In March 2003, while American jets bound for
Iraq took off from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, not fifteen miles away emerged one of the
Iraq War’s most vocal critics: the news organization Al Jazeera. But Al Jazeera is not just any news network. It’s funded by the Qatari government — the
same government who invited American warplanes to launch from its territory. The contradictions don’t stop there. About the last country you’d expect to lead
the charge against fossil fuels is the 4th largest producer of natural gas. Yet Qatar spends its unimaginable oil and
gas riches sounding the alarm on climate change with Al Jazeera. Finally, who supports democracy, promotes
a progressive social agenda, and lends a voice to those in need but Al Jazeera, located in
and funded by one of the least democratic, least progressive, and most conservative countries
on earth. In terms of political and civil liberties,
Qatar is not quite the worst. But, well, it’s not far from it. With a Freedom House score of just 25 out
of 100, it ranks behind Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Iraq. In 2012, a man was sentenced to life in prison
for writing a poem that insulted the royal family. It censors dissenting opinions online and
has been known to revoke citizenship as political punishment. Women are expected to wear traditional dress
in public and are subject to male guardianship laws. Non-muslims must apply for a license to buy
alcohol, are subject to a 100% sin tax, can only do so from one authorized company, and
can only drink in private. Knowing all this, you might expect Al Jazeera
to look like Russia’s state-run RT, which sows doubt and confusion, or China’s CGTN,
which is just outright propaganda. Instead, it’s more akin to NPR or the BBC. The independent watchdog “Ad Fontes Media”,
for instance, ranks all three among the most “balanced” and “reliable” sources. In fact, sometimes to their own detriment. Their lack of sensationalism might be characterized
by some as “bland”, “dull”, or “boring”. But not only is Al Jazeera relatively unbiased,
it also has some of the best, fastest, and widest coverage of any news network on the
planet. So, why? Why does one of the most conservative, non-democratic,
and, at times, repressive governments spend millions upon millions on what is, essentially,
global NPR? Sponsored by CuriosityStream and Nebula — where
you can watch the bonus video about why Chinese propaganda fails — for just fifteen bucks
a year. Broadly speaking, as countries become richer
per capita, they tend to become more democratic. The more money citizens give their government
in the form of taxes, the more they demand from it in return. Again, broadly speaking. Qatar, along with its neighbors, are exceptions. In place of taxes, they generate revenue from
oil, or, in Qatar’s case, natural gas. This allows the government to circumvent the
quote “normal” political relationship. Think of them less as conventional “countries”
and more as corporations whose citizens are shareholders. Knowing they could perform a hostile takeover,
these governments essentially bribe the population with money rather than democracy or freedom. Qatari citizens are given every luxury under
the sun — free access to American universities, electricity, water, healthcare, pensions,
low-cost loans, guaranteed jobs, land grants, and even direct cash transfers. In 2013, its per capita GDP reached $85,000
US Dollars. Though, in truth, this number is wildly misleading. Only about 300,000 of its 2.8 million residents
are citizens. 90% are expats, who fill the jobs locals don’t
want. Its GDP per citizen is closer to $500,000. Qatar, in other words, has so few people and
so much money that it’s able to offer a much more compelling bribe. As protests engulfed the region during the
2011 Arab Spring, Qatar remained a small island of tranquility, despite its rule by absolute
monarchy. But besides being richer per capita, the country
fits right in among its oil-rich Middle Eastern neighbors. It shares the same basic political and economic
model, language, religion, and culture. That’s the problem. Fitting in has always been what Qatar fears
most. In 1990, it watched Iraq’s invasion of tiny
Kuwait with a mix of panic and fear. It could be the next Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
its Iraq. With a population 14 times smaller, and an
area 186 times smaller, Qatar has always lived in the shadow of its neighbor. That is, until 1995, when a coup forever changed
the course of the nation. The new emir, as its leader is known, ordered
the immediate development of what turned out to be the world’s largest natural gas field. Before long, Qatar was rich beyond imagination. And with this money, it sought, in a word:
relevance. Since then, its foreign policy could be described
as “trying to be everything to everyone”. Whatever the conflict, discussion, organization,
or war, Qatar would position itself right in the middle, even if that meant abandoning
all sense of logical consistency. Its goal was to stick out as the sore thumb
of the Middle East. And stick out, it did. Since 2013, Qatar has hosted about 100 Taliban
officials at its own expense. Saddam Hussein’s wife, a controversial Indian
artist in exile, and a former Chechen President were also all offered a home in Doha. At one point, it gave Assad an Airbus A340. And, in 1996, it became the first country
in the region to establish trade relations with Israel. Now, around that same time, by sheer coincidence,
the BBC established a 24/7 news channel in Saudi Arabia. But after it aired a documentary critical
of the royal family, the country withdrew its funding. For Qatar, this meant there were suddenly
hundreds of BBC-trained, Arabic-speaking, and most importantly, unemployed journalists
next door. Seeing this opportunity, it pounced, hiring
150 of the best and brightest to start Al Jazeera in 1996. The Arab world, at the time, had access to
only two categories of news: either English-language reporting as told from an American or European
perspective, or locally-produced, North Korean-style blatant propaganda. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, was refreshingly
real. For once, Middle Eastern viewers could hear
dissenting opinions on the issues they actually cared about. By 2001, just five years after launching,
it had already become the most-watched Arab TV news station. In 2011, it was the first or second choice
of news for 75% of the Arab world. The only thing it wasn’t doing well was
making money. Initially, the network was given a $137 million
loan to be paid back in five years. But its uncensored reporting soon earned it
an advertising boycott from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain, destroying all hope of
profitability. Yet, oddly enough, losing money, having no
obvious, tangible benefit to its financier, and being located in a country with no press
freedom all turned out to be the optimal conditions for a “good” news station to thrive. First, because Al Jazeera eventually launched
separate English and Arabic divisions, the former is given an almost infinite leash. While the Arabic version has been heavily
criticized for its whitewashed reporting on Qatar and biased coverage of the region, the
English edition has near-complete editorial independence. While American networks showed heavily sanitized,
video game-like footage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Jazeera infuriated the U.S. by
showing gory devastation and broadcasting tapes of Bin Laden. This continued even after the U.S. secretary
of state asked its ally to quote “tone down” its coverage — a testament to the station’s
independence. The entire country, including the royal family,
has paid a tremendous price for Al Jazeera’s reporting. Starting in 2017, the governments of Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt imposed on it a 43-month blockade, demanding that
it shut down Al Jazeera. During this time, the country lost access
to its only land border, suffered supply chain disruptions causing it to airlift cows from
California for milk, and was blocked from flying over most of Middle Eastern airspace. Second, because the network is funded by the
government, it remains immune to market pressures, allowing it to focus on under-reported stories
and avoid sensationalism. Instead of chasing ratings with celebrity
gossip, Al Jazeera publishes articles on humanitarian crises in tiny countries and tracks elections
in little-known corners of the globe. At a time when viewership is dwindling and
most news networks are scaling back their physical footprints, Qatar’s deep-pockets
have afforded Al Jazeera the best equipment, personnel, and a staggering number of on-the-ground
stations. Its bureaus, which are spread across 50 countries,
outnumber those of CNN by 2:1. Third, because Qatar is, ostensibly, friends
with everyone, Al Jazeera receives unparalleled access. Despite broadcasting pro-Palestinian coverage
in the West Bank, for instance, it somehow avoided censorship from Israeli authorities. At the same time, its willingness to show
all sides of the story has consistently gotten it into trouble. Its office in Gaza was destroyed by Israeli
rockets, and more than a few of its reporters have been arrested around the world. Today, Al Jazeera is a contender for the most
reliable, highest-quality news network — on any topic, in any country, with only one major
exception: Qatar. Twenty years ago, the country’s relative
obscurity on the world stage was an asset for Al Jazeera — it could credibly claim
to have no dog in the race, no incentive to report with bias. But as Al Jazeera itself has helped Qatar
emerge from the shadow of its neighbors and take on a larger role in world affairs, the
network’s silence on local issues has slowly become suspicious. Its neglect of issues such as the welfare
of local migrant workers or the upcoming 2022 FIFA World Cup has, at last, revealed Al Jazeera’s
almost singular red-line. The network will host everyone from Osama
Bin Laden to Colin Powell, but it is still not immune from self-censorship at home. Now, you might think the urge to intervene
in Al Jazeera’s coverage of other issues would eventually prove irresistible to the
government. But while it’s true that Al Jazeera’s
reporting is far from perfect, it may be the rare instance where its incentives align with
those of the public. The greater its perception as independent,
credible, and high-quality, the better it fulfills its original mission: to keep the
spotlight on Qatar. So far the government has shown that it understands
the long-term price for short-term control and has not touched the goose that lays the
golden eggs. Other countries? Not so much. China is perhaps the epitome of bad propaganda. Its diplomats issue death threats on Twitter
and its media channels publish a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories and mundane press releases. Why is China so bad at telling its story? That’s the subject of this bonus video you
can watch right now on Nebula. By signing up for Nebula, you get access to
a dozen other PolyMatter bonus videos and extended content, exclusive Nebula Originals,
and, for the same low price, CuriositySteam. CuriosityStream is home to great documentaries
on history, science, and technology, like this one on one of Qatar’s neighbors, Oman. Click the link on screen right now to get
both Nebula and CuriosityStream for just fifteen bucks a year and go watch the bonus video
over on Nebula.
