Al Jazzeera America

Started by Callie Del Noire, August 21, 2013, 11:41:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kythia

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 03:46:07 PM

Since you responded in a reasoned manner Kythia I will answer this as that is indeed a valid question. I do not use any of the sources you named either. I wrote of Fox News when they published McVeigh, the times with the Unabomer even if that ultimately lead to his arrest so on. It is simply a line for me, I find some people so despicable that any such association just makes me sick. McVeigh, Kazinski, Bin Laden publish people like that I am done with you as a news source. I would like it noted two on that list of three are white guys since I have already been called racists once. I think those two are just as much terrorists. I feel the same about the IRA, KKK, Free Men, Arain Nation, Al Quieda so on.

That's an impossible line to walk.  We know from above you use Wikipedia.  Until, apparently, 22/10/11 they hosted the unabomber manifesto.  They still hold a load of quotes and a link to an interview.  Which news sources do you use?  I pretty much guarantee they have, whatever they are, presented the views of terrorists at some point.
242037

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 03:46:07 PM

Since you responded in a reasoned manner Kythia I will answer this as that is indeed a valid question. I do not use any of the sources you named either. I wrote of Fox News when they published McVeigh, the times with the Unabomer even if that ultimately lead to his arrest so on. It is simply a line for me, I find some people so despicable that any such association just makes me sick. McVeigh, Kazinski, Bin Laden publish people like that I am done with you as a news source. I would like it noted two on that list of three are white guys since I have already been called racists once. I think those two are just as much terrorists. I feel the same about the IRA, KKK, Free Men, Arain Nation, Al Quieda so on.

My take on these 'bad people' getting representation?

I look at it the same way I did with the defense of the Nazi party back in the day going to court to practice their right to assembly in Skoie, Ill.

You protect our fundamental freedoms not by protecting the popular factions.

It's by protecting/representing/giving EVERYONE the same level of consideration. Has AJ-US done anything wrong? Is it fair to pain one corporate branch with the past actions of others? Who knows. Who cares I say.

It comes down to this. By allowing them to speak up and present their form of the news.. we protect journalism.  I despair of the Fourth Estate of late, particularly TV media. I want a party of men and women who are more in the  Edward Murrow school of outlook than the 'Ted Turner' Ratings school.



Retribution

LoL I keep trying to bow out of this but again a valid question.

I do a general scan starting with just plain MSN and Yahoo on the internet and I read Slate most mornings. Now when one gets into those you got to look at where they are compiling sources from. So that gets a bit complicated. I look at the AP wire and honestly I find CNN to be a reasonable source most times but again look at where they got the story.

I read most any news source with a -very- skeptical eye like I said call me jaded. No one in this world comes to the table utterly neutral IMHO. I lean right obviously but like to think I am more moderate. For example on the editorial side I read George Will, Jason Whitlock, and an African American fellow who most would call Liberal that I can never recall his name. He is older, bald, and wears glasses. Just when I see his picture on a by line I make a point to read it because I think he is a great writer. I do not agree with him as often as not but his arguments make me think. I like to think those three sources give me a broad view of conservative, moderate, and liberal view points. Whitlock is a sports writer but he does more editorial stuff IMHO.

So that about sums it up for how I go at my news Cryano.

As for Kythia who posted while I was typing I did not know that Wikpedia had posted the manifesto. Now I do, from the date I am guessing it is well two years ago after he was locked up and so I can kind of see that as a historical reference. But without further knowledge I have got to withhold my judgement until I can look into it. And yes, I know it is all but impossible but quite frankly I feel better for trying if that makes any sense at all. There are just certain lines for me that are iron clad. One of those being I do not care your political point of view but when you start setting off bombs among innocent people you are just a murderer and beyond contempt in my world. I am offended to live on a planet and breathe the same air as these people. Now I know "collateral damage" or what have you in times of war shall be trotted out here promptly. I view that differently than say the Boston bombings of this year.

Ephiral

#28
Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 03:09:09 PM
Against my better judgement I am going to reply to this. This will be my last reply end story. But I said I had not watched -not- that I do not know anything about. There is a distinct difference and Al-Jazeera has on numerous occasions posted what can only be described as terrorist manifestos often times by known terrorists.

Here are some links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism
The only incidents I can find on here that are remotely linked to terrorism in any way are an endorsement of a Lebanese terrorist as a hero - which AJ later admitted was in violation of their own Code of Ethics - and a reporter accused of being a courier for Al-Qaeda, who maintains his innocence to this day. So your charge that it is a "terrorist propaganda" network does not hold. I do, however, see lots of controversy over them calling a number of authoritarian and oppressive regimes to task.

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 03:09:09 PMhttp://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera
This one specifically opens by noting that none of what it has to say is true of Al-Jazeera English. So your allegation that AJAm is "terrorist propaganda" is totally unsupported here.

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 03:09:09 PMI know those of you inclined to have differing views than me will see well that said links support your own views.  That is indeed fine, but my point is we can have differing views and it does not make any of us racist or more enlightened. And spare me the there is a difference between which Al Jazzeera song and dance they are owned by the same company and I am familiar with corporate shell games and how they work.

For those with short memories Al Jazzeera in the past has also published writings of wanted terrorists. I do not think they got said writings by utterly clean sources so call me jaded. I actually feel the same about Fox News in many cases. The point is I do not dispute their right to have a news channel what have you. I simply do not wish to support such a group. And in business ultimate support is in buying the product or in this case watching the show.
Umm. One of your vaunted news sources? Was closely, personally associated with a notorious international criminal, and was paid for services to said criminal. He then failed to disclose this relationship when providing positive ccoverage of said criminal, and has also worked for organizations that have featured the words of other notorious criminals. Your second works for Fox News. Your third you can't even name. So... these charges are completely hypocritical, in addition to having zero supporting evidence.

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 03:09:09 PMLast time I checked that was my own freedom of expression and right to the space between my own ears so do not call me racist because of it. Quite frankly that allegation off the cuff pisses me to fuck off. I have my reasons for choosing not to support this company. That is my right and freedom, at the same time I do not deny their right and freedom to say, publish whatever they wish.
First, you don't have a right to say what you want in a privately-owned space, so "Freeze peach!" doesn't hold any water here. Second, if you don't want to be told that a statement you have made is racist, don't call an entire network you haven't even seen "terrorist propaganda" because it happens to have an Arabic name. I'll continue to call a spade a fucking shovel - if you don't want to be told you're making racist statements, don't make them.

Oniya

Quote from: Ephiral on August 22, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
First, you don't have a right to say what you want in a privately-owned space, so "Freeze peach!" doesn't hold any water here.

However, civility does.

Let's back this down to mature conversation, please.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Hades

If news outlets weren't able to publish/run controversial stories, there would be alot of empty space that would have to be filled.   Newspapers can publish materials sent in by terrorists or criminals without that publishing being an endorsement of their actions.   Remember the "Son of Sam" murders, or the Zodiac killer, or all the various "catch me if you can" motiffs that murders have sent to police and newspapers that get published?  By your logic every newspaper that published the letters they were sent was endorsing the crimes they were committing.

Retribution

Quote from: Hades on August 22, 2013, 05:32:11 PM
If news outlets weren't able to publish/run controversial stories, there would be alot of empty space that would have to be filled.   Newspapers can publish materials sent in by terrorists or criminals without that publishing being an endorsement of their actions.   Remember the "Son of Sam" murders, or the Zodiac killer, or all the various "catch me if you can" motiffs that murders have sent to police and newspapers that get published?  By your logic every newspaper that published the letters they were sent was endorsing the crimes they were committing.

I keep meaning to bow out and you guys keep making valid points. In short Hades yes, that is what I think.  Reporting on a crime is valid indeed, but I feel the attention encourages the next crackpot to act on their urges when they see the attention the one before got. So there is a line for me and that is reporting is one thing but then publishing the diatribe of the criminal is another and only encourages the next criminal. The case in point when Bin Laden was published or the beheading of the Wall Street Journal reporter was shown that line was crossed. I now have utterly no use for any affiliate of this group. I feel that publishing this material just encourages these monsters.

And for the record I would love to see a day with a blank newspaper.


Ephiral

The problem here is that an uninformed populace - the logical end result of rejecting every news agency that presents anything but an arms-length condemnation of anybody deemed sufficiently evil - is a far greater danger than some random crackpot being 'encouraged' by coverage.

Kythia

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 06:06:45 PM
The case in point when Bin Laden was published or the beheading of the Wall Street Journal reporter was shown that line was crossed. I now have utterly no use for any affiliate of this group. I feel that publishing this material just encourages these monsters.

For the record, Al-Jazeera have never broadcast beheadings.  I know its a common belief but its not true.
242037

HairyHeretic

Just a general comment folks ... if tempers are starting to get a bit frayed, it might be better to find somewhere else to be for a little while before posting.  I know we can keep things civil here.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Cyrano Johnson

I'm fine! I'M FINE!!! I AM HAVING FUN!! *grindgrindgrind*
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Callie Del Noire

As the OP I do ask that this is kept polite. While I do not agree completely with Retributuion, he's been articulate and polite and responded calmly with dissent.

So, I ask that we respect his opinions (as I pointed out earlier .. we don't defend points of view we like but all of them). Retribution, I appreciate your candor and politeness and articulation.

So, all I ask is keep it polite folks.

If anyone finds that reading someone else says gets you grinding your teeth, I suggest going to see 'The World's End' and laughing a bit. (I did)

If we can't debate this issue politely I will lock it (or not complain if one of the admins do). None of the dissent or acrimony I have seen in other threads has popped up here. I'd like to keep it that way. 

Formless

Quote from: Kythia on August 22, 2013, 11:05:48 AM
Funnily enough, a lot of people in the Arab world criticise al-Jazeera for it's pro-American bias.

They actually criticise it because they see it as a friendly alley to israeli media. Or so they say ...

Hades

I justed to post this review that someone else wrote about watching the new channel during it's debut week.  It may not change anyone's mind one way or the other, but after reading this I am more curious now about the programming and will be looking for a way to watch it even if my cable provider won't pick it up.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/review-al-jazeera-radically-touch-america-good-way-130000484.html

Ephiral

All right. I admit, my tone was out of line. I'm trying to get better about this, and am implementing personal policies which will hopefully prevent a recurrence. My aggressive and accusatory manner was out of line for both the thread and E policy in general. I'm sorry, folks.

I am curious why the network that has not been demonstrated to support terrorists gets saddled with the label "terrorist propaganda", while the network that employs someone who openly admits to smuggling military ordnance and funding terrorists with the profits gets supported and spoken of defensively.

Retribution

I am so not diving back in, but will amend that the editorialist who I could not recall the name of yesterday is Eugene Robinson.

The Dark Raven

I tend to not stick my head in this section at all, but as I think I have more politically in common with Retribution than nearly anyone else in this forum (and that is precisely why I do not speak at all in this section, because I feel I am not allowed to speak freely), I jsut have to say that yes, there are some right-leaning people who are intelligent, are not liberals, and enjoy kink.

It is something that had gotten to me for years as a misconception about right-leaning folks in general in America.  Maybe I'm just a throwback to the Old South, minus the slavery crap, because that isn't right no matter who you are.

/endrant/endderail

<3

Check my A/A | O/O | Patience is begged. Momma to Rainbow Babies and teetering toward the goal of published author. Tentatively taking new stories.

Kythia

Quote from: Formless on August 23, 2013, 09:04:37 AM
They actually criticise it because they see it as a friendly alley to israeli media. Or so they say ...

They criticise it for that reason as well yes.  But, well, look at the example of Wadah Khanfar who resigned his position after Wikileaks exposed that he had been altering Al-Jazeera stories to fit in with US interests.  Criticisms of being pro-American are certainly not unfounded.

While certainly pro-Israel and pro-US are linked, perhaps inextricably, in the Arab world, there is a definite and totally justified belief that Al-Jazeera is pro-American aside from its (arguable, I would say non-existent) pro-Israel bias.
242037

Ephiral

#43
Quote from: Daylily on August 23, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
I tend to not stick my head in this section at all, but as I think I have more politically in common with Retribution than nearly anyone else in this forum (and that is precisely why I do not speak at all in this section, because I feel I am not allowed to speak freely), I jsut have to say that yes, there are some right-leaning people who are intelligent, are not liberals, and enjoy kink.

It is something that had gotten to me for years as a misconception about right-leaning folks in general in America.  Maybe I'm just a throwback to the Old South, minus the slavery crap, because that isn't right no matter who you are.
The problem with Retribution's statement isn't that it's right-leaning. The problem is that it is factually incorrect and demonstrably hypocritical.

Cyrano Johnson

#44
Quote from: Daylily on August 23, 2013, 12:40:21 PM(and that is precisely why I do not speak at all in this section, because I feel I am not allowed to speak freely)

I'm surprised more people don't understand the difference between being unable to speak unopposed and being unable to speak freely. Nobody how strongly someone here might disagree with you, they cannot actually stop you from speaking. Only the moderators can do that.

QuoteI jsut have to say that yes, there are some right-leaning people who are intelligent, are not liberals, and enjoy kink.

I've never understood why anyone would be confused about this. Can the world have forgotten the sexploits of Jack Ryan and a reluctant Seven-of-Nine so soon?
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Avis habilis

Seven wasn't "enjoying" so much the way I heard it.

The Dark Raven

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on August 23, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
I've never understood why anyone would be confused about this. Can the world have forgotten the sexploits of Jack Ryan and a reluctant Seven-of-Nine so soon?

Two words:  fictional characters...

Check my A/A | O/O | Patience is begged. Momma to Rainbow Babies and teetering toward the goal of published author. Tentatively taking new stories.

Avis habilis


Cyrano Johnson

Quote from: Avis HabilisSeven wasn't "enjoying" so much the way I heard it.

Yeah. Actually a pretty icky story, I suppose I oughtn't to make light of it...

Quote from: Daylily on August 23, 2013, 01:44:55 PM
Two words:  fictional characters...

The actual politician Jack Ryan*. He was married to the actress who played Seven-of-Nine; IIRC the sex clubbing scandal tanked an election campaign for him. Methinks you have a date with Teh Google...

(* What a character to have the "same name as," too. It's like a guy running for Parliament in the UK with the name "James Bond" and somehow managing to screw it up, honestly.)
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

Cyrano Johnson's ONs & OFFs
Cyrano Johnson's Apologies & Absences

Callie Del Noire

I recall that particular event with great distaste. Nothing came out of opening those files except to give the kid some issues in the future. BOTH parents agreed that it wasn't relevant beyond the two of them. It shouldn't have been disclosed. No other challenge in a long long long time has been approved. What two consenting adults do.. is between them.

I don't see anything good coming out of releasing John Kerry's divorce papers, or god forbid Newt Gingrich's. That man has had some serious hypocrisy going on. Severing papers on your wife while she's going through cancer treatment? What a fucking tool.

Personally, I think the Chicago Political Machine put in their two bits and got Ryan's custody papers got opened because SOMEONE knew it would kill it.