9 ms·

But now: US viewers seek Al Jazeera coverage

132 points by aj700 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mmaunder 16y ago
Al Jazeera is producing some of the finest global news coverage in the world today. I became a regular viewer recently so I could keep up on political debates with my family based in South Africa who have AJ on satellite. Watching AJ reminds me how human-interest and emotion-centric the local news has become. The Egyptian coverage on CNN is nauseating. Yesterday a caller phoned in from Cairo and was falling over his words just spilling massive amounts of useful data and the anchor woman interrupts him to ask him about his feelings.
- adscft 16y ago
  That's only because AJ is still produced in a male-dominated society. Emotional news is one of the consequences of feminism, prevailing in the West.
  - mmaunder 16y ago
    I'm guessing you were born after Margaret Thatcher left office.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      I'm guessing you haven't argued with very many feminists. Thatcher isn't exactly a feminist icon (WP: "Many British feminists regarded her as "an enemy".") and a lot of feminists I've encountered consider rationalism and emotional reserve to be artifacts of patriarchal oppression. adscft is overstating the case, perhaps, but his point isn't entirely baseless (and your response is quite the non-sequitur).
      - jhamburger 16y ago
        Speaking of non-sequiturs, I'm still waiting for someone to establish this link between 'emotional news prevailing in the west' and 'feminism'
        philwelch 16y ago
        Had feminism not prevailed in the West, the West would be a male-dominated society, and things like the news would be controlled exclusively by men. Additionally, men would have continued to abide by traditional gender roles (which would have not been questioned or undergone change[1]), and the traditional male gender role is less overtly emotional. Hence, the news would be less overtly emotional. That's a perfectly reasonable and straightforward argument which raises eyebrows only because it hints at the idea that feminism had some negative effects. The comparison to Al-Jazeera might not be sound, however--masculine emotional reserve is a characteristic of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Northern European culture, not necessarily Arabic culture. [1] Feminism, as a natural consequence of advancing the position of women in society, questions gender roles by necessity. This is what makes the reference to Thatcher so inept--Thatcher advanced in a male-dominated profession by following a masculine gender role; Thatcher's Britain was willing to accept a woman PM, but only so long as she governed like a man. This is a far cry from what feminists would like to see.
        Alex3917 16y ago
        I don't know much about feminism as an intellectual movement, but there are definitely a lot casual feminists who consider Silicon Valley style entrepreneurship to be discriminatory because it requires reading non-fiction books in order to be successful. The basic argument, if I undertand it correctly, is that women should be able to achieve success in any given field by doing things that women are stereotypically interested in. So, for example, they would consider Silicon Valley to be patriarchal because there isn't any role for women who only read People and US Weekly. I know someone will accuse me of being sexist, but this was actually the consensus from the Women and Entrepreneurship class I took in college, albeit it wasn't phrased in exactly this way.
  - mey 16y ago
    Posting under a throw away account?
  - idiopathic 16y ago
    No, it's because they were given a huge budget and told to spend it to hire and resource the best journalists. This started with the exodus of Arab journalists from the BBC world service, who downsized (Blair should have severely regretted this for what it unleashed in factual reporting on his fantasy dossiers) and continued with a deliberate attempt to hire the troublemakers from around the world - real journalists who cared about injustice rather than ratings. The disregard for ratings is of course possible because they are funded by an oil rich dictator. He is not benign - no such dictator exist - but if the only good thing he ever did was create AlJazeera, then I would still be forever grateful. Of course, in the true spirit of Make Something People Want, the disregard for simple ratings is what is causing AJ's growth in viewers around the world. A good chunk of people want real news, and these were the same people who propelled CNN to dominance, back when they had invested in news.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Yesterday a caller phoned in from Cairo and was falling over his words just spilling massive amounts of useful data and the anchor woman interrupts him to ask him about his feelings What's nauseating is knowing they broadcast that because they show what people want to see.
  - alexqgb 16y ago
    @silverstorm - That's bad, but I think FOX may have topped them with this: http://plixi.com/photos/home/73294801 http://plixi.com/photos/home/73294801 Step 1: Locate Egypt on a map...
    - olefoo 16y ago
      You do know that's likely to be a hoax, right? It's not on snopes yet, but it seems unlikely that Fox's cartographers would be that incompetent (especially since they probably buy their map imagery from a third party); this is most likely a photoshop job. And while it's amusing, I'd rather stick to disliking Fox and News Corp. for their blatant partisanship and pandering than feeling superior to them over something that's entirely fiction.
      - guelo 16y ago
        Apparently it is real, though old http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/fox-news-cant-find-egypt-map_n_816540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/fox-news-cant-find-...
      - masklinn 16y ago
        > It's not on snopes yet, but it seems unlikely that Fox's cartographers would be that incompetent (especially since they probably buy their map imagery from a third party) Not really. There have been a number of instances of that from US domestic news services in the last ~10 years (Czech Republic labelled as Switzerland, Spain labelled as France, …).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- davidmathers 16y ago
  Apropos: Why I Love Al Jazeera by Robert D. Kaplan http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/why-i-love-al-jazeera/7665/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/why-i-lo...
  - idiopathic 16y ago
    This starts off well but then he damns them with faint praise. What is wrong with thinking the weak are right because they are weak? It is far better than everyone else's heuristic that might right. And if covering the viewpoints of those who have no power is AlJazeera's "despotism" then its employees should feel nothing but pride.
russnewcomer 16y ago
Anyone wanting greater understanding of the regional dynamics in the Middle East should read al Jazeera regularly, just like anyone wanting to really understand local politics should read their local newspaper for a year, instead of reading an NYTimes article about their local politics. Watching it when there is a crisis really doesn't help understand, it just helps give you more information. Similar to how a pipe fitter in West Texas reading HN once a month wouldn't really help them understand the culture that exists in the Y!Combinator/startup world, watching AJ when there is a crisis without watching it regularly leads you to impose your own cultural lens on the issues. I lived in a Central Asian country for three years, and it took me about two years to really understand how much I didn't understand the local culture.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
Alex3917 16y ago
Even if All Jazeera is seeing a huge traffic spike, it's still only a small percentage of Americans who are trying to seek out real news. The vast majority of Americans don't even want an uncensored media.
- nhangen 16y ago
  Do you really believe Al Jazeera is uncensored?
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    Let's compare their coverage of U.S. politics to CNN, NYT, and Fox: http://alexkrupp.com/picture_library/rp/rp.html http://alexkrupp.com/picture_library/rp/rp.html
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - nhangen 16y ago
      Props for that...I'm a big RP fan, and I like seeing him appear where he was voted. Touche.
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        It's not even the fact that Ron Paul was essentially just deleted from existence by every mainstream American news outlet. Remember, this was the period when McCain went from 2% support to winning the Republican primary in about a month after CNN, Fox, and the NYT teamed up to swing the electorate. They basically figured out that they were only going to get paid for this cycle if there was a Republican candidate who actually had a shot at winning, so they buried all of McCain's opponents and completely censored the entire grassroots movement.
    - derleth 16y ago
      How about comparing it to the BBC, NPR, and PBS?
fwez 16y ago
Does anyone know if cable carriers in the US don't carry AJ because of lack of demand or is there documented evidence of active exclusion for business or political reasons? Please don't take this question as conspiracy theory flame bait. I'm just curious about what is known about this.
- jhamburger 16y ago
  Let me put it this way- If I were running a cable company, and I had to make a pure business decision on whether to carry AJE, I wouldn't do it. People were up in arms over a "mosque" several blocks away the WTC site...People were outraged at our President's middle name. there would be a HUGE uproar if cable operators started broadcasting "muslim propaganda" in our homes. I'm talking mass boycotts.
  - fwez 16y ago
    They can watch it and make up their own mind. Can't they?
    - koenigdavidmj 16y ago
      You give them far too much credit.
      - j_baker 16y ago
        I don't think so. How can you blame people for being ignorant when they are constantly being bombarded with ignorance coming from the MSM?
    - RK 16y ago
      Maybe if we had a la carte cable, but we don't...
      - derleth 16y ago
        If we had a la carte cable, they'd offer what they seriously thought people would specifically seek out and buy. FOX News is a shoo-in, but PBS and Al Jazeera would be much riskier bets.
pmorici 16y ago
Hm, it strikes me that there are absolutely zero advertisements of any kind on that page.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  That's because Al Jazeera English receives its funding from the Qatari government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Editorial_independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Editorial_independen...
iamelgringo 16y ago
As the vast majority of news networks have been scaling back "expensive" forms of journalism like having dedicated foreign bureaus, Al Jazeera has been one of the precious few news agencies that has been rapidly expanding it's foreign bureaus. The move is really starting to pay off for them. In an increasingly globalized economy where we need much better coverage of international events, US news networks are going to find themselves scooped and out reported by Al Jazeera again and again. It's an impressive news agency, and to think, we bombed their offices twice in the last 10 years by accident[1]. ref: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War#Attack_on_Al_Jazeera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War#...
- cliveholloway 16y ago
  Do you really think that was an accident? Heh.
RK 16y ago
Maybe Al Jazeera should just run with being a 21st century, Internet delivered news channel. I mean, I don't get Al Jazeera on my TV because I don't have cable or satellite anyway. I do have Netflix, etc, though.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jarek 16y ago
  Satellite gets them a lot more viewers in the developing world than either internet or traditional cable. It's also a lot harder to block.
- borism 16y ago
  Maybe Al Jazeera should just run with being a 21st century, Internet delivered news channel. they are! I haven't seen any news network that has such high priority for having live feed on the internets. they literally have their live feed at almost every internet video delivery provider - youtube, real media, livestation, you name it...
kingkawn 16y ago
I am not watching Al Jazeera because of their underlying ideology, but because they are doing the best reporting on Egypt. If they were to continue to provide such powerful reporting on other topics I would watch them for that as well.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  Um, I think their "underlying ideology" is doing the best reporting on Egypt, and everything else they cover. These are seriously hardcore journalists with a very global perspective. I suspect they're currently being flooded with resumes from disgruntled / disgusted / dismayed reporters at CNN, MSNBC, and even FOX - all of whom would give up their first-born to get back into real reporting, instead of the dreadful corporate infotainment that's busy getting relegated to the sphere of complete irrelevance and risible self-parody.
  - aheilbut 16y ago
    The guy in charge of Al Jazeera English used to run news at - wait for it... the CBC (that's the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). (http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2007/12/200861501043226986.html http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2007/12/200861501043226...)
    - jarek 16y ago
      More on Burman and AJE: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/2009.10-media-the-most-hated-name-in-news/ http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/2009.10-media-the-most-h...
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruseom 16y ago
      That surprises me. CBC news is terrible. Even its once-great flagship As It Happens on CBC radio has degenerated to the point that I just get sad.
PaulHoule 16y ago
I'd like to get Al Jazeera on ivi.tv
- pella 16y ago
  Al Jazeera English: Live Stream http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
  - PaulHoule 16y ago
    This is good on my work connection but doesn't quite work on my third-rate rural DSL connection from Frontier. ivi.tv will give you a stream with bandwidth requirements that works on any connection, degrading all the way to a slide show if it has to.

132 points by aj700 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Al Jazeera is producing some of the finest global news coverage in the world today. I became a regular viewer recently so I could keep up on political debates with my family based in South Africa who have AJ on satellite. Watching AJ reminds me how human-interest and emotion-centric the local news has become. The Egyptian coverage on CNN is nauseating. Yesterday a caller phoned in from Cairo and was falling over his words just spilling massive amounts of useful data and the anchor woman interrupts him to ask him about his feelings.

adscft 16y ago
That's only because AJ is still produced in a male-dominated society. Emotional news is one of the consequences of feminism, prevailing in the West.
- mmaunder 16y ago
  I'm guessing you were born after Margaret Thatcher left office.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I'm guessing you haven't argued with very many feminists. Thatcher isn't exactly a feminist icon (WP: "Many British feminists regarded her as "an enemy".") and a lot of feminists I've encountered consider rationalism and emotional reserve to be artifacts of patriarchal oppression. adscft is overstating the case, perhaps, but his point isn't entirely baseless (and your response is quite the non-sequitur).
    - jhamburger 16y ago
      Speaking of non-sequiturs, I'm still waiting for someone to establish this link between 'emotional news prevailing in the west' and 'feminism'
      - philwelch 16y ago
        Had feminism not prevailed in the West, the West would be a male-dominated society, and things like the news would be controlled exclusively by men. Additionally, men would have continued to abide by traditional gender roles (which would have not been questioned or undergone change[1]), and the traditional male gender role is less overtly emotional. Hence, the news would be less overtly emotional. That's a perfectly reasonable and straightforward argument which raises eyebrows only because it hints at the idea that feminism had some negative effects. The comparison to Al-Jazeera might not be sound, however--masculine emotional reserve is a characteristic of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Northern European culture, not necessarily Arabic culture. [1] Feminism, as a natural consequence of advancing the position of women in society, questions gender roles by necessity. This is what makes the reference to Thatcher so inept--Thatcher advanced in a male-dominated profession by following a masculine gender role; Thatcher's Britain was willing to accept a woman PM, but only so long as she governed like a man. This is a far cry from what feminists would like to see.
        Alex3917 16y ago
        I don't know much about feminism as an intellectual movement, but there are definitely a lot casual feminists who consider Silicon Valley style entrepreneurship to be discriminatory because it requires reading non-fiction books in order to be successful. The basic argument, if I undertand it correctly, is that women should be able to achieve success in any given field by doing things that women are stereotypically interested in. So, for example, they would consider Silicon Valley to be patriarchal because there isn't any role for women who only read People and US Weekly. I know someone will accuse me of being sexist, but this was actually the consensus from the Women and Entrepreneurship class I took in college, albeit it wasn't phrased in exactly this way.
- mey 16y ago
  Posting under a throw away account?
- idiopathic 16y ago
  No, it's because they were given a huge budget and told to spend it to hire and resource the best journalists. This started with the exodus of Arab journalists from the BBC world service, who downsized (Blair should have severely regretted this for what it unleashed in factual reporting on his fantasy dossiers) and continued with a deliberate attempt to hire the troublemakers from around the world - real journalists who cared about injustice rather than ratings. The disregard for ratings is of course possible because they are funded by an oil rich dictator. He is not benign - no such dictator exist - but if the only good thing he ever did was create AlJazeera, then I would still be forever grateful. Of course, in the true spirit of Make Something People Want, the disregard for simple ratings is what is causing AJ's growth in viewers around the world. A good chunk of people want real news, and these were the same people who propelled CNN to dominance, back when they had invested in news.
sliverstorm 16y ago
Yesterday a caller phoned in from Cairo and was falling over his words just spilling massive amounts of useful data and the anchor woman interrupts him to ask him about his feelings What's nauseating is knowing they broadcast that because they show what people want to see.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  @silverstorm - That's bad, but I think FOX may have topped them with this: http://plixi.com/photos/home/73294801 http://plixi.com/photos/home/73294801 Step 1: Locate Egypt on a map...
  - olefoo 16y ago
    You do know that's likely to be a hoax, right? It's not on snopes yet, but it seems unlikely that Fox's cartographers would be that incompetent (especially since they probably buy their map imagery from a third party); this is most likely a photoshop job. And while it's amusing, I'd rather stick to disliking Fox and News Corp. for their blatant partisanship and pandering than feeling superior to them over something that's entirely fiction.
    - guelo 16y ago
      Apparently it is real, though old http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/fox-news-cant-find-egypt-map_n_816540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/fox-news-cant-find-...
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > It's not on snopes yet, but it seems unlikely that Fox's cartographers would be that incompetent (especially since they probably buy their map imagery from a third party) Not really. There have been a number of instances of that from US domestic news services in the last ~10 years (Czech Republic labelled as Switzerland, Spain labelled as France, …).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
davidmathers 16y ago
Apropos: Why I Love Al Jazeera by Robert D. Kaplan http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/why-i-love-al-jazeera/7665/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/10/why-i-lo...
- idiopathic 16y ago
  This starts off well but then he damns them with faint praise. What is wrong with thinking the weak are right because they are weak? It is far better than everyone else's heuristic that might right. And if covering the viewpoints of those who have no power is AlJazeera's "despotism" then its employees should feel nothing but pride.

russnewcomer 16y ago

Anyone wanting greater understanding of the regional dynamics in the Middle East should read al Jazeera regularly, just like anyone wanting to really understand local politics should read their local newspaper for a year, instead of reading an NYTimes article about their local politics. Watching it when there is a crisis really doesn't help understand, it just helps give you more information. Similar to how a pipe fitter in West Texas reading HN once a month wouldn't really help them understand the culture that exists in the Y!Combinator/startup world, watching AJ when there is a crisis without watching it regularly leads you to impose your own cultural lens on the issues. I lived in a Central Asian country for three years, and it took me about two years to really understand how much I didn't understand the local culture.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

Alex3917 16y ago

Even if All Jazeera is seeing a huge traffic spike, it's still only a small percentage of Americans who are trying to seek out real news. The vast majority of Americans don't even want an uncensored media.

nhangen 16y ago
Do you really believe Al Jazeera is uncensored?
- Alex3917 16y ago
  Let's compare their coverage of U.S. politics to CNN, NYT, and Fox: http://alexkrupp.com/picture_library/rp/rp.html http://alexkrupp.com/picture_library/rp/rp.html
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - nhangen 16y ago
    Props for that...I'm a big RP fan, and I like seeing him appear where he was voted. Touche.
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      It's not even the fact that Ron Paul was essentially just deleted from existence by every mainstream American news outlet. Remember, this was the period when McCain went from 2% support to winning the Republican primary in about a month after CNN, Fox, and the NYT teamed up to swing the electorate. They basically figured out that they were only going to get paid for this cycle if there was a Republican candidate who actually had a shot at winning, so they buried all of McCain's opponents and completely censored the entire grassroots movement.
  - derleth 16y ago
    How about comparing it to the BBC, NPR, and PBS?

fwez 16y ago

Does anyone know if cable carriers in the US don't carry AJ because of lack of demand or is there documented evidence of active exclusion for business or political reasons? Please don't take this question as conspiracy theory flame bait. I'm just curious about what is known about this.

jhamburger 16y ago
Let me put it this way- If I were running a cable company, and I had to make a pure business decision on whether to carry AJE, I wouldn't do it. People were up in arms over a "mosque" several blocks away the WTC site...People were outraged at our President's middle name. there would be a HUGE uproar if cable operators started broadcasting "muslim propaganda" in our homes. I'm talking mass boycotts.
- fwez 16y ago
  They can watch it and make up their own mind. Can't they?
  - koenigdavidmj 16y ago
    You give them far too much credit.
    - j_baker 16y ago
      I don't think so. How can you blame people for being ignorant when they are constantly being bombarded with ignorance coming from the MSM?
  - RK 16y ago
    Maybe if we had a la carte cable, but we don't...
    - derleth 16y ago
      If we had a la carte cable, they'd offer what they seriously thought people would specifically seek out and buy. FOX News is a shoo-in, but PBS and Al Jazeera would be much riskier bets.

pmorici 16y ago

Hm, it strikes me that there are absolutely zero advertisements of any kind on that page.

tkahn6 16y ago
That's because Al Jazeera English receives its funding from the Qatari government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Editorial_independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Editorial_independen...

iamelgringo 16y ago

As the vast majority of news networks have been scaling back "expensive" forms of journalism like having dedicated foreign bureaus, Al Jazeera has been one of the precious few news agencies that has been rapidly expanding it's foreign bureaus. The move is really starting to pay off for them. In an increasingly globalized economy where we need much better coverage of international events, US news networks are going to find themselves scooped and out reported by Al Jazeera again and again. It's an impressive news agency, and to think, we bombed their offices twice in the last 10 years by accident[1]. ref: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War#Attack_on_Al_Jazeera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War#...

cliveholloway 16y ago
Do you really think that was an accident? Heh.

RK 16y ago

Maybe Al Jazeera should just run with being a 21st century, Internet delivered news channel. I mean, I don't get Al Jazeera on my TV because I don't have cable or satellite anyway. I do have Netflix, etc, though.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jarek 16y ago
Satellite gets them a lot more viewers in the developing world than either internet or traditional cable. It's also a lot harder to block.
borism 16y ago
Maybe Al Jazeera should just run with being a 21st century, Internet delivered news channel. they are! I haven't seen any news network that has such high priority for having live feed on the internets. they literally have their live feed at almost every internet video delivery provider - youtube, real media, livestation, you name it...

kingkawn 16y ago

I am not watching Al Jazeera because of their underlying ideology, but because they are doing the best reporting on Egypt. If they were to continue to provide such powerful reporting on other topics I would watch them for that as well.

alexqgb 16y ago
Um, I think their "underlying ideology" is doing the best reporting on Egypt, and everything else they cover. These are seriously hardcore journalists with a very global perspective. I suspect they're currently being flooded with resumes from disgruntled / disgusted / dismayed reporters at CNN, MSNBC, and even FOX - all of whom would give up their first-born to get back into real reporting, instead of the dreadful corporate infotainment that's busy getting relegated to the sphere of complete irrelevance and risible self-parody.
- aheilbut 16y ago
  The guy in charge of Al Jazeera English used to run news at - wait for it... the CBC (that's the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). (http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2007/12/200861501043226986.html http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2007/12/200861501043226...)
  - jarek 16y ago
    More on Burman and AJE: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/2009.10-media-the-most-hated-name-in-news/ http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/2009.10-media-the-most-h...
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruseom 16y ago
    That surprises me. CBC news is terrible. Even its once-great flagship As It Happens on CBC radio has degenerated to the point that I just get sad.

PaulHoule 16y ago

I'd like to get Al Jazeera on ivi.tv

pella 16y ago
Al Jazeera English: Live Stream http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
- PaulHoule 16y ago
  This is good on my work connection but doesn't quite work on my third-rate rural DSL connection from Frontier. ivi.tv will give you a stream with bandwidth requirements that works on any connection, degrading all the way to a slide show if it has to.