The Skepticism Around NEOM’s “The Line”: A Familiar Story in a New Era

In recent months, the media spotlight has returned once again to NEOM’s “The Line”, the groundbreaking linear city planned in northwest Saudi Arabia, with an increasing wave of skepticism and criticism. Reports questioning its feasibility, scale, and cost have flooded headlines, often amplified by commentators who frame the project as overambitious or unrealistic. To many within the region, however, this media narrative feels less like constructive critique and more like a recurring pattern attached to transformative initiatives in the Middle East.

Let’s call it what it is, the review and doubt surrounding “The Line” have become a familiar tool in the arsenal of global media, deployed every time a major development challenge emerges from a non-Western context. While constructive journalism plays a vital role in accountability, what we are seeing is often far from balanced reporting, rooted not in fact-based analysis but in a persistent disbelief that large-scale innovation can originate outside traditional power centers.

The Historical Echo: SABIC and Industrial Transformation

History offers perspective. When the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia first embarked on building a world-class petrochemical industry, skeptics were loud and numerous. The creation of SABIC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation) and the development of a vast industrial city for petrochemicals were seen by many, both internally and abroad, as impractical dreams. Voices in international media doubted the country’s technical capacity, economic sustainability, and market strategy.

Today, SABIC stands as one of the largest and most successful petrochemical companies in the world, a testament to the vision and long-term commitment that made it possible. The parallels with NEOM are hard to ignore. Both initiatives were met with waves of doubt, but history has shown that strategic ambition, when paired with willpower and planning, often outlasts criticism.

Oil Prices: The Evergreen Excuse

Another common thread is the focus on oil price fluctuations. Critics often tie the fate of projects like NEOM to the volatility of global oil markets, as if Saudi Arabia’s development strategy remains frozen in a time when oil was its only card. The truth is quite the opposite. Vision 2030, of which NEOM is a centerpiece, is explicitly designed to diversify the economy beyond oil dependency.

Ironically, the very existence of NEOM, a hub for AI, renewable energy, biotechnology, and smart urban planning, undermines the argument that Saudi Arabia’s future hinges entirely on oil revenues. Yet outdated assumptions continue to shape how some media outlets frame these projects.

Media Neutrality: An Ideal, Not a Reality

Which leads to a deeper question, can global media truly be neutral when covering ambitious projects from the Middle East? The honest answer is not entirely. Most international outlets operate within editorial cultures, economic interests, and geopolitical contexts that inevitably shape how stories are told. This doesn’t necessarily imply conspiracy or malice, but it does reflect a structural imbalance in how innovation is recognized and where legitimacy is granted.

Success stories in Silicon Valley are celebrated before they are proven, massive government-backed infrastructure in Western nations is framed as visionary. But when similar ambition appears in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, or Doha, suddenly it’s labelled hubris, vanity, or fantasy.

Understanding the Double Standard

Several intertwined factors explain this double standard:

1. Cultural Hegemony and Familiarity Western media and audiences share cultural backgrounds with their own governments. A high-profile infrastructure program in the U.S. or Europe fits an established narrative of progress, while projects in the Gulf remain “othered” and subject to greater suspicion.

2. Orientalist Frames and Implicit Bias Building on Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, Western discourse often portrays the “East” as backward or irrational. Futuristic Gulf schemes thus become fodder for stories of impracticality or megalomania.

3. Geopolitical and Economic Interests Casting Gulf megaprojects as vanity projects helps blunt their soft-power impact and maintain investor confidence in traditional markets by emphasizing risk over potential.

4. Media Business Models and Source Bias Reporters covering Western projects have easier access to transparent data and experts. In the Gulf, tighter information controls push journalists toward sensational headlines and worst-case scenarios.

5. Legitimacy and Trust Deficit Long-standing institutions in the West lend built-in legitimacy to their infrastructure plans. Newer institutions in the Gulf must earn that trust, leading critics to foreground “what ifs” over “what is.”

   
   

Moving Forward: Proof in Reality

Despite the skepticism, reality remains the ultimate judge. NEOM is no longer a PowerPoint concept, work is underway, contracts have been signed, and foundational phases are advancing. Like all complex projects, timelines will shift, scopes will adapt, and challenges will emerge, that’s normal. What matters is whether the project continues to move forward, delivers on its promises, and creates lasting value for its people and the region.

In the end, media doubt amounts to noise, what counts is what gets built.

Conclusion

Bold visions from the Middle East have always faced scrutiny, and NEOM is no exception. But perhaps it’s time to shift the narrative. Instead of defaulting to disbelief, global media should apply the same curiosity, critical rigor, and open-mindedness to NEOM and similar initiatives as they do to projects born elsewhere. Innovation knows no geography, and neither should our reporting.