Independent Article Blocked by Du?

This screengrab by pal Catalin (who normally captures images of a much more artistic nature) shows what the UAE's Twitterers have been confirming today - that UAE telco Du does, indeed, appear to have instituted a block of Johann Hari's skewed Dubai-bashing article in The Independent.

Hari's piece, considered by a great number of the people that live and work here as unbalanced and even egregious, was hilariously taken off by blogger and Sun person Chris Saul.

It angered many people, certainly had an impact and was arguably the zenith of the Dubai bashing pieces that have broken out in international media over the past few months like a rash of irritating little surface lesions. Many of these pieces were awful examples of 'Drive-by journalism', but Hari's certainly appeared to have been well researched, even if many of us disagreed with its hysterically outraged tone, wilful lack of balance and insistence on portraying Dubai in the worst possible light.

But we all had views on it, expressed widely and with vim and wit. The vast majority of people I know who live and work here disagreed with Hari's piece and did so from a standpoint of great experience of Dubai and the wider Middle East - the context in which Dubai demands to be placed by anyone genuinely wishing to provide service to their readers.

We were able to have that discussion because we could see what we were discussing. Chris was able to lampoon it so brilliantly because he had the chance to read what he was lampooning. Public voice provided a balance to Hari's article and also provided many of the balancing comments that disagreed with it on The Independent's website. Because we could see the piece, make our minds up and provide our counterpoint to Hari's rant.

Now Du has apparently blocked the article (see the grab above), at least in part (some Du users say they can still access it, although the majority appear not to be able to). If so, we can only urge the telco to reconsider this unilateral decision (Etisalat customers can still access it, so presumably this means the block is not a TRA decision) and reverse it.

I can only assume that it was a decision taken in error by some jobsworth and does not truly reflect a policy of blocking all material that reflects an opinion or tone that does not meet some hidden 'standard' of what's acceptable. Or that it is a technical 'glitch' that can be remedied.

But if it is a block based on the content of the piece, that's really bad news. It would deny people the right to an opinion. It would deny the practice of journalism. And it would have the potential to create yet more negative sentiment on Dubai - negative sentiment that I, for one, really and truly do not want to see being so needlessly created.

Anyone from Du able to confirm that this is not a block by policy?

Update

The National's Tom Gara reports, via Twitter, that the du block is to be removed and seems possibly to have been the subject of a little confusion between du and the TRA.

Good news, then, at the end of the day.

The Journalist and the Machine

Image by bunky's pickle via Flickr

Nigel is a journalist on a weekly magazine. He’s good at his job, which means filing two or three incisive and highly readable features a week plus a good handful of news stories. For these, he relies on a mixture of good contacts, a lot of Google alerts, the local papers and a quick scan of each days’ inbox full of press releases, most of which are dross but some of which can be followed up. On a bad week he might even use one or two with no follow-up, purely because time has a habit of running out now and then.

The features take up most of his time, often requiring a number of interviews and meetings for background as well as more for opinions and quotes. He’ll crack some of these features off quite quickly, others can be on the boil for a few weeks.

Bob is a busy executive with a major US security company and he’s visiting the Middle East to review the company’s 60-strong and growing operation. Security systems for corporates are a big and growing business in the region and Bob’s company has taken the region seriously enough to send him in: he’s global VP of a $3 billion company. The Middle East reports through London and the local GM and marketing manager have already had several conference calls with the slightly panicky communications team in London. They have never had Bob in the EMEA region before and they want to make sure nothing goes wrong. And the corporate team have already let London know that this is a big one for them. The team in Dubai, as a consequence, have really been feeling the heat about Bob’s visit.

Nigel takes a call from a local PR company offering an interview with a real hot-shot executive who’s visiting called Bob Bobbus. Apparently he’s a player in the security market and is here to talk about opening regional operations for a really big security company. Nigel agrees to take the interview with Bob as it sounds interesting. The PR guy is slightly more annoying than usual, asking him about his background and intended story angle.

The symptoms of big executive fear are always the same: it’s the fifth time this particular PR company has asked him for his background and, what’s more, Nigel does feel the request for his story angle in the same call as the interview’s being sold on is hardly reasonable. A subsequent call, three days before the interview is due to happen, confirms that Bob can only meet Nigel at 7pm in Jebel Ali. Nigel lives in Mirdif and won’t be home to see his young son until way past 9pm. Dinner will be in the dog. Again. Nigel considers canning the whole thing, but he’s got an issue to put to press and nothing else in the bag right now.

The PR company is asking about his story angle again: the exec actually asks him for a copy of his questions. Nigel is polite, but firm: that’s not happening.

The PR company hasn’t actually had any meaningful dialogue with Nigel before, let alone about Bob, his company or its market and so has no idea of what Nigel’s views, interests or approach are likely to be. This is now turning into a problem as London is insisting on full information about the journalist, the publication and a market briefing for Bob.

The Dubai office gives the PR company a hard time and they finally deliver the documents the day before Bob Bobbus flies in. They’re sketchy and London is concerned as a result: they insist that the Dubai GM and his marketing manager sit in on the interview.

The day of Bob’s visit dawns and everything goes pretty well: a customer event in the morning, a number of customer meetings following and a visit to a major site in the afternoon. The major site, a very sensitive customer, is a significant account to Bob’s company and the customer is really interested in some of the new things that the company is bringing out and so Bob and the group are delayed.

Nigel, who arrived a little early, waits at the hotel they’ve arranged to meet at – he’s joined by the PR guy, who arrived a little late. The PR guy tries to be friendly, but Nigel’s irritated and concerned about getting home now and just stares into his coffee.

Bob arrives 35 minutes late. He’s got his GM and marketing manager in tow and they all file into a meeting room together with the PR. Nigel waits outside, checking his skin for signs of leprosy.

After another ten minutes, Nigel is called in to the room for his audience with Bob. He’s sat at a boardroom table facing four people in suits. A normally relatively mild-mannered man, Nigel is really quite irritated by now, but is professional enough to put this to one side and get on with the interview. It quickly becomes obvious that Bob knows nothing about the Middle East and precious little about the world outside the continental USA. He is evasive regarding any financial information, future plans or disclosing details of any large deals or customers.

Nigel knows a little bit about Bob’s company and asks about the big customer that Bob visited that afternoon. Bob denies the meeting. Nigel’s wife works for the company and so he continues to probe regarding the relationship between Bob and his customer.

The local GM interrupts Nigel to tell him that it would probably be better to drop this line of questioning. Nigel points out that he’s perfectly entitled to pursue the line of questioning. The PR guy steps in and suggests a change of topic.

Nigel disagrees. He wants to know why Bob is lying about the customer site visit. The atmosphere is by now quite electric. And then Nigel asks about the Saudi bank that’s filing a case against Bob’s company in London. It’s common knowledge in the regional market and has even popped up on a couple of websites. However, it’s news to Bob and all hell quietly breaks loose. Bob handles the question badly, his GM steps in and makes it worse and the marketing manager jumps in, too, and refers to the Saudi incident as merely one of a number of issues that security companies have to deal with in a difficult region like the Middle East. Nigel, who is taping the interview, is told that this comment was off the record when he asks follow up questions.

Nigel’s wife calls to ask where he is. In the circumstances, he takes the call, leaving the room briefly. He returns and finishes the interview as quickly as possible. It hasn’t been an enjoyable experience.

The next day, Nigel has the tape transcribed. It contains Bob and his team complaining about Nigel as he was out of the room and also the whispered briefing that Bob was given by his team on the four lawsuits that had been filed by unhappy customers in the region, totalling millions of dollars.

Does he use the material in his subsequent feature?

(I'd completely forgotten about this feature wot I wrote for ArabianBusiness.com until Shufflegazine's Magnus commented on it, which lead to me re-reading it. Having done so, I thought I'd post it here, because I think, in hindsight, it's actually an interesting question!)

Sentiment on the The Arab Tweet

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I didn’t attend the ‘New Media’ session of The Arab Media Forum yesterday ( I served my time in the morning, alright?), but then I didn’t need to. Several people I respect were in the audience and were Tweeting highlights throughout the session. One of them was a colleague, one was another PR person I chat to and two were media people I know well.

I can wait for further analysis of the session, I can take my time. I got the high points, the headlines, as they happened – and from several different sources and viewpoints at that.

The people whose commentary on the proceedings was influencing hundreds, in fact going into the thousands, of people were not the ones on the stage talking at the Forum, they were in the audience. Between them, the Tweeters were talking to an audience of more people than the guys onstage with the microphones. Sure, the BBC will broadcast the session in a while – but we’ve already discussed it, deliberated it, shared it ‘on the record’ with the entire Internet and moved on.

And if that doesn’t give you pause for thought, I give up.

Incidentally, the Twitter users were likely the only people in the room full of hundreds of media people that knew, as they sat down to the session, that Roxanne Saberi had been released from the terrible, feared Evin prison in Tehran – that her father was actually on the way to pick her up at that very moment. The breaking news was flying around Twitter as the conference session started. Oh! And also the news that not only had the Pope called for a two-state solution in Palestine but that the Palestinian Authority press centre had been forced to shut down by the Israelis.

And it doesn’t take a newsroom of hundreds to do that. Or a ‘publishing house’. Or a ‘printing press’. Or an ‘editor in chief’.

Oddly, our little band of Twitterers probably represented the few people in the room that actually, genuinely cared about news like Roxanne Saberi and the PA media centre. Freedom is an Internet thing – the ‘old world’ is more reconciled to its lack.

So what did happen in the ‘new media’ session?

The 'traditional' media, debated their credibility and asked The Lone Blogger why he blogged ("Did you always want to be a journalist?"), comforting themselves with the fact that 'citizen journalism' wasn't as reliable as a 'real journalist'.

They, and Seymour Hersh, appear to have missed the point. The world is changing - it's not about bloggers wanting to be journalists. It's much, much bigger than that and it's time that many of our media woke up to the smell of coffee.

BTW, a Gulf News (600g) survey today, commissioned from IPSOS of some 2,000 people, showed that 76.2 of respondents strongly agreed with the statement 'The Internet helps me to keep up to date with the latest news'. GN's headline for the piece?

"Gulf News Stays Ahead of the Pack"

Which is fine, as long as your pack's not heading for the edge of a cliff...

The Arab Media Forum

Image by madmonk via Flickr

Today marked the start of the 8th Arab Media Forum. I'm quite fond of said forum, if only because it marked the start of this blog, back with this post which has always made me smile when I read it.

So I'm a simpleton. Get over it.

The keynote address at this year's gig was given by the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. He said a number of interesting things and, thanks to the simultaneous translation, a couple of slightly strange ones. There was one passage about dark oceans and creatures feeding on each other that had me slightly bewildered, but we soon found the track again.

(Offtopic, Moussa said that he was impressed by the life and verve he found in Dubai after having read so many negative reports in international media. He got a laugh out of his host, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid, which was nice to see to be honest.)

Moussa set the scene for the rest of the forum, making the point that the Arab World faced challenges in the evolution of its media, particularly with the transition taking place between online and print media, "The Arab World is still launching newspapers while elsewhere in the world, newspapers are failing" he said, talking about the movement of paper to electronic media.

Its funny that this thinking persists - that we're going to stop using paper and just move into being nicely regulateable and licensable entities, identifieable online media houses. It denies the very real atomisation that is taking place as a result of the boom in consumer generated media and content. The concept of media ownership is being redefined.

Just before Moussa came onstage, a panel session had taken place with, among distinguished others, Abdul Hamid Ahmad, Editor in Chief of Gulf News (540g), who pointed out that venerable, 150-year-old institutions like the great American newspapers were shutting down and wondered what would take their place.

As if the process of their decline wasn't being driven by their replacement.

Portentous statements will be made, great declarations will be delivered, many issues will be debated. But the winds of change sweeping around the world, the process of disintermediation and the tools that are driving new ways of sharing information, thoughts, collaboration and innovation are not going to be among the many things the Forum considers seriously. The Middle East media, remember, is still launching newspapers.

It's as if we're making a virtue of being behind the curve - a curve we continue to lag ever more as we fail to teach online skills in schools and retard adoption through protectionism, mad pricing and content blocking.

I get the feeling that this is going to be something of a theme for this forum which features just a single session on online media, tucked in at the end of day one's proceedings. This panel (led by the BBC's Hossam Al Sokkari) will feature Google's regional manager and is the reason the forum will get to hear from its one, lone, blogger - an Algerian called Issam Hamoud.

One social media figure among all those media glitterati in this two-day media-fest. One 'public voice'. One ambassador for the 'new media'.

It reminds me a little of Michael Moorcock's excellent Brothel In Rosenstrasse (The book is, incidentally, most certainly NSFW, part of its quirky charm). The enemy army is on the borders of the city, but life goes on inside the brothel, unchallenged for the moment by the changes taking place outside, a bright burning of licentiousness in negation of the great and inevitable truth that's all around.

Until, suddenly, everything is rapidly, inevitably swept away along with the world that existed before it.

Legacy media is not going to be killed by social media, despite the much-publicised declines and closures. But it is being transformed by it - and those who are not driving that change are likely going to be swept aside by it.

The Arab Media Forum has, IMHO, missed a trick. So, arguably, has the Arab Media.

But Amr Moussa knows what's going on, at least...

Donkeys and The Media

Image via Wikipedia

Gulf News makes donkeys of us all today.

Back up to 640g after some recent disastrous forays into the 500s and even 400s, your favourite newspaper trumpets 'Awards Muled for English Media' on its front page earpiece.

Something being muled is certainly a change from 'on the anvil', the favourite phrase among GN sub-editors for 'not ready yet'. So what is taking so much muling?

The answer is to be found in a page 7 interview with Mariam Bin Fahed, the Director of Dubai Press Club. Apart from confirming some Great Truths:

"There are some issues we don't want to discuss."

"If we see that the x-marks are higher, we avoid discussing the subject."

"There was an article that was too sensitive in 2006 and it was scored number one by the judges When it came to the senior panel members, they had to hold it back and the award went to the second candidate."

"You don't want to encourage negative acts."

The interview also contains the suprising assertion that "journalists are even writing articles specifically for the award now."

Needless to say, with many journalists in Egypt, for example, holding down two jobs to make ends meet, many of the region's vastly under-paid press would write articles about the pleasures of keeping bunny rabbits and making daisy chains if you offered them $15,000.

They'd probably write about bloody Modhesh for that much money.

Anyway, in the interview Mariam Bin Fahd didn't rule out an award for English language media that serve the region, hence the claim that the Press Club is muling an award.

It'll be interesting to see what wins this years Arabic awards given the clear signal in the piece that anything controversial, the result of great, ground-breaking journalism for instance, likely won't be muled at all...

A Comment for Tala al Ramahi

As a journalist I always disliked PRs intensely. They were all too frequently dumb, annoying and often tried, in some way, to manipulate me. I do so hate being manipulated, too. But I rarely, if ever, refused to listen.

Listening is so important to journalism, I always thought.

I'd like to think that the experience and attitude I gained from working as a writer and editor informs my work today as a PR practitioner. I like working with people, journalists, whom I respect. I enjoy working with people, journalists, who respect me in turn. It's often something won, on both sides, but can only be won where someone is open to talking to people, not closed to them, to start with.

That respect, perhaps lacking in this piece if you don't mind me saying so, is something built on an understanding between us. I will endeavour to be useful, relevant and helpful wherever I can so be. I will even aspire to being insightful. I will at all times be truthful. But I work within constraints set by my status as being retained to work in my clients' best interests - as my client and I define them.

On the journalist's side, it's much simpler. It's simply to give me the chance to make a case for my client based on respecting my track record, experience and knowledge of the market and the role and restrictions of media enough to give me the time of day. I like to think that, where I am given that freedom, I can help to deliver useful results for the media I work with. If that is not the case, then of course I would expect to fail, in future, to have a similar opportunity to argue my case.

Where my clients' interests and those of the public combine, I can usually 'sell' a story quite easily. Sometimes I find myself encountering a journalist that knows better and isn't buying. Then it's my job to convince that journalist that I've actually got something of relevance, topicality and interest to that readership. This should be a pleasant process, not a mindless drone of shirt-tugging and nagging. I think we both recognise that.

I often find that I can do that with people, journalists, who are willing to listen to an alternative viewpoint. Typically, those are people that afford me enough respect not to just brush me off as an annoying flak or 'another PR' - those unwilling to fall prey to the sickness of generalisation that is the enemy of any 'seeker after truth'.

A touch of humility, you see, often makes a good journalist a rather brilliant one, IMHO. But an arrogant refusal to listen to someone on the grounds that they serve an organisation with a vested interest is blocking one side of the story.

An organisation promoting something new isn’t automatically irrelevant or worthy of your contempt, by the way. Every innovation around you today, everything that informs and empowers your life in this modern world, was created by an organisation that had to promote that innovation.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to offer you some advice from an old man. You have to keep your eyes and ears open if you want to serve the public with the truth. Closing yourself to those who are employed to help organisations communicate more effectively does not, in my humble opinion, advance that public service. More effective communication is in my interest, my client’s interest, the public’s interest and, yes, your interest.

I’m sure we would also recognise that I’d rather you took the information from me and used it as part of a broader story that presents the market in an informed, insightful and illuminating fashion. That I would rather see experience, insight and research going into stories that I work with media on. I have no issue with you taking what I provide, testing it, comparing it with competitors and using it as part of a larger story that talks to the issues and circumstances that surround and drive the market. I'd love to see great journalism that truly informs the reader. I’d personally like to see a great deal more of that than we see in much of our regional media today.

Incidentally, I am amazed at how many journalists have not the faintest idea of, or interest in, what professional PR practitioners actually do get up to with clients. I'll give you a clue - it's not actually about writing press releases and calling around media to make sure they've received them.

Perhaps a touch of humility and basic, human respect might serve you as well as it would serve the PRs you deride and hold in such obvious contempt.

Judas or journalist?

Image by pythonboot via Flickr

I'm not sure how many silver coins are worth a gold one, but let's just put it at 30 for the sake of a decent headline.

It's a fine day when Emirates Business 24x7 is the only newspaper to expose a company that blatantly offers journalists the gift of gold for turning up to a press event, but that's precisely what reporter Dima Hamadeh did today. Her story 'outs' the World Gold Council and its PR company for sending a press invitation that promises all attendees to a WGC media event would receive a gold coin.

When taken to task by Hamadeh, the account manager at the agency responded with: "Why does it offend you? We have done it for years, not only for award announcements but for other events by the WGC as well."

The appropriate note of contrition perhaps lacking there, then...

Another PR person quoted in the story tells Hamadeh that "A lot of journalists call to know what they would be getting as a gift..."

Now that's news to me - in my 12 (grief) years in public relations I have never been asked by a journalist what gift is on offer at an event. In fact, I just checked around the Spot On office, and nobody else has, either. I can tell you that the answer to such a question would be very short indeed.

What on earth is the point of even wasting time talking to a roomful of journalists who have just pitched up to collect their bribe? What's the value of the debased coverage they would give you in their debased media? Besides, if you can own them enough to travel across town and listen to you for an hour for a coin, just send them the damn coin and the rubbish you want them to publish and save everyone some time, no?

The Middle East PR Association, MEPRA, stipulates a limit of $50 for media gifts - set as a reasonable limit for a small gift expected to represent a token of appreciation or thanks. The limit was set in response to a growing culture of outrageous attempts to bribe media, including gifts of consumer electronics such as games consoles, mobile phones and DVD players.

But gold coins are so much subtle, don't you think?

Now. Which publications have covered the World Gold Council jewellery design competition, Auditions? And can their journalists confirm they didn't take the coin?

The New UAE Media Law is .Not. Law

Image by Amy.Ng via Flickr

The New UAE Media Law has been passed by the Federal National Council, according to the Emirates news agency WAM.

The WAM story, filed just now, says that some 60% of the law has been modified, but doesn't say how the law has been modified or indeed whether the controversial 'harm to the economy' clause has been softened or clarified - or whether the 60% modifications were to the version of the law that's being debated or whether they were the original revisions that took place in the two years the law was, to use Gulf News subs' favourite phrase, 'on the anvil'.

We'll doubtless see more on this tomorrow. The law itself has provoked widespread media concern - and it does not, as far as I am aware or can find out, recognise the 'e-world' (for instance bloggers, forum commentators or, say, Twitterers) in any way. So whether you can go to jail for blogging or Tweeting something because you're not a journalist and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law (that protection including huge fines) or not is still totally up in the air. Let alone where a journalist that blogs something stands.

Up until now, the party line has been that regulations will 'clarify' the law. But we haven't yet seen how clear the law, in its final form, truly is. Let's hope that one of tomorrow's papers gets to publish the full draft as approved by the FNC so we can see how the world has moved on since the UAE Journalists' Association published its voluntary Code of Ethics in October 2007...

** As has been noted on this blog before, 'post in haste, repent at leisure'.

Indeed, the new 'law' news from WAM is, as the (sadly) anonymous commenter on this post quite rightly pointed out, not really news. The President has not, as far as we know, signed it off. And so it's not a law. It's just the same old document (unseen) that we've all been waiting for along with some more comments on how it's going to be a wonderful law that we're all going to really enjoy living with. I'm going to hold on getting a red face over this until we see tomorrow's coverage from UAE media. This'll be interesting...

The Man Who Wasn't There

"A source said that Russian TV reported yesterday that Dubai Police had arrested Madov's killer."

So reports Gulf News today, a statement that, for me, shows neatly how reporting of the Jumeirah Beach Residence shooting has descended into something of a fiasco.

I'd quote yesterday's Reuters file that claimed the man wasn't dead, but it's been updated now - one danger of t'Internet being that when someone goofs, even someone as trusted and respected as Reuters, they can correct it instantly. Reuters now has a file stating that the dead man is Chechen army officer Sulim Yamadayev and another saying that the Russian Consul has confirmed his identity but hasn't seen a passport.

Gulf News yesterday reported that the dead man was called Sulaiman Madov. And today's front page story (the source of that marvellous quote above) continues in that assertion, based on the discovery of Madov's passport on the body by Dubai police. However, GN illustrates its story with pictures of Yamadayev and does refer to 'some media reports' that have identified the man as Yamadayev.

You can tell that GN is caught between a rock and a hard place, having to go with the 'official' identity Madov while (I guess) firmly believing the widespread media reports that Madov was actually Yamadayev. It must have been frustrating for their journalists.

KT's report, meanwhile, says that a Dubai Police spokesperson had confirmed there had 'been an error' about the Madov identity - KT goes with Yamadayev and includes some good background, including a game attempt to get the Austrian embassy to confirm that Yamadayev had been on a Chechen exiles 'death list' that the Austrian government had previously talked about.

The National, which was always firmly in the Yamadayev camp, was able today to feature a good background piece on Yamadayev. The strength of the journalism here is quite apparent - free to go with its own sources and tie together the different streams of information (embassies, wire reports, eye witnesses and so on), The National made up its own mind about the identity of the man and had more time to play with, which meant that it was able to focus on the 'back story' and produce a stronger and more emphatic piece today that focused not only on the facts of the killing, but the complex and often violent background to it.

I'm left with the feeling that yesterday was a race against the clock to try and find out what on earth was happening, a day of speculation and guesswork, intransigent 'official' sources and frustration. It must have been frenetic. But I do think The National came out on top because of its journalism and its ability to practice that journalism without worrying about contradicting an official source and having to wait until the 'error' was made official.

With the recent news that government ministries will have an 'official spokesperson', there is room for some doubt whether that will remain the case in the future.

One can only hope that it will.

Enough!

Image by el7bara via the banned website Flickr thanks to the wonder that is RSS...

The Guardian's been at it again. This time it's Simon "I saw the place two years ago through a plane window" Jenkins who has followed in a long and honourable line of Guardian writers who have lined up to give Lalaland an almost weekly kicking.

Simon's article, however, beats even Germainipops' whine for its inaccuracy and sheer noodle-headedness. He slags off Dubai for being super-planned, architect-designed and "bailed out by Bahrain and Dohar" (sic) among other things. As usual for The Guardian on Dubai, the article is so packed with untruth and unsustainable assertion that it simply does not stand up as a piece of professional writing.

It's amazing to me that one of the UK's leading and most respected quality newspapers continues to publish completely inaccurate rubbish about Dubai from people with no qualification whatsoever to be writing about the place - and I'd include actually visiting Dubai and speaking to some people here as qualification.

But the rubbish is popping up everywhere - not just The Guardian - to the extent where I'm finding myself, to my immense surprise, coming out of the Dubai corner boxing FOR the city.

I never thought that would happen!

Like many other residents who have commented on these articles, I've had enough, really. There are now so many articles packed with so much rubbish, from so many writers who have spent so little time here that you start to question whether you were right to believe in journalism in the first place.

Germaine did her research from a tour bus. Simon talks about looking out of a plane window. But the Sydney Morning Herald's Elizabeth Farrelly goes one better, starting her piece with the immortal words, "For longer than I can remember - six months at least - I've wanted to write on Dubai as a ruin. Not that I've been there..."

She goes on: "Dubai, the oilless emirate, was conceived as the business end of Abu Dhabi's more oleaginous cultural empire."

You don't have to believe me when I tell you that her article goes downhill from there - you can go and read it for yourself. I bet it makes you angry. And yet it's merely symptomatic of a whole outbreak of similar pieces, written by people that have never even visited the place they're so eager to vilify, never walked on the streets they accuse of being filled with prosecco swilling expats dazed with the crash around them.

Another excellent example of the genre is here, featuring yet another marvellous line: "So last week I spent an entire day reading newspaper articles and travel guides about Dubai and am now much better informed..."

There's plenty to accuse Dubai of - many of us posting to blogs here have had more than a few swipes at a whole range of issues. And there are plenty more, for sure.

But enough of this uninformed rubbish, really!

Iraqi Shoe Thrower Sentenced

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Iraqi journalist Muntadhar Al Zeidi has been sentenced to three years in prison for throwing his shoes at former US President George W. Bush ('Thickie' to his friends), reports Associated Press.

Al Zeidi pled innocent: "What I did was a natural response to the occupation," he said.

He could have been sentenced to up to 15 years, so some have talked of leniency. Others point out that many of us would pay good money to a) have done it ourselves b) see it done again or c) have a range of other objects thrown at Thickie.

Anyway, Spot On PR is hosting a poll on the affair and so you can goto this link here and vote on whether you think the sentence is barking or not.

Have a lovely weekend!

UAE Government Appoints Spokespeople

Image via Wikipedia

According to a front page story in The National today, the Federal government has moved to introduce a system whereby Federal government Ministries can have official spokespeople empowered to talk on the record to media on behalf of each Ministry and its officials.

The move received what appeared to be a cautious welcome from the UAE Journalists' Association. The new spokespeople would be "The only sources of information according to their roles and responsibilities", The National quotes Najla Al Awar, Secretary General of the Cabinet. However, she goes on to tell the paper, "Information collected through others at the governmental bodies shall not be considered as valid and authorised information."

So while the move would facilitate journalists' access to a responsible spokesperson, it would also appear to limit media to reporting only facts confirmed or released by that responsible spokesperson.

You tell me which is better...

Goof

Image via Wikipedia

Image via WikipediaThe changes that ‘new’ media approaches are bringing to the way in which we browse, consume and are affected by information are fundamental. And most of those changes are being brought by the process known as disintermediation – the idea being that any intermediary is now potentially out of a job. Gone are gatekeepers – and nowhere is this more true than in our ‘traditional’ media.

Take a newspaper as an example. Yesterday’s model was that an event was reported on by a journalist, perhaps commented on by a columnist. The participants in the event were certainly not expected to actually commentate on it. Just comment, if the journalist or TV crew picked on them. The letters page was pretty much the only way Joe Public got ‘voice’ and even that was guarded by the letters page editor. And similarly broadcast media such as radio, where DJ’s talk to us and where feedback was limited to carefully regulated, breathless, gushing teenagers requesting tracks for their friends (it wouldn’t do for them to be asking for Rammstein or Ministry during a drive-time slot, for instance) or perhaps to angry of Bur Dubai calling into the midnight talk show.

Now newspapers put their pieces online and public voice gets to comment on those pieces. What’s more, the success of a given piece of writing is not longer judged because it reached the readership of a single slice of tree, but on how much it is commented on, linked, referenced by blogs, Tweeted, Digged, tagged or shared in a myriad new ways across myriad content streams.

Those links, the food of the new media leviathans, bring prominence, SEO and clicks. Similarly in radio, DJs (and other celebrities) are beginning to find that connecting with their audience using ‘social media’ adds another, growing dimension to the business of broadcasting. Those willing to give up the gatekeepers, or the gatekeeper role, are finding themselves part of a wider and more engaging dialogue that enhances their reputations and audiences.

In other words, today’s media depend on the feedback and discourse of an actively engaged readership. The reader is a participant, is increasingly a central part of a dialogue that makes journalists, writers and broadcasters answerable and publicly accountable in ways that no media law can.

In short, you goof, you get trashed...


This piece originally appeared as one of the chucklesomely named 'A Moment with McNabb' columns in Campaign Middle East magazine.

A Strange Feeling

I'm currently in the grip of the strangest feeling. I'm actually feeling sorry for Dubai.

Lalaland is taking the most enormous pasting in the international media right now. The Israeli tennis player ban story and the British author book banned story are flying around and media are picking them up faster than discarded dollar bills. The 'conversation' on Twitter is universally negative and violently anti-Dubai, buoyed up with links to the New York Times piece that asserted 3,000 cars have been abandoned at the airport, Dubai's Wikipedia 'human rights' entry that details drug convictions at Dubai International Airport and stories on the tennis and book scandals.

The ban on Shahar Peer has led to an international outcry and the situation doesn't look as if it will get any better, with The Guardian reporting that a second Israeli player, Andy Ram may also be denied a visa - and that Dubai could lose the support of the WTA and the ATP as a consequence of the ban on Israeli players.

The banned British author story has also gained a lot of traction. Nobody has thought to question why a writer that had previously lived in Bahrain for five years would think that a book of that nature would go down well locally but the coverage has been another howl of anti-Dubai sentiment. And no matter how much you suspect it all of being an elaborately managed publicity stunt to get an unpublished book 'out there', the tone of coverage and sentiment is universally negative.

I do wonder how much of the outpouring of hate is about people giving someone else a kicking to help manage their own frustrations and fears in our straightened times. All of this comment, mostly based on little direct experience of the place and more direct experience of over-simplified and jazzed up media reports, does rather seem to position Dubai as the poster child for mindless excess and crassness.

But then Tinsel Town has hardly been tasteful or modest in its promotions, has it?

Blogs, Media Laws and Ethics

Loveday Morris in The National touched the issue of the UAE's new draft media law and its treatment of online entities and media today. Her piece (which referenced a certain, ahem, blog) put the question of how the new law caters for the Internet and its media and platforms to Ibrahim Al Abed, director general of the UAE's National Media Council. His response, quoted by The National, was that 'internet issues may be addressed in the “executive regulations” that will accompany the new law.'

This response is increasingly being used to address questions from media that attempt to define a more granular view of a very wide-ranging law. The law itself has been two years, as Gulf News (640g) is so fond of saying, 'on the anvil'. One is left wondering if the regulations have been part of that process or are a process yet to come.

In the meantime, I've been doing a little ferretting in response to the interesting questions I've been starting to encounter regarding the roles of media in today's online world. For instance, what's a journalist and what's a blogger? How should the two behave? Should bloggers be held to the same standards as journalists? And if not, to what standards should they be held, if any?

I found the document below useful and would welcome comments on it. It was referenced by Reporters Sans Frontiers and has been produced by CyberJournalist.net, where it has generated a significant volume of comment and contribution.

Could this be a framework for the Middle East? Something to guide legislators along the same lines as the UAE Journalists' Association guidelines?

This text and the comments on it (over 300, so make a cup of tea first) can be referenced here.

A BLOGGERS' CODE OF ETHICS

Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:
• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate -- and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it's in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:
• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Be Accountable
Bloggers should:
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Explain each Weblog's mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers' conduct.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

(All of which covers blogs, but not Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or MySpace or or or...)

Fear?

Following on from the recent Gulf News interview with Ibrahim Al Abed, the head of the National Media Council, Khaleej Times has now siezed its chance.

That interview is linked here. It contains a few gems. I particularly like:

KT: What should the journalist worry about in the new draft?
NMC DG: Nothing. I am serious. Nothing. But, I do not consider a journalist to be a journalist if he spreads out a rumour. I do not consider a journalist to be a journalist if he wants to attack the President in an insulting way. And, I do not think that a journalist can be a journalist if he doesn't take into consideration the general culture of the country.

KT: Do you think journalists here self-censor?

NMC DG: Yes. I do not know... We have nothing to do.

KT: There seems to be some kind of a fear. What is the fear?

NMC DG: I do not think there is a basis for this fear. For me, any journalist has his own code of ethics. He should have. This is some kind of self-censorship. I look at it from this way. If you look at the code of ethics that was issued by the journalists, by the editors of the newspapers, we have many restrictions within the code of ethics itself. This is exactly the self-censorship.

The Media Police

Gulf News (880g) today contains more commentary on the new draft media law of the UAE. In response to a petition from over 100 UAE academics, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists and members of non-governmental organisations, the national media council's director general, Ebrahim Al Abed has asserted that the law is a good thing.

Interestingly, the piece (which is significantly cut in the online edition, for some reason. You'll just have to shell out Dhs3 for the full skinny) adds some new fact. The National Media Council will be charged with ascertaining whether a breach of the law has taken place and forwarding the case to the courts which, if I understand his words correctly, effectively makes the NMC The Media Police.

Do you think they'll get smart new uniforms with shiny peaked caps and mirror shades?

"The National Media Council will have the responsibiliy of determining whether a possible breach of the law has occured - but it will then be for the courts to determine whether the law has actually been broken and to decide upon the penalty, if any" Al Abed told GN.

Meanwhile, another worrying development comes from the UAE Journalists' Association, which is holding a two-day conference at Dubai's Al Bustan Rotana today and tomorrow according to GN. The conference will discuss many weighty matters related to journalism and ethics, including the role of online media. In fact, talking to Gulf News, the Association's head said that:

"...trends and challenges to the media will also be discussed, such as the role of citizen journalism and bloggers. He said it was difficult to accept bloggers as journalists because they did not fall under a framework of accountability and ethics that govern responsible reporting."

Which is all very well, if 'citizen journalists' (hate that phrase) and bloggers are involved in the discussion. I certainly didn't get an invite... anyone else out there get one?

And do you WANT to be seen as journalists? Either professionally or in the eyes of the law? I know that I, for one, sure as hell don't...

Relax

The Minister of Labour and chairman of the National Media Council, Saqr Ghobash, has written a piece in today's The National which seeks to clarify the aim and intent of the new media law.

In a piece titled 'Do not fear for press freedom', he says: "A rumour about collapsing property prices is insufficient information on which to base a story. A story based on a well-researched study by a leading bank or estate agent, however, is another matter entirely."

It's a sobering thought that this statement on how a journalist can 'stand up' a story could well be cited in a court of law in future as being definitive of the law's intent.

He notes that "Sadly, much of the comment (on the law) appears to have been misinformed or to be based upon a misunderstanding both of the current situation and of the contents of the proposed legislation." - Seabee deals quite neatly with our alarming propensity to wilfully misunderstand clear communication here.

The government is, apparently, to issue an appendix to the law over the next seven weeks that will clarify "vague provisions" according to the story in the print and digital, but not online, editions. The online (read 'most up to date') version of the story instead prefers to run instead with the comment from the UAE Journalists' Association, which is still not happy, it seems: “We asked for 40 things, not one or two.”

Worryingly, there's still no news on how the diverse and fast-moving world of online media will be treated under the new law - if, indeed, it is to be covered by the 'new' media law at all. And nobody appears to be asking the question of 'the concerned authorities', either.

Law

A great day for press freedom in the UAE?

The UAE media law passed through the Federal National Council yesterday and the newspapers, struggling to find any positive angle on the story, can only reiterate that the new law means that journalists won't face jail terms 'for carrying out their duties'.

The draft law just needs to be ratified by the cabinet and the President to pass onto the statute books. There has been a great deal of unhappiness expressed by the newspapers over the new law, which replaces the positively archaic 'old media law' of 1980. You can find an e-copy of the old law here and wonder for yourself at how much has changed. Or then again, perhaps not.

I tried, but failed, to find a copy of the new law anywhere, but The National does give more information on its provisions that anyone else today. Sure enough, the law stipulates fines of between Dhs 50,000 to Dhs 1 million for, to quote the Khaleej Times: "...newspapers or the rest of media, or the employees of the same receiving aid or donation, or similar benefits from foreign entity without the permission of the Council; repeating publishing or launching press campaigns with bad faith, and after being warned by the Council, in a way that demerit the reputation of the country, or its foreign relations and contacts, or violates its public order, or distort its national identity; publishing news that mislead the public opinion, in a way that harm the national economy of the country; carrying false news with knowledge; violating the conditions and restrictions stipulated for practising media activities governing the licence in regard."

The law would be enforced through the courts and not by the National Media Council (NMC), which drafted it. Journalists and editors alike have expressed dismay at the lack of clarity in the law. The editorial in today's The National makes the point: "Yet the new press law, approved yesterday by the FNC and sent to the cabinet for ratification, is unclear about what a newspaper can be punished for, and how it defines whether a newspaper has published information damaging to the country’s reputation or economy. The financial system should react to just the kind of information we print in our business pages every day. And if we are not distributing information that influences the choices people make in the marketplace, then we are not doing our job."

As far as I can see, the law makes no reference to the 'e-world' and remains firmly rooted in the idea that 'the media' is content produced by licensed entities that squash ink onto dead trees and that would be held to account according to the terms of their trade license.

Where does that leave someone writing a blog, commenting on a forum or posting up to You Tube? Where does it leave the UAE's fast-growing band of Twitterers or the groups of unhappy residents airing their grievances online? Where does it leave someone posting a comment to a blog, tagging a photo, founding a snarky Facebook group (like this or this!) or publishing an e-book?

It leaves us all relatively unsure of quite where we stand, that's where, with a court system that has no provision in law whatever for online activity, a judiciary that is unlikely to be trained or cogniscent of online systems and a minimum fine of Dhs 50,000. Oh, and that's assuming that a 'blogger' will be treated as a 'journalist' and not just an unlicensed entity.

In short, I suspect it rather leaves us all, journalists and others, exactly where we were in 1980, except that now we (possibly) can't go to prison - until, of course, we can't find Dhs 1 million and then we'll presumably be banged up anyway for defaulting on the fine.

BTW, I am mildly surprised that none of our media have pressed the point about the media law and how the National Media Council views the online world. It's really quite important, chaps...

Banned

Today's Al Ittihad reports that an Abu Dhabi court has ruled against Arabic newspaper Emarat Al Youm in a libel case dating back to October 2006, when the newspaper published an article alleging that a UAE racing stable was doping horses.

Al Ittihad says that Emarat Al Youm (the Arabic daily from Dubai's Arab Media Group and sister title to Emirates Businesss 24x7) is to be suspended from publication for 20 days with immediate effect.

Emarat Al Youm editor in chief Sami Reyami and AMG CEO Abdullatif Al Sayegh have also been fined Dhs 20,000 each, Al Ittihad reports.

The verdict follows a 'not guilty' verdict returned in January 2007 and was the result of a court appeal. Previous posts on this here and here are not awfully interesting.

UPDATE
According to arabianbusiness.com, AMG has not heard anything about any ban and will publish as normal tomorrow. I'll be waiting for the paperboy!