9 ms·
I guess this is a ringing endorsement of Al Jazeera. It's the network the dictators fear. I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they a
by yequalsx 16y ago
I guess this is a ringing endorsement of Al Jazeera. It's the network the dictators fear. I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they are supporters of radical Islam but from what I've seen of them this is pure nonsense.
It's nice to have a news network that doesn't suck so bad. It's shocking that this network does better (in my opinion) at news reporting than American news networks given that it comes from a part of the world where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.
Look for the network the dictators hate. The network that the ruling class denigrates. That's the one more likely to be telling the truth.
- dfaasdfasdf 16y agoI doubt that Ahmadinejad or Bashar elAssad have anything to fear from al-Jazz. In fact, I'm pretty sure that those two would agree with your glowing assessment of their activities. President Obama has expressed his disdain for Fox News on several occasions. Wouldn't that make Fox a network that is hated by the ruling class?
- hasenj 16y agoFox is a Republican outlet. Al-Jazeera does indeed endorse certain "causes", if that's what you're hinting at. Usually that cause is the freedom of the people. They don't support the governments of Syria or Iran nor run any of their propaganda. They regularly interview opposition figures.
- dfaasdfasdf 16y agoHave you seen any criticism of the Iran or Syrian regimes on al-J? Have you seen any criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah? Are these guys really beyond reproach?
- hasenj 16y ago> Have you seen any criticism of the Iran or Syrian regimes on al-J? Have you seen any criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah? All the time. > Are these guys really beyond reproach? What? Have you seen anything of Al Jazeera? probably not. Now, does any western media channel regularly host speakers from Hamas? I doubt it. Al-Jazeera always interviews people from the Israeli side (and they get a lot of heat for it).
- dfaasdfasdf 16y ago> Have you seen anything of Al Jazeera? probably not. Please do not make any assumptions about me, I have seen plenty. For example, when al-J threw a birthday party to Samir Kuntar and called him a hero. Samir Kuntar is a guy who was doing time in Israel for killing a 4-year old girl by bashing her head with a rock. > Al-Jazeera always interviews people from the Israeli side (and they get a lot of heat for it). You're comparing guys like Samir Kuntar to Israeli government ministers?
- hasenj 16y agoSee, the thing is, you're obviously biased towards Israel and you're endorsing the Israeli side of the story. Now, I don't know anything about this guy, but clearly the Lebanese side of the story is that he's a resistance figure. > You're comparing guys like Samir Kuntar to Israeli government ministers? No, you are. You're also implying the Israeli government ministers are "the good guys", which they are not. To put it more objectively, Al-Jazeera is an Arabic channel, supposed to be supporting Arab causes, like Palestine. Israel is the enemy here. So, network X is supposed to be endorsing a cause where A is the hero and the victim, while B is the evil aggressor. Yet, X interviews people from the B side all the time and gives them a chance to voice their views. I've yet to see any American media outlets do the same. I remember a long time ago, a Hamas spokesman appeared on CNN for a few minutes, and the title was reading "Spokesman of Terror?".
- nitrogen 16y agoMaybe I should cloak manipulative fabrications as questions more often. I thought about providing some ridiculous startup-related examples, but couldn't bring myself to do it.
- Locke1689 16y agoSee, the thing is, you're obviously biased towards Israel and you're endorsing the Israeli side of the story. Now, I don't know anything about this guy, but clearly the Lebanese side of the story is that he's a resistance figure. You're both a little wrong and right here. The grandparent is right that journalists shouldn't be outright supporting viewpoints. He's also correct that it's generally agreed that Samir Kuntar was responsible for several deaths in his orchestrated kidnapping of an Israeli family (Wikipedia, I had never heard of this incident before this conversation). However, the Al Jazeera network head then admitted that the behavior of the Beirut office was wholly inappropriate and should never happen again.
- tybris 16y agoYou made an account for that? Wrong site buddy.
- yequalsx 16y agoWhy do you doubt that Bashar has anything to fear from Al Jazeera? Mubarak apparently does and I can't think of why Bashar would be given better treatment than Mubarak. Do you know why this would be the case? Perhaps because of Syria's pro Hezb Allah stance and Hezb Allah's affiliation with Iran. But Al Jazeera is an Arab, Sunni company based in the Persian Gulf. In that region there is a very strong anti-Iranian stance. On the surface it would seem that Bashar would have more to fear from Al Jazeera than Mubarak.
- jdp23 16y agoI was surprised to see this downvoted. I don't agree with the first paragraph, but I didn't think it subtracted from the conversation. And I thought the second paragraph was a valid point. What were people reacting to?
- tybris 16y ago> where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law. Actually, it all makes sense now. In the West we're used to having free speech as a given right. We don't do much to protect, expand, or enhance it.
- redthrowaway 16y agoMore to the point, it's actively abused. You can't say people aren't allowed to lie, so they can heavily editorialize or even outright fabricate and still call it news. Because the average person watches the news to be told, not to think, networks that do as above in a way that reinforces people's preconceived notions are rewarded with viewership. In an effort to regain viewers, the so-called "legitimate" networks resort to cheap gimmicks and demagoguery of their own, and the actual news gets lost in the scuffle. One of the best parts about having an independent public broadcaster is that they aren't slaves to viewership, and by association ads. BBC, CBC, NPR, PBS... all have quality news programs. CNN, Fox, MSNBC... not so much.
- protomyth 16y agoThat's a tad bit of hogwash. PBS and NPR are not neutral parties. They have to appeal to viewership just like everyone else. They ask for donations and corporate sponsorship.
- redthrowaway 16y agoI think you can see the difference in their appeal, however. NPR and PBS need to attract enough viewers to keep their programs going, which are made fairly cheaply. The BBC and CBC are government-funded, and have never really operated with an eye towards profitability. You can argue that they aren't objective news sources, but the quality of the news they provide is still much better than on the big US networks.
- Dbug 16y agoNot being for-profit doesn't mean there's a lack of budget concerns. BBC World Service will be cutting around 650 people over the next few years. Let's hope they can still provide high quality service. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12283356 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12283356 PBS stations have been having a tougher time than in the past. Costs are rising, they've lost some of their audience to the greater variety of things people view on cable and the net, and many viewers are being tighter with their money. Even when all sources are truthful, perspectives and emphasis differ. It's good to have a variety of sources available. A number of international news networks including Aljazeera English are carried on MHz WorldView. It's seen on some cable systems, carried by some public tv stations over the air (often as an added digital sub-channel that many not be on their cable line up) and on direct tv. They can also be seen streamed on demand to those with ROKU. http://www.mhznetworks.org/roku/ http://www.mhznetworks.org/roku/ http://proweb.myersinfosys.com/week.php?timezone=0&station=world&channel=MHz+Worldview&airdate= http://proweb.myersinfosys.com/week.php?timezone=0&stati...
- hasenj 16y ago> I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they are supporters of radical Islam but from what I've seen of them this is pure nonsense. "pure nonsense" is exactly what it is :) The only reason it seems that way from the western perspective is because: 1) They interview Islamist figures 2) They don't portray them as evil But they also interview people from every color of the political spectrum. > given that it comes from a part of the world where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law. I was shocked that most channels in North American report mostly on local news (e.g. man bitten by a dog), and if they ever report on global events, it's usually brief. And that's when they run any news at all; most TV is focused on entertainment 100%. From where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- stcredzero 16y agoFrom where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them. It's a conspiracy where the people are a part! The media influences expectations. The expectations shape the market. The market holds the purse strings of the media. With a cycle like that, all it takes is small corrections, which can be undertaken by organizations with sufficient resources, to maintain general control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Poli...
- c3o 16y ago"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." – Steve Jobs in WIRED magazine, February 1996
- raganwald 16y agoSaying that US Networks do a poor job of reporting because their coverage sucks is exactly like saying that Wal-Mart does a poor job of retailing because they sell plastic junk. It's what the people want.
- srean 16y agohttp://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html and apparently legal as well.
- joubert 16y agoTo some extent. But "news coverage" can, and is, also slanted by many networks to shape and promote specific behavior and knowledge amongst it's viewers, without them necessarily being aware of that. There is perhaps a deeper evolutionary reason for viewers to crave information of a certain color, but the producers also cleverly manipulate. One could perhaps argue that "reporting" sucks in inverse proportion to it's objectivity, completeness, and emotional neutrality.
- hasenj 16y agoJournalism is not about satisfying consumer demands; it's about getting the truth out. Or at least that's what I like to think.
- ajdecon 16y agoGetting the truth is what being a journalist is about. Unfortunately, journalists are rarely in charge of news organizations.
- galactus 16y agook, ok. They do an excellent job entertaining people. That's not the same thing as real journalism.
- raganwald 16y agoThis thread has entered a twilight zone inhabited by True Scotsmen: Raganwald: "American journos act like they work for WalMart." HN Chorus: "Those aren't Real Journalists." :-)
- jacquesm 16y agoBeing impartial means that everybody hates your guts equally.
- nir 16y agoQatar's dictators don't fear Al Jazeera at all. (I like AJ's role in Egypt, but not the naivete of these comments. Standing up to one dictator doesn't make you a freedom fighter if you're funded by another)
- yequalsx 16y agoWhy are the comments naive? I don't expect AJ to be critical of Qatar's dictator. The royal family of Saudi Arabia owns a fair chunk of Fox news. Big companies/wealthy people control much of the news media in the U.S. Likewise for AJ but they appear, at least in some instances, to be better than other news outlets. It says a lot to me that AJ has been attacked by Rumsfeld, Bush, Mubarak, and others and it's something worth pointing out.
- shareme 16y agofinally someone who understands that in all Media there will always be those groups who use finances as a way to manipulate to supply bias.. Qatar's dictators have some real Oil income reasons for pitting one Oil country against another..
- samwise 16y agoThe English arm of Al Jazeera is based in Washington DC
- aj700 16y agoAll undemocratic Arab governments fear Al Jazeera. ie all Arab governments and the US if they are US backed ones. with one exception. Al Jazeera obviously never digs into the affairs of the Qatari royal family.