NO English Al Jazeera

Libraries may be free, but not all of them offer total access to everything, I am sorry to say.

'Sound' is not always an option, for starters.

Secondly, most busy libraries have time constrants connected to interent access.

Lastly, having to download and or connect with an Al Jazeera site, seems taboo to me to say the least. With the Patriot Act, law enforcement would surely 'check out' a patron who was regularly connecting to that news site, and I wouldn't be allowed to tell them that they were even under investigation.

But that issue is a whole other ball of wax.

---

I pay $20 a month for the cable plan I get. It isn't the most basic plan but it is close. I think the last Direct TV advertisement I saw was for twice that much.
 
Ok. I wasn't going to bite, but this is silly

thinkingaboutit said:
You people are ridiculous. I am by no means a ct'er or 911er or whatever you want to call them.
Click to expand...

You just think that the government let it happen and they control the media. ok. moving on.

Is there a network or channel calling for Bush's impeachment? Is there reason to impeach Bush?
Click to expand...

Channels don't call for impeachment. They have people on shows that call for impeachment. The answer is yes, just not as much as you would like.

Is there a network or channel advocating an anti-war position in the USA? i.e. let's not occupy foreign lands like Afghanistan and Iraq etc.
Click to expand...

Channels don't advocate. They report news and have people on shows that advocate. The answer is yes. Almost all day I have watched anti-war arguements on multiple channels.

Is there a network or channel that has a large focus on poverty as an issue? Do you agree that poverty is an issue which should be a priority?
Click to expand...

Yes. There are economic reports everywhere. There are special features on poverty stories from time to time. If there was a news channel that focused on poverty all day, I wouldn't watch it.

Do you dispute my contention that media ownership is highly concentrated?
Click to expand...

No, but they are also not all owned by the same company. Therefore they compete. The fact that different news channels have people from both ends of the spectrum calling "bias" means there is an element of balance in overall news despite the spin each channel puts on it. Then there is all the other sources of info...blah...blah.
 
Last edited:
thinkingaboutit said:
I'll give you a good example of what I'm talking about. Seymour Hersh (he who brought My Lai and others, one of the very few investigative reporters) recently wrote in the New Yorker about how the current US administration has secretly, recently funded some Al Qaeda members. Has anyone seen any other media source pick this story up, run with it at all?

here's the original story...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
Click to expand...
It was widely reported, and even discussed here. Care to try again?
 
Broadcast media networks in the US have traditionally tried to produce objective fact-based news programs, under the theory that their credibility is dependent on the appearance of impartiality. They generally do not advocate impeachment, or any other policy change. If that's all you see of American media, you won't see a lot of criticism, and you'll have a very distorted view of the media as a whole.

There are many American programs on TV that do serious investigative journalism, often critical of whoever is in power (60 Minutes, Frontline, etc.) . Additionally, newspapers still do serious investigation, and have always included diverse opinion from professional writers and common citizens.

Since the rise of Fox news, there has been a major shift on broadcast networks to include opinionated current event talk programs, covering a variety of viewpoints. If you don't see voices being expressed that are critical of the government, the war, the president, etc. you aren't looking very hard.
 
King of the Americas said:
Libraries may be free, but not all of them offer total access to everything, I am sorry to say.

'Sound' is not always an option, for starters.

Secondly, most busy libraries have time constrants connected to interent access.
Click to expand...
The poor will never have the same access to things thatv rich people do. It's a fact of life.

Lastly, having to download and or connect with an Al Jazeera site, seems taboo to me to say the least. With the Patriot Act, law enforcement would surely 'check out' a patron who was regularly connecting to that news site, and I wouldn't be allowed to tell them that they were even under investigation.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. There's not enough resources to check out the real threats, to think that there's someone checking up on everyone who goes to al Jazeera is just silly.

I pay $20 a month for the cable plan I get. It isn't the most basic plan but it is close. I think the last Direct TV advertisement I saw was for twice that much.
Click to expand...
You get what you pay for.
 
Responding to King of the Americas

Are we debating news access to poor Americans or that news is being suppressed from Americans as a whole?
 
Lack of dissenting voices? Are you nuts? Bush's approval is less than 30%. Television a shrinking audience while newspapers have a shrinking readership. The NYT & LAT have recenetly had to do major layoffs. Katie Couric can't keep an audience.

The use of the internet to get the news is skyrocketing and you can get any type of news you want. YOu got a choice of American news, European news, Al Jeezera, right wing news, left wing news even fake news.
 
It was just stated above that there is VERY little interest in Al Jazeera, presumably it would take very little resources to check out the 'regular' listeners... No?

I will however concure with you other two points, Wildcat.
 
Tailgater said:
Ok. I wasn't going to bite, but this is silly



You just think that the government let it happen and they control the media. ok. moving on.



Channels don't call for impeachment. They have people on shows that call for impeachment. The answer is yes, just not as much as you would like.



Channels don't advocate. They report news and have people on shows that advocate. The answer is yes. Almost all day I have watched anti-war arguements on multiple channels.



Yes. There are economic reports everywhere. There are special features on poverty stories from time to time. If there was a news channel that focused on poverty all day, I wouldn't watch it.



No, but they are also not all owned by the same company. Therefore they compete. The fact that different news channels have people from both ends of the spectrum calling "bias" means there is an element of balance in overall news despite the spin each channel puts on it. Then there is all the other sources of info...blah...blah.
Click to expand...

I allow for the possibility that the government allowed the attacks to happen in order to advance their plans for war. I think it's more likely a case of incompetence that the attacks succeeded. I never said the government controls the media. So lets move along shall we?

Here are a couple of resources for you to read if you are interested in understanding what I'm trying to get at...

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml
 
King of the Americas said:
Lastly, having to download and or connect with an Al Jazeera site, seems taboo to me to say the least. With the Patriot Act, law enforcement would surely 'check out' a patron who was regularly connecting to that news site, and I wouldn't be allowed to tell them that they were even under investigation.
Click to expand...
Complete and total BS. I look at Al Jazeera from time to time. Their stories get picked up by google news. Even if the government could and would do such a thing, they would never have the resources. I bet they would have to investigate 500,000 people in Washington, just to start!
 
Tailgater:

Both, I think....

Well, I don't think there IS a debate about the poor not getting diverse news, that is simply a fact.

Whether or not 'most' Americans have a reasonable opportunity to access all the information they desire...well I think THAT is debatable.
 
King of the Americas said:
It was just stated above that there is VERY little interest in Al Jazeera, presumably it would take very little resources to check out the 'regular' listeners... No?

I will however concure with you other two points, Wildcat.
Click to expand...

Nah, any librarian worth their salt wouldn't keep such records on patron's particular habits anyways. Esp. since the patriot act was passed. They would tell your local law enforcement to go eff themselves.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I allow for the possibility that the government allowed the attacks to happen in order to advance their plans for war. I think it's more likely a case of incompetence that the attacks succeeded. I never said the government controls the media. So lets move along shall we?

Here are a couple of resources for you to read if you are interested in understanding what I'm trying to get at...

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml
Click to expand...

Just the fact that there are "dissenting voices" over Fox news coverage having bias to the current adminitration answers the question. Start a thread asking the question "what channels show bias to what side?" and you will probably see a pattern.

Large media companies will own a large number of media sources. Fact.

If you want to be informed, broaden your search for news. If you want to know what is going on with Anna Nicole or headline news, watch the big media channels.
 
I just thought of this:

Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect was #1 in its time slot, and was taken off the air, supposedly because of a lack of sponsorship...

I loved that show, even if you had to wait up until 11:30, for less than 30 minutes of banter, but it was worth it.

Now Maher gets an hour to say whatever he wants, but I can't see or hear it, becasue I don't get HBO.

If Maher couldn't survive in the broadcast market, that Al Jazeera wouldn't even see airtime shouldn't be surprising.
 
King of the Americas said:
Tailgater:

Both, I think....

Well, I don't think there IS a debate about the poor not getting diverse news, that is simply a fact.

Whether or not 'most' Americans have a reasonable opportunity to access all the information they desire...well I think THAT is debatable.
Click to expand...

Ok. Didn't want to derail about the poor since I made the Direct TV comment. I was only stating that these sources are available. Earlier, I turned on the Pakistani business news by accident and ended up listening to it for an hour while I was surfing the web. I get my satellite, phone, and internet through one company here (and soon my cell). Low price package deals are getting better every year.
 
King of the Americas said:
I just thought of this:

Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect was #1 in its time slot, and was taken off the air, supposedly because of a lack of sponsorship...

I loved that show, even if you had to wait up until 11:30, for less than 30 minutes of banter, but it was worth it.

Now Maher gets an hour to say whatever he wants, but I can't see or hear it, becasue I don't get HBO.

If Maher couldn't survive in the broadcast market, that Al Jazeera wouldn't even see airtime shouldn't be surprising.
Click to expand...


I think his show is better with more time and unedited.

You also hit on another point. No sponsorship=no airtime.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I allow for the possibility that the government allowed the attacks to happen in order to advance their plans for war. I think it's more likely a case of incompetence that the attacks succeeded. I never said the government controls the media. So lets move along shall we?
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.
Click to expand...

Oh. My bad. The big media is controlled by owners of companies that are all pro-Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom