The Power of a PR Machine
Qatar’s billion-dollar public relations engine quietly shapes global narratives, often without us realizing. Since its launch in 1996, Al Jazeera has branded itself as a beacon of independent journalism, broadcasting to 430 million viewers in over 150 countries.
But behind this polished image is a state-owned outlet that tailors its messaging to fit the audience, defending extremists in one language while accusing others of bias in another.
António Corrêa, Portugal’s former ambassador to Qatar, recently likened its influence to a modern-day “Caliphate,” driven by natural gas wealth and a fundamentalist regime. Qatar’s soft power reaches deep into the West, where its investments in infrastructure, education, and sports serve as cover for a broader ideological agenda.
One striking example is Al Jazeera Balkans, the network’s largest foreign-language outlet after Al Jazeera English. In Sarajevo, the visible rise of conservative Islamic dress and ideology points to Doha’s export of political Islam and its reshaping of local identity.
But this influence extends well beyond the Balkans, from football stadiums to elite universities and the corridors of EU power. The 2022 Qatargate scandal, which exposed alleged attempts to bribe EU officials and silence critics, revealed just how deeply Qatar has embedded itself in European institutions.
Banned Across the Middle East
Across the Middle East, Al Jazeera has long been viewed not as an independent outlet, but as a potent arm of Qatari state propaganda. Its influence has sparked widespread backlash across the Arab world and beyond.
In 2017, a major diplomatic rupture occurred when Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt cut ties with Qatar and banned Al Jazeera from broadcasting within their borders. While the grievances varied by country, the common thread was the network’s perceived role in undermining regional stability and advancing Qatar’s political agenda.
In Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera was accused of sabotaging efforts to counter Iran and offering favorable coverage to Hezbollah and Hamas.
The UAE charged the network with misrepresenting official statements and promoting false narratives of Emirati conspiracies against Doha.
In Bahrain, Al Jazeera aired incendiary reports attacking the kingdom’s human rights record.
In Egypt, the network was seen as a driving force during the Arab Spring, allegedly aiding the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Three of its journalists were later sentenced to 10 years in prison for allegedly collaborating with the outlawed group.
This pushback hasn’t been limited to the Arab world. The Maldives, Mauritania, Senegal, Jordan, and the Bangladeshi Federal Union of Journalists have also called for bans or severe restrictions on Al Jazeera’s operations.
In May 2024, Israel joined this growing list by unanimously voting to shut down Al Jazeera’s offices, making global headlines. The move followed mounting evidence that some of the network’s journalists were actively collaborating with Hamas, even as Qatar continues to host the group’s leadership in Doha and grants Al Jazeera reporters privileged access to Gaza.
Al Jazeera and the Double Standard
The editorial line of Al Jazeera often aligns closely with the political and religious outlook of Qatar’s leadership. Backed by state funding, the network hides behind the language of press freedom to advance Doha’s foreign policy goals, often giving airtime to voices that amplify radical Islamist ideologies.
This influence extends far beyond the Middle East. In Western societies, Al Jazeera has been accused of normalizing Islamist narratives, contributing to a broader environment in which extremist ideologies have gained traction. Such narratives emerged during the same period that an estimated 5,000 Europeans left to join ISIS.
Despite this record, Western responses to foreign propaganda have been inconsistent. After Russia invaded Ukraine, state-backed media outlets like RT and Sputnik were swiftly banned across Europe. Yet Al Jazeera, widely recognized as a vehicle for Qatari state interests, continues to operate freely. The contrast exposes a troubling double standard: when Russian state media is deemed too dangerous to tolerate, why is Qatari state media, which has given platforms to extremists and legitimised militant actors, exempt?
This inconsistency is not just abstract - it plays out in individual cases, revealing who is shielded by aligned media and organizations, and who is left exposed. Consider two very different stories from the UK:
Shamima Begum, a British teenager, left the UK in 2015 to become an ISIS bride. Her actions sparked national outrage and led to her citizenship being revoked. She remains in a Syrian detention camp -stripped of her identity, her rights, and any path back to British society.
In contrast, Lauren Booth, Tony Blair’s sister-in-law and a former actress turned journalist, travelled to Gaza in 2008 with activist George Galloway, accepted an honorary passport from Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, converted to Islam, and later produced programs for Al Jazeera in London. Booth also served as a trustee of Peacetrail. This UK charity was dissolved after a Charity Commission investigation uncovered serious financial irregularities, including undocumented transfers abroad. Its activities were found to align with Qatari foreign policy closely.
While Begum was cast out and denied redemption, Booth continues to operate in British media and activism circles without scrutiny or consequence. When state-sponsored media and aligned organisations shield some figures while others are publicly erased, it raises uncomfortable questions: Who is protected? Who is punished? And why?
