Aljazeera in English in America

As you know I have a few rather unusual jobs, and one of them is sub contracting with the Pentagon. I was there recently, mostly just to have lunch with some friends, but also to answer some questions about some internal changes happening with the renovation and resignation of Rumsfeld. Turns out the latest craze in the Pentagon is giving everyone aljazeera TV in english, the video will be encrypted but available to anyone in the Pentagon who wants it. Along with the Pentagon, any digital cable company can carry and broadcast this channel. I understand the desire for it for intel purposes, but it sickens me that those people have the balls to start broadcasting in English purely for recruitment and propaganda purposes. :rant: :cen :cen

I share your revulsion in principle.

Nonetheless, I'm glad I live in a country where there's the freedom to openly do that... in many countries the only "news" is what the Govt wants you to see/hear. At least in the US we theoretically have the choice. I say theoretically because, in my opinion, there is no unbiased news source available, let alone one that covers the world news.

I hardly read the newspaper or watch network/cable news anymore... I'm tired trying to figure out what spin they've added to sensationalize everything with the hope of increasing their viewership numbers. The local news is even worse. Hmmm... my satellite tv setup used to allow me to get some international and alternative news programs, but Rupert plugged that hole, lol. Maybe it's time to re-investigate the FTA stuff. Then again, maybe I'm just kidding myself and there is no unbiased news available... after all, at least in the US, news is a business (ie, profit motivated). :shrug:

I think they are just trying to tell the story to the rest of the world from their perspective, not to recruit terrorists. In a world where spin is more important than reality, that's perfectly legitimate.
Look at my former country for example. There was a 3-sided civil war. All 3 sides, the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims commited war crimes and attrocities but only the Serbs drew international criticism, most of the military action and economic sanctions because the Croats and the Muslims created a better spin world-wide.
Then there was the conflict in Kosovo. After 50 years of quiet ethnic cleansing and displacement of Serbs, the Albanians finally got the courage to attack the police and the army. Once the army went in to deal with the rebels and to ship the illegals back to Albania, the media started screaming about the mass graves and ethnic cleansing. Serbia got bombed into the stone age by NATO, and then they spent the same amount of effort and more time over a smaller area searching for those mass graves in Serbia as they did searching for the chemical weapons in Iraq, without finding anything. However, most North Americans still believe that those mass graves exist.
These examples prove that today's world is all about marketing so I don't blame the Arabs for trying to market themselves.

The real irony is that al-Jazeerah has been criticised in the Muslim world as showing too much pro-American propaganda. Al-Jazeerah International obviously caters to a Western audience as well and includes among its talking heads, former U.S. Marine and CENTCOM press officer, Josh Rushing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Turns out the latest craze in the Pentagon is giving everyone aljazeera TV in english, the video will be encrypted but available to anyone in the Pentagon who wants it. Along with the Pentagon, any digital cable company can carry and broadcast this channel. I understand the desire for it for intel purposes, but it sickens me that those people have the balls to start broadcasting in English purely for recruitment and propaganda purposes. :rant: :cen :cen

---

How about people want to hear non-US coverage?
I mean, fox news and CNN are hardly unbiased.
I have never seen aljazeera, but US news coverage is propaganda as much as coverage by aljazeera, only from the opposite pov.

Edit: you cannot have freedom of speech, while at the same time restricting people from having, hearing or speaking an opinion different from yours.

I'm often stunned by the Americans I actually meet face to face as you're usually nothing like your media portrays you. Homogeneity in the media is a very bad thing. Another viewpoint, especially a dissenting one, can only be healthy in developing debate and advancing public thought. Hate messages aside of course.

X

direct all inquiries to lord Lerch and Ilija... they are the ones with all the answers.

And the spin is always the same:

-Those evil bastards are:
a) burrying poor muslim Albanians in mass graves
b) stockpiling chemical weapons

-Ooops, we couldn't find any, but the reason we really came is to liberate them from:
a) Slobodan Milosevic
b) Sadam Hussein

-Now that we've liberated them, we'll help them out by:
a) rebuilding everything that was destroyed by the NATO bombing [at badly marked up rates, profits going to US businesses]
b) developing trade [pumping oil for next to nothing]

Therefore please don't tell me that the US media is unbiased. Now you have two choices:
1) To prove that you're really in favor of free speech and leave them be
2) Act like Clinton and his Democrats who bombed TV stations and transmitters in Serbia.

Speaking of the media I have a funny little
story.

In early 2000, shortly after the ISP that I'm part
owner of opened up an employee of the local
weekly newpaper stopped by to interview me.

Well I wasn't there but he took a picture of an
employee and left.

A few days later when the paper hit the stand
there it was.... Local Internet Provider....

It was one hell of an interview, this clown
made me sound like some sort of a techno
god.... HE MADE THE INTERVIEW UP...... :roflmao

After this, I take any strory that runs in The Coal Valley News
with a grain of salt. And Mr. Keeney the author of this
work of fiction is still on staff, no doubt dreaming of
the day when he can go to work for the Weekly World News.


Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

How about people want to hear non-US coverage?
I mean, fox news and CNN are hardly unbiased.
I have never seen aljazeera, but US news coverage is propaganda as much as coverage by aljazeera, only from the opposite pov.

Edit: you cannot have freedom of speech, while at the same time restricting people from having, hearing or speaking an opinion different from yours.

---

There are plenty of other news agencies who dont pander to terrorist organizations begging for exclusive interviews so that they can laugh at all the destruction they have caused in the world. I only read international news, which still has a spin on it, but certainly is not pro USA, so that I can get a better picture of the world. The decision makers at most news agencies such as Fox and CNN, etc are leftist liberal wastes of flesh, and while they love stories about violence they certainly dont attempt to cause more through their spin on the news they procide. Aljazeera on the other hand does not do this, and puts a spin on their news as well, I have unfortunately had to watch a bit of it, and its just sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azjoe

Nonetheless, I'm glad I live in a country where there's the freedom to openly do that... in many countries the only "news" is what the Govt wants you to see/hear. At least in the US we theoretically have the choice. I say theoretically because, in my opinion, there is no unbiased news source available, let alone one that covers the world news.

---

I too am happy that we live in a country with this much freedom, even though our "freedom's" are dying by the day, since most refuse to fight for them and live with their heads in the sand. However, it disgusts me that anyone would pander to this type of media, not that we would allow it in our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wvbias

... the Weekly World News.


Terry

---

I always swore I would never buy such a rag, but the day I saw the by line Two Headed Teen Cuts Off Spare Noggin' I had to shell out for it.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

I always swore I would never buy such a rag, but the day I saw the by line Two Headed Teen Cuts Off Spare Noggin' I had to shell out for it.

X

---

What, the discovery of "Bat Boy" wasnt enough for you??? :roflmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLStorm

What, the discovery of "Bat Boy" wasnt enough for you??? :roflmao

---

And where is Bat Boy from??? West Virginia!!!! :y :roflmao


Terry

direct all inquiries to lord Lerch and Ilija... they are the ones with all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLStorm

I only read international news, which still has a spin on it, but certainly is not pro USA, so that I can get a better picture of the world.

---

I would like to do that too... so let's share sources, everyone. Post the sources YOU use to get your unbiased news.

I'll start it off with a couple sources I visit...

1. the LINK network - Satellite (DirecTV) - http://www.linktv.com/
2. WN Network - Internet - http://wnsitemap.com/

The WN network, btw, has so much content it's hard to decide what to look at.

Bill, the facts I laid out are as stated. The bottom line is that had they found the mass graves or the chemical weapons that would have been plastered all over the media (without retractions and doctored intel report scandals).
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.
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.
I hope you also notice that I am not laying any blame on the armed forces as they are an extension of the will of the government in power.

I like the idea, for 2 reasons:
1) It provides another viewpoint. Kinda like Internal Affairs, who I've never had a problem with. If you're honest, you have nothing to worry about. The only way to heal a wound is to get all the bad stuff out in the open, where it can be cleaned up.
2) It's often helpful to know what your enemy is thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

Got all the facts, do ya? Or was every bit of that just what you WANT to believe?

I WAS referring to US news and was not referring to any of your home boys at aljazeera. The media in the US wouldn't know the truth if someone bloodied their nose with it. I keep hearing your side of the story. Since I am convinced that some of the things you espouse as fact are completely wrong, your credibility has waned as well. I just want truth, period. I can decide all by my little ole self what to do with it.

I could give a rat's patoot about the politics or culture of other countries. I don't care that their hygiene is disgusting. I don't care how they dress. I don't care that they don't like me. I don't care if they torture their own. I don't care if they kill each other off. I don't care if they mutilate their daughters to eliminate their sex drive. I don't care what god they pray to. I don't care anything about them. But when they attack the US for WHATEVER friggin' reason they have, I am ready to take them out. And as many of them as it takes to get them to leave me alone. I feel the same about gangmembers. Let them kill each other off. But as soon as they harm someone outside that circle, it's time to let them know they will be losing their hall pass.

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, is this Archie Bunker's echo?

direct all inquiries to lord Lerch and Ilija... they are the ones with all the answers.

Guys, please stop with the politics. I am trying SO HARD not to respond to some of the posts... Look, the holidays are here, the razors are sharp, just enjoy yourself...

Nenad

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

direct all inquiries to lord Lerch and Ilija... they are the ones with all the answers.

I agree with you on this count Bill. The only way ANY biased source should become a required reading is when teaching bias in the media.
The only reservation I have about my statement is that I think that EVERY source is biased. Every person relates to an event differently and no matter how objective they try to be, they can't help including their perspective into their reporting.

Gentlemen - please allow a clarification on my recent post.

I refered to an article written by Terrance Hunt. I do not want to imply that Mr. Hunt is the author of the original story that revealed the program in the papers. His article was used by me as a summary point of reference for both date of original story run in the papers and a brief summary of the survelience program. He is a White House correspondent for AP and ran this article to review the events that caused the President to hold a press conference on the matter.

Sorry if there is/was any confusion. Now, I'll back out so as to not antagonize anyone else and to not hijack a thread as this was originally on AlJazeera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve

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

---

No Armitage admitted to starting it and Novak never worked for the Times. There was a NY TImes reporter, Judith Miller, involved indirectly, and she was fired. She went to jail rather than testify. What she did of a nature you described was feed false information to the Times about Iraq (gotten from Chilabi).

Quote:

---

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).

---

Like I said, thisis good journalism. The hullabaloo by the administration was nonsense, the monitoring was known about publicly for years, and the publication had no effect. Do you imagine for a second that the terrorists didn't know about account monitoring? The reaon it came into the news is because certain organizations were giving general information freely. that's private and the government is supposed go through proper legal processes, like warrant or a court order, to get it.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You mistook annoyance for passion. I've been reading the Times for well over 50 years, and I now read the WSJ along with it. And I monitor the Chicago Trib and Orlando Sentinel when big issues come up. Except for an occasional error which is later corrected I find the fact reporting among all of them to be consistent. Like I said, the Times enjoys and has always enjoyed a stellar international reputaion among its peers, in contradiction of which you have offered nothing but some shaky opinions.

I invited you to provide some examples. The abscence of even one leads me to believe that you have no support for your statement. I find things like that said often because it's "stylish" and that's part of the reason for my irritation.

I notice you didn't identify a better news source.

I'm perfectly happy disagreeing with you because my opiniion is well supported on an authoritative basis, and I'm confident I'm right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

The only reservation I have about my statement is that I think that EVERY source is biased. Every person relates to an event differently and no matter how objective they try to be, they can't help including their perspective into their reporting.

---

Although this is unquestionably so, it doesn't mean that facts can't be reported in a reasonable, objective way. Also, your own biases come into play when you receive a news report. I'm not so sure that any of this has much relevance. I think the real issue should be whether there is an intentional effort to portray the facts in an unobjective way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve

Gentlemen - please allow a clarification on my recent post.

I refered to an article written by Terrance Hunt. I do not want to imply that Mr. Hunt is the author of the original story that revealed the program in the papers. His article was used by me as a summary point of reference for both date of original story run in the papers and a brief summary of the survelience program. He is a White House correspondent for AP and ran this article to review the events that caused the President to hold a press conference on the matter.

Sorry if there is/was any confusion. Now, I'll back out so as to not antagonize anyone else and to not hijack a thread as this was originally on AlJazeera.

---

You did not hijack the thread, because it's about media bias.

However, I don't think the article is on point. it exhibits no bias. And it supports my statement that the fact reporting was the same by all papers, regardless of political leaning. My undestanding is that you think it's bad journalism because it outed a secret program. The press is not supposed to be in league with the government, just the opposite. So if it's considered newsworthy, good journalism requires reporting not withholding.

I don't consider you a bad source of information because you had to clarify what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve

Sorry if there is/was any confusion. Now, I'll back out so as to not antagonize anyone else and to not hijack a thread as this was originally on AlJazeera.

---

:HJ :OT

I'm kidding I dont mind, I just really wanted to use those new smiley faces :D

Edit: lets quit this topic and return to discussing things that matter, like razors ;)

direct all inquiries to lord Lerch and Ilija... they are the ones with all the answers.

I know!! People have gotten very sensitive lately. I really don't like the tone that is portrayed in topics like this. It's not very nice at all. And that while I come here to.."relax".