# Al Jazeera Gets Current



## SayWhat?

Multiple stories saying Al Jazeera is either buying or has bought Current TV.

Can't tell if it's a done deal or still in the works.

Wonder if the Guv'mint will stop it?


----------



## trh

Being discussed here: *http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3154528#post3154528*


----------



## marker101

I love how everything on this site ends up being a DirecTV topic. DirecTV isn't the only provider that carries Current.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

marker101 said:


> I love how everything on this site ends up being a DirecTV topic. DirecTV isn't the only provider that carries Current.


Really? *The original poster made the choice *of where to post his thread. 

Nothing's stopping anyone from starting one in the Dish area.


----------



## Hoosier205

"marker101" said:


> I love how everything on this site ends up being a DirecTV topic. DirecTV isn't the only provider that carries Current.


It's a forum dedicated to the topic of DBS. There are only two DBS providers in this country: DirecTV and Dish Network. DirecTV is by far the most popular choice...so it's reasonable to expect that it will dominate discussion here.


----------



## SayWhat?

I've asked for a new forum for these types of network/broadcaster/provider business/corporate topics that cross carriers, but it hasn't happened.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> I've asked for a new forum for these types of network/broadcaster/provider business/corporate topics that cross carriers, but it hasn't happened.


There already is such a forum... this very forum in fact!

Sometimes people start threads in the forum where they are most familiar... if a DirecTV subscriber starts a thread, he might start it in a DirecTV forum... we don't read every single thread all the time, so if someone sees a thread in a provider-specific forum that applies to other providers, reporting that thread to a moderator would help call attention to it.

I'll see if I can call some attention to it myself, as I don't frequent the DirecTV area often but this might be a topic that ought to reside here for all viewers.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> There already is such a forum... this very forum in fact!
> 
> Sometimes people start threads in the forum where they are most familiar... if a DirecTV subscriber starts a thread, he might start it in a DirecTV forum... we don't read every single thread all the time, so if someone sees a thread in a provider-specific forum that applies to other providers, reporting that thread to a moderator would help call attention to it.
> 
> I'll see if I can call some attention to it myself, as I don't frequent the DirecTV area often but this might be a topic that ought to reside here for all viewers.


I've given up on thread cleanup and organization. It just doesn't happen here.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> There already is such a forum... this very forum in fact!


Well, this is "TV Show Talk" which by definition would be more about specific shows than network acquisitions, but whatever. Still like this idea though: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=206757

AJ had a reputation for a while of being highly biased, but I've heard they've mellowed a bit, so I'm not sure what to think of this.

Some folks blew a gasket when RT appeared. Other wet themselves when BeckTV appeared.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The description of this forum:

"A place to discuss Standard and High Definition programming on any DBS provider."

That seems to fit the bill to me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> The description of this forum:
> 
> "A place to discuss Standard and High Definition programming on any DBS provider."
> 
> That seems to fit the bill to me.


Actually...it sounds spot on.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> That seems to fit the bill to me.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually...is sounds spot on.


----------



## spartanstew

But I still don't understand why we have two threads for this topic.


----------



## kc1ih

SayWhat? said:


> Multiple stories saying Al Jazeera is either buying or has bought Current TV.
> 
> Can't tell if it's a done deal or still in the works.
> 
> Wonder if the Guv'mint will stop it?


Why would the government want to or be able to stop it? You've heard of the first amendment?


----------



## SayWhat?

kc1ih said:


> Why would the government want to or be able to stop it?


There are/were some rules against foreign ownership of media sources.

Word is, Time-Warner is dropping the channel.


----------



## alnielsen

marker101 said:


> I love how everything on this site ends up being a DirecTV topic. DirecTV isn't the only provider that carries Current.


I'm glad you love it. I am the originator of the first thread and a Directv subscriber. It preceded this thread by 3 hrs and had much more activity. I don't venture out of the D* section. The rest of the site holds very little interest to me. I posted it in Directv Programming and that certainly applies.


----------



## RasputinAXP

I for one look forward to it. Al-Jazeera is actually pretty decent.


----------



## pablo

Hoping for an HD feed at some point.


----------



## Ed Campbell

Looking forward to it. I use their app on the iPad but that's not for time shifting.

With D* I can watch morning Biz News on Bloomberg (yes I wish we had HD version), record Biz Asia and more on CCTV and since I finally got an HR34 I can record alJazeera as well.

Makes up for most of the dross that masquerades as news elsewhere.


----------



## dpeters11

SayWhat? said:


> There are/were some rules against foreign ownership of media sources.
> 
> Word is, Time-Warner is dropping the channel.


Seems pretty official. Time Warner says that the reason was basically that CurrentTV had low viewership, and their contract had an exit clause on change in owner.


----------



## Richjr42

This is all well and good. But if they drop "Talking Liberally with Stephanie Miller" in the morning,i will *NOT* be happy!


----------



## Araxen

Great news! Al Jazeera English is great! I watched it everyday on Youtube.


----------



## Michael P

A few years ago Al Jazeera was negotiating for carriage on Dish. The outcry against the network on the Dish forum was severe and the deal fell through. Since then snippets of AlJaz programs can be found on Free Speech TV. 

You may not agree with this network's viewpoints, but there is free speech in the USA and you can block the channel if you don't want to see it. Please don't threaten your provider over this network as was the case a few years ago.


----------



## AlexCF

Michael P said:


> You may not agree with this network's viewpoints, but there is free speech in the USA and you can block the channel if you don't want to see it. Please don't threaten your provider over this network as was the case a few years ago.


If folks want to threaten to drop their television service because they don't agree with what their subscription fees are paying for, that's their right of free speech.

I've been a customer of DirecTV for many, many years. If they don't drop this network before the transition, I may very well drop DirecTV. That's my choice, and it's their choice. Choices are good, that tells us there's still freedom left in these lands.


----------



## Hoosier205

"AlexCF" said:


> I've been a customer of DirecTV for many, many years. If they don't drop this network before the transition, I may very well drop DirecTV. That's my choice, and it's their choice. Choices are good, that tells us there's still freedom left in these lands.


Why?


----------



## James Long

Michael P said:


> A few years ago Al Jazeera was negotiating for carriage on Dish. The outcry against the network on the Dish forum was severe and the deal fell through. Since then snippets of AlJaz programs can be found on Free Speech TV.


The mental connection between AJ English and the Arab channel is strong. A few years back the Arab version seemed to run from "insensitive to the US" to outright "anti-American propaganda".

Al Jazeera is still carried as an international channel on DISH ... AJ English did not get added. Russia Today provides a "world voice" news service and has been added by DISH. And as you mentioned, Free Speech TV exists and carries "world voice" news (presented from a viewpoint that does not automatically consider America to be a good country).



> You may not agree with this network's viewpoints, but there is free speech in the USA and you can block the channel if you don't want to see it.


True, there are literally hundreds of channels on the top providers. It is easy enough to find another channel and ignore the few that may be considered offensive to each individual.

The providers do need to look at ratings vs cost. If a channel is demanding high payment and is not pulling the viewers the providers should take their money elsewhere. But as long as these "unwanted" channels keep their rates low (or pay for carriage as Free Speech TV does) they will remain.

And from that perspective I can understand why a subscriber might say that they don't want a dime of their subscription fee to go for a channel they do not want to pay for ... and if their conviction is so strong that they need to leave that provider and find another to give their dimes to that is their choice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Certainly every subscriber has a right to that point of view... but I wonder... do they investigate all channels they watch and make sure 100% that they aren't funded in part or whole by someone they disagree with?

There might not be much TV left to watch.

On the flip side... while I support the right... I find it disingenuous to try and force a company not to carry a channel in order to keep you as a subscriber. Arguably, you are forcing your views about that channel on others who might want to watch it... which is ironic, given that you are exercising your freedom to inhibit the freedom of someone else.

Again... I agree with the right to react... but I think a smarter protest is to express your displeasure and then just not watch the channel.


----------



## lipcrkr

For all you DirecTV subscribers who are going ballistic because the Arabs are taking over the airwaves..........i have a suggestion:
Go into Settings>Favorites>Custom 1 or whatever>and delete the Channel. You will never EVER hear about it again.
For the rest of us...........Al Jazeera TV will be just one-click away.


----------



## djlong

Remember, Al-Jazeera was the only news organization that reported on the stonewalling of the Zadroga bill - the bill that was supposed to provide health care for the 9-11 First Responders. (First responders were being kicked off their health plans, workmen's comp wouldn't cover them, and there were incredibly high cancer rates going through these people).

Until a *comedian* (Jon Stewart of The Daily Show) picked up the story, *nobody* from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, et al covered it AT ALL - *except* Al-Jazeera who devoted en entire in-depth 20 minute segment to the story. I'm sure Fox, CNN and the others were too busy with whatever the Kardashians were doing to pay attention.


----------



## SayWhat?

Hoosier205 said:


> Why?


To some folks, if it ain't on Fox News, it ain't news and shouldn't be broadcast anywhere.



lipcrkr said:


> Go into Settings>Favorites>Custom 1 or whatever>and delete the Channel.


That's what I did with Fox 'News'.


----------



## RunnerFL

Michael P said:


> A few years ago Al Jazeera was negotiating for carriage on Dish. The outcry against the network on the Dish forum was severe and the deal fell through. Since then snippets of AlJaz programs can be found on Free Speech TV.
> 
> You may not agree with this network's viewpoints, but there is free speech in the USA and you can block the channel if you don't want to see it. Please don't threaten your provider over this network as was the case a few years ago.


There are exceptions to free speech you know... Speech that incites riots or any violence is not protected. Neither is speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". Other non-protected speech would be false statements of fact, fighting words, offensive speech and threats.


----------



## SayWhat?

RunnerFL said:


> Other non-protected speech would be false statements of fact, fighting words, offensive speech and threats.


That would pretty much take Fox News off the air if enforced.


----------



## pablo

Don't understand the uproar over the potential appearance (finally) of AJE on DirecTV. I've been waiting for it for a while. It's a great, informative, well-produced channel. In over a year of watching it online, I am yet to notice even a tiny bit of anti-Americanism or some other bias or propaganda. It's pure news, as it should be. Not opinions and inane discussions about the same three topics over and over. The channel covers a wide variety of stories, a lot of which are never covered by mainstream news. As someone who's curious about current events outside the United States, I cannot wait for AJE to be added. I'll certainly watch it more than CNN. In a global world, which is increasingly becoming more and more global, you need a wider perspective. Pierce Morgan interviewing some pop star in prime time is not my idea of a news channel, especially with numerous ongoing armed conflicts throughout the world.


----------



## 456521

AlexCF said:


> I've been a customer of DirecTV for many, many years. If they don't drop this network before the transition, I may very well drop DirecTV. That's my choice, and it's their choice. Choices are good, that tells us there's still freedom left in these lands.


I agree! I'm mad as hell over this move. I can't believe they would allow the biased Al Jazeera network any airtime. I feel very threatened by this. I'm going to cancel and go back to watching Fox news to get real news!!!


----------



## APB101

I want DirecTV to carry Al Jazeera America.

I have the attitude "the more the merrier" and have felt this way since I signed up for service back in 1998. In that period, my area cable provider, Comcast, only carried CNN, Headline News, CNBC, The Weather Channel, and C-Spans 1 and 2 in a basic-cable lineup that was a couple years shy of transforming into a digital three-digit-numbers lineup. (This, obviously, was before HD. Court TV, which we now recognize as truTV, still existed and was in the category of news.)

When I came to DirecTV, in existence were those same programmers as well as MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and Newsworld International. (Current TV was the rebranding of NWI after the purchase and transition were complete in 2005.) My joining DirecTV as a subscriber in 1998 came before CNBC World. It was before Fox Business Network. And, in this period, there were also CNNFN/CNNI (Financial News and International) and CNNSI (_Sports Illustrated_) in the lineup.

I appreciate that we also have Free Speech TV and Link TV. And for any that I haven't named, but should, I appreciate having this expansion of news/information programming that gives us such resources to stay as much aware as we want to be. It's good to have that. And I would also encourage DirecTV to bring in both ABC News Now and C-Span 3. (And anything else that I'm not thinking of, for the moment, which pertains to this category of news/information programming.)

For anyone not wanting Al Jazeera, I respectfully state that I do not want and will not welcome anyone telling me what I can and cannot view on television while living here in the U.S.


----------



## daisydog6

Scanning the guide once last year, saw that Current was running a 1-hour Al Jazeera news show. Huh, let's see what this is all about. Their news feature was tired, grainy old footage of police pounding demonstrators at the Chicago Democratic convention.

Whatever.


----------



## lokar

I agree with APB101, I have never seen Al Jazeera but will check it out on D*. It would be nice to have an actual news channel again. True story from when the Egypt riots were going last year: On a Sunday evening I tried to go to a news channel to see what was going on. 

CNN Headline News: News personalities bantering about some fluff non news issue.
MSNBC: Talking heads show that was obviously a rerun.
Fox News: Same.
CNN: Saw live report with Anderson Cooper from Egypt.

Nobody seems to have noticed but with all the news channels we have on TV, most of them are opinionated talk shows that don't do straight news very often, if at all. I heard AJE covered the Third Party Presidential debates which IMO makes them more American than all the other news channels by default.


----------



## Henry

Rush said yesterday to imagine Joy Behar in a burqa ... uh ... no thanks, I have a full stomach.


----------



## Hoosier205

I have yet to see anyone who is opposed to this offer a reason why.


----------



## Michael P

RT is as anti-American and AlJaz, yet nobody threatened to drop Dish over RT (at least nobody posted that they were dropping over the carriage). 

What if AlJas was carried virtually everywhere, would you drop all pay TV services and go with just OTA?


----------



## pablo

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2013/jan/04/al-jazeera-buys-current-tv/

http://www.aljazeerausannouncement.com/


----------



## pablo

Russia Today and AJE should not be mentioned in the same thread. RT is very clearly biased, and it is obvious throughout their broadcast. AJE is nothing like RT.


----------



## wolvesjohnblack

AJ already owns BeIN Sport on directv and it is excellent and I for one am every excited to have a fair news channel and not one full of opionated people trying to be the news instead of reporting it.


----------



## satcrazy

Never watched Aljaz, but would like to form my own opinion, especially after the remark made by RL.

I get why a lot are offended, considering the source, but these same people should also be offended by the constant drivel that is being force fed to the public from other news stations.

It is what I consider "deflective" viewing, and apparently it is working.

happy now, SW?


----------



## SayWhat?

satcrazy said:


> alot


:: bangs head on desk ::


----------



## jahgreen

"But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. "


----------



## jmpfaff

While everyone certainly has the right to their own opinion, including going as far as cancelling their service over this, I find it pretty amusing.

AJ is perceived as being extremely biased in the Arab world. The issue there is that they are too pro-Western. Come over here, and we are threatening to jump ship over the mere possibility that an outside viewpoint might be put on the air. Makes me think the channel is pretty well placed in between our various biases.

I hope AJE is put on as many providers as possible, and I'd urge everyone to give it a chance. Sometimes it is good to hear the news from an outside perspective. Just as I'll occasionally switch my news provider from CNN to either Fox or MSNBC to get a different take on a major story. And, as noted many times previously, you can always hit the channel change button.


----------



## mhking

I've watched AlJaz via Roku (and online) and comparing them to the other news sources, I have to say that their English language service is not as biased as so many people insist they are. They have presented international news in a clear, concise fashion. They appear -- at least as far as I've seen -- to be no less biased than BBC World News (which I also wish would appear on DirecTV). 

They are a far cry from the constant "bash-USA" mindset that you see on Russia Today (RT) -- which is also available online and via Roku. 

To those of my fellow libertarians/conservatives who are upset about this out there, keep in mind that it is better to have those sources at least nearby in order to see what those who do not walk in your shoes have to say for themselves on an ongoing basis.


----------



## mrro82

The only reason people are up in arms about this is because of the name. If it was any other name no one would care or even notice. I've watched Al Jazeera on my Roku and found it to be refreshing when compared to our "news". It's nice to see news shows about news and not mindless drivel. HLN is a good example today. Breaking News!!! 2 deer are on an ice flow!!! Oh who the hell cares?


----------



## AlexCF

Hoosier205 said:


> Why?


I don't want to fund an organization that runs propaganda advocating violence against my fellow citizens. Al Jazeera is an avenue for Al Queida and the like to spread their videos worldwide. To me, from what I've seen, they go way beyond what anyone could call responsible journalism.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Certainly every subscriber has a right to that point of view... but I wonder... do they investigate all channels they watch and make sure 100% that they aren't funded in part or whole by someone they disagree with?


Disagree with? The United States didn't have a _disagreement_ with Bin Laden. There's a huge difference between disagreement and promoting violence. I don't care for some of the stuff on MSNBC or FoxNews, but that's not even close to being the same thing.



APB101 said:


> For anyone not wanting Al Jazeera, I respectfully state that I do not want and will not welcome anyone telling me what I can and cannot view on television while living here in the U.S.


Has anyone attempted to tell you to not watch something? If DirecTV wanted to make it a pay channel, I'd have no issue with it. I don't want to fund their network, even if it's only a small fraction of my monthly bill.


----------



## SayWhat?

AlexCF said:


> I don't want to fund an organization that runs propaganda advocating violence against my fellow citizens. Al Jazeera is an avenue for Al Queida and the like to spread their videos worldwide. To me, from what I've seen, they go way beyond what anyone could call responsible journalism.




I hear corner gas stations are having a sale on tin foil hats.


----------



## trh

AlexCF said:


> I don't want to fund an organization that runs propaganda advocating violence against my fellow citizens. Al Jazeera is an avenue for Al Queida and the like to spread their videos worldwide. To me, from what I've seen, they go way beyond what anyone could call responsible journalism.


I've watched hours of AJE. Have not seen anything that could remotely be classified as "advocating violence" against the US. Have they played Al Qaeda videos? Yes. But I first saw those same videos on NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC. The network is owned by the Qatar government, a government that is very pro-American. They host US Central Command's middle east command center.


----------



## shyvoodoo

"AlexCF" said:


> If folks want to threaten to drop their television service because they don't agree with what their subscription fees are paying for, that's their right of free speech.
> 
> I've been a customer of DirecTV for many, many years. If they don't drop this network before the transition, I may very well drop DirecTV. That's my choice, and it's their choice. Choices are good, that tells us there's still freedom left in these lands.


This is funny...


----------



## mrro82

shyvoodoo said:


> This is funny...


I agree that it's funny but I also think it speaks volumes about folks in this country. I doubt I need to explain what I mean.


----------



## Nick79

I was looking forward to having Al-Jazeera on cable. There are some religious channels that I want deleted as well, but they aren't leaving and neither is Al-Jazeera. I wasn't a fan of Current TV at first because they killed Newsworld International in order to get on the air. I have started to like it since it got the current format and will be looking forward to the changes that they will be making.


----------



## mrro82

Nick79 said:


> I was looking forward to having Al-Jazeera on cable. There are some religious channels that I want deleted as well, but they aren't leaving and neither is Al-Jazeera. I wasn't a fan of Current TV at first because they killed Newsworld International in order to get on the air. I have started to like it since it got the current format and will be looking forward to the changes that they will be making.


I've got a long list of channels I don't like paying for ,the religious channels I especially would like to see go the way of the dinosaur, but I also understand that some people might. Different strokes for different folks. Like I said before, the bias against AJ is because of the name. Nothing more.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AlexCF said:


> I don't want to fund an organization that runs propaganda advocating violence against my fellow citizens. Al Jazeera is an avenue for Al Queida and the like to spread their videos worldwide.


I haven't seen the channel, so I can't speak to that... but are you saying the US-based news channels didn't air those same videos? I'm pretty sure I remember seeing all the videos. In fact, I also have seen clips that are supposed to be from Al Jazeera airing on US-based news channels... so, what's the difference?

Propaganda? As if US-based news channels don't air propaganda themselves? I also am pretty sure I've seen US-based news programs advocating "rising up" and "taking arms" and such... promoting violence as you put it... so this wouldn't be new either.



AlexCF said:


> Disagree with? The United States didn't have a _disagreement_ with Bin Laden.


Debatable... arguably we did have a disagreement with him, that ultimately led to worse things... but that's a horse of a different color.

What does the very much deceased Bin Laden have to do with Al Jazeera?



AlexCF said:


> There's a huge difference between disagreement and promoting violence.


True... but having not seen the channel, I can't say Al Jazeera falls into your categorization. Have you actually watched the channel? OR are you basing your opinion on what others have told you?

I try not to form opinions and hatred of content without having the chance to see that content myself... there are lots of things on US-based news channels that I personally could do without seeing, sometimes even that offend me and embarrass me as an American... but at least I've seen them before forming that opinion.

I just always find it highly ironic how we talk about freedom of speech, expression, and how other countries oppress different views... and then we have the Salem Witch trials, Communist "witch" hunts, and try our best to oppress other viewpoints than our own.

Highly ironic.

The US that I thought I was born into was one that listened to what others said before dismissing it so casually. Listen, then object... even protest... but don't try to prevent others from the opportunity to listen for themselves.

That's how we get books banned from schools or libraries or book stores... and how we get other channels banned too. Some don't like the violence, sex, cursing, etc. on cable/satellite and would like to see all that censored too... It's a slippery slope when you go from "I don't want to watch this" to "I don't want you to watch it either."


----------



## Hoosier205

"mrro82" said:


> I've got a long list of channels I don't like paying for ,the religious channels I especially would like to see go the way of the dinosaur, but I also understand that some people might. Different strokes for different folks. Like I said before, the bias against AJ is because of the name. Nothing more.


Many of the religious channels pay to be carried, rather than you paying for them.


----------



## mrro82

Hoosier205 said:


> Many of the religious channels pay to be carried, rather than you paying for them.


Many being the key word. I'm gonna drop this as this is about Current TV and not religion and whatnot. Fair enough?


----------



## SayWhat?

mrro82 said:


> I agree that it's funny but I also think it speaks volumes about folks in this country.


And in 2013 yet. You'd think we would have made some progress along the way.


----------



## mrro82

SayWhat? said:


> And in 2013 yet. You'd think we would have made some progress along the way.


You'd think right? Seems we take 1 step forward and 3 back.


----------



## lipcrkr

SayWhat? said:


> To some folks, if it ain't on Fox News, it ain't news and shouldn't be broadcast anywhere.
> 
> That's what I did with Fox 'News'.


Me too.........that was the first thing i got rid of. Permanently.


----------



## mrro82

lipcrkr said:


> Me too.........that was the first thing i got rid of. Permanently.


I tune to it once in a while if i need a good laugh. Works every time. :hurah:
What a joke.


----------



## yosoyellobo

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?


----------



## pablo

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/


----------



## myselfalso

AlexCF said:


> I don't want to fund an organization that runs propaganda advocating violence against my fellow citizens. Al Jazeera is an avenue for Al Queida and the like to spread their videos worldwide. To me, from what I've seen, they go way beyond what anyone could call responsible journalism.


Al Jazeera is not a propaganda arm for Al Qaida.


----------



## TXD16

As mentioned before, this is a near-perfect cultural fit---probably little to no due diligence required at all before the deal was consummated.


----------



## pablo

This is real news?

[YOUTUBEHD]xea-ZcM5nxs[/YOUTUBEHD]

Shameful.


----------



## sunfire9us

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"


----------



## Davenlr

sunfire9us said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sunfire9us" said:


> 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"


You need to do some basic research, as your claims are false.


----------



## AlexCF

Stewart Vernon said:


> In fact, I also have seen clips that are supposed to be from Al Jazeera airing on US-based news channels... so, what's the difference?


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.



> As if US-based news channels don't air propaganda themselves?


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.



> I also am pretty sure I've seen US-based news programs advocating "rising up" and "taking arms" and such.


What the heck have you been watching?



> What does the very much deceased Bin Laden have to do with Al Jazeera?


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.



> Have you actually watched the channel? OR are you basing your opinion on what others have told you?


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.



> I try not to form opinions and hatred of content without having the chance to see that content myself.


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 just always find it highly ironic how we talk about freedom of speech, expression, and how other countries oppress different views... and then we have the Salem Witch trials, Communist "witch" hunts, and try our best to oppress other viewpoints than our own.


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:



> Some don't like the violence, sex, cursing, etc. on cable/satellite and would like to see all that censored too.


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:


----------



## TXD16

pablo said:


> This is real news?
> 
> Shameful.


"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?"


----------



## pablo

zkc16 said:


> "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?"


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

The folks opposed to this network are the same people who get their news from Alex Jones and InfoWars/PrisonPlanet.


----------



## pablo

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".


----------



## TXD16

Hoosier205 said:


> The folks opposed to this network are the same people who get their news from Alex Jones and InfoWars/PrisonPlanet.


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:


----------



## pablo

zkc16 said:


> 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:


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.


----------



## TXD16

pablo said:


> Hm, I think that's a list of rather reputable and respected news sources...


I'm quite sure you do.


----------



## Hoosier205

"zkc16" said:


> 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:


Thank you for confirming that you consider Mr. Jones a quality source and proving my point.


----------



## SayWhat?

AlexCF said:


> 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 News outlets edit heavily 'for effect' instead of telling the whole story unbiased.



> 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.


Might not hurt to try and understand the motivations and reasoning. Remember, the British considered the Minutemen terrorists.


----------



## SayWhat?

lipcrkr said:


> Me too.........that was the first thing i got rid of. Permanently.


Followed by the 'Weather' Channel.


----------



## APB101

AlexCF said:


> Has anyone attempted to tell you to not watch something? If DirecTV wanted to make it a pay channel, I'd have no issue with it. I don't want to fund their network, even if it's only a small fraction of my monthly bill.


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.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> US News outlets edit heavily 'for effect' instead of telling the whole story unbiased.


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> 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. They 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 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.


When did they show Americans being killed for ratings?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> When did they show Americans being killed for ratings?


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## AntAltMike

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.


----------



## James Long

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.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


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


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?


----------



## SayWhat?

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?


----------



## pablo

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.


----------



## SayWhat?

^ Same applies to BBCAmerica, which is more American than British.


----------



## 456521

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.


----------



## SayWhat?

pdxBeav said:


> 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.


Reminds me of "The Russians Are Coming!, the Russians Are Coming!", or maybe "1941".


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

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.


----------



## AntAltMike

James Long said:


> ...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. ...


----------



## mrro82

hdtvfan0001 said:


> 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.


Why is that ironic? I doubt Al Gore gives a rats @ss.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mrro82 said:


> Why is that ironic? I doubt Al Gore gives a rats @ss.


Probably not...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AlexCF said:


> 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.


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?



AlexCF said:


> 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.


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.



AlexCF said:


> Remember too that material that airs in English isn't necessarily representative of an organization's real agenda.


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.



AlexCF said:


> 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.


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"...



AlexCF said:


> A mix of the two. A lot of content was hitting the web a while back from their non-English broadcasts.


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



AlexCF said:


> 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.


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.



AlexCF said:


> 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.


Wait, what?



AlexCF said:


> 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.


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.



AlexCF said:


> If Current can't attract enough viewers to stay on satellite, that's not oppression. That's economics.


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...



AlexCF said:


> You're making a classic mistake. You think freedom of speech only applies to speech that you approve of.


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?

Really?



AlexCF said:


> If I want to voice an opinion that you don't happen to agree with, that's my freedom of speech.


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.



AlexCF said:


> 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.


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?



AlexCF said:


> Try using profanity here and see where that gets you. Does that mean that the moderators here are oppressing us?


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.


----------



## pablo

Evil Qataris:

http://www.aljazeerausannouncement.com/qa.html


> Will this acquisition create new jobs in the U.S.?
> 
> Yes. The expansion will immediately double the network's U.S.-based staff to more than 300 employees and will build on Al Jazeera's existing U.S.-based bureaus in New York City, Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago.


----------



## JWKessler

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

http://bigthink.com/Resurgence/sharia-prince-owns-stake-in-fox-news-parent

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.


----------



## pablo

JWKessler said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## James Long

pablo said:


> Evil Qataris:
> 
> http://www.aljazeerausannouncement.com/qa.html
> 
> 
> 
> Will this acquisition create new jobs in the U.S.?
> 
> Yes. The expansion will immediately double the network's U.S.-based staff to more than 300 employees and will build on Al Jazeera's existing U.S.-based bureaus in New York City, Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago.
Click to expand...

And what of CurrentTV's staff? Unemployed or part of that 300?


----------



## Maruuk

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.


----------



## mrro82

JWKessler said:


> I wonder how many Fox News fans who oppose this channel know that a Saudi prince is the second biggest partner in Fox News.
> 
> http://bigthink.com/Resurgence/sharia-prince-owns-stake-in-fox-news-parent
> 
> 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.


You know how Right wingers are with facts. 
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.


----------



## pablo

Maruuk said:


> Americans generally aren't much interested in "world news".


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.


----------



## pablo

AJE's live stream on YouTube appears to be higher quality than on their own site: 




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?)


----------



## pablo

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.


----------



## AntAltMike

mrro82 said:


> ...my straight piped Silverado get(s) 4 miles to the gallon and sound bad @ss going through my neighborhood.


----------



## AlexCF

SayWhat? said:


> Might not hurt to try and understand the motivations and reasoning. Remember, the British considered the Minutemen terrorists.


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



APB101 said:


> 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.


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?



James Long said:


> 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.


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



Stewart Vernon said:


> 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?


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 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.


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



> 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.


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.



> [re: Abu Ghraib] 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...


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.



> 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 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!



> 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.


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.



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


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.



> 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...


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.



> 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?
> 
> Really?


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.



> 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.


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.



> 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.


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.



> 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.


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.



> 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.


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.



> 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.


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.



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


Wrong. You can watch it 24/7 if you like. I don't care what you do.


----------



## lwilli201

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.


----------



## pablo

lwilli201 said:


> 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.


AJE has no ads.


----------



## SayWhat?

AlexCF said:


> 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.
> 
> Wrong. You can watch it 24/7 if you like. I don't care what you do.


I feel the same way about ESPN, Fox News and several other channels.


----------



## pablo

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?


----------



## sunfire9us

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.


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!!!!!


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ So what? If it happened and it's factual, it's News and should be covered.


----------



## pablo

sunfire9us said:


> What in the damned world do you NEED for "proof" concerning this ANTI- AMERICAN channel?!!!!!! Geez!!!!!!


There's a great way to see that's it's not how you describe it - watch it: 




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.


----------



## dpeters11

"SayWhat?" said:


> I feel the same way about ESPN, Fox News and several other channels.


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.


----------



## pablo

Here's a good sample of AJE's coverage, it's their look back at the biggest stories of 2012:

[YOUTUBEHD]UEPzRwtFr5M[/YOUTUBEHD]


----------



## Supramom2000

mrro82 said:


> You know how Right wingers are with facts.
> 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.


I find your post directly insulting, offensive and ignorant. Please do not make sweeping, opinionated statements that are complete generalizations based on your bias. You insulted a group of people and that is against the rules. And has nothing to do with the thread.

Spread your personal bias somewhere else please.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Let's stay on topic and be respectful to each other.

:backtotop


----------



## TXD16

AlexCF said:


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


Kind of weird the way their brains work, isn't it? Don't try to figure it out as you never will.

Much like here, the exchange typically goes something like this:

You: "Are you kidding me? That flippin' al-Qaeda terrorist sent his bomb-strapped wife and child into a public square to blow up innocent civilians! And you have no problem with the Arab Street (AKA Muslim Brotherhood, AJE, AJ, etc.) actually glorifying that!?"

Them: "Yeah, so what? Rush Limbaugh used to be fat!"


----------



## James Long

AlexCF said:


> Stewart Vernon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was trying to show his crimes against humanity as good things.
Click to expand...

If it was anything like some American docudramas about killers it would follow the lines of: "He was bullied in primary school, so of course he grew up to rape, kill, dismember and eat 42 women. Bullying is bad." Glossing over the evilness of the man to send a message fitting the producer's agenda.

BTW Stewart: Thanks for invoking Godwin. 



pablo said:


> lwilli201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> AJE has no ads.
Click to expand...

AJE probably is not trying to have ads ... but AJA may end up "ad free" (or close to it) due to lack of ad sales instead of a decision.

If they do end up ad free I wonder where the money would come from to sustain the network? From the subscribers (DirecTV Choice, DISH AT200)? From the home office in the middle east?


----------



## HinterXGames

Didn't News use to be ad free? I could swear at some point, it was standard practice for the news division of a network to be a 'loss', but it helped to prevent bias/slanting, because with no ad's, then you can focus on just news, and not non-news/ranting for ratings.
--
I'm sure you understand what i'm trying to say xD


----------



## James Long

Compared to today's commercial load, television used to be ad free. 
Sponsorship mentions during shows turned into stand alone pre-taped commercials and the number of minutes for those commercials each hour has grown.

I am not old enough to remember news without commercials ... at least not the "standard" commercial load of other programming of the time. When one puts forth a channel that is presented as news all the time how would one do that without commercials? Hope that you made enough off of the overnight infomercials to pay for the daytime content?

It is unrealistic to expect a news channel to be commercial free unless they get enough of their funding from other sources that they do not need commercials.

Although it is interesting that during breaking news ... a time when more eyes are tuned to the channel and more people are paying attention ... that cable news channels will go commercial free. When they do that it shows that the news is still important to the channel ... more important than the commercials. (I do not expect "commercial free" for lesser "breaking news" stories ... but when they do it for big stories it impresses me.)

Of course, every commercial break is an excuse for the viewer to check out the competition ... so by not taking breaks they can hold the audience "captive", increase ratings, and make more in ad sales in the future. At least that would be the cynical way of looking at it.


----------



## AntAltMike

It wouldn't cost much for any remaining, oil pumping middle east dictatorship that wants to postpone victimization by the "Arab Spring" cover the operating costs of a low key, American Aljazerra, or to simply keep it the way it is in the United States now, primarily championing the plight of displaced Palestinians and oppressed Muslims. I think it could continue to do so without creating a firestorm that might elicit pressure to get it taken out of the basic tiers. I live in Washington, DC, where Aljazerra and Russia Today, and even a second Russia Today with Spanish audio accompanying time-shifted programming, are broadcast over the air yet never cause a public tremor. 

I will reiterate here what I have said above, which is that most people who express opinions on Aljazerra simply haven't seen it. It is biased in favor of Muslims and Arabs but also in favor of downtrodden Africans. It is biased against the last vestiges of the colonial empires. Is that anti-American? Maybe, because we are still a substantial economic beneficiary of the last vestages of the colonial era, which include us paying tens or hundred of billions of dollars a year less for oil than we otherwise might if Saudi Arabia and Kuaitt and some Emirates I can't even correctly place on a map were ever ruled by governments that did not depend on U.S. support. 

It is hard to comprehend how much money those families have. I did "business" with a teenager who is three generations younger than the ruling generation in one of those Sheikdoms, and he had a $2 million condominium all to himself while he attended a private high school here. Another guy in his early 20s from another of those countries with no job and very little on the ball lived in a $1.5 million condo in the same building and gave me a $100 tip when I connected him to DirecTV a decade ago. It created an awkward situation for me because he had added it into the check paying for the entire job, so I couldn't just decline it without doing something that was offensive in that he would have had to write another check, but I really didn't want to take it because it meant that if and when his TV ever went out (which it never did), it would be reasonable for him to expect an accelerated response from me, which is something I can't sell for $100.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

James Long said:


> Compared to today's commercial load, television used to be ad free.
> Sponsorship mentions during shows turned into stand alone pre-taped commercials and the number of minutes for those commercials each hour has grown.
> 
> I am not old enough to remember news without commercials ... at least not the "standard" commercial load of other programming of the time. When one puts forth a channel that is presented as news all the time how would one do that without commercials? Hope that you made enough off of the overnight infomercials to pay for the daytime content?
> 
> It is unrealistic to expect a news channel to be commercial free unless they get enough of their funding from other sources that they do not need commercials.
> 
> Although it is interesting that during breaking news ... a time when more eyes are tuned to the channel and more people are paying attention ... that cable news channels will go commercial free. When they do that it shows that the news is still important to the channel ... more important than the commercials. (I do not expect "commercial free" for lesser "breaking news" stories ... but when they do it for big stories it impresses me.)
> 
> Of course, every commercial break is an excuse for the viewer to check out the competition ... so by not taking breaks they can hold the audience "captive", increase ratings, and make more in ad sales in the future. At least that would be the cynical way of looking at it.


They might as well figure on leaving the Coke/Pepsi can on the news desk and use laptops with visible logos to cover the cost of commercial free breaking news.


----------



## HinterXGames

Yeah, I think i'm thinking of when there weren't 24 hour news channels. Back when news was delivered by the networks (Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, etc). I think i'll have to do some research on it!
--
It was bought up as a point in one of the Newsroom episodes (which, btw, overall I love the show).
--
Maybe I can find an old Cronkite show and watch it, see if it showed commercials xD


----------



## AntAltMike

I find it odd that so many people today criticize newscasters for relying on teleprompters when Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Harry Reasoner instead just read typed reports.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

AntAltMike said:


> I find it odd that so many people today criticize newscasters for relying on teleprompters when Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Harry Reasoner instead just read typed reports.


Teleprompters have been a part of news broadcasts for a very long time (more than 25 years). There's alot of information that they have to communicate, and the goal is to do so accurately...so presenting it from text scrolls seems to have worked for a long time.


----------



## Michael P

HinterXGames said:


> Yeah, I think i'm thinking of when there weren't 24 hour news channels. Back when news was delivered by the networks (Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, etc). I think i'll have to do some research on it!
> --
> It was bought up as a point in one of the Newsroom episodes (which, btw, overall I love the show).
> --
> Maybe I can find an old Cronkite show and watch it, see if it showed commercials xD


My memory of televised TV news goes back to the days before the Kennedy assassination. There were always commercials during the news. In fact on some news sets there was an advertiser's logo prominently displayed. More blatant than the Coke cans or Dell logos on laptops of today.

Speaking of that tragic event, that may have been the first time that news broadcasts went commercial free. We had 4 days x 3 networks where the events were played out over and over again. That was a glimpse into the future "24-hour news cycle" (even though nearly all TV stations signed off nightly back then).


----------



## James Long

AntAltMike said:


> I find it odd that so many people today criticize newscasters for relying on teleprompters when Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Harry Reasoner instead just read typed reports.


The first tele-prompters I saw were paper based. Typed scripts that were pulled past a CCTV camera that fed the monitors under the cameras. The anchor had a stenographer style control under the desk where they could move the script forward and back (although it at least one place there was no back).

Information is better presented when it is written out and re-written in advance. Even if the presenter does not read from a teleprompter, knowing what will be said via scripting is a good way to organize the thoughts. But I have seen instances where this goes bad. One local station ALWAYS has a toss back question for their live reports. When a live report ends the anchor asks a question about the story and the live reporter responds. It makes it seem like the anchor was listening along ... although can look like "we left this fact out of the story" and makes the reporter look bad for not giving the full details in the original report. When the toss back question WAS answered in the original report it makes it look like the anchor was not listening. I wish they would go without the toss back question.

When a station is running unscripted it is worse ... and I understand that while news is breaking there has to be a certain amount of unscripted work. But the concept of writing out what one is going to say, organizing the thoughts and presenting them can still be done.

HBO's "Newsroom" is good at showing how much goes on before the hour that we see people on the air. On the better shows we are seeing the end of people's work days. They have spent hours putting together a presentation for the viewer. Some of that may be based on the hours airing before their program and can be adjusted right up to the moment each story is aired.

That is why I see news reporting as being intentional. It is not just some reporter or anchor sitting around a coffee table chatting about what is going on in the world. It is a presentation where people have decided what to say and how they will say it. They have decided what to leave in and take out of the stories. They have produced the news. If they have added in a slant or not bothered to take one out it is intentional.


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> HBO's "Newsroom" is good at showing how much goes on before the hour that we see people on the air. On the better shows we are seeing the end of people's work days. They have spent hours putting together a presentation for the viewer. Some of that may be based on the hours airing before their program and can be adjusted right up to the moment each story is aired.


Anybody remember "E.N.G." out of Canada?


----------



## HinterXGames

James Long said:


> HBO's "Newsroom" is good at showing how much goes on before the hour that we see people on the air. On the better shows we are seeing the end of people's work days. They have spent hours putting together a presentation for the viewer. Some of that may be based on the hours airing before their program and can be adjusted right up to the moment each story is aired.


Yeah. From my understanding, most of the news stations have given it high marks for being pretty accurate as far as what goes into putting together a news broadcast.


----------



## oldcrooner

I have listened to and viewed many, many hours of Al Jazeera programming without encountering even one incidence of what I would label "anti-American". Some of what they report may make certain people uncomfortable because it does not fit into their cherished worldviews or political dogmas but that does not make it untruthful or "anti-American". We as a nation need far more exposure to news and views from around the world. Here's a good commentary on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...68d-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?hpid=z6


----------



## pablo

Agreed, very much so. And still no one has provided any documentary evidence that it's anti-American.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

pablo said:


> Agreed, very much so. And still no one has provided any documentary evidence that it's anti-American.


To use an old example...

It is far easier to stand on your porch and yell at the kids to get off of your lawn, than to get to know your neighbors and see whether or not the kids can safely play in your yard without causing trouble.

People tend to "like" what they know... and will take the familiar over the new in many circumstances. Offer them something different, and people tend to balk at the notion... sometimes to the extent of grasping at straws for reasons to explain their reluctance.


----------



## AntAltMike

When they criticize our Drone assassinations and show the collateral damage, is that anti-American?


----------



## James Long

AntAltMike said:


> When they criticize our Drone assassinations and show the collateral damage, is that anti-American?


Only if the forget to mention the reason WHY such action was taken.

It is not like we randomly select civilian targets like a terrorist or suicide bomber.


----------



## James Long

pablo said:


> Agreed, very much so. And still no one has provided any documentary evidence that it's anti-American.


There was a good post documenting AJE's anti-American slant earlier in the thread, but it has been buried by all the blind rants and blind admiration.

Those that want to see nothing wrong with AJ and their news networks never will. Just like the fans of each major US news network seem to believe there is nothing wrong with the programming it offers.

Fortunately no one MUST watch the channel ... whatever version ends up replacing Current. But a portion of our AT200 or Choice subscription (depending on satellite carrier) will go to pay for it.


----------



## SayWhat?

AntAltMike said:


> When they criticize our Drone assassinations and show the collateral damage, is that anti-American?


If it's the truth, No.

If the report is altered or the damage/casualties faked or the ordnance was fired by someone else, Yes.

The fact is that the US is directly responsible for a significant number of non-combatant casualties, but you won't see any of that on Fox.


----------



## AntAltMike

Every year, tens of thousands of Mexicans die because we choose to have drug laws and enforcement policies (or lack thereof) in the United States that make those Mexican deaths predictable and often, inevitable. So if Mexico determines to its satisfaction that someone in the United States is responsible for Mexican deaths, but if we determine that, for due process reasons, we can't do anything about it at this time, how would we feel if Mexico fired a missile targeting people in the United States that were causing deaths in Mexico, but doing so killed a few dozen Americans at the same time?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> Only if the forget to mention the reason WHY such action was taken.
> 
> It is not like we randomly select civilian targets like a terrorist or suicide bomber.


True... but then do our news networks adequately and accurately cover our misdeeds in other countries? Like when we have had CIA agents attempting to assassinate other country leaders... or that time we tried to bomb Khadaffi (or however it is spelled this week) and instead killed another family member.

How about all those people years ago (minorities incidentally) we infected with syphilis and didn't treat? or the Native Americans that we tried to kill off with smallpox-blankets?

Yeah, some of that is old news... but every time we bring up a current event, about minorities or native americans or whatever, do we always cover the entire context and history of how we got to where we are now?

In all news there is a bit of he-said-she-said... and we tend to want to hear others say things that we already think ourselves... but it is very healthy to sit and listen to someone you don't agree with for a few minutes. Even if it doesn't change your mind, you at least are more informed.

It never hurts to listen. We talk all the time about how other countries don't want opposing viewpoints expressed... In this country we supposedly welcome all viewpoints and believe that IF you listen to all sides, the truth will win out in the end... so trying to extinguish or ignore something even if it truly is biased against America... well, that just seems short-sighted.

At worst you confirm everything you wanted to believe bad about "them"... at best you learn something new and perhaps soften your opinion against "them." Hard to consider either scenario a bad thing in the end to me.


----------



## SayWhat?

^ How much coverage did My Lai get at the time? I didn't learn about it until some time later.

The more recent massacre is getting some coverage, but not much.

Why was there a policy of 'no US body bags/caskets' for so long until fairly recently? Somebody didn't want the US public to see the cost of what was happening.

Why aren't US media teams covering the middle east conflicts the way they did Viet Nam? Back them, combat correspondents sent stories from the field, even though many were heavily censored. Field reports like those weren't even allowed in Iraq.

US media is more focused on which half-wit bimbo celebrity got knocked up than telling people what's really happening. I'd say E! is more anti-America that this network.

US Media outlets don't even fully cover home based stories. Are we still seeing recovery efforts on Long Island or the Jersey shore? Not really, but we heard about that Snookie thing getting a new tattoo.


----------



## SayWhat?

But boy-howdy, let somebody lead a chase on a freeway in certain places and it'll be covered like they're filming a remake of "The Sugarland Express".


----------



## AntAltMike

This story, copied here from Aljazerra's website, ran on AJE TV twice within the last hour and a half. I am waiting for it to come on again so I can compare the U.S. TV coverage to the content of this webite article. I'll try to reduce the width of the picture so as to avoid enlarging the column width, or perhaps a moderator can do it for me.


*US strikes 'Taliban compound' in Pakistan*

*At least 16 suspected members of the Punjabi Taliban are believed killed in drone attack in South Waziristan.*
Last Modified: 06 Jan 2013 15:20 

(I just edited out the accompanying map picture, which is non-inflammatory and incidental, until I can reduce it to column width)

_At least 16 people have been killed and several others wounded in a US drone strike against a suspected Taliban compound in Pakistan's South Waziristan region, according to Al Jazeera's Islamabad bureau.

About eight to 10 missiles were reportedly fired hitting three different targets including a compound in Babar Zariat, a border village between North and South Waziristan.

More fighters were believed to be in the locations when they were hit on Sunday, meaning the death toll may rise, according to the Reuters news agency.

The compounds were believed to house fighters belonging to the Punjabi Taliban, a group with close links to al-Qaeda,
intelligence officials said.

Al Jazeera identified the commander of the group as Qari Imran. But there is no confirmation on his death.

"We are not sure who was killed on the ground, whether they were indeed militants as claimed by the intelligence sources," Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder said. "Normally, there are civilian casualties as well, particularly when compounds and houses are hit."

The Pakistan Taliban has established sanctuaries in the mountainous Babar area, 140km northeast of Wana, the headquarters of South Waziristan, officials added.

South Waziristan is controlled by the Pakistani army, which operates under an uneasy truce with fighters from the local Wazir tribe.

Sunday's strike follows the death of Mullah Nazir, a Waziri tribal leader, on Wednesday. Nazir supported attacks on US forces in Afghanistan but had signed two peace deals with the Pakistani army.

On Sunday, thousands of his tribesmen protested against his killing._


----------



## AntAltMike

The above story page includes a link to this "related" new item from August. I don't remember if AJE showed this image. I will keep my eye on the television coverage of the above developing story to see how the subsequent coverage of the Pakistani reaction is covered.

As I am typing this, the above-referenced story just came around again and the reporter just said: 


> "In the past ten weeks, there has been an increase in the intensity of the attacks by the United States".


... and he referenced the hundred casualties of noncombatents in the other attacks. Pretty low key.

*US air strikes hammer North Waziristan bases *

*At least 18 dead after hideouts attacked in border region a day after Pakistan summoned US diplomat over air raids.*
Last Modified: 24 Aug 2012 11:12 









_.A US air raid has killed 18 suspected fighters near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, Pakistani officials have said.

Fourteen other people were also reportedly injured after drone-fired missiles hit three compounds used by the fighters in North Waziristan on Friday, a day after Islamabad summoned a US diplomat to protest a recent series of strikes that have caused much collateral damage and civilian casualties.

The raid was the fourth attack in the span of a week, as well as the most deadly.

Officials, on condition of anonymity, said each of the three compounds, which are often used hideouts for fighters when they cross into Afghanistan, was hit by two missiles.

The drone campaign, which Washington sees as vital to combating armed groups, including al-Qaeda, has been a cause of friction between the two countries, as Pakistan sees the strikes as an infringement on its sovereignty.

"A senior US diplomat was called to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and informed that the drone strikes were unlawful, against international law and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. It was emphatically stated that such attacks were unacceptable," the Pakistani foreign ministry said in a statement. The diplomat was not identified.

Last week, five allies of a powerful warlord, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, whose forces often strike US troops in Afghanistan, died when a US drone struck their hideout in North Waziristan.

Pakistan campaign

On Sunday, US drones fired a flurry of missiles into the Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan, killing 10 suspected fighters. On Tuesday, missiles targeting a vehicle killed five more suspected fighters.

All the strikes this week occurred in North Waziristan, one of the last areas of the tribal region in which the Pakistani military has not conducted any operations against fighters.

The US has pushed repeatedly for Pakistan to open an offensive there, and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently said Pakistani authorities would start a campaign there soon.

So far, there are few signs on the ground of a large-scale offensive.

The drone strikes are unpopular in Pakistan because many people believe they mostly kill civilians, an allegation disputed by the US.

Despite Pakistan's public protests, the government is widely believed to have supported the attacks quietly in the past.

That cooperation has come under pressure as the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated.

The US shows no sign that it is willing to end or curtail the controversial usage of drones._


----------



## Davenlr

When is current supposed to start carrying AJE?


----------



## AntAltMike

Aljazerra just reported protests against the new Kuwaiti parliament and televised the police crackdown on the protesters. Is this being covered by American cable TV? I don't subscribe to cable, so I can't checkl myself


----------



## pablo

James Long said:


> There was a good post documenting AJE's anti-American slant earlier in the thread, but it has been buried by all the blind rants and blind admiration.


Documenting? No, as far as I'm able to see it was simply an emotional post repeating the same hearsay we've heard before. Documenting implies documents, such as links to verify these claims.


----------



## Dude111

marker101 said:


> I love how everything on this site ends up being a DirecTV topic. DirecTV isn't the only provider that carries Current.


No they arent.....

Time warner Cable is trying to say THEY DIDNT DROP THEM DUE TO THIS!! (Which is most likely BS)


----------



## djlong

AlexCF said:


> I don't want to fund an organization that runs propaganda advocating violence against my fellow citizens. Al Jazeera is an avenue for Al Queida and the like to spread their videos worldwide. To me, from what I've seen, they go way beyond what anyone could call responsible journalism.


Sir, you don't know what you are talking about.

Saying that Al-Jazeera "runs propaganda" for al-Queda is like saying any other news organization does the same when reporting a news item.

For what it's worth, and I suspect it's not much since you seem to have already made up your mind, Al-Jazeera is run in *Qatar*. They're a pro-Western US ally in that country. It's not like Al-Jazeera runs "The Imam Today" show.


----------



## satcrazy

It would be worth the extra $ to have Real news from a Neutral country.

Can you imagine that?

Does such a thing exist?

Ads wouldn't matter, as long as it met the above criteria.


----------



## AntAltMike

satcrazy said:


> It would be worth the extra $ to have Real news from a Neutral country.
> 
> Can you imagine that?
> 
> Does such a thing exist?
> 
> Ads wouldn't matter, as long as it met the above criteria.


Is Switzerland a neutral country? Nah! They're rabidly anti gun control, and they abet money laundering.


----------



## SayWhat?

If I had my 'druthers, I'd opt for CBC if anything, but that doesn't appear likely.


----------



## AntAltMike

Some of the talking heads were saying last week that if a U.S. candidate took positions espoused by members of the Labor Party in the Israeli Knesset, they would be seen as anti-Israeli and anti-American.


----------



## AlexCF

djlong said:


> Sir, you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Saying that Al-Jazeera "runs propaganda" for al-Queda is like saying any other news organization does the same when reporting a news item.
> 
> For what it's worth, and I suspect it's not much since you seem to have already made up your mind, Al-Jazeera is run in *Qatar*. They're a pro-Western US ally in that country. It's not like Al-Jazeera runs "The Imam Today" show.


http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera

As for allies, Japan professed to be our ally right up until they bombed Pearl Harbor. Pakistan claims to be our ally yet the were harboring Bin Laden right next to one of their military bases. Actions speak louder than words, and AJ's Arabic isn't what you see on their English feed.

You're going to believe whatever you want to believe, and I'm fine with that. If DirecTV carries this network, they do so at the risk of losing subscribers. I'm also fine with that, and I am likely to be one of them. Love it, hate it, whatever. It is what it is.


----------



## pablo

Since I don't understand Arabic, it doesn't really matter to me what Al Jazeera Arabic broadcasts. They could show Spongebob all day. I watch AJE, not AJA.


----------



## Hoosier205

"AlexCF" said:


> http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera
> 
> As for allies, Japan professed to be our ally right up until they bombed Pearl Harbor. Pakistan claims to be our ally yet the were harboring Bin Laden right next to one of their military bases. Actions speak louder than words, and AJ's Arabic isn't what you see on their English feed.
> 
> You're going to believe whatever you want to believe, and I'm fine with that. If DirecTV carries this network, they do so at the risk of losing subscribers. I'm also fine with that, and I am likely to be one of them. Love it, hate it, whatever. It is what it is.


I certainly don't care of they lose subscribers who leave for their own misinformed reasons. In fact, I think it's pretty funny.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AlexCF said:


> As for allies, Japan professed to be our ally right up until they bombed Pearl Harbor. Pakistan claims to be our ally yet the were harboring Bin Laden right next to one of their military bases. Actions speak louder than words, and AJ's Arabic isn't what you see on their English feed.


Not sure what your point here is?

Is Qatar supposed to be launching WWIII?

I watched the spanish audio track of Terminator 2... and instead of "Hasta La Vista" Arnie says "Sayanara"... oh no! That means they changed it! What are they trying to hide in that movie?


----------



## James Long

pablo said:


> Since I don't understand Arabic, it doesn't really matter to me what Al Jazeera Arabic broadcasts. They could show Spongebob all day. I watch AJE, not AJA.


That distinction might become more difficult when there is an Al Jazeera America.

AJ's content is important as it shows what is behind AJE. AJE is the "Westernized" version of AJ with less objectional material but the same roots. AJ America will be further "Americanized". How far below the surface they can keep the attitudes of the home office is yet to be seen.

And, as noted earlier in the thread, if they do too good of a job becoming "Americanized" the channel becomes less useful as an "independent voice".


----------



## SayWhat?

AlexCF said:


> If DirecTV carries this network, they do so at the risk of losing subscribers. I'm also fine with that, and I am likely to be one of them.


Where will you go when all providers in your area carry it?


----------



## SayWhat?

James Long said:


> And, as noted earlier in the thread, if they do too good of a job becoming "Americanized" the channel becomes less useful as an "independent voice".


Whatever they do, let's hope they don't follow the lead of BBC America.


----------



## Michael P

SayWhat? said:


> If I had my 'druthers, I'd opt for CBC if anything, but that doesn't appear likely.


Ironically that is the "roots" of the Current was Newsworld which was run by CBC. Sadly as a E* sub I never got to see Newsworld until it was sold.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> AJ's content is important as it shows what is behind AJE. AJE is the "Westernized" version of AJ with less objectional material but the same roots. AJ America will be further "Americanized". How far below the surface they can keep the attitudes of the home office is yet to be seen.


Isn't it possible to be two things?

Disney arguably puts out a lot of kids programming... but they also own the studio that produced "Color of Night"... an arguably very adult movie... so does one conclude that shows their "true colors" and you shouldn't let kids watch Disney G-rated movies, because they are just "sanitizing" those for the kids?


----------



## lwilli201

Stewart Vernon said:


> Isn't it possible to be two things?
> 
> Disney arguably puts out a lot of kids programming... but they also own the studio that produced "Color of Night"... an arguably very adult movie... so does one conclude that shows their "true colors" and you shouldn't let kids watch Disney G-rated movies, because they are just "sanitizing" those for the kids?


No. Not a good analogy IMHO.

If Disney put out a kids version of "Color of Night" then you might have a point. In any case to sanitize a story is to omit some relevant facts that would be needed to tell the complete story. But that would not be very different than our own MSM.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Disney arguably puts out a lot of kids programming... but they also own the studio that produced "Color of Night"... an arguably very adult movie... so does one conclude that shows their "true colors" and you shouldn't let kids watch Disney G-rated movies, because they are just "sanitizing" those for the kids?


Some would come to that conclusion ... but they would support it with the not-so-"G" content that is in the G-rated movies. There is objectionable content in Disney movies that does not affect the rating.

How about a Disney version of Les Miserables? :nono2:

I like lwilli201's line of thinking ... a "G" rated version of Color of Night. AJE and AJ America might be "clean" versions of AJ. But just like the adult themes that are present in some Disney films (but not adult enough to blow the rating) the undercurrents of AJ are present in their other news channels.


----------



## oldschoolecw

SayWhat? said:


> Where will you go when all providers in your area carry it?


As you well know http://www.iptvconnection.com/


----------



## AlexCF

SayWhat? said:


> Where will you go when all providers in your area carry it?


I wouldn't go anywhere. The antenna on the roof would see more use, and the money saved would be used to purchase full seasons of the shows I like. Plus there's a variety of streaming options available via the Internet.

The issue isn't the content that AJE would show. The issue is the motivations of AJ. AJE could run Sesame Street all day everyday, but if AJ is using their revenue to broadcast anti-US propaganda on non-English channels or through other means, I want nothing to do with it. Giving money to folks that condone or encourage violence against us is not a good idea. Regardless of what people feel about our current network "news" channels, none of them fall under that category.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> I like lwilli201's line of thinking ... a "G" rated version of Color of Night. AJE and AJ America might be "clean" versions of AJ. But just like the adult themes that are present in some Disney films (but not adult enough to blow the rating) the undercurrents of AJ are present in their other news channels.


Actually, you just out-exampled me and gave me a better example 

How about when an R-rated movie airs in primetime on CBS in an "edited for television" format?

If you're against nudity, then shouldn't you be against CBS for "cleaning up" a movie that contained nudity? What if people not only protested HBO and uncensored channels BUT also any channel that showed a censored version since we all know that guy isn't saying "fudge" and "darn"... all TV should be banned because it is either airing something offensive OR cleaning up something offensive and pretending it isn't being offensive since it was cleaned up!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

AlexCF said:


> Giving money to folks that condone or encourage violence against us is not a good idea. Regardless of what people feel about our current network "news" channels, none of them fall under that category.


Are you sure?

Have you thoroughly investigated ALL the paths of money to the channels you watch?

What happens if someone who is "anti-american" donates to PBS... do you then also stop watching PBS?

Where would this end?


----------



## oldcrooner

Like I said in my earlier post:

"Some of what they report may make certain people uncomfortable because it does not fit into their cherished worldviews or political dogmas but that does not make it untruthful or "anti-American". 

Also, I hope no one is sufficiently naïve to think there are not "undercurrents" in almost everything one views and hears every day 24/7, no matter the source.


----------



## James Long

AlexCF said:


> The issue isn't the content that AJE would show. The issue is the motivations of AJ. AJE could run Sesame Street all day everyday, but if AJ is using their revenue to broadcast anti-US propaganda on non-English channels or through other means, I want nothing to do with it.


OK ... where was the outrage when beIN Sport was added to DirecTV and DISH late last year?

beIN Sport is owned and operated by Al Jazeera. I give it a pass because it is not a news channel and the commentators are talking about politics they are talking about football.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> If you're against nudity, then shouldn't you be against CBS for "cleaning up" a movie that contained nudity? What if people not only protested HBO and uncensored channels BUT also any channel that showed a censored version since we all know that guy isn't saying "fudge" and "darn"... all TV should be banned because it is either airing something offensive OR cleaning up something offensive and pretending it isn't being offensive since it was cleaned up!


Perhaps you are just playing "devil's advocate" and trying to incite an argument ... but believe it or not, people do complain when television airs beeps instead of swear words. The complaint is not that the viewer wanted to hear the swear word, but that the swear word was obvious to the viewer and the beeping failed to censor the program (and in a way emphasized the swear word by making the viewer fill in the blank from their own mind - thus making the viewer swear instead of just hearing the actor swear).

Yes - people actually filed complaints with the FCC about the beeps! And the FCC spent time ruling on the complaints.

The multi-ownership dominions of television make it difficult to choose a provider to boycott. CBS/Viacom, ABC/Disney, Fox, NBC/Universal ... they all have one outlet or another that could be considered offensive to someone. Perhaps different outlets of the same company even offend opposite people.

But AJ America and AJ English are similar in format to AJ ... they are news/commentary/indoctrination channels. Just like the news channels in the US except the ideas are not American based.

If I am going to be brainwashed by some flirty woman with not enough buttons done up on her blouse, or some shouting white guy, I want it to be an American ... or at least a Brit.


----------



## oldcrooner

Most of the news presenters on AJ English are British citizens who formerly worked for UK broadcasters. Others previously worked for CNN International, TVNZ and many others.

Beware of those ideas that "are not American based"! You might become a bit more informed and open-minded as a result. Wouldn't want that to happen.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah... I really think this is a much ado about nothing situation.

Or I guess the modern equivalent is "haters gonna hate"...


----------



## SayWhat?

oldcrooner said:


> Beware of those ideas that "are not American based"! You might become a bit more informed and open-minded as a result. Wouldn't want that to happen.


Beware of those ideas that "are not Limbaugh/Gingrich based"! You might become a bit more informed and open-minded as a result. Wouldn't want that to happen.

Fixed that for ya'.


----------



## pablo

I think this opposition to Al Jazeera may stem from a superficial reflex: anything Arabic = bad. Personally, I don't believe any one people are inherently "bad". The Arabic culture is vast and has given the world at large a lot of priceless gifts. Of course, any people will have their own ultra-conservatives and fundamentalists. Here in America we have plenty of our own.


----------



## AntAltMike

Every channel is basically pro: whomever owns it. There are lots of Arabiic countries... in fact, nearly all of them... whose leaders want to stay in power, and so they want the support of the United States to be assisted in staying in power, but they also support anti-Israeli interests. Most of these Arabic financial interests are not inclined to support the beheading of Americans, but I suspect that a lot of Americans don't realize that.


----------



## AlexCF

Stewart Vernon said:


> Have you thoroughly investigated ALL the paths of money to the channels you watch?


Get to the point.



> What happens if someone who is "anti-american" donates to PBS... do you then also stop watching PBS?


AJ is the bad actor, your analogy doesn't work.

If I had reason to believe that PBS was encouraging or in any way aligning themselves with terrorists, I would be just as equally concerned.



James Long said:


> OK ... where was the outrage when beIN Sport was added to DirecTV and DISH late last year?


I have no idea, I don't pay attention to sports. If they called it "Al Jazeera Sports", I imagine more people would be aware of it. I don't hire an investigator every time DirecTV adds a channel to their service. At the same time, hearing that AJ is buying out a channel that DirecTV does carry, and knowing what I know of their non-English programming, that gets my attention.

I don't pay for sports. Is beIN in a sports package, or is it part of the regular lineup? I can't find that info on DirecTV's site. Is it still carried?


----------



## AlexCF

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... I really think this is a much ado about nothing situation.
> 
> Or I guess the modern equivalent is "haters gonna hate"...


At the very least, they intentionally let themselves be used as a recruitment tool for terrorists.

That means nothing to you? Anyone that has an issue with that is just a "hater"?

Yes, I have an issue with terrorists and those that support them. So should you.


----------



## pablo

If you believe Al Jazeera supports terrorism, well... I'm out of this debate.


----------



## kikkenit2

Alex, without ever watching foreign news look at the world from their view.
We invaded them. They didn't ask for our protection. They want us to just go away. 
If they invaded your country you would fight back just as hard as they do. 
Maybe even harder. But not much. Face reality. You just happened to be born here. 
That doesn't make you better than everybody else. Earn that part.


----------



## AlexCF

kikkenit2 said:


> We invaded them. They didn't ask for our protection. They want us to just go away.


We invaded Qatar?

Whatever motivates terrorists is beside the point. It's the programming and agenda of the network that's the problem. Any network that promotes violence against civilians and celebrates murderous thugs is detestable. Do you not agree?


----------



## kikkenit2

AlexCF said:


> We invaded Qatar?
> 
> Whatever motivates terrorists is beside the point. It's the programming and agenda of the network that's the problem. Any network that promotes violence against civilians and celebrates murderous thugs is detestable. Do you not agree?


I agree only with your last part. As far as who we invaded pretty well established both Afghanistan and Iraq. Qatar is actually one of our stronger allys around there. Not strong, but stronger than most arab/middle east countries. From what I hear this channel just doesn't filter/soften or slant news the way your favorite channels do. I can handle multiple sources of info without going nuts.

The biggest disagreement is calling anybody and everybody that fights against us terrorists. If they are defending their country against an invading army they are patriots and honorable patriots in the eyes of their people. Their were plenty of real terrorists that took advantage of our rapid downsizing in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.

I don't care what party Bush represented. As commander in chief I think he failed miserably. Caused massive debt and death. And never really made us safer. Just calling them all terrorists and pretending everything we did then and do now is rightous and justified is not for me. I won't control your life and what you can watch. Now do the same for me. I pay for channels you watch that I don't. Big deal. We all have to share a little here in pay tv world.


----------



## pablo

Al Jazeera America will replace Current in April: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/al-jazeera-america-86088.html


----------



## AlexCF

kikkenit2 said:


> The biggest disagreement is calling anybody and everybody that fights against us terrorists. If they are defending their country against an invading army they are patriots and honorable patriots in the eyes of their people.


I don't disagree, but that's not at play here. AlJ aired what was basically Al Queida's recruitment videos. Are you claiming that 9/11 was an act of self defense? Or that Al Queida wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks?

AlJ also celebrated some rather despicable human beings (Samir Kuntar for example).

Iraq has nothing to do with this.



> I won't control your life and what you can watch. Now do the same for me. I pay for channels you watch that I don't. Big deal. We all have to share a little here in pay tv world.


I will not pay money to any provider that hands some of that money over to people that promote those that wish to kill us. That's not a valid "social contract", it's exactly the opposite.

If folks really want another outside view of the news, I'm sure DirecTV and others could find much better networks that do not have ties and who have not supported terrorists.


----------



## James Long

AlexCF said:


> I will not pay money to any provider that hands some of that money over to people that promote those that wish to kill us.


If you believe that Al Jazeera is that kind of "people" then you already do. So where are you going when you leave DirecTV?


----------



## kikkenit2

AlexCF said:


> I don't disagree, but that's not at play here. AlJ aired what was basically Al Queida's recruitment videos. Are you claiming that 9/11 was an act of self defense? Or that Al Queida wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks?
> 
> AlJ also celebrated some rather despicable human beings (Samir Kuntar for example).
> 
> Iraq has nothing to do with this.
> 
> I will not pay money to any provider that hands some of that money over to people that promote those that wish to kill us. That's not a valid "social contract", it's exactly the opposite.
> 
> If folks really want another outside view of the news, I'm sure DirecTV and others could find much better networks that do not have ties and who have not supported terrorists.


Time Warner cable would be a perfect fit for you. I gotta have my nfl and don't have TW around here so I'm stayin with the dish. Now if I could find a condo where the dish will work.

I don't condone any terrorist attack or killing pretty much in general. Bin Laden claimed that 9-11 and the many previous terrorist attacks were because foreign (US) christian soldiers were occupying his country (Saudia Arabia). I really believe that is why they did it. It a wierd way they probably think of it as "self defense". They see the world in a much different way than you do. Now we can learn why they think those things. Or ignore it. Or fight back. Or switch. Or ban that channel. Take away other peoples freedom. Yea let's do that. They sure won't miss your $0.10 per month.

I don't even watch much news, but I would guess that if Al Jazeera didn't show those "recruiting videos" their ratings would be low. Believe it or not, probably a big chunk of the middle east muslims see the terrorists as brave, tough guys like we see our football stars. Only 10 times more because some are willing to suicide for their cause. That is more support of their god than country, but some of both. Now we can find out what they "really think".

It looks to me like as we leave these countries, they still fight each other for control, but no they are not following us back here. They really do just want to be left alone. When we quit buying their oil somebody else will. The middle east isn't going broke any time soon. So lets keep an eye on them. "... Keep your enemies closer" right?

As long as new channels are cheap I'm all for it. The skyrocketing costs of regional sports etc. is a bigger concern for most direct subscribers.


----------



## pablo

AJA to launch within six months (previously April): http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/al-jazeera-america-is-hiring-154919.html

Also: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013120143533845915.html


----------



## Maruuk

I remember back when America was supposed to be about promoting free speech and allowing many points of view to be heard. Now when a tiny number of giant media companies run our TV news and advance their narrow corporate agendas from within the so-called "news" content in their entertainment divisions, we should be welcoming in a little variety as a breath of fresh air. Instead we mostly get this endless hatefest bred in ignorance and prejudice. I trust in intellectuals, not morons--guys like this:

"The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum." -- Adlai E. Stevenson


----------



## James Long

It is a free market ... I suspect that A J America will get roughly the same ratings as Current and fit in nicely with the other very low viewership channels (such as Russia Today, China Central News, The Blaze). Niches within the niche of news that will just blend in with the other hundreds of channels once the excitement of the change wears off.


----------



## pablo

I hope they launch in HD. On a superficial level, I really like AJE's graphics.


----------



## Maruuk

+1 on the HD! SD really dragged Current down, made everything look shabby and public-access channel. Not to mention Al Jazeera has a tradition of smokin' hot babe field reporters and anchors!


----------



## SayWhat?

They'd have to go some to top Christie Paul and Kathryn Hendricks of HLN, although I don't know if either is still there since I stopped watching that channel when it went tabloid.


----------



## Michael P

pablo said:


> This is real news?
> 
> [YOUTUBEHD]xea-ZcM5nxs[/YOUTUBEHD]
> 
> Shameful.


Yes it is real news! Fact are facts. The channel was sold before the tax rates increased. And the buyer's funding comes from oil. Hows your carbon footprint now Al? :hurah:


----------



## Michael P

pablo said:


> AJA to launch within six months (previously April): http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/al-jazeera-america-is-hiring-154919.html
> 
> Also: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013120143533845915.html


Thanks. I've been scanning the EPG on my DVR looking for the change in programming on Current. Now I know why the current programming is still "Current".


----------



## James Long

Michael P said:


> Yes it is real news! Fact are facts. The channel was sold before the tax rates increased. And the buyer's funding comes from oil. Hows your carbon footprint now Al? :hurah:


Find the Al Gore interview on The Daily Show (1/30/13). Jon spent a lot of time on the Current sale, including the selling to oil countries issue.


----------



## AntAltMike

Aljazerra just ran a half hour feature on online dating. I surfed in and out of it a few times, figuring it was an infomercial, but it now occurs to me that I didn't see or hear anything steering me to one particular online service. I'll have to check their website and find out whether it was supportive of one particular service or not.


----------

