Where would we be without the Khaleej Times? Probably in a much better place, but, having said that, the paper continues to batter the English language like it was a baby seal. Take the screen shot to the right. It shows just some of the ways English dies just a little, every day on the KT homepage. This is a world where pressure is piled, where governments duel, where debates stir, where PMs slam and where tongues are colourful.
The cliche is alive and well in Al Quoz.
God help us all.
Gulf News long ago descended into farce, a rag-tag collection of pro-Government press releases, inane human interest stories and badly written opinion pieces. Yet it is still the number one selling newspaper in the UAE. This would suggest either:
1. The people who buy Gulf News have certain issues
2. The people who buy Gulf News do not read it (using it instead to stuff pillows, mattresses or cat litter trays)
It is worrying that the country has such a poor print media. Khaleej Times is beyond parody it’s so bad, the National has rapidly descended into the press wing of the Abu Dhabi goverment and Business 24/7 sets new lows in crass journalism on a daily basis.
The recent coverage of the dispute between Canada and the UAE over landing rights has exposed the paucity of the country’s journalistic talent. Take this piece, or this piece, or this piece. No, please, take them. They are perfect for litter trays. Is there any hope on the horizon? Yes – the death of print media.
Whether you agree or disagree with the proposed banning of the burqa in France and Belgium, the hypocrisy of some of the Khaleej Times’ readers is breathtaking. Predictably there are no opinions praising the move, and no one seems to find it strange that the readers talk about “freedom” and specifically the “freedom to live your own life” on the same day that this is being reported. So which is it? Live by the rules of the country you live in (however ill-judged) or bleat about human rights. You can’t have it both ways.
I personally disagree with the ban and I am helped to that conclusion by the reliable lunaticism of Daniel Pipes, the Jerusalem Post commentator and all round right-wing nutjob:
“Some observers would ban hijabs from public places, but what legal grounds exist for doing so? Following my rule of thumb that Muslims enjoy the same rights and obligations as other citizens, but not special rights or obligations, a woman’s freedom of expression grants her the option to wear a hijab.
In contrast, burqas and niqabs should be banned in all public spaces because they present a security risk. Anyone might lurk under those shrouds – female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, decent citizen, fugitive, or criminal – with who knows what evil purposes.
Who knows what evil purposes? Perhaps illegally entering a country to commit an act of murder? Oh, sorry, wrong side.
There is nothing better than waking up on a Friday morning and discovering this gem. It starts off as incoherent gibberish about technology:
“The World Wide Web or Internet in particular has transformed the very human existence. I can’t imagine how we lived and worked before the dawn of the Net, and am just not talking about my tribe.”
And finishes up as incoherent gibberish about technology (and Zionism):
“If the tide of world public opinion is turning against the Zionists and is perhaps for the first time forcing Western governments to reconsider their blind support to Israel, we should thank this electronic Intifada. In the age of Internet, bloggers and Twitter and 24/7 satellite television, it’s no longer possible for rogue states to get away with murder. And Israel’s powerful friends with their deep pockets and clout on the Capitol hill are beginning to realise this.”
Makes perfect sense. The Wall Street Journal are looking for a new op-ed columnist…
Twitter
|
