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 mis-reporting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mis-reporting. Show all posts
Friday, July 22, 2011
Saturday, April 09, 2011
The fog did NOT do it!
Sitting here in the UK on a crystal clear early evening I thought I'd have a quick look at Gulf News before we find a nice village pub for dinner.
The morning we left Dubai was when the latest multi-vehicle pile up was reported, a story that has legs, as they say. I found it still being talked about in today's online GN, proof yet again that criminally moronic drivers are not being blamed for our too-frequent road carnage in bad weather.
There's an article headlined "Timeline: crashes caused by poor visibility"
The latest big crash was "caused by heavy morning fog" we're assured.
The other eight crashes listed were also caused by the "foggy weather conditions and poor visibility"
Not, you note, by terminally stupid drivers travelling at 140kph in 50 metre visibility.
I know I've gone on about this several times in the past but I really do need to keep repeating myself. What chance is there of ever changing these driving habits when those responsible for the carnage are excused because it wasn't their fault, it was the fog's.
Note to Gulf News - the fog wasn't driving the vehicles at insane speeds. The fog wasn't driving too close to the vehicle in front. The fog did not cause the crashes.
The crash, the death, the injuries were all caused by the drivers.
The drivers, not the weather.
Weather drives cars says Gulf News.
The morning we left Dubai was when the latest multi-vehicle pile up was reported, a story that has legs, as they say. I found it still being talked about in today's online GN, proof yet again that criminally moronic drivers are not being blamed for our too-frequent road carnage in bad weather.
There's an article headlined "Timeline: crashes caused by poor visibility"
The latest big crash was "caused by heavy morning fog" we're assured.
The other eight crashes listed were also caused by the "foggy weather conditions and poor visibility"
Not, you note, by terminally stupid drivers travelling at 140kph in 50 metre visibility.
I know I've gone on about this several times in the past but I really do need to keep repeating myself. What chance is there of ever changing these driving habits when those responsible for the carnage are excused because it wasn't their fault, it was the fog's.
Note to Gulf News - the fog wasn't driving the vehicles at insane speeds. The fog wasn't driving too close to the vehicle in front. The fog did not cause the crashes.
The crash, the death, the injuries were all caused by the drivers.
The drivers, not the weather.
Weather drives cars says Gulf News.
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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
It's quiet out there
There's nothing going on is there?
The UAE blogosphere is very quiet but that's just a reflection of the lack of anything much happening in the real world.
Every summer's the same, but this one probably quieter than we've had for many years because of the global economic meltdown.
Apart from the development/construction slowdown which has hit us the holiday exodus is well under way, the roads are quieter, the restaurants have fewer customers, the people still here are staying indoors. There's no news of activity from the commercial sector so there's nothing happening on the stock market. Outside workers have their midday break so construction stops - in fact at that time of day the whole city seems to be in pause mode.
Apart from the handful of sweating tourists I've seen, staggering around in the heat and humidity realising why they got such a cheap package deal, everywhere is quiet.
I haven't even seen what the UK's Observer newspaper reported to its readers: "Middle-aged men in responsible jobs – accountants, marketeers, bankers – who for 10 months of the year are devoted husbands, transform in July and August into priapic stallions roaming the bars of Sheikh Zayed Road."
Anybody else seen the herds of priapic stallions stampeding up and down SZR?
Ridiculous article in the Observer.
BTW, I didn't post on the Observer column because Alexander did it so well here on his blog Fake Plastic Souks.
The UAE blogosphere is very quiet but that's just a reflection of the lack of anything much happening in the real world.
Every summer's the same, but this one probably quieter than we've had for many years because of the global economic meltdown.
Apart from the development/construction slowdown which has hit us the holiday exodus is well under way, the roads are quieter, the restaurants have fewer customers, the people still here are staying indoors. There's no news of activity from the commercial sector so there's nothing happening on the stock market. Outside workers have their midday break so construction stops - in fact at that time of day the whole city seems to be in pause mode.
Apart from the handful of sweating tourists I've seen, staggering around in the heat and humidity realising why they got such a cheap package deal, everywhere is quiet.
I haven't even seen what the UK's Observer newspaper reported to its readers: "Middle-aged men in responsible jobs – accountants, marketeers, bankers – who for 10 months of the year are devoted husbands, transform in July and August into priapic stallions roaming the bars of Sheikh Zayed Road."
Anybody else seen the herds of priapic stallions stampeding up and down SZR?
Ridiculous article in the Observer.
BTW, I didn't post on the Observer column because Alexander did it so well here on his blog Fake Plastic Souks.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
It's never that simple
A couple of reports recently from Oz prompt me to post again about the attacks on Indians in Victoria.
I posted a couple of times last year, when the media frenzy in India seemed to be at its peak.
The theme was that Indians were being targeted in racially motivated attacks. There were the inevitable protests on the streets, effigy burning, government discussions at the highest level, calls for Indians to boycott Australia because it's so unsafe, the Indian government issuing a travel warning.
Of course, like everything, it's not that simple.
I don't doubt that some of the attacks were racially motivated. Morons, usually young males, usually with the bravery that comes from being in a group and often drunk, attacking lone walkers after dark.
But then you look at context.
According to the Victorian police, in 2007/08, 1,447 people of Indian origin were victims of crimes against the person such as robberies and assaults. This compared to 24,260 Caucasian victims and 36,765 victims overall.
The police go on to say that a lot of international students work and study late at night and are often travelling home by themselves on trains, equipped with their laptops and phones. That makes them much easier soft targets than the average person.
Then to the two recent reports.
At the end of December Ranjodh Singh was stabbed repeatedly and then set on fire. Another racially motivated attack?
At the end of last week it was reported:
"In a new twist to the 'horrific' murder of Indian youth Ranjodh Singh, whose partially charred body was found from the city of Griffith Dec 29, Australian police Thursday arrested an Indian couple in the case and said the victim was burnt alive. Police charged a 23-year-old Indian man and his wife with murder."
An Indian couple.
The report is here.
Early in January we also had:
"In yet another attack targeting Indians in Australia, a 29-year-old man from the country was set on fire by four assailants, drawing strong condemnation from a student body which called such assaults unacceptable and asked authorities not to "dodge" the issue."
The Times of India reports that story here.
Today's report:
"AN Indian man who told police he was attacked and set on fire by a gang of four men has been charged with making a false report to authorities and criminal damage for financial gain."
It was an insurance scam.
That story's here.
As I said, things are always more complicated than the knee-jerk reaction would have us believe.
I posted a couple of times last year, when the media frenzy in India seemed to be at its peak.
The theme was that Indians were being targeted in racially motivated attacks. There were the inevitable protests on the streets, effigy burning, government discussions at the highest level, calls for Indians to boycott Australia because it's so unsafe, the Indian government issuing a travel warning.
Of course, like everything, it's not that simple.
I don't doubt that some of the attacks were racially motivated. Morons, usually young males, usually with the bravery that comes from being in a group and often drunk, attacking lone walkers after dark.
But then you look at context.
According to the Victorian police, in 2007/08, 1,447 people of Indian origin were victims of crimes against the person such as robberies and assaults. This compared to 24,260 Caucasian victims and 36,765 victims overall.
The police go on to say that a lot of international students work and study late at night and are often travelling home by themselves on trains, equipped with their laptops and phones. That makes them much easier soft targets than the average person.
Then to the two recent reports.
At the end of December Ranjodh Singh was stabbed repeatedly and then set on fire. Another racially motivated attack?
At the end of last week it was reported:
"In a new twist to the 'horrific' murder of Indian youth Ranjodh Singh, whose partially charred body was found from the city of Griffith Dec 29, Australian police Thursday arrested an Indian couple in the case and said the victim was burnt alive. Police charged a 23-year-old Indian man and his wife with murder."
An Indian couple.
The report is here.
Early in January we also had:
"In yet another attack targeting Indians in Australia, a 29-year-old man from the country was set on fire by four assailants, drawing strong condemnation from a student body which called such assaults unacceptable and asked authorities not to "dodge" the issue."
The Times of India reports that story here.
Today's report:
"AN Indian man who told police he was attacked and set on fire by a gang of four men has been charged with making a false report to authorities and criminal damage for financial gain."
It was an insurance scam.
That story's here.
As I said, things are always more complicated than the knee-jerk reaction would have us believe.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
DXB T3 - what really happened
I'm in the UK but thought I'd give you a quick update on what really happened yesterday morning at Terminal 3.
The papers are dismissing the incident with just the short 'it was nothing' official statement:
A water leakage occurred in Concourse 2 of Dubai International Airport at 6:50am on Wednesday, an official source said. (Gulf News)
The water leak that occurred at Dubai Airports Concourse 2 at 6.50am affecting six remote gates has been rectified, an official source from Dubai Airport has said on Wednesday. (Khaleej Times)
Here's an eyewitness account - mine.
There was 'water leakage' but that doesn't quite explain what happened.
We were sitting having a coffee before going to Gate 209 for our Emirates flight, due to open in ten minutes.
There was an announcement that a fire had been detected and the building was to be immediately evacuated.
Lights simultaneously stated flashing a warning on all the fire alarms.
The problem was that the announcement, presumably automatic, kept stuttering like a jammed record, stopping and starting.
Sprinklers started pouring water into one small section of the terminal. That was the 'water leakage'.
I could see no fire nor smell any smoke.
It had all the makings of a system malfunction rather than a real emergency so while people did get ready to move we all stayed put.
There was no evidence of any fire or safety people hurrying about.
Then the extractor fans, again presumably as part of the automated system, started going full bore.
The noise from the fans was so loud that it was impossible to hear any announcements. In the abscence of visual electronic instructions that could be a real problem in a real emergency. A part of the fire safety system that needs to be looked at I would suggest.
Then people in uniform started running - but it was the cleaners!
A hell of a lot of water comes from sprinklers and the area was starting to flood. So the cleaning machines, the mops, the plastic barriers were rushed to the scene.
A crowd had gathered to view the new water feature and that's when Security got involved.
Yep, you guessed their priority: "No Photos! No photos!"
A hopeless cause, there were hundreds of people with digital and phone cameras.
Here are a couple:
Gate 209 and several others were affected by the water so the aircraft had to be moved.
But to where?
There weren't many Emirates or airport staff around, apart from the cleaners, so milling around was order of the day. Hundreds of passengers who wondered which gate they now needed to go to plus hundreds more rubberneckers looking at the water.
Eventually some uniforms started shouting the destinations and their new gate numbers ("Birmingham Gate 150" for example)
We walked for, I'm not exaggerating, forty minutes (noticing by chance by glancing at the Flight Departures board that 150 had quietly changed to 144).
Good thing I noticed that.
Then a bus to the end of the airport where a line of planes was parked near the exhibition centre and we were dropped at one of them.
Fortunately it turned out to be the right one.
Interestingly the cabin crew I spoke to had no idea what had been happening.
Considering the chaos behind the scenes that must have been going on they actually handled it pretty well I thought. It can't be easy to re-organise several flights and hundreds (thousands?) of passengers at the last minute at a busy airport.
But instead of explaining exactly what had happened, what action they needed to take and how well they handled it, in other words transparency, we've got the inevitable obfuscation.
Just like the security guards trying to stop photography it's the usual pretend nothing happened mindset.
Tell us nothing. Keep it all secret. Everything's perfect, nothing ever goes wrong.
They missed the opportunity for brownie points by not explaining what a difficult situation they faced and how well they handled it.
Having said they handled it well there are a couple of things that obviously need looking at.
There's that very dangerous question of the extractor fan noise drowning out any announcements and, as there always is, the problem of lack of communication.
If you have to close a gate at the last minute and transfer the aircraft to a new one, station a staff member on it to advise passengers that a) they'll shortly be told which gate to go to; b) when the information is available WRITE IT ON A BOARD and place it at the closed gate.
With the only signs to Gate 150/144 pointing to the flooded closed-off area, meaning we had to go in the opposite direction to the signs, it would have helped to have a few more staff members directing traffic. As it was we walked to the far end of the terminal, down some stairs, back the length of the terminal again like a herd of gnu on migration, all following the leaders and hoping they knew where they were headed.
So yes, there was a problem with water but that was far from the whole story.
And the UK is cold, wet and very windy.
The papers are dismissing the incident with just the short 'it was nothing' official statement:
A water leakage occurred in Concourse 2 of Dubai International Airport at 6:50am on Wednesday, an official source said. (Gulf News)
The water leak that occurred at Dubai Airports Concourse 2 at 6.50am affecting six remote gates has been rectified, an official source from Dubai Airport has said on Wednesday. (Khaleej Times)
Here's an eyewitness account - mine.
There was 'water leakage' but that doesn't quite explain what happened.
We were sitting having a coffee before going to Gate 209 for our Emirates flight, due to open in ten minutes.
There was an announcement that a fire had been detected and the building was to be immediately evacuated.
Lights simultaneously stated flashing a warning on all the fire alarms.
The problem was that the announcement, presumably automatic, kept stuttering like a jammed record, stopping and starting.
Sprinklers started pouring water into one small section of the terminal. That was the 'water leakage'.
I could see no fire nor smell any smoke.
It had all the makings of a system malfunction rather than a real emergency so while people did get ready to move we all stayed put.
There was no evidence of any fire or safety people hurrying about.
Then the extractor fans, again presumably as part of the automated system, started going full bore.
The noise from the fans was so loud that it was impossible to hear any announcements. In the abscence of visual electronic instructions that could be a real problem in a real emergency. A part of the fire safety system that needs to be looked at I would suggest.
Then people in uniform started running - but it was the cleaners!
A hell of a lot of water comes from sprinklers and the area was starting to flood. So the cleaning machines, the mops, the plastic barriers were rushed to the scene.
A crowd had gathered to view the new water feature and that's when Security got involved.
Yep, you guessed their priority: "No Photos! No photos!"
A hopeless cause, there were hundreds of people with digital and phone cameras.
Here are a couple:
Gate 209 and several others were affected by the water so the aircraft had to be moved.
But to where?
There weren't many Emirates or airport staff around, apart from the cleaners, so milling around was order of the day. Hundreds of passengers who wondered which gate they now needed to go to plus hundreds more rubberneckers looking at the water.
Eventually some uniforms started shouting the destinations and their new gate numbers ("Birmingham Gate 150" for example)
We walked for, I'm not exaggerating, forty minutes (noticing by chance by glancing at the Flight Departures board that 150 had quietly changed to 144).
Good thing I noticed that.
Then a bus to the end of the airport where a line of planes was parked near the exhibition centre and we were dropped at one of them.
Fortunately it turned out to be the right one.
Interestingly the cabin crew I spoke to had no idea what had been happening.
Considering the chaos behind the scenes that must have been going on they actually handled it pretty well I thought. It can't be easy to re-organise several flights and hundreds (thousands?) of passengers at the last minute at a busy airport.
But instead of explaining exactly what had happened, what action they needed to take and how well they handled it, in other words transparency, we've got the inevitable obfuscation.
Just like the security guards trying to stop photography it's the usual pretend nothing happened mindset.
Tell us nothing. Keep it all secret. Everything's perfect, nothing ever goes wrong.
They missed the opportunity for brownie points by not explaining what a difficult situation they faced and how well they handled it.
Having said they handled it well there are a couple of things that obviously need looking at.
There's that very dangerous question of the extractor fan noise drowning out any announcements and, as there always is, the problem of lack of communication.
If you have to close a gate at the last minute and transfer the aircraft to a new one, station a staff member on it to advise passengers that a) they'll shortly be told which gate to go to; b) when the information is available WRITE IT ON A BOARD and place it at the closed gate.
With the only signs to Gate 150/144 pointing to the flooded closed-off area, meaning we had to go in the opposite direction to the signs, it would have helped to have a few more staff members directing traffic. As it was we walked to the far end of the terminal, down some stairs, back the length of the terminal again like a herd of gnu on migration, all following the leaders and hoping they knew where they were headed.
So yes, there was a problem with water but that was far from the whole story.
And the UK is cold, wet and very windy.
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.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Telling it (not) like it is
Boredom Warning: This post is me having a whinge.
Tracing back a few 'Came From' arrivals at 'Life in Dubai' I went to a blog I haven't seen before, which had linked to one of my posts.
The post is by Isaac K, who lived in Dubai for nineteen years, became disenchanted and has moved on.
That's not unusual, it's a transient society with people coming in and moving out every day.
After nineteen years of enjoying a good life in Dubai, I say that because the post begins: "I get this feeling every time the plane touches down at Dubai Intl. Airport. A sort of “I’m home” thought that just involuntarily runs through my mind", it's actually an example of the current fad of jumping on the Bash Dubai bandwagon.
Stop right there.
That isn't the point of this post. I'm not complaining because someone is doing a hatchet job on Dubai. I'm not leaping to Dubai's defence, the subject matter is irrelevant, it could be any one of countless topics.
What I'm complaining about is something right at the top of my 'Things I Hate' list.
I hate it when people state untruths as facts. When something is misrepresented. When the facts are twisted to fit an agenda.
That's what I found when I followed the link back to this post on the SubMedia blog.
It's full of emotive phrases, with untrue statements presented as facts, misleading captions to photographs.
The post is headlined 'The real cost of slave labour', which gives an indication of what's to follow.
That old emotive 'slave labour' once again. We all came voluntarily and we're paid for our work, so where does 'slave labour' come into it?
It's not a reasoned criticism it's a blatant hatchet job and it does a disservice to those who are highlighting things which need changing, whose constructive criticism is based on facts.
It says for example:
My parents, nearing retirement age, are planning to move to India where they have rights and a far more relaxed life free of the constant threat of deportation.
Constant threat of deportation?
Why would that be?
I'm sure they're perfectly normal, peaceful, hard-working, law-abiding people. So why does their son say they live in constant fear of deportation?
It surely can't be true, it's certainly not true of the vast majority of residents. We're all constantly looking nervously over our shoulders, it says, living in perpetual fear of deportation.
Not true, but the phrase is deliberately used to create the wrong impression.
The post goes on:
UAE bloggers have been debating the issue hotly (here it links to me) that the expatriate population in the country is deflating.
They, along with the government-monitored-if-not-owned newspapers are the only ones defending the city as the whole world cackles at a dirty dream that has been exposed for what it really was.
'The whole world', another of my top hates, like statements beginning 'we all' and 'everybody'. A personal opinion given some fake authority by adding the untrue claim that it's the universal view.
It goes on with the old myth of thousands of cars: abandoned at the airport as the immigrant middle class fled the sinking ship, a story long since proven to be untrue.
The facts are that there are annually about 1400 cars abandoned across the city. Last year it's said the figure rose to 3000, of which a few were left at the airport.
But that original untrue story conjoured up, as it was intended to, pictures of thousands of expats fleeing in desperation, jumping from their cars at the airport and stampeding refugee-like to freedom.
Then there are photos with deliberately misleading captions.
For example: There are more visual cues as well. You can walk along the promenade and see workers sleeping on the ground in the open.
Good heavens! Workers on their break taking a nap! How is that more evidence of a sinking ship I wonder?
I see the same in Australia, council workers, in particular it seems, at midday sleeping in their trucks parked at the roadside or on park benches. Strangely, no-one there relates it to an exposed dirty dream.
Then there's a photo of an open road through a desert section, with the mystifying caption: You can also note the miles and miles of highway left unadvertised.
A clear open road through a desert landscape, now there's proof that the ship's sinking! There are clear open roads through unbuilt areas all over the world, exactly like the one shown in the photo.
There's the blatantly untrue stuff:
Since we have nothing to fear (despite the number of construction projects that have been canceled, such as the $5 billion Jebel Ali Airport)
The airport has not been cancelled. Work is proceeding on schedule.
It accuses the business community and government of being being in denial that there's a slowdown, when what they're actually doing is talking it up to try to restore confidence, just as they do all over the world.
I won't go on, you can read it for yourself if you care to, the link's at the bottom.
Reminder, I'm not talking about this because it's a criticism of Dubai but because it's a classic example of all those things I detest.
It has misinformation.
I has untrue statements presented as fact.
It has innocent, normal photographs misrepresented.
It makes no difference to me whether it's a well-known columnist in a major newspaper or an anonymous blogger, or someone I talk to over a coffee come to that.
Criticism is justified, necessary even, if something needs be improved. It won't be if we don't highlight it, if we don't make constructive criticism.
But the criticism must be based on the truth. Comments which misrepresent, which distort, which lie, do a disservice to genuine criticism.
This deplorable level of comment has so much dubious, incorrect, disproveable content that any accurate criticism is swamped by it.
It invites the comment 'it's all lies' and dismissal of the criticism.
If you're interested, here's the link: SubMedia.
Tracing back a few 'Came From' arrivals at 'Life in Dubai' I went to a blog I haven't seen before, which had linked to one of my posts.
The post is by Isaac K, who lived in Dubai for nineteen years, became disenchanted and has moved on.
That's not unusual, it's a transient society with people coming in and moving out every day.
After nineteen years of enjoying a good life in Dubai, I say that because the post begins: "I get this feeling every time the plane touches down at Dubai Intl. Airport. A sort of “I’m home” thought that just involuntarily runs through my mind", it's actually an example of the current fad of jumping on the Bash Dubai bandwagon.
Stop right there.
That isn't the point of this post. I'm not complaining because someone is doing a hatchet job on Dubai. I'm not leaping to Dubai's defence, the subject matter is irrelevant, it could be any one of countless topics.
What I'm complaining about is something right at the top of my 'Things I Hate' list.
I hate it when people state untruths as facts. When something is misrepresented. When the facts are twisted to fit an agenda.
That's what I found when I followed the link back to this post on the SubMedia blog.
It's full of emotive phrases, with untrue statements presented as facts, misleading captions to photographs.
The post is headlined 'The real cost of slave labour', which gives an indication of what's to follow.
That old emotive 'slave labour' once again. We all came voluntarily and we're paid for our work, so where does 'slave labour' come into it?
It's not a reasoned criticism it's a blatant hatchet job and it does a disservice to those who are highlighting things which need changing, whose constructive criticism is based on facts.
It says for example:
My parents, nearing retirement age, are planning to move to India where they have rights and a far more relaxed life free of the constant threat of deportation.
Constant threat of deportation?
Why would that be?
I'm sure they're perfectly normal, peaceful, hard-working, law-abiding people. So why does their son say they live in constant fear of deportation?
It surely can't be true, it's certainly not true of the vast majority of residents. We're all constantly looking nervously over our shoulders, it says, living in perpetual fear of deportation.
Not true, but the phrase is deliberately used to create the wrong impression.
The post goes on:
UAE bloggers have been debating the issue hotly (here it links to me) that the expatriate population in the country is deflating.
They, along with the government-monitored-if-not-owned newspapers are the only ones defending the city as the whole world cackles at a dirty dream that has been exposed for what it really was.
'The whole world', another of my top hates, like statements beginning 'we all' and 'everybody'. A personal opinion given some fake authority by adding the untrue claim that it's the universal view.
It goes on with the old myth of thousands of cars: abandoned at the airport as the immigrant middle class fled the sinking ship, a story long since proven to be untrue.
The facts are that there are annually about 1400 cars abandoned across the city. Last year it's said the figure rose to 3000, of which a few were left at the airport.
But that original untrue story conjoured up, as it was intended to, pictures of thousands of expats fleeing in desperation, jumping from their cars at the airport and stampeding refugee-like to freedom.
Then there are photos with deliberately misleading captions.
For example: There are more visual cues as well. You can walk along the promenade and see workers sleeping on the ground in the open.
Good heavens! Workers on their break taking a nap! How is that more evidence of a sinking ship I wonder?
I see the same in Australia, council workers, in particular it seems, at midday sleeping in their trucks parked at the roadside or on park benches. Strangely, no-one there relates it to an exposed dirty dream.
Then there's a photo of an open road through a desert section, with the mystifying caption: You can also note the miles and miles of highway left unadvertised.
A clear open road through a desert landscape, now there's proof that the ship's sinking! There are clear open roads through unbuilt areas all over the world, exactly like the one shown in the photo.
There's the blatantly untrue stuff:
Since we have nothing to fear (despite the number of construction projects that have been canceled, such as the $5 billion Jebel Ali Airport)
The airport has not been cancelled. Work is proceeding on schedule.
It accuses the business community and government of being being in denial that there's a slowdown, when what they're actually doing is talking it up to try to restore confidence, just as they do all over the world.
I won't go on, you can read it for yourself if you care to, the link's at the bottom.
Reminder, I'm not talking about this because it's a criticism of Dubai but because it's a classic example of all those things I detest.
It has misinformation.
I has untrue statements presented as fact.
It has innocent, normal photographs misrepresented.
It makes no difference to me whether it's a well-known columnist in a major newspaper or an anonymous blogger, or someone I talk to over a coffee come to that.
Criticism is justified, necessary even, if something needs be improved. It won't be if we don't highlight it, if we don't make constructive criticism.
But the criticism must be based on the truth. Comments which misrepresent, which distort, which lie, do a disservice to genuine criticism.
This deplorable level of comment has so much dubious, incorrect, disproveable content that any accurate criticism is swamped by it.
It invites the comment 'it's all lies' and dismissal of the criticism.
If you're interested, here's the link: SubMedia.
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.
Monday, April 06, 2009
That bayt.com poll
A couple of the papers plus radio news are carrying stories today about a bayt.com online poll. Dubai Today on Dubai Eye had a discussion about it too.
It's been described as a poll of 22,708 respondents, which sounded implausibly large to me so I thought I'd have a look at it to see what it's actually all about.
As usual the reporting is muddled, the conclusions are iffy, the reports are misleading.
Khaleej Times incorrectly calls it a 'regional online poll' while EmBiz247 is more accurate with 'recent series of polls'.
In fact it could more accurately be described as a series of individual questions posed on the website over a period of time.
There may well have been over 22,000 respondents, but that was to a whole series of questions over a period of weeks. Many would have been the same people answering each weekly question so the 22,708 respondents figure is inaccurate.
Each question actually had very many fewer respondents.
For example, to the question: "How long do you see yourself remaining in your present place of employment? which ran from March 1 to 9 there were 5,090 respondents.
Take it all with a pinch of salt and as only a vague indicator of people's thinking. This is not depth research, it's just people clicking on options given below the question.
It's part of the website's 'Poll Corner' feature, such as you see on many newspaper websites. Today's example is:
Do you think extending work hours & increasing responsibilities of existing human resources is a good response to the current economic crisis?
Yes
No
Not sure
The news outlets have picked up on one question and chosen to go with the positive interpretation:
"Expatriates prefer to stay in Middle East" says KT.
"More than a third of expats in region will opt to stay put" according to EmBiz.
Here's the actual poll.
The question posed between February 8 and 16 was:
If you are an expat in the ME, do you see yourself having to return to your home country this year as a result of economic conditions?
Total Votes: 3053
Yes I may have no choice: 845/27.7%
Yes I prefer to: 473/15.5%
No there is still no reason for me to move: 1090/35.7%
No I will move to a different country as an expat: 645/21.1%
The headlines and the stories don't really have it right do they, with their 'will stay put' and 'prefer to stay' slant.
Only 15.5% said they'd prefer to go home, 27.7% were realistic when they said they may have no choice.
The 35.7% who said they had no reason to go home obviously haven't lost their jobs - yet. If they do it will be a very different answer.
And the 21.1% who said they'd move on to another country as an expat are really saying they don't want to return home. The reality is that every country is being affected by the recession so there are probably no jobs for them in other countries - maybe not even back home.
I've talked before about polls and statistics and how they're often misinterpreted. How the context isn't considered, how the methodology is ignored, how the phrasing of the questions isn't taken into account. This is another example.
The two newspaper reports are here; Khaleej Times EmBiz247.
Then you should go to the polls yourself to get the background and understand what the questions were, what answers were available to choose from and how many people actually responded. They're here, scroll to 'Poll Corner' and click on 'View past polls'
It's been described as a poll of 22,708 respondents, which sounded implausibly large to me so I thought I'd have a look at it to see what it's actually all about.
As usual the reporting is muddled, the conclusions are iffy, the reports are misleading.
Khaleej Times incorrectly calls it a 'regional online poll' while EmBiz247 is more accurate with 'recent series of polls'.
In fact it could more accurately be described as a series of individual questions posed on the website over a period of time.
There may well have been over 22,000 respondents, but that was to a whole series of questions over a period of weeks. Many would have been the same people answering each weekly question so the 22,708 respondents figure is inaccurate.
Each question actually had very many fewer respondents.
For example, to the question: "How long do you see yourself remaining in your present place of employment? which ran from March 1 to 9 there were 5,090 respondents.
Take it all with a pinch of salt and as only a vague indicator of people's thinking. This is not depth research, it's just people clicking on options given below the question.
It's part of the website's 'Poll Corner' feature, such as you see on many newspaper websites. Today's example is:
Do you think extending work hours & increasing responsibilities of existing human resources is a good response to the current economic crisis?
Yes
No
Not sure
The news outlets have picked up on one question and chosen to go with the positive interpretation:
"Expatriates prefer to stay in Middle East" says KT.
"More than a third of expats in region will opt to stay put" according to EmBiz.
Here's the actual poll.
The question posed between February 8 and 16 was:
If you are an expat in the ME, do you see yourself having to return to your home country this year as a result of economic conditions?
Total Votes: 3053
Yes I may have no choice: 845/27.7%
Yes I prefer to: 473/15.5%
No there is still no reason for me to move: 1090/35.7%
No I will move to a different country as an expat: 645/21.1%
The headlines and the stories don't really have it right do they, with their 'will stay put' and 'prefer to stay' slant.
Only 15.5% said they'd prefer to go home, 27.7% were realistic when they said they may have no choice.
The 35.7% who said they had no reason to go home obviously haven't lost their jobs - yet. If they do it will be a very different answer.
And the 21.1% who said they'd move on to another country as an expat are really saying they don't want to return home. The reality is that every country is being affected by the recession so there are probably no jobs for them in other countries - maybe not even back home.
I've talked before about polls and statistics and how they're often misinterpreted. How the context isn't considered, how the methodology is ignored, how the phrasing of the questions isn't taken into account. This is another example.
The two newspaper reports are here; Khaleej Times EmBiz247.
Then you should go to the polls yourself to get the background and understand what the questions were, what answers were available to choose from and how many people actually responded. They're here, scroll to 'Poll Corner' and click on 'View past polls'
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Finally, a balanced article on Dubai
...and hysterical tabloid misreporting.
A couple of days ago there was a short article in the Financial Times commenting on Dubai's current situation and the media stories about it.
It's one of the most accurate, well informed pieces I can recall reading over the past few years.
For several years we had the breathless, sometimes hysterical and often inaccurate articles about the growth, the lifestyle, the opulence, the riches, the excesses.
A few months back we started to get the tall poppy syndrome articles cutting Dubai down, reporting its collapse, again often ill informed and inaccurate and repeating dinner party rumours as facts.
These articles reported that there's nothing underpinning Dubai's economy because the oil has run out and our economy relies totally on real estate. Now the property bubble has burst the economy will collapse.
A quote in the FT article sums up the real situation brilliantly:
"Disneyland Dubai has crashed," as one Dubai-based banker put it, referring to headline-grabbing property projects, "but the core business model of Dubai remains sound."
And that's what all the stories about Dubai don't mention, the basis for Dubai's existence, its history of trading. They're based on the misrepresentation that Dubai began a decade or two ago based on oil income, that real estate is all we now have.
The fact is that Dubai evolved from a fishing village into a trading centre around 1830 and has been an international commercial centre ever since, our location being then and now a critical factor in the city's success.
A hundred years ago Dubai had the largest shopping district in the area with over 350 shops in Deira. It had a huge pearl trading industry and gold re-exporting industry. Shipbuilding was an important part of the economy too. Doing business was Dubai's reason to exist and it always will be.
Oil was an unexpected bonus, not the foundations of the economy - production only began in 1969 - and the economy which was based on trading was thriving without it.
In 1960 the international airport opened and then in the early sixties the then Ruler Sheikh Rashid borrowed money from Kuwait to dredge the Creek so that trade could not only continue but be expanded. Port Rashid began operating in 1970 to develop even more trade.
When Beirut imploded in the early seventies international companies moved out, mainly to Athens and Cyprus. They soon gave up on those cities because of the lack of infrastructure, telecommunications in particular. Dubai had invested in the future and offered what they wanted, so very many of them moved here.
There have always been rumours about Dubai's demise by the way. When Jebel Ali Port was opened in 1979 I remember people laughing that it would be a white elephant, a complete waste of money. It's now one of the world's busiest ports.
They said the same about Dubal which opened the same year, and that's now one of the world's leading producers of aluminium, contributing billions to Dubai's economy.
Also in 1979 the Trade Centre opened, to more derision and rumours that it was tilting and sinking into the sand. At Jumeirah dinner parties they're saying the same today about Burj Al Arab!
Meanwhile Dubai carries on as a commercial centre, with now even more diversification and investment in infrastructure than ever.
You can compare the FT article with the tabloid nonsense being published with these two links.
In another example of the poor and biased reporting I regularly complain about, last week the UK Sunday Mirror ran a story headlined 'Celebs losing £80,000 a week on their Dubai mansions'.
First there's the stupidity of the claim. No-one loses money unless and until they sell a devalued asset.
Then readers with any kind of intelligence can work out for themselves by what's written that the thrust of the article is rubbish.
It claims that: Celebs who bought the properties in their droves over the last few years have seen prices halve, with pads worth £3.2million in October now on the market for £1.6million.
And with the world's superwealthy cutting their losses and selling up, Dubai's bubble has well and truly burst.
It also says that England footballers were some of the keenest buyers. "When the squad stopped off in Dubai on their way to the 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, they were shown plans for Palm Jumeirah...(eight of them) put down deposits on £800,000 sixbedroom villas at a special rate.
The article goes on: But last October, amid the global recession, Dubai was hit by a housing market crash, which has now cost investors billions.
Four bedroom villas worth £3million a couple of months ago are now being sold for £1.5million.
So if four bedroom villas are worth £1.5 million, what do you think six bedroom villas are valued at? Remember they paid less than £800,000 for them - so how does the 'journalist' work out that they are losing £80,000 a week? The figures he gives actually suggest their investment has doubled at the very least.
It's a good example of the way the international media is now reporting about Dubai, the thrust of the articles being negative regardless of the facts they include.
You can read the tabloid nonsense here, then you can read the sensible article here.
A couple of days ago there was a short article in the Financial Times commenting on Dubai's current situation and the media stories about it.
It's one of the most accurate, well informed pieces I can recall reading over the past few years.
For several years we had the breathless, sometimes hysterical and often inaccurate articles about the growth, the lifestyle, the opulence, the riches, the excesses.
A few months back we started to get the tall poppy syndrome articles cutting Dubai down, reporting its collapse, again often ill informed and inaccurate and repeating dinner party rumours as facts.
These articles reported that there's nothing underpinning Dubai's economy because the oil has run out and our economy relies totally on real estate. Now the property bubble has burst the economy will collapse.
A quote in the FT article sums up the real situation brilliantly:
"Disneyland Dubai has crashed," as one Dubai-based banker put it, referring to headline-grabbing property projects, "but the core business model of Dubai remains sound."
And that's what all the stories about Dubai don't mention, the basis for Dubai's existence, its history of trading. They're based on the misrepresentation that Dubai began a decade or two ago based on oil income, that real estate is all we now have.
The fact is that Dubai evolved from a fishing village into a trading centre around 1830 and has been an international commercial centre ever since, our location being then and now a critical factor in the city's success.
A hundred years ago Dubai had the largest shopping district in the area with over 350 shops in Deira. It had a huge pearl trading industry and gold re-exporting industry. Shipbuilding was an important part of the economy too. Doing business was Dubai's reason to exist and it always will be.
Oil was an unexpected bonus, not the foundations of the economy - production only began in 1969 - and the economy which was based on trading was thriving without it.
In 1960 the international airport opened and then in the early sixties the then Ruler Sheikh Rashid borrowed money from Kuwait to dredge the Creek so that trade could not only continue but be expanded. Port Rashid began operating in 1970 to develop even more trade.
When Beirut imploded in the early seventies international companies moved out, mainly to Athens and Cyprus. They soon gave up on those cities because of the lack of infrastructure, telecommunications in particular. Dubai had invested in the future and offered what they wanted, so very many of them moved here.
There have always been rumours about Dubai's demise by the way. When Jebel Ali Port was opened in 1979 I remember people laughing that it would be a white elephant, a complete waste of money. It's now one of the world's busiest ports.
They said the same about Dubal which opened the same year, and that's now one of the world's leading producers of aluminium, contributing billions to Dubai's economy.
Also in 1979 the Trade Centre opened, to more derision and rumours that it was tilting and sinking into the sand. At Jumeirah dinner parties they're saying the same today about Burj Al Arab!
Meanwhile Dubai carries on as a commercial centre, with now even more diversification and investment in infrastructure than ever.
You can compare the FT article with the tabloid nonsense being published with these two links.
In another example of the poor and biased reporting I regularly complain about, last week the UK Sunday Mirror ran a story headlined 'Celebs losing £80,000 a week on their Dubai mansions'.
First there's the stupidity of the claim. No-one loses money unless and until they sell a devalued asset.
Then readers with any kind of intelligence can work out for themselves by what's written that the thrust of the article is rubbish.
It claims that: Celebs who bought the properties in their droves over the last few years have seen prices halve, with pads worth £3.2million in October now on the market for £1.6million.
And with the world's superwealthy cutting their losses and selling up, Dubai's bubble has well and truly burst.
It also says that England footballers were some of the keenest buyers. "When the squad stopped off in Dubai on their way to the 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, they were shown plans for Palm Jumeirah...(eight of them) put down deposits on £800,000 sixbedroom villas at a special rate.
The article goes on: But last October, amid the global recession, Dubai was hit by a housing market crash, which has now cost investors billions.
Four bedroom villas worth £3million a couple of months ago are now being sold for £1.5million.
So if four bedroom villas are worth £1.5 million, what do you think six bedroom villas are valued at? Remember they paid less than £800,000 for them - so how does the 'journalist' work out that they are losing £80,000 a week? The figures he gives actually suggest their investment has doubled at the very least.
It's a good example of the way the international media is now reporting about Dubai, the thrust of the articles being negative regardless of the facts they include.
You can read the tabloid nonsense here, then you can read the sensible article here.
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, November 25, 2008
ID Clarification Day
Gulf News has a 'your ID card questions answered' feature this morning.
I'm now listening to the radio, which has a full hour (apart from playing music in between the questions) with the EIDA Planning Director & Project Manager explaining the whole thing.
Is it all explained? Is it now clear? Are the problems solved?
You didn't really expect that it would be did you?
My favourite highlights from the Gulf News feature:
I am on vacation and unable to access the website due to heavy traffic. I cannot return before the deadline. What are my options and will I be fined?
"It is your responsibility to register before the deadline".
It has become impossible to find registration forms, or register on the website? Will I be penalised?
"It is your responsibility to register".
And I thought this was a very strange question:
What happens to the ID card if one dies after obtaining it?
Would you care?
And so on to the radio interview.
That's started with the fact that EIDA was completely ready in plenty of time and the chaos is all our fault. They "understood and anticipated the challenges" in introducing the system.
The details were: "Announced in July 2007 with ads in papers and information on the website" and that statement was simply accepted. Inevitably the obvious question wasn't asked: "Where did the ads appear? Where did you advertise the website details?"
It's confirmed that the ID requirement was originally announced as I remembered it: "All residents must register before the end of 2010"
(Then a few weeks ago the 'deadline' for professionals was suddenly given as December 31 this year, with threats of sanctions).
There was the question so many people are asking, in the last three or four weeks the website couldn't cope with the volume. "We were not surprised that people waited until the last minute"
Question. Exactly who are the 'professionals' who have to register by year end? Still no clear answer, just "degree holders and professional career people such as marketing/sales supervisor etc". But not a secretary in an office or a salesman.
So in other words, I think, a white collar worker at senior level. Still a bit vague isn't it.
Half way into the programme the claim that it's all our fault for not registering early has come up several times.
It's exactly as I assumed it would be. I can't be bothered with it any more, I'm getting more and more irritated so I've switched the radio off.
You can read the nonsense in Gulf News here.
I'm now listening to the radio, which has a full hour (apart from playing music in between the questions) with the EIDA Planning Director & Project Manager explaining the whole thing.
Is it all explained? Is it now clear? Are the problems solved?
You didn't really expect that it would be did you?
My favourite highlights from the Gulf News feature:
I am on vacation and unable to access the website due to heavy traffic. I cannot return before the deadline. What are my options and will I be fined?
"It is your responsibility to register before the deadline".
It has become impossible to find registration forms, or register on the website? Will I be penalised?
"It is your responsibility to register".
And I thought this was a very strange question:
What happens to the ID card if one dies after obtaining it?
Would you care?
And so on to the radio interview.
That's started with the fact that EIDA was completely ready in plenty of time and the chaos is all our fault. They "understood and anticipated the challenges" in introducing the system.
The details were: "Announced in July 2007 with ads in papers and information on the website" and that statement was simply accepted. Inevitably the obvious question wasn't asked: "Where did the ads appear? Where did you advertise the website details?"
It's confirmed that the ID requirement was originally announced as I remembered it: "All residents must register before the end of 2010"
(Then a few weeks ago the 'deadline' for professionals was suddenly given as December 31 this year, with threats of sanctions).
There was the question so many people are asking, in the last three or four weeks the website couldn't cope with the volume. "We were not surprised that people waited until the last minute"
Question. Exactly who are the 'professionals' who have to register by year end? Still no clear answer, just "degree holders and professional career people such as marketing/sales supervisor etc". But not a secretary in an office or a salesman.
So in other words, I think, a white collar worker at senior level. Still a bit vague isn't it.
Half way into the programme the claim that it's all our fault for not registering early has come up several times.
It's exactly as I assumed it would be. I can't be bothered with it any more, I'm getting more and more irritated so I've switched the radio off.
You can read the nonsense in Gulf News here.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Did I miss much?
Back in Dubai and, although I checked in once in a while to the UAE Community blog and the newspapers, I feel completely out of touch because things change so quickly here.
The UK announcing the highest terrorist alert warning for Dubai was the big Dubai item in the papers while we were there, although the response here seems to have been a yawn.
Waiting in my home e-mail box when I checked it this morning were three particular news items which friends thought I'd be interested in. They're three that I hadn't seen while we were away and if I'd been here I'm sure I'd have posted about them.
They were the Defence Roundabout bridge collapse, a story on damage being caused by the roadworks at The Springs and the property ownership/residence visa saga.
Thankfully no-one was killed in the bridge collapse, although five workers were injured. According to the RTA a five metre section of the under-construction bridge collapsed because of "miscalculations on the part of the contractor as a result the pillar and the scaffolding could not take the load of the bridge."
The Springs parallel roads development is not only causing angst because it changes the property from what buyers were led to believe it would be. It's apparently causing physical damage too. Heavy machinery is making villas shake and cracks are appearing in the walls.
I know, we have the same problem in Dubai Marina - tomorrow I'll post a photo of the effect the machines have on nearby buildings.
There's a second theme to this story too, one I've talked about before. All the authorities say the new developments are not their responsibility because they're private developments.
In this case the roads are being built as part of the RTA's huge parallel roads project but their comment was 'Talk to Emaar' (the Master Developer). Of course it's the old Catch 22 because Emaar says the roads are managed and regulated by the RTA.
You get dizzy going round in circles.
And the big one, the property ownership/residence visa saga rears its head again.
This time it's a mixture of inaccurate and irresponsible reporting, apparent confusion about the rules as they exist and another confidence dent for Dubai as an honest place in which to do business.
Basically the story says that residency visas based on the ownership of property will be replaced by short term, presumably visit, visas.
That actually isn't what the quoted official, Marwan Bin Galita of Dubai Real Estate Regulatory Agency (Rera), said. Here's the beginning of the Gulf News story:
Dubai is to introduce a set of short-term visas for foreign investors in the real estate sector, a top official said.
"We have submitted the proposals to this effect to the higher government authority in Dubai to review the visas for property buyers."
Mr Galita says that he has submitted a proposal that the rule is reviewed, the paper says 'Dubai is to introduce' the change. Those are two very different things, which the 'journalist' and the Editor should have seen.
The story goes on that Mr Galita's comments "reverse the government's earlier stand."
Mr Galita is Chief Executive of Rera, not a member of the government. I thought that only Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid had the authority to overturn previous government decisions.
I can't believe they've understood Mr Galita correctly either, because I'm sure he must be aware of the arrangement in place for property related residence visas. They quote him as saying:
"Even if the investment company applies for a residence visa for a buyer...If a development company goes bankrupt, what happens to the residents sponsored by that particular company?"
That suggests that he thinks any developer can apply for a residency visa for its buyers, and I'm sure he knows the arrangement as well as everyone else. Only the three Master Developers, Nakheel, Emaar and Dubai Properties, can apply for a residency visa, which is the arrangement put in place when freehold property was opened to foreigners. No other developer has this arrangement.
In amongst the misleading and confusing reporting there are some facts. For example, the report does explain this arrangement between Master Developers and residency department, it does say that the residency visa is not an automatic right. Overall the story is a mess.
In short, someone buying property who wants a residency visa must request the Master Developer to apply for it. If they agree to do so, the Residency Department will then decide whether to issue it. It is not an automatic right as many small developers have advertised and only the three government owned Master Developers have the arrangement.
That doesn't mean that the arrangement won't be changed of course, even though it means that what people bought and payed for is not what is delivered to them. It wouldn't be the first time people have been sold something, their money taken and then a very different product delivered.
It's a big problem for Dubai, when its future depends on business, a vital and huge part of which is real estate, business depends to a large extent on confidence but confidence & trust in Dubai as an honest place to invest keeps taking a beating.
A definitive, final, clear-cut statement from the government about this property/residence issue is urgently needed.
Here are the original stories:
Bridge collapse
The Springs.
Property/Residence
The UK announcing the highest terrorist alert warning for Dubai was the big Dubai item in the papers while we were there, although the response here seems to have been a yawn.
Waiting in my home e-mail box when I checked it this morning were three particular news items which friends thought I'd be interested in. They're three that I hadn't seen while we were away and if I'd been here I'm sure I'd have posted about them.
They were the Defence Roundabout bridge collapse, a story on damage being caused by the roadworks at The Springs and the property ownership/residence visa saga.
Thankfully no-one was killed in the bridge collapse, although five workers were injured. According to the RTA a five metre section of the under-construction bridge collapsed because of "miscalculations on the part of the contractor as a result the pillar and the scaffolding could not take the load of the bridge."
The Springs parallel roads development is not only causing angst because it changes the property from what buyers were led to believe it would be. It's apparently causing physical damage too. Heavy machinery is making villas shake and cracks are appearing in the walls.
I know, we have the same problem in Dubai Marina - tomorrow I'll post a photo of the effect the machines have on nearby buildings.
There's a second theme to this story too, one I've talked about before. All the authorities say the new developments are not their responsibility because they're private developments.
In this case the roads are being built as part of the RTA's huge parallel roads project but their comment was 'Talk to Emaar' (the Master Developer). Of course it's the old Catch 22 because Emaar says the roads are managed and regulated by the RTA.
You get dizzy going round in circles.
And the big one, the property ownership/residence visa saga rears its head again.
This time it's a mixture of inaccurate and irresponsible reporting, apparent confusion about the rules as they exist and another confidence dent for Dubai as an honest place in which to do business.
Basically the story says that residency visas based on the ownership of property will be replaced by short term, presumably visit, visas.
That actually isn't what the quoted official, Marwan Bin Galita of Dubai Real Estate Regulatory Agency (Rera), said. Here's the beginning of the Gulf News story:
Dubai is to introduce a set of short-term visas for foreign investors in the real estate sector, a top official said.
"We have submitted the proposals to this effect to the higher government authority in Dubai to review the visas for property buyers."
Mr Galita says that he has submitted a proposal that the rule is reviewed, the paper says 'Dubai is to introduce' the change. Those are two very different things, which the 'journalist' and the Editor should have seen.
The story goes on that Mr Galita's comments "reverse the government's earlier stand."
Mr Galita is Chief Executive of Rera, not a member of the government. I thought that only Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid had the authority to overturn previous government decisions.
I can't believe they've understood Mr Galita correctly either, because I'm sure he must be aware of the arrangement in place for property related residence visas. They quote him as saying:
"Even if the investment company applies for a residence visa for a buyer...If a development company goes bankrupt, what happens to the residents sponsored by that particular company?"
That suggests that he thinks any developer can apply for a residency visa for its buyers, and I'm sure he knows the arrangement as well as everyone else. Only the three Master Developers, Nakheel, Emaar and Dubai Properties, can apply for a residency visa, which is the arrangement put in place when freehold property was opened to foreigners. No other developer has this arrangement.
In amongst the misleading and confusing reporting there are some facts. For example, the report does explain this arrangement between Master Developers and residency department, it does say that the residency visa is not an automatic right. Overall the story is a mess.
In short, someone buying property who wants a residency visa must request the Master Developer to apply for it. If they agree to do so, the Residency Department will then decide whether to issue it. It is not an automatic right as many small developers have advertised and only the three government owned Master Developers have the arrangement.
That doesn't mean that the arrangement won't be changed of course, even though it means that what people bought and payed for is not what is delivered to them. It wouldn't be the first time people have been sold something, their money taken and then a very different product delivered.
It's a big problem for Dubai, when its future depends on business, a vital and huge part of which is real estate, business depends to a large extent on confidence but confidence & trust in Dubai as an honest place to invest keeps taking a beating.
A definitive, final, clear-cut statement from the government about this property/residence issue is urgently needed.
Here are the original stories:
Bridge collapse
The Springs.
Property/Residence
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Another misleading story
It does annoy me when the media gives misleading information.
The tabloid 7Days did it yesterday. Headline is "Dubai on the rise" and the large sub-heading screams "...has just been rated the third most expensive holiday destination". The same phrase is used in the story itself.
It simply isn't true.
If you read the whole story the truth is in there, alongside the misrepresentation.
The story eventually goes on to give the true findings of the research it's 'reporting' - the average room rate of hotels is the world's third most expensive. Hotel rates, not the whole destination. Not the whole holiday cost.
They are totally different things.
Doesn't the writer understand that? Or understand that there are conflicting statements in the one story? Doesn't the Editor bother to read what's submitted for publication?
As a visitor from the UK was quoted in the article as saying: "I thought meals, clothes and gifts were all very, very reasonable - it made me realise how ridiculous some of the prices we pay at home are."
Take everything into account and Dubai is not the third most expensive holiday destination.
There's no excuse for such sloppy reporting.
Read the story for yourself here.
The tabloid 7Days did it yesterday. Headline is "Dubai on the rise" and the large sub-heading screams "...has just been rated the third most expensive holiday destination". The same phrase is used in the story itself.
It simply isn't true.
If you read the whole story the truth is in there, alongside the misrepresentation.
The story eventually goes on to give the true findings of the research it's 'reporting' - the average room rate of hotels is the world's third most expensive. Hotel rates, not the whole destination. Not the whole holiday cost.
They are totally different things.
Doesn't the writer understand that? Or understand that there are conflicting statements in the one story? Doesn't the Editor bother to read what's submitted for publication?
As a visitor from the UK was quoted in the article as saying: "I thought meals, clothes and gifts were all very, very reasonable - it made me realise how ridiculous some of the prices we pay at home are."
Take everything into account and Dubai is not the third most expensive holiday destination.
There's no excuse for such sloppy reporting.
Read the story for yourself here.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
The power of words.
Excellent news from Gaza that BBC journalist Alan Johnston has been released unharmed.
A news clip on radio about it once again raised something that I'm endlessly fascinated by. The way words and phrases are used to put a completely different meaning on the same thing by people with different agendas. And the power of the words to create perceptions in the mind of the listener or reader.
The phrase used was that Alan was 'surrounded by Hamas gunmen'.
Hamas won the democratic election, declared fair and valid by international observers. Yet their people are 'gunmen'.
Had they been Fatah people they would almost certainly have been described as 'security personnel'. Had they been westerners in Iraq they would have been described as 'civilian contractors'.
That last one is a new phrase too - such people have always been called 'mercenaries'. They do exactly the same work but the new phrase removes any suggestion of guns & violence. It makes them sound like plumbers or carpenters, not the heavily-armed private armies that they are.
Israel says it has 'settlers' living in 'settlements' in the occupied territories. Very benign, soft, harmless. Others say they are 'colonists' living in 'colonies'. They're talking about the same thing but the perception the words put in the mind of the reader is very different.
We no longer have 'civilian casualties' - that phrase says innocent people are being killed. Innocent people are indeed being killed, but that's hidden in the new phrase 'collateral damage'. No death and destruction, no bereaved families there then. Just a bit of damage around the edges.
Troops are no longer killed by their own allies, we now have 'friendly fire incidents'. They're still killed by their own colleagues, the result is the same but it's made to sound so much more harmless.
What annoys me about it all is that the media either falls for it without thinking or, much more likely, is complicit in the misrepresentation to push its own political agenda.
The more the truth is obscured by the words, the more our problems will increase.
However sordid it is, we need the truth so that we can form sensible, honest opinions.
A news clip on radio about it once again raised something that I'm endlessly fascinated by. The way words and phrases are used to put a completely different meaning on the same thing by people with different agendas. And the power of the words to create perceptions in the mind of the listener or reader.
The phrase used was that Alan was 'surrounded by Hamas gunmen'.
Hamas won the democratic election, declared fair and valid by international observers. Yet their people are 'gunmen'.
Had they been Fatah people they would almost certainly have been described as 'security personnel'. Had they been westerners in Iraq they would have been described as 'civilian contractors'.
That last one is a new phrase too - such people have always been called 'mercenaries'. They do exactly the same work but the new phrase removes any suggestion of guns & violence. It makes them sound like plumbers or carpenters, not the heavily-armed private armies that they are.
Israel says it has 'settlers' living in 'settlements' in the occupied territories. Very benign, soft, harmless. Others say they are 'colonists' living in 'colonies'. They're talking about the same thing but the perception the words put in the mind of the reader is very different.
We no longer have 'civilian casualties' - that phrase says innocent people are being killed. Innocent people are indeed being killed, but that's hidden in the new phrase 'collateral damage'. No death and destruction, no bereaved families there then. Just a bit of damage around the edges.
Troops are no longer killed by their own allies, we now have 'friendly fire incidents'. They're still killed by their own colleagues, the result is the same but it's made to sound so much more harmless.
What annoys me about it all is that the media either falls for it without thinking or, much more likely, is complicit in the misrepresentation to push its own political agenda.
The more the truth is obscured by the words, the more our problems will increase.
However sordid it is, we need the truth so that we can form sensible, honest opinions.
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Big Boss saves the beach.
Excellent news for beachlovers and for Dubai's future tourism targets.
Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid has instructed Dubai Municipality to stop the construction work on Umm Suqeim beach immediately and remove the construction fence which cordons off the beach for the planned project. The beach should be left open for the public, the municipality was told.
This is the beach that would have been lost:
What may be surprising to many is that the project has been stopped in spite of the development company having as a co-director and major shareholder Sheikh Hamdan Bin Mohammed Bin Rashid.
Wasta has not stood in the way of a sensible decision. And, not for the first time, Sheikh Mohammed has demonstrated that Dubai is fortunate to have him as Ruler.
Irresponsible reporting - again.
I have to say, yet again, that Emirates Today has stayed at the bottom of the barrel with its mis-reporting of the story.
I complained earlier that they reported this development incorrectly, didn't bother to check their 'facts' and mislead their readers. They continue to do it with this new report.
They repeat: "Instructions to tear down the fencing work on the popular beach, extending from Burj Al Arab to Port Rashid..." It does NOT extend to Port Rashid, that's 20 kilometres away in the heart of Dubai city! It extends to Umm Suqeim Fishing Port, a length of about 600 metres.
The development was announced as being 4.5 million square feet, including new offshore areas. If it extended to Port Rashid it would be a thin strip development 20 kilometres long and 20 metres (65 feet) wide! Hardly likely is it.
Why don't they check their facts rather than mislead their readers? It's not difficult to do.
Gulf News has a report here.
Emirates Today story, complete with mis-reporting, is here.
Scroll down for my earlier postings on the two subjects.
Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid has instructed Dubai Municipality to stop the construction work on Umm Suqeim beach immediately and remove the construction fence which cordons off the beach for the planned project. The beach should be left open for the public, the municipality was told.
This is the beach that would have been lost:
What may be surprising to many is that the project has been stopped in spite of the development company having as a co-director and major shareholder Sheikh Hamdan Bin Mohammed Bin Rashid.
Wasta has not stood in the way of a sensible decision. And, not for the first time, Sheikh Mohammed has demonstrated that Dubai is fortunate to have him as Ruler.
Irresponsible reporting - again.
I have to say, yet again, that Emirates Today has stayed at the bottom of the barrel with its mis-reporting of the story.
I complained earlier that they reported this development incorrectly, didn't bother to check their 'facts' and mislead their readers. They continue to do it with this new report.
They repeat: "Instructions to tear down the fencing work on the popular beach, extending from Burj Al Arab to Port Rashid..." It does NOT extend to Port Rashid, that's 20 kilometres away in the heart of Dubai city! It extends to Umm Suqeim Fishing Port, a length of about 600 metres.
The development was announced as being 4.5 million square feet, including new offshore areas. If it extended to Port Rashid it would be a thin strip development 20 kilometres long and 20 metres (65 feet) wide! Hardly likely is it.
Why don't they check their facts rather than mislead their readers? It's not difficult to do.
Gulf News has a report here.
Emirates Today story, complete with mis-reporting, is here.
Scroll down for my earlier postings on the two subjects.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Irresponsible reporting.
Irresponsible. Inaccurate. Inexcusable.
The subject is the fence appearing at Umm Suqeim beach.
The culprits are Emirates Today and "Anjana Sankar and Vesela Todorova News Reporters" who claim to have seen something which simply is not there.
I quote: "Upon visiting the beach, Emirates Today found a 17-km iron fencing is being built along the beach stretching from Burj Al Arab to Port Rashid."
I visited it yesterday and today too. The fence is maybe 500 metres, from close to Burj Al Arab to Umm Suqeim Fishing Port.
So maybe that's just the beginning and it will go the full length of Dubai's coastline?
Not according to the press release from Zabeel Investments, the developer. That says they are developing a 4.5 million square foot area and "will cover both existing and reclaimed land and will overlook the Burj Al Arab located just down the coast."
"will overlook the Burj Al Arab located just down the coast" doesn't mean 17 kilometres away.
And do the maths.
An area 17 kilometres long covering 4.5 million square feet gives you a width of less than 25 metres.
So according to our intrepid reporters, who tell us they've seen it with their own eyes, we're going to get a beachfront development 17 kilometres long and 24.5 metres wide.
And what was the Editor of EmTod doing, letting such demonstrably ridiculous garbage into the paper?
The EmTod report is here.
The press release is in Gulf news, here.
The subject is the fence appearing at Umm Suqeim beach.
The culprits are Emirates Today and "Anjana Sankar and Vesela Todorova News Reporters" who claim to have seen something which simply is not there.
I quote: "Upon visiting the beach, Emirates Today found a 17-km iron fencing is being built along the beach stretching from Burj Al Arab to Port Rashid."
I visited it yesterday and today too. The fence is maybe 500 metres, from close to Burj Al Arab to Umm Suqeim Fishing Port.
So maybe that's just the beginning and it will go the full length of Dubai's coastline?
Not according to the press release from Zabeel Investments, the developer. That says they are developing a 4.5 million square foot area and "will cover both existing and reclaimed land and will overlook the Burj Al Arab located just down the coast."
"will overlook the Burj Al Arab located just down the coast" doesn't mean 17 kilometres away.
And do the maths.
An area 17 kilometres long covering 4.5 million square feet gives you a width of less than 25 metres.
So according to our intrepid reporters, who tell us they've seen it with their own eyes, we're going to get a beachfront development 17 kilometres long and 24.5 metres wide.
And what was the Editor of EmTod doing, letting such demonstrably ridiculous garbage into the paper?
The EmTod report is here.
The press release is in Gulf news, here.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Freedom of the press?
There's an interesting but frustrating two page spread in Gulf News' Weekend Review headlined Media needs to act with greater responsibility.
Briefly, it reports on a meeting called by Al Bayan to 'debate and explore the necessity of maintaining a clear media policy and preserving social values'. That is because 'the absence of clear and well-defined media guidelines is resulting in journalism losing its ethics.
I agree with part of that statement. A lack of ethics is apparent. But surely that's down to responsible, effective editing. As far as I'm concerned it's a cop-out to say guidelines have to be set. Professionalism, common sense and a sense of propriety are what's needed, not legislation.
I fully agree with the concern that was behind the whole exercise: Media watchers are concerned that the new found openness that finds its way to the letters columns could create divisive cracks in a society that aspires at preserving peace and harmony among its residents.
I've been amazed at some, many in fact, of the letters which have been published in English-language newspapers - by '7Days' in particular.
There are two categories that I'm amazed to have seen published:
*spoof letters. Obvious send-up letters, designed to draw angry responses. Some were harmless, but others were inflamatory. Both types should have been weeded out by the Letters Editor and not published. The letters page should be for genuine letters.
*letters containing inflamatory, rascist, derogatory remarks about other people. These simply should never see the light of day.
How does it happen? I said that professionalism, common sense and a sense of propriety are what's needed. The Managing Editor of 7Days gives the game away when he is quoted as saying: "Currently, I deal with letters that come to us and others tend to this while I am away. There are some foreign journalists who have been living in the UAE for the last year or two and might not pay attention to some details.
What!
Who are these 'others' who are given responsibility for editing the letters page? Are they qualified? Are they professional? The evidence would suggest they are not. Not by a long way.
And "journalists...may not pay attention to some details"! Why they hell are they still employed then? And how are their errors of judgement getting past the Editor? Is there no checking?
This is unprofessional in the extreme.
Frustration
I'm frustrated with the report on several levels. First, the meeting invited 'Arabic speaking media representatives...from the English and non-English media'. To me that's only half a meeting. If you really want to seriously debate such things in Dubai you have to include non-Arabic speakers. The participants were high-flyers, but it was only nine people.
I was frustrated at the brevity of the report. It gave only one or two quotes from only six of the participants. And there was no summing up, no indication whether anything was agreed upon, or recommendations would be made - and if so, to whom. There was no overview of what took place. It was really just a teaser and because of the importance of the subject I thought it should have been much more than that.
I was also frustrated at comments by some of the participants. Sweeping generalisations about groups of people and a lack of understanding of what they were about. In fact, much like some of the letters they were complaining about!
An example:
The Executive Managing Editor for Local Issues, Al Ittihad says: "Expatriates have resentment towards UAE nationals and the media is used to pass around these feelings.
Is that a sweeping statement or not! I'm an expatriate and I certainly don't resent Emiratis, and I can't think of anyone I mix with who isn't the same.
He continues: "...and criticise the Ministry of Labour for the Emiratisation of one or two vocations in the private sector, this is intentionally harmful." No it isn't. It is not harmful and it is not intended to be harmful. It was a discussion about the desirability of a policy that assumes thousands of people from one particular group are suitable, suited, trained, competent to take over an entire corporate function throughout the country. Had the policy stated that only Indians or Australians, for example, could be HR Directors there would have been a similar reaction.
And he continues: "I say there is a fierce attack, such as that conducted in connection to labourers' rights. BBC, CNN, and International Labour Organisation all point on their websites to the UAE's alleged abuse of labourers. If we go back to the Arab newspapers' archives, we will see numerous cases, where we defended labourers. We realise there are problems, with some sponsors stepping over the line, but most of them are not UAE nationals.
What's the problem here? The Arabic newspapers defended labourers. Good for them. So what's wrong with English-language newspapers doing the same thing? What's wrong with outside organisations highlighting abuses? That's what happens in the real world. Dubai can't hide any more, it strives very hard to be in the world's spotlight and it must expect examination of its practices.
"...sponsors stepping over the line, but most of them are not UAE nationals." I haven't read anywhere that specifically Emirati sponsors are being blamed for abuse of labourers. Stronger laws and enforcement of laws has been the demand, with stories of non-payment of wages or bad conditions being examples of why that is needed.
The whole thing was off-beam, missed the point. The problem isn't to do with expat workers, resentment of Emiratis, fierce attacks about labourers, intentional harm to the country, the need for media guidelines. Nothing of the sort.
It's about two things. Dubai, and the UAE in general, working hard to be in the world's spotlight, wanting to join international organisations, wanting free trade agreements - and having to accept that this will involve greater scrutiny of its laws and practices, greater comment from the world's media about all manner of things.
And it's about the lack of professionalism in our media. We don't need legislation, we need professional media people - all the way from editors to journalists and proof readers.
Briefly, it reports on a meeting called by Al Bayan to 'debate and explore the necessity of maintaining a clear media policy and preserving social values'. That is because 'the absence of clear and well-defined media guidelines is resulting in journalism losing its ethics.
I agree with part of that statement. A lack of ethics is apparent. But surely that's down to responsible, effective editing. As far as I'm concerned it's a cop-out to say guidelines have to be set. Professionalism, common sense and a sense of propriety are what's needed, not legislation.
I fully agree with the concern that was behind the whole exercise: Media watchers are concerned that the new found openness that finds its way to the letters columns could create divisive cracks in a society that aspires at preserving peace and harmony among its residents.
I've been amazed at some, many in fact, of the letters which have been published in English-language newspapers - by '7Days' in particular.
There are two categories that I'm amazed to have seen published:
*spoof letters. Obvious send-up letters, designed to draw angry responses. Some were harmless, but others were inflamatory. Both types should have been weeded out by the Letters Editor and not published. The letters page should be for genuine letters.
*letters containing inflamatory, rascist, derogatory remarks about other people. These simply should never see the light of day.
How does it happen? I said that professionalism, common sense and a sense of propriety are what's needed. The Managing Editor of 7Days gives the game away when he is quoted as saying: "Currently, I deal with letters that come to us and others tend to this while I am away. There are some foreign journalists who have been living in the UAE for the last year or two and might not pay attention to some details.
What!
Who are these 'others' who are given responsibility for editing the letters page? Are they qualified? Are they professional? The evidence would suggest they are not. Not by a long way.
And "journalists...may not pay attention to some details"! Why they hell are they still employed then? And how are their errors of judgement getting past the Editor? Is there no checking?
This is unprofessional in the extreme.
Frustration
I'm frustrated with the report on several levels. First, the meeting invited 'Arabic speaking media representatives...from the English and non-English media'. To me that's only half a meeting. If you really want to seriously debate such things in Dubai you have to include non-Arabic speakers. The participants were high-flyers, but it was only nine people.
I was frustrated at the brevity of the report. It gave only one or two quotes from only six of the participants. And there was no summing up, no indication whether anything was agreed upon, or recommendations would be made - and if so, to whom. There was no overview of what took place. It was really just a teaser and because of the importance of the subject I thought it should have been much more than that.
I was also frustrated at comments by some of the participants. Sweeping generalisations about groups of people and a lack of understanding of what they were about. In fact, much like some of the letters they were complaining about!
An example:
The Executive Managing Editor for Local Issues, Al Ittihad says: "Expatriates have resentment towards UAE nationals and the media is used to pass around these feelings.
Is that a sweeping statement or not! I'm an expatriate and I certainly don't resent Emiratis, and I can't think of anyone I mix with who isn't the same.
He continues: "...and criticise the Ministry of Labour for the Emiratisation of one or two vocations in the private sector, this is intentionally harmful." No it isn't. It is not harmful and it is not intended to be harmful. It was a discussion about the desirability of a policy that assumes thousands of people from one particular group are suitable, suited, trained, competent to take over an entire corporate function throughout the country. Had the policy stated that only Indians or Australians, for example, could be HR Directors there would have been a similar reaction.
And he continues: "I say there is a fierce attack, such as that conducted in connection to labourers' rights. BBC, CNN, and International Labour Organisation all point on their websites to the UAE's alleged abuse of labourers. If we go back to the Arab newspapers' archives, we will see numerous cases, where we defended labourers. We realise there are problems, with some sponsors stepping over the line, but most of them are not UAE nationals.
What's the problem here? The Arabic newspapers defended labourers. Good for them. So what's wrong with English-language newspapers doing the same thing? What's wrong with outside organisations highlighting abuses? That's what happens in the real world. Dubai can't hide any more, it strives very hard to be in the world's spotlight and it must expect examination of its practices.
"...sponsors stepping over the line, but most of them are not UAE nationals." I haven't read anywhere that specifically Emirati sponsors are being blamed for abuse of labourers. Stronger laws and enforcement of laws has been the demand, with stories of non-payment of wages or bad conditions being examples of why that is needed.
The whole thing was off-beam, missed the point. The problem isn't to do with expat workers, resentment of Emiratis, fierce attacks about labourers, intentional harm to the country, the need for media guidelines. Nothing of the sort.
It's about two things. Dubai, and the UAE in general, working hard to be in the world's spotlight, wanting to join international organisations, wanting free trade agreements - and having to accept that this will involve greater scrutiny of its laws and practices, greater comment from the world's media about all manner of things.
And it's about the lack of professionalism in our media. We don't need legislation, we need professional media people - all the way from editors to journalists and proof readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
