Finecky Forbes backtracks on UAE hospitality verdict?!

Finecky Forbes backtracks on UAE hospitality verdict?!

So we’re scratching our heads after having learning that Forbes has taken back calling the UAE ‘unfriendly’. With the publication even going as far as to even dub it an ‘expat paradise’.

January 22, 2012 5:11 by p.deleon

When Kipp covered the backlash received by Forbes from the UAE community for listing the UAE as the most expat-unfriendly country, we discussed the need to run a different set of rules for the mostly expatriate country.

Anyone who’s been to the UAE or most of the GCC will know that the population dynamic is unlike any other in the world. We run by a different set of rules.

So while we didn’t necessarily agree with result of Forbes’ research, the backlash from the UAE’s online community, Kipp thought, would have just been considered as good publicity for the Forbes. Even bad news is good news if it’s in terms of coverage and reach, right?

So we’re scratching our heads after having learning that Forbes has taken back calling the UAE ‘unfriendly’. With the publication even going as far as to even dub it an ‘expat paradise’.

It’s good to admit when you are wrong. But in this case, we’re talking about unchangeable facts that have been interpreted in a different way. It’s not that it’s wrong. It’s just that it was using a different measure that has put the UAE at a disadvantage. So where’s the basis for recanting there?

C’mon Forbes, who’s stern phone call did you receive?

One of Kipp’s readers went as far as suggesting that some regional advertisers may have threatened to pull ad spend if Forbes didn’t recant. But let’s brush that off as a kooky conspiracy theory for now, shall we?

But the thing that we find a little too much here is…well, everything really. Why feel the need take back your word? This isn’t the first time Forbes has published a survey and we’d imagine the article would have gone through a series checks and balances with a fine-tooth comb. So why devalue the article, and by association, the editing process?

The best thing that could have been done is to continue to conversation by opening a dialogue with readers and perhaps letting them speak about their thoughts on the matter. Well, that’s in our humble opinion, of course.

So will this be precedent for any article people don’t like now? Just throw it out the window and create an article that better suits someone’s PR strategy?

More than anything else, this really speaks to the heart of a growing concern in the media that journalists are now lacking the time and training to gain the ability to put things in proper context. Had the Forbes article’s author have the time and the foresight to verify the results of the article, then perhaps things could have gone down differently.

In any case, for a title like Kipp, it brings a smirk to our face know that even Forbes have their bad days.