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 #101 of 201
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Not sure what your point here is... US news channels edit and don't show videos in their entirety so that we can make an informed decision... and somehow that is better than seeing an entire video and forming a proper opinion?

    I don't want to see such things in their entirety as a rule, I don't like seeing fake violence to that degree even in movies... but it would be nice if the choice was there.

    I do remember how after the 9/11 attacks, the US news channels kept running the footage over and over of the actual plane crashes... so that people saw the full effect and knew the proper level of damage and lives taken... so, it seems like if the bad guys are making videos that show them being evil, you'd want more people to see that so they can see the extent of the evil... sanitizing it would only serve to put doubts in people's minds, no?

    Sure about that?

    I just saw a docudrama the other day about Hitler and how he was a struggling artist as a youth... seemed to be making him out to be a bit of a sympathetic character.

    It happens all the time as time goes by... people see ALL sides of a tyrant or an evil person and realize evil is more complex than just being evil. The guy who kicks puppies might also help old ladies... he's still evil, but more complicated than that.

    You mean like how the US-based news channels operate too? Where they claim to be giving the facts, only to omit some of the facts...

    FOX airs what serves their views... MSNBC airs what serves their views... and so forth. You really need to watch multiple channels to try and piece together the real truth about things most days.

    Are you sure about that? I remember lots of people saying that the people in those prisons "had no rights" and were "criminals" and "terrorists" and "deserved" whatever they got...

    I also remember that we still have prisons outside the US that are detaining people indefinitely... and I have no doubts that many of them are still being mistreated.

    Make no mistake... I do not support terrorism in any form... underscore "ANY"...

    So you saw clips too... you haven't really watched the channel... you've just seen more clips on the internet than I have.

    How come no outrage over beIN sport then? That channel has the same ownership I believe... so the same rules should apply... but it is a sports channel, so nobody is complaining that the "evil empire" owns it.

    Wait, what?

    So... there are only 2 different points of view for any issue? Really? The world is WAY more complex than that.

    To declare "we have MSNBC and FOX" and "that's all we need then" seems rather limited to me... there are far more things going on in the world, heck our own back yard... and I like having more options for my news... not less.

    Yes... exactly. 100% correct.

    But there is a distinct difference is saying "I will not watch Current" than "I will not watch any channel you carry if you also carry Current, which I will not watch."

    Who gives you the right to say what I or anyone else can watch just because you don't want to watch it?

    IF enough people don't watch it... then viewership would be low, and disinterest would result in the channel going away... But a large group of people not only NOT watching but PRESSURING companies not to carry even if enough people exist to watch it? That doesn't seem like capitalism to me... seems more like some of those oppressive countries we like to say we are better than...

    Wow... you really said that... You, who are actually trying to get a channel you don't approve of off the air are saying *I* am against free speech that I disapprove of?


    Exactly... and in fact, you should read my very first post... I clearly said it is your (and anyone's) right to express dissatisfaction with the channel and to not watch it... and even to leave Dish, DirecTV, Time Warner, or whomever IF they don't drop the channel.

    Those are absolutely your rights. No one has said otherwise.

    BUT... I caution you... today, it is you who disapproves of Current's new ownership... and maybe you will succeed in pressuring DirecTV to drop it by threatening en mass to leave... Yay you!

    Then next month the Christian groups will make the same threat, to leave IF they don't start censoring HBO for nudity and language... and then a large group of Democrats will threaten to leave DirecTV if FOX News isn't taken off the air... and so forth.

    Your rights end when they infringe upon mine.

    You have the right not to read a book... you don't have the right to try and force bookstores not to carry that book for others.

    As I said... be careful what you wish for... IF successful, you may kick off a trend of groups threatening your provider to take down content they do not approve of... and then where will we be in this "free" country?

    Apples and oranges. This is a private forum setup by the owners... it is like their house. You have to obey the rules of the house you visit. There has never been a free speech guarantee in the house of someone else.

    But to use your example... to be fully a fair comparison... the staff here would not only have to stop you from cursing here BUT petition so that you could not curse anywhere.

    I'm not trying to force you to watch Current tv... but you are trying to make it so I cannot.

    FYI, full disclosure... I actually am not interested in Current tv... but I also refuse to persecute it just because of random things I read on the internet or hear on other tv that may or may not be accurate.
  2. Jan 5, 2013 #102 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    Evil Qataris:

  3. Jan 5, 2013 #103 of 201

    JWKessler Legend

    Jun 2, 2004
    I wonder how many Fox News fans who oppose this channel know that a Saudi prince is the second biggest partner in Fox News.


    I think a lot of opposition will be based on the fact that AJ won't be applying the corporate filters all American news channels pass through. Americans might be a tad uncomfortable hearing unfiltered news.
  4. Jan 5, 2013 #104 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    CNN does some actual news sometimes, but Fox and MSNBC are mainly partisan talking heads and the shows mainly consist of a panel of dubious experts pushing talking points - nothing that resembles an actual newscast.
  5. Jan 5, 2013 #105 of 201
    James Long

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

    Apr 17, 2003
    And what of CurrentTV's staff? Unemployed or part of that 300?
  6. Jan 5, 2013 #106 of 201

    Maruuk Hall Of Fame

    Dec 4, 2007
    Americans generally aren't much interested in "world news". It's going to be a real problem for Al Jazeera, which is delightfully untainted by American corporate anti-journalism and does a terrific job of digging below the surface to extract reality from chaos in the middle East. If they kept Granholm, Spitzer and Uygur, and went to HD it might be watchable.
  7. Jan 5, 2013 #107 of 201

    mrro82 Legend

    Sep 11, 2012
    Astoria, OR
    You know how Right wingers are with facts. :rolleyes:
    It's ok for them though. That's where our oil comes from. They get a pass. Oil is acceptable no matter the cost i.e.: Guilf War, Second Iraq war......
    Truth in news from a news organization from that region? Forget about it. Can't stomach that. Nope. Nope. Nope. Stick heads in sand because truth doesn't make my straight piped Silverado get 4 miles to the gallon and sound bad @ss going through my neighborhood.
  8. Jan 5, 2013 #108 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    Unfortunately most aren't, but I would still think a large number are. To me, anyway, they provide information you can't easily obtain on regular channels, and I like the way in which it is presented (I like the channel's aesthetics). Looking at aljazeera.com's Alexa ratings, it seems to be a fairly popular website in the West: it's ranked 566th in Ireland, 701st in Canada, 839th in New Zealand, 870th in Norway, 887th in the UK, 1,126th in Australia, 1,473rd in Sweden, and 1,575 in the United States.
  9. Jan 5, 2013 #109 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    AJE's live stream on YouTube appears to be higher quality than on their own site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e93MaEwrsfc

    Like I said, AJE has posted lots of HD videos both on their site and on YouTube, so the channel is definitely being produced in HD, as the videos don't look upscaled. Hopefully they launch AJA in HD.

    (Extensive coverage of the conflict in the Central African Republic on right now, including child soldiers. Are CNN, Fox, et al covering this in any way?)
  10. Jan 5, 2013 #110 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    Speaking of which, is there a way to view the AJE live steam via DirecTV's YouTube app? I searched for the YouTube name but didn't see it, I guess.
  11. Jan 5, 2013 #111 of 201

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    Nov 20, 2004

  12. Jan 5, 2013 #112 of 201

    AlexCF AllStar

    Oct 14, 2006
    You're comparing Minutemen who fought British soldiers for our independence to cowards that specifically target and kill civilians?

    Are you suggesting that I should have no right to choose what I spend my own money on? If I don't want to subsidize your content, I don't have to. You want it, you pay for it. Like I said, if they made it a pay channel, I'd have no problem with them carrying it. You get to pay for it so you can watch it, I get to avoid it without having to pay anything for it.

    Are you opposed to the concept of "à la carte" programming? Do you think of it as some sort organized oppression and invasion of free speech?

    If I go to a cinema, should I be forced to buy tickets to movies I don't like just so I can watch one that I do like?

    Well said. You've stated it much more clearly than I could.

    You're comparing different things. The Trade Center footage is a far different thing than Bin Laden's recruitment and proselytizing videos. There is no bias or agenda to video showing the events of that day. The same can't be said of Bin Laden or Al Queida's videos.

    I didn't need to see the entire execution of Daniel Pearl to understand what was going on. Did you?

    I doubt it was trying to show his crimes against humanity as good things.

    If you want to pay for it, go ahead and watch it. I won't try and stop you, unless you want me to subsidize the provider's carriage of it.

    So.. are you trying to say that the US media didn't report on what happened? Are you suggesting that some of the US media did cheer that on? There may have been some individuals that presented it that way, but I can't think of any networks whose agenda was to promote that kind of thing.

    How is watching a show via a download any different than watching the channel? Of course I haven't tuned into the actual channel.. my provider hasn't carried it.. which is what this whole topic is all about!

    Where did I say "that's all we need"? You claim that there's oppression going on. I mention those two networks because they're opposites. If there was actual oppression going on, one of them would not exist.

    Like many, I trust some networks a lot more than others. What I don't see, is any of the networks showing bias towards people that want to kill us. If MSNBC or FoxNews ever starting airing content like that, I wouldn't want them in the programming lineup that I receive either.

    Wrong question.

    Who gives you the right to demand that I pay for any product or service that I don't agree with? If I drop my television content provider's service for any reason, that's my choice. This isn't Max Headroom where it's against the law to switch off the television.

    Like I said, there's nothing stopping people from calling their provider asking for the network to stay. Remember the whole debacle with Chick-fil-a? That was about as American as you can get. One side of the national argument attempted a boycott. Another side supported them in droves.

    If providers cave, it's because they're at risk of losing too many customers. If that's so, then there isn't going to be enough people to watch the network to justify carrying it. Your theory just takes longer, and removes freedom of choice from those who are being vocal now.

    I want it off my bill. If my provider does that, I have no issue. For you to suggest that my stance is an attack against free speech or is some form of oppression, you are sorely wrong.

    Then why did you say this is an attack against free speech and is a form of oppression? You just contradicted yourself. All I said was that I don't want to pay for it, and I'd likely leave my provider if they insisted that I do. If you support that, then we have nothing to argue about.

    What right am I violating by deciding to drop my television provider's service? You already agreed that I have the right to do so.

    I don't think you understand what's going on here. Use the Fox News and MSNBC example again.. even if someone is hardcore for one and against the other, they're not going to drop their provider and lose access to both. The situation with Current is far different. They lean towards people who want to kill us. They run tapes from terrorist leaders who drone on about how the western world should be destroyed. As much as I may disagree with some of the networks we have now, none of them are so depraved.

    I most certainly do, it's the right of free speech. A law specifically banning a book would be unconstitutional, but people are free to protest the sales of a book all they like. I think you're a bit confused as to what rights are in a free society.

    Are you saying that providers should have no right to choose which networks they carry? So long as they can, whatever motivates them to add or drop channels, that's their business. If customers don't like it, they can go elsewhere or ask that it be changed.

    That's not a proper analogy. I have zero interest as to other providers that may carry this network. What I don't want is for my provider to do so and pay for it through the subscription fees I pay them.

    Wrong. You can watch it 24/7 if you like. I don't care what you do.
  13. Jan 5, 2013 #113 of 201

    lwilli201 Hall Of Fame

    Dec 22, 2006
    I would assume, but could be wrong, that this channel will be ad supported. It will be interesting who will buy ads on this network and what kind of backlash it will cause.
  14. Jan 5, 2013 #114 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    AJE has no ads.
  15. Jan 5, 2013 #115 of 201

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    I feel the same way about ESPN, Fox News and several other channels.
  16. Jan 5, 2013 #116 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    AlexCF, again, you're arguing against something that doesn't exists. Can you support your claims with some links that AJE is in any way biased against the US? Or airs anti-American propaganda of any kind?
  17. Jan 5, 2013 #117 of 201

    sunfire9us Godfather

    Feb 15, 2009
    What in the damned world do you NEED for "proof" concerning this ANTI- AMERICAN channel?!!!!!! Geez!!!!!! Everytime I would watch the world news (via ABC or NBC) when something would come up including what I mentioned in a previous post as well as what the other person just mentioned about Americans being shown to be killed on live tv, It WAS ABC AND NBC who would TELL YOU THEIR NEWS SOURCES!!! and GUESS WHO IT ALWAYS WAS??? AL-JAZERRA!!!!! WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!
  18. Jan 5, 2013 #118 of 201

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    ^^ So what? If it happened and it's factual, it's News and should be covered.
  19. Jan 5, 2013 #119 of 201

    pablo Icon

    Oct 11, 2007
    There's a great way to see that's it's not how you describe it - watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e93MaEwrsfc

    I've been watching it pretty consistently for over a year, and not once did I notice anything that could be termed as anti-American (or anti-anything really, as it's mainly pure news with very minimal commentary). On the other hand, there's been no evidence presented here to the contrary, only hearsay.
  20. Jan 5, 2013 #120 of 201

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    Heck, I've known people that had moral objections to ABC and a channel that aired Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith Show because they considered them vulgar.

    We'd have to make all channels separate, there's always someone that wouldn't want their money to go to one.

Share This Page