The story broke in the UK press a couple of weeks ago and I've been meaning to post this for a while, but being busy with the imminent move back to Oz I didn't get around to it.
It's been somewhat swamped by the Murdoch News of the World saga but it involves much the same thing, appalling standards of 'journalism'.
I'm prompted to devote time to it today by an article in this morning's The National.
It concerns Johann Hari, a columnist I've disliked for a long time and who I've slated here before, and his standards of 'journalism'. You'll remember Mr Hari for his infamous article 'The Dark Side of Dubai' written over two years ago now.
He's at last been publicly exposed for something that was apparent from that and other articles; misrepresention, misquoting and making up 'facts' to make a point.
Hari admitted exactly that when in response to the criticisms he said he had opted for "intellectual accuracy" over "reportorial accuracy".
He has quite rightly been suspended by his newspaper, The Independent, and calls are being made for his various awards for journalism to be taken back. One committee is said to be actively investigating their award to him.
The National quotes Bitish author and columnist Guy Walters as saying Hari has committed three journalistic crimes: "First, he has pretended that words spoken to other journalists were in fact said to him. That is plagiarism, pure and simple. Secondly, he makes things up. There is no doubt in my mind that many of the people he supposedly encounters - such as the girl in hot pants in Dubai - are figments of his imagination. Thirdly, he distorts the words of the real people he does manage to interview."
Certainly the second and third apply to his Dubai article, as I pointed out in my detailed response to it.
That was back in April 2009 and it's interesting that I still regularly get visitors landing on that page.
The times when news went into the bin at the end of the day have disappeared, now it stays here on the www for people to read forever. This is an example - various commentators reporting Hari's attack on Dubai linked to it and to my response, and now more than two years later people are still reading both.
Now that he's been exposed I think there's a good argument for The Independent to remove the links to any of his articles which have been called into question for containing plagiarism, lies, distortions.
I would also suggest that those of us who took him to task over his Dubai article and follow-up, and who took a lot of stick at the time from his supporters, have been exonerated.
The Dark Side of Dubai.
My post disecting it
More lies from Johann Hari.
The National.
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Friday, July 22, 2011
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Keeping the bastards honest
The three Independents who won seats in Saturday's Australian election quickly received phone calls of congratulation from the leaders of the two main parties.
Strange that leaders of the two dominant parties, with everything that's on their plates on election night, would give priority to congratulating irrelevant winning opponents.
Not strange this time. They're suddenly very relevant. The election was a draw.
A party needs a minimum of 76 seats to take power. It looks like the final score will be 73 - 73, the balance of power lying with one Green and three Independents.
Whichever side can convince the Gang of Four to back them will be the new government.
It's going to be unsavoury. The clichéd smoke-filled back rooms with the faceless behind-the-scenes party power brokers trying to outdo the other side withbribes millions of dollars of our taxes to be poured into the four constituences.
The founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, comes to mind. Speaking of the two major parties, he said that the Democrat role would be to 'keep the bastards honest'.
It was the slogan, the rallying call, of the party.
That phrase was in mind when I visited my blogroll friends and landed in Houston Texas at Thomas' blog Mean Green Cougar Red.
His post was a teaser to have a look at Tom Scott's blog posting 'Journalism Warning Labels'.
Tom's come up with a great idea to help to keep those bastards honest.
Or at least to add some honesty to what's appearing in print. Tom's created a range of 'Warning' stickers which readers can fix to stories.
Here's an example:
Sound familiar? Here are some more, very relevant...and not just in this region:
I bet, like me, you could have used some of them on your morning newspaper.
I have to agree with Thomas' comment: "I found these labels to be humorous and depressing at the same time, because they're so true."
Tom has a whole range of them which you can print out. They come in various languages too, so they have world-wide possibilities.
What a good idea to do that and stick them to the papers in the coffee shop or in your company reception area.
You'll discover which coffee shops I use because I'm going to print out a few sheets...
You'll find Tom's post here where you can enjoy many more examples and print out your own sheets.
Strange that leaders of the two dominant parties, with everything that's on their plates on election night, would give priority to congratulating irrelevant winning opponents.
Not strange this time. They're suddenly very relevant. The election was a draw.
A party needs a minimum of 76 seats to take power. It looks like the final score will be 73 - 73, the balance of power lying with one Green and three Independents.
Whichever side can convince the Gang of Four to back them will be the new government.
It's going to be unsavoury. The clichéd smoke-filled back rooms with the faceless behind-the-scenes party power brokers trying to outdo the other side with
The founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, comes to mind. Speaking of the two major parties, he said that the Democrat role would be to 'keep the bastards honest'.
It was the slogan, the rallying call, of the party.
That phrase was in mind when I visited my blogroll friends and landed in Houston Texas at Thomas' blog Mean Green Cougar Red.
His post was a teaser to have a look at Tom Scott's blog posting 'Journalism Warning Labels'.
Tom's come up with a great idea to help to keep those bastards honest.
Or at least to add some honesty to what's appearing in print. Tom's created a range of 'Warning' stickers which readers can fix to stories.
Here's an example:
Sound familiar? Here are some more, very relevant...and not just in this region:
I bet, like me, you could have used some of them on your morning newspaper.
I have to agree with Thomas' comment: "I found these labels to be humorous and depressing at the same time, because they're so true."
Tom has a whole range of them which you can print out. They come in various languages too, so they have world-wide possibilities.
What a good idea to do that and stick them to the papers in the coffee shop or in your company reception area.
You'll discover which coffee shops I use because I'm going to print out a few sheets...
You'll find Tom's post here where you can enjoy many more examples and print out your own sheets.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Here we go again!
I've complained more than a few times in posts here about unbalanced over-the-top media stories about Dubai, both pro and anti.
A few years ago it was all 'The Miracle of Dubai' stuff. That was from journos flown in for a couple of days, put up in 5-star hotels, whisked around from one 5-star facility to another.
They returned the favour by hyperventilating about the place, with way over-the-top and often ludicrous articles.
It inevitably attracted an equally unbalanced reaction, the 'Dark Side of Dubai' stories, all about slave labour, chain gangs, fleeing expats and the city being reclaimed by the desert.
Now we've gone full circle with a new story in the UK Daily Telegraph from the 'Miracle of Dubai' folder.
Here's a sample:
What to do this morning? Hmmm. Let's head for the slopes and a black ski run and some tobogganing. Always an exciting, bracing way to start the day.
This afternoon? Shopping at the world's finest stores or a spot of sun-bathing and a swim with dolphins? Spoilt for choice.
Later on, some quad-bike racing and a 4x4 safari through scorching sand dunes stretching into the mists of time. Sounds good.
And what better way to end the perfect day than a candle-lit river cruise with as much wine as you can drink to compliment a gastronomic five-course feast after flying a sea-plane past the world's tallest building.
Unless, of course, you fancy a romantic, balmy, moonlit early hours walk along your private beachfront, dipping your toes in the Gulf of Arabia.
And there's the clue. Because where else in the world could you be but... Dubai.
And if you should ever see the slogan: "See Dubai Before You Die"...
Groan...
Stand by for the reaction pieces.
Read it and cringe.
A few years ago it was all 'The Miracle of Dubai' stuff. That was from journos flown in for a couple of days, put up in 5-star hotels, whisked around from one 5-star facility to another.
They returned the favour by hyperventilating about the place, with way over-the-top and often ludicrous articles.
It inevitably attracted an equally unbalanced reaction, the 'Dark Side of Dubai' stories, all about slave labour, chain gangs, fleeing expats and the city being reclaimed by the desert.
Now we've gone full circle with a new story in the UK Daily Telegraph from the 'Miracle of Dubai' folder.
Here's a sample:
What to do this morning? Hmmm. Let's head for the slopes and a black ski run and some tobogganing. Always an exciting, bracing way to start the day.
This afternoon? Shopping at the world's finest stores or a spot of sun-bathing and a swim with dolphins? Spoilt for choice.
Later on, some quad-bike racing and a 4x4 safari through scorching sand dunes stretching into the mists of time. Sounds good.
And what better way to end the perfect day than a candle-lit river cruise with as much wine as you can drink to compliment a gastronomic five-course feast after flying a sea-plane past the world's tallest building.
Unless, of course, you fancy a romantic, balmy, moonlit early hours walk along your private beachfront, dipping your toes in the Gulf of Arabia.
And there's the clue. Because where else in the world could you be but... Dubai.
And if you should ever see the slogan: "See Dubai Before You Die"...
Groan...
Stand by for the reaction pieces.
Read it and cringe.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Media freedom and standards hit the wall
There's an outspoken column in Gulf News today about the state of the media in the UAE.
Abu Dhabi Editor Abdullah Rasheed doesn't mince his words, giving a real serve to a whole range of people and organisations.
It's quite a piece.
The heading is "The ceiling of press freedom in UAE is falling"
The thrust of the column is that "Press freedom is deteriorating and freedom of expression is in increasing danger" and he points the finger at those he believes responsible.
He includes the Federal National Council, the National Media Council, which he says are both guilty of not protecting journalists, laws and government/official bodies are criticised, he's particularly harsh on media owners and managers, and he says that journalists are not doing their job.
Here's a flavour of what he says:
"At long last, the Federal National Council (FNC) will finally hold a session [today] to discuss the media, having postponed four consecutive sessions for no apparent reason.
It is no secret that one of the main obstacles facing the media and journalists is the total inability of the FNC to protect journalists from the mistreatment they face.
Our newspapers are hardly given the freedom to tackle most issues and bring to light social, political, economic and even sports stories.
There isn't enough protection provided to journalists and self-censorship is practised by our newspapers to avoid angering official bodies and to please the government.
Adding to their woes, journalists battle to get even the simplest information due to the non-co-operation of most official bodies which is another issue that the NMC did nothing about. On this issue, the NMC has taken the side of the government bodies, as if it is totally unconcerned with media affairs.
No official is ready to respond to a journalist, and no spokesperson provides information for any ministry or government body. The title of official spokesperson means nothing, because the spokesperson thinks he is a high-ranking official and that journalists are inferior to him, and accordingly declines to co-operate with them."
Newspapers aren't spared, from top to bottom:
"Journalists are no longer doing their duty, meaning that the press is no longer monitoring the performance of government.
Some newspapers even indulge in hypocrisy to please officials and the bodies they represent, and there is also full subordination to advertisers.
Mismanagement and confusion abound in most media outlets, as a result of the lack of experience of the people running them, from editors to editors-in-chief.
Some newspapers are run by people who care only about their own interests, at the expense of the public interest."
He talks about the pointlessness of it, given our access to the internet and all the news that it contains. And how in view of that we need a strong independent media here to discuss the issues facing the country. He also complains about the decreasing number of Emirati journalists.
It's by far the strongest piece I've seen on the standard of journalism, the incompetence of media companies, the lack of transparency from government, the lack of media freedom.
I'd be interested to know if anything similar is appearing in the Arabic media.
Read the full column here.
Abu Dhabi Editor Abdullah Rasheed doesn't mince his words, giving a real serve to a whole range of people and organisations.
It's quite a piece.
The heading is "The ceiling of press freedom in UAE is falling"
The thrust of the column is that "Press freedom is deteriorating and freedom of expression is in increasing danger" and he points the finger at those he believes responsible.
He includes the Federal National Council, the National Media Council, which he says are both guilty of not protecting journalists, laws and government/official bodies are criticised, he's particularly harsh on media owners and managers, and he says that journalists are not doing their job.
Here's a flavour of what he says:
"At long last, the Federal National Council (FNC) will finally hold a session [today] to discuss the media, having postponed four consecutive sessions for no apparent reason.
It is no secret that one of the main obstacles facing the media and journalists is the total inability of the FNC to protect journalists from the mistreatment they face.
Our newspapers are hardly given the freedom to tackle most issues and bring to light social, political, economic and even sports stories.
There isn't enough protection provided to journalists and self-censorship is practised by our newspapers to avoid angering official bodies and to please the government.
Adding to their woes, journalists battle to get even the simplest information due to the non-co-operation of most official bodies which is another issue that the NMC did nothing about. On this issue, the NMC has taken the side of the government bodies, as if it is totally unconcerned with media affairs.
No official is ready to respond to a journalist, and no spokesperson provides information for any ministry or government body. The title of official spokesperson means nothing, because the spokesperson thinks he is a high-ranking official and that journalists are inferior to him, and accordingly declines to co-operate with them."
Newspapers aren't spared, from top to bottom:
"Journalists are no longer doing their duty, meaning that the press is no longer monitoring the performance of government.
Some newspapers even indulge in hypocrisy to please officials and the bodies they represent, and there is also full subordination to advertisers.
Mismanagement and confusion abound in most media outlets, as a result of the lack of experience of the people running them, from editors to editors-in-chief.
Some newspapers are run by people who care only about their own interests, at the expense of the public interest."
He talks about the pointlessness of it, given our access to the internet and all the news that it contains. And how in view of that we need a strong independent media here to discuss the issues facing the country. He also complains about the decreasing number of Emirati journalists.
It's by far the strongest piece I've seen on the standard of journalism, the incompetence of media companies, the lack of transparency from government, the lack of media freedom.
I'd be interested to know if anything similar is appearing in the Arabic media.
Read the full column here.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Act now think later
We had a report on Sunday that an official has confirmed that visit, transit & tourism visas are for one visit only. Visitors leaving the country can't re-enter for one month, after which they'll need a new visa to come back in.
This visa 'clarification' is another example of the sort of nonsense we get all-too regularly. There's no thought about what it actually means before an announcement is made.
Relate it to another subject we've had stories on recently, about Dubai being a regional cruise ship hub. That's not to mention huge government investment in infrastructure for it.
So are the cruises for residents only?
If visitors enter the UAE and get on a cruise ship they can't, according to this 'clarification', come ashore when it docks back in Dubai. They've already used up the one entry allowed by their visa. And they can't come back in for a month.
So what happens?
The report is also yet another example of something else I complain about ad nauseum, the lack of questions from 'journalists'.
An official makes a statement which raises more questions than it answers, yet the questions aren't asked.
In addition to the cruise customer questions, what about the 33 passport holders who get an automatic visa on arrival? Does the one month ban apply to them too?
Gulf News has the visa 'clarification' here.
This visa 'clarification' is another example of the sort of nonsense we get all-too regularly. There's no thought about what it actually means before an announcement is made.
Relate it to another subject we've had stories on recently, about Dubai being a regional cruise ship hub. That's not to mention huge government investment in infrastructure for it.
So are the cruises for residents only?
If visitors enter the UAE and get on a cruise ship they can't, according to this 'clarification', come ashore when it docks back in Dubai. They've already used up the one entry allowed by their visa. And they can't come back in for a month.
So what happens?
The report is also yet another example of something else I complain about ad nauseum, the lack of questions from 'journalists'.
An official makes a statement which raises more questions than it answers, yet the questions aren't asked.
In addition to the cruise customer questions, what about the 33 passport holders who get an automatic visa on arrival? Does the one month ban apply to them too?
Gulf News has the visa 'clarification' here.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Dubai's very own Mata Hari
I have no idea what we're supposed to make of the sensational story about Malika Karoum, but it's fascinating me.
Yesterday 'Emirates Business 247' said that Malika, a senior executive in various Dubai-based real estate companies, was in jail in Egypt. They were quoting a Dutch tabloid magazine, which said she's been in jail for six months and has been convicted of money laundering and weapons trading. She was acquitted of espionage though.
Always a good reliable source of facts, are tabloids.
Anyway, today 'EmBiz' said she wasn't in jail after all.
That was after she told them the story was created by her former husband as part of their child custody battle.
She's been on Dubai Eye radio news too, which I'd say would be unlikely if she's in an Egyptian jail.
But. Was the person who spoke to the media yesterday really Malika? Suppose that from her Egyptian jail she'd arranged for a doppelganger to contact Dubai's media.
Dismiss no possibility in this saga.
But the stories here pale into insignificance compared to the one in 'Sydney Morning Herald'.
It's not usually a sensationalist paper but boy, this story has it all!
It has Dubai's real estate, business methods and politics, Aussies in Al Slammer, espionage for muliple countries, money laundering, gun running, drug dealing, terrorism, kidnap, greed, fraud, robbery, murder...
I loved this line: But there has not been a peep out of Dubai, which does not care about bad publicity.
Just about the only thing the story doesn't have is a connection to JFK's assassination.
It does include ridiculous tabloid stuff like this:
"Four days after the swoop on Karoum's home, Dubai police arrested two Australians, Matt Joyce and Marcus Lee, on suspicion of fraud. The pair are former executives of Dubai Waterfront, the world's grandest waterfront project, a subsidiary of the Emirate's biggest property developer, the government-owned Nakheel.
The jailed Australians, who are fighting to prove their innocence, are in no way linked to Karoum."
So why put it in the story as though there is a link?
All this is under photographs of Malika, one with "two unidentified men" and one of Mata Hari.
Equally interesting is EmBiz' website.
If you type the 'she's in jail' headline in the search panel to go to yesterday's story you get:
"Former UAE-based realty executive jailed in Egypt Malika Karoum, who previously held senior positions at three Dubai-based real estate companies, including Omniyat Properties, ACI Real Estate and Define ... http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/8/Pages/11082009/08122009_7c2e8215e69548e3b76e9747bb5874e5.aspx
But click on it and you get "This page does not exist"
You can, however, get today's 'she's not in jail' story. That's here.
And the amazing Sydney Morning Herald story, which is well worth reading, is here.
Yesterday 'Emirates Business 247' said that Malika, a senior executive in various Dubai-based real estate companies, was in jail in Egypt. They were quoting a Dutch tabloid magazine, which said she's been in jail for six months and has been convicted of money laundering and weapons trading. She was acquitted of espionage though.
Always a good reliable source of facts, are tabloids.
Anyway, today 'EmBiz' said she wasn't in jail after all.
That was after she told them the story was created by her former husband as part of their child custody battle.
She's been on Dubai Eye radio news too, which I'd say would be unlikely if she's in an Egyptian jail.
But. Was the person who spoke to the media yesterday really Malika? Suppose that from her Egyptian jail she'd arranged for a doppelganger to contact Dubai's media.
Dismiss no possibility in this saga.
But the stories here pale into insignificance compared to the one in 'Sydney Morning Herald'.
It's not usually a sensationalist paper but boy, this story has it all!
It has Dubai's real estate, business methods and politics, Aussies in Al Slammer, espionage for muliple countries, money laundering, gun running, drug dealing, terrorism, kidnap, greed, fraud, robbery, murder...
I loved this line: But there has not been a peep out of Dubai, which does not care about bad publicity.
Just about the only thing the story doesn't have is a connection to JFK's assassination.
It does include ridiculous tabloid stuff like this:
"Four days after the swoop on Karoum's home, Dubai police arrested two Australians, Matt Joyce and Marcus Lee, on suspicion of fraud. The pair are former executives of Dubai Waterfront, the world's grandest waterfront project, a subsidiary of the Emirate's biggest property developer, the government-owned Nakheel.
The jailed Australians, who are fighting to prove their innocence, are in no way linked to Karoum."
So why put it in the story as though there is a link?
All this is under photographs of Malika, one with "two unidentified men" and one of Mata Hari.
Equally interesting is EmBiz' website.
If you type the 'she's in jail' headline in the search panel to go to yesterday's story you get:
"Former UAE-based realty executive jailed in Egypt Malika Karoum, who previously held senior positions at three Dubai-based real estate companies, including Omniyat Properties, ACI Real Estate and Define ... http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/8/Pages/11082009/08122009_7c2e8215e69548e3b76e9747bb5874e5.aspx
But click on it and you get "This page does not exist"
You can, however, get today's 'she's not in jail' story. That's here.
And the amazing Sydney Morning Herald story, which is well worth reading, is here.
Monday, August 03, 2009
I don't understand, again
All too often our newspapers publish incomplete stories, quoting statements from officials and leaving it at that. Questions are not asked which would provide clarification of what the statement means.
There's another example in this morning's Khaleej Times, the headline being 'Ministry Launches Campaign Against Female Cross-dressers'.
Apparently the Ministry of Social Affairs has launched a campaign called "Excuse me, I’m a girl" to combat a trend of girls cross-dressing as men.
The Ministry has 'several solutions to combat the practice, including providing psychological treatment and social counselling to affected girls'.
As part of Sharjah's decency campaign in malls and residential areas, the police will question and arrest cross-dressing women and men.
By the way, according to the report this doesn't just apply to the northern emirates. It says that in Dubai 41 men and women who indulged in cross-dressing were arrested between May and July 2008.
Expatriates will be deported and UAE nationals will be referred to the public prosecution, so this is a serious matter.
So don't you think that the journalists should have clarified exactly what a female can and can't wear before filing the story?
Male cross-dressing is straighforward. A man wearing a dress, stilleto heels, make-up would fairly obviously be cross-dressing.
But a female?
Trousers? Jeans? Reeboks? A jacket? No make-up? What about something that's quite common, jeans under an abaya?
I expect an official will announce tomorrow that 'everybody knows' what female cross dressing is.
I don't.
The story's here.
There's another example in this morning's Khaleej Times, the headline being 'Ministry Launches Campaign Against Female Cross-dressers'.
Apparently the Ministry of Social Affairs has launched a campaign called "Excuse me, I’m a girl" to combat a trend of girls cross-dressing as men.
The Ministry has 'several solutions to combat the practice, including providing psychological treatment and social counselling to affected girls'.
As part of Sharjah's decency campaign in malls and residential areas, the police will question and arrest cross-dressing women and men.
By the way, according to the report this doesn't just apply to the northern emirates. It says that in Dubai 41 men and women who indulged in cross-dressing were arrested between May and July 2008.
Expatriates will be deported and UAE nationals will be referred to the public prosecution, so this is a serious matter.
So don't you think that the journalists should have clarified exactly what a female can and can't wear before filing the story?
Male cross-dressing is straighforward. A man wearing a dress, stilleto heels, make-up would fairly obviously be cross-dressing.
But a female?
Trousers? Jeans? Reeboks? A jacket? No make-up? What about something that's quite common, jeans under an abaya?
I expect an official will announce tomorrow that 'everybody knows' what female cross dressing is.
I don't.
The story's here.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Failing in the basics of journalism
I get more and more irritated that the media here think it's acceptable to publish half a story.
Simply print whatever an official says without asking obvious questions to provide clarification for their readers.
There's another example in 'Gulf News' this morning:
"Expatriates who are working in the UAE and are on vacation abroad will have to produce a medical certificate that proves they are not infected with H1N1 virus before returning to the country. The move will be implemented from August."
What certificate? Where do we get it from? Do the medical services around the world know of such a requirement and do they have such a certificate? Is a doctor's letter acceptable? What languages are acceptable, does it have to be translated into Arabic?
At which point do we have to produce the certificate, on boarding the aircraft? Are the world's airlines geared up for this? Do they even know about it?
Or if the point of entry is where we have to produce it, if we come through the e-gate who do we show it to? If we don't have a certificate are we denied entry? If we are, where do we go?
Mrs Seabee has to go to the UK for a couple of days of meetings in September. Is she supposed to add time to her trip to make an appointment with a local GP so that he can issue a 'certificate'?
Will the GP even know what she's talking about?
From writers to editors there's a constant and serious failure to do a basic professional job and provide information. What they actually do is create uncertainty and confusion.
It isn't rocket science is it, it's a fundamental basic of journalism, yet they fail on a regular basis.
Now having published this half information 'Gulf News' is duty bound to answer the questions it raises. Don't hold your breath though.
I suggest that it's a statement from an unauthorised 'official'. It was neither questioned nor checked and tomorrow another 'official' will deny it.
Whatever, it's sloppy, unprofessional and unacceptable journalism. But that's par for the course.
The half story is here.
Afternoon update
WAM, the official Emirates News Agency, is carrying a report: "'The news about this issue is completely untrue,' said Dr. Ali bin Shuker, Director of the Ministry of Health and Chairman of the Technical Health Committee for Combating Swine Flu.
You can find it here.
Simply print whatever an official says without asking obvious questions to provide clarification for their readers.
There's another example in 'Gulf News' this morning:
"Expatriates who are working in the UAE and are on vacation abroad will have to produce a medical certificate that proves they are not infected with H1N1 virus before returning to the country. The move will be implemented from August."
What certificate? Where do we get it from? Do the medical services around the world know of such a requirement and do they have such a certificate? Is a doctor's letter acceptable? What languages are acceptable, does it have to be translated into Arabic?
At which point do we have to produce the certificate, on boarding the aircraft? Are the world's airlines geared up for this? Do they even know about it?
Or if the point of entry is where we have to produce it, if we come through the e-gate who do we show it to? If we don't have a certificate are we denied entry? If we are, where do we go?
Mrs Seabee has to go to the UK for a couple of days of meetings in September. Is she supposed to add time to her trip to make an appointment with a local GP so that he can issue a 'certificate'?
Will the GP even know what she's talking about?
From writers to editors there's a constant and serious failure to do a basic professional job and provide information. What they actually do is create uncertainty and confusion.
It isn't rocket science is it, it's a fundamental basic of journalism, yet they fail on a regular basis.
Now having published this half information 'Gulf News' is duty bound to answer the questions it raises. Don't hold your breath though.
I suggest that it's a statement from an unauthorised 'official'. It was neither questioned nor checked and tomorrow another 'official' will deny it.
Whatever, it's sloppy, unprofessional and unacceptable journalism. But that's par for the course.
The half story is here.
Afternoon update
WAM, the official Emirates News Agency, is carrying a report: "'The news about this issue is completely untrue,' said Dr. Ali bin Shuker, Director of the Ministry of Health and Chairman of the Technical Health Committee for Combating Swine Flu.
You can find it here.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
More lies from Johann Hari
Our very own celebrity blogger Alexander over at Fake Plastic Souks has an excellent post on Johann Hari's latest piece of utter rubbish about Dubai.
Par for the course with Mr Hari I'm afraid.
He has a short piece in the Huffington Post which I'm not going to bother to write about, I just urge you to read what Alexander has to say.
I will say one thing though. In the piece headlined My Post About Dubai Is Now Banned In The City Mr Hari says that ...Dubai authorities have decreed that the article must not be read.
At the time of his original article there were more than a few people defending him, saying that he'd spent ten days in Dubai carefully researching his story, that he is a reputable journalist, one who checked his facts, who wouldn't run anything that wasn't true.
I disagreed and I still do.
And here's an example of why I do.
He states as a fact that his article is banned by Dubai authorities. To check whether he's telling the truth click here.
A good honest journalist who checks his facts eh?
If you're interested in what I had to say about his original article, you can find it here. I did a couple of follow-up posts over the next week too.
Par for the course with Mr Hari I'm afraid.
He has a short piece in the Huffington Post which I'm not going to bother to write about, I just urge you to read what Alexander has to say.
I will say one thing though. In the piece headlined My Post About Dubai Is Now Banned In The City Mr Hari says that ...Dubai authorities have decreed that the article must not be read.
At the time of his original article there were more than a few people defending him, saying that he'd spent ten days in Dubai carefully researching his story, that he is a reputable journalist, one who checked his facts, who wouldn't run anything that wasn't true.
I disagreed and I still do.
And here's an example of why I do.
He states as a fact that his article is banned by Dubai authorities. To check whether he's telling the truth click here.
A good honest journalist who checks his facts eh?
If you're interested in what I had to say about his original article, you can find it here. I did a couple of follow-up posts over the next week too.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Same story, very different slant
I read two papers over coffee this morning, both of which carried the same story.
But what a difference in presentation.
The story is, in my opinion, the biggest of the day, of massive importance. It's no less than the replacement of the Director General of Dubai's Department of Finance.
GN only had it as the second lead, treating the arrival of FlyDubai's first aircraft as more important.
I've since looked at EmBiz247 and they do no more than run the WAM basic facts, buried on Page 4. I can't find it at all in Khaleej Times online.
The story I think is of massive importance is the change of Director General at the Dubai Department of Finance.
That's a hugely important position, especially in the current economic situation, one of the most important in the emirate in my opinion.
The way the two papers have treated it is interesting, to say the least.
Gulf News headline the story: "Mohammed makes appointment to key government offices" and they quote the new DG.
The Middle East edition of the Financial Times headline their report: "Dubai demotes finance director." They give it more space and include relevant comment.
The previous DG was Nasser Al Shaikh who's been moved to become Deputy Director of Foreign Affairs at the Dubai Ruler's Court.
Naturally no reason was given for the decision.
In the FT, Simeon Kerr suggests that the decision to remove Mr Al Shaikh "will prompt concern among the region’s business elite and the bankers helping to steer Dubai out of the current downturn.
The highly regarded young official, who joined the department of finance only last year, was seen as one of the few who had grasped the scope of the economic problems facing Dubai.
Mr Shaikh had been championing a more transparent approach to the emirate’s finances as a means to help restore the city’s credibility. He oversaw publication of the emirate’s most detailed ever budget in January and was leading efforts to launch a sovereign rating for Dubai."
From all I've read and heard I have to agree. My perception was that he was doing an excellent job, under very difficult circumstances.
Boy, I'd love to know what the real story behind it is.
You can compare the way the two papers have slanted the story here:
Gulf News.
Financial Times.
But what a difference in presentation.
The story is, in my opinion, the biggest of the day, of massive importance. It's no less than the replacement of the Director General of Dubai's Department of Finance.
GN only had it as the second lead, treating the arrival of FlyDubai's first aircraft as more important.
I've since looked at EmBiz247 and they do no more than run the WAM basic facts, buried on Page 4. I can't find it at all in Khaleej Times online.
The story I think is of massive importance is the change of Director General at the Dubai Department of Finance.
That's a hugely important position, especially in the current economic situation, one of the most important in the emirate in my opinion.
The way the two papers have treated it is interesting, to say the least.
Gulf News headline the story: "Mohammed makes appointment to key government offices" and they quote the new DG.
The Middle East edition of the Financial Times headline their report: "Dubai demotes finance director." They give it more space and include relevant comment.
The previous DG was Nasser Al Shaikh who's been moved to become Deputy Director of Foreign Affairs at the Dubai Ruler's Court.
Naturally no reason was given for the decision.
In the FT, Simeon Kerr suggests that the decision to remove Mr Al Shaikh "will prompt concern among the region’s business elite and the bankers helping to steer Dubai out of the current downturn.
The highly regarded young official, who joined the department of finance only last year, was seen as one of the few who had grasped the scope of the economic problems facing Dubai.
Mr Shaikh had been championing a more transparent approach to the emirate’s finances as a means to help restore the city’s credibility. He oversaw publication of the emirate’s most detailed ever budget in January and was leading efforts to launch a sovereign rating for Dubai."
From all I've read and heard I have to agree. My perception was that he was doing an excellent job, under very difficult circumstances.
Boy, I'd love to know what the real story behind it is.
You can compare the way the two papers have slanted the story here:
Gulf News.
Financial Times.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Lost in translation
There's an interesting exclusive report in Maktoob Business, as Emjay pointed out in his comment left on my last post.
The report raises an old proposal and is headed Dubai mulls low-income driving ban.
I'm not going to get into the discrimination thing again, I've talked about this proposal in those terms before.
What interested me was the quotes attributed to Essa Abdul Rahman al-Dosari, CEO of the Public Transport Authority.
He is quoted as saying:
"There are certain categories of staff that are not able to use cars because their income is very low. Why should they drive in a city where they can’t afford to?"
"The wealthy, they are very few, why should we concentrate on them? Let them drive a car ... we should target the majority of people"
Did he really say that? Is that what he really meant?
They can't afford to drive. They're too poor to use their cars.
So if they're not driving why ban them?
The wealthy are very few.
Where is the line drawn under 'wealth' I wonder. What constitutes 'wealth' to the PTA? Earn less than, let me make a wild guess, Dh30,000 a month and you can't drive?
Was it beyond the ability of the 'journalist' to seek clarification.
The report is here.
The report raises an old proposal and is headed Dubai mulls low-income driving ban.
I'm not going to get into the discrimination thing again, I've talked about this proposal in those terms before.
What interested me was the quotes attributed to Essa Abdul Rahman al-Dosari, CEO of the Public Transport Authority.
He is quoted as saying:
"There are certain categories of staff that are not able to use cars because their income is very low. Why should they drive in a city where they can’t afford to?"
"The wealthy, they are very few, why should we concentrate on them? Let them drive a car ... we should target the majority of people"
Did he really say that? Is that what he really meant?
They can't afford to drive. They're too poor to use their cars.
So if they're not driving why ban them?
The wealthy are very few.
Where is the line drawn under 'wealth' I wonder. What constitutes 'wealth' to the PTA? Earn less than, let me make a wild guess, Dh30,000 a month and you can't drive?
Was it beyond the ability of the 'journalist' to seek clarification.
The report is here.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Hari article, an opportunity lost
To its credit The Independent has given space to Sultan Al Qassimi for a right-of-reply to Johann Hari's now infamous earlier piece on Dubai.
Sadly, Sultan has chosen to take the worst possible route.
He had the opportunity to point out that Johann's article represented only a tiny part of Dubai, that he interviewed the worst-behaved expats he could find and presented their behaviour as the norm, that the article contained more than a few inaccuracies and some questionable claims.
He had the opportunity to present a more balanced picture of Dubai while accepting that there are indeed problems to be resolved.
Instead, Sultan decided to run a similar attack to Hari's, concentrating solely on the worst elements of British society, past and present.
What a lost opportunity.
You can read Sultan's article here.
Sadly, Sultan has chosen to take the worst possible route.
He had the opportunity to point out that Johann's article represented only a tiny part of Dubai, that he interviewed the worst-behaved expats he could find and presented their behaviour as the norm, that the article contained more than a few inaccuracies and some questionable claims.
He had the opportunity to present a more balanced picture of Dubai while accepting that there are indeed problems to be resolved.
Instead, Sultan decided to run a similar attack to Hari's, concentrating solely on the worst elements of British society, past and present.
What a lost opportunity.
You can read Sultan's article here.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
So what is the population story?
Gulf News reports an address by the Director-General of Dubai Naturalisation & Residency Dept. to an American Business Council gathering, in which he quoted residency visa statistics.
The D-G said the official figures "...suggests a significant growth in population and that people coming to stay in Dubai outnumber those who are leaving the country by 50 per cent."
He gave the figures behind this as: "...DNRD has cancelled the residency visas of about 44,000 people during February and issued more than 66,000 residency visas in the same month."
As usual it would have been helpful if the 'journalists' had asked the obvious questions to clarify the figures. There are two blindingly obvious questions as far as I'm concerned.
One, were the 66,000 residency visas issued all for new arrivals or were some of them renewals? If it includes renewals, how many new visas were issued?
Two, what are the usual monthly cancellation/issuance figures for residence visas?
Gulf News report in full is here.
The D-G said the official figures "...suggests a significant growth in population and that people coming to stay in Dubai outnumber those who are leaving the country by 50 per cent."
He gave the figures behind this as: "...DNRD has cancelled the residency visas of about 44,000 people during February and issued more than 66,000 residency visas in the same month."
As usual it would have been helpful if the 'journalists' had asked the obvious questions to clarify the figures. There are two blindingly obvious questions as far as I'm concerned.
One, were the 66,000 residency visas issued all for new arrivals or were some of them renewals? If it includes renewals, how many new visas were issued?
Two, what are the usual monthly cancellation/issuance figures for residence visas?
Gulf News report in full is here.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
More poor reporting from The Times
The Times continues to demonstrate a knock-Dubai agenda with its spin on the Queen's cancellation of her Spring tour.
All the other news outlets say that the tour destination has not been announced although it's generally believed to have been to various Gulf destinations. Buckingham Palace says the cancellation is due to an overcrowded schedule but the other news outlets speculate the cancellation is almost certainly to do with her age and Prince Philip's health.
The Times alone takes a very different approach.
Their print edition headline is : "A further blow for Dubai as Palace blames cancelled visit on diary clash."
The online edition has the story headed "Queen cancels state visit to Dubai and Abu Dhabi."
They also ramble on yet again that 'police have found more than 3,000 cars' abandoned at the airport by fleeing expats.
They embellish it with even more nonsense this time. The cars they tell us are"mainly Mercedes and large 4x4s""
This time they've managed to use the correct title of Ruler rather than Emir as they used before. They couldn't keep the accuracy up though, they name the Ruler of Abu Dhabi as 'Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan'.
Imagine the ridicule if our papers said that England's monarch was Prince Charles.
It would be fascinating to discover why they're suddenly attacking Dubai. As
Alexander notes on his comment to my previous post, they do seem to be grinding an axe.
It's sad to see these plunging standards in a newspaper which through its long history, until recently, was one of the world's most respected.
If you think I'm exaggerating, have a look at the cancelled tour reports from a wide range of other news outlets and then read the way The Times have slanted it.
Press Association.
BBC.
Daily Telegraph.
Independent.
Daily Express.
Daily Mail.
The Times.
All the other news outlets say that the tour destination has not been announced although it's generally believed to have been to various Gulf destinations. Buckingham Palace says the cancellation is due to an overcrowded schedule but the other news outlets speculate the cancellation is almost certainly to do with her age and Prince Philip's health.
The Times alone takes a very different approach.
Their print edition headline is : "A further blow for Dubai as Palace blames cancelled visit on diary clash."
The online edition has the story headed "Queen cancels state visit to Dubai and Abu Dhabi."
They also ramble on yet again that 'police have found more than 3,000 cars' abandoned at the airport by fleeing expats.
They embellish it with even more nonsense this time. The cars they tell us are"mainly Mercedes and large 4x4s""
This time they've managed to use the correct title of Ruler rather than Emir as they used before. They couldn't keep the accuracy up though, they name the Ruler of Abu Dhabi as 'Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan'.
Imagine the ridicule if our papers said that England's monarch was Prince Charles.
It would be fascinating to discover why they're suddenly attacking Dubai. As
Alexander notes on his comment to my previous post, they do seem to be grinding an axe.
It's sad to see these plunging standards in a newspaper which through its long history, until recently, was one of the world's most respected.
If you think I'm exaggerating, have a look at the cancelled tour reports from a wide range of other news outlets and then read the way The Times have slanted it.
Press Association.
BBC.
Daily Telegraph.
Independent.
Daily Express.
Daily Mail.
The Times.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
More questionable reporting
The Times seems to have gone tabloid in today's sensationalist reporting of how the worldwide slump is affecting Dubai.
In the locally printed edition three-quarters of Page 4 is devoted to a piece based on the rumours about dumped cars at the airport. It's datelined Dubai but tells us that we apparently have an Emir called Sheikh Mohammed. An Emir.
The story is highlighted on the front page with a colour photo and headline "Dubai's car crash victims", although it's actually about Brits leaving Dubai.
It's a one-sided story based on hearsay and dinner party rumour rather than verified facts.
Examples:
Police have found more than 3,000 cars outside Dubai’s international airport in recent months. Most of the cars – four-wheel drives, saloons and “a few” Mercedes – had keys left in the ignition.
The dinner party rumour is that 3,000 cars have been left at the airport, it's not what the authorities have said. As I said in my last post, the police have reported 3,000 cars abandoned around the city - against a usual number of 1,500.
And that word 'most' pops up to emphasise a point. 'Most' cars had keys left in them? Most? Or some?
The word 'many' is used in the same way:
When the market collapsed and the emirate’s once-booming economy started to slow down, many expatriates were left owning several homes and unable to pay the mortgages without credit.
Many expats owned several homes? Oh yeah?
And what does 'unable to pay the mortgages without credit' mean? A mortgage is credit, it is a loan.
Here's a classic dinner party quote:
...the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Dubai is emptying out,” said a Western diplomat.
Emptying out?
People are still arriving every day; the DNRD have said that they issued 199,000 new resident visas in November and December. It's true that more people than usual are leaving and there's a net decrease in population. Estimates are that we'll end up with about 8% less than now, which means about a 120,000 reduction. Hardly 'emptying out' is it.
Interestingly the 8% figure is listed alongside the article in a highlight numbers column, contradicting the dinner party quote.
Then the emotive word 'fled' is used:
...the (British) embassy has no way of tracking how many have fled back to the UK.
Fled?
People flee from conflict, flee from a bush fire. These people haven't fled, they've lost their jobs, can't stay without a residence visa so they've gone back home.
The highlight numbers column continues the way the article is slanted:
1,500 visas cancelled every day in Dubai.
I commented on this figure in my previous post.
60% fall in property values predicted.
50% slump in the price of luxury apartments on Palm Jumeirah
A sudden increase to 60% from the worst figure guessed at, and Palm Jumeirah brought in. Again I commented on this in my previous post. A fall against when? Check the prices since the property was launched and through to now, there's a huge increase in value until the last few months.
By the way, they say their sources include arabbusiness.com. No such thing of course, I assume they mean arabianbusiness.com
With that and Emir you'd be excused for thinking they're laying off people themselves, like proof readers for example.
Or in Timesspeak, proof readers have fled.
I'm far from being a conspiracy theorist on any subject but there does seem to be an agenda here.
I say that because there's also an 'analysis' by none less the the grandly titled World Business Editor, under the headline "With no oil to back it up, desert economy is built on shifting sand'
It starts with the implication that Dubai is a brand new city.
Dubai’s boom was always a mirage made up of fast money, mass immigration, low taxation and gentle regulation. Dubai has almost no oil but cleverly decided to boost its economy as a financial and leisure centre for neighbouring cash-rich but service-poor Gulf economies.
Back here in the real world oil has always been only a small part of Dubai's economy. In any case it only came onstream in the sixties and for most of the forty-odd years it sold for peanuts. Dubai has been a trading and commercial centre for about 150 years, oil has been a short term boost to the economy.
To state that Dubai relates only to its neighbouring Gulf countries is to misrepresent competely. Dubai's business, including finance, is international, as is tourism, which they would know if they'd bothered to check the data on both. But then those facts would have spoilt the slant of the 'analysis'.
Mass immigration? Dubai from its very beginning has had a huge expat population.
It became a magnet for Saudis and Iranians seeking a liberal environment in which to play global financial markets and work off personal stress. A vast community of expatriates arrived to service their whims and their business needs...
Only Saudis and Iranians? That's the suggestion.
The whole thing is a nonsense. They, and any other nationality, can play the financial markets from anywhere. And the rest of us, about a million people, are here to service the whims of Saudis and Iranians?
I bet you didn't realise that's why you were here. I didn't.
There's more;
Two struggling mortgage banks were then bailed out and shuffled into a new state-owned entity. Yesterday the Government of Abu Dhabi was forced to inject a further $4 billion (£3 billion) into three of its banks.
I assume he's referring to Amlak and Tamweel, which are government owned anyway.
And it's hardly worth reporting these days that a government has put liquidity into the financial and banking system. It would only be news if a government somewhere hadn't.
The 'analysis' ends:
For Abu Dhabi, there is always the oil and gas but for its wayward sibling the future is no more solid than the shifting sands of the surrounding desert.
Oh dear, the hackneyed old chestnut about shifting sands. This time used to support the nonsense that Dubai has no future.
It ignores the history of Dubai, from its beginnings a commercial and trading centre, which has gone through all the same periods of boom and downturn as the rest of the world.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the writer started with the cliche. To work it in, the 'analysis' also has to ignore another important fact. This is a worldwide slump. Exactly the same as the rest of the world, Dubai has gone through a boom period which has ended.
It's cyclical. We have downturns, recessions, booms & busts regularly.
Today's paper seems to be part of the new approach to Dubai, which until a few months ago had nothing but fawning rave reports from the international media.
It mirrors something that's annoying me more and more with each passing day too. The glee with which so many people here are talking about the downturn in Dubai.
It's what we call the tall poppy syndrome.
I have no problem with stories talking about the downturn, provided that they are honest. I do have a problem with stories which cherry pick the facts, which use rumours rather than verified facts, which distort the true picture.
Fleeing Brits story.
'Analysis'.
In the locally printed edition three-quarters of Page 4 is devoted to a piece based on the rumours about dumped cars at the airport. It's datelined Dubai but tells us that we apparently have an Emir called Sheikh Mohammed. An Emir.
The story is highlighted on the front page with a colour photo and headline "Dubai's car crash victims", although it's actually about Brits leaving Dubai.
It's a one-sided story based on hearsay and dinner party rumour rather than verified facts.
Examples:
Police have found more than 3,000 cars outside Dubai’s international airport in recent months. Most of the cars – four-wheel drives, saloons and “a few” Mercedes – had keys left in the ignition.
The dinner party rumour is that 3,000 cars have been left at the airport, it's not what the authorities have said. As I said in my last post, the police have reported 3,000 cars abandoned around the city - against a usual number of 1,500.
And that word 'most' pops up to emphasise a point. 'Most' cars had keys left in them? Most? Or some?
The word 'many' is used in the same way:
When the market collapsed and the emirate’s once-booming economy started to slow down, many expatriates were left owning several homes and unable to pay the mortgages without credit.
Many expats owned several homes? Oh yeah?
And what does 'unable to pay the mortgages without credit' mean? A mortgage is credit, it is a loan.
Here's a classic dinner party quote:
...the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Dubai is emptying out,” said a Western diplomat.
Emptying out?
People are still arriving every day; the DNRD have said that they issued 199,000 new resident visas in November and December. It's true that more people than usual are leaving and there's a net decrease in population. Estimates are that we'll end up with about 8% less than now, which means about a 120,000 reduction. Hardly 'emptying out' is it.
Interestingly the 8% figure is listed alongside the article in a highlight numbers column, contradicting the dinner party quote.
Then the emotive word 'fled' is used:
...the (British) embassy has no way of tracking how many have fled back to the UK.
Fled?
People flee from conflict, flee from a bush fire. These people haven't fled, they've lost their jobs, can't stay without a residence visa so they've gone back home.
The highlight numbers column continues the way the article is slanted:
1,500 visas cancelled every day in Dubai.
I commented on this figure in my previous post.
60% fall in property values predicted.
50% slump in the price of luxury apartments on Palm Jumeirah
A sudden increase to 60% from the worst figure guessed at, and Palm Jumeirah brought in. Again I commented on this in my previous post. A fall against when? Check the prices since the property was launched and through to now, there's a huge increase in value until the last few months.
By the way, they say their sources include arabbusiness.com. No such thing of course, I assume they mean arabianbusiness.com
With that and Emir you'd be excused for thinking they're laying off people themselves, like proof readers for example.
Or in Timesspeak, proof readers have fled.
I'm far from being a conspiracy theorist on any subject but there does seem to be an agenda here.
I say that because there's also an 'analysis' by none less the the grandly titled World Business Editor, under the headline "With no oil to back it up, desert economy is built on shifting sand'
It starts with the implication that Dubai is a brand new city.
Dubai’s boom was always a mirage made up of fast money, mass immigration, low taxation and gentle regulation. Dubai has almost no oil but cleverly decided to boost its economy as a financial and leisure centre for neighbouring cash-rich but service-poor Gulf economies.
Back here in the real world oil has always been only a small part of Dubai's economy. In any case it only came onstream in the sixties and for most of the forty-odd years it sold for peanuts. Dubai has been a trading and commercial centre for about 150 years, oil has been a short term boost to the economy.
To state that Dubai relates only to its neighbouring Gulf countries is to misrepresent competely. Dubai's business, including finance, is international, as is tourism, which they would know if they'd bothered to check the data on both. But then those facts would have spoilt the slant of the 'analysis'.
Mass immigration? Dubai from its very beginning has had a huge expat population.
It became a magnet for Saudis and Iranians seeking a liberal environment in which to play global financial markets and work off personal stress. A vast community of expatriates arrived to service their whims and their business needs...
Only Saudis and Iranians? That's the suggestion.
The whole thing is a nonsense. They, and any other nationality, can play the financial markets from anywhere. And the rest of us, about a million people, are here to service the whims of Saudis and Iranians?
I bet you didn't realise that's why you were here. I didn't.
There's more;
Two struggling mortgage banks were then bailed out and shuffled into a new state-owned entity. Yesterday the Government of Abu Dhabi was forced to inject a further $4 billion (£3 billion) into three of its banks.
I assume he's referring to Amlak and Tamweel, which are government owned anyway.
And it's hardly worth reporting these days that a government has put liquidity into the financial and banking system. It would only be news if a government somewhere hadn't.
The 'analysis' ends:
For Abu Dhabi, there is always the oil and gas but for its wayward sibling the future is no more solid than the shifting sands of the surrounding desert.
Oh dear, the hackneyed old chestnut about shifting sands. This time used to support the nonsense that Dubai has no future.
It ignores the history of Dubai, from its beginnings a commercial and trading centre, which has gone through all the same periods of boom and downturn as the rest of the world.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the writer started with the cliche. To work it in, the 'analysis' also has to ignore another important fact. This is a worldwide slump. Exactly the same as the rest of the world, Dubai has gone through a boom period which has ended.
It's cyclical. We have downturns, recessions, booms & busts regularly.
Today's paper seems to be part of the new approach to Dubai, which until a few months ago had nothing but fawning rave reports from the international media.
It mirrors something that's annoying me more and more with each passing day too. The glee with which so many people here are talking about the downturn in Dubai.
It's what we call the tall poppy syndrome.
I have no problem with stories talking about the downturn, provided that they are honest. I do have a problem with stories which cherry pick the facts, which use rumours rather than verified facts, which distort the true picture.
Fleeing Brits story.
'Analysis'.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Out of context
I'm getting irritated with our 'journalists' again.
It's a constant state with me but every so often it peaks, as it has this morning.
First item on the radio news was "Property prices may drop by up to 50% in Dubai this year!"
As usual it's nothing more than a guess from an 'expert', some crystal-ball gazing.
Taking just one guess from one person and making it the headline news is hardly responsible journalism.
Nor is announcing figures without putting them in context.
A drop against what? Against when?
If you'd bought a 2-bedroom apartment for Dh450,000 as so many people originally did, or a villa for a million, you haven't seen anything less than a huge increase in value.
If you're going to quote figures you must put them in context but all too often our 'journalists' don't bother with the context.
There's another example with the recent statement that Pakistanis are the most dangerous drivers in Dubai, police data shows. Indians were number two on the list.
Apart from finding lists like this based on nationality offensive, I also have a problem with the presentation of the data.
Firstly, the list wasn't of dangerous drivers, it was of drivers involved in fatal crashes. They are not the same thing.
And there was no context of percentage of drivers by nationality. Of our total drivers, what percentage are Pakistani, and Indian, and all the rest of us. With so many Pakistani HGV drivers, and with the fact that a high percentage of the population - thus drivers - are from the sub-continent, you would expect their numbers involved in crashes to be higher than the smaller represented nationalities.
If you're going to list dangerous drivers by nationality then at least give the context of the percentage by which each nationality is represented in the total number of drivers.
It was the same with the recent '1500 visas a day being cancelled' reports.
That was used as part of the panic stories that Dubai is being hit by the worldwide economic crisis.
Dubai has always been a transient, guest worker society. People have always come and gone on a daily basis.
So where's the context? How does the figure compare with previous years? How many new visas are being issued - and how does that compare with previous years? What is the actual effect on our population?
We can't get a true picture without the context.
There's a chink of light though, examples getting closer to how information should be presented, in EmBiz247 this morning and in The National last month.
An EmBiz247 article tells us:
Property prices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi have fallen by an average of 25 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, since their peak in September 2008.
It is difficult to determine the actual change in property prices given the lack of official data about transactions and costs.
...a data sample compiled on a monthly basis from Better Homes, a property broker in the UAE, apartment prices fell by five per cent in December 2008 from their September peak."We think these numbers are misleading to some extent given the current market circumstances, where some asking prices for the same unit have not changed for months, which, in turn, has inflated average prices"
There's more in similar vein, giving figures but trying to present them in context, which gives a much more accurate picture. The drop is against the peak, so in reality prices are probably back to where they were about the middle of last year.
The National had a much misrepresented story on abandoned cars. The general hysteria has turned the story into thousands of cars being dumped at Dubai airport by fleeing expats.
In reality, being the transient society that it is, Dubai has always had a dumped car problem. I remember it way back in the seventies.
Thankfully, the article puts some context:
More than 3,000 cars have been abandoned by owners to escape loan payments, just over double the figure in 2007.
A UAE bank official, who requested anonymity, said people who dumped their cars and fled the country were known as “skips”.
“This isn’t unusual here,” he said. “A lot of times people just leave. You get a credit card and loans and then you lose your job. What to do? Go home."
Oh, and it does say that police recently moved not thousands, as the rumours have it, but 22 cars from the airport.
So, abandoning cars isn't unusual but the number has doubled. We have context, so we can make sense of the figures.
Would the rest of our 'journalists' please take note.
It isn't difficult. You get information that cars are being abandoned. You don't simply write it up. First you check the facts with the appropriate authority. Then you ask how that compares with last year. Then you write the story giving the numbers and the context.
Dangerous drivers.
1500 visas cancelled daily.
Property drops by 25%.
Abandoned cars.
It's a constant state with me but every so often it peaks, as it has this morning.
First item on the radio news was "Property prices may drop by up to 50% in Dubai this year!"
As usual it's nothing more than a guess from an 'expert', some crystal-ball gazing.
Taking just one guess from one person and making it the headline news is hardly responsible journalism.
Nor is announcing figures without putting them in context.
A drop against what? Against when?
If you'd bought a 2-bedroom apartment for Dh450,000 as so many people originally did, or a villa for a million, you haven't seen anything less than a huge increase in value.
If you're going to quote figures you must put them in context but all too often our 'journalists' don't bother with the context.
There's another example with the recent statement that Pakistanis are the most dangerous drivers in Dubai, police data shows. Indians were number two on the list.
Apart from finding lists like this based on nationality offensive, I also have a problem with the presentation of the data.
Firstly, the list wasn't of dangerous drivers, it was of drivers involved in fatal crashes. They are not the same thing.
And there was no context of percentage of drivers by nationality. Of our total drivers, what percentage are Pakistani, and Indian, and all the rest of us. With so many Pakistani HGV drivers, and with the fact that a high percentage of the population - thus drivers - are from the sub-continent, you would expect their numbers involved in crashes to be higher than the smaller represented nationalities.
If you're going to list dangerous drivers by nationality then at least give the context of the percentage by which each nationality is represented in the total number of drivers.
It was the same with the recent '1500 visas a day being cancelled' reports.
That was used as part of the panic stories that Dubai is being hit by the worldwide economic crisis.
Dubai has always been a transient, guest worker society. People have always come and gone on a daily basis.
So where's the context? How does the figure compare with previous years? How many new visas are being issued - and how does that compare with previous years? What is the actual effect on our population?
We can't get a true picture without the context.
There's a chink of light though, examples getting closer to how information should be presented, in EmBiz247 this morning and in The National last month.
An EmBiz247 article tells us:
Property prices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi have fallen by an average of 25 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, since their peak in September 2008.
It is difficult to determine the actual change in property prices given the lack of official data about transactions and costs.
...a data sample compiled on a monthly basis from Better Homes, a property broker in the UAE, apartment prices fell by five per cent in December 2008 from their September peak."We think these numbers are misleading to some extent given the current market circumstances, where some asking prices for the same unit have not changed for months, which, in turn, has inflated average prices"
There's more in similar vein, giving figures but trying to present them in context, which gives a much more accurate picture. The drop is against the peak, so in reality prices are probably back to where they were about the middle of last year.
The National had a much misrepresented story on abandoned cars. The general hysteria has turned the story into thousands of cars being dumped at Dubai airport by fleeing expats.
In reality, being the transient society that it is, Dubai has always had a dumped car problem. I remember it way back in the seventies.
Thankfully, the article puts some context:
More than 3,000 cars have been abandoned by owners to escape loan payments, just over double the figure in 2007.
A UAE bank official, who requested anonymity, said people who dumped their cars and fled the country were known as “skips”.
“This isn’t unusual here,” he said. “A lot of times people just leave. You get a credit card and loans and then you lose your job. What to do? Go home."
Oh, and it does say that police recently moved not thousands, as the rumours have it, but 22 cars from the airport.
So, abandoning cars isn't unusual but the number has doubled. We have context, so we can make sense of the figures.
Would the rest of our 'journalists' please take note.
It isn't difficult. You get information that cars are being abandoned. You don't simply write it up. First you check the facts with the appropriate authority. Then you ask how that compares with last year. Then you write the story giving the numbers and the context.
Dangerous drivers.
1500 visas cancelled daily.
Property drops by 25%.
Abandoned cars.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Blogging becoming respectable?
There's an interesting development in the relationship between mainstream journalism and bloggers reported in Gulf News this morning.
Blogging has been, still is, much derided. A bunch of ignorant egotistical loonies ranting on, or sad people bearing their souls and giving us far too much personal information.
But it's gradually changing and people seem to be starting to accept us.
Gulf News has a full page on the State of the Press, the 'annual report on the evolution of press freedom'.
In it they report:
Bloggers and operators of cyber news sites, facing legal actions in the UAE, will become the first in the world to receive legal support from the Journalists' Association, provided they abide by the ethical and professional rules of the profession.
Mohammad Yousuf, secretary general of the association, told Gulf News the move came as a gesture from the association to improve the quality of blogging in the country and enhance the credibility of internet sites.
He said the association views the growing importance of blogging and cyber space as a "Fifth Estate" in the UAE and would like to ensure clean, credible and transparent environment of blogging activities in the UAE.
Surf around the blogosphere and you'll find just about everything it's possible to find. That includes the very personal diaries that were the origin of blogging, the keeping-in-touch-with-family blogs, mind-boggling extremist blogs of every persuasion, pornography blogs, comedy blogs. There are also plenty of news and opinion blogs.
Since I started blogging I've believed that those of us doing primarily news and op-ed blogs, although we're not trained journalists and we're not in the mainstream media, should keep laws and propriety in mind when we publish anything. After all, we put the stuff out there for anyone in the world with access to a computer to read.
'Life in Dubai' like many other blogs has links to it on several international mainstream media sites, is quoted in the mainstream media, is running at more than 12,000 visitors a month from around the world. That puts a responsibility on us. In those circumstances the laws of libel, for example, must surely apply to us as much as they do to the mainstream media.
Using that example, if we do libel someone we should expect to be treated the same as anyone in the media. But the other side of that coin is that I also think we should have the same protections as anyone else in the media.
I agree with what Mr Yousuf is reported as saying, except one small sentence.
Those who continue casting their views under vague identities will not be able to seek the association's help.
Using a nom de plume, such as Seabee, is not unusual or sinister and we each have our valid reasons for doing so. Many mainstream writers do the same and newspaper editorial writers are completely anonymous.
I've long believed that blogs can be a great source of information, can give the view from the street. In situations such as Gaza over the past three weeks, bloggers provide information and photographs which no-one else can.
Like all media you have to keep your brain in gear when you're reading the stories, don't blindly believe all you read, be aware of the perspective of the writer. Read a number of different blogs on a subject to get a broader perspective, just as you should with the mainstream media - imagine using Fox News as your only or main source of information!
If you're a blogger you should read the Gulf News story, which is here.
Blogging has been, still is, much derided. A bunch of ignorant egotistical loonies ranting on, or sad people bearing their souls and giving us far too much personal information.
But it's gradually changing and people seem to be starting to accept us.
Gulf News has a full page on the State of the Press, the 'annual report on the evolution of press freedom'.
In it they report:
Bloggers and operators of cyber news sites, facing legal actions in the UAE, will become the first in the world to receive legal support from the Journalists' Association, provided they abide by the ethical and professional rules of the profession.
Mohammad Yousuf, secretary general of the association, told Gulf News the move came as a gesture from the association to improve the quality of blogging in the country and enhance the credibility of internet sites.
He said the association views the growing importance of blogging and cyber space as a "Fifth Estate" in the UAE and would like to ensure clean, credible and transparent environment of blogging activities in the UAE.
Surf around the blogosphere and you'll find just about everything it's possible to find. That includes the very personal diaries that were the origin of blogging, the keeping-in-touch-with-family blogs, mind-boggling extremist blogs of every persuasion, pornography blogs, comedy blogs. There are also plenty of news and opinion blogs.
Since I started blogging I've believed that those of us doing primarily news and op-ed blogs, although we're not trained journalists and we're not in the mainstream media, should keep laws and propriety in mind when we publish anything. After all, we put the stuff out there for anyone in the world with access to a computer to read.
'Life in Dubai' like many other blogs has links to it on several international mainstream media sites, is quoted in the mainstream media, is running at more than 12,000 visitors a month from around the world. That puts a responsibility on us. In those circumstances the laws of libel, for example, must surely apply to us as much as they do to the mainstream media.
Using that example, if we do libel someone we should expect to be treated the same as anyone in the media. But the other side of that coin is that I also think we should have the same protections as anyone else in the media.
I agree with what Mr Yousuf is reported as saying, except one small sentence.
Those who continue casting their views under vague identities will not be able to seek the association's help.
Using a nom de plume, such as Seabee, is not unusual or sinister and we each have our valid reasons for doing so. Many mainstream writers do the same and newspaper editorial writers are completely anonymous.
I've long believed that blogs can be a great source of information, can give the view from the street. In situations such as Gaza over the past three weeks, bloggers provide information and photographs which no-one else can.
Like all media you have to keep your brain in gear when you're reading the stories, don't blindly believe all you read, be aware of the perspective of the writer. Read a number of different blogs on a subject to get a broader perspective, just as you should with the mainstream media - imagine using Fox News as your only or main source of information!
If you're a blogger you should read the Gulf News story, which is here.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Another rant.
The usual and very common error of using 'of ' when it should be 'have' - as in "I could of done that" - annoys the hell out of me.
Now there's a variation. I copied and pasted this from the website of Sydney Morning Herald.
ABC journo faces cane and jail
7:23pm ABC journalist Peter Lloyd, 41, has been charged in Singapore of supplying drugs.
Charged of supplying!
Now there's a variation. I copied and pasted this from the website of Sydney Morning Herald.
ABC journo faces cane and jail
7:23pm ABC journalist Peter Lloyd, 41, has been charged in Singapore of supplying drugs.
Charged of supplying!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Light at the end of the tunnel
There are encouraging signs that little by little we may be getting to more public honesty about things.
We're used to the relentless 'everything is good, nothing bad ever happens' style of reporting, but there are the odd signs that it's beginning to be a bit more realistic, a bit more honest.
Not only are officials, and The Big Boss, saying things publicly that once would have been kept private, but they are being reported.
There's another little item along these lines today with the announcement that Dubai Police are launching an anti-narcotics campaign. Part of it is to help rehabilitate 5,000 drug addicts in the Arab world.
Announcing it, Police Chief Lt.General Dahi Khalfan Tamim said that according to international statistics there are 10 million addicts in the Arab world.
Not so long ago that kind of thing would not have been spoken about publicly.
Unless problems are identified and acknowledged they can never be fixed. And it's always dangerous if the general public is kept in the dark and believes that nothing bad is happening around them.
A shortened version of the newspaper report is here.
We're used to the relentless 'everything is good, nothing bad ever happens' style of reporting, but there are the odd signs that it's beginning to be a bit more realistic, a bit more honest.
Not only are officials, and The Big Boss, saying things publicly that once would have been kept private, but they are being reported.
There's another little item along these lines today with the announcement that Dubai Police are launching an anti-narcotics campaign. Part of it is to help rehabilitate 5,000 drug addicts in the Arab world.
Announcing it, Police Chief Lt.General Dahi Khalfan Tamim said that according to international statistics there are 10 million addicts in the Arab world.
Not so long ago that kind of thing would not have been spoken about publicly.
Unless problems are identified and acknowledged they can never be fixed. And it's always dangerous if the general public is kept in the dark and believes that nothing bad is happening around them.
A shortened version of the newspaper report is here.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Lost in translation?
It happens all the time. A press report quoting officials that leaves me bewildered.
I've mused in earlier posts - is it a language problem?
Does the official say words that don't quite come out as what he means? Or does he mean exactly what he says? Has the reporter mis-heard, misunderstood, misquoted?
Front page of Emirates Today is another classic example, in the story about 'beach pests'.
Protection of females using the beaches is vital on a number of levels. To see action being taken against the hordes of men harassing, photographing, propositioning them is excellent news.
The story is based around a conversation with the Director of Dubai Police CID, who explains what action is being taken.
Amongst it we get on to confusing stuff.
For example, he is quoted as saying that his department is prepared to arrest every man who goes to the beach for the sole purpose of staring at female swimmers.
Hmmm...difficult to prove I would have thought, and they're not likely to admit to that. More likely they'll say they were just taking the sea air, getting some exercise, meeting with their friends - just as the rest of us do. Some of them will be doing just that too I would have thought.
Then the quote that I really don't understand: "Those who go to the beach must swim. They are not allowed to sit and watch the swimmers...On the beach, they must swim or else they will be arrested."
Most of us who go to the beach spend more time sitting on the beach than we do in the water. Most of us look around at other beach-users, watch the people in the water.
That isn't the problem at all.
The actual problem is well-documented - groups of men invading females' personal space, both on the beach and in the water (but that's OK because the men are swimming?); illegally photographing them without their permission; making unwelcome advances; propositioning them.
It's good news that the issue is being addressed, but if the quotes are correct the way it's being planned is simplistic in the extreme and leaves a lot to be desired.
The full story is at Emirates Today
I've mused in earlier posts - is it a language problem?
Does the official say words that don't quite come out as what he means? Or does he mean exactly what he says? Has the reporter mis-heard, misunderstood, misquoted?
Front page of Emirates Today is another classic example, in the story about 'beach pests'.
Protection of females using the beaches is vital on a number of levels. To see action being taken against the hordes of men harassing, photographing, propositioning them is excellent news.
The story is based around a conversation with the Director of Dubai Police CID, who explains what action is being taken.
Amongst it we get on to confusing stuff.
For example, he is quoted as saying that his department is prepared to arrest every man who goes to the beach for the sole purpose of staring at female swimmers.
Hmmm...difficult to prove I would have thought, and they're not likely to admit to that. More likely they'll say they were just taking the sea air, getting some exercise, meeting with their friends - just as the rest of us do. Some of them will be doing just that too I would have thought.
Then the quote that I really don't understand: "Those who go to the beach must swim. They are not allowed to sit and watch the swimmers...On the beach, they must swim or else they will be arrested."
Most of us who go to the beach spend more time sitting on the beach than we do in the water. Most of us look around at other beach-users, watch the people in the water.
That isn't the problem at all.
The actual problem is well-documented - groups of men invading females' personal space, both on the beach and in the water (but that's OK because the men are swimming?); illegally photographing them without their permission; making unwelcome advances; propositioning them.
It's good news that the issue is being addressed, but if the quotes are correct the way it's being planned is simplistic in the extreme and leaves a lot to be desired.
The full story is at Emirates Today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
