How do you feel about Al Jazeera moving here, english version?

Say this about the people who run Al Jazeera: They are nothing if not persistent.
Two weeks ago, the network best known in the United States for airing video messages from Osama bin Laden launched an English-language news channel -- known as Al Jazeera International (AJI) -- despite the fact that not a single U.S. cable company or major satellite provider had agreed to carry it.

Al Jazeera bypassed the cable companies to stream on the Internet. If you have a high-speed connection and $6 a month to spare, you can tune in on your computer. The move is seen as a stopgap until AJI can find a home somewhere on U.S. television.

Not surprising, given its pedigree, the new channel has already proved controversial. Critics argue that allowing Al Jazeera International to air on American television would be essentially giving a megaphone to those who spout anti-American propaganda. Supporters of letting the network air argue that seeing the way the Arab world views the United States might broaden minds here.

But the "should we or shouldn't we look at Al Jazeera International" debate is going on in virtual darkness. Few Americans have actually seen AJI. But I have. During its first weekend on the air, I closely monitored five hours of coverage -- mostly newscasts -- to get a sense of what it was airing and to get some sense of its tone.

In both style and substance, it has a British feel. Indeed, if you briefly clicked by Al Jazeera International on television, you might mistake it for the BBC, from its understated, clean graphics to the on-camera personnel speaking with English accents. It also has the BBC's more-global view of the news, stretching far afield for stories. In its first weekend, for instance, the channel trumpeted the fact that its reporters got into Burma (Myanmar), a country that foreign reporters are rarely allowed to enter.

But AJI is no BBC clone. This is an Arab voice -- self-consciously so. It also loudly markets itself as independent. Anchors at times introduce stories by talking about the channel's "fearless journalism" -- a network slogan. In a story the channel did about its own launch, for instance, it happily pointed out that everyone criticizes Al Jazeera. The piece included clips of Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi officials saying Al Jazeera is spreading U.S. propaganda, juxtaposed against soon-to-be-former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calling the channel "irresponsible."

Most of all, the news agenda is focused on the Middle East. Consider a rundown of the lead block of stories that appeared on the channel's Sunday evening broadcast that opening weekend.

The lead story focused on Syria getting involved in Iraq in part to prevent the war-torn country's dissolution. There was a report on Iraq that included footage of the "Islamic Army in Iraq" going through drills and graduating a group of new soldiers. That was followed by a story about the Israeli army bombing targets on Gaza and people who voluntarily went to serve as human shields of a supposed target. There was a piece on how Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was urging followers to protest Lebanon's "illegitimate" government. New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh appeared in a short item saying that the CIA had found no conclusive evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear program. And, finally, there was a story about President Bush traveling to Asia and "failing" to secure cooperative agreements from China or Russia on how to handle Iran.

That's a heavy dose of Middle Eastern news before the first commercial break. And one that included subtle and not-so-subtle jabs at the U.S. administration.

It is also a different perspective than one would get in the U.S. media. The next day's New York Times, for example, had a front-page story about Iraq, but its stories about Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza were deep inside the paper. An item about Mr. Hersh suggesting that Mr. Bush was "ignoring" the CIA was nowhere to be found. The Bush-in-Asia piece was a fairly straightforward account of a presidential travel trip.

A few days later, a Lebanese cabinet minister was assassinated, and Syria renewed diplomatic relations with Iraq. Those stories did not come out of the blue -- something that AJI viewers, who had intensive exposure to the broader news context of these regional events, understood.

Among the many issues surrounding AJI that will arise in the days ahead, one seems foremost. Is it a mouthpiece for anti-American propaganda?

That's hard to say after just five hours of viewing. But one thing is clear: The channel seems likely to offer more in-depth coverage of the Middle East than anything else most Americans are going to see. nbbbbbbbb

I look forward to seeing AlJazheera (I just know I spelled that wrong). While I'm sure they'll be just as (if not more) biased as our own western media, at least it'll be a bias from the other end. Hopefully bouncing the public brain between the two ends of the spectrum will result in us landing somewhere at the truth in the middle.

Howdy medicinal,

I lived and worked in Saudi for awhile,and we didn't even bother turning on the tv there,because the only thing on,was state-run crap and al-jazeera.

AJ airs snuff films of my fellow soldiers and and gives free rein to our enemies to spout their vile propaganda,so I don't support them being in America,in anyway.

However,I'm sure that the 5th columnists here in America and elsewhere,are eager for the vile pablum that comes from AJ.

Have a good one...

However,I'm sure that the 5th columnists here in America and elsewhere,are eager for the vile pablum that comes from AJ.Every nation-state brainwashes it's citizens. A.J. is no different I suppose, although it represents a wide ranging teritorial citizenry. When I was in the Army, they didn"t let us watch much TV, And BTW I am 1000% behind our troops, it's just the leaders that rile me. quit killing muslim jihadists and start negotiating with their leaders. If you can find a common ground with their leaders, the brainwashed idiots will fall in line. If the Mullahs said to love America because that is in the Kuran, the idiots would shape up, I realize this a little oversimplified, but I'm sure you get the drift. Negotiate, don't annihilate. And when you get some spare time, look up the definition of liberal in the dictionary, you may be surprised! You don't have to be a conservative or whatever you suppose yourself to be to love your country. I love my country, it's just that the policies of my government don't convey the type of message that made me proud to be American, I'm a Vet also!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

However,I'm sure that the 5th columnists here in America and elsewhere,are eager for the vile pablum that comes from AJ.Every nation-state brainwashes it's citizens. A.J. is no different I suppose, although it represents a wide ranging teritorial citizenry. When I was in the Army, they didn"t let us watch much TV, And BTW I am 1000% behind our troops, it's just the leaders that rile me. quit killing muslim jihadists and start negotiating with their leaders. If you can find a common ground with their leaders, the brainwashed idiots will fall in line. If the Mullahs said to love America because that is in the Kuran, the idiots would shape up, I realize this a little oversimplified, but I'm sure you get the drift. Negotiate, don't annihilate. And when you get some spare time, look up the definition of liberal in the dictionary, you may be surprised! You don't have to be a conservative or whatever you suppose yourself to be to love your country. I love my country, it's just that the policies of my government don't convey the type of message that made me proud to be American, I'm a Vet also!

---

You cannot have negotiations, as we know it, with some people of the Islamic faith because a large number of them are mentally ill due to their religion and culture. You say that we should, "quit killing muslim jihadists and start negotiating with their leaders. " Which leaders? Whatever we do will upset somebody. Somebody has to kill the jihadists. Killing their families is another option that would discourage them, but we'd be unwilling to do that.

The best way to deal with this cultures like these is to boycott them until they change. This will never happen because it would involve inconveniences, sacrifice, and commitment from the population of the West - which the average person, corporation, etc., is unwilling to do. So when the world is destroyed and/or our society is ruined, someone will realize that we should have stayed out of the Middle East entirely, and protected ourselves from any and all problems with them. This includes forgoing aid to Israel - and making it very clear to the Arabs that they will receive nothing good from us until they get their act together and eliminate the uncivilized, murderous terrorists, and hostile regimes, themselves.

Of course, this is only a dream and will never happen. The emotion of greed is too strong.

You cannot have negotiations, as we know it, with some people of the Islamic faith because a large number of them are mentally ill due to their religion and culture. Then would you also agree that some in our culture are mentally ill for starting wars and gobblying up global resourses, all in the name of anti-terrorism, spelled Profit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

You cannot have negotiations, as we know it, with some people of the Islamic faith because a large number of them are mentally ill due to their religion and culture. Then would you also agree that some in our culture are mentally ill for starting wars and gobblying up global resourses, all in the name of anti-terrorism, spelled Profit

---

To some extent - but I am not so cynical to think that if there was an easier way to make money, that it would be ignored in the West.

This is not an equal playing field, in terms of craziness - but it should be. The terrorists have to see us as crazier than they are - and if non-violent boycotts do not stop them, then we have the right to protect ourselves by using extreme force.

I believe that we should do exactly what bin Laden and his ilk wants, which is to leave the Middle East entirely - and take it from there. I do not care about Oil profits, "Holy" lands, foreign aid to Muslim societies, trade with them, etc., until they themselves wake up and smell the coffee.

Of course, if there are any more terrorist attacks from them all bets are off and we should lower the boom.

We need to get rid of Christianity also - and tell the idiots over there that we are not functioning according to superstition and ancient tribal customs anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran."
http://www.historyofjihad.org/future.html

A religion is at the root of the terrorism that we witness across the world today. All Religions originate from a psychiatric paranoia, based on a misunderstanding of the unknown universe as a god. This paranoia becomes a threat to civilization when a religion insists that everyone should accept that, the way in which this religion misunderstands the unknown universe as a god, is the ONLY right way (to misunderstand the universe!).

Missionary religions are an infectious psychiatric paranoia and Violent Missionary religions are a criminally infectious psychiatric paranoia that threaten human civilization. While all religions are psychiatric paranoias, only Islam is a criminally infectious psychiatric paranoia.

With the Quran setting the principles for forcible conversion of all non-Muslims to Islam and using coercion of treating non-Muslims like 2nd class beings, the base is prepared for the Madaressahs (Islamic theological-terrorism schools) to inculcate these Quranic principles into the minds of every growing generation of Muslims to have this attitude of paranoid coercion. Further at every prayer (Ibadat/Namaz), the Muslim priest (Maulavi) preaches the practice of terror to his audience. This is how a terrorist is born. So the Quran, and what is preached in the Madaressahs and the Mosques are the real roots of terror. And until the world over, we do not eradicate these, the problem of terrorism will not end.

There will come a point when widespread Muslim terror attacks against the U.S. will no longer allow military actions as we have taken in Iraq and Afghanistan and will call for a re-appraisal of our military strategy. A re-appraisal as happened during World War 2 when the allies in 1939 began by bombarding Germany with pamphlets asking the Germans to make peace, to the bombing of Dresden to rubble in 1945. It took six years during the last World War to bring about this change. How long will it take now? And in what circumstances now do we reach that point? Here's the dilemma: to have any hope of victory over the Jihadis, we must use a terrible, overwhelming, and insidious force; yet, in using that force we risk losing popular support for the war effort.

Victory requires a devastation so complete as to disabuse the enemy of any and all notions of pride (in this case Arab and Muslim pride) and the futility of resisting us. This kind of psychological change is forced in the enemy only by visiting a defeat on him that is so horrendous and complete that his very existence is dependent upon your will. Think of the bombing of Tokyo, and the fire-storms that followed in 1945. Think of Dresden. It is said that bombs fell in Dresden until the only effect was to bounce the rubble. Think of Hiroshima (horrendous as it seems, but can we prevent it from coming to that sometime in this war?).

If you are familiar with U.S. history, consider the way we completely drove out the last Britisher (colonialist) from the newly independent United States in 1776, consider the sacking of Atlanta during our Civil War, and the psychological impact on Southerners of Sherman's March to the Sea. Unfortunately, these are the necessary atrocities of a successful military campaign. This is what the history of war teaches: Without a complete and total annihilation of the enemy, he will never come to realize the folly of his ways... and he will rise to fight us again. The point is when and under what circumstances will we be provoked to carry this war to a decisively successful conclusion. Last time it was Pearl Harbor, this time if it has not been 9/11, then will it be a nuke or dirty nuke attack on the West or the US mainland?
http://www.newsonterror.com/

Let it air here if we support free speech. I've read some of there articles and for the most doesn't seem to really bash the US. And just like Bill O'Rilley / Howard Stern, if you don't like it you don't listen to it.

Do you really think the only rational solution is to bomb them to extinction, Kill all women and children because they will grow up to hate us as well? I think thats called Genocide. A rational person could not promote Genocide. It's either them or us is a dismal outlook, If the hatred could be extinguished on both sides, I would call that a better solution. By offering the Genocide solution, you are not any better than them, I thought we held the "moral" high ground, maybe not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

Do you really think the only rational solution is to bomb them to extinction, Kill all women and children because they will grow up to hate us as well? I think thats called Genocide. A rational person could not promote Genocide. It's either them or us is a dismal outlook, If the hatred could be extinguished on both sides, I would call that a better solution. By offering the Genocide solution, you are not any better than them, I thought we held the "moral" high ground, maybe not!

---

I am not advocating "Genocide". If we are constantly under attack, and the preservation of the planet is in jeopardy, we have no choice but to fight back.

As I said, I'd rather boycott them peacefully. That option doesn't appeal to many - because most people are simply not facing reality. I don't even "hate" them - I only want the people that commit jihad and acts such as 9/11 to cease and desist. However, if there are hideouts, financial help, schools for terrorists, and other types of support for these murderers linked to a place, then they are also guilty.



Here's some good ideas: DealingWithTerrorists-BrooklynStyle

what a fresh idea. Perspective from the people who are closest to the war on terror.
It can be hard to get a real perspective on international events when news broadcasting relies heavily upon what they're spoonfed. So far I've been thankful for the BBC and the internet. But the opportunity to evaluate what AJ actually thinks of the conflict will be a refreshing change.
I wish one of the broadcasting corps would have the balls to step up and make this avalible to the public.

To some extent - but I am not so cynical to think that if there was an easier way to make money, that it would be ignored in the West. There is, it's called income tax!

I wish one of the broadcasting corps would have the balls to step up and make this avalible to the public. I also would like this. We just found out our Government has been lying about the Iraqi dead. Funny in Viet Nam, they overcounted the enemy dead, in Iraq, they are undercounting dead Iraqis by hundreds-thousands a week, maybe Al Jazeera could straighten this out for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

Say this about the people who run Al Jazeera: They are nothing if not persistent.
Two weeks ago, the network best known in the United States for airing video messages from Osama bin Laden launched an English-language news channel -- known as Al Jazeera International (AJI) -- despite the fact that not a single U.S. cable company or major satellite provider had agreed to carry it.

Al Jazeera bypassed the cable companies to stream on the Internet. If you have a high-speed connection and $6 a month to spare, you can tune in on your computer. The move is seen as a stopgap until AJI can find a home somewhere on U.S. television.

Not surprising, given its pedigree, the new channel has already proved controversial. Critics argue that allowing Al Jazeera International to air on American television would be essentially giving a megaphone to those who spout anti-American propaganda. Supporters of letting the network air argue that seeing the way the Arab world views the United States might broaden minds here.

But the "should we or shouldn't we look at Al Jazeera International" debate is going on in virtual darkness. Few Americans have actually seen AJI. But I have. During its first weekend on the air, I closely monitored five hours of coverage -- mostly newscasts -- to get a sense of what it was airing and to get some sense of its tone.

In both style and substance, it has a British feel. Indeed, if you briefly clicked by Al Jazeera International on television, you might mistake it for the BBC, from its understated, clean graphics to the on-camera personnel speaking with English accents. It also has the BBC's more-global view of the news, stretching far afield for stories. In its first weekend, for instance, the channel trumpeted the fact that its reporters got into Burma (Myanmar), a country that foreign reporters are rarely allowed to enter.

But AJI is no BBC clone. This is an Arab voice -- self-consciously so. It also loudly markets itself as independent. Anchors at times introduce stories by talking about the channel's "fearless journalism" -- a network slogan. In a story the channel did about its own launch, for instance, it happily pointed out that everyone criticizes Al Jazeera. The piece included clips of Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi officials saying Al Jazeera is spreading U.S. propaganda, juxtaposed against soon-to-be-former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calling the channel "irresponsible."

Most of all, the news agenda is focused on the Middle East. Consider a rundown of the lead block of stories that appeared on the channel's Sunday evening broadcast that opening weekend.

The lead story focused on Syria getting involved in Iraq in part to prevent the war-torn country's dissolution. There was a report on Iraq that included footage of the "Islamic Army in Iraq" going through drills and graduating a group of new soldiers. That was followed by a story about the Israeli army bombing targets on Gaza and people who voluntarily went to serve as human shields of a supposed target. There was a piece on how Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was urging followers to protest Lebanon's "illegitimate" government. New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh appeared in a short item saying that the CIA had found no conclusive evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear program. And, finally, there was a story about President Bush traveling to Asia and "failing" to secure cooperative agreements from China or Russia on how to handle Iran.

That's a heavy dose of Middle Eastern news before the first commercial break. And one that included subtle and not-so-subtle jabs at the U.S. administration.

It is also a different perspective than one would get in the U.S. media. The next day's New York Times, for example, had a front-page story about Iraq, but its stories about Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza were deep inside the paper. An item about Mr. Hersh suggesting that Mr. Bush was "ignoring" the CIA was nowhere to be found. The Bush-in-Asia piece was a fairly straightforward account of a presidential travel trip.

A few days later, a Lebanese cabinet minister was assassinated, and Syria renewed diplomatic relations with Iraq. Those stories did not come out of the blue -- something that AJI viewers, who had intensive exposure to the broader news context of these regional events, understood.

Among the many issues surrounding AJI that will arise in the days ahead, one seems foremost. Is it a mouthpiece for anti-American propaganda?

That's hard to say after just five hours of viewing. But one thing is clear: The channel seems likely to offer more in-depth coverage of the Middle East than anything else most Americans are going to see. nbbbbbbbb

---

Al Jazeera's move here might do real harm to FOX news credibility, and the credibility of cnn, msnbc. Finally!
Let us welcome all opinions/views of the world.
Let us, the people decide;)

dai*ma:stoned:

I would be in favor of having them broadcast the exact same content here that they have in Arabia - as long as there were professional interpreters on hand to translate it into English. Of course, this will never happen because they are only willing to provide us with the sanitized versions of their programming.

Al jazeera is ok. I like reading there reports and getting their perspective. Their main problem is they seem to be really anti-semitic.

if they dont let this air it would be a violation of the constitution, AJI is expressing its opinions and has a right to do so.

I think it is a great idea. I have read some interesting articles on their site they have many reputable journalists. we must uphold free speech and if you don't agree with them that's ok too. You know it can be used to our advantage as well. you know the saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer or how about "know your enemies"...Maybe we can learn something. Its not like we don't have our propaganda spreaders just listen to fat ass Rush and O'lielly.

It is funny how people complain because soldiers are shown on AJ but there is no problem with showing the naked pyramid and other degrading photos of Iraqi people. It seems both sides are breaking the rules of the Geneva Convention.

WOW Masta C I am impressed you got it right. There may be hope for you after all :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueCat

I think it is a great idea. I have read some interesting articles on their site they have many reputable journalists. we must uphold free speech and if you don't agree with them that's ok too. You know it can be used to our advantage as well. you know the saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer or how about "know your enemies"...Maybe we can learn something. Its not like we don't have our propaganda spreaders just listen to fat ass Rush and O'lielly.

It is funny how people complain because soldiers are shown on AJ but there is no problem with showing the naked pyramid and other degrading photos of Iraqi people. It seems both sides are breaking the rules of the Geneva Convention.

WOW Masta C I am impressed you got it right. There may be hope for you after all :)

---

Howdy BlueCat,

You may as well be saying,if there was such a thing,that nazi news network,should have been allowed in the US,along with jap imperialist news,during WW2.

AJ is a foreign news biz,that is a mouthpiece for the enemy,they have no Constitutional right to free speech here,and as for Geneva Conventions,that only applies to uniformed soldiers,not terrorists and State actors.

Allowing AJ to further destroy the will to stand against the enemies of the Free World,is not good advice,we already have assets assigned to monitor them.

I have a major problem with AJ showing snuff films by the enemy,of our soldiers and as for the Abu Graihb photo's,they were shown by the liberal MSM,because they have no regard for the safety of our soldiers and citizens and because they're willing to cause any harm,in order to attack Bush.

Have a good one ....

Free speech to the religious right is a dangerous thing.... You want to hold back view points that go against your beliefs. This can be seen in almost all religions. If they were to bash the US efforts people would see this and be able to make the thought of "there good/ok/bad" for themselves. Do you also think Howard Stern should be off the air? His views are far from "family values".

Think Again: Al Jazeera


By Hugh Miles


July/August 2006

It is vilified as a propaganda machine and Osama bin Ladenâ??s mouthpiece. In truth, though, Al Jazeera is as hated in the palaces of Riyadh as it is in the White House. But, as millions of loyal viewers already know, Al Jazeera promotes a level of free speech and dissent rarely seen in the Arab world. With plans to go global, it might just become your network of choice.





â??Al Jazeera Supports Terrorismâ?�

False, though the network makes little attempt to disassociate itself from those who do. This claim is one of the loudest arguments that Western critics have levied against the Arabic-language news channel since its inception 10 years ago, when the Doha, Qatar-based network pledged to present all viewpoints. Just as it describes in its motto, â??The opinion and the other opinion,â?� Al Jazeera has lent airtime even to hated political figures and extremists, including prominent members of al Qaeda. Itâ??s this willingness to present terrorists as legitimate political commentators that has prompted outspoken critics such as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to refer to Al Jazeeraâ??s coverage of the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as â??inaccurate and inexcusable.â?�

After all, when Al Jazeera offers its estimated 50 million viewers exclusive interviews of Osama bin Laden, itâ??s easy to confuse access with endorsement. And when a journalist who conducts those interviews is jailed for collaboration with al Qaeda, as Tayssir Alouni was in a Spanish court last year, the line between impartial observer and impassioned supporter is certainly blurred. In addition, al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group that reaches out to Al Jazeera. Besides the infamous bin Laden tapesâ??at least six of which the network has still never airedâ??Al Jazeera has also received tapes from insurgent groups in Iraq, renegade Afghan warlords, and the London suicide bombers.

But the network has never supported violence against the United States. Not once have its correspondents praised attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. The network has never captured an attack on the coalition â??live,â?� and thereâ??s no evidence Al Jazeera has known about any attack beforehand. Despite claims to the contrary, the network has never aired footage of a beheading. As for Alouniâ??s case, conclusive evidence has yet to be presented to the public. And there is nothing to suggest that the networkâ??s funding is illegitimate. Allegations of supporting terrorism remain just thatâ??allegations.

â??Al Jazeera Is Anti-Semiticâ?�

Wrong. Just as Al Jazeera has proven willing to present al Qaedaâ??s â??perspective,â?� it has also devoted airtime to and welcomed another regional pariahâ??Israel. The network was the first Arab channel to allow Israelis to present their case in their own words, in Hebrew, English, or Arabic. This move was a major departure from past practices and truly shocked the Arab public. Until Al Jazeera arrived, most Arabs had never even heard an Israeliâ??s voice. Al Jazeera regularly airs clips of Israeli officials within news bulletins and conducts live interviews with six to 10 Israelis each month. The network covers Israeli affairs extensively and is widely watched in Israel. In fact, Al Jazeera gives more airtime to Israeli issues than any other channel outside Israel itself.

Although Israel has accused Al Jazeera of bias and anti-Semitism (and some of the networkâ??s guests have certainly fit that bill), the networkâ??s coverage has occasionally been of concrete benefit to the Israelis. When Israel invaded Jenin in the spring of 2002, Al Jazeeraâ??s exclusive television reports from within the besieged city thoroughly dispelled rumors of a â??massacre,â?� leading to a U.N. special investigating committee appointed by the secretary-general being unceremoniously disbanded.

Many Israelis even regard Al Jazeera as an important new force for change in the Arab world. Gideon Ezra, former deputy head of the Israeli General Security Service, once remarked that he wished â??all Arab media were like Al-Jazeera.â?� Not all Arabs would agree. Although many Westerners think Al Jazeera has a pro-Arab bias, many Arabs believe exactly the opposite. It is widely held in the Arab world that Al Jazeera is financed and run by Mossad, MI5, or the CIA, so as to undermine Arab unity. Just as Bahrain banned Al Jazeera from reporting from inside the country because of a perceived Zionist bias in 2002, Al Jazeeraâ??s bureaus in Arab countries have often been closed down, accused of besmirching the Palestinians or disseminating other kinds of imperialistic anti-Arab propaganda.

â??Al Jazeera Is Spreading Political Freedomâ?�

Wishful thinking. Itâ??s true that Al Jazeera established the tradition of investigative reporting in the Arab world and rolled back the boundaries of debate within Arab families, breaking all kinds of taboos about what could be discussed on television. Improving upon the sycophantic Arab news channels that existed prior to 1996, Al Jazeera better informs the Arab public about their leadership and provides Arabs with a forum through which they can more easily ask of their rulers, â??Why are we in this mess?â?�

In fact, Al Jazeeraâ??s programs about Western politics have done more to inform Arabs about democracy than any nation or station. After 9/11, Al Jazeeraâ??s Washington bureau started two weekly talk shows to illuminate American democracy for a foreign audience: From Washington, in which the bureau chief interviewed U.S. politicians, including members of the Bush administration; and U.S. Presidential Race, which covered the U.S. elections in great depth, including most of the major primaries.

However, to assume satellite television will transform Arab societies into transparent, just, and equal democracies is to presume that the current state of affairs in the Arab world results from an information deficit, which is not true. Except in the most authoritarian Arab countries, news has long been available to determined citizens via the BBC or Voice of America radio, and neither one of those remade the region.

Al Jazeera encourages free speech in the Middle East, but that is no substitute for real political reform. Just because a woman in Saudi Arabia can now see a debate on TV, and can even contribute in real time, doesnâ??t mean she can go out and vote in an election or join a political party. Arab autocrats have come to realize that even if information on satellite TV cannot be packaged and manipulated the way it was with state-run media, Al Jazeera may not be as deadly a threat to their regimes as they first feared. They can still ban Al Jazeera from opening a bureau, as has happened in Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, or evoke emergency laws to confiscate equipment or arrest journalists, as happens in Egypt. Arab press unions, like Arab opposition political parties, are still prevented from growing strong.

â??Al Jazeera Is Biasedâ?�

True, but no more so than Fox News or CNN. Al Jazeera employs the same stringent editorial processes as the Western media, but it ends up with a different product. During the war in Iraq, Al Jazeeraâ??s tone was notably sympathetic to the Iraqis and hostile toward the Americans. Similarly in Afghanistan, the Taliban was often presented as the noble underdog and America as the vengeful, colonial aggressor. A general cynicism about Arab regimes allied to America is detectable, and though Al Jazeera has employees from many religions, including Jews, the network is clearly sympathetic toward the Palestinians.

This bias in no way invalidates the networkâ??s news. Knowing it is scrutinized more rigorously than any other news channel in the world, Al Jazeera is fastidious in presenting all sides of a story. Certainly compared to most other Arab news stations, Al Jazeera remains a model of professionalism and objectivity. Journalists around the world treat Al Jazeera with the same respect they treat news from any other major international news network. Al Jazeera has sharing agreements with CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, BBC, Japanâ??s NHK, and Germanyâ??s ZDF, all of which regularly use Al Jazeeraâ??s footage and reports.

If Al Jazeera has a bias, it is a commercial one. Despite the fact that it enjoys an estimated annual budget of around $100 million, subsidized largely by the gas-rich Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani of Qatar, Al Jazeera wants to win audience share and it wants to sell advertising. The network has consistently lost money since its launch, which is unsurprising, as no Arab channel makes a profit. The network targets a particular demographic (namely Arab men over the age of 25), and, like the mainstream cable networks or FM radios stations in the United States, it tries hard to pitch itself to viewers by luring them with dramatic trailers and lead-in segments. They often feature montages of violence from the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan, or Iraq, accompanied by pounding music. Critics argue that such montages are deliberately inflammatory. The network counters that it is not its job to sanitize images of war. What is indisputable is that Al Jazeera has different standards of taste from Western networks when it comes to showing casualties.

â??Al Jazeera Is Censoredâ?�

Not yet. Al Jazeera occupies a peculiar space in the Arab media. It presents itself as a beacon of free speech and editorial independence in the region. Yet, the chairman of the networkâ??s board of directors is Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al-Thani, the former Qatari deputy minister of information. Thereâ??s no question that Al Jazeera remains heavily dependent on the emir. And he has proved to be an unflinching sponsor. When he came to power in 1995, the emir calculated that hosting a popular television network would help Qatar shore up Western support in the event that Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia should decide to invade. The gamble paid off, both for Al Jazeera and for the emir.

Despite its dependence on the state, Al Jazeera regularly criticizes Arab regimes, including Qatarâ??s. For example, when a coup to depose the emir was foiled in February 1996 and the plotters put on trial, proceedings were televised live on Al Jazeeraâ??a first in the Arab world. Al Jazeeraâ??s viewers had a front-row seat when the defense counsel claimed that the defendants had been subjected to torture, and when a spokesman from Amnesty International who had been invited to attend the trial attacked the Qatari criminal justice system. Talk shows on Al Jazeera have discussed whether it was right or wrong for Qatar to host an American air base. At the height of the intifada and in the run-up to the war in Iraq, when Americaâ??s allies were being hounded in the Arab world, politicians, guests, and callers frequently attacked Qatar on Al Jazeera.

Yet there remains a deeply held belief from government ministries right down to the Arab street that the Qatari ruling family is the real power behind Al Jazeera. The exact nature of the relationship remains opaque, but it is a testament to the vision of the emir that, so far at least, he has been tolerant. Whether he will continue to keep his fingers off the channel remains to be seen.

â??Al Jazeera Wants to Compete with CNN and the BBCâ?�

Yes, and it plans to. Although it wasnâ??t part of the original launch plan back in November 1996, the networkâ??s incredible success during the past decade has prompted the emir to expand his goals for Al Jazeera. This fall, a sister English-language station, called Al Jazeera International, or AJI, will launch around the world. It expects to reach 30 to 40 million households on its first day. AJI is directly competing with BBC World and CNN International for the worldâ??s English-speaking audience of 1 billion people.

Although it has hired a large number of Western journalists, it wonâ??t look much like CNN. The networkâ??s coverage will â??follow the sunâ?� throughout the day, airing from Kuala Lumpur for 4 hours, Doha for 11 hours, London for 5, and Washington for the remaining 4. Reporters and editors in each locale will present news from their regionâ??s perspective, and the entire world will watch the same satellite feed at the same time. â??Weâ??re the first news channel based in the Mideast to bring news back to the West,â?� says Nigel Parsons, managing director of AJI. â??We want to set a different news agenda.â?� And CNN and the BBC are taking the new global competition seriously. The BBC has unveiled plans for an Arabic-language television news service, slated for launch in early 2007, and both networks are busy reassessing how they cover news in the developing world.

â??Only Arabs Will Watch Al Jazeera Internationalâ?�

Not so fast. This venture is the biggest challenge yet for the network. Whereas the launch of the Arabic Al Jazeera network meant competing with the likes of Egyptian, Lebanese, and Saudi television, Western networks are much meatier competition, and Al Jazeera will face them on their home turf. In English.

For its part, AJI has said it will focus on developing-world issues and use more indigenous reporters and freelancers than other channels. It is widely expected to win large market share in Asia, where the Al Jazeera brand already enjoys a favorable reputation and where many more people speak English than Arabic. Pakistan has 160 million Muslims, and Indonesia, the worldâ??s most populous Muslim country, has 215 million Muslims, many of whom will be interested in following events in the Arab world closely.

Of course, it wonâ??t be so easy to break into America. Even securing distribution for AJI has been tough: As of press time, not one U.S. cable company had offered to carry the channel as part of a general news package. Ironically, it is the worldâ??s freest media market that poses the biggest challenge to Al Jazeera.

None of which changes the fact that Al Jazeera has permanently reshaped the landscape of world news to and, soon, from the Arab world. In a region where the United States is engaged in a protracted war in one country and the West as a whole faces a nuclear impasse in another, it hardly makes sense to simply turn the dialâ??and remain confined to an echo chamber of recycled opinion. If Al Jazeera International hits the airwaves this fall, America would do well to tune in.

Howdy Zimzum,

Who's Hugh Miles ?

Have a good one ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy Zimzum,

Who's Hugh Miles ?

Have a good one ...

---

Freelance Journalist

AJ is no more a propaganda mouth piece than Fox news.

Free speech is just that FREE. You can't claim to want to support democracy AND at the same time stifle it.

There are some talented and very brave reporters working for Al Jazeera. In fact there is a fantastic documentary called Control Room. If you have not seen it you should rent it.

Here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-C-pf6ZPmw

All your nazi parallel crap comes straight from fox. I heard a reporter there make the same comment I believe Limbaugh did as well. Do you ever have an original thought Torog? Open your mind and look at both sides. I watch Fox and read the freeper site too Torog so I can see what both sides are claiming and make up my own mind that is how I recognized the catch phases sent out to those without the ability or want to think for themselves. It is rather comical to watch the little planted memes spread like a virus from one conservative mouth to the next like a really bad case of dysentery. It is so much easier to sit in your recliner staying the course watching fox news drinking your beer and crying yeehaw lets kill some muslims than it is to look at the result of war from both sides and it is much more cowardly.

Tell me do you ever listen to NPR news? How about Democracy Now? Do you read anything that has not been approved by your Fox news channel? If you ask me that seems a lot more reminiscent of nazism. Your buddy Limbaugh even admitted to being a propaganda arm for the US government. Tell me how does HE rate getting piped in to the army bases and not NPR news? You may not agree or like what Al Jazeera reports but it is their right to report it and it is MY RIGHT to be able to hear it.

TRUTH DOES NOT CHANGE WITH OUR ABILITY TO STOMACH IT...unless of course you are watching Fox news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MastaChronic

if they dont let this air it would be a violation of the constitution, AJI is expressing its opinions and has a right to do so.

---

Masta my man sometimes you are right on the mark. Well said. :D