom to push for hardest. If you push for a little bit, you may get something; if you demand everything, you will probably get nothing.
Of course newspapers in other countries have their own agendas and are aligned with certain political views, that's inevitable when they are owned by human beings. But the censorship in Qatar is at a whole different level to what goes on at somewhere like The Times.
I agree with what you say about journalists here not having any incentive to do anything other than what's required to receive their pay packet. Indeed, the opposite is true - the possibility of losing their pay packet is their incentive to keep their heads down.
The article that started this makes Mr Roth look like a self-satisfied self-promoting individual with little connection with the realities. The Emir being on the front page of the papers every single day is an outright falsehood. It wasn't even true 20 years ago.
There is an elephant in this room that is being overlooked. It is the motivation of journalists.
The greatest jounalists have always been driven by a desire to improve society, making it better for the next generation. That pre-supposes that the next generation will be their own children and therefore any sacrifices the journalist makes will benefit his wider family.
In the Gulf, the English-language papers are staffed by foreigners who have no personal interest in the state of society here 20 or 30 years down the road. The only way a journalist can fulfil the urge to achieve a long term benefit for his family here is to keep the pay packet coming in, the state of society is of no genuine personal interest to him or her.
Academics who come here thinking that there is some deep journalistic ethic that is completely independent of the journalist's personal relations and circumstances are living in cloudcuckooland.
When we talk about self-censorship and protecting the ruling family as if it is something strange and alien to the principles of civilised journalism we would do well to rememeber that little more than 70 years ago the editors of the great English newspapers conspired to conceal the scandalous affair between the King and Mrs Simpson, until it could no longer be hidden. Very recently - and perhaps still today - The Times has been self-censoring criticism of China because its owner wanted satellite TV access there. I don't see the same outrage about the dismal standards adopted by the editor of The Times.
So don't imagine that Qatar is unique. Many newspapers spike stories that will upset their owners or push issues that promote their interests. Journalistic purity is a silly myth and worldwide journalists are generally assigned stories to write, they don't have freedom to churn out anything they like. Columists who do have that freedom have been pre-selected for having opinions that their editor or proprietor finds acceptable.
I'm surprised magazines have to submit their articles to the censor. In the newspapers, the censor was removed in 1995 and has not been back since (or at least, hadn't up to two years ago).
It is a myth that the Arabic language papers are full of great stories the English papers can't touch. They are full of complete rubbish, such as a four-page spread of religious opinions on whether it is acceptable to have a secret wife, quoting various fatwas from scholars, almost all of whom had been dead for years. They are full of social chit-chat and drearily over-written opinions, padded out by press releases that are usually published as issued (at least the English papers cut them back a bit). I spent a long time with translators scouring all the Arabic papers for stories worth following up and, as a general rule, there aren't any. The Arabs will tell you their papers are better, because they like the social chatter in them.
When we first came here to look things over before my husband committed to the 3 year contract, that was one of the first questions I asked.
"Who's going to occupy all those empty buildings?"
You're right---a discussion best left for another thread.
True cynbob, but as I said earlier I don't believe it will happen while the country is ruled the way it is. They have too much to lose.
Whether those empty buildings will ever be filled with people is probably a discussion best left for another thread!
This is so sad.
I hope one day that the rulers of Qatar will see that reporting the good, the bad and the ugly is a huge part of what will make Doha a more modern state.
One day, all of those empty buildings will be filled with people that will demand that their newspapers be filled with comprehensive news stories.
They will be able to attract fine writers from all over the world. One can only hope.
Tallg has made a good point - it's more a question of how free one is to write. It's not so much a question of getting the jobs, it's more just that one of the wyas of being a good journalist, is to write objectively and to be able to cover facts. Half the time, journalists can't write the complete set of facts, because they'll get into trouble. Even if it's logical, plain as daylight facts.
I would say that as soon as a journalist's freedom to write what they want is taken away from them it's impossible for them to be a good journalist.
All journalists in Qatar must be here cos they can earn more money than back home, as there's no way it's going to allow you to develop as a journalist or give you good experience to take elsewhere.
Are jobs that tough to get for good journalists? I don't know. That is why I'm asking.
It must be tough to be stifled from expressing one's views on paper. That is so unfortunate.
As a writer, I would think that being controlled like that would really add a lot of stress to one's job.
Well it's a common theme to every journalist here - although I totally agree with the comments that journalism sucks as big as god knows what, (even I can see that) and some journalists aren't even qualified to be so. But honestly there are some really good journalists here guys working for the publications. It's jsut unfortunately they are unable to realise their full potential. Some of you may say that they have the option of being here or not, and in a sense you're right. But from their point of view, ultimately they're like everyone else - just doing what they have to to put food on the table for their children.
I bet you are. It must be so frustrating to try and write a balanced debate here.
Enjoyed this thread, learnt an awful lot.
To be honest from what I've seen of the DCMF (and I work in the media too) is that they have done surprisingly little to help out the local media. Fine they have done lots to help out international journalists, but a press conference last month was the only thing they have done to actually "remedy" the situation. I personally find Robert Menard, their director, very strange, as he seems incapable of answering any questions that were posed to him.
As regards this whole criticism thing, well in England, politicians and the royal family are criticised any time they do anything that is deemed to be inappropriate. The thing is we can't talk too indepth about certian issues. I don't think Islam is based in tradition too much - i think it's just that people make it too traditional. So i'm unsure whether it really is this whole Islam thing really standing in the way.
What I do feel it is, is a social aspect, where there is a certain element of being unable to criticise the way that things are run here (and I am aware of one colleague who has been arrested for some articles he wrote on labourers being chucked out of malls)...
Right now I'm just not confident about this whole system here - which is why i am really wishing to return home to get back to real journalism.
Nope Roadtester, there's Qatar Happening. The new Mag is out today (you can find it at Virgin in Landmark and Villagio) or you can check www.qatarhappening.com
How come there are no equivalents to "Bahrain This Month", F.A.C.T Bahrain and Bahrain confidential?
These magasines are quite thick and have lot of info in, and i find it amazing that small bahrain can generate so much copy when compared to Qatar.
Am i right in thinking the Time out is only mag which has info in for Qatar events etc.
I think your last two paragraphs sum the situation up nicely ummjake.
are too closely intertwined here to really say which is which. Sometimes even the locals can't tell you whether the impetus behind something is religious or Khaleeji.
Another issue is the divide between the Arabic and the English media here. Radio, print media...though I am not bilingual, I have always had the distinct impression that there are some topics that will be reported/discussed in the Arabic media that won't see the light of day in English.
I would concur that there have been slight improvements in the media here over the last couple of decades (the lead story each day is no longer about "cables of congratulations and condolences" that HH sent to someone, I no longer have to sit through HOURS of Koranic instruction on the radio every Friday), but let's be frank: the papers and radio here couldn't compete with some college campus efforts back in the States.
As others have alluded to, the necessity to base reporting on FACT not EMOTION is a novel one in this culture, as is the importance of presenting BOTH sides of an issue.
And to be honest, I don't really think that they WANT to sign on for freedom of the press if it means having to put up with unsavory ideas and people insulting (in their point of view) their leaders/families/religion. But that is EXACTLY what it means to have freedom of the press. You WILL read stories about things you find distasteful, you WILL be offended by the ideas that others espouse. But you will be well-informed, and you will be able to respond to those with whom you disagree.
But as I said, I don't think this region truly wants that level of freedom. They're culturally and religiously too sensitive to allow people to say what they want. People's public image remains FAR too important here to allow it to be besmirched by some story about how Sheikh So-and-so's company didn't pay wages to their workers for 6 months.
It'll never happen.
Self censoring also seems to be a bit of a cultural thing here. It's evident in their inability to question their religion, government, etc. So while the laws can change to allow freedom of speech, nothing will happen until the culture changes.
They have local elections here, but Qatar is an emirate - ruled by one family. The only way to change the rulers is to overthrow them or change the government system. Why publish anything which could make either of those a possibility?
Regarding religion - I'm not denying that it doesn't play a large role in the press censorship, but it's definitely not the only thing. Your examples are valid.
So not free speech then?
So why keep it from the locals? They must know what is going on. So why keep the real news quiet? All bad news reflects on somebody. In order to change that we have elections.
So do they have them over here? If not, why not?
I still stand by my stance and again I apologize, it is down to religion. A lot of what goes on here is against religion and they are very keen to be seen as religious people and no doubt some of them are. However, if what happened over here was to be reported, it would be seen as anti-Muslim, so therefore Anti-Islam and they cannot afford for that to be broadcast.
I am NOT saying Islam does not support free speech. I am saying it it used as a way to keep the press down.
Has anybody written anything here about how they support Jews? No, why not? In my case, I don't support what they have done. However, I am sure that a 'real journalist' would be, should be, able to come up with a 'balanced' debate.
Is it culture or religion that stops a debate about that problem?
Justmoi - I don't think it's so much about not wanting the rest of the world to know what's going on, but more about not wanting Qataris to know what's going on. Bad news reflects badly on the government. There's far less likely to be trouble if everyone thinks everything is going well.
On another point, while I agree with you that culture, religion and tradition are closely intertwined here, I think you're putting too much emphasis on Islam being the reason for the lack of freedom of press. For example, things like the trouble the banks are in not being reported properly here has nothing to with Islam.
it is all down what can be reported. Do they really want the world to know what goes on? What would they tell the rest of the world?
Any paper over here would be full of car crashes, the numbers killed etc. Murders; are there any? Is there crime?
We suspect there is, but alas we will never find out as it is never really reported.
The only thing they could report on is, business doing well etc.
They are hardly going to publish real items of news nor are they ready for real debate.
Please, please forgive me for saying this, but all papers are run/owned by locals. They want to keep the peace.
The papers employ Indian journalists and they WILL never rock the boat. If you think how many Indians are dependant on keeping good relations with Qatar, there is no way an Indian journalist will report or write anything contrevertial about Qatar and that is what free speech AKA FREE PRESS is about.
And yet Al Jazeera can be accessed from all over the world sticks it neck out. So what is it about?
Is it, and again I apologise for this, is it that even though Islam does 'support' freedom of speech. In reality though, the actions of some of the people go against Islam so therefore can not be reported.
Shereena - I don't believe they'll ever be able to influence the government enough to change the laws so the press get the rights they should be entitled to. The government have too much to lose.
And even the laws do change for the better, I still don't think the press will have the confidence to report on certain matters, as William Boot explained above.
I saw some of the posts about newspapers being biased. So, I replied as a continuation to that argument.
Well...We have been thought about several things related to freedom of press, but as we are in the freshman year, we haven't been to that detail yet. We have an understanding though, that the this effort will bring a difference to the freedom of the press in Qatar.
Okay, I have question for you...which I personally want to know...Why do you think you have raised this question about whether our university or DCMF will make a difference to the freedom of press here in Qatar? What makes you doubtful?
Thanks!
Here i say it again...what's in it for the Qataris?
The Peninsula today ditched its Oasis tabloid section. I'd been compiling the technology pages on Tuesdays, and another two or three days a week it was compiled by a Peninsula employee who has now left.
The TV pages have shrunk from a four-page insert to one page. I had been supplying the paper with free TV schedules, but decided last week that I needed to place the arrangement on a commercial footing. I asked them for 3500QR/month and they didn't respond, so I turned off the supply.
It's a shame that no newspaper now carries accurate and detailed TV schedules, but I wasn't prepared to do favours for The Peninsula after their recent baffling decisions.
The Sport section has been cut from eight pages to six, and the main news section has lost four pages.
The Peninsula has lost its News Editor and its Managing Editor. Dar Al Sharq, the parent company, is purging its staff, and worryingly the layoffs seem to be targeted at Egyptians.
It's easy to create a conspiracy theory around the destruction of a newspaper that had seen 20% growth in readership over the past year, but sadly there is no intelligence at work. The new regime at The Peninsula is killing the paper by incompetent vandalism rather than malice, and that makes it a rather sad time for Qatar's media.
I wish the Gulf Times the best of luck for their relaunch tomorrow. It's unfortunate that none of the three English-language newspapers is now edited by a native English speaker. Hiring decent staff into those top positions will become increasingly difficult as potential candidates see how their predecessors have been treated.
Launching a newspaper in QF wouldn't improve anything. There are three English-language newspapers that are failing editorially. Why would a fourth newspaper be any different?
I think it also boils down to freedom of speech and this impacts of course on what can be reported and debated in the press.
There is limited freedom of speech over here. There is no denying that fact. These are not newspapers as such, as I have said before; most articles are taken from other newspapers. They very rarely publish crime or the number of traffic accidents and the death toll. Yes they have their suppliments etc, but most of those articles are 'borrowed'.
I don't know why this is. Is it to save face? Or are the scared of the backlash from locals?
Even the letters pages are a joke.
These have to be 'snooze papers' and not newspapers.
My question was more about whether they will make a difference to the freedom of the press in this country, rather than about media bias. My understanding is that they are two different issues.
Media bias refers to a specific media source reporting things in a way that favours one side or viewpoint over the other, while freedom of press refers to the ability of the press to report on whatever it wants (be it biased or not).
You could argue that the media in Qatar is biased because it favours 'good' stories about Qatar rather than 'bad' ones, but that bias is brought about by the lack of freedom the press have.
So I'd be interested to hear, Shereena, what they have taught you about freedom of press at Northwestern.
Well...being a student of the Northwestern University in Qatar, I would say Mr.Tallg that this university is here to make a difference. The first thing that we were taught in the first semester was about newspapers, documentaries, news channels etc being biased.
Mr. William, as for you this opinion,
"p.s. Prof Roth is talking shit about the press improving over the past year. Yesterday, when this article was published, The Peninsula ran three photos of the Emir on its front page. Prof Roth and Northwestern are an irrelevant distraction. None of NU's graduates will ever work in Qatar's newspapers. A business editor with 20 years experience is paid less than US$1500 a month at a Qatari national newspaper. It's just nonsense to think the newspapers will be changed by 15 graduates a year, who are all aiming to be employed at Jazeera, and most of whom realistically won't enter the workforce"
I would like to say one thing to you...you should respect a person, who might have not bought any difference yet, but have at least tried making a difference in the media and press world here in Qatar by leaving his own homeland and settling here in Qatar. How and on what basis can you predict that NU's graduate will never work in Qatari newspapers? I personally agree with this fact that some newspapers here in Qatar are biased, and there are certain things which needs to change. My point is, the effort of this country, the effort of our university and the effort of many other organizations like DCMF will certainly make a difference in news world and media world. This is just the start.
[removed in case it gets Nigel in trouble]
[removed in case it gets Nigel in trouble]
[oops, yet to be announced. don't want to get people in trouble]
I promise I'll paste the details back in a few days.
[oops, yet to be announced. don't want to get people in trouble]
When there is separation of the state and religion, then the press will be more flamboyant. Without the freedom of press in aggregate, there is no democracy.
PM. I heard that some comments about saudi during a debate were censored in the papers. Tim Sebastian went postal and threatened QF that he'd pull out of the show. It's all rumour, of course, but there's been a persistent other rumour since it happened that QF is going to set up an English-language newspaper. That would be a big joke if it happened. Instead of the Emir on the front page every day, it would be universities and vodafone.
It would be impractical anyway. They'd be shafted for a printing slot by the other papers, just like Al Arab has been, so would have no chance of reporting up-to-date world news.
--nigel
We we're shocked actually, because the article wasn't even overly critical.
However,wait and see, as I said there are a lot of changes going on and I think that's why censorships been so strong lately, they don't want to let go of their power but they're being forced out.
On the Doha Debates. I'm serious, I know my magazine is fluff, but we get dinged for stuff ALL the time. They're nuts here.
Although I have to say, I've been with the publication for 2 years now and it's only been in the last 6 months that they've started coming down on us, my impression is that they realize there days are numbered. I already know that the current censorship is closing April 1st and that it's supposed to be transferring to another Ministry...we'll see.
Surprisingly tallg we do. Just had a whole article banned this month, so I can only imagine the crap the papers go through.
Gypsy, without meaning any disrespect to the work you do or the publication you work for, I'm surprised that you have so much content that would be deemed worthy of censorship.
I think even if the law was changed unless it was constantly being tested your just going to get self censorship, editors will just keep dropping anything 'controversial'.
Unless you get high profile journalists being held, or someone like Amnesty international making a big thing about a journalists treatment it will just continue same as before.
The set up is similar to communist countries where much like the party infiltrates every part of the country here. i agree with the comments here about why somebody would allow things to be published ontheir relatives etc.
I think NorthWestern is probably seeing some of this "freedom of the press" especially since most of their students are Qatari and therefore self censorship is a part of their life. As a Westerner working in the media here I think we're a looonnngggg way from freedom of the press. My monthly battles with the censorship office are an example.
Plenty of European countries have had restrictive media laws, right up to the 1980s. The difference in Qatar is the willingness of the police and courts in Qatar to use those laws to subdue negative reporting.
Even if the press laws were repealed, the authorities have still got the libel laws to fall back on. In many countries, you'd have to prove malicious intent to convict a journalist of libel, and in most western nations it's a civil rather than criminal offense. In Qatar, journalists have been sentenced to jail time for writing stories with poor sources. No journalist here will write "Joe Bloggs, the convicted murderer, was today sentenced to six years in jail", not because of the press laws, but because of the libel laws.
And if all these laws were repealed (which they won't be), you'd still have a media that is owned and run by a few families who also run the country and all the major corporations. Why would you write a story criticising your boss's brother, when you're likely to be sacked and deported?
p.s. Prof Roth is talking shit about the press improving over the past year. Yesterday, when this article was published, The Peninsula ran three photos of the Emir on its front page. Prof Roth and Northwestern are an irrelevant distraction. None of NU's graduates will ever work in Qatar's newspapers. A business editor with 20 years experience is paid less than US$1500 a month at a Qatari national newspaper. It's just nonsense to think the newspapers will be changed by 15 graduates a year, who are all aiming to be employed at Jazeera, and most of whom realistically won't enter the workforce.
So you're saying that it doesn't matter what Mr Roth and the DCMF manage to achieve in terms of changing the laws, the media will still be self-censored by journalists who are scared of the consequences of printing something bad about the wrong person?
So if that's the case, the whole way this country is run and businesses are operated needs overhauling. Mmmm.... that might take a while.
PM & Justmoi; Please don't bring your pathetic personal spat onto this thread. It's such a shame when two obviously intelligent people who clearly have a lot to offer on a subject such as this undermine themselves by engaging in petty one-upmanship. I will request this thread is deleted if it continues.
I agree with both PM's and Justmoi's points. There's no way journalism will change until the press law changes to give journalists some protection and the practice of illegally holding employees passports is stopped (which is a problem in all sectors of industry).
But the government must be scared that a change in the press law will result in a freedom of press that starts to upset the local population, as stories and letters are printed that go against the culture, tradition and religion of the country, things which I think are intertwined here.
So perhaps the question is, are the government prepared to take that risk, and do Mr Roth and the DCMF have the necessary clout to persuade them to?
"Everything in this book may be wrong." Illusions: The Adventures of The Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
I think you do have an issue with me as just me as in just moi, I think you are confusing me with somebody else.
Anyway, getting back to the debate, if I ever wanted the opinion of an idiot, I would come to you PM. You would be the first I would approach and it would be my pleasure.
If you are niave to believe that Islam does not prevent freedom of press you need to get out of never, never land.
If freedom of speech was allowed in Islam, why was Salman Rushdie given a death sentence?
If most Muslims did not like that decision, surely it would have been reversed by an Islamic Scholar, but it was not.
Just as much as Islamic scholars deride Christianity, as a Muslim surely Salman Rushdie was allowd, under the freedom of speech act allowed to express himself.
This was Islam not allowing it. I don't know if you remember but no Islamic state wanted him. So how can you say that freedom of speech is allowed?
but there is a still long way to go.
when journalist are hauled up by the police, or attacked with chains by family members, for publishing matters which are considered embarrassing (as had happened) or potentially insulting to Qatar, how can u expect them to continue in doing their job as should be the case? The Government has courageously changed the environment for press freedom in Qatar, it is time for the rest of the society, including state bodies, VIPs families, and Newspaper Editors and journalists to accept this and move forward as an example to the rest of the Arab world in this regard. Well done Qatar, the change has been a breath of fresh air over the last 15 years.
Sorry to come into your row with Cuteydog. Islam is very much based on tradition, that is why most still marry cousins etc.
I agree that culture, tradition and religion are very different, however over here they are intertwined.
Freedom of speech is not allowed in Islam, some countries allow it as they have become more 'Westernised', although radical Muslims hate that.
Can you imagine the backlash in some ares of the Gulf, I am not talking Middle East or Persia, I am talking the Gulf, if somebody tried to write a letter to a local rag over here supporting Israel?
It simply would not be printed. If somebody also wrote asking why Muslims cannot convert to Christianity, I am SURE ther would be loads of people that would love to reply including Muslims, but the "Press' would not not and could not print it.
That would not be an insult to 'tradition' or 'culture', a lot would see that as an insult to Islam.
Islam does still restrict anybody saying anything negative about it. So therfore, freedom of speech is not allowed.
or 10 years ago?
I know that 20 years ago it was about weather and how somebody had got AC and surprise, surprise, the odd traffic accident.
Nothing can change here for ages. Islam holds them back. I am NOT saying that Islam is a bad religion but it does prevent freedom of the press.
This has to be highlighted by what happened recently in the Dutch press. I am in no way saying that they were right, however, it has to be allowed.
Muslims are quite happy to burn flags and prevent other religions practicing their religions, so they must expect a backlash.
If others tolerate them they should be more tolerant of others. I do not prescribe to insulting but there has to be debate.
I don't think so at all, how can it? They the 'journalists' copy and paste from other papers what is written, they are not allowed to write a news item in their own way.
We then have the added problem of religion and culture.
It is a long way off.
Yes, as I said we've discussed that sort of thing to death on QL.
I'm interested to know if people think things will change with the DCMF turning it's attention on Qatar and the advent of an American journalism school here, and how long this change will take.
hate to say it but most of the papers over here are biased and most is copied from other sources and when they do write something it is not that great.
Poor journalism really. Very Indian; they as may well call it the Indian Times.