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.
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?
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..
You should look up their web page and read their coverage before you make such stupid ignorant statements
Al Jazeera is more like CNN or BBC than Fox or Russia Today. It's an actual news organization rather than a propaganda outlet.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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
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.
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.
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.
How cute that you think CNN and BBC are in the same category as Fox News. How jaded do you have to be before you start making absurd false equivalencies like that?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Here's the web url for watching if you don't want to use mplayer or vlc:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
Oddly enough, I'm pretty impressed with Al Jezeeras online coverage of the mideast. That should say a lot since I am sympathetic to the Jews in Israel and a complete cynic about the newsclowns domestically and in Europe.
I'd rather read that than most of the crap I run into in the world.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So the Supreme Environmentalist sold his TV channel for $100 million in oil money. The planet thanks you Commander Gore!
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!”
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.
Well, it heavily depends on which Al Jazeera you watched, the English or the Arabic speaking one. The former is pretty objective and neutral, the latter is trying to establish new records in how biased they can be.
Heck, just for an example, after the revolutions that swiped the region, Al Jazeera English covered the elections in a pretty neutral way, they only showed regular people voting and stuff. The Arabic one had images of the leader of the Islamist party in Tunisia, voting and showing off with his friends, running all day long. I guess they keep it this way knowing their "target audiences".
One interesting result of all this, though, is a huge loss of popularity for Al Jazeera in these countries (mainly Tunisia and Egypt). In part because, now that the revolutions ended and a semi-democratic climate is avialable, less biased news sources appeared and Al Jazeera can't claim it's role as the "Sole source of real infos". And also probably because everyone here understood the game Quatar is playing. They financed the winning team and they are reaping the benefits in "Honest opportunities for our benefactors to help us "finance" our economic rebuilding efforts".
Actually, the BBC is not owned by the british government. For some reasons, some US-Americans have a problem with grasping the difference between "public" and "governmental".
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.
Russia Today and Al Jazeera are on MHz Networks programming lineup. Some of the more heavily populated US areas are covered on Over-The-Air (OTA).
Here's a link to their coverage areas
Alternative views of world news is very welcome to me. The more signal I get, the more I can integrate the noise out. There are ways newscasters "spin" the facts that trying to figure out the truth getting it from only one party is next to futile.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
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?
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
I never watch CNN so you might be right but judging by their website they are just as biased towards the liberal causes as Fox is towards conservative. I bet you never watch Fox either and, like most liberals, you probably imagine it to be a lot worse than it is.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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 thought they were letting their editors chase the truth as they saw it, and since I don't speak Arabic I had no idea that their local reports were any different.
I really ought to learn a bit of Arabic, Farsi, and Pashto, since so many lies are being spread around about those folks.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
For some reasons, some US-Americans have a problem with grasping the difference between "public" and "governmental".
I have to admit that I do. Can you enlighten me as to what is the difference?
Some quotes from the wikipedia:
"Under the Royal Charter, the BBC must obtain a licence from the Home Secretary. This licence is accompanied by an agreement which sets the terms and conditions under which BBC is allowed to broadcast."
"The BBC Trust is [....] the governing body of the Corporation. [...] BBC Trustees are appointed by the British monarch on advice of government ministers."
"Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee [...] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament."
So it is licensed by the government subject to an agreement approved by the government of the terms and conditions under which it is allowed to broadcast, it's governing body is directly appointed by the government and it is funded by public money according to a fee set by the government. Yep, sounds totally independent to me.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
Arabic language journalism seems to be about where English language journalism was about 300 years ago.
Hopefully they will catch up, and hopefully stop about 30 or 40 years ago when the English language profession was at its high point, and not follow all the way to the degenerate crap that we have now.
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.
How cute that you think CNN and BBC are in the same category as Fox News. How jaded do you have to be before you start making absurd false equivalencies like that?
How stupid he must be to have had, for a long time, the signature "Socialism is slavery".
That level of stupid is beyond painful.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
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.
It is witty BECAUSE he is correct. The BBC is nothing like fox, or cnn. But cnn is nothing like fox either. I find cnn to be less biased on a left/right basis, but they are a bit sensationalistic.
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.
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
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?
I stopped watching CNN on 9/11 and have never been back. They used file footage of soccer fans celebrating after a Brazilian victory to go with a story about Palestinians supposedly celebrating the twin towers falling. That's not news. That's inciting a riot.
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 never watch CNN so you might be right but judging by their website they are just as biased towards the liberal causes as Fox is towards conservative. I bet you never watch Fox either and, like most liberals, you probably imagine it to be a lot worse than it is.
Or he's seen Fox and Friends and knows it's quite worse than CNN, in both bias and quality.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Editorially independant, and not subject to the equivalent of Rupert Murdoch ringing up and pulling a show off the air halfway through (which he did to one of his TV networks a few years ago).
The BBC are not immune to pressure - they had to apologise after they dared to question the ridiculous government line that Saddam could bomb London within 45 minutes, and more recently when a news report hinted that a powerful member of the government was on some sort of list with suspected pedophiles (the list was on camera). However how they react to the pressure is not dictated directly by the government. They can be yelled at or starved of funds but they can't be immediately directed to do anything.
How stupid he must be to have had, for a long time, the signature "Socialism is slavery".
Not really. If the state owns everything you need to survive, it's hardly a stretch to say that it effectively owns you.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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.
I don't know what's more pathetic, your ignorance of what socialism is or the fact that you remember what my signature used to be. So since you gave your opinion of me, let me give my opinion of you:
You are a product of a failed government-run education system and idiotic parents who neglected their responsibly to teach you even the basic notions of individual liberty and personal responsibility, and allowed you to live your life guided by primitive emotions and hunter-gatherer instincts and controlled like a dog on a leash by the unscrupulous people who exploit cretins like you for their ends. In short you are not much more than a dumb animal, except without honesty.
Yes, I can tell that from one post - name calling without any explanation or reason is a dead giveaway, another hint being that you apparently support socialism.
Other than that I don't know or care to know anything you have to say and I wouldn't remember you if you were painted red and jumping up and down making monkey noises, which would actually be slightly more interesting than what you have to say. But feel free to keep track of my signatures. Some day maybe you'll understand but I wouldn't bet on it.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
How stupid he must be to have had, for a long time, the signature "Socialism is slavery".
Not really. If the state owns everything you need to survive, it's hardly a stretch to say that it effectively owns you.
Capitalism is when man exploits man.
Communism is the opposite.
Socialism is in between the two.
Anyway, joking aside, social democracies as seen in i.e. northern Europe and perhaps Canada are hardly bastions of slavery. In fact, slavery was mostly practised by capitalists, as it was the ultimate low cost labour and desired by large scale land owners and maybe industrialists, not by communist collectives.
And the USA was rather guilty of using it, yet I don't think anyone is looking back to pre-civil war USA and thinking, "socialism!"
Cheers
I don't know what's more pathetic, your ignorance of what socialism is or the fact that you remember what my signature used to be.
To address your second point, breathtaking stupidity is memorable, and a guy named after a comic book character isn't that hard to remember. Such gravitas.
To address your first point, I'll repeat myself from another post:
As for the rest of your blather, too retarded to respond to, can't be bothered and, to steal a phrase from some wise wag: wrestling in shit with pigs is pointless and the pigs like it.
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!
Anyway, joking aside, social democracies as seen in i.e. northern Europe and perhaps Canada are hardly bastions of slavery.
They're also not socialist per se, since, generally, the means of production are still more or less privately owned.
I don't think of Canada's system as all that different from that in the U.S. Taxes are a bit higher and they have a single payer healthcare system. Are there any other major differences?
In fact, slavery was mostly practised by capitalists, as it was the ultimate low cost labour and desired by large scale land owners and maybe industrialists, not by communist collectives.
I have friends who grew up under communism. From their descriptions, I don't think they'd appreciate the distinction.
And the USA was rather guilty of using it, yet I don't think anyone is looking back to pre-civil war USA and thinking, "socialism!"
Fair enough, but that's because socialism (and I mean full frontal socialism, not a welfare state) is a subset of slavery, not a synonym for it.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
But if their senior executives are directly appointed by the government, why would they need to be directed to do anything. I think it is unlikely that people who were put into their job by the government and can be removed from that job by the government at any time, not to mention the fact that they most likely were in the same year at Oxford/Cambridge and belong to the same country clubs as the government ministers, would exhibit a great deal of independence what it comes to criticizing those same ministers.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Oh, so I gave you too much credit in my last post. You don't actually support socialism, you just have no idea what socialism is. Please tell me which of the following Merriam-Webster definitions of socialism apply to the economic system they have in Sweden:
so-cial-ism
noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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"
Anyway, joking aside, social democracies as seen in i.e. northern Europe and perhaps Canada are hardly bastions of slavery.
They're also not socialist per se, since, generally, the means of production are still more or less privately owned.
I don't think of Canada's system as all that different from that in the U.S. Taxes are a bit higher and they have a single payer healthcare system. Are there any other major differences?
Not huge differences, however socialized health care is a defining difference and it is as close as unanimous that one could possibly hope for that we do not want the US-style system. When some US politician points at our system as some kind of death-panel inspired dystopia ("we want drugs that'll cure ya, not kill ya", GW Bush in a presidential debate, etc. ad nauseam) then it is unanimous that we'll take our dose of socialism with pride.
Also attitudes on gun control are drastically different. I suppose the underlying difference is that we're more willing to give up some personal freedom (by and large) for the greater good.
In fact, slavery was mostly practised by capitalists, as it was the ultimate low cost labour and desired by large scale land owners and maybe industrialists, not by communist collectives.
I have friends who grew up under communism. From their descriptions, I don't think they'd appreciate the distinction.
True, but while social democracies aren't (perhaps) true socialism (is there not a difference between socialism & communism?), then US isn't true capitalism, because there's socialized fire fighting, military, policing, etc.
Anyway, point being - very few are saying communism is what we need in the west, but a bit of socialism is a good thing. And, it ain't slavery, something rabid capitalists seem to have taken a liking to saying in spite of slavery generally being a capitalistic practice and a gross perversion of property rights.
From Wikipedia, "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1]". So, communism really wasn't slavery, though neither was there liberty to be had. "Forced to work" is not solely a property of communism, after all.
And the USA was rather guilty of using it, yet I don't think anyone is looking back to pre-civil war USA and thinking, "socialism!"
Fair enough, but that's because socialism (and I mean full frontal socialism, not a welfare state) is a subset of slavery, not a synonym for it.
I suppose that argument could be made, but it still strikes me as a stretch. Let's agree that it's far more nuanced than the bumper sticker slogan claims.
Thanks for the reasoned debate.
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.
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.
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.
Your comment doesn't relate to how it actually operates, especially the "removed from that job by the government at any time". If you think the BBC is always in the pocket of the government of the day you haven't being paying very much attention.
As for the second bit, the UK may be smaller than Alaska but it's not so small that everyone knows everyone else. I'm not from the UK, but this sort of stuff about the BBC is general knowledge easily gathered just by paying attention to the news media in general (eg. the reaction to the Saddam is 45 minutes from gassing London thing, where the government went after the BBC looking for blood and didn't get any). It's a bit ridiculous to have someone who knows even less attempting to lecture me based upon very rough assumptions and ignorance.
I also grew up under communism. And there isn't that much of a difference between it and capitalism. In both systems those with connections at the top got wealth and power, while the workers got to listen to their leaders about how great the future is going to be. Well except that under communism the workers were paid better and more likely to be able to find work.
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
That will be most of them then?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I suppose if you're in a country that moved from communism to a different kind of top down system where government is powerful enough to control everything and bestow favors on friends of policy makers, then yeah, things would still suck. But that sort of cronyism isn't laissez faire capitalism and it certainly hasn't been every society's postcommunist experience.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
'fraid not sir: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
No, the government actually controls very little. What happened is that there was a period of 'wild' privatization of the economy, which resulted in a situation similar to Russia (just without the strong government) - a small number of rich people controlling large portions of the economy. Unfortunately they were also mostly incompetent at running the companies they 'acquired', managing to wreck them by putting them into crippling debt in a bid to buy up the rest of the country. So in a way we were the example of what can happen in laissez faire capitalism.
Where are you getting your news from, Mr. Well-Informed?
As a guess, Al Jazeera, perhaps?
Which country?
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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.
Slovenia
That's interesting, because I was guessing you would say one of the 'Stans or something like that. English language media make it sound like Slovenians are much better off today than under Tito, even that Slovenia has its act together relatively speaking, which is why it was the first of the former Yugoslavian countries to accede to the EU. Would you say they're wildly off base?
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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.
I hold an FCC license, have nearly ten years experience in the industry, and am somewhat familiar with the regs.
Which ones do they break?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I can second that. The Arabic one is by far less balanced. At the same time, Al Jazeera is not the only one with this issue. For example I respect BBC English and even though in some cases I have seen them bend the truth, they are a good source. Still looking at some of other languages in BBC news, I can't say the same. As far as I know the news agency is funded by the Qatar ruling family and acts to their benefit.
You have to remember that Yugoslavia (which Slovenia used to be a part of) didn't use the Soviet style of communism. Companies were fairly self-managed (although managers were often appointed for political reasons or for their connections). While the economy was less efficient then it is now, people were able to get jobs, keep them if they were competent and get paid for doing them. And while there was corruption, it was relatively low level. People would steal some money, but companies would survive.
After the switch things went well for a while. Some companies went bust of course (textile industry and similar), since they could simply not compete with the price if imports. But in general the economy was growing and everyone was excited since we were now free and going to be rich if we worked well.
But then over the years more and more companies were bought by their management (often using loans they authorized themselves). Those managers then drained the resources of the companies they bought, and used the money (together with bank loans) to buy more companies and so on. Alone that wasn't too bad. But the problems started when their companies found themselves short on cash - they had given everything they had to their owners - combined with the global banking crisis. So companies started going bankrupt, dragging other companies with them. Their workers were not just out of a job, but they were often owed months of pay by their former employers. At the same time the laws about economic crimes are extremely loosely enforced, so most of the money collected by the managers simply disappeared - their assets bought by 'mysterious' offshore corporations. And even when a person is prosecuted, the case often takes so long that statute of limitations runs out, so they go free to enjoy their spoils.
At the same time we have a Tea-party-ish government, which is doing everything it can to privatize as many government services as it can (education, healthcare), using the economic crisis to suppress the opposition.
So I have to say that yes, communism was better for most people. While it was harder to get on top, the bottom was much more comfortable.
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.
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.