tallg - it's a pity about the use of photos. The sub-editors who select pictures for their pages generally are not interested in anything much beyond filling the holes in the page, so some very good photos are passed over.
Thanks for the appreciation Cynbob. I don't think the majority of the population here want to be unfair but if injustices are allowed to pass without comment then they are liable to be accepted as the norm. Most of the abuses are inflicted on one expat by another - corrupt managers or recruitment agents, for example.
It is true that trying to take a stand in the media here is very stressful and some people have paid heavily for it. The arrival of well-protected media freedom "experts" and journalism lecturers is a bit of a joke, really. Perhaps I should apply for one of their cushy salaries.
In a way, I think the authorities are sincere about their belief in freedom of the Press. However, they would argue that with freedom comes responsibility and it is irresponsible to challenge traditions, religion, the established order or pretty much anything else that affects their interests. They are willing to hear reports about things they can fix without it challenging the underlying system. I heard, for example, that a few years ago the Emir told business leaders to clean up their act over unpaid wages, because our reports were affecting Qatar's image.
I'm afraid I see signs now of a return to the thinking of Sheikh Khalifa's days, which was that everything was perfect and, even if it wasn't, it was in everybody's interests to say nothing.
My favourite bit of censorship from the early 90s (when an official censor read every word in the paper before it was approved - life was easy for journalists then) was over a story that began: "In the harbour at Cannes the yachts of film moguls, millionaires and princes jostle side-by-side". The censor banned "princes" on the grounds that it was insulting to Saudi Arabia and when I challenged it, his ruling was upheld by the sheikh responsible for censorship. No censor ever got in trouble for banning too much.
tallg - it's a pity about the use of photos. The sub-editors who select pictures for their pages generally are not interested in anything much beyond filling the holes in the page, so some very good photos are passed over.
Thanks for the appreciation Cynbob. I don't think the majority of the population here want to be unfair but if injustices are allowed to pass without comment then they are liable to be accepted as the norm. Most of the abuses are inflicted on one expat by another - corrupt managers or recruitment agents, for example.
It is true that trying to take a stand in the media here is very stressful and some people have paid heavily for it. The arrival of well-protected media freedom "experts" and journalism lecturers is a bit of a joke, really. Perhaps I should apply for one of their cushy salaries.
In a way, I think the authorities are sincere about their belief in freedom of the Press. However, they would argue that with freedom comes responsibility and it is irresponsible to challenge traditions, religion, the established order or pretty much anything else that affects their interests. They are willing to hear reports about things they can fix without it challenging the underlying system. I heard, for example, that a few years ago the Emir told business leaders to clean up their act over unpaid wages, because our reports were affecting Qatar's image.
I'm afraid I see signs now of a return to the thinking of Sheikh Khalifa's days, which was that everything was perfect and, even if it wasn't, it was in everybody's interests to say nothing.
My favourite bit of censorship from the early 90s (when an official censor read every word in the paper before it was approved - life was easy for journalists then) was over a story that began: "In the harbour at Cannes the yachts of film moguls, millionaires and princes jostle side-by-side". The censor banned "princes" on the grounds that it was insulting to Saudi Arabia and when I challenged it, his ruling was upheld by the sheikh responsible for censorship. No censor ever got in trouble for banning too much.
Anyway, I'm rambling.