Al Jazeera has passed Fox News in Internet Viewership

[Vekseid]

And yet John Stewert and Stephen Colbert have the most informed audience. They openly claim not to be news, but they're doing a better job of news than most of American media.

Hardly surprising considering all the big news these days is focused on popular uprising in the Middle East and North Africa.

A twenty-five fold increase is always impressive. Kudos to their sysadmin, personally. I'd have to shut down the shoutbox again if we broke fifty thousand unique visitors per day.

[Apple of Eris]

I'd have to shut down the shoutbox again if we broke fifty thousand unique visitors per day.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I'd have to try and scare people away! :)

[Vekseid]

Just until I raised money for a much beefier server >_>

Or set of servers.

[Jazra]

Middle Eastern governments hate Al Jazeera as much as progressives hate Fox. It has a great English web site now and you'll find news (some good, some bad) that  you won't get elsewhere. Its worth taking a look at it. As for the Fairness Doctrine, I support its return. I get the other side's argument, but I don't see it as silencing anyone. It just means that on controversial issues, if you  hold a broadcast license, you have to present opposing views. To me, this means more views get heard. I don't think it means every view gets heard, it just means that you try to present a fair and balanced view of the world (exactly what Fox claims it already does).

[Callie Del Noire]

Middle Eastern governments hate Al Jazeera as much as progressives hate Fox. It has a great English web site now and you'll find news (some good, some bad) that  you won't get elsewhere. Its worth taking a look at it. As for the Fairness Doctrine, I support its return. I get the other side's argument, but I don't see it as silencing anyone. It just means that on controversial issues, if you  hold a broadcast license, you have to present opposing views. To me, this means more views get heard. I don't think it means every view gets heard, it just means that you try to present a fair and balanced view of the world (exactly what Fox claims it already does).

It has it's problems (Fairness Doctrine) but I really don't know how to fix the problems. 'Fair and Balanced' is hard to push forward but it's quite clear we need to do something. Since my last post I've looked, thought and wracked my brain on an alternative that would work.

I don't know of one that works. The Fairness Doctrine works (somewhat) but has clear warts. Nothing (which we have now) doesn't work. No one wants a return to the Doctrine (well no one in media or politics) but I've yet to see anyone put forth that works either.

[Foxypockets]

I have a crush on Al Jazeera.
Yeah. The whole network.
I remember watching it when stuff was going down in Egypt. It was REAL news. The opinions were unbiased and everything was delivered point-blank. It was straightforward, and didn't have people telling you what to think.
It's a brilliant network.
I'm glad to hear that it's passing Fox in the rankings. Because, frankly, that network is awful.

[Noelle]

Ehhh, let's not get ahead of ourselves here...Al-Jazeera has a laundry list of complaints lodged against them in regards to various slants to their reporting, especially in regards to Israel/Palestine. They had arguably the best coverage of the protests in Egypt especially, but it isn't to say that their daily reporting is or isn't more biased.

Regardless, I think it would be wise to give Americans more exposure to news out of the Middle East from a source closer to the area. I wouldn't mind seeing Al-Jazeera/Al-Arabiya come to cable in the US, myself, and I think it would be prudent to help familiarize Americans with "their people", so to speak. It's interesting how different the style of news becomes when the source is actually in the relevant geographic location. I do have to say, however, the pessimist in me is also commenting that it'll give the "OMG THE ISLAMIFICATION OF AMERICA" crowd more to cry about.

Even the name is enough to arouse suspicion because we just aren't familiar enough with the Middle East without conjuring up images of bearded men with towels on their head and a few sticks of TNT strapped to their chest. The logo alone is a frank reminder that THIS IS NOT AMERICAN.

[Oniya]

I doubt that you'll ever find a non-biased news source, but at the very least, it's a differently biased source.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know this thread and a comment by Veks got me thinking on a tangent.

What IS going to happen to Rupert Murdoc's media empire when he finally shuffles off this mortal coil?

Well that aside, Oniya is right. Every source will be biased, since you're getting the input of the presenter, the writer and possibly others as it's given out.

[Noelle]

My point wasn't that there is some mythical unicorn news station that's perfectly unbiased -- the point is not to put al-Jazeera on a pedestal any more than you have to. They may be above the kind of atrocious spin Fox News puts on their news, but bias is still bias no matter how you spell it.

[Oniya]

My point wasn't that there is some mythical unicorn news station that's perfectly unbiased -- the point is not to put al-Jazeera on a pedestal any more than you have to. They may be above the kind of atrocious spin Fox News puts on their news, but bias is still bias no matter how you spell it.

'Zactly.   ;D

[elone]

My point wasn't that there is some mythical unicorn news station that's perfectly unbiased -- the point is not to put al-Jazeera on a pedestal any more than you have to. They may be above the kind of atrocious spin Fox News puts on their news, but bias is still bias no matter how you spell it.

Al Jazeera reporting is no more biased than any other media.  At least through them we get all sides of the story, especially when looking at the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Media in the U.S. is so slanted in favor of Israel that they actually treat press releases from the Israeli Defense Forces as factual news.  We never see Palestinian houses being demolished or peaceful demonstrations being broken up with tear gas and rubber bullets.  Al Jazeera shows it all, for that matter, so does BBC news, and NPR.  I'll take their reporting over the Washington Post any day.

[Major Major]

That's actually something I've wondered for a while now; why does the American Government wed itself to Israel so deeply?

[Zeitgeist]

According to this outlet, Russia Today, an English language Russian based news service, all three of the big networks are down in viewership. They refer to a Pew research study, but don't link it in.

http://rt.com/usa/news/fox-msnbc-cnn-news-viewership-usa/

[Noelle]

Al Jazeera reporting is no more biased than any other media.

Which is what my whole post was about :P It's just as biased, so to lavish it with praise is inaccurate since they're not much better than any other source, they just give a different perspective on the bias. Bias is bias is bias.

At least through them we get all sides of the story, especially when looking at the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Media in the U.S. is so slanted in favor of Israel that they actually treat press releases from the Israeli Defense Forces as factual news.  We never see Palestinian houses being demolished or peaceful demonstrations being broken up with tear gas and rubber bullets.  Al Jazeera shows it all, for that matter, so does BBC news, and NPR.  I'll take their reporting over the Washington Post any day.

Well, no. Getting all sides of the story would mean they're not as biased as other media outlets and comparing al-Jazeera to NPR is...well, not accurate at all. NPR has the least biased reporting I've encountered in recent times and is not like al-Jazeera at all. When I watched during the Egypt coverage, it was pretty well slated towards the protesters, even the on-air hosts were openly engaging in rather impassioned debate against more pro-Mubarak interviewees, not to mention their laundry list of controversies, one of which includes their coverage about Israel/Palestine.

[Zeitgeist]

I presume this is what we are talking about?

Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net)
Alexa Traffic Rank: 269
Traffic Rank in US: 303
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/aljazeera.net

Fox News (foxnews.com)
Alexa Traffic Rank: 206
Traffic Rank in US: 41
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/foxnews.com

I just love the blurb on Alexa about Fox News:

Relative to the overall population of internet users, the site's users are disproportionately Caucasian, and they tend to be higher-income, moderately educated men over the age of 35 who browse from work.

The site says nothing about Aljazeera's demographic, nothing as specific as that. Biased much? LOL

Here is a Daily Pageview graph comparison of the two. Predictably there was a spike for Aljazeera in Feburary when the shit hit the fan in Egypt and the Middle East. They've since came back closer together, though the over all trend (3 months) looks to be up for both.

[Oniya]

There seem to be more individualized peaks for Al Jazeera.  (Fox news seems to have a more featureless graph.)  I suspect that the other surges also correspond to significant events.

[elone]

Well, no. Getting all sides of the story would mean they're not as biased as other media outlets and comparing al-Jazeera to NPR is...well, not accurate at all. NPR has the least biased reporting I've encountered in recent times and is not like al-Jazeera at all. When I watched during the Egypt coverage, it was pretty well slated towards the protesters, even the on-air hosts were openly engaging in rather impassioned debate against more pro-Mubarak interviewees, not to mention their laundry list of controversies, one of which includes their coverage about Israel/Palestine.

I read Al Jazeera regularly on the net, and do believe that in their reporting both sides are represented more often than not. No one is perfect. What they do on their broadcasts I cannot attest to. Their written bias is mostly limited to who they chose to blog with and editorial matter. That is to be expected. 

Read through your criticism link, the notes on Israel are interesting.  They at times took away Visas for Al Jazeera staff, would not let them in certain meetings, and would not allow them to interview officials.  Real freedom of the press there!!

Mainly, the point is that Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as some organization run by Jihadists. It is real reporting, much better than most. Certainly much, much, better than the trash on FOX.

[Vekseid]

The site says nothing about Aljazeera's demographic, nothing as specific as that. Biased much? LOL

Alexa gets that data from people who use their toolbar and make purchases at Amazon, or otherwise give Amazon's online empire (Mechanical Turk, AWS, etc.) that information. This takes time, and a Western audience tends to make more on-line purchases than an Arab one.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with bias there.

It does get kindof silly watching what services like Compete, Quantcast, and Alexa say about Elliquiy from time to time.

Here is a Daily Pageview graph comparison of the two. Predictably there was a spike for Aljazeera in Feburary when the shit hit the fan in Egypt and the Middle East. They've since came back closer together, though the over all trend (3 months) looks to be up for both.

Yo can set the timescale to 'max' to see the longer term trend. Fox, like most places, gets spikes like the one they had last week. Even after Al-Jazeera's bump, though, they're sustaining a tenfold increase from last year's performance.

[Noelle]

I read Al Jazeera regularly on the net, and do believe that in their reporting both sides are represented more often than not. No one is perfect. What they do on their broadcasts I cannot attest to. Their written bias is mostly limited to who they chose to blog with and editorial matter. That is to be expected. 

Read through your criticism link, the notes on Israel are interesting.  They at times took away Visas for Al Jazeera staff, would not let them in certain meetings, and would not allow them to interview officials.  Real freedom of the press there!!

Mainly, the point is that Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as some organization run by Jihadists. It is real reporting, much better than most. Certainly much, much, better than the trash on FOX.

Yes, and I'll reiterate my point: bias is bias. Skew is still skew and comparing lesser and greater evils doesn't take away the fact that they're still tilted. By all means, read what you'd like, choose what stations and information sources you'd like -- I agree with you that they need to be given more credit and that the US did not treat them particularly kind during the coverage of the Iraq War when it first started...Hell, I visit Al-Jazeera now and then to peruse their North African news because I like that they're closer to the area they're covering than Western sources, but I am aware of their background and therefore browse with a little more caution.

My only point was that praising them so highly isn't entirely merited; it really doesn't take much to be better than Fox News, seeing as one merely needs to be even marginally honest to do so. Technically speaking, we could say that stealing a car is better than committing genocide, but it doesn't actually make doing it a good choice or a positive action. I do hope that they find more coverage on cable in the US because I do think that Americans desperately need to familiarize themselves with the Middle East and Arab world outside of OMG EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST, I just don't think they should be treated above your average news source (outside of Fox News).

[Jude]

Mainly, the point is that Al Jazeera should not be dismissed as some organization run by Jihadists. It is real reporting, much better than most. Certainly much, much, better than the trash on FOX.

I agree with you on the Jihadist point.  I've heard a lot of Conservatives in America claiming that Al Jazeera is linked into the Muslim Brotherhood and has supported uprising throughout the Middle East in the name of creating a unified Islamic political bloc by removing Dictators who stand in the way of its formation.  This is ridiculous, Al Jazeera is simply a rising star of the news world which reports from an Arabic perspective.

And while I'm glad Al Jazeera exists because we need diverse voices in the global media that can counter-balance each others' spin and misinformation, we still need to adhere to an aggregate view instead of trusting any one particular source.  It doesn't matter if Al Jazeera is more trustworthy than Fox (which would be a hard thing to establish, if the facts are out there I haven't seen them and I have looked), you still can't take any media outlet on its word.  Nothing should really be taken on its word.  We don't even trust scientists, who in theory report directly on their findings from reproducible experiments, at their word.  That's the whole point of peer review.

Bottom line, it's dangerous to elevate any one organization or individual above the crowd, because then you won't see the lies that they do tell.  And everyone lies.  Sometimes it's not intentional, oftentimes we don't see the ways in which we deceive ourselves and then pass that deception along, but it does happen.

[Bayushi]

The Fairness Doctrine would be a bad idea, again.

If anyone else here was alive back in the early-mid eighties, they may recall that there weren't any politics on television or the radio, outside of news reporting. No opining (Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, etc), no comedy (Colbert and Stewart), none of it. Networks were unwilling to risk cries of bias (via the doctrine), and so chose to completely censor politics.

In a free society such as ours, we should not be censoring any of this. If Michael Savage wants to express his disdain for islamic terrorists, then he should have the right to do so. The same goes for Ariana Huffington and her web sites that pontificate in the opposite direction as most radio and television sources.

Hell, they'd have to shut MSNBC down entirely. People cry about Fox (rightly so), but no one ever seems to complain about MSNBC, which is just as slanted (if not more so) as Fox News.

[Callie Del Noire]

I was around in the 80s..there was a bit more fact and far less 'what is Debutante X up to this week' eating up our time slots.  Do you think some of the stuff that slid under the american radar would have done so in the 80s? I'm not saying the fairness doctrine is perfect.. It wasn't, but back then the news shows REPORTED. You didn't have the anchor saying that it was okay to murder a medical professional because he disagreed with the practices of the doctor.

We might not need the Fairness Doctrine back, but we need SOMETHING.

[Jazra]

I was alive in the mid-eighties. But I was far more interested in learning to walk and getting through elementary school. So I can’t pretend to speak to what was on the radio or television. But the Fairness Doctrine (or an alternative) need not and would not shut down Beck, Colbert, Limbaugh, and Stewart.  It only required that licensed broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. It wasn’t 50/50. You had a lot of latitude on how a station decided to present a contrasting view. Sometimes, it would be a brief segment after a show or an editorial.

It wasn’t just the fairness doctrine that impeded journalists back then. There was this strong idea that the ethics of journalism required reporters to be unbiased. They weren’t. We know that. But they tried not to be blatantly to one side. You didn’t have as many straight opinion pieces, you had a lot more ‘straight’ news segments.  Politics was definitely covered in the 1970s and 1980s and before. Admittedly, we didn't have quite so many people telling us what to think about what was reported. The reason broadcasters are subject to the fairness doctrine and not newspapers or magazines or (I would argue the Internet) is that these broadcasters get something no one else gets, the right to broadcast on a specific spectrum of the radio television band waves. I can pick up and paper and become a newspaper if I want or publish a magazine or start a blog.

It’s not limited. But I can’t set up a competing radio or television station. The law stops me. We could make it so broadcasts are much more local. But we give broadcasters the right to broadcast at huge power and cover large areas. The Supreme Court has said again and again that if a broadcaster is going to enjoy the benefits and protections of the licensing system, it’s not a First Amendment issue when the government regulates how you use that license. Its like driving a car. Everyone gets a turn at the intersection. Now its different for an Arianna Huffington. We truly can compete with her. As for MSNBC and FOX, yes, both are incredibly biased. Would it hurt to dedicate 8 minutes an hour to presenting an opposing view point? Not if your competitors had to do it also. In the end, there may be something better than the Fairness Doctrine. I’m not saying it’s the only way to address the problem. But there is a problem and it’s the only proposed solution I’ve heard presented so far.

[Noelle]

Hell, they'd have to shut MSNBC down entirely. People cry about Fox (rightly so), but no one ever seems to complain about MSNBC, which is just as slanted (if not more so) as Fox News.

Here's the difference between MSNBC and Fox News:

MSNBC - "Lean Forward"
Fox News - "Fair and balanced"

MSNBC is fairly transparent about their bias without trying to pass it off as centrist. Fox News, despite its truckloads of mere "opinion" segments, blurs it all together as their version of the truth and still proclaims that it's "fair and balanced".

And let's not even begin to compare the absolute batshittery of Fox News reporters and correspondents to MSNBC's. Olbermann was pretty bad, but he's no Glenn Beck by any stretch. Olbermann was suspended for donating to three political campaigns. I'm not really sure how accountable Fox News has been for their own team (and I mean this genuinely, if there's a comparable example, I'd like to hear it). Rachel Maddow is fairly sane, but also up-front about her leanings.

I'm genuinely curious to see in what ways MSNBC is "as bad" as Fox News. I'd argue and say that while yes, they are quite biased (and that's bad), you can see the difference in the way they treat their broadcasting in terms of ratings. Fox News is sensationalistic and exploitative because it gets good ratings. They sacrifice truth for viewership. I'd be so bold as to say MSNBC has half the crazies and subsequently, much less than half the viewers.