How long before and major cable or satellite provider picks it up?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10325741/detail.html

How long before and major cable or satellite provider picks it up?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10325741/detail.html
maybe they can share a channel with the 700 club?

Why? Who would watch it?

Why? Who would watch it?

It's less biased than Fox?

what's the old Sun Tzu proverb?
Know thy enemy

(not that I consider all of Islam my enemy, but if we could see things from their perspective it could help enlighten future relations)

Why? Who would watch it?Homeland Security?

Your enemy doesn't broadcast in English.

It's less biased than Fox?

How do you know?

Your enemy doesn't broadcast in English.That's right, GI, Tokyo Rose is not your enemy. Now enjoy this Glenn Miller tune.

I read it every day. They've kicked up the quality a few notches in recent times. No more biased or misinforming than sources like Jerusalem Post/Haaretz. Both have their slant. Whether it would pick up popularity in the US? Doubtful, most Americans probably think it's a terrorist led operation.

Yeah I'd watch too. Really, if you're going to waste time in front of the tube, why not learn something (like what all of "them" think the news is) rather than get stuffed full of the same old cable news fare. There's a whole great big world out there and it'd do us a bit of good to understand where others believe the truth lies.

finally!!! Al Jazeera started this more than three years ago... and i saw nothing.

Last night good old CBC interviewed one of Al-Jazeera's main journalists, to be based in their new 150-employee broadcast centre in Washington DC. Can't remember the fellow's name, but he is a former USMC staff sergeant who has served in Iraq.

I think having this news service available will be very interesting, although I'm sure most Americans would rather watch a 24-hour-per-day NASCAR channel.

Should be really popular with the Terrorist loving Democratic Party.

or...

I hear the Democratic Party is thinking of giving them exclusive rights to televise their next convention.

/obligatory
//If snake were here...he would have said it...or something like it
//but he would have been serious
///obviously kidding.
////slashy overkill...

I heard that Al Jazeera is available on Dish satellite for a fee.

I heard that Al Jazeera is available on Dish satellite for a fee.

Am I paranoid to think subscribers will end up on a government watch list?

Sad sad sad that it even occurs to me.

How long before and major cable or satellite provider picks it up?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10325741/detail.html

I'm with ATP on this. I'd be interested to hear what they think no matter how inflammatory. I'm sure they are a lot more complex than our media has typically portrayed.

I heard Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes and saw Ted Koppel's Iran report on Discovery the other night. It was well worth watching. There's a surprising amount of common ground and shared values. It's sometimes surprising to learn people are just that - people


I understand that they really like showing the gore. Won't get the sanitized stuff we get at home where it's almost seems illegal to show a dead soldier. Or would we? Ahh they'll probably sanitize it.

.

Last night good old CBC interviewed one of Al-Jazeera's main journalists, to be based in their new 150-employee broadcast centre in Washington DC. Can't remember the fellow's name, but he is a former USMC staff sergeant who has served in Iraq.

I think having this news service available will be very interesting, although I'm sure most Americans would rather watch a 24-hour-per-day NASCAR channel.

Where have you been, it's 24-hour-per-day bull riding these days.

I've watched some of this on UK cable. Its good, and not biased, it seems to report events in the middle east fairly.

In the UK I watch Sky News as the BBC is biased towards the left and islam and multiculturalism, whatever that is.

I've watched some of this on UK cable. Its good, and not biased, it seems to report events in the middle east fairly.

In the UK I watch Sky News as the BBC is biased towards the left and islam and multiculturalism, whatever that is.

Not talking about your post particularly, but it seems some are assuming that Western media is biased and this is going to be a look at the real news. What I wonder is how anyone is going to make the judgement of which is biased and which is the truth. Every culture puts their slant on events, sees it in relationship to their own interests and I can't see how Al Jazeera would be any different. Their ME broadcasts are graphic and inflamatory by all reports and decidedly biased. Why would they show us a face that agrees with our own culture and interest? What do they have to gain?

I understand the idea that people are pretty much the same the world over and that it is government and business interests that drive national differences but in the case of a Democracy like this country, the people choose which line to take. Showing interviews with the man on the street in Teheran does nothing to soften the stances our respective governments take or to change the justification for either side. Seeing the Main media source for the ME here is not a bad thing, understanding the other side is important in human relationships, but I think we have to be careful what conclusions we reach based on those reports.

Not talking about your post particularly, but it seems some are assuming that Western media is biased and this is going to be a look at the real news. What I wonder is how anyone is going to make the judgement of which is biased and which is the truth. Every culture puts their slant on events, sees it in relationship to their own interests and I can't see how Al Jazeera would be any different. Their ME broadcasts are graphic and inflamatory by all reports and decidedly biased. Why would they show us a face that agrees with our own culture and interest? What do they have to gain?

I understand the idea that people are pretty much the same the world over and that it is government and business interests that drive national differences but in the case of a Democracy like this country, the people choose which line to take. Showing interviews with the man on the street in Teheran does nothing to soften the stances our respective governments take or to change the justification for either side. Seeing the Main media source for the ME here is not a bad thing, understanding the other side is important in human relationships, but I think we have to be careful what conclusions we reach based on those reports.

To a point I have to agree w/ Snake on this. I have to wonder "why now?" It sure could be a good subtle propaganda machine for radical Islam, w/o actually showing or appearing to support radical Islam. I'm not saying it is, and I hope it proves this statement to be 100% wrong, but the timing is right and the opportunity is there. On the other hand they could just be a buisness who sees an unrepresented market. I'm suspect it will try to appear less one sided than say, Fox, so as to gain the trust of a wider, more global audience, but in the end, I'm suspect it will be as biased as any other channel we have today. Again, I hope I am wrong, but if you want your views to have a chance these days you have to go to extremes, and if you want your agenda to have a fighting chance, you cannot wait for someone else to give their unbiased report; you have to give your biased report. Most of the media is less of a news organization these days and more of a lobby group for the general public. It sucks, and is time consuming, but the closest thing we have to unbiased news is watching as many different channels as possible, and then making up your own mind.

I will try to "Follow the money" if possible and find out who foots their bill, and who foots those people's bills, and who else their supporters support, ect., to get a better idea.

I'll be watching if I can and trying to keep an open, but not naive mind on this one. It will have my skepticism untill it earns my trust, which I hope to be able to give it the oppertunity to do, but I do mean earn when I say it.

To a point I have to agree w/ Snake on this. I have to wonder "why now?" It sure could be a good subtle propaganda machine for radical Islam, w/o actually showing or appearing to support radical Islam. I'm not saying it is, and I hope it proves this statement to be 100% wrong, but the timing is right and the opportunity is there. On the other hand they could just be a buisness who sees an unrepresented market. I'm suspect it will try to appear less one sided than say, Fox, so as to gain the trust of a wider, more global audience, but in the end, I'm suspect it will be as biased as any other channel we have today. Again, I hope I am wrong, but if you want your views to have a chance these days you have to go to extremes, and if you want your agenda to have a fighting chance, you cannot wait for someone else to give their unbiased report; you have to give your biased report. Most of the media is less of a news organization these days and more of a lobby group for the general public. It sucks, and is time consuming, but the closest thing we have to unbiased news is watching as many different channels as possible, and then making up your own mind.

I will try to "Follow the money" if possible and find out who foots their bill, and who foots those people's bills, and who else their supporters support, ect., to get a better idea.

I'll be watching if I can and trying to keep an open, but not naive mind on this one. It will have my skepticism untill it earns my trust, which I hope to be able to give it the oppertunity to do, but I do mean earn when I say it.

You could probably make the same assumptions on US based news networks promoting, well, the US' point of view of things. Know what I mean? Lots of times, as we have heard from our leaders, AJ is supposedly the voice of the terrorists, and that they are basically in their pocket. Now, I don't know if I believe this, actually, I don't, but US news networks are basically shilling for the US as well. News is all pretty relative I think depending on who is reporting it and from where.

You could probably make the same assumptions on US based news networks promoting, well, the US' point of view of things. Know what I mean? Lots of times, as we have heard from our leaders, AJ is supposedly the voice of the terrorists, and that they are basically in their pocket. Now, I don't know if I believe this, actually, I don't, but US news networks are basically shilling for the US as well. News is all pretty relative I think depending on who is reporting it and from where.

Absolutly, ML, I know exactly what you mean. I've been doing a little reading on them since I last posted. They actualy seem kinda liberal. They've been banned on and off in several middle east nations foe being outspoken aginst various governments. Our govn't doesn't seem too fond of them either. They even P.O.ed the Royal Family of Quatar a a few years back by critizing them for having 3000 members of the extended royal family on a payroll that gave each person an up to 8000$ per month salary, starting at birth, while there was an increase in unemployment and a decrease in unemployment benifits, and that's who's bankrolling them to a large extent. I still have not found out much on the various policies of the Quatar Royal Family, nor much on what else they bankroll, but they seem at a glance to be fairly liberal and progressive themselves, at least as far as royal oil families go. I could be wrong on all of this though, a few hours on the internet does not an expert make. At least they could, and probably would, cover some detailes of these middleastern dictatorships we seem to cozy up to from time to time, when it suits us. Even knowing there is probably a slant, this could be intresting.

The western news media is infested by lefties who think that palestinaians are good and Israel is bad. So fcuk them. I'm happier listening to what Al-Jizeera says, I would belive them before our own news programs.

The western news media is infested by lefties who think that palestinaians are good and Israel is bad. So fcuk them. I'm happier listening to what Al-Jizeera says, I would belive them before our own news programs.


You must be joking--- at least in the US- which has a very right wing media. If you think the US if liberal, I'd hate to see what you believe is conservative media- would that be a bile-filled, racist, hate-crime Ann Coulter news network?

In Europe it is a little different- the news is quite biased against Israel, and if I recall, AJ was available on German cable in a hotel I was staying in.

I get your FOX news here on cable and I have never ever experienced a more right wing biased piece of **** news reporting in my life. I hope FOX is not an example of how all your media report world events. It's always good to get both sides of the story. Don't you think.

I get your FOX news here on cable and I have never ever experienced a more right wing biased piece of **** news reporting in my life. I hope FOX is not an example of how all your media report world events. It's always good to get both sides of the story. Don't you think.

You must be accustomed to the BBC, the truth can be shocking. Try watching FOX for shorter increments of time until you get used to it.

I understand the idea that people are pretty much the same the world over and that it is government and business interests that drive national differences but in the case of a Democracy like this country, the people choose which line to take. Showing interviews with the man on the street in Teheran does nothing to soften the stances our respective governments take or to change the justification for either side. Seeing the Main media source for the ME here is not a bad thing, understanding the other side is important in human relationships, but I think we have to be careful what conclusions we reach based on those reports.


You don't think that very thing influenced this past election? IMO, things would have been very different a few weeks ago if the only news source in the US was FOX. It has already begun to soften our government's stance on Iraq and will continue to do so over the next few years.

If you think Al Jazeera is bad you should ready some of the local newspaper editorials in the ME. It is all Zionists this, Western hegemony that, Jews control western media, the rise of islamaphobia in the west, double standards in the west, American hubris etc etc Atrocious journalism and sheer opinion is the name of the game with stereotyping abound.

Al Jazeera gained popularity because of its independance. Traditionally in the ME, the media and government/state are considered one and the same (one reason the cartoons offended everyone), not so with Al Jazeera who appealed directly to the Arab street not afraid to offer some critism of government/state (I read above about the channel criticising the Qatar royal family, there is no way any state media would dare do that but Al Jazeera does).

Al Jazeera just give the locals in the ME what they want to see and hear. It is not IMO a beacon of free press in the ME like many liberals in the West want to think, it is pure popularist and the ME is not an intellectually enlightened place. Its an angry place.

You don't think that very thing influenced this past election? IMO, things would have been very different a few weeks ago if the only news source in the US was FOX. It has already begun to soften our government's stance on Iraq and will continue to do so over the next few years.

The point of my statement you highlighted was not that our views may not be softened but that it could prove to be a dangerous thing in the long run. The average man on the street in Iran with no animas toward the US has little influence on the direction his own government is taking. While we get all touchy feely about it and want to hug and forgive, we have intelligence systems reporting to our own government what his government is about. Our policies are based on those facts and to demonize those who make those policies based on the "truth" that we get from our media systems or from theirs, could well be a mistake and a dangerous one.

The point of my statement you highlighted was not that our views may not be softened but that it could prove to be a dangerous thing in the long run. The average man on the street in Iran with no animas toward the US has little influence on the direction his own government is taking. While we get all touchy feely about it and want to hug and forgive, we have intelligence systems reporting to our own government what his government is about. Our policies are based on those facts and to demonize those who make those policies based on the "truth" that we get from our media systems or from theirs, could well be a mistake and a dangerous one.

I see that now... kinda missed your last sentence.

I agree that it could be dangerous and/or a mistake but the will of the People is the will of the People, right or wrong.

I'm of the opinion that the will of the People should always be served unless doing so violates the Constitution.

I see that now... kinda missed your last sentence.

I agree that it could be dangerous and/or a mistake but the will of the People is the will of the People, right or wrong.

I'm of the opinion that the will of the People should always be served unless doing so violates the Constitution.

The will of the people is served when we vote for those who will represent us. There are too many ways to distract those of us who don't have the whole picture and our government isn't supposed to jump willy nilly from one decision to another responding to current public sentiment. I always trust that those in Washington who are better informed will make better decisions. Public opinion can turn on a dime and give you change, policy should be a bit more stable.

The will of the people is served when we vote for those who will represent us. There are too many ways to distract those of us who don't have the whole picture and our government isn't supposed to jump willy nilly from one decision to another responding to current public sentiment. I always trust that those in Washington who are better informed will make better decisions. Public opinion can turn on a dime and give you change, policy should be a bit more stable.

One of the reasons the SCOTUS has lifetime appointments is to remove public sentiment from the equation. Congressfolk don't have that protection for the exact opposite reason. If policy doesn't match the will of the people, those who make said policy get voted out.

What we're seeing now is an awakening of the People to the bad policy decisions regarding the Mideast over the last 30 years or so. I expect a major shift in policy direction over the next decade.

You must be accustomed to the BBC, the truth can be shocking. Try watching FOX for shorter increments of time until you get used to it.

If you did this, then you could see how they really just make things up to fit their right wing agenda. Fair and balanced? Ha! Not on that network that's for sure.

You must be accustomed to the BBC, the truth can be shocking. Try watching FOX for shorter increments of time until you get used to it.

If you bothered to look at my public profile you would see I'm from Australia.
The BBC is from the UK and as much as the English view Australia as a colonial outpost we actually have our own very unbiased news service which actually reports the news from both sides.

If you bothered to look at my public profile you would see I'm from Australia.
The BBC is from the UK and as much as the English view Australia as a colonial outpost we actually have our own very unbiased news service which actually reports the news from both sides.

Your very own and unbiased as well? Way to go.

You may well ask what exactly is 'unbiased' news and who is to be the judge of that?

You may well ask what exactly is 'unbiased' news and who is to be the judge of that?

There ain't no such thing.

I'm unbiased, just ask me. If you don't believe me it's because you're a political hack.

What do Americans generally think of Michael Moore.
Biased or unbiased ?

The point of my statement you highlighted was not that our views may not be softened but that it could prove to be a dangerous thing in the long run. The average man on the street in Iran with no animas toward the US has little influence on the direction his own government is taking. While we get all touchy feely about it and want to hug and forgive, we have intelligence systems reporting to our own government what his government is about. Our policies are based on those facts and to demonize those who make those policies based on the "truth" that we get from our media systems or from theirs, could well be a mistake and a dangerous one.

Either our intelligance agency has not been doing a good job of finding the "truth", or it has not been allowed to do it's job of reporting the "truth" as of lately. Untill they improve their track record a little, I can't believe them very much either. We have already made a few of the dangerous mistakes you speak of as a result of buying into the idea that what they say is right, even when a majority says otherwise.

What do Americans generally think of Michael Moore.
Biased or unbiased ?

Michael Moore is the liberal verson of Rush. An extreemist showboat in love with his face and the sound of his own voice.

There ain't no such thing.

Exactly Snake, there is no exact middle, there are only varying degrees and combinations of many sides, slants and angles. Each of which has its own facts and fiction.