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.
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.