From the new issue of the Economist you read this: "FOR a country reputed to be dry and dull, Saudi Arabia is surprisingly awash with news. The good old broadsheet newspaper, dying out elsewhere, thrives. The kingdom boasts more than a dozen fiercely competing national dailies. The newest, called Mecca after the holy city where it is published, was launched this month.
Not so long ago it was rare to find the front page of a Saudi paper unadorned with a picture of His Majesty King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Places, or at least of some lesser prince with an equally quaint title. Now, in the year 1435 by the Muslim calendar, the chronicling of princely doings, though still de rigueur, tends to be relegated to the inside pages, above advertisements promising cheap, reliable Asian workers or promoting scientifically proven erectile enhancement." The writer is not quite accurate. First, the new newspaper is not new it is merely a retitling of an old newspaper called An-Nadwah. 2) the fact that the Saudi king's picture did not appear on the front page of every issue does not mean that there is a new professional journalistic trends. This is a facet of a pattern in Saudi media in the last decade or so: to basically produce media of sensationalism, entertainment, sports, fluff news, and gossip. Look at the website of Al-Arabiyya; the news website of King Fahd's brother-in-law: the most read item in the last few days is a story about "an intimate relationship" between Shakira and Rihanna. 3) Ownership of Saudi media is still in the hands of Saudi princes and their entourage. 4) The Economist should have reported that 41 news websites were banned by the Saudi government. 5) Why didnt the writer mention that Al-Watan is owned by Prince Khalid Al-Faysal?
Not so long ago it was rare to find the front page of a Saudi paper unadorned with a picture of His Majesty King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Places, or at least of some lesser prince with an equally quaint title. Now, in the year 1435 by the Muslim calendar, the chronicling of princely doings, though still de rigueur, tends to be relegated to the inside pages, above advertisements promising cheap, reliable Asian workers or promoting scientifically proven erectile enhancement." The writer is not quite accurate. First, the new newspaper is not new it is merely a retitling of an old newspaper called An-Nadwah. 2) the fact that the Saudi king's picture did not appear on the front page of every issue does not mean that there is a new professional journalistic trends. This is a facet of a pattern in Saudi media in the last decade or so: to basically produce media of sensationalism, entertainment, sports, fluff news, and gossip. Look at the website of Al-Arabiyya; the news website of King Fahd's brother-in-law: the most read item in the last few days is a story about "an intimate relationship" between Shakira and Rihanna. 3) Ownership of Saudi media is still in the hands of Saudi princes and their entourage. 4) The Economist should have reported that 41 news websites were banned by the Saudi government. 5) Why didnt the writer mention that Al-Watan is owned by Prince Khalid Al-Faysal?
