# Al Jazeera America to shut down



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Al Jazeera America to shut down

http://usat.ly/1RlZLfh


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

It was really nice to have the option of a totally different perspective than the two sides of the same coin cable news networks we otherwise have, but I didn't use it much and probably won't notice it is gone. 

Pretty tasteless to celebrate that many people being put out of work though, I must note.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i couldn't watch any qatar owned network while the country supports hamas' terrorism, including the use of children as human shields, not to mention the remaining totality of the country's other human rights abuses, but maybe that's just me.

i've always heard they were respected journalistically.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm happy to see them go as well. Just one among many niche linear cable channels that we'll see disappear in the coming months and years, I'm sure. Looks like they will continue on, however, as an online news source.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah with all the terrorism going on I can't imagine many people were clamoring for news channel based on Qatar. They should have spun it off and renamed it, then maybe people would have watched.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What?!? I am really, really disappointed. AJAM is an incredible news source, and I doubt that we'll have wide access to the AJ English feed after AJAM shut down. I thought that the Qataris would continue to fund it, but I guess not.

Unfortunately, it has had a hard time getting carriage, partly due to bandwidth constraints (some Comcast systems, none in HD), but mostly due to Xenophobic, Islamophoic whackjob cable companies like Cox, CableVision, and Charter who have refused to carry the channel, and the whackjobs who vocally complain about AJAM being owned by the Qataris, even though AJ and AJ English are some of the largest news channels in the world, alongside the BBC, CNN, RT, and CCTV.

They did some incredible shows too, like TechKnow. This is really unfortunate for news junkies and people who just want interesting content alike.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah with all the terrorism going on I can't imagine many people were clamoring for news channel based on Qatar. They should have spun it off and renamed it, then maybe people would have watched.


I don't think so. I feel like people are ingrained into their cable news channels in the way that they have been ingrained into their political parties. Few are going to be swayed at this point.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Never watched it. Time Warner wouldn't carry it in HD. Except the ads for them. They were actually in HD.


I bet Peyton Manning is happy.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

abovethesink said:


> I don't think so. I feel like people are ingrained into their cable news channels in the way that they have been ingrained into their political parties. Few are going to be swayed at this point.


For political news maybe. CNN still gets decent ratings even though it doesn't really have a particular political leaning. I have a particular channel I like to watch for political news, since it leans my way, but for just news I prefer CNN or one of the networks because I don't like how the other channel puts a political spin on everything. It's annoying when I just want information.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

abovethesink said:


> It was really nice to have the option of a totally different perspective than the two sides of the same coin cable news networks we otherwise have, but I didn't use it much and probably won't notice it is gone.
> 
> Pretty tasteless to celebrate that many people being put out of work though, I must note.


Sorry, I wasn't posting it with that thought in mind, but now that you point out that part of it, it is sad and I feel bad for them.



Bigg said:


> What?!? I am really, really disappointed. AJAM is an incredible news source, and I doubt that we'll have wide access to the AJ English feed after AJAM shut down. I thought that the Qataris would continue to fund it, but I guess not.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has had a hard time getting carriage, partly due to bandwidth constraints (some Comcast systems, none in HD),* but mostly due to Xenophobic, Islamophoic whackjob cable companies like Cox, CableVision, and Charter who have refused to carry the channel, and the whackjobs who vocally complain about AJAM being owned by the Qataris, *even though AJ and AJ English are some of the largest news channels in the world, alongside the BBC, CNN, RT, and CCTV.
> 
> They did some incredible shows too, like TechKnow. This is really unfortunate for news junkies and people who just want interesting content alike.


Yeah......I'm sure *that's* what it was.


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah with all the terrorism going on I can't imagine many people were clamoring for news channel based on Qatar. They should have spun it off and renamed it, then maybe people would have watched.


It was once another channel all together itself, IIRC it was Al Gore's "Green" channel, and it didn't get ratings either, so he sold it to this group.

Niche channels will never do well, its why the AHC channel is on its 5th or 6th rebranding now


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

I guess many of you were recording this channel, what other reason is this being talked about on this TiVo Forum.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Bigg said:


> They did some incredible shows too, like TechKnow. This is really unfortunate for news junkies and people who just want interesting content alike.


Yep. I had a season pass for TechKnow. And they did other good reporting.

My wife has a cousin who will apparently now become a former producer for them.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah with all the terrorism going on I can't imagine many people were clamoring for news channel based on Qatar. They should have spun it off and renamed it, then maybe people would have watched.


Yeah, plus a few months back one of their high up bureau chiefs was named by the NSA as a terrorist, collaborating with Al Qaeda! 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...l-jazeera-bureau-chief-as-al-qaeda-terrorist/

(.........and I'm sure he's just the only one that was actually caught!)


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

lessd said:


> I guess many of you were recording this channel, what other reason is this being talked about on this TiVo Forum.


And HarperVision is a moderator too, yes? 

(I'm sure it will be fixed shortly.)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

waynomo said:


> And HarperVision is a moderator too, yes?
> 
> (I'm sure it will be fixed shortly.)


Haha, I'm no moderator!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

waynomo said:


> ........My wife has a cousin who will apparently now become a former producer for them.


I'm very sorry to hear that!


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Haha, I'm no moderator!


I guess it was your avatar that made me think that. (my apologies to the moderators) 



HarperVision said:


> I'm very sorry to hear that!


Thanks. I'm sure she'll be fine. She has done independent producing before and also worked for a bit with CNN.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> I guess many of you were recording this channel, what other reason is this being talked about on this TiVo Forum.


I believe it's because AJAM is defintely a channel that the TiVo can tune and record and there were a lot of references to it here on the forum that I recall reading, so I think it's a story that impacts a lot of participants here, as you can see by the responses.

If not, of course shut it down moderators, or move it. It's not like this isn't a story that will be covered in the media elsewhere anyway.



waynomo said:


> I guess it was your avatar that made me think that. (my apologies to the moderators)  .......


Hey, I was being nice. Are you saying I couldn't be a moderator? My avatar is a widescreen TiVo guy dressed like the stereotypical Italian that I named "ViTo". Why would THAT make you think of me as a moderator?

I was asked on several occassions years ago by AVS, but didn't have the time because I was working in what the rest of the world called "propaganda", in Psyops. Most other countries would've considered it an act of war if we broadcast it into their territories. AJAM was just licensed to do it in America, with no recourse....go figure.

I did end up working for AVS though. No reason to apologize to the moderators. That wasn't very nice. 



waynomo said:


> .....Thanks. I'm sure she'll be fine. She has done independent producing before and also worked for a bit with CNN.


Well that's cool!  :up:


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Hey, I was being nice. Are you saying I couldn't be a moderator? My avatar is a widescreen TiVo guy dressed like the stereotypical Italian that I named "ViTo". Why would THAT make you think of me as a moderator?
> 
> I was asked on several occassions years ago by AVS, but didn't have the time because I was working in what the rest of the world called "propaganda", in Pysops. Most other countries would've considered it an act of war if we broadcast it into their territories. AJAM was just licensed to do it in America, with no recourse....go figure.
> 
> I did end up working for AVS though. No reason to apologize to the moderators. That wasn't very nice.


I was totally joking. I'm not sure if you know that or not, but it was based on your, "Ha, ha. I'm no moderator comment." (And my dyslexia still had me reading your avatar as TiVo until just now.)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

waynomo said:


> I was totally joking. I'm not sure if you know that or not, but it was based on your, "Ha, ha. I'm no moderator comment." (And my dyslexia still had me reading your avatar as TiVo until just now.)


Haha, classic! 

I used to have an avatar similar to Dan's that I changed the word MODERATOR below it to "INSTIGATOR", dressed it like a ghost and called him "Ghost of TiVo Guy" when they killed off the old logo........










..........but they made me change it a couple months ago for that very reason. That's what I thought you were referring to.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Bigg said:


> What?!? I am really, really disappointed. AJAM is an incredible news source, and I doubt that we'll have wide access to the AJ English feed after AJAM shut down. I thought that the Qataris would continue to fund it, but I guess not.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has had a hard time getting carriage, partly due to bandwidth constraints (some Comcast systems, none in HD), but mostly due to Xenophobic, Islamophoic whackjob cable companies like Cox, CableVision, and Charter who have refused to carry the channel, and the whackjobs who vocally complain about AJAM being owned by the Qataris, even though AJ and AJ English are some of the largest news channels in the world, alongside the BBC, CNN, RT, and CCTV.
> 
> They did some incredible shows too, like TechKnow. This is really unfortunate for news junkies and people who just want interesting content alike.


Actually, most of the MVPD's feel they have plenty of news channels with CNN, HNN, Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC, and BBC Wprld, and more. Some MVPD's were trying to get out of their agreements when AJA bought Current TV for is place among MVPD's. Why? Pure business. The MVPD's did not want to pay for another all news channel of which they felt they had more than enough. At least Current TV offered something off beat, but not a traditional news channel, but it failed. Most MVPD's did not have to contractually air AJA when it changed from CurrenTV. So, most didn't.

Originally, Dish did not carry AJA when it changed from CurrenTV and was not obligated to do so (AJA went to court with MVPD's over this). However, several months later, AJA and Dish struck a deal, and as of 2 months ago, Dish finally offered it in HD.

MVPD's can't stand that one can view the same TV shows on 5 different channels because they know the subscribers view this as poor value and the MVPD's have to pay quite a bit to get those channels, sometimes as conditions to access to the more highly rated one the same media company owns. Sorry, but AJA was viewed as just another of many all news channels.

Yes, AJ is journalistic respected, even among western journalists. Most of those at both AJ and AJA learned their trad at the BBC. And I have always like AJ's policy not edit or have the editorial process prevent us from seeing things, even ghastly things, uncut and unedited. There is analysis of the unedited material, but never do they try to "nanny" us with something news channels in the west do by not showing the ghastly because the ghastly is the truth and real-life without soft-peddling groups who never soft-peddle themselves. I don't know of any other news channel that airs the U.S. President's new conferences, often live, but uncut and unedited (AJ, but not sure about AJA) letting us decide while the western journalists take bits and pieces of any chief-executive of either party to just twist it to insidiously criticize or support that Chief or just make them look stupid so that the reporter can give their own message and opinion on the Chief.

The problem with AJA was that they put the last "A" and made it into an American version that had a US focus. That was the error. MVPD's already have CNN, etc. If it were AJ, that would be truly different and compelling. BBC World News America newscast/program is a complete WASTE of time. We already get that from all the other US based news channels. What we need is BBC World Service or France's Chanel 3 newscasts, not that made for North American consumption channel France 24. We want eclecticism, not the same old stuff.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Haha, classic!
> 
> I used to have an avatar similar to Dan's that I changed the word MODERATOR below it to "INSTIGATOR", dressed it like a ghost and called him "Ghost of TiVo Guy" when they killed off the old logo........
> 
> ...


I'm sure that is part of why I thought that.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Good Riddens


----------



## mrsean (May 15, 2006)

That's your source? Really? The National Enquirer prints less fiction than Breitbart.



HarperVision said:


> Yeah, plus a few months back one of their high up bureau chiefs was named by the NSA as a terrorist, collaborating with Al Qaeda!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...l-jazeera-bureau-chief-as-al-qaeda-terrorist/
> 
> (.........and I'm sure he's just the only one that was actually caught!)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

mrsean said:


> That's your source? Really? The National Enquirer prints less fiction than Breitbart.


No, that was just the first Google hit I copied when I tried to find info about it from months ago. It was on all the national news outlets at the time. I even made a post about it back then, that's how I remembered it now.


----------



## dameatball (Feb 24, 2014)

Pretty tasteless to celebrate that many people being put out of work though, I must note.[/QUOTE]

Same could be said for your posturing


----------



## dameatball (Feb 24, 2014)

Bigg said:


> What?!? I am really, really disappointed. AJAM is an incredible news source, and I doubt that we'll have wide access to the AJ English feed after AJAM shut down. I thought that the Qataris would continue to fund it, but I guess not.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has had a hard time getting carriage, partly due to bandwidth constraints (some Comcast systems, none in HD), but mostly due to Xenophobic, Islamophoic whackjob cable companies like Cox, CableVision, and Charter who have refused to carry the channel, and the whackjobs who vocally complain about AJAM being owned by the Qataris, even though AJ and AJ English are some of the largest news channels in the world, alongside the BBC, CNN, RT, and CCTV.
> 
> They did some incredible shows too, like TechKnow. This is really unfortunate for news junkies and people who just want interesting content alike.


Yea cox, cablevision and charter routinely kill off profitable programming bc they have an agenda.

Wait a minute, their agenda is to steal as much money from their customers while monopolizing territories. Now I'm confused.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Unfortunately, it has had a hard time getting carriage, partly due to bandwidth constraints (some Comcast systems, none in HD), but mostly due to Xenophobic, Islamophoic whackjob cable companies like Cox, CableVision, and Charter who have refused to carry the channel, and the whackjobs who vocally complain about AJAM being owned by the Qataris, even though AJ and AJ English are some of the largest news channels in the world, alongside the BBC, CNN, RT, and CCTV.


Yeah, you've got that covered 

The only one who made money off AJAM was Al Gore.

Well funded AJAM suffered the same fate as well funded Air Americal Radio -- no one wanted to listen to what they were selling.

A lot of niche cable channels will follow suit.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Yeah, you've got that covered
> 
> The only one who made money off AJAM was Al Gore.
> 
> ...


Last I heard that had stiffed Al Gore on a payment.

Long shot - and only because of Cable Carriage, ABC or CBS purchases the channel at a fire sale - perfect place for CBSN.

Herring Networks (Parent of One America News) has stated they are interested in the Network to pickup the carriage on the MVPD where it has no agreement.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Check out this article from USA TODAY:
> 
> Al Jazeera America to shut down
> 
> http://usat.ly/1RlZLfh


  crap!! I regularly enjoy the news programs from this channel. I have several dozen One Passes just from this channel. I will definitely miss their mostly unbiased reporting.

I think one of our local sub-channels has the other Al Jazeera channel. But it is only in SD. AJA was in HD on FiOS. It will be greatly missed by me. I've seen no other news channel that is as unbiased as AJA is.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

dameatball said:


> Yea cox, cablevision and charter routinely kill off profitable programming bc they have an agenda.
> 
> Wait a minute, their agenda is to steal as much money from their customers while monopolizing territories. Now I'm confused.


Profitability isn't their only agenda. The FCC and the Cable industry take turns hiring each other's executives.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

This will probably come off as racist, but I just can't see many people in this country watching a channel with an Arab sounding name. To much anti-muslim sentiment. And even for those like myself, who aren't anti-muslim, the name still makes it sound like an ethnic channel which, without prior knowledge, one might assume is not even in English. 

It was doomed from the start here.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> crap!! I regularly enjoy the news programs from this channel. I have several dozen One Passes just from this channel. I will definitely miss their mostly unbiased reporting.
> 
> I think one of our local sub-channels has the other Al Jazeera channel. But it is only in SD. AJA was in HD on FiOS. It will be greatly missed by me. I've seen no other news channel that is as unbiased as AJA is.


Yeah, we used to create and broadcast "unbiased" programs for Radio Free Europe and Voice of America when I was affiliated with Psyops and Commando Solo, too. 

Come on...can people REALLY be this naive?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> This will probably come off as racist, but I just can't see many people in this country watching a channel with an Arab sounding name. To much anti-muslim sentiment. And even for those like myself, who aren't anti-muslim, the name still makes it sound like an ethnic channel which, without prior knowledge, one might assume is not even in English. It was doomed from the start here.


And the post below yours proved your point.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> And the post below yours proved your point.


Believe me, I am FAR from racist or bigot, or Islamophobe, or whatever you want to say! What I AM is a realist that has been to many many places and seen many many things and have been privy to a LOT of classified information.

I know what's out there and the motivations of many people, organizations and governments, including the USA who I also admit isn't always on the up and up.

I consider myself a *Christ*ian and by that I mean by following the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is to love EVERYONE as a person and human being, but not necessarily condone their actions, be they another religion, a criminal, another race, it doesn't matter to me AT ALL. I take them one at a time. Some of my best friends when I was doing those jobs were Muslims and just about every other religion you can imagine. I know that sounds cliche', but truth is truth and I would lay my life down for them in a heartbeat! (and almost did!)

What I guess I am trying to say is, if you think AJAM is any more "unbiased" than RFE, VoA, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc. then you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dude. Everyone has a bias. But it is how much you rise above that bias. Putting all news organizations in the same lump with Fox or MSNBC is what is really naive. It means you cannot differentiate those who strive for clarity and those who strive for winning their view. 

Almost everyone in the business says AJA is a good news outlet. Yet you quoted breitbart, one of the most openly biased sources on the Internet for a news item. 

Either it means you have an open bias (which pretty much showed in your first post on this) or you have no way of discerning real sources from the fantasy in which everyone has an agenda. Got news for you. Most news organizations don't have an agenda.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> Dude. Everyone has a bias. But it is how much you rise above that bias. Putting all news organizations in the same lump with Fox or MSNBC is what is really naive. It means you cannot differentiate those who strive for clarity and those who strive for winning their view. Almost everyone in the business says AJA is a good news outlet. Yet you quoted breitbart, one of the most openly biased sources on the Internet for a news item. Either it means you have an open bias (which pretty much showed in your first post on this) or you have no way of discerning real sources from the fantasy in which everyone has an agenda. Got news for you. Most news organizations don't have an agenda.


Haha OK "dude". 

I explained the Breitbart and I won't do it again. The fact I used the first link mentioning the story shows there was no bias, cuz I didn't give a crap which story I linked to what was a worldwide story. Shall I find more links to it for you? I think I remember seeing it first on CNN, if that matters "dude"?

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you're not tolerant of it. What the hell is wrong with people.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Haha OK "dude".  I explained the Breitbart and I won't do it again. The fact I used the first link mentioning the story shows there was no bias, cuz I didn't give a crap which story I linked to what was a worldwide story. Shall I find more links to it for you? I think I remember seeing it first on CNN, if that matters "dude"? Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you're not tolerant of it. What the hell is wrong with people.


Again. Using breitbart blindly means you cannot differentiate. Forget if the data was good or not. You are blind to what is good source and what is not. That was my point.

Would you have been as cheery about Fox shutting down? Or CNN?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> Again. Using breitbart blindly means you cannot differentiate. Forget if the data was good or not. You are blind to what is good source and what is not. That was my point. Would you have been as cheery about Fox shutting down? Or CNN?


Oh so you're biased against Breitbart when all I was doing was trying to convey the actual information given, not necessarily the source?

So by your logic if a pathological liar says something that's true, then that makes what he said as automatically false and untrue, right?

Everyone has a bias in some way shape or form "dude". I am from America and believe in what this country was founded on, so therefore am "biased" towards that and entities that convey that ideal, so yes I guess I am biased to the U.S. News Companies like Fox and CNN et al. That doesn't mean I don't watch and read any other sources to get other perspectives or am naive enough not to realize sources such as AJAM from Qatar promote ideals contrary to mine (subtle, subliminal, overt or otherwise) and the American ideal that treats women fairly and MANY other things I don't agree with, here in AMERICA.

Have you been to Qatar? I have....many times. So yes, I am biased that I DO NOT want that in my country......sorry "dude".


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

I am done with this. Say your final piece if you will but this is not the forum for this discussion.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jc!!!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Fox is not a US News company. 

And, yes, I would never use breitbart as a source without other sources. Because I have a brain.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> Fox is not a US News company.
> 
> And, yes, I would never use breitbart as a source without other sources. Because I have a brain.


I love you Tony!


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Im not a racist. I just dont like any reLIEgion or people who extremely envelop themselves within it. Thats any reLIEgion, I discriminate equally.

And thats a lot people.

Edit: one exception, Harpervison seems like a cool guy otherwise, pretty smart guy


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Dude. Everyone has a bias. But it is how much you rise above that bias. Putting all news organizations in the same lump with Fox or MSNBC is what is really naive. It means you cannot differentiate those who strive for clarity and those who strive for winning their view.
> 
> Almost everyone in the business says AJA is a good news outlet. Yet you quoted breitbart, one of the most openly biased sources on the Internet for a news item.
> 
> Either it means you have an open bias (which pretty much showed in your first post on this) or you have no way of discerning real sources from the fantasy in which everyone has an agenda. Got news for you. Most news organizations don't have an agenda.


I would argue the fact that because so many in the media respect AJ as evidence of its bias, like most of the rest of the media.


----------



## HD_Dude (Sep 11, 2006)

In broadcasting, revenue is everything. 100%. If Al Jazeera was making money, it would have continued. It obviously was not. 

Al Jazeera was a bold experiment, designed to make an impact, make a difference, and make money.

It did none of those.

As a career broadcast journalist, I believe they operated with solid journalism principles. I never saw any examples of biased reporting from Al Jazeera. Plus, they hired former top-level, respected US journalists. People who would never slant their point of view to satisfy some terrorist agenda. No way.

But, as was noted above, they were doomed from the start, due to their name alone! Let's be real. What U.S. corporation would buy advertising on a network named:

"The Bejing US News Report"

"Canada Tonight! U.S. Edition!"

"Good Morning, CUBA!"

Uh huh.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

foghorn2 said:


> Im not a racist. I just dont like any reLIEgion or people who extremely envelop themselves within it. Thats any reLIEgion, I discriminate equally.
> 
> And thats a lot people.
> 
> Edit: one exception, Harpervison seems like a cool guy otherwise, pretty smart guy


Haha Thanks! I like you......no, I LOVE you too! Believe me, I am NOT like other so called religious people or groups. I am spiritual and firmly believe in "WWJD", not in some church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that is run by fallible, greedy, pompous, power hungry humans. That is exactly what He fought against.


----------



## calitivo (Dec 6, 2002)

I think they made a gigantic mistake at startup by not showing the Middle East Al Jazeera news hour which had been previously broadcast on PBS stations. That program has some excellent field reporting that reminds me of Richard Engle.

Not mentioned yet, but the collapse in oil price is a huge factor in this decision.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Haha Thanks! I like you......no, I LOVE you too! Believe me, I am NOT like other so called religious people or groups. I am spiritual and firmly believe in "WWJD", not in some church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that is run by fallible, greedy, pompous, power hungry humans. That is exactly what He fought against.


There needs to be more like you in this World,

and the other Italian cousin, Tinto Brass (Bra/ass) 

back to the subject.. what numskulls would think that Americans would tolerate news presented by owners from a country that has Sharia Law?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)




----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> This will probably come off as racist, but I just can't see many people in this country watching a channel with an Arab sounding name. To much anti-muslim sentiment. And even for those like myself, who aren't anti-muslim, the name still makes it sound like an ethnic channel which, without prior knowledge, one might assume is not even in English.
> 
> It was doomed from the start here.


When I turned on AJ once and my wife was in the room she went nuts thinking that I would be watching Arab propaganda, she was quite surprised how well the news was reported, but before that she would (and many others) have never tuned to that ch. I call that freedom of personal choice within your own home, not racist, I am white and never have watched BET, I don't think that in itself make me or anybody a racist.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> For political news maybe. CNN still gets decent ratings even though it doesn't really have a particular political leaning. I have a particular channel I like to watch for political news, since it leans my way, but for just news I prefer CNN or one of the networks because I don't like how the other channel puts a political spin on everything. It's annoying when I just want information.


CNN just gets distracted by shiny objects now. They're barely a legitimate news channel anymore, even though they don't have a political bias.



HarperVision said:


> Yeah......I'm sure *that's* what it was.


Considering that their news coverage is top-notch, and their feature programming is really good, there's something going on.

It's hard to attract people to the channel when 3 large MSOs are Islamophobic and Xenophobic and refuse to carry the channel as a result.



Series3Sub said:


> Some MVPD's were trying to get out of their agreements when AJA bought Current TV for is place among MVPD's. Why? Pure business. The MVPD's did not want to pay for another all news channel of which they felt they had more than enough.
> 
> ...
> 
> Originally, Dish did not carry AJA when it changed from CurrenTV and was not obligated to do so (AJA went to court with MVPD's over this). However, several months later, AJA and Dish struck a deal, and as of 2 months ago, Dish finally offered it in HD.


2 months is posturing for a better carriage deal. Just plain old not carrying it is Islamophobia and Xenophobia.



> The problem with AJA was that they put the last "A" and made it into an American version that had a US focus. That was the error. MVPD's already have CNN, etc. If it were AJ, that would be truly different and compelling. BBC World News America newscast/program is a complete WASTE of time. We already get that from all the other US based news channels. What we need is BBC World Service or France's Chanel 3 newscasts, not that made for North American consumption channel France 24. We want eclecticism, not the same old stuff.


I liked the American focus, but it would be really nice to get the AJ English feed on cable. It used to be available online for free before AJAM, maybe we will get it back (although it's not exactly rocket science to VPN into London and grab it that way).



TonyD79 said:


> And the post below yours proved your point.






HarperVision said:


> What I guess I am trying to say is, if you think AJAM is any more "unbiased" than RFE, VoA, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc. then you are sadly mistaken.


Fox is in a totally different category. They shouldn't even be considered a news channel because they are not. They are entertainment for some people I guess. MSNBC, while they stick to the facts, they obviously advocate hard on a party-line democratic position (not to be confused with a truly liberal position).

AJAM's news reporting is very unbiased, so long as Israel and Palestine aren't launching anything at each other this week, and then their coverage of that is rather biased.

You have to know your news sources and what the biases, if any, are. Just lumping them all together is not only incorrect, but is a total false equivalency.



TonyD79 said:


> And, yes, I would never use breitbart as a source without other sources. Because I have a brain.






calitivo said:


> Not mentioned yet, but the collapse in oil price is a huge factor in this decision.


That's an interesting angle. You're probably right, as they would have had to play a really long game on it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

HD_Dude said:


> In broadcasting, revenue is everything. 100%. If Al Jazeera was making money, it would have continued. It obviously was not.
> 
> Al Jazeera was a bold experiment, designed to make an impact, make a difference, and make money.
> 
> It did none of those.


i heard a live news anchor repeat a rumor their viewership never broke into triple digits.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> CNN just gets distracted by shiny objects now. They're barely a legitimate news channel anymore, even though they don't have a political bias.
> 
> Considering that their news coverage is top-notch, and their feature programming is really good, there's something going on.
> 
> ...


I love you too, Bigg!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Last I heard that had stiffed Al Gore on a payment.
> 
> Long shot - and only because of Cable Carriage, ABC or CBS purchases the channel at a fire sale - perfect place for CBSN.
> 
> Herring Networks (Parent of One America News) has stated they are interested in the Network to pickup the carriage on the MVPD where it has no agreement.


The Blaze and NewsMax now looking at buying the Network as well.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I bet they would have done a lot better if they were carried by every major MVPD, in HD, with a channel number that was in line with MSNBC/FOX/CNN/HLN. Unfortunately, just getting carriage was an uphill battle for them.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> I bet they would have done a lot better if they were carried by every major MVPD, in HD, with a channel number that was in line with MSNBC/FOX/CNN/HLN. Unfortunately, just getting carriage was an uphill battle for them.


That have that on FiOS and Directv - and never did well on those.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> Fox is not a US News company.
> 
> And, yes, I would never use breitbart as a source without other sources. Because I have a brain.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

wizwor said:


>


That's about how many brain cells a person has after watching Breitfart.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> That have that on FiOS and Directv - and never did well on those.


Are they directly in line? DirecTV's channel lineup is pretty whack anyway. That's one of the few things Comcast has done well (in some places, where they implemented the x+1000 HD channel numbering scheme).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Are they directly in line? DirecTV's channel lineup is pretty whack anyway. That's one of the few things Comcast has done well (in some places, where they implemented the x+1000 HD channel numbering scheme).


Whacky? Directv's lineup is the most organized I've ever seen. No X+anything. You tune to the channel and you get HD automatically.

Their channels are broken down into groups of 100 and pretty cleanly delineated. The only outlier is CNN which negotiated for a special spot. All national base sports are together. Local channels are in their real numbers. National news and weather are together. General cable like TBS is grouped. Children's TV is grouped. Porn is grouped. Premiums are grouped. Sports tier programming is grouped. Premium sports are grouped.

I've never seen a Comcast lineup that makes any sense and I travel a lot.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Are they directly in line? DirecTV's channel lineup is pretty whack anyway. That's one of the few things Comcast has done well (in some places, where they implemented the x+1000 HD channel numbering scheme).


DirecTV

202 -CNN is on 202
204 - HLN
346 - BBC News
347 - AJAmerica
348 - FSTV (Free Speech TV)
349 - NewsMax
350 - CSpan 1
351 - CSpan 2
352 - NASA
353 - Bloomberg Business
354 - Dog TV (figure out this placement!)
355 - CNBC
356 - MSNBC
357 - CNBC World
359 - Fox Business
360 - Fox News
361 - Weathernation
362 - Weather Channel

CNN / HLN are the only "News" channel out of the main initial 350-360 placement.

FiOS HD

600 - CNN
602 - CNBC
603 - MSNBC
604 - Bloomberg
614 - AJM
616 - OAN (One America News)
617 - Fox Business News
618 - Fox News Channel
619 - Accuweather



TonyD79 said:


> Whacky? Directv's lineup is the most organized I've ever seen. No X+anything. You tune to the channel and you get HD automatically.
> 
> Their channels are broken down into groups of 100 and pretty cleanly delineated. The only outlier is CNN which negotiated for a special spot. All national base sports are together. Local channels are in their real numbers. National news and weather are together. General cable like TBS is grouped. Children's TV is grouped. Porn is grouped. Premiums are grouped. Sports tier programming is grouped. Premium sports are grouped.


I agree.


----------



## mchappell (Jul 1, 2008)

I wish there was a way to get the guide in a particular provider's order, regardless of which provider you use.

We had Directv for 10+ years and their guide is grouped nicely and we remember where everything is. We just switched to Comcast and don't know where a damn thing is. If we could have the Tivo show it in Directv format/order, the switch would have been a snap.

Mark


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The Blaze and NewsMax now looking at buying the Network as well.


This is not true, at least with regards to The Blaze. Glenn has categorically denied it in the strongest terms because he refuses to give them a dime.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Whacky? Directv's lineup is the most organized I've ever seen. No X+anything. You tune to the channel and you get HD automatically.
> 
> Their channels are broken down into groups of 100 and pretty cleanly delineated. The only outlier is CNN which negotiated for a special spot. All national base sports are together. Local channels are in their real numbers. National news and weather are together. General cable like TBS is grouped. Children's TV is grouped. Porn is grouped. Premiums are grouped. Sports tier programming is grouped. Premium sports are grouped.
> 
> I've never seen a Comcast lineup that makes any sense and I travel a lot.


CNN/HLN must have thrown me off then. It sounds pretty good. Comcast's 1000-series lineup makes total sense, but many markets don't have it, so you may have run across their older legacy-style lineups that are positively baffling. The 1000-series lineups have 10xx as locals, 11xx as news, 12xx and 13xx for cable, 14xx for ?, 15xx and 16xx for sports, and 18xx and 19xx for premiums, or something like that.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yep, Comcast has not implemented the new lineup in the ATL. Reports that they would do so nationwide are at least a couple of years old now.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Not have I seen it in the Philadelphia suburbs. The home of Comcast


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yep, Comcast has not implemented the new lineup in the ATL. Reports that they would do so nationwide are at least a couple of years old now.


Yeah, they did it in some markets, and then never completed it. Same story for their plant upgrades (not the same markets though, as some 650mhz plants have the new lineup with some channels missing), and a lot of other stuff. Typical Comcast. One arm doesn't know what the other arm is doing.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

SnakeEyes said:


> This is not true, at least with regards to The Blaze. Glenn has categorically denied it in the strongest terms because he refuses to give them a dime.


It was reported in Variety and on CNN before GB denied it.

Then again, as AJ still owes Al Gore a major amount for the purchase, perhaps GB would be giving it to AG instead of AJ.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

Bigg said:


> CNN/HLN must have thrown me off then. It sounds pretty good. Comcast's 1000-series lineup makes total sense, but many markets don't have it, so you may have run across their older legacy-style lineups that are positively baffling. The 1000-series lineups have 10xx as locals, 11xx as news, 12xx and 13xx for cable, 14xx for ?, 15xx and 16xx for sports, and 18xx and 19xx for premiums, or something like that.


Here In Indiana, it's the same but 14xx is music, 15xx children's / Family oriented, 16/17xx Sports, 18xx Movies & 19xx Premiums


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pteronaut said:


> Here In Indiana, it's the same but 14xx is music, 15xx children's / Family oriented, 16/17xx Sports, 18xx Movies & 19xx Premiums


I might have messed it up. It sounds like you guys have the same national lineup we do.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

And if you drop down to the SD channels on my cable box (which I have to do from time to time when the signal drops making HD unwatchable) the info bug pops up every time a show starts to remind you that you can watch it in HD. No I can't, if the HD channel wasn't screwing up so much, I wouldn't be watching the SD channel.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pteronaut said:


> And if you drop down to the SD channels on my cable box (which I have to do from time to time when the signal drops making HD unwatchable) the info bug pops up every time a show starts to remind you that you can watch it in HD. No I can't, if the HD channel wasn't screwing up so much, I wouldn't be watching the SD channel.


Sounds like you need the proverbial Larry to come out and check your wiring and the plant and fix whatever is going on!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Was any other network covering the Flint water situation a year ago?

"Flint water crisis: How Al Jazeera America reported it a year ago today"


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690327039027519488


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

unitron said:


> Was any other network covering the Flint water situation a year ago?
> 
> "Flint water crisis: How Al Jazeera America reported it a year ago today"
> 
> ...


If a network is going out of their way not to report about Middle East Conflicts or Terrorist, they have to find something to take up the air time and make Governments in the USA look bad.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If a network is going out of their way not to report about Middle East Conflicts or Terrorist, they have to find something to take up the air time and make Governments in the USA look bad.


You clearly don't watch Al Jazeera America.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

LoadStar said:


> You clearly don't watch Al Jazeera America.


As I have noted in other posts, I went out of my way to view them on 11/13 after the Paris attack - and at other times during terrorist attacks to see how they would cover it.

And the bottom line is - not very well at all.

Besides, when you have words such as "Radical Muslim" and "Muslim Extremist" banned, sort of tells the tale.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> You clearly don't watch Al Jazeera America.


Because of the name most people don't watch this network, they should have changed their name, because they do have some good stuff on that ch. On my cable system it not in HD, but still has good accurate news.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

lessd said:


> Because of the name most people don't watch this network, they should have changed their name, because they do have some good stuff on that ch. On my cable system it not in HD, but still has good accurate news.


That may have worked. Al Jazeera Sports changed it's name to BEin, that isn't going away.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

pteronaut said:


> That may have worked. Al Jazeera Sports changed it's name to BEin, that isn't going away.


Maybe yes, maybe no. It also would have reduced their name recognition among people who actually know news. Those people instantly recognize names like Al Jazeera, CNN, and the BBC all over the world.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Maybe yes, maybe no. It also would have reduced their name recognition among people who actually know news. Those people instantly recognize names like Al Jazeera, CNN, and the BBC all over the world.


I'd bet those same people would get it if the name were American Journal instead of Al Jazeera.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I'd bet those same people would get it if the name were American Journal instead of Al Jazeera.


Unfortunately, that's quite possible.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

lessd said:


> Because of the name most people don't watch this network, they should have changed their name...


any idiot with half a brain would have known to change their name when deciding to operate in this country. 9/11 was this nation's deadliest domestic terrorist attack, and al jazeera decided to become the number 1 source for video releases by the mastermind, an association not likely to be soon forgotten.

to then decide to rely on their worldwide name recognition and brand loyalty in other countries when launching their network here shows a level of arrogance and poor marketing choices rarely seen.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Good riddance. As if we don't have enough liberal news organizations, we have to import them from other countries.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> any idiot with half a brain would have known to change their name when deciding to operate in this country. 9/11 was this nation's deadliest domestic terrorist attack, and al jazeera decided to become the number 1 source for video releases by the mastermind, an association not likely to be soon forgotten.
> 
> to then decide to rely on their worldwide name recognition and brand loyalty in other countries when launching their network here shows a level of arrogance and poor marketing choices rarely seen.


Unfortunately, AJAM overestimated the intelligence of the average American idiot, who has a negative impression of Al Jazeera, and is Islamaphobic and Xenophobic.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Good riddance. As if we don't have enough liberal news organizations, we have to import them from other countries.


Wow.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Unfortunately, AJAM overestimated the intelligence of the average American idiot, who has a negative impression of Al Jazeera, and is Islamaphobic and Xenophobic.


however; i don't believe the average american is necessarily xenophobic simply based on thier dislike of the past behavior of al jazeera, or their owner, qatar.

in fact, disliking al jazeera based on their government owner qatar's support of terrorism, and human rights abuses, might even be called an well-thought, responsible, and intelligent decision.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> however; i don't believe the average american is necessarily xenophobic simply based on thier dislike of the past behavior of al jazeera, or their owner, qatar. in fact, disliking al jazeera based on their government owner qatar's support of terrorism, and human rights abuses, might even be called an well-thought, responsible, and intelligent decision.


Or maybe looking at a product as what it is rather than what it may be is the real well-thought, responsible and intelligent decision.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> Or maybe looking at a product as what it is rather than what it may be is the real well-thought, responsible and intelligent decision.


when considering the source of the information, isn't financial backing, political influence, as well as past behaviors, necessary information for proper context, and an informed decision? it certainly frames my opinion of fox news.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Good riddance. As if we don't have enough liberal news organizations, we have to import them from other countries.


You obviously never watched it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> when considering the source of the information, isn't financial backing, political influence, as well as past behaviors, necessary information for proper context, and an informed decision? it certainly frames my opinion of fox news.


What frames my opinion is track record. And Al Jazeera has a good one internationally.

As for Fox, realize that the bastion of conservatism is the same company that owns the major network that pushes the bubble forward more than any other.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Good riddance. As if we don't have enough liberal news organizations, we have to import them from other countries.


Lets get one thing clear, reLIEgous thinking is conservative in nature, in all its manifestations.

Not liberal at all.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

foghorn2 said:


> Lets get one thing clear, reLIEgous thinking is conservative in nature, in all its manifestations.
> 
> Not liberal at all.


I don't make any arguments to the contrary.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Liberal/Conservative are terms associated with opinions/commentary not news. Actual reporting of the "news" should be a fact based endeavor, unfortunately way to much of our "news" media spends it's time providing opinions/commentary and doesn't have very much concern for actually reporting of fact based news. Given that this whole industry is based on rating/viewership the only people to blame for this is ourselves. Or more simple put bull sh** opinions/commentary sells, fact based news doesn't.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Liberal/Conservative are terms associated with opinions/commentary not news. Actual reporting of the "news" should be a fact based endeavor, unfortunately way to much of our "news" media spends it's time providing opinions/commentary and doesn't have very much concern for actually reporting of fact based news. Given that this whole industry is based on rating/viewership the only people to blame for this is ourselves. Or more simple put bull sh** opinions/commentary sells, fact based news doesn't.


Ah, come on fact based news is boring


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

NorthAlabama said:


> any idiot with half a brain would have known to change their name when deciding to operate in this country. 9/11 was this nation's deadliest domestic terrorist attack, and al jazeera decided to become the number 1 source for video releases by the mastermind, an association not likely to be soon forgotten.
> 
> to then decide to rely on their worldwide name recognition and brand loyalty in other countries when launching their network here shows a level of arrogance and poor marketing choices rarely seen.


Watch who you are calling an Idiot!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Watch who you are calling an Idiot!


sorry!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> What frames my opinion is track record. And Al Jazeera has a good one internationally.
> 
> As for Fox, realize that the bastion of conservatism is the same company that owns the major network that pushes the bubble forward more than any other.


ok, you're right, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, racist, and xenophobic. happy?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> ok, you're right, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, racist, and xenophobic. happy?


 I never said that.

I'm trying to discuss assessing things on their own merits. Without name calling. Do not blur my posts with others. Thank you.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> I never said that.
> 
> I'm trying to discuss assessing things on their own merits. Without name calling. Do not blur my posts with others. Thank you.


international reputation is one consideration (as i acknowledged in post #3). government ownership is another, as is the history of their brand name in this country.

i'm trying to discuss assessing things on all merits. you're welcome.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> however; i don't believe the average american is necessarily xenophobic simply based on thier dislike of the past behavior of al jazeera, or their owner, qatar.
> 
> in fact, disliking al jazeera based on their government owner qatar's support of terrorism, and human rights abuses, might even be called an well-thought, responsible, and intelligent decision.


Taking Qatar and throwing them in the same pot as the Taliban or ISIS or whatever just because they are Arab and Muslim is discriminatory.

AJAM is also much more global and hard news based like the BBC than what you'll find on the American "news" networks.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Taking Qatar and throwing them in the same pot as the Taliban or ISIS or whatever just because they are Arab and Muslim is discriminatory.
> 
> AJAM is also much more global and hard news based like the BBC than what you'll find on the American "news" networks.


Right, because a news agency owned by a monarchy in a country that lives under Sharia law shouldn't be be viewed suspiciously.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Taking Qatar and throwing them in the same pot as the Taliban or ISIS or whatever just because they are Arab and Muslim is discriminatory.
> 
> AJAM is also much more global and hard news based like the BBC than what you'll find on the American "news" networks.


I hate to agree with Bigg, but if you ever spent time watching this ch I could fine very little option about the news, it is more like the BBC, at least what they show in the USA, it was all in the name.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Right, because a news agency owned by a monarchy in a country that lives under Sharia law shouldn't be be viewed suspiciously.


Suspicious and outright rejection are two different things.

BTW, you earlier equated Al Jazeera with liberalism. How do you match Sharia Law and liberalism? That is some twisted logic.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Taking Qatar and throwing them in the same pot as the Taliban or ISIS or whatever just because they are Arab and Muslim is discriminatory.


don't even try, your comment is complete fiction. point to any comment in this thread where i've used the words taliban, isis, arab, or muslim - it doesn't exist. my reference to terrorism was directed towards qatar's support of hamas.

the united states, united kingdom, european union, australia, canada, japan, egypt, and israel all classify hamas as a terrorist organization. if you disagree with our opinion of hamas, then we'll have to agree to disagree.



lessd said:


> I hate to agree with Bigg, but if you ever spent time watching this ch I could fine very little option about the news, it is more like the BBC, at least what they show in the USA, it was all in the name.


no need to agree with bigg, his claim was completely bogus. i also believe the history of their name recognition held them back here (see above).


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Suspicious and outright rejection are two different things.
> 
> BTW, you earlier equated Al Jazeera with liberalism. How do you match Sharia Law and liberalism? That is some twisted logic.


Not really. Many of the royal families in the Middle East countries force sharia law on the citizens but live in a secular progressive manner (not all of course, but many). I'm simply stating the facts of the ownership of the news agency. But as for calling the news agency liberal, they have a progressive view of the world that is reflected in their reporting, it shapes the stories they cover, how they frame them, how they report those who are favor of abortion or those that oppose it, etc. I personally don't care that this is the case, we all have our biases, but I find it offensive that they and the other 75% news agencies refuse to acknowledge that it's so. They decry Fox News as partisan or the poor fools at MSNBC but claim they "play it down the middle". It's laughable.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Right, because a news agency owned by a monarchy in a country that lives under Sharia law shouldn't be be viewed suspiciously.





TonyD79 said:


> Suspicious and outright rejection are two different things.


Well that's just the thing. You should always consider where your news is coming from. The news channel with the least bias is probably BBC, but there is no truly unbiased source. Fox News is one of the most biased and factually challenged "news" sources out there. It doesn't mean that no one should ever watch Fox News. They should just consider the source and be very skeptical, just like they should be skeptical of AJAM's reporting whenever Israel and Hamas start shooting stuff at each other.



> BTW, you earlier equated Al Jazeera with liberalism. How do you match Sharia Law and liberalism? That is some twisted logic.


That's the bizarre part. AJAM is quite progressive, which is a sharp contrast from the conservatism of some Muslim countries.



NorthAlabama said:


> dont even try, your comment is complete fiction. point to any comment in this thread where i've used the words taliban, isis, arab, or muslim - it doesn't exist. my reference to terrorism was directed towards qatars support of hamas.
> 
> the united states, united kingdom, european union, australia, canada, japan, egypt, and israel all classify hamas as a terrorist organization. if you disagree with our opinion of hamas, then we'll have to agree to disagree.


I already addressed this in post #53:



Bigg said:


> AJAM's news reporting is very unbiased, so long as Israel and Palestine aren't launching anything at each other this week, and then their coverage of that is rather biased.
> 
> You have to know your news sources and what the biases, if any, are. Just lumping them all together is not only incorrect, but is a total false equivalency.


Categorically shunning a news channel because they are biased somewhere, on something would therefore ban all of the news channels except maybe BBC. Fox News was out way before AJAM, MSNBC would be out, and CNN would be too, if only for their easy distraction with shiny objects.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> I already addressed this in post #53...


you equate a government owned news agency, a government which supports a terrorist organization, to bias at fox, cnn, or msnbc?

if so, we're so far apart at the beginning, any discussion is pointless.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

NorthAlabama said:


> you equivocate a government owned news agency, a government which supports a terrorist organization, to bias at fox, cnn, or msnbc?
> 
> if so, we're so far apart at the beginning, any discussion is pointless.


The few times I have watched this station for US news I have not detected any bias, or found out later that their information was just plane incorrect, again I am talking about US news only.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lessd said:


> The few times I have watched this station for US news I have not detected any bias, or found out later that their information was just plane incorrect, again I am talking about US news only.


Maybe thats his complaint!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> you equivocate a government owned news agency, a government which supports a terrorist organization, to bias at fox, cnn, or msnbc?
> 
> if so, we're so far apart at the beginning, any discussion is pointless.


Since you clearly haven't actually bothered to watch AJAM, you don't know what you're talking about. AJAM is far less biased than Fox News about 95% of the time, the 5% being Israel and Hamas going at it.

Even leaving Fox News out of it, since Fox News is clearly a disaster anyway in terms of actual news reporting, AJAM is more straightforward, hard news, and global than MSNBC or CNN. CNN gets easily distracted by missing airplanes, celebrities, tragic domestic events, or any sort of shiny objects, and MSNBC is super inside the beltway, and has a firm basis in fact unlike Fox News, but is nonetheless unabashedly spun towards party line Democratic domestic politics.



zalusky said:


> Maybe thats his complaint!


Yeah, they don't just make stuff up like Fox News.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Since you clearly haven't actually bothered to watch AJAM, you don't know what you're talking about. AJAM is far less biased than Fox News about 95% of the time, the 5% being Israel and Hamas going at it.
> 
> Even leaving Fox News out of it, since Fox News is clearly a disaster anyway in terms of actual news reporting, AJAM is more straightforward, hard news, and global than MSNBC or CNN. CNN gets easily distracted by missing airplanes, celebrities, tragic domestic events, or any sort of shiny objects, and MSNBC is super inside the beltway, and has a firm basis in fact unlike Fox News, but is nonetheless unabashedly spun towards party line Democratic domestic politics.
> 
> Yeah, they don't just make stuff up like Fox News.


Do you hate Fox because your a Democratic or is a personal grudge for some reason, their ratings are too high for Fox to be as bad as you say they are.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lessd said:


> Do you hate Fox because your a Democratic or is a personal grudge for some reason, their ratings are too high for Fox to be as bad as you say they are.


Ratings are proof of journalistic integrity? In a country that adores the kardashians?


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

FAUX Nudes, Clinton News Network, Major Scumbucket Nitwits Before Christ

we clearly do not have REAL news here in the Divided States Under Dogma

I prefer the Young Turks and Real Time w/ Bill Maher for my news, even thought they are not truly news shows.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Since you clearly haven't actually bothered to watch AJAM, you don't know what you're talking about.


i watched (not often), the long form presentation seemed redundant, repetitive, and grew tiring.

i never claimed evidence of bias one way or the other, only that government ownership was enough to keep me away, as it would with any state-owned news organization. please re-read post #3 in this thread.

please stop mis-interpreting my comments to reflect your assumptions, it's you who is wrong, on several levels.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> i watched (not often), the long form presentation seemed redundant, repetitive, and grew tiring. i never claimed evidence of bias one way or the other, only that government ownership was enough to keep me away, as it would with any state-owned news organization. please re-read post #3 in this thread. please stop mis-interpreting my comments to reflect your assumptions, it's you who is wrong, on several levels.


So you feel the same about the bbc. Canadian news. RAI. Basically almost any news not generated in the USA. How do you feel about pentagon TV or cspan?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> So you feel the same about the bbc. Canadian news. RAI. Basically almost any news not generated in the USA. How do you feel about pentagon TV or cspan?


tony, give it a rest, you're trying to pick a fight. you care nothing about my opinion, or understanding my personal objections to supporting al jazeera america, and what i believe to be additional contributing factors to their failure other than islamophobia.

that said, my primary objection is to state-owned media, especially against governments that sponsor terrorists. china, north korea, cuba, iran, russia, syria, egypt - you get the idea.

and, no, i don't care for bbc or cbn. i know nothing of rai. i consider pentagon tv, cspan, or nasa tv, to be specialty cable channels, not news organizations.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> Do you hate Fox because your a Democratic or is a personal grudge for some reason, their ratings are too high for Fox to be as bad as you say they are.


Fox News is entertainment. Not news. The president of Fox News even said so at one point.

I mean when you watch a video they post. And then they proceed to say something completely opposite of what the video shows. Or even something the video doesn't show. It's not news. I'll turn Fox news on occasionally. But within five minutes I'm scratching my head trying to figure out if they actually watched the same news clip I watched. because they will be saying something completely different than what was said/shown on the clip.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

NorthAlabama said:


> you *equivocate* a government owned news agency, a government which supports a terrorist organization, to bias at fox, cnn, or msnbc?
> 
> if so, we're so far apart at the beginning, any discussion is pointless.


I think you mean to say "equate"; equivocate means something quite different than what you are apparently saying.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> tony, give it a rest, you're trying to pick a fight. you care nothing about my opinion, or understanding my personal objections to supporting al jazeera america, and what i believe to be additional contributing factors to their failure other than islamophobia. that said, my primary objection is to state-owned media, especially against governments that sponsor terrorists. china, north korea, cuba, iran, russia, syria, egypt - you get the idea. and, no, i don't care for bbc or cbn. i know nothing of rai. i consider pentagon tv, cspan, or nasa tv, to be specialty cable channels, not news organizations.


Your comment on the BBC tells me everything. You have no interest in journalism. Therefore I have no interest in your opinion. Thanks for being honest.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Do you hate Fox because your a Democratic or is a personal grudge for some reason, their ratings are too high for Fox to be as bad as you say they are.


I hate them because of their complete and total regard for facts. MSNBC is unabashed in their slant towards party line Democrats (not true liberals I might add), but they don't make things up in order to support that like Fox News does. And then CNN just has no clue what's going on. They're too clueless to figure out how to be biased. Or report the news in the first place.



NorthAlabama said:


> i never claimed evidence of bias one way or the other, only that government ownership was enough to keep me away, as it would with any state-owned news organization.


The BBC is a psudo-governmental news station, and they are the gold standard the world over. Why would you trust NBC/Comcast or 21st Century Fox any more than the Qatari government?



NorthAlabama said:


> that said, my primary objection is to state-owned media, especially against governments that sponsor terrorists. china, north korea, cuba, iran, russia, syria, egypt - you get the idea.


Because apparently Qatar is a haven for terrorists now. 



aaronwt said:


> Fox News is entertainment. Not news. The president of Fox News even said so at one point.


Yup. Unfortunately there is a large population in this country of people who think Fox News is actually broadcasting news, and whose heads would probably explode if they saw real news from the BBC.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

The BBC has its own biases as well and is the "gold standard" only by those without an issue with the biases. Also, people have a misguided opinion/view of the BBC simply because they are truly global. However, being global is like citing ratings. Neither necessarily means quality.

I'm also enjoying the partisan bias of this discussion. MSNBC doesn't make stuff up, only Fox? LOL


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> Given that this whole industry is based on rating/viewership the only people to blame for this is ourselves. Or more simple put bull sh** opinions/commentary sells, fact based news doesn't.


It's not entirely based on ratings. There are also re-transmission fees and package deals where the cable company must carry the news channel, irrespective of ratings, and pay a fee so they can air other more popular channels from the content provider.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

SnakeEyes said:


> The BBC has its own biases as well and is the "gold standard" only by those without an issue with the biases. Also, people have a misguided opinion/view of the BBC simply because they are truly global. However, being global is like citing ratings. Neither necessarily means quality.
> 
> I'm also enjoying the partisan bias of this discussion. MSNBC doesn't make stuff up, only Fox? LOL


I assume you've never watched Don Lemon on CNN?

Sone of his stories investigated if MH-370 was swallowed by a Black Hole like from "Lost" Another that something Supernatural had taken it.

Yep, great news reporting there.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/don-lemon-stupid-moments-cnn

And of course let's not forget that everyone from the BBC had gone home for the weekend on Friday night 11/11/2015 and their coverage sucked all night. But then again, same would have happened in USA if no time difference.

Again, with BBC coverage so bad and all USA Networks depending on Sky, the BBC or a French Network where everyone had checked out for the weekend, I purposely went to AJA multiple times Friday Night and over the weekend to see how they were covering, given their many resources in Europe.

They sucked....worse than the other poor coverage. RFM was only network to have young aggressive reporters who busted their but to get coverage from Friday night on.

And of course we know what AJA NEVER mentioned in their reporting.

It was simply shooters and then terrorist.

No bias there


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Not sure why you directed the CNN question at me. I did not mention them


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SnakeEyes said:


> The BBC has its own biases as well and is the "gold standard" only by those without an issue with the biases. Also, people have a misguided opinion/view of the BBC simply because they are truly global. However, being global is like citing ratings. Neither necessarily means quality.


Well, I guess nothing is truly unbiased, but the BBC is as close as you're every going to get in this world.



> I'm also enjoying the partisan bias of this discussion. MSNBC doesn't make stuff up, only Fox? LOL


It's well known that Fox makes stuff up. MSNBC actually sticks to the facts and does real journalism when toeing the Democratic party line. There is a difference between bias and outright lying.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

ej42137 said:


> I think you mean to say "equate"; equivocate means something quite different than what you are apparently saying.


you are correct, thanks! i'll edit to correct.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> The BBC is a psudo-governmental news station, and they are the gold standard the world over. Why would you trust NBC/Comcast or 21st Century Fox any more than the Qatari government?
> ...
> Because apparently Qatar is a haven for terrorists now.


your gold standard isn't as pure as once believed, it's tarnish has been revealed more than once. while i'll admit to watching nbc, cbs, and occaisionally abc, and even more rarely cnn or msnbc on cable, i rely primarily on print media for quality, not broadcast media. if print media dies, the true gold standard dies with it (imho).

other than you, who claimed qatar is a haven for terrorists? type the words "qatar government support of hamas" into your favorite search engine, and read away. the reported association isn't new, unsupported, or rare.



TonyD79 said:


> Your comment on the BBC tells me everything. You have no interest in journalism. Therefore I have no interest in your opinion. Thanks for being honest.


you deduce i have no interest in journalism because i disagree with your opinion of bbc as the baseline for quality? i think you've confused your definition of quality journalism with state-owned reporting with which you agree (and was once unchallenged), and they aren't the same.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Al Jazeera America is shutting down and we are having an argument over the BBC, MSNBC etc. What does the other news channels have to do with Al Jazeera, I don't understand.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> Al Jazeera America is shutting down and we are having an argument over the BBC, MSNBC etc. What does the other news channels have to do with Al Jazeera, I don't understand.


You must be new here


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

lessd said:


> Al Jazeera America is shutting down and we are having an argument over the BBC, MSNBC etc. What does the other news channels have to do with Al Jazeera, I don't understand.


Theirs is the one that only tells the 'truth' that they want to hear.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> your gold standard isn't as pure as once believed, it's tarnish has been revealed more than once. while i'll admit to watching nbc, cbs, and occaisionally abc, and even more rarely cnn or msnbc on cable, i rely primarily on print media for quality, not broadcast media. if print media dies, the true gold standard dies with it (imho).


Yes, some print media is higher quality than the cable news (although a lot is garbage too), but we're looking at TV news, and immediacy of it, the format, and who does the good reporting.



> other than you, who claimed qatar is a haven for terrorists? type the words "qatar government support of hamas" into your favorite search engine, and read away. the reported association isn't new, unsupported, or rare.


It was claimed earlier in the thread. As I have already said *at least two times*, Al Jazeera isn't a good source when Hamas and Israel are trying to blow each other up. Know the biases. Most of the Arab world supports Hamas and Palestine. We obviously don't, since we stand behind Israel, and it's right to exist.



> you deduce i have no interest in journalism because i disagree with your opinion of bbc as the baseline for quality? i think you've confused your definition of quality journalism with state-owned reporting with which you agree (and was once unchallenged), and they aren't the same.


That was not what I said at all. What I said is that you can't equate government ownership or involvement with low quality.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> It was claimed earlier in the thread.


then reply to whoever made the claim, and use their quote.



> What I said is that you can't equate government ownership or involvement with low quality.


it also shouldn't be ignored, it's an important to the overall context.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> then reply to whoever made the claim, and use their quote.


I don't really care to go back and quote Islamophobes and Xenophobes.



> it also shouldn't be ignored, it's an important to the overall context.


You can be aware of what it IS, but you can't just categorically call it biased just because it is owned by the government of Qatar.


----------

