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 5, 2013 #81 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    US News outlets edit heavily 'for effect' instead of telling the whole story unbiased.


    Might not hurt to try and understand the motivations and reasoning. Remember, the British considered the Minutemen terrorists.
     
  2. Jan 5, 2013 #82 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Followed by the 'Weather' Channel. :rolleyes:;)
     
  3. Jan 5, 2013 #83 of 201
    APB101

    APB101 Icon

    1,372
    82
    Sep 1, 2010
    Michigan
    Yes. What the postion that you have either stated or implied (even phrasing it as "I dont' want to fund their network") is that the national programming (all) coming from a cable-television provider doesn't meet with your approval because of one specific programmer included in the lineup. (How cable-television programming is made available to viewers and subscribers should not be explained here, like one of those Dummies books.) The national programming (all) is for access to paying subscribers. A&E (to name another programmer) isn't available only to you. To just one other poster here. To only me. All the national programming lineup are for paying subscribers of DirecTV. (Same concept with paying subscribers with another provider.) So, any person who tells a provider not to carry a certain programmer, no matter his objections, is attempting to control what others have access to viewing.
     
  4. Jan 5, 2013 #84 of 201
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,116
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I really don't need to see full uncut video of Americans being executed. A few seconds ending before the murder is enough to get the point across.

    The effect on an American audience is not lost by ending the playback before the murder ... or by limiting the number of minutes we have to listen to someone insult our country, threaten to kill us and celebrate in the streets when someone does attack America. I don't need to watch endless ranting to get the point. The people on those tapes hate us and want us dead.

    Then again, if more people saw the unedited raw video perhaps there would be more support for wiping the people making such statements off the face of the earth. The more hate filled video we see the more hate filled we become and want to lash out.

    Perhaps our US media's moderation works out for the best.


    AJE does not go to the extent of the regular AJ ... they are aimed at an western, English speaking audience and know better than to insult their viewers to the point where they lose them. I expect AJ America will be even more "US friendly" ... so perhaps those wanting AJE or the alleged independent voice will be disappointed when AJA turns out to be just as ethnocentric American as the rest of our news channels.

    But knowing the background ... knowing that the channel is related to THAT Al Jazeera, the one that gets ratings by showing Americans being killed and other anti-American programming. That is unsettling. And I can understand why people would want to go beyond personally not watching the channel and try to get it removed from the programming lineup completely.
     
  5. Jan 5, 2013 #85 of 201
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    When did they show Americans being killed for ratings?
     
  6. Jan 5, 2013 #86 of 201
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,116
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Al Jazeera? That was the biggest complaint against them. I don't know if they have shown an execution recently but if you are denying they have ever shown the execution of Americans then you need to check your facts.
    (Or look at this story found via Google.)

    AJE? I suggest you read my post.
     
  7. Jan 5, 2013 #87 of 201
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    From what I have read, false accusations were made and repeated. The only mentions of this that I can find were later found to be incorrect. Some issued retractions while others just moved on quietly. Regardless, there are many news broadcasts (as well as print media) in other parts of the world that show all manner of death.
     
  8. Jan 5, 2013 #88 of 201
    AntAltMike

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    3,790
    108
    Nov 20, 2004
    College...
    I've participated in Aljazerra threads in other forums. In all of them, most of the posts critical of it are made by people who are unfamiliar with it, and I readily admit that if I were to tell you what I have against Rush Limbaugh, most of it would have to do with that TV show of his I used to watch that I think went off the air 20 years ago.

    Aljazerra does a great job covering natural disasters. The only reason I would ever prefer to watch the coverage of a natural disaster on an American-based network is if I thought it would be the telecast where the storm finally blows Geraldo away. Aljazerra once ran a short piece ridiculing the American coverage of a hurricane in which each and every network featured its reporter getting blown around and rained upon.

    The most striking contrast between Aljazerra coverage and American domestic coverage of a continuing news item can be found in the coverage of Arab-Israel skirmishes. The American coverage features the initiating attack whereas Aljazerra features the Israeli response. One sneaky thing Aljazerra does is to often have someone with a British accent get the jabs in on the United States at the end of a story. When a boat hit a mine in the waters off Korea a year or so ago, the thrust of the Aljazerra story was that there was no way of knowing who had planted the mine, and the guest's closing remark was, "...so it could even have been an American mine". It is less offensive to our sensibilities to hear a comment like that from someone with a British accent than from someone with a towel around his head. And in fairness to Aljazerra, we did try to kill Castro and we repeatedly lied about what really happened in the Tonkin Gulf.

    Russia Today, on the other hand, is a riot and I encourage anyone and everyone to watch it. It is basically a Communist version of Fox News, where smarmy people make snarky comments... but about capitalism and democracy. They regularly bash the United States because people here who adopt Russian children beat, starve and kill them (honest!). And in fairness to Russia Today, they carried the 2012 Presidential Election "third party candidate" debates and had a great time pointing out the irony of Americans having to watch a Russian TV channel to see news about their national election that was not available on domestic network TV.

    I know a lot of Libertarians who love the Max Kaiser Report, which makes Jim Cramer seem low key and mainstream by comparison. Max is forever denigrating the "banksters" who are behind the "printing" of money that somehow enriches them at the expense of the rest of us, but because that cause and effect is taken by him and his core audience as a given, it is enough for him to say "printing money" fifty times an hour to titillate his followers without further explaining it. It is really no different than Sean Hannity saying the same inflammatory sentence fragments fifty time an hour on his show (which I admittedly stopped watching three years ago). They are just different words. Kaiser and Hannity aren't really in the news business. They are just in the more lucrative business of preaching to the choir.
     
  9. Jan 5, 2013 #89 of 201
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,116
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I believe the foreign news networks do a good job of foreign news ... I watched TV Japan (which at least DISH put into free preview) after the tsunami for extended coverage but found Russia Today to be an excellent source of second hand news ... pulling the "best" of the Japanese coverage.

    Where they fail is when it comes to covering America. They have their world view and it happens to be generally anti-American. When I was trying to find reports of Al Jazeera airing executions earlier today I had to change search terms because of the large number of hits on Al Jazeera's site complaining about US executions. (Much of the world hates us because we have a death penalty.)

    It is almost like watching the US news networks (unnamed here - please no guessing) and knowing that a certain network is going to support the Republican side of the argument and another is going to support the Democratic side of the argument and those two networks will support their side beyond the point of rational thought. (Of course, if you like one of those networks they are completely fair and it is the other one that is way off the mark. :))

    Perhaps the foreign networks are blind to their anti-American leanings?


    That undercurrent is the reason why I would prefer a BBC World News service or CNN International ... at least those services are operated by people in friendly countries and do not have to make people "we" don't like happy. I notice the difference between CNN and CNN International's approach to American news ... but it isn't the "I hate America and so can you" undercurrent.
     
  10. Jan 5, 2013 #90 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Perhaps Americans are blind as to how we're perceived by the rest of the world? Perhaps we're not as revered and worshiped as we think we are?
     
  11. Jan 5, 2013 #91 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I see stories almost weekly about media sources being charged criminally for something they circulated about officials of their governments. Brazil is a prime example. Is that what we want here?

    Why does free speech apply only to those who we agree with or say what we want them to say?
     
  12. Jan 5, 2013 #92 of 201
    pablo

    pablo Icon

    913
    5
    Oct 11, 2007
    More on topic, it is a little discouraging that the press release seems to indicate AJA will be, for lack of a better word, a watered down version of AJE. I'd prefer a straight AJE simulcast. As well, it seems like AJE is being produced in HD (perhaps not broadcast as such), because their videos on their site and on YouTube are available in HD.
     
  13. Jan 5, 2013 #93 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    ^ Same applies to BBCAmerica, which is more American than British.
     
  14. Jan 5, 2013 #94 of 201
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    This thread is pure comedy. :lol:

    After reading all the "Oh no! Al Jazeera is coming to get me!!" posts all I can say is, you can't reason with ignorance.
     
  15. Jan 5, 2013 #95 of 201
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
  16. Jan 5, 2013 #96 of 201
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,116
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There are some foreign laws and practices that would not be bad to import ... for example the way we allow people who are accused of a crime to be treated in our country. The courts may follow a policy of innocent until proven guilty, but we allow our media to broadcast freely regardless of guilt. All they have to do is mention (when they feel like it) that the person is presumed innocent or call them "the accused". Then they can show their house, anything they can dig up on the Internet, rumors from anyone they can find to interview (including people kept anonymous), photographs of the accused from any source, photos of the accused in handcuffs and/or being escorted by police, arrest photos and videos. Once published when the accused is acquitted (or even worse "the charges are dropped") one cannot undo the bad publicity. That is part of the price of "freedom".

    But as far as this thread goes, I don't believe anyone here has asked the government to stop Al Jazeera from taking over Current or changing the format of Current to a more Al Jazeera based format. The only request I see here is for the carriers to drop the channel - countered by people who don't mind it being there (whether or not they will ever watch it). It is not a question of free speech ... it is a question of market forces.

    And to answer that question, apparently TWC is the only one dropping the channel. So if you are a DirecTV subscriber who wants to leave in protest good luck finding a place to go that doesn't have the channel. Thanks to "market forces" it looks like it will remain. And as long as you want something else that is only on cable/satellite one is just going to have to accept the packages as offered.
     
  17. Jan 5, 2013 #97 of 201
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    One of the ironic side effects of this deal is that Al Gore got about $100 Million for his cut on the sale on January 2.

    The irony? Now he has to pay the higher 2013 taxe rate as pushed by President Barry O. as a rich guy. :lol:

    Karma.
     
  18. Jan 5, 2013 #98 of 201
    AntAltMike

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    3,790
    108
    Nov 20, 2004
    College...
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Jan 5, 2013 #99 of 201
    mrro82

    mrro82 Legend

    680
    46
    Sep 11, 2012
    Astoria, OR
    Why is that ironic? I doubt Al Gore gives a rats @ss.
     
  20. Jan 5, 2013 #100 of 201
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Probably not...
     

Share This Page