Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Sep 17, 2013.
So essentially the Emir of Qatar has said, "Network has been changed from a public institution to a “private institution of public utility.” What does that even mean, "private institution of public utitlity?" Who's going to own it?
It has been "restructured," and the name has shifted a little, but I don't see anything about the government no longer having a hand in it.
The article starts off saying:
I mean, could this be any more vague? Where's the skepticism?
That notwithstanding, I don't see as much handwringing about, say, the BBC.
Yes, Britain is ibizarrely comparable to Qatar now that I think about it.
Does Al Jazeera support BBC?
I don't know, but that wasn't the point I was making.
So then your qualm is not necessarily that a network is publicly owned.
Yes, I have a qualm with the government owning it. It's certainly not just any 'ole government, either. Do I truly think Al Jazeera and the BBC are all that comparable? No, not really. Do I think Britain and Qatar are all that comparable? No, not at all.
Do you think Monarchy-run media companies should be looked at skeptically?
Shouldnt all media companies be looked at skeptically? I'm not sure why Al Jazeera inherently deserves more skepticism simply because of it being publically owned, especially if their product is of high standard.
I mean, personally, I'm skeptical of everything and everyone to a certain degree, even the most intelligent and brightest of people can be wrong. However, I think I'm going to be a bit more skeptical of a news outlet that is owned and ran by a middle-eastern monarchist government.
But that is one of the points of the thread.
You can gladly substitute NPR for BBC, the point is the same.
There is not point here, then.
NPR is partially funded by taxpayers. Al Jazeera is wholly owned and operated by another government. Part of Al Jazeera's past is to be openly hostile to the western world in general and to the US in particular.
If a private company wants to accept funding from this kind of source, then fine. As a business concern, any company including NPR will live or die on its ability to successfully sell their goods and services.
But a company that overtly gets taxpayer funding has a different position. Especially one like NPR that would gladly accept even great levels of taxpayer funding and loudly complains when said funding is cut. They can't claim "independence."
That is the point.
Would you mind qualifying this?
That may be the point of your OP, but if you'll note there was another discussion happening within it.
I tire of doing all the work. Just google it and you can see for yourself.
There's actually an entire wikipedia article dedicated to this, whether that's indicative of anything or not is up for debate.
How would either of those be "anti-American?"
Yeah it's a bummer when you make a claim and someone has the audacity to ask you to support it. My bad.
Just do the google and judge for yourself
I did "the google" and got nothing that supported what you said, hence asking for help.
I've never seen someone make a statement and then when asked for support told to go look for it yourself. Doesn't bode well for said support appearing.