Slashdot Mirror
Al Jazeera Gets a US Voice
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Al Jazeera plans to start an English-language channel available in more than 40 million U.S. homes, with newscasts emanating from both New York and Doha, Qatar. They announced a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore seven years ago. But the challenge will be persuading Americans to watch the award winning network with 71 bureaus around the world — an extremely tough proposition given the crowded television marketplace and the stereotypes about the channel that persist to this day. 'There are still people who will not watch it, who will say that it's a "terrorist network,"' says Philip Seib. 'Al Jazeera has to override that by providing quality news.' With a handful of exceptions, American cable and satellite distributors have mostly refused to carry Al Jazeera English since its inception in 2006. While the television sets of White House officials and lawmakers were tuned to the channel during the Arab Spring in 2011, ordinary Americans who wanted to watch had to find a live stream on the Internet. Al Jazeera's Robert Wheelock said, We offer an alternative. It's a broader coverage of news. It's a broader spectrum into countries that aren't traditionally covered.'"
After all, a non American involved in US broadcasting is clearly beyond the pale.
Why next somebody from Rand McNally will make us wear hats on our feet and reverse the direction the water flows in our toilets.
Let the conversion begin ...
Well actually I do, it's great to have an alternative voice and hopefully this will bring more understanding and humanity to the news.
Nullius in verba
Of course it will. But then, who cares sbout Fags, Jews and Women ?
... won't be finding viewers, it will be hanging onto their cable allocations.
Listed along with BBC & NPR, the Australian ABC broadcasts news & current events from Al Jazeera.
However, what I want is to be able to hear current events & news from CBC, eg:
+ As It Happens
+ The Current
+ Quirks & Quarks (Sci.)
etc.
Until the ABC adds such CBC programs to their list, we can & do auto-fetch them as podcasts (eg, using an XP box + Juice 2.2)
I hope they take her lessons to heart!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I see, they missed you during iraq war.
On Dish Network, Link TV has shown the Al Jazeera English World News program as part of its Global News Hour for as long as I've had Dish Network. It's very hard to get me to part with money for a non-profit TV station, but I've actually donated money to Link TV before. Not much, but I did.
Though certainly more liberal, they aren't just Democrats or Republicans, and have aired some great documentaries that none of the big players would have ever touched. And if you think they were all bleeding heart lefties, I have seen speeches where bleeding heart lefties made a good case for supporting Ron Paul.
Al Jazeera English? Clips from it on some of the good documentaries, but I never just sat down and watched it. So yeah, tough market there.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Fox News isn't really that independent 25% of its ownership belongs to Saudi family (yes, as in Saudi Arabia). At least AlJazeera provides quailty coverage..
Russia Today is news channel that broadcasts in the US/Europe. It is poorly made Russian propaganda news channel sponsored by Russian government, and probably most Unti-US and Unti-Western news channel in the existence (I don't count middle east news channels in countries like in Iran or Palestine).
What is funny, arguably Fox News is one of the most respected US news organizations in Russia !!!!! Hatred is mutual !!!
Al Jazeera is not all that bad, compared to Russia Today. All the youtube clips I have seen were all professionally made new reports.
You should look up their web page and read their coverage before you make such stupid ignorant statements
Owned by an Arab Sheik, IÃ(TM)m sure it will be faire and balanced towards womanÃ(TM)s rights in the Arab World, Jewish issues, and of course homosexuals.
Bah, hahahahahahaa
It will not be any worse than all other major news networks. And the bias will be well known, which is a little better than the status quo
I'll take that over directly sanctioned pieces such as CNNi
CNNi produces those programs in an arrangement it describes as "in association with" the government of a country, and offers regimes the ability to pay for specific programs about their country. ... The disclosure for such arrangements is often barely visible.
Seems that the Western Winter will come after the Arab Spring
We can't have Arabs covering news about Arabs. Only Americans, Europeans and Jews (like maybe Wolf Blitzer previously of the Jerusalem Post) can cover the Arab world, right?
As someone who's actually watched Al Jazeera English, I'd just recommend that people watch it before they judge it, rather than just assuming it's the "Al Qaeda network". It's not.
I really don't like the idea of a having cable channel dedicated to the destruction of the United States Of America.
Fortunately, now Al Jazeera will now take it over.
Maybe they should buy MSNBC, next. Two for the price of one. Literally.
CBC's "As It Happens" & "The Current" news & current events programs are well worth a listen, eg, via podcasts.
Warm - asking difficult questions sensitively (eg, about tragic stories), & providing time both for the whole answer -and- transitions between adjacent stories... sometimes playing fitting music between them.
Smart - asking excellent & concise questions, giving time for interviewees' answers... but also asking excellent follow-up questions, so their probing questions -get- answered.
Ever since the days of the (late) radio journo Barbara Fromm, these & other Canadian programs have kept the hard-hitting interview tradition alive & well. We love em!
It's not their coverage of arab world they are worrying about it's their coverage of the conflict between the State of Israel (without any declared borders) and the since the UN vote State of Palestine.
After all, a non American involved in US broadcasting is clearly beyond the pale.
The only people this will upset are the talking-heads journalists and folks who are too old (or too uninformed) to realize that the internet "does" TV.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Found stories like
Are US evangelicals exporting anti-gay views?
"A new report reveals conservative American Christian groups behind efforts to criminalise homosexuality in Africa." and
What is Obama risking by backing gay unions?
"We ask if the US president should go a step further by offering constitutional protection for gay and lesbian couples."
Al Jazeera is far from conservative.
Yup here they come. Except for issues that have directly to do with the Qatari government and its interests (for example Arab Spring in Qatar), Al Jazeera english is quite fair and balanced. And they go a lot of places other news organizations are unable or unwilling to go. This may be unpleasant to Americans (the inside story of the civil war in Syria, for example), or even uncomfortable when the results of western action are exposed.
In any case, give it a look see yourself. Go to their web site and watch right there online. Or do this:
rtmpdump -v -r rtmp://aljazeeraflashlivefs.fplive.net/aljazeeraflashlive-live/aljazeera_eng_med | mplayer -
Furthermore, your comment is also a composition fallacy (or a hasty generalization fallacy, I'm not sure which), like declaring feminists man-haters, or men's rights advocates to be misogynists. Just because SOME are, does not mean ALL are. Just because he's an Sheik doesn't mean he holds certain viewpoints, nor does it mean that he's using his news service to further those beliefs. In fact, many powerful Arabs are using their power to further democracy in their culture and countries.
Just a few examples I found, using site:aljazeera.com in google, all of which seemed pretty straightforward, factual reporting (granted, I read them quickly, but nothing leapt out at me, and none of the topics seemed verboten):
Coverage of anti-gay-conversion-therapy law in California being struck down, which seems pretty balanced in terms of coverage, quoting people on both sides and devoting roughly the same page space (which is a damn sight better than my local city newspaper; they routinely bias a story and then throw 1-2 lines in about the other viewpoint, as a sort of token gesture. I live in a very progressive, liberal city/state): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/12/2012122223728233995.html
Coverage of the gay pride parade in India, with a dozen photos, including of someone identified as being transgender: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/11/20121126205837449408.html
Coverage of Church of England lifting ban on gay ministers: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/2013156028132292.html
Women in the Arab world:
Editorial by Arab woman: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/04/201142412303319807.html
"Although there may be resistance to this process of emancipation, Tahrir Square and Qasaba are now part of the psyche and formative culture of Arab women. Indeed, they are finally given a voice to their long-silenced yearnings for liberation from authoritarianism - both political and patriarchal."
Please help metamoderate.
I'm sure Nickelodeon and The Comedy Channel are already feeling the heat.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
I believe with Al Jazera, and Fox "News"; we get White Noise! XD
Subject: I expect Fox News to report on this heavily.
After all, a non American involved in US broadcasting is clearly beyond the pale.
That was sarcasm, right? K. Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox News Channel's parent company Fox Group (formerly News Corporation), isn't even as American as Barack Obama.
I don't even pay for TV. no thanks, keep your fecal matter in your own mouth.
My local PBS station carries Mhz Worldview which carries Russia Today, Al Jazeera, France 25 and NHK World broadcasts. I welcome this move.
Hopefully we won't bomb their headquarters again like we did in Iraq. I can honestly say I get better, factual news from international sources about my own country than what CNN/MSNBC/Fox/ABC/CBS provides. It's pretty easy to see where the blackouts are when all the US networks won't cover one story but the international networks do.
Yet people are still pissed off because AJZ played Osama Bin Laden videos? I for one wanted to hear what he had to say. I think Americans deserve to hear all perspectives.
Here's the web url for watching if you don't want to use mplayer or vlc:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
"terrorist" of course meaning "i can't handle the truth".
Really.
Even if it were completely biased, you'd at THE VERY LEAST know what people are saying.
But, apparently, the wrong sort of speech isn't free, it's terrorism.
I've watched some of it and I have subscribed to their news via RSS for years. It is boring propaganda the same as what comes out of NPR and FOX. It has been bankrolled secretly by the CIA as a kind of "voice of america". Though this connection was made public last year the "quality" has remained the same. If you want real news you are better off with local news and podcasts in America. Small outlets that do not have to be politically correct...
The US has the problem of high ideals with news and justice, and of course, you get Fox News and whatnot. Other places in the world have no illusion that news from a particular company has a political bias.. but then how do you get to objective news from there? I have no doubt that for those in the Arab world, the bias of Al-J is clear.. I dont think its a huge deal, just know it when you turn it on. Personally? I dont have much interest in the Arab world so I won't be watching.. I support it being available though... haha - I even support Fox and Russia Today! though they are almost self-parody somedays...
So the Supreme Environmentalist sold his TV channel for $100 million in oil money. The planet thanks you Commander Gore!
I don't know about aljazeera america. I've been following aljazeera-english for a long time now and some days ago I saw a precious documentary about a jewish woman, survivor of the shoa searching for a youth love.
So please, don't try to justify your racism using antisemitism please...
If you look at their English edition and track the history of reporting on different countries you'll notice that articles about the US are far more likely to have the comment system enabled, while articles about Middle East countries, Russia, or China almost always have the comments disabled. When you see that most of the comments are anti-US and anti-Jewish, you will wonder whether it's an underhanded way of maintaining a veneer of neutrality while still guiding opinion.
Its owner is the state of Qatar, hosts to the U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and Combined Air Operations Center. There is nothing "radical" about them. All "news" must receive clearance, Clarence...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Al Jazeera is probably no better (or worse) than any of the american news networks. Unfortunately, that's not a particularly strong supporting argument ...
You assert a couple sentences prior that you can't judge, then do anyway.
Because of Al Jazeera, I discovered that there are Israelis - Jewish Israelis - who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and who actually want a two state solution.
We mostly hear the right wing-pro settlement-us against the World-Right Wing Nuts here on US based news outlets.
Of course, as far as Fox is concerned,Israel first - even if it contradicts US interests. Fox is actually a traitor network when you think about it: damn the US if something hurts Israel.
I read Al Jazeera's English website regularly. They provide good news, good video clips, and seem right up there with the BBC or CBC for the quality of their reporting.
But unlike the BBC and CBC, a lot of their news is about Asia and Africa, areas which aren't even *mentioned* on "mainstream" channels unless there is a major disaster or a few dozen people killed.
Oddly enough, they manage to cover the world with only one front page to their website, the same screen real-estate that the other channels have.
In comparison, the BBC and CBC are "local" news channels. And the US news feeds are just a freakin' joke -- they don't cover anything that can't be directly related to US white house policy. Navel-gazing waste of time -- no wonder most Americans are so ignorant about world politics and economic issues.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It was formed when BBC closed it Arabic division. Those folks went and started Al Jazeerah.
It is criticized as too west in the Arab world.
JFYI.
How did they get all those OBL videos, but never could tell us the trail the video came from, so we could get OBL?
Americans deserve to see their version of facts and decide for themselves which spin tickles their fancy best.
Time-Warner Cable has dropped Current/Al Jazeera's network post-haste.
I suspect other providers (cable companies and satellite companies) will soon follow, for the same reasons they choose not to carry Al Jazeera before they bought Current - whatever those reasons were...
It has been reported that Current couldn't garner more than 22,000 viewers during prime time... The sale of current gives these providers a chance to dump this complete waste of spectrum Current/Al Jazeera. (That was 22,000 viewers out of a potential 40 Million - that is one half of one-tenth of one percent of their potential viewers.)
Ken
The first is that the Goracle accepts $100,000,000 of dirty oil money. The second is they closed the deal before the end of the year to avoid higher taxes. I thought democrats wanted higher taxes on the wealthy?
Again, nothing wrong with a muslim, foreign nation's state owned media apparatus broadcasting into other nations. Could you imagine the outcry if the CBN bought the BBC?
This is why its a good thing that it should require less than a Google search to find Al Jazeera.
Some folks just need the extra help.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Owned by an Arab Sheik, IÃ(TM)m sure it will be faire and balanced towards womanÃ(TM)s rights in the Arab World, Jewish issues, and of course homosexuals.
The moderators are just as ignorant and prejudiced as yourself. You could have taken the time to just go to their Web site and watched their live streaming news or read some of their articles.
Most Americans would probably consider Al Jazeera's news to be "progressive", "leftist", "socialist", or some other usual term that over-generalizes. Too bad most Americans won't even bother trying to find out. Most Americans prefer to be ignorant and live with their own prejudices (just like much of the Muslim world). Also, for all you ignorant Americans out there: Al Jazeera has always had a problem with being banned/blocked in many Muslim countries as well. I assure you that it isn't just Americans who are ignorant and intolerant.
In general I find there reporting far, far more objective than American news stations, and their news coverage is far more scholarly and less sensationalistic than CNN or Fox News. I assure you that Hollywood celebrities (or middle eastern celebrities) don't make it to the front page (on their Web site) too often.
Big Media will refuse to carry them because they'll have no say so in how or what they report on. As it stands today, every majoelr news source is owned by a larger parent company. The news you and I receive via their networks are tweaked to reflect their own spin on whatever they are reporting. Is why Fox is pro-republican and CNN is pro-democrat.
The biggest nightmare the government can possibly have is news they cannot control, manipulate or sanitize prior to broadcast.
Let me understand this... Al Gore, Eco Warrior, founds Current TV, a left leaning political news cable channel. It is (last year) put up for sale. An offer from a conservative group is rebuffed, with the Current spokesperson saying, "the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.” Instead, they sell it, for $500 million (of which Al Gore gets $100 million), to the Government of Qatar, one of the top producers of fossil fuel in the world, a country were women have no voice, and homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. As icing on the cake, apparently Mr. Gore tried to push for the sale to be complete before the new year, so he could take advantage of expiring tax laws. "we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.”
Those of you not familiar with the history, Al Jazeera was founded by the staff of the BBC's Arabic language channel when they went into retrenchment (shut down the channel they did). The Qatari's foot the bill, but the overarching philosophy and quality are Auntie Beeb's. They only got a bad rap from the Bush administration for reporting honestly during the Iraq invasion, but basically they are the straightest shooters in the Arabic world, and one of the best sources of world news period now that the U.S. desks have given up on maintaining foreign bureaus.
"Lost time is not found again."
I think it will be good to get another International news channel into the mainstream, if that is indeed what is happening.
Sadly, many of the problems in the mid-east, are wholly tied up in long-standing religious differences. What I fear is going to be the problem with representing the narrative, is to give people interested in a decades or centuries long conflict that is truly going no where. Let's face it. The only topics of discussion that come out of the mid-east are conflicts, human rights violations, shifts in oil production, and the furthur corruption of regional behaviors by western influences.
This is a massive uphill battle for Al Jazeera, and I'm not holding my breathe that the American public is going to keep an open mind, even if it would give them a better global perspective.
As an FYI, I'm an American, and do tune in to Al Jazeera as well as the BBC and several Pacific news sources. I'll admit this will probably come of biased, but I know of Americans who would consider me a traitor just for watching news from around the world.
Not holding my breathe...
I often listen to Pacifica Radio (KPFA, WBAI, etc.), the leftist radio news network, and they've been working with Al Jazeera for a year or so. It's an interesting source of alternative coverage.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Yes, like all the comments allowed in american media outlets...a suspicious way of guiding opinion of the masses by the masses.
The Al Jazeera world news hour is carried by Free Speech TV, on many cable systems and on satellite via DirecTV
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I watched Al Jazeera almost non-stop during the Egyptian uprising. The difference between their coverage of this globally historic event and the US media's put the US media to shame. Of course they have better access to the region, never mind better language skills - but that's exactly the point. What's not to like about having people *who are there*, and *who understand the region and the language* cover and explain what is going on there? And they have great reporters working internationally as well. What do US media outlets do? They send their anchor overseas once in a while when something hot happens and call it international reporting. Ridiculous.
The US discounts the rest of the world at its peril. Time to open our eyes and get a little better perspective than the warmed over pablum sponsored by high fructose corn syrup we're so accustomed to.
It's probably hard to find Palestinians who sympathize with Israelis since they that'll get them killed by their own people.
I'll watch the channel, assuming Concast (and no, I didn't accidentally misspell it) will carry it. Al Jazeera can't possibly be any more biased than Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The funniest part of this whole deal is that Al Gore pushed the sale to get completed prior to the new year to avoid Obamas tax increases. Not that I wouldn't do the same... but it's more of Al Gores "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense. I wonder if he was the sole passenger on a private jet that took him to sign the deal.
I've tried over a dozen times to post on my favorite Iranian comedy site. I'm starting to think maybe their editors are the sole authorised commentators. Most people seek the sites that confirm their own viewpoint. Some stuff is hard to read , but I struggle through in hopes I can disabuse myself from any presumptions and erroneous perceptions.
It's just what we need -- another "fair and balanced" network.
Take an article from Al Jazeera that potentially makes the U.S. or a Muslim country look bad. Go to the Arabic version of Al Jazeera and translate the same article to English. You will then have two dissimilar articles from two not-so-compatible viewpoints.
Just pointing out a Troll here folks.
People. Don't be willfully ignorant. Check out Al Jazeera for yourself and decide:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
http://www.aljazeera.com/
I will tell you first off a little bit about myself to point out any biases that I may have: I am a white Canadian man who is in his 40's who hates Muslim zealots and Jewish zealots. Yes I can't stand Christian religious fundamentalists either. I'm also a highly analytical person. I hate political correctness, and I hate yellow journalism. I'm finding a lot of ignorant and prejudiced comments here, so I'll start off with this Troll who proclaims to be knowledgable about Al jazeera, and who seems to imply that it is NOT so much a news company but rather a propaganda organ for religious extremists. Think moderators: before you up-moderate Trolls!
Parent said:
If you look at their English edition and track the history of reporting on different countries you'll notice that articles about the US are far more likely to have the comment system enabled, while articles about Middle East countries, Russia, or China almost always have the comments disabled.
OK I admit I don't track the history of comments. Lets be serious though; nobody except for somebody with an agenda would track comment history. Even if the parent's comment is true, it is still a Troll because it implies malfeasance without any proof but the authors own speculations. Also realize that people often see patterns where there are none (this is a psychological phenomena of the mind). Also notice that this person gives no statistics and doesn't back up his claim in any way. Most people who would do this kind of research, even on an amature basis would at least post their details on a public Website: and there are lots of free services to do this.
For that matter, who cares? Not having comments enabled has NOTHING to do with journalistic standards. This is a red herring argument.
Also: think of the logic here. Al Jazeera English WANTS to have a Western audience. This is because it is a business that is owned by a businessman. It doesn't make business sense for them to post Islamic religious propaganda because they know that they will be very carefully scrutinized by the Right Wing in the West and especially the Christian Fundamentalists in their largest potential market: the United States.
Also, look at Al Jazeera's journalists. They have quite a few award winning journalists that have (and had) worked for prominent Western news agencies like the BBC, CBC, etc. These professionals are not going to ruin their careers and reputations by working for a propaganda organ of the Muslim Brotherhood or some other political or religious organization. Of course, and for some perspective, politics will always play a role in journalism, for example Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN report to focus on Qatar emir's comments on Syria. But at least there is transparency here. And lets not lie to ourselves or be hypocrites: Western news agencies, especially the for-profit ones like CNN and Fox News have their own biases and are subject to the editorial control of their commercial sponsors.
When you see that most of the comments are anti-US and anti-Jewish, you will wonder whether it's an underhanded way of maintaining a veneer of neutrality while still guiding opinion.
You mean like on Slashdot, and on many Canadian and European news sites?
And YES I know what you mean by "anti-Jewish": anybody who criticizes Isreal or Zionism is an anti-semite according to Christion Fundamentalists. Using "hate crime" language to try and stifle speech and to censor news is wrong. I've seen Al Jazeera report bad things about Isreal, and I've seen Al Jazeera report bad th
The thing that Al Jazeera brings to the table is not unbiased journalism but journalism with totally different biases than US journalism.
Al Jazeera doesn't care much about the Washington consensus.
Al Jazeera is much more plugged into the UN
Al Jazeera is not beholden to US corporate interests
Al Jazeera is not likely to go through the same emotional cycles as Americans when important events happen
I'm thrilled by the idea of Al Jazeera taking its place next to BBC America.
They should be worried if this is true:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/10/al-jazeera-us-integrity-wikileaks
http://rense.com/general36/camm.htm
or maybe not:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/19/what_wikileaks_tells_us_about_al_jazeera
You took a long time to spout specious pap. Please, next time, be more concise and proofread.
Al Jazeera is a steaming mess internally, and is very sympathetic to Islamic regimes. You tip your hand when you claim an equivalency between Israeli and Hamas tactics.
Thank you for some quality troll work, but I am sure that you can do better.
All the best,
Your betters.
Al Jazeera breaks about 100 FCC laws before noon so good luck with that.
Its not like it has a big market share.
If Al Jazeera wants to capture US attention, they should buy ESPN and alternate between their news and ball games. Odds are most American sports fans won't have the initiative to get up and change the channel.
Have gnu, will travel.
You mean like on Slashdot, and on many Canadian and European news sites?
If Slashdot reported news about every country equally, and maintained an unbiased manner in which it presents every country BUT disabled commenting on news articles about US while enabling commenting about China, for instance, and there were a large proportion of anti-China posters in the comments, would you not have some doubt of its intentions?
Al got a nice pay check from the deal, but the bigger prize he lost just like the 2000 election.
His 'Climate Crises' Telethons were a bust in big dollar losses.
He is the Mayan Temple Calendar God Who Could Not Command A Toilet Nor His Own Bowels.
Quite an appalling spectacle of buffoonery he has become.
Well, so much for his beloved 'Anthropocene Man' Era of less than 5 years.
Al Gore ... Kiss my ass.
After the US liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban the world saw the televised celebration in the streets, as people were allowed to listen to music again and girls were allowed to go to school. Except that part of the world watching Al Jazeera, which censored all of it.
Over the air? I wonder if they will do it OTA in USA like Europe.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Al Jazeera still has actual journalists on the ground in countries making the news, like Egypt, Syria, and Lybia. It's sad, but the New York Times, which still has more live reporting than any other major US newspaper, can't compete with the real life reporting Al Jazeera can do. They just don't have the money to make that possible. Because of it's fantastic presence in the Middle East, I'm happy about Al Jazeera gaining a channel to reach Americans.
However, people reading Al Jazeera should know the background of this source, just like readers of Fox News should know about Rupert Murdoch (which they don't - but that's another post). Al Jazeera is owned and run by the Emir of Qatar. This guy has done some things that impress me, though a lot of it's scary. He overthrew his father as Emir, claiming his father was corrupt and was misusing the government's assets for himself. He was probably right. He did a lot of things to modernize Qatar, and did a very impressive job. He's positioned tiny Qatar as an intellectual leader in the Middle East, much due to Al Jazeera, Qatar now plays a central roll in the Arab Spring and evolution of the Middle East. For Americans to miss out on this influential news source makes us weaker.
Then there's the side of Al Jazeera that pisses me off. When that pretty blond western journalist was brutally raped in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, Al Jazeera deleted all posts that mentioned it. The Emir has a political agenda, and anything that goes against that agenda is banned from Al Jazeera. That agenda includes making the Middle East the "good guys" while allowing the rest of the world to appear to be the "bad guys". That's why westerners can be raped with no reporting, but if a westerner insults Islam, Al Jazeera is happy to fan the flames of anger - anger that resulted in the death of our ambassador to Libya.
So, by all means, allow Americans to learn what Al Jazeera has to say. There is no better news source to represent the Middle East. At the same time, let's all feel free to be seriously pissed off at Al Jazeera, because they deserve it. How much like Fox News is this?
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
I don't think people who track Fox News for signs of manipulation have an agenda in anything but truth and fairness. I would think the same of someone keeping track of any other site.
I know of no such censorship. Perhaps Al Jazeera's coverage of the war in Afghanistan would have been better if the US hadn't bombed their office there.
Just because most news about the Arab world IS news about Israel doesn't mean all those Arabs involved should get to have anyone ask a what their opinion might be, right?
Watching Al Jazeera as TV is somewhat wasteful of time, but it's worth reading their site. Today's important item: trouble is brewing in the Balkans again.
Other viewpoints to watch:
It's hard to find any coverage of those subjects in US dailies.
I was very impressed with their news coverage and their specials. I managed to catch a lot of their shows.
In fact it reminded me of CNN of old, Now CNN broadcasts lots of YouTube videos and uses that as news.
It was not anger that resulted in the ambassador's murder in Libya. It was an organized terrorist attack, timed to occur on 9/11. Where are you getting your news from, Mr. Well-Informed?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Oh horrors no USA political entity last year ran ads on Al Jazeera, the shame. Nice no fake in your face info crap ads for 90 seconds every three minutes. I hope they can keep that up.
When that pretty blond western journalist was brutally raped in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising against Mubarak, Al Jazeera deleted all posts that mentioned it.
I assume you're on about Natasha Smith, who's recently published a piece on sexual harassment in Egypt, and the wider area. Other outlets cover the problem more generally BBC, Guardian
I'll have to take your word about Al Jazeera's censorship, but it's interesting that there's surprisingly little coverage of this case. The BBC doesn't have any mention of a british citizen being attacked in this way. it's cropped up in reputable sources (the independent and CNN), as well as the sensationalist tripe that is the daily mail. The coverage that Lara Logan got 15 months earlier was much more extensive coverage world wide, but it appears Al Jazeera didn't cover it. They later ran a story on sexual violence in Tahir Square in general, mentioning both women, linking to abc news for the Logan assault.
A lot of the blame can be put at the backwards society that prevails in the middle east and south asia, men are brought up to think of women as objects to be possessed and conquered, and they're asking for it if they're not hiding under a blanket, or dare to go out on their own. Sadly this society is infiltrating the more enlightened parts of the world, like Europe and the U.S.
We can only hope that main stream muslims will eventually grow out of these views, like christians eventually stopped genocide in south america and burning "witches"
The big 'full faith and credit' case, that has never had its day in court, for whatever reason, is probably the one that would erupt if a homosexual couple duly married according to the procedures of a state where such is legal were to demand that a state where it isn't(or is overtly banned at the constitutional level) give full faith and credit to the actions of the state that married them. That one would get a bit touchy...
I figured that clause obviously would have spread gay marriage throughout the US from the states where it's legal.
There are some gay marriage cases on their way to the Supreme Court right now, but they hinge on other Constitutional issues.
"Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." may be a loophole that DOMA abuses.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Theyve had one in north america for years, anyone with an FTA setup can already watch it.
False equivalence is the favorite propaganda tool of Fox news and similar organisations.' Sure all sources are biased, but not all sources are equally credible or equally biased. The difference between Fox and AJ is that Fox is first and foremost a political organisation and AJ is a news organisation. AJ aspires to be a credible representative of the free press specializing in it's own region, and they do a pretty good job of it. Fox wants to persuade you to vote against your own self interest and will knowingly lie to it's audience to achieve that, they also do a pretty good job but they're not doing the same job as AJ, BBC and other members of the "forth estate".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
And you're sure AJ is doing that, right?
I wasn't because I occasionally read AJ, so I checked out a few articles just now, some about ME countries, some about the US. NONE of them allow comments, they ALL have the same "feedback" button. That's what gets me about this kind of bullshit, why does it stick so firmly in people's heads when most of it is trivially easy to disprove.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In the UK, it has been available for years. I tend to watch it along with RT, BBC and (read) the Guardian to get a more well-rounded view of what's going on in the world.
I thought Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (who was also a funder of the "ground zero mosque") of the Saudi Royal family (who are also friends of the Bush family) owned 2% of News Corp (2nd highest stock holder after Murdoch) FOX's parent company. Can you cite the 25% ownership source of your information?
Nah, I saw a story on PBS about allied groups of Palestinian and Israeli students who were trying to spread a message of peace and co-existence.
Al Jazeera was created from the MI6 propaganda front, the so-called BBC World Service (same concept as the CIA run Voice of America). The BBC used staff from its Arab division to form Al Jazeera.
Today, Al Jazeera runs continuous propaganda strikes against any nation currently deemed to be an enemy of Israel or the USA. Its psy-op work in Syria is particularly disgusting. The terrorism carried out by terrorists trained by the West in Turkey and Jordan is always attributed to actions by the government of Syria by Al Jazeera. Fortunately, the same terrorists love to promote themselves through videos that frequently appear across the internet, and these videos constantly disprove the lies broadcast by Al Jazeera.
One amazing example of this occurred after Al Jazeera showed viewers video provided by the terrorists of a mosque exploding, and stated their journalists had watched the regime strike the facility with missiles from regime aircraft. A day or so later, the terrorists uploaded video showing them wiring the mosque with explosives, and then detonating those explosive.
Al Jazeera is now based in Qatar, to give simple minded idiots the impression that it is a genuine voice of Arabs. Of course, Qatar in the headquarters of British and American military power in the gulf, and allows army psy-op units easier day-to-day control of the black propaganda output. Wikileaks is part of the same program, so it is no wonder the fake 'Arab Spring', Al Jazeera and Wikileaks are so closely connected.
PS Syria would have been destroyed by now, as Libya was destroyed, and converted into another theocratic racist criminal hellhole like Israel or Saudi Arabia, if not for the actions of the Russians. This is no accident or unintended circumstance. In reality, a much bigger game is being played out. The American populace, and American politicians below the rank of Cheney or Clinton, are far too thick to perceive even elements of the real agenda. Ordinary Americans, and most American politicians think this is just a Muslim-bashing game designed to help their zionist 'master race' allies in Israel.
In reality, the world is being destabilised in every way possible, in order to create fertile ground for global conflict. Those forces seeking another World War do NOT know exactly which straw will break the camel's back, but they DO know that so long as they are able to keep loading on the straw unhindered, sooner or later one of those straws will prove to be terminal.
We've had it on our local community radio station (KYRS) for a number of weeks now, can't complain really, they aren't perfect by any means but at least it's not like the other local eight stations of Clear Channel or National Corporate (Public) Radio...
Buddha of compassion
Every broadcaster has an agenda, every reporter has someone paying his/her bills. Many people consider news to be unbiased... an impossibility to begin with, if it agrees with their bias. "Look, they are saying what I want to hear, how unbiased of them". Bias is something that happens only to other people apparently.
Take womens rights, it is a fact that NOT everyone has the same view on this subject so ANY newssource that reports in anything but the most absolute neutral tones, has a bias. Simply put, if a newsource reports the weather with anything else then figures like using comments as "it will be a nice day", they are biased. Nice for who? By whose standards?
Take snowfall, 1 centimeter falls in Holland, DISASTER! 1 meter falls in Sweden, business as usual. But when in Sweden the snowfall is a disaster, the impact is a WHOLE lot worse then that in Holland where the trains were delayed a whole ten minutes and almost two cars had a fender bender.
Take the rape case of the Indian student, roughly at the same time, Belgian news had that rape has gone up, less then 4% of rape cases result in a conviction and there are as many as 11 rapes a day in Brussels alone. One story is international news, the other is not. Why? One to close to home perhaps? To many uncomfortable questions would need to be answered so lets just tut-tut the Indians and leave it at that. And who made that decision? Male news-readers (Belgium TV news is very old fashioned in many ways, including it being actually rather good BUT not without bias).
ALWAYS know the bias of your newssource and if you want to stay informed, WATCH the newssources that make your blood boil. NOT because they tell you the truth but by combining newsources you get a more honest exposure to the various opinions in the world. You may not agree with anything Al Jazeera has to say (it is pro-strict islam supported as said above by a dictator) but it does give you insight into a whole group of people think. Same with the BBC or Fox or for that matter the Financial Times and the Guardian. One will report a story the other will barely touch and it is the WHY of the difference where the facts about power in the world are hidden (sorry for that sentence, hope you got my gist). In between the reports, you can see how the world really is.
Take the rape news events, rape is therefor clearly bad but not so bad we actually want to stop it, just want to say it is bad when far from home but back home, well boys will be boys. 4% conviction rate in any other crime would see the people responsible fired VERY quickly. No calls for resignation have been made. In fact, reaction seems to be "oh well". In the western news, India is made out to be a place totally unsafe for women... but these attackers will either hand or serve live. In Holland, rapist have been getting away with community service, a father convicted of raping his underage daughter got community service because else he might loose his job, true case.
Which country takes protection of women more serious? One were rapist hang or one where they have to pick litter for a month?
Know your bias.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Al Jazeera isn't what it used to be, but honestly a Bozo the Clown News Network would probably improve the quality of US cable news. - Marc Lynch
-- p a n a p i c - panoramas des alpes: Mont-Blanc, Mont-Rose, Cervin, etc...
Your assumption is wrong: CBS' Lara Logan describes being sexually assaulted in Egypt's Tahrir Square
I'm all for alternative perspectives, but I've read many Al Jazeera articles that got the facts wrong, were full of grammatical errors, and just didn't seem very educated. A lot of their articles just seem to be Western news that is a few days old, with more sensationalist spins added.
Wrong! These stations have been aired on PBS stations for the past 4+ years here in Ohio at least. Just check your PBS station for the Al Jazeera news and you too can listen to the same pig flatulence just like a musk!
Abd'ullah, a popular name in Arabic, means "slave of God". From "abd", a black African and "Ullah", God. Who you callin' racist?
Excellent post. Mine had already run long, so I didn't mention any of what you just said, but I'm glad you did. Al Jazeera may not be directly responsible for our Lybian ambassador's death, like you say, but they certainly are responsible for fanning flames of anger that result in terrorism and anti-western violence. They have more control over what people think and believe in the Middle East than any other authority. With that power should come some responsibility, and while the Emir is practically a saint compared to most of the other rulers in the area, he's still a Middle East king, and he's warping Al Jazeera as a news source just like Richard Murdoch does to Fox News. People should know when their news source is massively biased.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
I'm against Al Jaz buying a US News Station. The Tea Party will have another organization to blames and flame the fires of patriotism, great wars and killings. I can just see my local tea party members sitting around in a circle on their gun cleaning rugs in a mountain retreat. "Bubba imageen does red commie liberals preverting my kids rights to have a full prayer revival meaten every morning. That Al Jazzy guy is a toublemicker and needs to be SSS'd. I wish I didn't have to inform you guys and gal, the Tea Party crazies are fully arming in my neck of the woods. Whipped into a frenzy about FEMA and UN Concentration Camps, they're out to "take care of" all non true blooded, non God fearing, non Gun toting liberal, socialist commie bastards they can find. Pour "Al Jazeera gasoline on this will only make them more crazy.
I watched Al Jazeera yesterday on DirecTV 348 when there was a story the domestic networks were not covering. But far more distressing than that is the fact I have stopped watching network news because it is a blatant arm of the President's political party. Facts are dead on national broadcast TV. I get my new on the internet which is a bit messier and more labor intensive but when I see something on Huffpo I know the commentary is overtly wrong and biased, but the factoids they occasionally base their stories on are what I seek out.
The world needs a real actual fact based news website. Perhaps the only way to get that is to have three bylines on every story. Each person being from a vastly different political persuasion.
JJ
a few articles
come back when you've checked a few hundred. You'll see the pattern.
That will be most of them then?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Unholy Alliance Comes Out of the Shadows and Into Your Living Room
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/leftistjihadist-alliance-made-official-al-jazeera-buys-current-tv/
Wow... the moderators up-moderate Flamebate as Insightfull (two times!):
Evidence:
You took a long time to spout specious pap.
Logical fallacies like appeals to emotion, and insulting comments are NOT Insightful.
Please, next time, be more concise and proofread.
Telling somebody to be "concise" (i.e. to leave out information, examples, references, etc) is NOT Insightful.
To tell a person to "proof read" is just Flamebait. It took me over 2 hours of careful thought and analyses to write out my post. I proof read that post numerous times. Telling somebody to "proof read" a carefully worded reply is NOT Insightful.
Al Jazeera is a steaming mess internally
Insulting an award winning, internationally respected news organization it NOT Insightful. Having NO evidence or citations and ZERO facts to prove his claim is NOT worth TWO "Insightful" comment points. Marking Flaimbait as Insightful merely demonstrates the Right Wing biases of the poster's followers. It doesn't change anything except to make educated people like myself more militant against Conservatives.
... and is very sympathetic to Islamic regimes.
More Trolling. The poster doesn't even say what he means by "sympathetic to Islamic regimes.", although it implies that Al Jazeera supports Sharia law and religious extremism. In this case the poster is an outright liar, because Al Jazeera is one of the few organizations to show the corruption of Islamic states (unlike many Western news operations, who tend to focus more on American politics, in the case of CNN and Fox News at least). So giving a poster 2 Insightful points for telling a lie is wrong and shameful.
You tip your hand when you claim an equivalency between Israeli and Hamas tactics.
I explained already in another post that this comment was dishonest, for which the posters followers moderated my very lengthy and thoughtful response as "-1". Once again: shameful. Believe me: in REAL life I make sure Conservatives are a lot more humble when they deal with me. I will tell you: you Conservatives can lie, steal, cheat and kill, but there will always be people like me who will pee in your coffee. I don't really care about Karma: if you people try to hurt honest people like me, then I assure you I will fight back. I'm not just going to sit back and let you people carry on. I have zero tolerance when it comes to dealing with Conservatives and evil people in general.
Thank you for some quality troll work
The poster tells a lie and uses an insult and he gets 2 Insightful points.
All the best,
Your betters.
Once again the poster insults me and he gets two Insightful points. People like him support the slow genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel and then these Conservatives express moral outrage when the Palestinians engage in terrorist acts against their oppressors. Shameful.
I know the Right Wing will always have more money, more Karma, more friends.... It doesn't matter, because I may have neither, but at least I know I have self respect and integrity.
I think you lie or maybe you are just really ignorant.
Hamas doesn't illegally and forcefully acquire Israeli land to build settlements in Jewish neighborhoods.
Actually, Palestinians do. The line between who is Hamas/not Hamas is hard to say now, so I'll give some examples that may have also been Fatah.
1. When Gaza was given to them, they literally destroyed everything we built there as well as many historical sites.
2. Hebron. One of the oldest and most Israeli cities besides Jerusalem. Now we can't even go there without risking our lives.
Hamas does not steal olive trees from Jewish farmers,
Completely false. You obviously have never had to do guard duty in the IDF. This is exactly what they are doing all the time. Ask anyone who has worked guard duty anywhere in these areas, or even inside Israel. Moreover, they are often doing these acts to themselves and claiming Israelis did it for propaganda, but maybe you think everything you see on TV is true.
Obviously there are some nut-jobs that do it on our side too, I'm not denying it, but it's rare, and we think it's disgusting. Often as a result, our government replants things or gives compensation as we consider this terrorism directed against them and we don't tolerate it. The few times it is our government, it is because people are breaking the law and squatting. The same thing is done to Jews and anyone else who does this.
Hamas does not use American build jet fighters to bomb Israelis.
We have had our own fighter jets too in the past. Here are the facts behind funding and weaponry:
1. We pay much more back in the form of training, technology (including upgrades/improvements), intelligence, port and base access, and forced purchases from US firms than we receive. In the end other than access to the tech in the first-place, it's become a pain in our ass to the point where some of the biggest spending is to phase out anything American because frankly a lot of it today is crap for what we need given our theatre of war. For instance, we built the Tavor and use it as our new standard issue instead of the m16 and m4.
2. This funding is very unpopular here and it is a way of America to keep a leash on us. It's not that we need the help, we don't, but we do need the threat of a powerful ally given how badly we are surrounded. And still America has never really directly helped us.
3. This funding has been very detrimental in the past and was forced upon us by the treaty with Egypt as a condition. We've had some bad incidents as a result such as the propaganda of the Patriot missile batteries during the gulf war. We worked on much better solutions but the US forced us to buy from them and use this tech. As a result, we had people hurt and killed then when arguably our home-grown solutions would have been better. Finally with some of our new solutions we are at least solving this exact problem.
4. The funding is a tiny tiny part of our GDP and doesn't matter, especially again given what comes back the other way to the US.
Hamas does not make Israelis wait for hours at military check points in order to go to school, work, buy groceries or visit friends or relatives.
This is probably the worst lie you wrote here. Where are they going were this is the case? Hamas has control of an entire section of territory. There aren't any Israeli bases there at all or checkpoints inside. I have news, they have their own stores, schools, work, and places where relatives live.
The only reason they need to wait for hours at checkpoints is to come to us. Some of them come to us because we give them jobs and better education because we care about knowledge more than death, but the same is not true for them. But mostly it's forbidden for them to even come to us for almost anything now because their own people will kill them.
Regarding relatives, yes, they might have to travel because mo
Where are you getting your news from, Mr. Well-Informed?
As a guess, Al Jazeera, perhaps?
Temporary until they are 18 the kids get double (or even triple) nationality, then at 18 they msut make a choice : be french or be of the parents's nationality. SO you can be born from a canadian and a russian but born on french soil, you get russian, cvanadian french nationality and at 18 chose to be french.
AJ English is more European than anything else. They've had a lot of ex-BBC, ITV and CBC folks there. Despite what is portrayed in the media they've never shown a beheading in either English/Non-English network, nor sign off with "death to America". But it's not all sunshine and lollipops either. Several editors have left over the years claiming pressure to present certain talking points and POVs that are contrary to the facts on the ground. More or less that there is no editorial independence. This is very much akin to the criticism FOX News received when they started pushing the national news brand down to the local stations.
Al Jazeera English Language news is available 24/7 in North America via their non-encrypted free channel on the Ku band satellite, Galaxy 19 at 97w. Transponder H-12152, FEC 3/4, SR 20000
I watch Al Jazeera quite often. Their view of the good ol' USA is educational and enlightening, to say the least.
There are many other Free To Air channels on 97w Ku, but most are not English language.
All you need is an FTA satellite receiver, a 76cm or larger Ku band dish with Linear LNBF, and a bit of technical knowledge (which is readily available online) to set it up. No, your old DishNetwork or Directv receiver will not work for this, but some of their larger Ku band dishes will work with an inexpensive FTA receiver from eBay.
Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash.
Why are you assuming that anger and terrorism are exclusive?
I'm guessing that angry people are more likely to become terrorists and support terrorism than happy people.
Not that "ignoring the rest of the world and hoping their problems will go away" isn't fairly universal for most countries, but hearing the truth from an outsider may not be something for which the US is ready. I was personally been surprised at how well researched and reported Al Jazeera news was after the reputation and labeling it has received from the commercial media in the US and my own country. Surely increasing the number news sources is a better thing.
Idiot brainwashed liberals! You notice how they always attack any conservative news (with no real evidence)? You notice how they defend that death cult called islam? Oh... and they always accuse Israel (that only has 1/600th the land the muslim Arabs have) of doing exactly what the freakin muslims are doing to others and themselves and defend terrorists (like arafat) that kill innocent people and glorify suicide bombers. And if you disagree with them, you're called a racist. Mohammed, even though a pedophile and mass murderer, is ok with them though.
Al Jazeera is just as much a piece of garbage as the BBC and the New York Nazi Times. You liberal pinheads will excuse anything from obama and what you learned in school. And the "proof" they have as to why they hate God? Oh ya... because a single religion called Christianity is wrong. Morons.
Hey Mr. Jew Hater, did you know that the so called "Palestinians" get free food, free water, free electricity, and free education? Ya... the Jews don't get any of that.
War crimes? What war crimes? How about suicide bombers and murderers... ya know, people who blow up innocent people in weddings and put swastikas on synagogs. Ya know... the folks who do the nazi salute and have names like "fatah" that means "conquest". Ya know, the ones with a written constitution that aims to push the Jews into the ocean and exterminate them calling openly for genocide?
But WHOA if they try to defend themselves!!! It must be "apartheid"!! You arrogant sack of subhuman garbage, how about the genocide against the blacks and other muslims in Africa? Occupation? Staring?
How about when the so called "Palastinians" got all those green houses that could have fed ALL of them.... forever... with enough food left over to profit in sales? But instead, they looted and destroyed it because it came from Jews. Let me refresh your tiny memory:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331863/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/looters-strip-gaza-greenhouses/
The 1948 Israeli War of Independence was between the neighboring Arab countries and the newly formed state of Israel. The Arab countries did not send troops to help the people that are today known as "Palestinians" but rather they sent troops to drive the Jews into the sea. Most of the "Palestinian Arabs" fled to avoid the fighting. Remember, in 1948 they were not referred to as "Palestinians". This name was was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The Charter was affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB. This term was formally used by newspapers around the world after 1967. (You know... the same Soviet Union that killed Jews and created the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" anti-Semitic propaganda.)
United Nations Resolution 181 recommended a partition of the territory from the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one for Jews and one for Palestinian Arabs. But the rejection of partition by the Arabs left in place as the legally operative Mandate for Palestine, the 1924 Anglo-American Convention, and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. All of the Arab countries objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against its creation. This was Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Despite their superior numbers, the Arab countries lost the war and the Palestinian state never materialized because of this loss. In the war that was waged, the territory allotted to be the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was divided between Israel and Jordan. The "Palestinian Arabs" were rejected by every single Arab country, with the exception of the small percentage that ended up in refugee camps in Jordan where they remain to this day.
But it's easier to blame the Jews like hitler did, isn't it, you Jew hater?
And what voice does the U.S. get in Saudi Arabia?
I thought as much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmPUx7OH1T8
Al-Jazeera's Control Room [2004] takes us into Iraq from the perspective of Al-Jazeera, and it is the most riveting coverage of the early days of Iraq. Far more to nurture the soul here than American media's Fourth of July fireworks style coverage.
"The night they showed the P.O.W.'s and the dead [US] soldiers--Al-Jazeera showed them. It was powerful, because America doesn't show those kind of images. Most of the time America doesn't show those images. They showed the American soldiers on the tile floor. It was revolting. It made me sick to my stomach. What hit me was that the night before... there had been a bombing in Basra, and Al-Jazeera had shown images of the people, and they were equally, if not more, horrifying images. I had never seen it. I thought to myself, 'wow, that's gross. That's bad.' Then I went away and was eating dinner or something... it didn't affect me as much... And people in the Al-Jazeera office must have felt the way I was feeling that night... and it upset me on a profound level that I wasn't as bothered as much the night before. [pause] It makes me hate war. [pause] but it doesn't make me believe that we're in a world that can live without war, yet.
~Lt. (later Captain, now civillian) Josh Rushing, then-CENTCOM officer, in 'Control Room'
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
get a fat pipe and watch online and don't let the media conglomerates tell you what is going to be on tonight. last I checked al jazeera had a website. that said, I'm glad we're getting a broader spectrum of voices on our air/cable waves.
Enjoy getting metamodded, moderator.
Please help metamoderate.