News articles: appearances

[qatarperegrine]

Why is that the BBC writes so much more on the Gulf than anyone else? Today it's an article on Why appearances matter in Saudi.

In other news, I just learned that Robin Cook died this weekend. Alas, poor Robin. You were one cool dude.

Comments

[roach2600.livejournal.com]

Ok so I'm not the only one that noticed the rush of middle east human interest stories lately from bbc.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

It has been a pretty marked increase in the last few weeks, I think.

In general

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I think the BBC is much better at "covering the world" than most other major news-sources, and they DO [at least] try to put things in local context, not just dishing out the [otherwise meaningless] but "exciting" headlines, that most TV media do.

While the BBC does have a strong anti-Israeli bias, I still enjoy reading them.

[seetarkrun.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just geographic? The U.K. doesn't have the Atlantic Ocean between itself and the Middle East- maybe Saudi Arabia just feels much closer to home than it does in the U.S. and thus generates more interest?

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's more geographical or historical, but I think the U.K. generally feels more interest in international news. Heck, I think pretty much everyone has more interest in the world around them than the United States has. :-D

[aristopheles.livejournal.com]

A lot of the Middle East used to be British colonies or protectorates. (Don't ask me which was which, or what the difference is.)
I don't have data, but it always felt like the BBC tended to return more often to countries that used to be tied to Mother England.

But in spite of all temptations / To belong to other nations...

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Colonies are completely run and "owned" by the mother country; protectorates still have control over their internal affairs. In effect, they sacrifice their right to engage in independent international politics in exchange for protection from their neighbors.

Qatar was a British protectorate from 1916 to 1971. By all accounts it entered this agreement quite willingly, as the alternative was trying to fend off the Ottomans, the Sauds and the Bahraini Khalifas at the same time.

From nosing around online, it looks like Kuwait, Bahrain, the Trucial states (now the UAE), Oman and Aden (later South Yemen) were all protectorates too. I guess that actually answers my longstanding question about how all these teeny little areas on the Gulf managed to withstand Saudi expansionism....

Re: But in spite of all temptations / To belong to other nations...

[aristopheles.livejournal.com]

Thank God for the Brits.
(Of course, if it weren't for the, the Sauds couldn't have conquered the Peninsula in the first place. But it's good to try to contain your mistakes.)

More likely

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

It was more likely to be motivated by wanting to play them off against each other. If the Sauds controlled the entire peninsula, why would they need the British? ;-)

Also, a lot of these "nationalities" were created simply to pay off some local war-lord or ally. Take the Hashemite Kingdom of [Trans] Jordan, for example. The grandfather of the late King Hussein, "King" Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (the official biography) was actually a very prominent horse-trader who did a LOT of business with the British before and during the World-Wars. They rewarded his loyalty by "giving" him a country, the east half of the British Mandate of Palestine, which technically wasn't thiers to give. :-p

Re: More likely

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the story with the Al Thanis (ruling family) here in Qatar is pretty much the same. But don't tell them I said so. :)