Advisory panel meeting discuss media freedom
Media freedom in Qatar was the subject of a heated debate during the scheduled weekly session of the Advisory Council on Monday, according to the local Arabic press.
Initiated on the request of 24 members, the focus of the debate was on the council’s report on the issue of media freedom in the country.
It was pointed out that some people had been “bought” in to write slanted reports and analyses against Qatar and its achievements. Their reports lack “accuracy and honesty of statement”.
....“We are not against media freedom but there are some red lines that should not be crossed. Those who dare to do so should be punished severely,” said another member Khalid Rashed al-Labda.
The most extensive observation came from Dr Ahmed Obaidan, a member, who said: “The whole issue should be considered in the light of the changes in press freedom introduced by HH the Emir after he took over the reins of power.
“The first decision announced by HH the Emir was to abolish the ministry of information and the lifting of censor on the press. It was a magnanimous measure which is appreciated by everyone. But some television channels and newspapers have taken undue advantage of this freedom. They failed to maintain the sanctity of the given traditions of governance under our beloved Emir and the sanctity of our constitution.
“There are certain writers who, after enjoying our munificence, have under the lure of money embarked on slander and on spoiling the good image of our country. What we look forward to is responsible conduct from the media.”
Reacting to this debate, mediapersons said that this was an unjustified war against the media.
They observed that such a sensitive issue has been discussed without giving any solid proof.
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=296196...
Other source:
Advisory panel wants curbs on irresponsible journalism
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&mon...
are so set against anything that involves self-critique. The thing that I find strange is that when you talk with individual Qataris they are not like this. They will admit the issues and problems they are facing. So why are they so dead set against publication of these same issues in the paper? Is it because they fear the judgment of the world outside Qatar? Really, if one feels they are doing the right thing, it seems they would have no fear of standing and backing their choices.
I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM
Who's doing the criticising?
Despite the behavior of landlords, mall owners, sponsors, captains of industry, government officials etc, there is basically no criticism in the mainstream press.
Is this pre-emptive?
I think more or less they don't want to be criticized themselves. Remember, the advisory council members are also the "landlords", "company/compound/malls owners", "sponsors"..etc
from criticizing their beloved leader Sh. Hamad. But they fail to see the irony of the current situation, because Sh. Hamad has called for media freedom in Qatar, and the advisory council is now saying that is a bad idea -- which is basically tantamount to saying that Hamad was wrong to do this.
So THEY now want to prohibit people from saying anything negative about their leaders, which is exactly what they are doing.
Sigh...they'll never get it.
"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."
-- Maya Angelou
Response from Editor of Peninsula;
The Emir, His Highness, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, declared the media free in the country in 1995 and with the launch of Al Jazeera, we have shown the world that Qatar is a country which allows different opinions to be heard.
We were, therefore, quite surprised by the outcome of a debate in the Advisory Council on Monday, which called for stringent punishment to be given to Qatar-based journalists who write against the ruler, national security, religion and the Constitution.
First of all, all the above subjects are already protected by the Qatari Law. Second, we must remember that there is a provision in the Qatari Constitution which allows its revision at a future date by the next generation. We have a saying in Arabic which roughly translates into English as ‘one generation cannot control another’. By raising this debate, the Advisory Council has made a generalised conclusion without addressing the issue directly.
We find it strange that the Advisory Council, made up of Qatari nationals, has this kind of opinion when His Highness The Emir has given us the freedom to voice our opinion on issues freely and in a fair manner.
We are concerned as a Qatari newspaper that if these restrictions are imposed on Qatari journalists, they will be afraid to report news and events as they see them. Needless to say, the impact on foreign scribes here would be too deterring.
I am an avid reader of local newspapers. None of them has ever written anything objectionable against the four subjects referred to in the Advisory Council debate. The Advisory Council, I am afraid, has failed to address the issue of irresponsible journalism. Other nations will find it strange that a country which advocates media freedom through the establishment of Al Jazeera will condone such practice. If there is any misuse, it shouldn’t be generalised. Doing this would soil Qatar’s image in the world.
Given this backdrop, we urge the authorities concerned in Qatar to come up with a new Media Law that would protect the freedom of our journalists, especially as the old press legislation was enforced years ago, in 1979.
Khalid Abdul Rahim Al Sayed is the Editor-in-Chief of The Peninsula
I don't think they're really undermining him that much, because I don't think the Emir wants press freedom as you and I know it to be in the UK/US. He has too much to lose if it was like that.
"fubar - My understanding is that if you publish something negative you can get into serious trouble, even if it is factual."
That's my understanding. And that's why I'm concerned.
What I find so oddly ironic, is that the Advisory Council is wants tougher regulations to protect the reputation of, among other things, the Emir. But in doing so, they are openly defying his wishes, and questioning his authority.
The Emir wants press freedom.
The Advisory Council do not.
This begs the question - now who is undermining the Emir and presenting his wishes in a negative way???
“We are not against media freedom but there are some red lines that should not be crossed. Those who dare to do so should be punished severely,”
Wow, that sends out a great message, doesn't it? Thinking like that are never lead to media freedom. The journalists here will continue to self-censor.
fubar - My understanding is that if you publish something negative you can get into serious trouble, even if it is factual.
Of all the strange things that have happened in Qatar recently, such as the ID cards in hotels saga, dress codes in shopping centers, etc, this issue is the one that is worrying me the most.
Once a country begins down a path of wholesale, state sanctioned, media contrl, things can get very nasty.
I'm just so shocked that something such as this, which directly goes against the wishes of the Emir himself, has been allowed to surface.
Dissent in the ranks?
whether this country can handle media freedom or not. Period.
They want to shout from the rooftops and inform the world "Look at us! Qatar has media freedom!!"
BUT
they don't want people to be able to criticize Qatar, the Emir or his friends, Islam, Prophet Mohammed, or anything else they decide is off limits.
I agree with you fubar; there are already laws that deal with libelous situations. If someone maliciously prints something that is patently untrue, they will face punishment.
Nothing more is needed.
"Most plain girls are virtuous because of the scarcity of opportunity to be otherwise."
-- Maya Angelou
There seems to be some confusion about the difference between:
Publishing something that is factual, and negative
and
Publishing something that is false, misleading or deceptive, and negative
As far as I am aware, the latter is already illegal.
So am I right in thinking that the basis of this debate is about punishing journalists from the media who write things that are factual?