There's no need to demand AJE in the US, because AJE is handling new media intelligently and is widely available. I can watch AJE on my PS3, computer, or even my iPhone. They're one of the few networks in the world that supports free and unlimited streaming options to all.
You bring up good points but there still is a need. There are plenty of people who wont even consider news that isn't on TV. Having a mainstream channel that disagrees with Fox and CNN would be a great thing IMO.
I'm not so sure. Of course some people are completely closed minded, but I think there is still a lot of ignorance out there that can be cured. You wouldn't know it staying on sites like this one but there are a lot of people who's primary source of information is the TV and they'll probably give most things they see on there a chance.
Give it time. I'd love to know how many racists reconsidered their world beliefs as a result of their children dating someone outside their race - simply having to deal with something on a regular basis can acclimate you to it and make you think a little more critically about it.
I am not a fan of Fox but I understand what you are saying. It would be nice to have a fresh way of checking the news or view it from different perspective. Current way of presenting from any news organization is awkward. Politicians are polarizing the nation and news organizations are feed to the fire. That's why I stopped watching the news channels. I find this peaceful and healthy. Sometimes I think we are going freakN backward as a country. It's an insult to our founding fathers and the American way.
I can't think of one instance when an argument that starts with, "There are plenty of people who..." should be convincing. Here in NC, when the governor and legislature made their final push for a lottery, the governor said, "We're at a competitive disadvantage with surrounding states who do have a lottery." Which is a fancy way of saying, Everybody's doing it. We need to start a huge advertising campaign to entice our poorest and most ignorant people to gamble.
atdhetv.net is an example of the net routing around censorship. Aljazeera.com just demonstrates that when you are funded by an oil rich emirate you can easily afford to provide "free and unlimited streaming options to all".
If Oman bought CNN tomorrow, you'd probably get that for free online as well. (In fact, considering AJ's success and western media's woes, maybe Oman buying CNN isn't so outlandish)
From what I know, Oman isn't that rich, just a little more well off than most of the developing world. GDP per capita US = 46k, Singapore = 36.5k, Qatar = 70k, Oman = 16k.
I've been enjoying their oddly formatted and ad-free live blogs. At the same time I'm curious about their revenue stream. Is it being done in speculation for cable company cash?
I don't know about this, Al Jazeera still does competent boots on the ground reporting. I'm pretty sure I want my newsmen to read me other people's twitter posts and narrate YouTube videos.
Their business model of "investigating" and "journalistic integrity" has no place in the American market.
If you really "demand" it, it's widely available...just not through your typical cable company.
I get AJE plus a bevy of other Arabic channels with Dish Network's Arabic Package[1], as well as via a settop box from Islambox[2] (not the best quality streaming imo, but ymmv).
There's pretty clear instructions on how to get a crystal-sharp image for really cheap via satellite[3] from AJE themselves.
If you do go the roll-your-own satellite route, you'll probably be surprised to find tons of other awesome news and entertainment channels floating out there in the ether for free, all at virtually no cost other than initial setup, and at hi-def quality.
I didn't get the sense that Al Jazeera was an unbiased news source after reading David Marash's interview in the Columbia Journalism Review [1]. All news sources have bias, but the way that Al Jazeera is being upheld as a beacon of truth and light is a little disingenuous. I admit my own bias against them for acting as the mouthpiece of bin Laden by airing his tapes. I know there are those that feel this is a journalistic responsibility, but, then again, I don't think the New York Times should have published the Unabomber's letter either.
> acting as the mouthpiece of bin Laden by airing his tapes
Why is airing his tapes acting as his mouthpiece? Every others station on planet earth aired them to. It's the sodding news, and given that Bin Laden is world enemy number 1 why on earth wouldn't they air his tapes?
The common argument is that by airing the viewpoints of terrorists after successful attacks, you give extremists an incentive to perform terrorist attacks. I.e., if you pay for something (with money or airtime), you get more of it. Thus, journalists have a responsibility not to do so.
I haven't thought this through enough to form an opinion, just thought the argument is worth stating.
The point isn't that AJE is free of all biases, but that it sometimes presents news and opinions that are otherwise not present, and are at most only as biased as what's already available on MSM.
I'm not sure there's any hope of that happening. If a company tried to offer it even at a premium I'm sure it would turn into an issue of "Comcast/DirecTV is siding with the terrorists!"
Such an argument could only come up on some simplistic and dramatically uninformed media channel. One that no one would be using anyway. Oh wait... forget what I just said.
I moved to asian from canada last summer, and the presence of Al Jazeera was a little weird at first. It'll be up on TV, or people will be reading it on their computers, you get over seeing it about the 3rd time.
My limited experience is that its pretty average news. I find the BBC (or the CBC in Canada) to be considerably better with respect to seeming unbiased.. Al Jazeera kinda feels CNN-ish. I'm curious if anyone with more exposure feels the same? Also, CNN is still king for truly up to the minute breaking news.
I certainly think having a counter balance to Fox and CNN's right of center, wouldn't hurt, and I think people should be allowed to watch what they want. However, I'd be more inclined to petition to US government to mandate the BBC be broadcast for free.
CNN international is also very different from CNN USA.
CNN international seems to be reading AP press releases. CNN USA is mostly just anchors reading twitter, with the occasional story about how racist and violent the tea party is.
Demand is too strong of a word here. America is the land of free thinking and tolerance. People here, for the most part, appreciate and respect the differences in opinions. If Al Jazeera wants to establish presence here, no one would tell them to get out. In reality, this would be the best place for any news organization.
They already have a presence in Washington, DC, and have invested heavily in their newsdesk there. The problem is that no cable network will carry them, even though plenty of people would want them carried.
From my time, I would say that America is a land of free thinking and tolerant people, but not the land, and sadly not the land I had wanted it to be. (Am an Arab who had long admired the USA.)
ok good to hear they already have presence. As for no cable network would carry them is different thing. Sounds more like a business process, decision or selling strategy that is probably not as stellar as we would like to see from Al Jazira. If they have a good market, good news (which I am not disagreeing) and good strategy and sales folks, I don't see any reason why they won't be able to go thru any network. Do they give any reason or claim or blame why they are not being carried by any cable/dish network? America is free market economy. It is foolish to blame anyone or anything for someone's failure. Maybe their strategy is wrong. Maybe their market research is wrong. Maybe they are assuming a lot or maybe their assumption is wrong.
I wouldn't get into the technicality of "a land" or "the land". We all get emotional and stuff and there is nothing wrong with that but behind all that if you think quietly you will know it is "the land" of free thinking and tolerant people. I am a Muslim and I can say it from my heart that I am a better Muslim (compared to where and how I was 20 or so years ago) because I live in this country. I can practice my religion the way I want. There is no freakN social pressure. Yes I am sure there are people who don't like me because of my religion or other things. That's not the mainstream America. Those type of people exist anywhere on earth. Can you or I control that? No. So I don't worry about it. My job is to "try" to do the best in life. Seriously, I have been to many different countries and lived and grew with so many different nationals. I still say there is no place on earth I would raise my kids and call it home beside this country, the US.
My friend, you have to read the history of the world and then when you learn the American history you would be wowed by the creation of this country and it's systems. You would appreciate it more. Even an average American, in my opinion, don't fully appreciate meaning of freedom and how this country was formed. Founding of this country was a huge huge turning point for human civilization. That's a fact. Don't try to portray America with what you see on Fox or what Fox or other news org try to tell you. America is lot bigger and richer than that.
I live in the UK (parents were exiled as pro-democracy activists) and appreciate the same freedom of religion that you describe and I experienced in the USA. No social pressure, some people don't like me, but none can stop me and nor can I stop anyone else. This is wonderful.
I spent 5 years in the USA and what I loved the most was to read US history. Living in DC, I joined a bunch of think-tanks and saw how vibrant the political life is. And I was an admirer of the USA because of its amazing history, just as you say.
I just think the USA can do better than it currently is, and closer to what it is capable of being. I think it lost its ideals and drifted from the honour of a republic to the tragedy of an empire. The UK of course has the legacy of a more cruel empire, and no country in the world is free of blemishes. (And the Arab world is a basket case making its own recovery.)
But I just felt so sad when comparing what I saw Americans do - amazing people, such a pleasure to be around - and what their government did in their name - locally and internationally.
I have no idea how but I am somehow catching them with my puny little 10$ indoor antenna. I think some station in Fairfax, VA is broadcasting them along with NHK (Japanese), Russia Today, DW, and may be a Chinese language channel.
I have absolutely no interest in seeing Al Jazeera in the US. We're already got the New York Times, MSNBC and CNN handling the Hamas/Hezbollah perspective on foreign affairs.
I see no reason to demand another 24hour news channel when the 30min nightly national news broadcasts do just fine, along with the internet and npr to spice things up.
When I want to know what's really going on in the world, I don't watch the government-influenced, corporate-financed mainstream western media. I tune into the Emir of Qatar's station, where centuries old traditions of democracy and independent journalism reporting produce quality, objective reporting.
Incredible how gullible most people are. You just need to up the sophistication by a notch to have them eating out of your hand.
If I were smarter, I'd call out the type of rhetorical attack you just made, but since I'm not, I'll just point out that you provided no evidence of bias and simply played off of stereotypes.
Al Jazeera is widely respected in the journalism world.
It's not a "rhetorical attack". Al Jazeera is financed by the Emir of Qatar, that's a fact. The Emir of Qatar is essentially the ruler of that nation, which is an absolute monarchy (ie, the king effectively rules the country).
These are all known facts. "Al Jazeera is widely respected in the journalism world" is not a known fact, to me. From what I see, it is respected by some and less respected by others.
Yes an easy and obvious position to take, although not backed up with any evidence I note. You realise that Al Jazeera - not twitter or facebook - was a big driver of the recent political events in the north africa and the mid east, and caused a lot of resentment, anger amongst the current encumbents in these countries? Whilst it's true that the channel is rarely critical of events at home in Qatar, as far as international reporting goes it's been pretty balanced, and doing a lot to promote democracy in the region (Just take a look at their recent coverage of Egypt)
The point about Al Jazeera is that the events they cover are far broader and researched in much more depth than any other station. They have more local staff in more foreign bureaus than any other network, and report on issues and incidents around the world that will pass completely under the radar with the other networks. Obviously a lot of airtime is been given over to the mid-east at the moment but look at the other stuff on their UK schedule today:
- Elections in Haiti again...Could a third round of Presidential elections resolve political stalemate... and what challenges face the new leader?
- Midwives in rural Ethiopia battle to give Ethiopian mothers the chance of a safe birth and a life free from the devastating consequences of Fistula
- Native American Tish Keahna returns to her childhood reservation to see the impact of a language immersion school to restore the Arapaho language.
- Sir David Frost talks to Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key, former UK environment minister Michael Meacher and UNICEF goodwill ambassador Mia Farrow.
- 101 East looks at one of Asia’s most densely populated countries - the Philippines - where family planning remains a controversial issue.
You'll find that all these stories are covered in depth with interviews and opinion from people who are actually qualified to discuss the issues, usually encompassing a variety of views and positions. Stimulating, educational and truly informative.
Evidence for Qatar being an Emirate? For the Emir financing AJ? These aren't disputed, AFAIK.
>You realise that Al Jazeera - not twitter or facebook - was a big driver of the recent political events
Definitely.
>caused a lot of resentment, anger amongst the current encumbents in these countries
True. So? Anything there that goes against Qatar's interests?
>They have more local staff in more foreign bureaus than any other network
And they do a lot of quality interviews that aren't rating driven. Because if you have a very rich monarch financing you, you can afford all that. That's my point. How was their coverage of the WikiLeaks docs regarding Qatar?
>Edit: Ah - judging from your blog you're from Israel.
Damn, cover blown! I guess this makes me a Mossad agent, or at best a mouthpiece for the Israeli government. Thanks for doubling my blog's readership though :)
I think you're both right. The best way is to watch/read many sources, keeping in mind each has its own biases.
What gets me is that many here seem unable to accept that Al Jazeera is just like other sources, rather than some sacred source of truth and beauty. It's like "skeptics" that believe in conspiracy theories. Disappointing to see this so popular in HN.
