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.

Callie Del Noire

It's up and running. Anyone got it as part of their package?

I'm curious as to the content.


ShadowFox89

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/20/al-jazeera-america-launches/2679407/

AT&T is already showing Al Jazeera how American media corporations play... dirty, slimy, and disgusting.

Then there's this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/20/can-al-jazeera-make-it-here/?test=latestnews
Quote
But can Al-Jazeera America, which launched Tuesday, deliver the goods? And will people watch a channel owned by the royal family of oil-rich Qatar?
The fledgling network has proven adept at one thing so far: spending money. By opening the checkbook, it has lured such former network stars as John Seigenthaler, Joie Chen, Ali Velshi and Soledad O’Brien, along with top executives and producers.

But, really, can we expect anything less than hypocritical bullshit from fox news?
Call me Shadow
My A/A

gaggedLouise

#2
Added al Jazeera International to the cable tv roll a few years ago, it's the UK-based counterpart of the American outlet, and in English too. Not the same channel that's seen in the Middle East, I've heard some saying the "western" one is better, has higher journalistic standards, but it's hard to know what goes into that kind of assessment, I guess it deoends a lot on who is saying it, what they expect.  I've been watching it now and then, especially about the Arab spring of course.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Pumpkin Seeds

Kind of wonder how Fox has the balls to ask that question when their company is owned by oil rich families.

Kythia

From the first of ShadowFox's sources:

Quote"It's not unusual for a newly launched network to carry a lighter ad load as they get off the ground," said David Campanelli, senior vice president and director of National TV at Horizon Media, a media buyer firm. [Al-Jazeera], in particular, comes with additional questions for advertisers regarding the perception of the network by the general public.

What is this referring to?  What is the perception of Al-Jazeera? 

I use Al-Jazeera English regularly and usually manage to get through an article a day on the main site as part of learning Arabic
242037

Retribution

I view Al-Jazeera as I imagine many of you view Fox News. They certainly have freedom of speech and can be out there but I have no intention of watching them or encouraging them. I view it as terrorist propaganda just like many view Fox News as right wing propaganda to keep the analogy going.

Oniya

I find that somewhere between 'our' propaganda and 'their' propaganda, there's usually something closer to the truth.  If no one is reporting it directly, an indirect route is the only way to find it.
"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

meikle

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on August 22, 2013, 08:26:46 AM
Kind of wonder how Fox has the balls to ask that question when their company is owned by oil rich families.

Projection!
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Kythia

Funnily enough, a lot of people in the Arab world criticise al-Jazeera for it's pro-American bias. 
242037

Hades

I haven't seen any of the broadcasts for the al-Jazeera America programming yet, and probably won't for quite awhile unless they have a webcast as well given the reluctance of my cable company to add any new programming of any sort.

That being said, I do visit the english version of al-Jazeera's website fairly frequently because I have found it to be one of the more accurate and unbiased news outlets available.  No organization is completely without bias of course, but I think aJE (al-Jazeera English) does a pretty good job of filtering the worst of it out.  They are reporting on stories that the mainstream media in America rarely even mentions, such as more trouble at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, the trial of a former high ranked party official in China and the release of Mubarak in Egypt.

I don't know how the arabic version of the organization is, but the english version at least seems to be interested in genuine journalism rather than the punditry parading as journalism that our media has predominately turned into over the years.

Callie Del Noire

Apparently it's a premium channel down here in florida. So to get it I'd have to pay for a 'premiere' package of like 90 channels I never use.

Ephiral

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 10:54:29 AM
I view Al-Jazeera as I imagine many of you view Fox News. They certainly have freedom of speech and can be out there but I have no intention of watching them or encouraging them. I view it as terrorist propaganda just like many view Fox News as right wing propaganda to keep the analogy going.
The difference: Those of us who criticize Fox News have actually seen it and the depths to which it will sink. You admit in this post that you can't say the same - and from what I've seen of Al-Jazeera English, that's because they don't sink to anywhere near the same lows. Calling it "terrorist propaganda", especially sight unseen? That's just fucking racist, dude.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 10:54:29 AM
I view Al-Jazeera as I imagine many of you view Fox News. They certainly have freedom of speech and can be out there but I have no intention of watching them or encouraging them. I view it as terrorist propaganda just like many view Fox News as right wing propaganda to keep the analogy going.

The analogy fails in that Al Jazeera has never publicly claimed the right to lie to their viewers or that it was okay for some VP in their corporate structure to out someone public because the VP decided who was 'worthy' of journalistic protections.

Al Jazeera has some issues yes. But honestly, the few bits I read on their AJ-English site was usually for balanced and fair compared to the same story on Fox.

Do I trust the service 100%? No. I don't trust any single service 100% either.

Hades

I found this article on the front page of the al-Jazeera America website, and since it involves my home state I was curious of their coverage.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/22/in-kentucky-poorfamilieshitbybudgetcuts.html

Talking about the poor and how budget cuts at the state level is going to impact them disproportionately.   Clearly, it's a terrorist propaganda ploy.

meikle

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 10:54:29 AM
I view Al-Jazeera as I imagine many of you view Fox News. They certainly have freedom of speech and can be out there but I have no intention of watching them or encouraging them. I view it as terrorist propaganda just like many view Fox News as right wing propaganda to keep the analogy going.
Cypher - Ignorance is bliss
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Retribution

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

http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera

I 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.

Last 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.

meikle

#16
QuoteLast 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.

I am sure you understand that your right to free speech comes with the right of other people to criticize you for what you say.

That Middle East forum link...

QuoteAccordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies. ... working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia;

Yeah this sounds like an unbiased source!  Their entire mission statement seems to be "Muslims are evil."
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Avis habilis


Retribution

I know it is not unbaised thus why I included Wikipedia in an other link. You will find that link reference publishing writings of Bin Laden.

But my point is this quote below is what ticked me off.

Quote from: Ephiral on August 22, 2013, 01:43:06 PM
Calling it "terrorist propaganda", especially sight unseen? That's just fucking racist, dude.

Now I am really done.

Kythia

#19
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.

That's how journalism works.  The New York Times and the Washington Post published the Unabomber Manifesto.  Are they terrorist propagandists?  Fox News published a letter by Timothy McVeigh, are they?  AP published a letter from the weathermen.  Over here, the BBC have done interviews with IRA members.  Are they?  On and on goes the list.

I think your position is extremely shaky.  But, obviously, I'm not gonna come round to your house, tie you to a chair and force you to watch it.  I don't care that much.  But I do think you need to rexamine why you're not if the best you can come up with is that.
242037

Oniya

Quote from: Kythia on August 22, 2013, 03:25:24 PM
AP published a letter from the weatherman.

Actually had to look that one up.  :-)  At first, I was thinking 'Partly cloudy, temperatures in the mid-to-upper 70s?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
"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

Kythia

Quote from: Oniya on August 22, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
Actually had to look that one up.  :-)  At first, I was thinking 'Partly cloudy, temperatures in the mid-to-upper 70s?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Fear my vast knowledge of late sixties and seventies leftist terrorism.
242037

Cyrano Johnson

That Al Jazzeera pisses off both the Arab dictators and various Western parties with skewed perspectives and an axe to grind is generally a sign that it's earned its strong reputation.

About the most sympathetic of its detractors I can see is Daniel Pearl's dad, who has for understandable reasons of personal grief developed an obsession with Arab world politics, but given the circumstances I don't exactly think his conspiracy theories reflect state-of-the-art judgment. Most of the rest of the pack are the kind of people who are prone to crying "anti-Americanism" for no good reason at all or as a tactic of outright deception. Sorry Retribution, but I think I'm calling your "al-Jazeera is terrorist propaganda" myth busted.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

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

Retribution

Quote from: Kythia on August 22, 2013, 03:25:24 PM
That's how journalism works.  The New York Times and the Washington Post published the Unabomber Manifesto.  Are they terrorist propagandists?  Fox News published a letter by Timothy McVeigh, are they?  AP published a letter from the weathermen.  Over here, the BBC have done interviews with IRA members.  Are they?  On and on goes the list.

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.

Cyrano Johnson

Now that makes me curious. Where exactly do you go for news, in that case?
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

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

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.

Avis habilis

Yeah, that was pretty skeevy.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Avis habilis on August 23, 2013, 02:07:37 PM
Yeah, that was pretty skeevy.

Yeah.. good old Chicago politics at it's worst.

The Dark Raven

Quote from: Cyrano Johnson on August 23, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
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.)

Quote from: Avis habilis on August 23, 2013, 01:48:30 PM
Two more words: different Jack.

Not sure I want to click it with what it sounds like, but I did not know there was a real Jack Ryan...and that he is/was a politician to boot.  Scary.

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.

Oniya

Avis' link is just to the Wikipedia entry on the end of the politician's campaign, due to the scandal.
"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

The Dark Raven

Quote from: Oniya on August 23, 2013, 02:14:03 PM
Avis' link is just to the Wikipedia entry on the end of the politician's campaign, due to the scandal.

<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.

Avis habilis

Quote from: Daylily on August 23, 2013, 02:12:35 PM
Not sure I want to click it with what it sounds like, but I did not know there was a real Jack Ryan...and that he is/was a politician to boot.  Scary.

Heh. Don't worry, I'm not about to Rick-roll you with a link to some congressman doing who knows what in a sex club. Eurgh.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on August 23, 2013, 02:14:03 PM
Avis' link is just to the Wikipedia entry on the end of the politician's campaign, due to the scandal.

We don't usually send folks to 'booby traps' on the political sites. Sometimes we might link to articles with logical/factual fallicies.. but normally nothing with malicous intent.
Quote from: Daylily on August 23, 2013, 02:16:27 PM
<3
And if you check before hand.. you'll see the link address when you hover your icon it Daylilly..

Honest..we're 'tamed' rabid posters.. honest. :D

Oniya

Sometimes a browser won't display the link when you hover.  I've had that problem on a couple of other sites (and usually won't click on those links.)
"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

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on August 23, 2013, 02:25:11 PM
Sometimes a browser won't display the link when you hover.  I've had that problem on a couple of other sites (and usually won't click on those links.)

Really? I typically check before I click.. guess firefox and chrome have spoiled me. :D

Ephiral

I recommend going a step further - I use LinkPeelr for Chrome, but I'm guessing something comparable exists for other browsers. Does wonders for knowing where you're going.

Neysha

Al Jazeera coming to the US can't be that bad, especially if it's replacing Current TV, which is just wasting space on my channel guide. I'm pretty sure only two people watch Current TV at anytime in the United States, typically those people being the cameraman and the sound guy. I mean from what I've seen of Al Jazeera English Language coverage, it's probably less biased and less left wing reactionary blather then most of Current TV's lineup so it's probably a dramatic improvement when it comes to bias. Added onto that it's a non-US owned or based organization and that means the news will hopefully have a more international flavor since regardless of bias, the current big news media networks naturally have a bias towards focusing on domestic/national issues or international issues as they relate to the United States. Which is fair enough. I'm not going to fault BBC for being British oriented or Russia Today for being utter tripe because it's Russian. :p

But I digress...

The main thing is the English language service and Arabic language service are fairly divergent in their presentation, with the latter being more inflammatory and virulent when it comes to the West and America specifically. The English language service replaces inflammatory words with more neutral ones and they took advantage of downsizing by other media companies in hiring a bunch of BBC World and CNBC journalists to populate their English language programming. I sincerely doubt we'll see Al Jazeera be some trusted and honest source of news in comparison to other Western news companies however. It's largely owned and dominated by Qatari oil barons, so they're no different then the other corporate dominated news media organizations except that they live on the other side of the world geographically and in other respects as well. A large amount of their POV will be one of the Qatari and Gulf State elites, which could be good or bad.

Their coverage of the Arab Spring, especially in Egypt, was quite laudable but it was also in the interest of the Qatari's to see that regime, and others like it fall apart. But it's also clear to see how the bread is buttered now, for example how the transition picture on their Syrian Civil War coverage is a little girl holding a FSA flag and surrounded by a bunch of triumphant protesters and rebels, while one mostly obscured regime flag is hid in the corner. Golly, I wonder who the Qataris/Al Jazeera are backing in that Civil War. But it's similar with their implicit backing of the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations similar to it, which is analogous to Western media support of Israel and whatnot, so its basically pots calling kettles black.

The main thing is AJE backers generally don't give much of a shit about the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia etc in general, so the reporting could be quite clear, neutral and orthodox which might be nice for a change.

Quote from: Retribution on August 22, 2013, 10:54:29 AM
I view Al-Jazeera as I imagine many of you view Fox News. They certainly have freedom of speech and can be out there but I have no intention of watching them or encouraging them. I view it as terrorist propaganda just like many view Fox News as right wing propaganda to keep the analogy going.

Perhaps a more fair (not really) assessment would be that while Fox News may not be racist, it's number one with racists. Likewise while Al Jazeera isn't terrorist propaganda, it's the number one media organization for them. :p
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

Quote from: Neysha on August 24, 2013, 05:37:43 PMThe main thing is the English language service and Arabic language service are fairly divergent in their presentation, with the latter being more inflammatory and virulent when it comes to the West and America specifically. The English language service replaces inflammatory words with more neutral ones and they took advantage of downsizing by other media companies in hiring a bunch of BBC World and CNBC journalists to populate their English language programming. I sincerely doubt we'll see Al Jazeera be some trusted and honest source of news in comparison to other Western news companies however. It's largely owned and dominated by Qatari oil barons, so they're no different then the other corporate dominated news media organizations except that they live on the other side of the world geographically and in other respects as well. A large amount of their POV will be one of the Qatari and Gulf State elites, which could be good or bad.
So. The worst that one can say about them is that they tell the news from the point of view of their owners. This has been true of every news organization since the first pamphlets were printed. If this is all the problem one can cite, they still come out looking better than a huge number of news orgs - including most American ones. (Their bias problem is more severe than some newsrooms I can name, true - but not many. Mostly it seems to come in the form of direction on where to focus coverage, not in what actually gets reported.)

Quote from: Neysha on August 24, 2013, 05:37:43 PMPerhaps a more fair (not really) assessment would be that while Fox News may not be racist, it's number one with racists. Likewise while Al Jazeera isn't terrorist propaganda, it's the number one media organization for them. :p
I still don't think this holds. Again, you're comparing an organization that gave a show to a man who actively funded terrorists to one that... reports news from the middle east. Somehow, the former tends to get ignored or downplayed when people are slinging accusations of terrorism around. Probably because those accusations tend to come from his coworkers.

TheGlyphstone

I'm not sure what it says about me that I can't tell for certain which network is which in that comparison, since you didn't specify Islamic terrorists.

Ephiral

Quote from: TheGlyphstone on August 25, 2013, 11:34:45 AM
I'm not sure what it says about me that I can't tell for certain which network is which in that comparison, since you didn't specify Islamic terrorists.
Fox News gave Oliver North his own show. North, by his own admission, smuggled military ordnance to a state sponsor of terrorism which was under an embargo, and then gave the profits to terrorists in Nicaragua. But the network run by brown people gets accused of supporting terrorists. Funny, that.

TheGlyphstone

I knew my irony sensor was worth listening to.

Neysha

#65
Quote from: Ephiral on August 25, 2013, 01:27:13 AM
So. The worst that one can say about them is that they tell the news from the point of view of their owners. This has been true of every news organization since the first pamphlets were printed. If this is all the problem one can cite, they still come out looking better than a huge number of news orgs - including most American ones. (Their bias problem is more severe than some newsrooms I can name, true - but not many. Mostly it seems to come in the form of direction on where to focus coverage, not in what actually gets reported.)

I'm sure far worse can be cited in regards to Al Jazeera and in fact it has been mentioned and cited in this thread already but unlike some, I feel no particular desire to throw out lists of criticisms and controversies like some Media Research Center or Media Matters 'watchdog' and sifting through the dirty laundry of those I take ideological issue with while pretending my own undies don't stink. :p So I don't see why my post was taken as citing the 'worst' examples of Al Jazeera when in fact my intention was to simply provide my own POV of the organization in general, which I still think is fairly spot on.

QuoteI still don't think this holds. Again, you're comparing an organization that gave a show to a man who actively funded terrorists to one that... reports news from the middle east. Somehow, the former tends to get ignored or downplayed when people are slinging accusations of terrorism around. Probably because those accusations tend to come from his coworkers.

Hence the parenthetical quote, the dismissive smiley at the end, and the fact I was responding to Retribution in a lighthearted tone.

QuoteFox News gave Oliver North his own show. North, by his own admission, smuggled military ordnance to a state sponsor of terrorism which was under an embargo, and then gave the profits to terrorists in Nicaragua. But the network run by brown people gets accused of supporting terrorists. Funny, that.

Considering the Qatari government and elites who support Al Jazeera also sponsor terrorist organizations like Al Nusra (sorry allegedly, no one has taken the nation of Qatar to court yet :p ) and has done similar to other Libyan, Syrian, North African and Palestinian groups etc all in the past few years (allegedly), I'm not sure why bringing Oliver North somehow invalidates or exonerates the 'brown people' in question. And the Contras in Nicaragua were freedom fighters, just like Hezbollah was/is. Anyways, Oliver North has already faced his trial and served his sentence. We must stop persecuting and oppressing the freedom fighters and terrorists if we are to ever reconcile our differences in a peaceful and progressive manner, especially if the person in question has already faced their trial and served their sentence.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

Quote from: Neysha on August 25, 2013, 07:45:16 PM
I'm sure far worse can be cited in regards to Al Jazeera and in fact it has been mentioned and cited in this thread already but unlike some, I feel no particular desire to throw out lists of criticisms and controversies like some Media Research Center or Media Matters 'watchdog' and sifting through the dirty laundry of those I take ideological issue with while pretending my own undies don't stink. :p So I don't see why my post was taken as citing the 'worst' examples of Al Jazeera when in fact my intention was to simply provide my own POV of the organization in general, which I still think is fairly spot on.
That's the thing. There's been no real substantiation of this POV.

Quote from: Neysha on August 25, 2013, 07:45:16 PMConsidering the Qatari government and elites who support Al Jazeera also sponsor terrorist organizations like Al Nusra (sorry allegedly, no one has taken the nation of Qatar to court yet :p ) and has done similar to other Libyan, Syrian, North African and Palestinian groups etc all in the past few years (allegedly), I'm not sure why bringing Oliver North somehow invalidates or exonerates the 'brown people' in question. And the Contras in Nicaragua were freedom fighters, just like Hezbollah was/is.

Is Al Jazeera the Qatari government? No? Good, then we can stop holding AJ responsible for its actions. Which leaves the "supports terrorism" charges levied against English-speaking Al-Jazeera networks with... zero evidence. As for "freedom fighter" vs "terrorist": An organization with an institutional policy of committing atrocities against civilian populations is a terrorist organization. Period. That's what terrorism is. You don't get to kidnap, torture, rape, and execute non-combatants and get called a "freedom fighter" just because you're on "our" side.

Neysha

#67
Quote from: Ephiral on August 25, 2013, 07:54:01 PM
That's the thing. There's been no real substantiation of this POV.

What POV?

QuoteIs Al Jazeera the Qatari government? No? Good, then we can stop holding AJ responsible for its actions. Which leaves the "supports terrorism" charges levied against English-speaking Al-Jazeera networks with... zero evidence.

I'm not holding Al Jazeera English as responsible. But if the charges are true, then the sponsors of Al Jazeera apparently align with the political and business elite of Qatar and other nations who also sponsor terrorism. Obfuscating the issue with arbitrary diversions and divisions just sounds dishonest, and grossly immoral if the allegations are true. After all, we're talking about the 'brown people' that support AJ, not the physical network itself. I'm sure I agree with you in that the cameras and desks and ex-BBC World journalists whatnot aren't sponsors of terrorism.

QuoteAs for "freedom fighter" vs "terrorist": An organization with an institutional policy of committing atrocities against civilian populations is a terrorist organization. Period. That's what terrorism is. You don't get to kidnap, torture, rape, and execute non-combatants and get called a "freedom fighter" just because you're on "our" side.

The Sandinistas never kidnapped, tortured, raped or executed non-combatants? I'm asking this honestly, I have no idea. Maybe they were incredibly 'clean' in their prosecution of a vicious Civil War.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

Quote from: Neysha on August 25, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
What POV?
That Al-Jazeera is "the number one news network for [terrorists]."

Quote from: Neysha on August 25, 2013, 07:59:03 PMI'm not holding Al Jazeera English as responsible. But if the charges are true, then the sponsors of Al Jazeera apparently align with the political and business elite of Qatar and other nations who also sponsor terrorism. Obfuscating the issue with arbitrary diversions and divisions just sounds dishonest, and grossly immoral if the allegations are true. After all, we're talking about the 'brown people' that support AJ, not the physical network itself. I'm sure I agree with you in that the cameras and desks and whatnot aren't supporters of terrorism.
No. The allegations of "terrorist propaganda" and "number one with terrorists" were leveled at Al-Jazeera. You cannot substantiate those claims by pointing to the actions of people outside Al-Jazeera.

Quote from: Neysha on August 25, 2013, 07:59:03 PMThe Sandinistas never kidnapped, tortured, raped or executed non-combatants? I'm asking this honestly, I have no idea. Maybe they were incredibly 'clean' in their prosecution of a vicious Civil War.
Completely and totally irrelevant. I am not supporting the Sandinistas, or in fact saying anything about them. I am saying that the Contras not only did these things, but did so as part of a well-documented policy of terror-as-war. This renders them terrorists. It's entirely possible that the Sandinistas were just as bad, or even worse. That in no way absolves the Contras; it just makes the fight between a terrorist government and a terrorist rebellion.

Neysha

#69
Quote from: Ephiral on August 25, 2013, 08:06:32 PM
No. The allegations of "terrorist propaganda" and "number one with terrorists" were leveled at Al-Jazeera. You cannot substantiate those claims by pointing to the actions of people outside Al-Jazeera.

I never made those claims if you paid attention and when challenged, clarified what I felt was obvious.

Furthermore you didn't quote that part of my post, you quoted this post:

Quote from: NeyshaConsidering the Qatari government and elites who support Al Jazeera also sponsor terrorist organizations like Al Nusra (sorry allegedly, no one has taken the nation of Qatar to court yet :p ) and has done similar to other Libyan, Syrian, North African and Palestinian groups etc all in the past few years (allegedly), I'm not sure why bringing Oliver North somehow invalidates or exonerates the 'brown people' in question. And the Contras in Nicaragua were freedom fighters, just like Hezbollah was/is.

In which there is no mention of the allegations or substantiations I allegedly made.

QuoteCompletely and totally irrelevant. I am not supporting the Sandinistas, or in fact saying anything about them. I am saying that the Contras not only did these things, but did so as part of a well-documented policy of terror-as-war. This renders them terrorists. It's entirely possible that the Sandinistas were just as bad, or even worse. That in no way absolves the Contras; it just makes the fight between a terrorist government and a terrorist rebellion.

Is there a major war you can cite that wasn't between terrorist governments/states or groups in recent history? If not, I'm going to take your differentiation and definition of terrorism as either too generalized to be useful, or too watered down and thus meaningless.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on August 25, 2013, 08:06:32 PM
No. The allegations of "terrorist propaganda" and "number one with terrorists" were leveled at Al-Jazeera. You cannot substantiate those claims by pointing to the actions of people outside Al-Jazeera.

Not from Neysha they weren't, in fairness.  Her quote was:

Quote
Perhaps a more fair (not really) assessment would be that while Fox News may not be racist, it's number one with racists. Likewise while Al Jazeera isn't terrorist propaganda, it's the number one media organization for them. :p

So terrorist propaganda doesn't apply, and "number one with terrorists" was explicitly about people outside Al-Jazeera.
242037

Neysha

#71
Quote from: Kythia on August 25, 2013, 08:30:58 PM
Not from Neysha they weren't, in fairness.  Her quote was:

So terrorist propaganda doesn't apply, and "number one with terrorists" was explicitly about people outside Al-Jazeera.

The reason I made the quotes was because not too long prior I had seen an amusing O'Reilly segment where O'Reilly was bitching about a Simpsons scene where a Fox News Helicopter had the slogan "Not Racist, But Number One With Racists" on the side and after an accident, the helicopter spun out and the pilot screamed. "You're unbalancing the helicopter. That's not fair!" before he crashed and burned.



I thought it would be an amusing reversal.

I WAS WRONG.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

...Oh, its you. Kythia, I meant "number one for them", I apologize. Taken from
Quote from: Neysha on August 24, 2013, 05:37:43 PMLikewise while Al Jazeera isn't terrorist propaganda, it's the number one media organization for them. :p

That's a... strong allegation, to put it mildly. But on that note, this is going to go nowhere productive fast, I'm out.

Neysha

#73
I'd just like to say... over the past couple days, I've been watching AJE about fifty thousand times more often then I have watched Current TV. My initial suspicions are pretty much correct. It's way better and feels less biased then Current TV and the production values are infinitely better, and the personalities and presentation far more professional.

Overall, if you're a typical ignorant American like myself, you might get the gut feeling that AJE has a liberal POV at least as far as Americans are concerned (who are more right wing then most Western countries on average) but I'd contrast it sharply with Current TV and especially a lot of MSNBC in that while it may feel (or be depending on your ideology) like it has a firm liberal POV, it is far less vociferous and antagonistic then say... your typical MSNBC news analysis show (Tamron Hall, Martin Bashir or Rachel Maddow etc). In fact, it'd be about as liberal as one might consider Shepherd Smith's 'Hard News Hour' on Fox News to be conservative. *pause* Nothing of what I said makes sense... oh well... moving along.

There's a documentary show, Fault Lines, and other shows which do cover interesting stories. One covered the Baltimore Crime scene... which isn't very original and was pretty... by the numbers as documentaries go but another documentary illuminated something I previously had heard nothing about, which was how allegedly Nepali UN Peacekeepers brought a serious cholera epidemic to Haiti. Which definitely goes in line with other stories they covered that others overlooked oftentimes. (such as the after effects of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster or the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant which went under-reported, of course that is countered by the fact that further coverage of those stories could be construed as furthering the interests of Qatari Oil Barons... but hey, that just means they're as honest as everyone else in news media)

The regular news shows (hard news so to speak) is very reminiscent of BBC news programming which makes sense, considering so many BBC World journalists work for AJE and so... I find few faults with it in general though if you're of a Conservative POV, you might be somewhat irked by the mild 'liberal' POV. This won't be improved by the guest list. So far I've seen interviews with Dr. Cornel West, and Wesley Clark and other 'liberal' or 'progressive' guests. We'll see if that gets diversified. I'm relieved by the lack of 'political analysts' 'pollsters' and other useless 'experts' babbling in news bites as well. I've also seen far more elaborate coverage on the occurrences in Afghanistan and Iraq which has largely been missed in US networks. I'm assuming this is due to the balance of time being focused on actual news reporting as opposed to more 'human interest' stories and 'news opinion' or 'talk show' type of news broadcasts.

The main drawback so far is the production values. It's better then Current TV but woefully behind every other Cable Network. Sometimes I get black screens between shows, scrambled signals, and beyond technical difficulties is the presentation by the journalists. A lot of the videos they show (for example a clip of some Fox News Sunday interview) goes uncited as to who is speaking, the video is blurry and the citation of Fox News Sunday is... weird looking and not just with them but when they play other clips as well. Also to a degree that is noticeable and somewhat distracting, I've seen journalists fidgeting with their earpieces or hair when reporting, awkward pauses during news reports, very hard and obvious edits in recorded interviews, extremely awkward pauses in live interviews, some throat clearing, weird banter and occasionally stilted discussions, banter and most of all news reading. Also one of the main news anchors... no joke... had one of his hands underneath the desk during large portions of the newscast. I noticed it anyways and well... the world wonders. :p

EDIT: They shows a side view of the desk... he rests his hand on his knee a lot apparently... or at least he did for that shot. ;)

And the commercials on AJE about how awesome AJE is, are shitty examples of self promotion. Sorry... :p

But hopefully they'll work through all of that.

All in all, AJE seems pretty decent, albeit still a rough product. For National news, the US Cable News Networks might be best and especially things like sports, human interest stories, and a fair bit of financial/business news. For international news though, I choose BBC Middle East... I mean Al Jazeera English. ;)

Quote from: Ephiral on August 25, 2013, 10:09:07 PM
...Oh, its you. Kythia, I meant "number one for them", I apologize. Taken from
That's a... strong allegation, to put it mildly. But on that note, this is going to go nowhere productive fast, I'm out.

This was in the same post in which I stated of AJE:

Quote from: Neyshafrom what I've seen of Al Jazeera English Language coverage, it's probably less biased and less left wing reactionary blather then most of Current TV's lineup so it's probably a dramatic improvement when it comes to bias. Added onto that it's a non-US owned or based organization and that means the news will hopefully have a more international flavor since regardless of bias, the current big news media networks naturally have a bias towards focusing on domestic/national issues or international issues as they relate to the United States.

Quote from: NeyshaA large amount of their POV will be one of the Qatari and Gulf State elites, which could be good or bad.

Quote from: NeyshaTheir coverage of the Arab Spring, especially in Egypt, was quite laudable

Quote from: Neyshait's similar with their implicit backing of the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations similar to it, which is analogous to Western media support of Israel and whatnot, so its basically pots calling kettles black.

Quote from: NeyshaThe main thing is AJE backers generally don't give much of a shit about the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia etc in general, so the reporting could be quite clear, neutral and orthodox which might be nice for a change.

And yet you ignore all of that... and focus on what was obviously an irreverent comment that even if taken literally, would require a stretch to be considered stating AJE is a front of terrorists or whatever your accusing me of. It's almost as if... you were looking for a... discussion. ;)

But I digress...

It was going nowhere, because you refuse to listen. You can't even put up the full quote.

Quote from: NeyshaPerhaps a more fair (not really) assessment would be that while Fox News may not be racist, it's number one with racists. Likewise while Al Jazeera isn't terrorist propaganda, it's the number one media organization for them. :p

Even with the single quote you focused on I tried to explain away with my first response which was also ignored.

Quote from: NeyshaHence the parenthetical quote, the dismissive smiley at the end, and the fact I was responding to Retribution in a lighthearted tone.

And my second time explaining it. (also ignored)

Quote from: Neysha
The reason I made the quotes was because not too long prior I had seen an amusing O'Reilly segment where O'Reilly was bitching about a Simpsons scene where a Fox News Helicopter had the slogan "Not Racist, But Number One With Racists" on the side and after an accident, the helicopter spun out and the pilot screamed. "You're unbalancing the helicopter. That's not fair!" before he crashed and burned.



I thought it would be an amusing reversal.

I WAS WRONG.

My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

ThePrince

The only news I listen today is either about the Rebublican party imploding or internet space war politics. So I doubt I'll be picking up Al Jazzeera. But there decent enough folks.

I dont have cable, but I used to watch streams of there programing. If they get into covering US politics, I'll be highly interested.
RP Request Thread
O/O's
I am what I am. I am my own special creation.
So come take a look, Give me the hook or the ovation.
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in.
It's my world and it's not a place I have to hide in.
Life ain't worth a dam till you can say I am what I am.

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.
O/O

Neysha

Quote from: alextaylor on August 26, 2013, 05:02:26 PM
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.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

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

#78
*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

#79
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.

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.

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

Quote from: Ephiral on August 27, 2013, 03:14:18 PM
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.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

Quote from: Neysha on August 27, 2013, 03:46:04 PM
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

Quote from: Ephiral on August 27, 2013, 03:53:38 PM
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.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

ShadowFox89

Quote from: Neysha on August 27, 2013, 04:20:00 PM
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.
Call me Shadow
My A/A

Kythia

Quote from: Neysha on August 27, 2013, 04:20:00 PM
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".
242037

Ephiral

Quote from: Retribution on August 27, 2013, 03:56:09 PM
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

Quote from: Kythia on August 27, 2013, 04:29:59 PM
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.

Quote from: ShadowFox89 on August 27, 2013, 04:21:52 PM
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.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Callie Del Noire

Throttle it back folks.

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

Kythia

Quote from: Neysha on August 27, 2013, 04:53:12 PM
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.
242037

Retribution

Quote from: Ephiral on August 27, 2013, 04:45:02 PM
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

#96
Skipping over all the stuff about who employs or is supported by "terrorists" and who isn't*:

Quote from: Retribution on August 27, 2013, 02:29:21 PMI 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.)

QuoteI 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.
Artichoke the gorilla halibut! Freedom! Remember Bubba the Love Sponge!

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