Al Jazzeera America

[alextaylor]

As someone who lives in the far East, I personally find Al Jazeera to be the most reliable/unbiased major news provider, far above CNN, and close to BBC.

Still, I don't see why there needs to be an American version of AJ. Is it there just to report on American news? It's not going to be very commercially successful, as people tend to read/listen to news which confirms their political perspective and a Middle Eastern news company is going to be viewed upon with suspicion.

[Neysha]

As someone who lives in the far East, I personally find Al Jazeera to be the most reliable/unbiased major news provider, far above CNN, and close to BBC.

Still, I don't see why there needs to be an American version of AJ. Is it there just to report on American news? It's not going to be very commercially successful, as people tend to read/listen to news which confirms their political perspective and a Middle Eastern news company is going to be viewed upon with suspicion.

The AJA model might turn out to be more successful then the MSNBC model which is trying to imitate Fox News but with a more American liberal POV but still failing in its ratings. The less confrontational and bombastic presentation style of AJA could curry some popularity amongst the MSNBC and generally liberally oriented crowd in the States, as well as people who want more international coverage in their news, which from what I've seen in the past few days, is a cut above that of any of the American news networks. (CNN, NBC and FNC)

On National News, Business News, Sports, Entertainment and Human Interest stories I find AJA compares poorly, but internationally they really make up for it... IMHO anyways.

[Retribution]

I am not wading back into this argument, but it has been weighing on my mind that someplace others seem to think I endorse Fox News. I do not, I think they are piss poor journalism with an agenda that is marketed to a specific niche. I do not watch them and frankly think it is the lunatic fringe in many cases. I will use them for an example held up beside other news organizations that I think have an agenda. The agenda may be differing but the approach is the same. *shrugs* just after reading some of this thread after I had bowed out I was baffled as how I had become painted as a supporter of Fox News.

[Ephiral]

*raises hand* That would be me. I got this impression from two things: First, your opening post was rather defensive about them. Second, your stated policy is a blanket ban on anything from Al-Jazeera because they are allegedly "terrorist propaganda", yet you watch a Fox News source despite Fox actually employing a material supporter of terrorism. Clearly the two are not being treated equally. Given that "being extra-hard on Al-Jazeera" comes off as more than a little racist, it would seem "being supportive of Fox News" is the more charitable interpretation. Apparently this was mistaken; I'm sorry for that. Can you offer a third explanation?

[Retribution]

I do not watch Fox News I believe you will find I say that in a later post. I was simply using them as an example of a biased and unreliable source. Maybe I did not explain this well, but that was kind of sticking in my craw.

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.

For reference on when I said I do not watch Fox News.

[Ephiral]

So... which Jason Whitlock were you referring to? Not this one, it would seem?

[Neysha]

Second, your stated policy is a blanket ban on anything from Al-Jazeera because they are allegedly "terrorist propaganda", yet you watch a Fox News source despite Fox actually employing a material supporter of terrorism. Clearly the two are not being treated equally.

Because Al Jazeera's leadership is clean of any allegations of supporting or sponsoring terrorism.

[Ephiral]

Because Al Jazeera's leadership is clean of any allegations of supporting or sponsoring terrorism.

That is not what I said, as any reader can discern. Not taking the bait, Neysha.

[Retribution]

Point taken he is carried on Fox when I note the pic you linked. I also have to admit I like Fox Sports 1 since it came out mainly because they carry the UFC but the boxing they have had on has been the best boxing I have seen in ages.

So yes your point is valid that I am supporting the Fox company because I do watch sports on Fox. Hell, I love football and one cannot even watch the Super Bowl some years unless they watch it on a Fox station. So I can see the hypocritical implications of what I said since I am not drawing the same line with my sports viewing as my news viewing. They are all owned by the same parent company though so if you support one station or consume one station you consume them all. That does not mean I watch Fox News because I do not, but the point is valid.

[Ephiral]

It was you who refused to draw any distinction between separate branches of a parent organization, Retribution. I am simply holding you to the standards you established. I accept that you do not watch Fox News, but you do in fact go to Fox for your news. So... what's the difference? Why is Fox worthy of support and Al-Jazeera not?

[Retribution]

I am not sure watching two guys in a cage beat one another senseless counts as news. But Whitlock is indeed news and to be honest I had not even realized he was on Fox. Now that I know I have to do some thinking in that regard because as I said before one has to be careful of the source.

[Neysha]

Why is Fox worthy of support and Al-Jazeera not?

Well for one thing, Al Jazeera's leadership allegedly supports terrorism in the present and in a far more direct manner.

[ShadowFox89]

Well for one thing, Al Jazeera's leadership allegedly supports terrorism in the present and in a far more direct manner.

Allegedly though. Fox has been proven to hire someone who supports terrorism.

[Kythia]

Well for one thing, Al Jazeera's leadership allegedly supports terrorism in the present and in a far more direct manner.

Fox and CNN both support terrorism in a far more direct manner than even al-Jazeera.

There.  Now that's been alleged.  That makes them worse.  You don't even want to hear what allegations have been made (or will shortly be) against abc news. 

Lets move away from "allegedly" shall we?  Also, lets stop my browser spell checker from capitalising the "a" in "al".

[Ephiral]

I am not sure watching two guys in a cage beat one another senseless counts as news. But Whitlock is indeed news and to be honest I had not even realized he was on Fox. Now that I know I have to do some thinking in that regard because as I said before one has to be careful of the source.

You referred to him in the context of "how I go at my news", so that's the way I took it. If you're admitting that this merits reconsideration and adjustment of your position, then - though I still disagree with where you seem to be coming from - I'm willing to consider the matter closed, and you pretty great for making this admission and doing this reconsideration publicly.

[Neysha]

Fox and CNN both support terrorism in a far more direct manner than even al-Jazeera.

There.  Now that's been alleged.  That makes them worse.  You don't even want to hear what allegations have been made (or will shortly be) against abc news. 

Lets move away from "allegedly" shall we?  Also, lets stop my browser spell checker from capitalising the "a" in "al".

Well I prefer to use the term 'allegedly' or else I'll be in violation of PROC rules since those in question Qatar hasn't been convicted of sponsoring terrorism in a trustworthy Court of Law.

Allegedly though. Fox has been proven to hire someone who supports terrorism.

If someones dividing line between moral and immoral is that one company hires a guy twenty years after the fact that he worked on behalf of the US Government to supply TOW missiles to Iran in a military conflict with Iraq who is also a state sponsor of terrorism in order to free American hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon and then was tried in court, served his sentence and then exonerated on appeal versus a group of wealthy Qatari oil barons and other elites who 'allegedly' in the now, have funded Islamic extremists and 'terrorists' in Libya, Mali and other parts of North Africa as well as in Syria, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon and do so currently or have in the past few years and have faced no ramifications for their 'alleged' transgressions and for all intents and purposes probably never will (thus the allegations will always just remain that I suppose) then I find that line to be very blurry.

[Callie Del Noire]

Throttle it back folks.

Please, give each other the courtesy you'd ask for in return.

[Kythia]

Well I prefer to use the term 'allegedly' or else I'll be in violation of PROC rules since those in question Qatar hasn't been convicted of sponsoring terrorism in a trustworthy Court of Law.

Sorry, that wasn't quite my point.  My fault for being facetious.  My point was that "allegedly" carries no weight at all.  Anyone can make an allegation about whatever they want and then that becomes "allegedly" true.  Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer, allegedly.

No, al-Jazeera and the Qatari government in general haven't been convicted of anything so in that sense you're right to use "allegedly".  However, its a variation on a "have you stopped beating your wife" type argument.  People can make whatever unsubstantiated claims they feel like and because of public perception of Muslims those linking Muslims and terrorism will be listened to.  The point, though, isn't whether crazy people have said al-Jazeera supports terrorism, because who gives a fuck what crazy people think.  The point is whether they do or not.  On closer examination, all the allegations go up in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.  While I can't say with 100% certainty that they don't - not being in charge of al-Jazeera - I can say that all the allegations I have seen seem more fueled by Islamaphobia than by actual misdeeds by al-Jazeera.

Not, I stress, that I'm accusing you, Neysha, of anything.  Simply that its important to bear in mind that "allegedly" doesn't carry any weight.

[Retribution]

You referred to him in the context of "how I go at my news", so that's the way I took it. If you're admitting that this merits reconsideration and adjustment of your position, then - though I still disagree with where you seem to be coming from - I'm willing to consider the matter closed, and you pretty great for making this admission and doing this reconsideration publicly.

Yeap that is pretty much where I am coming from. I am willing to admit when my logic is flawed.

[Teo Torriatte]

I'm not quite sure what they are thinking here. I am perfectly willing to view it based on its own merits and not the name, but I am almost certain I am in the minority, and that the majority of the nation(of which is NOT represented on a site like this, btw) is FAR too ignorant to see "Al Jazzeera" and not immediately think something along the lines of "terrorist news... pass".

[Callie Del Noire]

Perhaps.. but there are some that think Fox News reports truth rather than tailored view points. If they could have, they would have declared Romney a winner victory night.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Skipping over all the stuff about who employs or is supported by "terrorists" and who isn't*:

I am not wading back into this argument, but it has been weighing on my mind that someplace others seem to think I endorse Fox News. I do not, I think they are piss poor journalism with an agenda that is marketed to a specific niche. I do not watch them and frankly think it is the lunatic fringe in many cases.

Position #1 that might give people the wrong impression. It was permissible in the Nineties to talk about the conservative movement's "lunatic fringe," when we were all still trying to chalk up its excesses to such an entity. Fox News' positions today, in all their whacked-out excessiveness and bald deception, are core base positions of the conservative movement. Trying to refer to them as "lunatic fringe" is arguably an evasion of reality, or at least could be seen that way. (From another standpoint, the entire movement it's pushing forward may wind up becoming a "lunatic fringe" of American politics more generally -- only 19% of respondents to recent Pew poll were willing to identify as Republican, frex -- but that doesn't seem like what you're talking about here.)

I will use them for an example held up beside other news organizations that I think have an agenda. The agenda may be differing but the approach is the same.

Position #2 that might give people the wrong impression. Most American news organizations have a (mostly "centrist," which in most developed countries would equate to moderate-right) agenda. Most of them do not go to the extremes of Fox News in promoting it, and trying to pretend otherwise could present the appearance of your using a fake-equivalence tactic that has been a bog-standard conservative movement deception for four decades or more. The take-away here is that if you really want to equate other outlets to Fox News, it probably behooves you to really know what you're talking about and make sure the comparison is genuinely supportible.

"Added disclaimer for Retribtion"

EDIT: Incidentally, for what it's worth? Given other things you've said and how you generally comport yourself in discussion, I wouldn't class you with the "conservative movement" I'm discussing above. Movement conservatism and small-c conservatism are at this point quite different things, and the latter still has credibility that the former has long since relinquished. But in my experience, many small-c conservatives still have a difficult time gauging the broader mood toward Movement Conservative media, tropes and memes to which they feel some visceral attachment, and which they often don't realize have been badly compromised by the "movement's" missteps (particularly in the last decade-and-a-half or so). So, don't think this post is necessarily excoriating you.

* In the Middle East, who is and is not supposed to be a "terrorist" can turn on a dime. It actually wasn't that long ago that Saddam Hussein, for instance (during the Iran-Iraq War), was supposed to be a bulwark against "terrorism." Some wariness about pronouncing about the supposedly "pro-terrorist" Qataris is certainly warranted.