1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Al Jazeera Gets Current

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by SayWhat?, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. Jan 4, 2013 #61 of 201
    mrro82

    mrro82 Legend

    680
    46
    Sep 11, 2012
    Astoria, OR
    You'd think right? Seems we take 1 step forward and 3 back.
     
  2. Jan 4, 2013 #62 of 201
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    Me too.........that was the first thing i got rid of. Permanently.
     
  3. Jan 4, 2013 #63 of 201
    mrro82

    mrro82 Legend

    680
    46
    Sep 11, 2012
    Astoria, OR
    I tune to it once in a while if i need a good laugh. Works every time. :hurah:
    What a joke.
     
  4. Jan 5, 2013 #64 of 201
    yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,766
    172
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    With Current being sold for 500 hundred million, I was wondering if that would set the bottom price that a network could be sold for?
     
  5. Jan 5, 2013 #65 of 201
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    Respectfully, AlexCF, I think you're mistaken about AJE. What you're describing just does not exist. You can take a look at a live stream of AJE here and see: http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
     
  6. Jan 5, 2013 #66 of 201
    myselfalso

    myselfalso Godfather

    385
    2
    Jan 25, 2006
    Al Jazeera is not a propaganda arm for Al Qaida.
     
  7. Jan 5, 2013 #67 of 201
    TXD16

    TXD16 Icon

    958
    30
    Oct 29, 2008
    As mentioned before, this is a near-perfect cultural fit---probably little to no due diligence required at all before the deal was consummated.
     
  8. Jan 5, 2013 #68 of 201
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    This is real news?

    [YOUTUBEHD]xea-ZcM5nxs[/YOUTUBEHD]

    Shameful.
     
  9. Jan 5, 2013 #69 of 201
    sunfire9us

    sunfire9us Godfather

    419
    4
    Feb 15, 2009
    Don't forget one other huge truth concerning this channel: it was VERY CLEAR this channel was tied in with Al Quada. This channel was always the one in the Arab world to show/transmit Bin Laden's tapes/speeches etc. This channel is an anti-American channel which only is a propaganda instrument of the Arab world which just loves to hate us "infidels"
     
  10. Jan 5, 2013 #70 of 201
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    Did you consider that Bin Laden's tapes and speeches were news and that they are a news channel? Should they have ignored Bin Laden? Made the decision for us what was news? A good news outlet presents both sides of a story, not just one. They do a very good job of presenting both sides of stories, and presenting stories no other "news" outlets even bother to carry.
     
  11. Jan 5, 2013 #71 of 201
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    You need to do some basic research, as your claims are false.
     
  12. Jan 5, 2013 #72 of 201
    AlexCF

    AlexCF AllStar

    72
    3
    Oct 14, 2006
    Like you said, you saw clips. The US networks don't treat the stuff as regular programming and let it run in its entirety and it's presented under the context of terrorism and homeland security. US networks don't also run docudramas that aim to describe the "human side" of the madman that wanted to kill as many of us as possible.

    Remember too that material that airs in English isn't necessarily representative of an organization's real agenda. We saw this happen with the recent attacks on the US embassy in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood expressed sympathy to the US in English, meanwhile their Arabic content was pretty much the opposite. That isn't rumor or conjecture, it was the State Department that pointed it out. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that this wouldn't be more of the same.

    Propaganda encouraging the mass murder of civilians? I doubt that very much.

    Our leaders do go on television and threaten leaders who threaten us, but I don't think anyone ever advocates indiscriminate killing. Remember the coverage of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib? None of our networks were cheering that, and the public response eventually shut the prison down.

    Maybe we're hitting a turning point. Some Libyan civilians attacked the headquarters of a group that was supposedly responsible for the attack on our consulate. It looked staged to me, but maybe it wasn't. Who knows, our government certainly isn't saying much. Perhaps someday we'll all learn to get along. Hasn't happened yet, probably isn't likely to any time soon.

    What the heck have you been watching?

    Al Jazeera was his bullhorn. Not to mention other programs that they've run about the guy trying to pass off something other than the reality we know.

    A mix of the two. A lot of content was hitting the web a while back from their non-English broadcasts. It was stuff that would never air here. Frankly, I wish that I'd never seen any of it.

    What hatred? My point is that I don't want my monthly payments to my provider to end up going to the folks that operate that network. I'm not wishing them an eternity in hell, unlike what some of their content wishes on us. I'm sure they've learned to sanitize their English feed. That doesn't mean that their motives have changed any.

    I find it depressing how whenever someone has a disagreement with someone else they start whining about their freedoms and comparing it with real oppression. If freedom of speech were being suppressed here, we wouldn't have both MSNBC and Fox News. They're two polar opposites, yet they coexist.

    If Current can't attract enough viewers to stay on satellite, that's not oppression. That's economics. If viewers walk away from content and the content gets cancelled, that's the free market at work. Oppression would be the FCC threatening to revoke the licenses of any provider retransmitting the content here. That's not going to happen.

    You're making a classic mistake. You think freedom of speech only applies to speech that you approve of. If I want to voice an opinion that you don't happen to agree with, that's my freedom of speech. I don't want to pay money to this network. Being a free individual, I'm entitled to make that choice without your permission or the permission of the government. I have no power to "oppress" anyone or anything. If a lot of people with similar views cause a provider to drop a network, that's the provider responding to consumer demand. Others can be just as vocal supporting the network to encourage the provider to keep it.

    Good grief. You're crying about free speech and oppression because of a viewpoint that you don't agree with! How hilarious is that? We must be intolerant towards intolerance! :sure:

    Try using profanity here and see where that gets you. Does that mean that the moderators here are oppressing us? There's nothing stopping someone from setting up a forum like this where anything goes. There aren't many like that. Why do you suppose that is? Enough people don't find it acceptable, therefore there's little demand. It's not a failure of free speech. It's not a form of oppression.

    :grin:
     
  13. Jan 5, 2013 #73 of 201
    TXD16

    TXD16 Icon

    958
    30
    Oct 29, 2008
    "The Five" presents itself to be, and is, quite obviously, a Fox News Channel round-table discussion, much like the many network round-table discussions on other networks. It makes no representation of being news reporting. Just out of curiosity, what part of "discussion" do you find "shameful?"
     
  14. Jan 5, 2013 #74 of 201
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    They are reporting and commenting on a news story. The way in which they do it is shameful, with the one guy calling it "crap" on the air.
     
  15. Jan 5, 2013 #75 of 201
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    The folks opposed to this network are the same people who get their news from Alex Jones and InfoWars/PrisonPlanet. :)
     
  16. Jan 5, 2013 #76 of 201
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    AlexCF, you mentioned AJE does documentaries, which is true. And they're quite enlightening, unlike much of the investigative journalism pieces one finds on cable news. For instance, they have a series called Witness: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/ Take a look at some of countries they've recently covered with very in-depth documentaries: DR Congo, Ukraine, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Rwanda, Bolivia, South Africa, Colombia, Morocco - and it's serious journalism. It's quite unlike what you're describing, a "bullhorn for terrorists".
     
  17. Jan 5, 2013 #77 of 201
    TXD16

    TXD16 Icon

    958
    30
    Oct 29, 2008
    Yeah, unlike the astute, unbiased, pro-Al Jazeera folks who regularly frequent HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Daily Kos, Time, Newsweek, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. :lol:
     
  18. Jan 5, 2013 #78 of 201
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    Hm, I think that's a list of rather reputable and respected news sources. I don't know who Alex Jones is, on the other hand.
     
  19. Jan 5, 2013 #79 of 201
    TXD16

    TXD16 Icon

    958
    30
    Oct 29, 2008
    I'm quite sure you do.
     
  20. Jan 5, 2013 #80 of 201
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Thank you for confirming that you consider Mr. Jones a quality source and proving my point. :)
     

Share This Page