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.'"
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.
WTF does a woman's age have to do with anything at all? A mother is a mother. I don't give a flying fuck if the mother was only 13 when she gave birth, or she was 113. Both cases are very unusual, but neither case makes the least bit of difference to the child's nationality or much of anything else. The ONLY thing mother's age affects, is the likely impact on her own health, and the health of her child.
"Barry" had an American mother, and a Kenyan father. He can claim either, both, or neither of those nationalities, as he chooses. Got that? AS HE CHOOSES.
People who feel the need to split hairs should just sit at home, and pull their own hairs to split. Anal retentiveness has no value in the world at large.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So the Supreme Environmentalist sold his TV channel for $100 million in oil money. The planet thanks you Commander Gore!
They had an offer from Glenn Beck's network "The Blaze" to purchase Reason TV, and were swiftly rejected for ideological reasons, but the sale to Al Jaz was happily approved because they are "sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view".
http://now.msn.com/glenn-beck-tried-to-buy-current-tv-but-was-rejected
Who knew Current TV had so many suitors? Before Al-Jazeera snapped up Al Gore's little-watched cable network, Glenn Beck tried to buy it, but, as Beck himself tweeted, "we were rejected by progressive owners." The conservative media personality's TheBlaze approached Current last year but was told that "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," according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Current's new pan-Arab owner may not align with everyone's point of view, either: Time Warner Cable yanked Current from its lineup within hours of the sale, right in the middle of Eliot Spitzer's nightly show. [Source]
So, I guess exploiting middle-east oil money and radical Islamic terrorism are more "aligned" with Al Gores' and Reason TVs' views.
"By their actions, ye shall know them."
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.