Thread: Aljazeera in English in America

Originally Posted by Kees

Bill, is this Archie Bunker's echo?

If it is, I like what I hear. Until this country develops
this attitude we will fall to these barbarians. But
rest assured. I'm sure the Muslims will allow you
to speak out against them.


Terry

The problem with getting your news from television is that it's an entertainment medium. Although the news used to be taken very seriously and was not required to be revenue generating, that has changed.

The best source of news still remains newspapers. Every paper has an editorial position and it may not be to your liking, but, regardless, the news reporting in the quality papers is generally accurate with little spin. It's always clear where the news ends and the opinions start. That's not the case with TV news, and, as of late, they freely intersperse opinion or entertainment with news.

Papers like the NY Times and Washington Post get a lot of criticism, but it's not justified as far as new reporting goes. Those two papers are widely respected worldwide and highly graded by peers. I've been reading the NY Times since grade school. I find that it gives the news in greater detail and background than any other paper. And when they make mistakes, they admit it and print corrections.

When I started hearing criticism of the Times, I began reading other newspapers known for a more right wing editorial policy: The Wall Street Journal (for many years), the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel. I can confidently say that, by and large the factual news reporting in all the quality newspapers is the same. On the major news, it's all out there, set forth without spin. There may be a little of that in where they place lesser news stories. The lesser papers tend to place the more "entertaining" news in prominant places.

So, if you want more reliable news, go to a quality newspaper. I have also found that he BBC is a pretty reliable source of news.

As far as TV news goes, there was a study done a number of years ago, I think it was at U of Penn to evaluate how well broadcast news informs the public. It was found to be much worse than print. Interestingly, the best informed people who got their news from TV were the ones that got it from the daily Show, then shows like Lenow. The news channels scored lower, the worst being Fox. They found that people who relied on Fox for news were the worst informed. Also, the more they watched Fox, the worse informed they were.

It's popular to wrap newspapers for their spin etc. But I think that's way off base. The quality newspapers of all political persuasions report quite consistently on the news. Don't confuse it with their editorials.

In any case I'm not calling them my buddies, just stating that their voice should also be heard if you REALLY stand behind democracy and free speech.
Now if Aljazeera really advocated terrorism, they'd be breaking the laws of any civilized country and taken off the air in any civilized country. We have laws against that sort of thing and I'm sure that you do as well. However, if they're just defending a political or religious standpoint, then I have no problems with them being on the air.

To be truthful, al-Jazeerah isn't even doing that. They've come under a lot of criticism from the leaders of predominantly Muslem countries for their habit of running critiques of those governments, its members and its policies. Several nations have complained about, or tried to stop al-Jazeera from broadcasting content it didn't want getting out, and when that failed they halted the broadcasts on the recieving end of things. These include Yemen, Libya and Kuwait. Oh, and the U.S.

When it comes to limiting free speech and freedom of expression, I won't attack your Republicans as they pale in comparison to the Democrats who went as far as bombing media outlets to stop them from spreading their message.

May as well include the Republicans. There have been numerous incidents during this Iraq invasion of American forces deliberately bombing or firing on journalists and camera-toters. The stand-out occurances are undoubtedly the April, 2003, tank assault on al-Jazeera's Baghdad room and the attack on the Palestine Hotel. I don't think there has ever been an administration so unwelcoming toward and manipulative of the press as the current one.

Not that it, or any other, news agency is completley beyond criticism, but I can say that al-Jazeera does indeed offer time to all parties involved in a news story. Colin Powell has appeared on al-Jazeera, as have Condeleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, Al-Jazeera have themselves complained that the White House denied them access to interviews with someone to offer their side of the story. That's changed since the U.S. realised that a sound argument made in front of millions of people who might otherwise regard you as an infestation on their lands works a lot better than a bombing run.

Truth be told, if people really want to see a Reformation of sorts in Muslim culture, al-Jazeera is probably the first, and possibly the best, step toward that. Where once there was only state-controlled propaganda, there is now actual reporting, complete with angry callers, arguing politicians and guys with cameras who want very much to make a name for themselves by capturing someone big doing something ugly. There is never revolution without a taste for what could happen if the status quo changed. Let's face it, Levi's and rock & roll did more to bring down the wall than any politician ever could have.

Originally Posted by urleebird

And, what the heck. Let's go a step further. Since we have freed up prayer time in the schools, let's make all the kids watch the freshly endorsed crap from the muslims first thing in the morning. All with mandatory sensitivity training beforehand, of course. Maybe we could also force the kids to learn the language too. That way, nothing will be lost in translation.

Bill I heard recently that the 9'th circut court out in your neck of the woods just upheld a decision to allow public schools in your neighborhood to do just this, although they have to be taught to pray (to allah) properly first.

just in case you all forgot this is the same court that tried to ban the phrase under God in the pledge of alligiance.

As far as Aljazeera goes, it has an incredible amount of pro-Arab bias by our standards. But for the Arab countries it is somewhat of a breakthough. It is really the only Arab news source that's reasonably independent and not under the thumb of some government. I think it needs to be encouraged and supported so that quality, independent Arab news sources develop.

I am always interested in seeing their reporting, because it reflects a point of view I would never see otherwise. There is a spin, but in just report a situation, you can see that they see it totally differently. Hey, an American is not going to see the situation the same way. The spin comes in the way they deliver it and occasional comments that slip in.

I only see their reports occasionally, and the difference between them and other Arab sources is like night and day. I still wouldn't rely on them for news.

[QUOTE=Joe Lerch]
Papers like the NY Times and Washington Post get a lot of criticism, but it's not justified as far as new reporting goes. /QUOTE]


I think it is justified sometimes. Especially when the NY Times has reporters that falsify reports. Or when they publish news about a terrorist spying program that even the Times admits was not illegal and was working. They chose to publish it anyway and basically give aid to the enemy.

I agree that the NY Times used to be a very respectable paper but they seem to have dropped even the pretense of objectivity in favor of a liberal slant.

I'd be fine if it was confined to the editorial pages but so often, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Sweeney Todd

Truth be told, if people really want to see a Reformation of sorts in Muslim culture, al-Jazeera is probably the first, and possibly the best, step toward that. Where once there was only state-controlled propaganda, there is now actual reporting, complete with angry callers, arguing politicians and guys with cameras who want very much to make a name for themselves by capturing someone big doing something ugly. There is never revolution without a taste for what could happen if the status quo changed. Let's face it, Levi's and rock & roll did more to bring down the wall than any politician ever could have.

Exactly. Like I said, thisis the first real journalism in the Arab world, and it deserves encouragement.

It never hurts to get the facts from another point of view. Clearly, the government wants it so they can use that point of view to understand situations better.

Originally Posted by steve

the NY Times has reporters that falsify reports.

That has happened, and the worst of them was a conservative reporter involved in outing Valerie Plame. Things like that happen, and when they do, the paper admits it and makes corrections. That's part of responsible journalism. There is no effort to mislead or misrepresent facts intentionally. I know, because I get the same facts from the Wall Street Journal.

Or when they publish news about a terrorist spying program that even the Times admits was not illegal and was working. They chose to publish it anyway and basically give aid to the enemy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about or whether you've got all the facts right. But you seem to be complaining about good newsworthy journalism. Bad journalism would be cooperating with the government to withhold news.

I agree that the NY Times used to be a very respectable paper but they seem to have dropped even the pretense of objectivity in favor of a liberal slant.

I think you're off base. Their international reputation is unchanged, and I don't think you have any support for this statement.

I'd be fine if it was confined to the editorial pages but so often, it isn't.

Simply untrue, based on a comparison on an ongoing basis of news reporting by papers with a conservative point of view. We're talking about facts. You seem to be so confident, give some examples.

I do get the same news from other sources, but I usually go to the Times first, because of the depth of reporting and amount of background material.

I don't think there has ever been an administration so unwelcoming toward and manipulative of the press as the current one.

I beg to differ with your opinion. Clinton's Democrats were the ones who not only targeted TV stations but also tv transmitters to prevent a contrary point of view from spreading. They were fairly smug about it on TV through their lap-dog Jamie Shea. I'd love to give that piece of excrement the Bill Ellis treatment.

1. I assume you refer to Bob Novak outing Plame. It was Richard Armitage.

2. The terror program I referred to was the secret monitoring of terrorist financial transactions. A program that is fully allowed by law which the Times and others (yes even the WSJ) reported on. I refer back to an AP article by Terrance Hunt on June 26, 2006. Revealing a legal program designed to assist the U.S. in gathering intelligence on our enemies in a time of war is irresponsible. I don't say cooperate with every government desire to withhold news but revealing legal efforts to get ahead of the enemy is not good journalism (my opinion).

3. Judging from the passion in your post, I will assume we will continue to disagree and for the sake of civility, I'll not respond anymore.