Well, let the firestorm begin!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050704/ap_en_tv/al_jazeera_s_spread Al-Jazeera Launching all-English Channel DOHA, Qatar - Al-Jazeera is nothing if not bold. It has fought repeatedly with Washington, which says its exclusive broadcasts of Osama bin Laden speeches show an anti-American, pro-terrorist bias. Its freewheeling broadcasts have decimated state-run TV stations across much of the Arab world, leading some countries to close its bureaus down. So what does such a network do next? Plan a massive expansion. By March, the network will launch Al-Jazeera International, a satellite channel that will beam English-language news to the United States — and much of the rest of the world — from its base in tiny Qatar. The ever-contentious Middle East will be its specialty. And the news, including coverage of Israel, will be served up from an Arab perspective, Al-Jazeera executives say. With a touch of the evangelist, perhaps, the station's executives say their mission is nothing less than reversing the dominant flow of global information, which now originates on TV channels in the West. "We're the first news channel based in the Mideast to bring news back to the West," said Nigel Parsons, managing director of Al-Jazeera International. "We want to set a different news agenda." The station's research shows some of the world's one billion English speakers, including Americans, thirst for news from a non-Western perspective. Outside America, the station plans to compete with CNN International and BBC World, the two chief English-language satellite news channels. The new station will be headquartered in Doha and operate broadcast newsrooms in London, Washington and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. But breaking into the U.S. market, with its established channels, might be more difficult. The station's anti-American reputation may win some early "curiosity" viewers, Parsons said. Overall, Al-Jazeera executives contend negative American opinions are based on "irrational and erroneous information." For instance, Parsons said, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld lambasted the station for showing beheadings by Iraqi insurgents. Actually, Al-Jazeera has aired portions of insurgent videos but never a beheading, he said. Another irritant is Al-Jazeera's often-gory coverage of Iraq from both perspectives. Before it was banned, the network embedded reporters with both Iraqi insurgents and with U.S. troops. Nevertheless, Americans have shown curiosity. Al-Jazeera's English-language Web site gets most of its traffic from U.S. visitors, Parsons said. In the end, Al-Jazeera might coax viewers from an elite segment of American TV watchers, perhaps those who tune into the BBC, some observers say. But most Americans want to be comforted by the news, not challenged by it, said Jon Alterman, who heads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. If Al-Jazeera is a tough sell in the United States, it has natural audiences elsewhere. The world counts 1.2 billion Muslims, most of whom don't speak Arabic. That means Al-Jazeera stands to find quick popularity in countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. Alterman believes Al-Jazeera will help integrate the world's far-flung Muslim communities, giving them a common news source. That's not necessarily what the station is after. "We're not a Muslim channel," said Parsons, a Briton who, like many Al-Jazeera International staff, does not speak Arabic. Indeed, the station is even less popular with governments in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Tunisia, which currently ban it. Those countries' rulers suggest it incites violence by giving airtime to opposition politicians and radical clerics. At one time or another, Al-Jazeera has had bureaus closed in 18 countries and its signal blocked in 30. Its revenues still suffer under an advertising boycott, believed to originate from Saudi government pressure. The station has had three bureaus destroyed by bombings, two by the U.S. military. Two staff in Iraq have been killed. Two others were locked in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and released without charge. A third is being tried in Spain on charges of working for the al-Qaida terrorist group. Yet because it is based in Qatar, an energy-rich Persian Gulf country of less than a million, the station has little opportunity to upset its home government. "They're in a unique position," said Mustafa Alani, director of security and terrorism studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "They can criticize everybody." Arab viewers who previously had only staid state-run broadcasters to watch have apparently liked that, flocking to the station since its 1996 debut. It now reaches more than 40 million viewers, and if it weren't for the advertising boycott, Al-Jazeera's network would bring in some $35 million in yearly ad revenue, enough to wean it from Qatar government money, said managing director Wadah Khanfar. The station is expected to be privatized in a few years. But as long as it remains close to the Qatari royal family, the boycott poses few funding worries. Yet despite its protests to the contrary, Al-Jazeera is already softening its aggressive coverage of Saudi Arabia and other countries, Alani believes. The reason? It must regain access to those countries to boost its English broadcasts, Alani said. "If you're banned from half the Arab world, your ability to break news is limited," Alani said.
Excellent news. I'm happy to hear it. I wish an independent American network would start broadcasting as well.
This is a liberal's wet dream. If it has plenty of anti-American information, no matter if it's true or not, the liberals will LOVE it! You're in luck, liberals! Al Jazeera is a joke of a news organization with a disgusting anti-American bias. I read their english website from time to time and its hatred for all things American is plain for anybody to see. Not surprised tigermission started this thread, either.
I guess you missed the pro-American stories I posted from Al-Jazeera. The news agency has twice been attacked by the U.S. govt. The news agency doesn't have an anti-American bias, but it does report with the perspective of the Arab general public in mind, and they don't have qualms that is who their audience is. They are however banned in certain Arab states for being against some of the govts. of the mideast. Even Sharone of Israel has spoken of Al-Jazeera as something that can help the govt. of Israel. It is an independent organization that regularly has U.S. officials, and just about anyone else that is important in news on it. The organization does have some journalistic lapses such has having quotes from one side in a story and no quotes from opposing views. That happens more with written stories than it does on air stories, and overall they have people from all different types of people from all political points of view on their broadcasts and stories. The only problem is that they don't always put them together in the same story.
Al-Jazeera Launching all-English Channel _________ The channel is expected to be launched on a three stage Taepo Dong II ~ ignition start and trajectory are unknown at this time, however the channel is expected to arrive somewhere between Northern Alaska and the Baja Peninsula. Al-Jazeera is said to be 'very excited' to have the ability to bring their views directly to the American public ~ if well received future channel expansion to include Spanish and Russian dialects along with the exciting Taepo Dong III delivery system.
anti-American information? You mean reporting inconvient truths at times? Well, hey, America should fall in line, because apparently EVERYONE thinks Al-Jazeera is "anti" them: Arab regimes, Islamists, Israelis, Americans, etc. Usually, when you piss off everyone and all sides it means you are doing something right. But hey, don't take my word for it, I see you have taken O'Reilly's labeling of Al-Jazeera as "anti-American" to heart, either that or you're a Rumsfeld fan! They don't lie about presenting their news from the "Arab point of view" (by this they mean what interests people in that part of the world, which is naturally about the region itself and its ongoing conflicts), although they do have PLENTY of debate shows that allow for a bunch of American/Israeli/Arab/Pakistani/Indian/whatever officials to come on and present their own views. There is no censorship on that channel, that's why they are so controversial, because one minute they can allow the Taliban spokesman on (which they did), and the next minute have Richard Perle on defending the actions of the administration. At worst, even if you believe they are clearly bias, consider it a necessary counterbalance -- as far as the world audience is concerned -- for the likes of Fox News (Bush's foot soldiers), CNN, BBC, and other networks that ALL cater to a Western audience. They said they would concentrate mainly on the Middle East region with their new english-lang network, so consider this a chance to learn more about the region. BTW, I am not a liberal, nor am I endorsing Al-Jazeera, it just happened to be a headline today on Yahoo news. And since I know how controversial Al-Jazeera is, I was sure some here would have something to say about it. I find it funny that even those who have never watched the network seem to have formed an opinion about it. Go figure! BTW, you know where Al-Jazeera gets most of its traffic on its website? Yup, that would be from the U.S. Apparently, and according to them, the only reason they are expanding to an english-lang network is because there is enormous interest in the network among the English-speaking population of the world, so they basically it's more of a sound business decision than an ideological one. I don't think they are out to conquer the world, but I don't think it's far-fetched to think they can compete head-to-head with CNN and the BBC, for if nothing else they already have a well-established name and an intrigue factor that will have people tuning in to see what this "Al-Jazeera" is all about. I think controversy is a network's best friend, because it generates enormous ratings and interest in the network; look at how well Fox is doing domestically: the more they are criticized, the more controversial they are, the more people are tuning in. People are entertained by that I guess, anything but dullness.
I've been reading the Al-Jazeera english language website on a semi-regular basis for some time. Their lengthy "history" of Iraq (I am not sure if it is on the website any more) made NO mention of ANY of the atrocities commited by Saddam, including the gassing of the Kurds, the wiping out of the marsh Shiites, and on and on. Kind of like a history of WWII that makes NO mention of the Holocaust. I guess that is what passes for independent news in the Middle East.
he-he... Meanwhile, you can google "Gitmo" for news and get 3,200 hits in less than a tenth of a second. Or 1.67 Million webpages.
How does a google search of the entire Internet regarding Gitmo compare to a single article written on Al-Jazeera? If you compared a search on just the NY Times website (or pick another paper) regarding Gitmo to a search on the entire Al-Jazeera website (not just one article) about gassing kurds, then that is a fair comparison.
From what i've read from Al Jazeera, it's like fox news on steroids. Interesting perspectives, sometimes dead-on, but i'll take me the objectivity of the ol' biased American and European press a thousand times over AJ.
"Their lengthy "history" of Iraq (I am not sure if it is on the website any more) made NO mention of ANY of the atrocities commited by Saddam, including the gassing of the Kurds, the wiping out of the marsh Shiites, and on and on. Kind of like a history of WWII that makes NO mention of the Holocaust." Does GLARING AND DELIBERATE OMISSION sound accurate? If they are going to link to one grand article, who in their right and fair mind would choose the one described here? Isn't al Jazeera being pimped here as the unbiased source of Middle East news?
So if somebody oppose's W's agenda, does that make them anti-American? Is Al-Jazeera anti-American or are they pro-Muslim? I don't have a problem with pro-Muslim people. That is as much their right as Fox news is your right. To be honest, I dislike Al-Jazeera about as much as I dislike Fox news...they both seem like propoganda machines to me. The difference is Al-Jazeera doesn't claim to be "Fair and Balanced." They say upfront they report on behalf of the middle eastern people. So was Muhammad Ali anti-American when he refused to fight in Vietnam? Vietnam was a war that, by virtually every count nowadays was a farce, and as a black man in America, was supposed to fight against another country when his own country still aided and abetted lynchings by southern white Americans? Was Ali anti-American or was he pro-African American? It sucks when somebody else's agenda conflicts with your own...but that doesn't make then anti-American. There are many extreme Islamics that are definately "anti-American" but I'm not convinced Al-Jazeera is just because they give airtime to people that dislikes us...as long as they make some attempt to give airtime to opposing views...unlike Fox.
You missed my point. I'm not debating the contents of this article. I was just catching you on a silly technicality. You compared the contents of one article by AJ to a google search of Gitmo. That's not a fair comparison. You can't hold a single article by AJ in the same light as a google search which returns everything possible under the sun. Apples/Oranges. AJ says pretty much up front that they are reporting on behalf of the Muslim world. This says to me that they pretty much acknowledge their bias. Unlike mainstream American news sources that claim there is no bias but rarely ever provide equal airtime to things "unAmerican." (For example, how Muslim's live during wartime) Definately unlike Fox news the claims to be Fair and Balanced.
<b>krosfyah You missed my point. I'm not debating the contents of this article. I was just catching you on a silly technicality. You compared the contents of one article by AJ to a google search of Gitmo. That's not a fair comparison. You can't hold a single article by AJ in the same light as a google search which returns everything possible under the sun. Apples/Oranges.</b> I was mocking the claims made about al Jazeera. In two years or less, we have an abundance of unflattering details about Gitmo, but the one article that seems to have been chose to represent the history of Iraq completely whitewashed decades of atrocities committed by Saddam. And this from the news company that purports to represent the Muslim world? Those are Muslims dead at Saddam's hand, too. Has anybody ever searched the al Jazeera website?
Dear Al Jazeera, This is awesome! Another way for the US-based liberals and America's enemies to propagate negative information about the War on Terror. This will go a long way towards hurting America's missions abroad, reduce the morale of its troops, and make Americans devalue the sacrifices of its own troops! It will help boost recruitment for terror networks, and even help the anti-American resistance abroad. Just think, when American troops come home from their mission, they will be spat on and told they are worthless! Sweet! Sincerely, Your typical liberal
There's my beef with AJ. They profess to report from the arab perspective. And while that doesn't have to be pro-american -- and in fact, shouldn't be pro-american -- it doesn't mean it shouldn't be objective. I think expanding their base is actually good. By catering to a larger english market, they'll be faced (i hope) with more scrutiny, and therefore, i hope, be more objective in their coverage. It would be good to get a non-western media source that's reliable. AJ is not there yet. It's a beef I have with any agenda-based news organization. Fox news gets its deserved ridicule here and elsewhere...but, hard as it is to believe, from what i've seen, its is substantially more objective than AJ. Hardly and endorsement, true, but lets not pretend AJ is somehow refreshing simply because it provides and alternative view. We should hold it up to a much higher standard.
TJ, Muslims don't really care how much negative info gets out about the "war on terror." Again, AJ could care less how our troops "feel." Only Americans are worried about morale. Had we not instigated the Iraq war, AJ would have nothing to report. Your fearless leader failed to take that aspect into account when he claimed "Mission Accomplished." Every liberal I've spoke with supports our troops...but not the president. There will be no spitting, I assure you. Unless of course we find out there has been wide-spread prison abuse scandals...but that doesn't appear to be the case. Typical liberals love America...love our troops...love God...Don't love W.
You know, there are plenty of anti-war folks (including many on this very bbs) who would disagree with this, right?
And yet it is so hard for Conservatives to understand. Perhaps they need to double up on the Omega 3's. Fish is brain-food, ya know.....
