• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NO English Al Jazeera

It's one of many things which concerns me about your country. Media concentration is a terrible problem in the USA (and west in general) now. Not only are there few dissident voices, but almost extinct is the investigative journalist.
 
Your link doesn't work. Don't know what it was about, but al Jazeera is certainly allowed in the US. Whether or not cable companies choose to carry it or people choose to watch it is a diferent matter:
Conversely, Al Jazeera's English-language service has practically no audience at all in the U.S., and does not appear in commercial audience rating services even as an asterisk. It can be accessed via the Internet and on a few local cable systems, but major program distributors have shied away from carrying Al Jazeera because of threatened boycotts by sponsors and cable subscribers, over Al Jazeera's distribution of statements by Bin Laden and other terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
thinkingaboutit said:
It's one of many things which concerns me about your country. Media concentration is a terrible problem in the USA (and west in general) now. Not only are there few dissident voices, but almost extinct is the investigative journalist.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
It's one of many things which concerns me about your country. Media concentration is a terrible problem in the USA (and west in general) now. Not only are there few dissident voices, but almost extinct is the investigative journalist.
Click to expand...

Uh....What?

I know a while back Dish Network was thinking about picking the english Al Jazeera. Havent heard much since.
 
King of the Americas said:
Has this topic already been 'threaded', here?

I did not know that America disallowed certain broadcasts into Amerca...

Is this concerning to anyone, other than myself?


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1EBB4C7F-7F2E-4257-A04C-56678862E31A.htm
Click to expand...

i was under the impression that it wasn't "banned" by any governmental action, but just that all the cable services are too jittery to carry it - fearful of being labeled as un-American terrorist sympathisers ....
 
WildCat said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about how almost all your media is now owned by just a few companies and how they no longer do their historical job of holding those in power accountable for their actions.

For example, the U.S. media will now report what George Bush says and not question the veracity of his statement. That's not how it used to be.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I'm talking about how almost all your media is now owned by just a few companies and how they no longer do their historical job of holding those in power accountable for their actions.

For example, the U.S. media will now report what George Bush says and not question the veracity of his statement. That's not how it used to be.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Really? What comic book are you reading? Do you read every single newspaper in the US? Every magazine?

DR
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I'm talking about how almost all your media is now owned by just a few companies and how they no longer do their historical job of holding those in power accountable for their actions.

For example, the U.S. media will now report what George Bush says and not question the veracity of his statement. That's not how it used to be.
Click to expand...
You've never actually watched the media in action in the US, have you?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I'm talking about how almost all your media is now owned by just a few companies and how they no longer do their historical job of holding those in power accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

There are more news sources than ever before in history.

For example, the U.S. media will now report what George Bush says and not question the veracity of his statement. That's not how it used to be.
Click to expand...

Are you watching one news source or just living on a different planet?
 
One of the largest newspapers in the US, the New York Times, is known for being very, very, very, anti-Bush.
 
Tailgater said:
There are more news sources than ever before in history.



Are you watching one news source or just living on a different planet?
Click to expand...

There may be more channels but if 90% of them are owned by the same 6 companies how broad in scope will the content be?

Not a different planet, just a different country.
 
I understood, that "Al Jazeera was designated a terrorist organization", and in being so designated, distribution of their material was criminal...?

I am looking for that source, now.

Do you have a source for the stance that "companies are scared to air it"?

I don't think I'd download it, or access it via the Interent. I wouldn't say that I am 'paranoid', but I can't believe that that kind of Internet activity wouldn't raise a red flag to the feds. Would it be worth the negative attention, just to hear Omar bash U.S. Foreign Policy?

I know what the world thinks of us and our President, but that doesn't make me feel good about myself, so I watch Fox News.

Someone rich SHOULD fully fund a 24 hour American broadcast of English Al Jazeera, the publicity alone would be worth the investment.
 
Hammer_of_Thor said:
One of the largest newspapers in the US, the New York Times, is known for being very, very, very, anti-Bush.
Click to expand...

I read the NYT and I don't know how you can contend that. They certainly said nothing about his lies as he led your country to war. Did you read what Judith Miller was writing at that time?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
There may be more channels but if 90% of them are owned by the same 6 companies how broad in scope will the content be?

Not a different planet, just a different country.
Click to expand...

Six is still more than any other time in history. Add newspapers, magazines, internet. When some of us were young, there was three news channels and the city newspapers. There was no way to see what foreign news was reporting, but now it's easy.
 
King of the Americas said:
I understood, that "Al Jazeera was designated a terrorist organization", and in being so designated, distribution of their material was criminal...?
Click to expand...
I think you are building castles in the air. Where is your evidence for this assertion?

Al Jazeera is the TV station run in Qatar, by the permission of the Emir, in one of his many attempts to liberalize his society. He gets in some hot water with his own conservatives, and with conservative Muslims in his country, for the content often broadcase, but he has his eye on the future of Qatar as a more progressive society, so he handles it. He is an ally of the US. He is also one of the few Arab leaders who "gets" free speech as a good idea.

I do know that it is viewed as hostile media, due to its editorial spin, in CENTCOM. That does not make it "a designated terrorist organization." I had heard rumor of some wag on the staff suggesting that Al Jazeera be taken out as part of the information war. This rumor pissed off General Abizaid, who himself was no fan of Al Jazeera, but who understood how important it is for the future of open government in the region. Again, quite a bit of this is second and third hand, so take with usual caveat on partial reliability, at best.
Someone rich SHOULD fully fund a 24 hour American broadcast of English Al Jazeera, the publicity alone would be worth the investment.
Click to expand...
How nice of you to tell people what to do with their money. Socialist much?

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom