News from a new source

[46zilzal]

I was visiting my nephew today and he was eager to show me his HIGH definition television. I turned it to a news show and watched the reporting of the day's events at the World Cup, which was followed by a very gratifying story or a Cameroon animal keeper who went to England for advanced studies and found the hustle and bustle there disturbing. Next a story about floods in Brazil, the firing of the general in Washington etc, all reported in a proper English accent.

There was a commercial about upcoming shows and, thinking that this was the BBC, I was very surprised to find out I had been watching Al Jazeera English version.

Open minded and a lot like the BBC, Reuters, CBC or PBS. No ranting just reporting. Refreshing content.

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes, Al Jazeera - just unbiased reporting. No agenda.

Sir, you have become a fruitcake.

[boxcar]

Yes, Al Jazeera - just unbiased reporting. No agenda.

Sir, you have become a fruitcake.

I'm sorry, Dave, but you are mistaken. He's always been one!

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Yes, Al Jazeera - just unbiased reporting. No agenda.

Sir, you have become a fruitcake.

That proper English accent provides complete absolution from their terrorists ties , don't you know Dave?

[ArlJim78]

i'm sure they're a big hit with the hopelessly gullible demographic.
they're probably in the running for the Helen Thomas seat in the White House press room.

[DJofSD]

Just another example of style over substance.

[lamboguy]

I was visiting my nephew today and he was eager to show me his HIGH definition television. I turned it to a news show and watched the reporting of the day's events at the World Cup, which was followed by a very gratifying story or a Cameroon animal keeper who went to England for advanced studies and found the hustle and bustle there disturbing. Next a story about floods in Brazil, the firing of the general in Washington etc, all reported in a proper English accent.

There was a commercial about upcoming shows and, thinking that this was the BBC, I was very surprised to find out I had been watching Al Jazeera English version.

Open minded and a lot like the BBC, Reuters, CBC or PBS. No ranting just reporting. Refreshing content.open minded huh?

how the f---can you come on this board and say this and benefit from everything that this country has done for you and your family? these creeps promote terrorisim and want to blow your children up, and you want to call this "open minded". you have stooped down to a low level and should be ashamed of yourself.

[lsbets]

Hey, no one other than Zilly ever accused him of being very bright.

[kenwoodall2]

The failure of BBC Arabic Television is a sad story because of the death
of a dream. At the time, the greatest loss was thought to be the fact that
tens of millions of Arabs were being deprived of an unbiased, modern
television service tailored to their own cultures and in their own
language.

But it is an ill wind that blows no good.

Al-Jazeera Satellite Television went on air at the beginning of November
1996, staffed chiefly by former members of BBC Arabic Television, all of
them fervent believers in the BBC ethos of balance and fairness.

[kenwoodall2]

http://www.allied-media.com/production/clients.htm
The TV station- pro-west.
http://www.allied-media.com/aljazeera/ (Read history and click on "contact us". At the Allied Media homepage, click "our clients". This is the West's world-wide propaganda machine. The Qatar location is down the street from the US Central Ommand, he US office in in a building of mostely US Govt offices.
The Dubai one is the original pro-Arab outfit; but is not as anti-US as it use to be.

[46zilzal]

There is a germane understanding of the effect here. A great lecture at a webstie called TED discusses the human fact of overlaying a relevance to things where it does not exist.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception. html

I would challenge ANYONE to listen to the news I viewed and be able to tell the source, ANYONE.

The news of the day was reported, as is, without slant

[kenwoodall2]

There is a germane understanding of the effect here. A great lecture at a webstie called TED discusses the human fact of overlaying a relevance to things where it does not exist.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception. html

I would challenge ANYONE to listen to the news I viewed and be able to tell the source, ANYONE.

The news of the day was reported, as is, without slant
The US and Brit Govts and the Western transnational corporations is the source!

[Greyfox]

The news of the day was reported, as is, without slant

I wouldn't doubt that. Unbiased reporting builds credibility.
Your observation though is subject to "sampling error."
They may report a 1,000 items as unbiased as possible,
then slip one in with a slant that supports their agenda.
That is how media persuaders with an agenda work to peddle influence.

[Tom]

Your observation though is subject to "sampling error."

I have a new hero! :lol:

[kenwoodall2]

I wouldn't doubt that. Unbiased reporting builds credibility.
Your observation though is subject to "sampling error."
They may report a 1,000 items as unbiased as possible,
then slip one in with a slant that supports their agenda.
That is how media persuaders with an agenda work to peddle influence.
Too bad some horseplayers on both political sides are as reluctant to do a little lookup to debunk the non-racing myths as they are to hold on the racing myths, many of which frrom both areas are untrue.

[serp]

I'm aligned (not sure I'd say friends) with some people that have worked for CNN, Fox News, and Al Jazeera. One lady in particular has worked from 2 to 5 years for all 3 of those. My opinions on the networks come from what they have said.

CNN is reeling in their own history. Desperate to connect in some way but no idea how to do it. Thy want to have some sort of journalistic integrity but if it gets in the way of ratings they'll wash their hands of it.

Fox News is the Disney World of talking heads. No matter what or who you are elsewhere when you are on camera you are playing a role. You are going to make everything fit a mold/agenda no matter the level of twisting you have to do to get there. It is what your viewers want to see and if you break the mold you might lose the audience. Whether or not this is true this is their thought process.

Al Jazeera is a mixed bag. There are some people in there that want real journalistic integrity and then there are some that really do not care. They do not cater to the american ideals like the other networks as their audience isn't coming from them. They interview complete nutjobs that american media won't touch because those complete nutjobs are very powerful or even leading in other countries.

Our government and media coorps have turned a few terrorist organizations/leaders into rock stars on certain sand dunes some call countries. So when those people release a tape it is big news. They are going to release it to the big news coorp they know (Al Jazeera). Fox News or CNN would salivate all over themselves to be the first to scoop those tapes if they could. They sure cover them enough when they are released and then point and scold Al Jazeer for breaking it.

So in conclusion, they all suck. There really is no real way to make money and have journalistic integrity these days. The sky is falling or something.

[BlueShoe]

The news of the day was reported, as is, without slant
Sure it was, just like during the Cold War. The Soviet Union aired English language broadcasts from Radio Moscow, scripted and produced courtesy of the KGB. Anyone remember Vladimir Posner, the American born propagandist that spoke perfect accent free English? We all know just how truthful and trustworthy the Russians were, dont we? About as much as the Muslims that have sworn to destroy us. Sorry, but anything coming over the airwaves from the Muslim world should be regarded with caution and skepticism.

[GameTheory]

AJ has had a lot of untruthful stuff said about them -- "they aired beheadings" and so forth (they didn't). They have also been accused of being too pro-Israel, believe it or not, by certain Palestinian authorities, and from their founding often have been the only source of news from a non-state controlled entity in many countries. Many of those states have sought to block them at various times. (In one case, even going so far as to turn off the power grid to avoid citizens seeing a critical broadcast.) So keep in mind that the governments of pretty much all the Middle Eastern states have a problem with Al Jazeera. (As our own government does as well.) A press that is critical of everyone in power -- isn't that what the press is supposed to be like?

That is not to say they are not biased, but much of the anti-AJ stuff is just made up and based on total ignorance. Naturally, they are biased, as all the news outlets are. They are actually an interesting indicator because they cater to their audience, and so when just a few months ago when they were airing stories critical to the jihadists and insurgents in Iraq (that mainly blow up Iraqis) you can see that we are slowly gaining the support of the people (at least so far as they want a stable and civilized government and don't want idiots running around blowing up stuff). To paint them as "pro-terrorism" is just simple-minded. Yes, they have aired tapes from Al Qaeda, but then the same stuff is just repeated on every American outlet immediately. "Aired" and "cheered on" are not the same things.

[ArlJim78]

Who cares what they report in English. We don't need an English version of the news from an Arabic network. What I would want to know is that they report the same way in Arabic, which means that they are critical of the jihadists in Arabic. If they are then I would give them some slack. But if they have different slants on the news for english and Arabic then it is nothing but propaganda.

[GameTheory]

Who cares what they report in English. We don't need an English version of the news from an Arabic network. What I would want to know is that they report the same way in Arabic, which means that they are critical of the jihadists in Arabic. If they are then I would give them some slack. But if they have different slants on the news for english and Arabic then it is nothing but propaganda.The editorial department for the English and Arabic divisions are in fact separate and independent from each other, so that could well be. But if memory serves the stories I'm referring to were broadcast in Iraq, not here. I'll see if I can find the source of that -- it is something I read about some time ago.

Again, I'm not saying it NOT propaganda in some ways, but CNN/Fox/MSNBC/PBS are as well, just with a different slant. But many Americans who have never seen a second of Al Jazeera assume it is some sort of terrorist cheerleading network, and it is not. (Because another common assumption is also not true -- that the Muslim masses are terrorist cheerleaders, which by and large they are not.) You have to remember that the Muslim world is hardly monolithic -- they all hate each other to some extent as well. AJ is based out of Qatar, and the biggest criticism of them that seems valid is that they report stories critical of everyone but Qatar...

[skate]

I was visiting my nephew today and he was eager to show me his HIGH definition television. I turned it to a news show and watched the reporting of the day's events at the World Cup, which was followed by a very gratifying story or a Cameroon animal keeper who went to England for advanced studies and found the hustle and bustle there disturbing. Next a story about floods in Brazil, the firing of the general in Washington etc, all reported in a proper English accent.

There was a commercial about upcoming shows and, thinking that this was the BBC, I was very surprised to find out I had been watching Al Jazeera English version.

Open minded and a lot like the BBC, Reuters, CBC or PBS. No ranting just reporting. Refreshing content.

Oh come on zilly, are you saying 'Al Jazeera" and "BO" went to SCHOOL Together?

thanks for openin my "Sky" and "Memory", as to the methods used by Stalin/Hitler.

Refreashed at last...yours truely

[skate]

You have to remember that the Muslim world is hardly monolithic -- they all hate each other to some extent as well. AJ is based out of Qatar, and the biggest criticism of them that seems valid is that they report stories critical of everyone but Qatar...


Well, thank god/Moha for that, i was gettin spacey, while thinking i was the only one to be Hated.

[46zilzal]

Lt. Josh Rushing found out about how Al Jazeera reported and it was shown in the documentary The Control Room.

The people he interacted with were NOTHING like he was told. He eventually resigned his commission and now works for that very network.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/11/education-lieutenant-rushing

[BlueShoe]

The people he interacted with were NOTHING like he was told. He eventually resigned his commission and now works for that very network.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/11/education-lieutenant-rushing
Wow, Zilly comes up with an impartial opinion again, right? Wrong, Motherjones is about as far left as they come. Once again, the leftist babble about how bad America is, and that the poor, misunderstood Muslim boys are really not so evil. Pass.

[46zilzal]

in that officers own words:Amid the sudden publicity, Rushing ran afoul of the Pentagon. After defending Al Jazeera in an interview with the Village Voice, in which he suggested that the network showed a more realistic image of the war than the American media ("In America war isn't hell—we don't see blood, we don't see suffering. All we see is patriotism"), he was ordered to stop talking to the press. That didn't sit well with him. "It's a weird place to be in when there's a national dialogue about you and you can't take part in it," he says. "When I came back from the war, I was frustrated by what I'd seen. I felt that what America thought it knew about Al Jazeera was wrong, and the way that America was engaging or not engaging with Al Jazeera was not only wrong but dangerous."

Rushing resigned his commission after 14 years of service in the fall of 2004, a move that meant forsaking the pension and lifetime medical coverage he and his family would have received had he remained in the military for another six years. He took out a second mortgage on his Los Angeles home and went on the speaking circuit, addressing the film he'd been forbidden to comment on and offering his perspective on the oft-derided Arabic-language news channel that he saw as a vital way to engage the Muslim world.

By that winter, Rushing was running low on money and close to taking a job with a PR firm when he was approached by Al Jazeera, which was in the early stages of planning an ambitious English-language channel that would rotate its daily coverage among bureaus in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London, and Washington, D.C. Last fall, Rushing officially became one of the new faces of Al Jazeera International, along with such seasoned Western journalists as former ABC correspondent Dave Marash and BBC veteran David Frost. They were met with cries of treachery from the right; Rushing earned a special kind of scorn, with one conservative columnist calling him "a bigger boob than Anna Nicole Smith's entire chest combined," Al Jazeera's "American propagandist," and an "enemy-pandering nimrod" in the space of a single piece. There were online death threats, too—one urged special-ops troops to "take him out"—which worried him enough to hire bodyguards to protect his family.

[toetoe]

This ... is Zenpee Yaher ... um, I mean ... Alja Zeera.

[boxcar]

in that officers own words:Amid the sudden publicity, Rushing ran afoul of the Pentagon. After defending Al Jazeera in an interview with the Village Voice, in which he suggested that the network showed a more realistic image of the war than the American media ("In America war isn't hell—we don't see blood, we don't see suffering. All we see is patriotism"), he was ordered to stop talking to the press. That didn't sit well with him. "It's a weird place to be in when there's a national dialogue about you and you can't take part in it," he says. "When I came back from the war, I was frustrated by what I'd seen. I felt that what America thought it knew about Al Jazeera was wrong, and the way that America was engaging or not engaging with Al Jazeera was not only wrong but dangerous."

Rushing resigned his commission after 14 years of service in the fall of 2004, a move that meant forsaking the pension and lifetime medical coverage he and his family would have received had he remained in the military for another six years. He took out a second mortgage on his Los Angeles home and went on the speaking circuit, addressing the film he'd been forbidden to comment on and offering his perspective on the oft-derided Arabic-language news channel that he saw as a vital way to engage the Muslim world.

By that winter, Rushing was running low on money and close to taking a job with a PR firm when he was approached by Al Jazeera, which was in the early stages of planning an ambitious English-language channel that would rotate its daily coverage among bureaus in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London, and Washington, D.C. Last fall, Rushing officially became one of the new faces of Al Jazeera International, along with such seasoned Western journalists as former ABC correspondent Dave Marash and BBC veteran David Frost. They were met with cries of treachery from the right; Rushing earned a special kind of scorn, with one conservative columnist calling him "a bigger boob than Anna Nicole Smith's entire chest combined," Al Jazeera's "American propagandist," and an "enemy-pandering nimrod" in the space of a single piece. There were online death threats, too—one urged special-ops troops to "take him out"—which worried him enough to hire bodyguards to protect his family.

Hey, Zil, keep on top of this story with this guy. Be sure to let us know when he converts to Izzzzlam. :rolleyes:

Boxcar