"Al Jazeera America, test case for an open society"

[philnotfil]

Interesting read on Al Jazeera America and why they are having so much trouble getting on the air in America.

cbc.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/01/10/f-rfa-macdonald-al-jazeera.html)

Interesting that this network is becoming more important to the state department as American media outlets cut back on foreign coverage.

Comcast wouldn't carry the network when they launched. Now that they have bought Current TV, Time Warner is dropping that channel.

It's been a pattern. The country that, in the name of free speech, allows flag-burning, Ku Klux Klan marches and protests at military funerals by religious zealots hoisting "God hates fags" placards decided years ago that AJE represents the kind of speech it simply cannot tolerate.

"It's insane that a country as important and as vibrant and diverse as the United States would have such a banana republic approach to news and information," says Tony Burman, the former CBC editor in chief who spent years as AJE's managing director, trying to win cable TV carriage in the U.S. market. "The fear-mongering has been surreal."

They have had a hard time overcoming the image that they are just a puppet for Al Quaeda. This part amused me:
The fact that Osama bin Laden chose the Arabic-language Al Jazeera for his first post-9/11 interview didn't help the network's image here in the U.S. either. (Ironically, Al Jazeera chose not to broadcast the interview, which amounted to little more than a sermon by bin Laden. Excerpts finally ran on CNN after al-Qaeda released its copy of the video, but Al Jazeera took the blame for airing it.)

Al Jazeera English, though, is nothing like its Arabic sister network. Its standards and judgment are in line with Western journalistic tradition, although, like Fox News Channel and other cable networks here, AJE doesn't bother hiding its political bias.

I really don't get the opposition to airing this channel. We already have hundreds of other channels that are more destructive to America than this could possibly be.

[Row6]

Interesting read on Al Jazeera America and why they are having so much trouble getting on the air in America.

cbc.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/01/10/f-rfa-macdonald-al-jazeera.html)

Interesting that this network is becoming more important to the state department as American media outlets cut back on foreign coverage.

Comcast wouldn't carry the network when they launched. Now that they have bought Current TV, Time Warner is dropping that channel.



They have had a hard time overcoming the image that they are just a puppet for Al Quaeda. This part amused me:




I really don't get the opposition to airing this channel. We already have hundreds of other channels that are more destructive to America than this could possibly be.

I agree. The network of course represents a view that is not western-centric but it was founded by those who had worked in western news departments and is based on classical liberal values of free inquiry, not Islamic fundamentalism. Will we hear something we think is anti-American? Sure, but maybe we can handle it.

[oaklandroadie]

Even if they are rabidly anti-Western (which I don't think they are, BTW), I want them on the air. Something about sunshine being the best disinfectant.

[g8trjax]

Yeah, we get anti American views any time a progressive takes to the floor of congress.

[Row6]

Yeah, we get anti American views any time a progressive takes to the floor of congress.

Very clever.

I'm probably a "progressive" by your definition and I'm as American as you or anyone else born and raised here or legally immigrated who believes in loyalty to the constitution and our system of government.

[gator421]

Yeah, we get anti American views any time a progressive takes to the floor of congress.

I thought free thought was what America was all about.

[WESGATORS]

It seems hypocritical to me that a government-owned television network in a land where freedom of speech is not recognized wants to play the freedom of speech card. Liberate yourselves before you want to liberate others.

While the constitution protects freedom of expression “in accordance with the conditions and circumstances set forth in the law,” in practice Qatar restricts freedom of speech and the press. Local media tend to self-censor, and the law permits criminal penalties, including jail terms, for defamation.

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-qatar

I support the private bans of the hypocrites.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

It seems hypocritical to me that a government-owned television network in a land where freedom of speech is not recognized wants to play the freedom of speech card. Liberate yourselves before you want to liberate others.



http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-qatar

I support the private bans of the hypocrites.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Would be a good point if true, but apparently it's not.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎ al-ǧazīrah IPA: [æl dʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", abbreviating "The [Arabian] Peninsula"), also known as Aljazeera and JSC (Jazeera Satellite Channel), is a broadcaster owned by the privately held Al Jazeera Media Network and headquartered in Doha, Qatar.[2] Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages. Al Jazeera is accessible in several world regions. Until 2011, Al Jazeera was owned by the government of Qatar.[2] Before and after the change, it has claimed editorial independence from the government of Qatar, though this has been disputed.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

[rivergator]

It seems hypocritical to me that a government-owned television network in a land where freedom of speech is not recognized wants to play the freedom of speech card. Liberate yourselves before you want to liberate others.



http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-qatar

I support the private bans of the hypocrites.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

And that means what? It shouldn't be allowed here?

And, yes, it is a test case for an open society.

[dogzilla]

So do you believe the 1st amendment means that cable companies must carry any network that wishes to be on the air? Perhaps the providers aren't going to carry the channel because they don't believe it will be profitable?

The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say what you wish (some exceptions), but it does not force me or anyone else to listen.

[OaktownGator]

It is a test case for open society... including the market at work in an open society.

There is no reason cable companies should be forced to carry this channel. If our govt was somehow blocking this channel's broadcasts, I'd have a huge problem with it, but that's not what's occurring as far as I can tell.

I see dogzilla just posted the same.... good job.

[philnotfil]

Look at the 500 channels available, and try to tell me that Al jazeera America would outperform at least 100 of them. The economics argument doesn't work very well here.

[Row6]

It is a test case for open society... including the market at work in an open society.

There is no reason cable companies should be forced to carry this channel. If our govt was somehow blocking this channel's broadcasts, I'd have a huge problem with it, but that's not what's occurring as far as I can tell.

I see dogzilla just posted the same.... good job.

+1

[Row6]

Look at the 500 channels available, and try to tell me that Al jazeera America would outperform at least 100 of them. The economics argument doesn't work very well here.

Agree, but it is still the decision of private companies.

[gator1986]

I don't want this channel in my home... JMO

[philnotfil]

Agree, but it is still the decision of private companies.

Yes, the argument was that they are not carrying it because it won't be profitable. The rebuttal would be to take a look at what they are currently carrying and realize that AJE would be at least as profitable as what they are currently carrying. Therefore the argument that it wouldn't be profitable is false, and there is some other reason for not carrying it.

[wgbgator]

Yes, the argument was that they are not carrying it because it won't be profitable. The rebuttal would be to take a look at what they are currently carrying and realize that AJE would be at least as profitable as what they are currently carrying. Therefore the argument that it wouldn't be profitable is false, and there is some other reason for not carrying it.

This is true. It's not all bottom line thinking in TV and entertainment. There is plenty of prestige programming and stations that serve as a loss leaders of sorts.

[WESGATORS]

Would be a good point if true, but apparently it's not.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎ al-ǧazīrah IPA: [æl dʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", abbreviating "The [Arabian] Peninsula"), also known as Aljazeera and JSC (Jazeera Satellite Channel), is a broadcaster owned by the privately held Al Jazeera Media Network and headquartered in Doha, Qatar.[2] Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages. Al Jazeera is accessible in several world regions. Until 2011, Al Jazeera was owned by the government of Qatar.[2] Before and after the change, it has claimed editorial independence from the government of Qatar, though this has been disputed.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

Row from your own commentary, the claim of independence is disputed. Looking into it a little further (even just clicking on the "disputed" link):

much of its funding comes from the Qatar government.

But even in the originally quoted article we have a reference to:

The network, owned and operated by the Emirate of Qatar

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

And that means what?

That I support people in their efforts to refuse to contribute to their network. Just one man's opinion, you can agree or disagree, but I'm not infringing upon anybody's rights (even the rights of the hypocrites).

It shouldn't be allowed here?

I explicitly said "private" in the post you were responding to.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Yes, the argument was that they are not carrying it because it won't be profitable. The rebuttal would be to take a look at what they are currently carrying and realize that AJE would be at least as profitable as what they are currently carrying. Therefore the argument that it wouldn't be profitable is false, and there is some other reason for not carrying it.

Sometimes profit is driven by perception. If a potentially money-making network joins the fold, and that chases away other customers, then have you increased your profits?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[108]

lets be honest here...the push back is due to Islam

[oragator1]

Anyone see Jon Stewart's show last night?
He ran clips of anti American stuff, crazy anti Israel stuff coming from what was ostensibly Al Jazeera, but I turns out it was another middle eastern network where Rupert Murdoch has a large equity stake.
Meanwhile you have O'Reilly and Hannity going ballistic over the Gore sale on Murdoch's air. I have to hand it to Murdoch, he's an evil genius.

[wgbgator]

lets be honest here...the push back is due to Islam

Its probably not even that deep. Just the reflexive reaction to the name. Maybe if they called it BeIN like their sport channel, no one would notice.

[harwil]

And that means what? It shouldn't be allowed here?

And, yes, it is a test case for an open society.

Right .Isn't BBC Ameroca owned by the British governmennt ?Or is my thinking 1960's?

[108]

got to love how excited FOX got about Al Gore selling Current to Al Jazeera

[oragator1]

Here is the Stewart video clip btw.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/jon-stewart-slams-fox-news-al-jazeera-hypocrisy.html

[DaveFla]

Hogwash.. It's simple supply and demand. Same reason CurrentTV failed. It's an inferior product, and yes... I have watched it.

[DaveFla]

Here is the Stewart video clip btw.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/jon-stewart-slams-fox-news-al-jazeera-hypocrisy.html

:rolleyes:

You guys need to make up your minds. Either Stewart is a journalist, or he is a entertainer. I don't care which you decide but all this switching back and forth has to stop.

[oragator1]

:rolleyes:

You guys need to make up your minds. Either Stewart is a journalist, or he is a entertainer. I don't care which you decide but all this switching back and forth has to stop.

Where have I claimed that he is either? I enjoy him because he points out hypocrisy, which is one of my main problems with today's culture, I don't care much how he is labelled. Yes he seems to take a special delight in Fox News, but even in this segment he made the point that Gore as a supposed environmentalist was getting rich by selling to an oil producer basically.
People in positions of power, be it the media, government, business etc, are hypocrites because we allow it, either through a cognitive dissonance or because we are ignorant. Wish more people on both sides would follow his lead.

[philnotfil]

Here is the Stewart video clip btw.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/jon-stewart-slams-fox-news-al-jazeera-hypocrisy.html

The people at Fox in those videos don't seem to think it is an economic decision.

[DaveFla]

Where have I claimed that he is either? I enjoy him because he points out hypocrisy, which is one of my main problems with today's culture, I don't care much how he is labelled. Yes he seems to take a special delight in Fox News, but even in this segment he made the point that Gore as a supposed environmentalist was getting rich by selling to an oil producer basically.
People in positions of power, be it the media, government, business etc, are hypocrites because we allow it, either through a cognitive dissonance or because we are ignorant. Wish more people on both sides would follow his lead.

Jeez...

You fail to see his own hypocrisy in pointing out other people's hypocrisy...

He is an entertainer. He manipulates stories in order to be entertaining. It is unfortunate, however, they the weak minded among us view his form of entertainment as something more than it really is; entertainment.

[DaveFla]

The people at Fox in those videos don't seem to think it is an economic decision.

And suddenly, you are a believer in FOX?

It's an economic decision. We already have an anti-US news channel: MSNBC. There simply is no more room for another.

[108]

Jeez...

You fail to see his own hypocrisy in pointing out other people's hypocrisy...

He is an entertainer. He manipulates stories in order to be entertaining. It is unfortunate, however, they the weak minded among us view his form of entertainment as something more than it really is; entertainment.

Jon doesn't have much of a history of "manipulating" actual news

For that, see FOX

[DaveFla]

Jon doesn't have much of a history of "manipulating" actual news

For that, see FOX

You're joking, right?

When has Stewart ever NOT manipulated an even so as to make it more entertaining?

Even the clip in question (above) was selectively edited so as to be entertaining. As I said, only the weak mind among us view it as credible.

[oragator1]

Jeez...

You fail to see his own hypocrisy in pointing out other people's hypocrisy...

He is an entertainer. He manipulates stories in order to be entertaining. It is unfortunate, however, they the weak minded among us view his form of entertainment as something more than it really is; entertainment.

What did he manipulate? Does Murdoch not own 20% of the company from whose network that despicable clip was aired at the same time his staff is bashing Gore and Al Jazeera? Of course he has a POV that underlies why he brought it up and set the table for the point he was trying to make, but that doesn't change the fact that what he aired was factually correct. Call him an entertainer or label him however you choose, but if he is viewed by some as a trusted news guy (and I would put him more towards entertainer/crusader), I think it says a lot more about the news industry than it does Stewart or even many of his fans.

[busigator96]

i think I can get it on my Roku box

[DaveFla]

As I said. Only the weak minds among us view Stewart as anything more than just an entertainer.

[108]

You're joking, right?

When has Stewart ever NOT manipulated an even so as to make it more entertaining?

Even the clip in question (above) was selectively edited so as to be entertaining. As I said, only the weak mind among us view it as credible.

we are talking of 2 different things

[oragator1]

As I said. Only the weak minds among us view Stewart as anything more than just an entertainer.

I have already said I would put him in the entertainer camp and freely admitted he has a POV that underlies what he puts on air, but I am specifically asking what was inaccurate in the claim that Murdoch is part owner of a station that ran that clip? What was unfairly manipulated (ie. inaccurately portrayed) to provide the result Stewart sought? Did that not clip air on a network Murdoch has a large stake in at the same time his anchors here in the US were bashing Gore for selling to someone similar? If the answer is "it wasn't provided in context", please feel free to provide the context that was missing, I would be interested to see it.

[rivergator]

Stewart is bright and clever and does a good job skewering the ridiculous and hypocritical among us. Usually he picks on conservatives, but not always.
That really bugs Dave, apparently.