Al-Jazeera buys Current TV from Al Gore.....[W:187,319]

Dr. Chuckles said:

I always appreciated their international coverage, being they seem to follow stories that generally don't make airtime in the west

Click to expand...

0bserver92 said:

Al Jazeera English has bought Al Gore's Current TV station in hope of creating an Al Jazeera America network. Article on AJE Here I see this a step in the right direction for AJE as they can have a foothold in American media.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

And the Jew hate, and the US hate, and the radical Muslim apologism. Oh, and the terrorist support and the proping up of backwards dictators (the Iranian regime). As soon as they get all that right, maybe someone other than wannabe-rebel Muslims, Che t-shirts and conspiracy theory people will take them seriously.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Nope. The name is the only obstacle.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Now here's what I'm talking about with the name. When the station is called something like Al Jazeera America, Americans like Travis007 will automatically assume it's all about anti-Semitism and pro-terrorism since they believe all Muslims and all Muslim-sounding terms relate to terrorism that is bad.

So what Al Jazeera needs to do is rename their American station to something like The Conservative American News Network. Then, when people like Travis007 watch it, they will watch it with joy believing that it tells them what is real because the station name doesn't sound Muslim.

Click to expand...

Rising Sun said:

The same can be said of CNN International. Despite all the conspiracy bull **** about it, news, especially news in the US, is a business. They broadcast what will attract the most viewers since more viewers = higher prices for advertising.

Anyone want to know what a 30 second ad goes for on this year's Super Bowl? $3.5 MILLION. Thirty seconds. It's not about sheep or conspiracies. The only conspiracy here it for news business owners to make money.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Perhaps you're confusing "not blindly adoring of Israel" with "biased against Israel."

If it were any two other countries and any two other ethnic groups, we'd be calling the situation in the Gaza strip apartheid.

Click to expand...

PeteEU said:

Oh of course not, but that still means there were some (in fact quite a few) civilian deaths due to US military force.



First off.. Saddam hated Al J. They were some of the first and the most vocal opponents to his regime. That is one of the reasons the Bush administrations loved Al J in the start.

Second off.. Al J has a code of ethics that it follows quite strictly and it certainly does not like meddling by outsiders or even by the owners in its news coverage. Rumsfeldt and Bush put a lot of pressure on the Al J owners and when the owners told Al J to tone down .. the journalists basically threatened to strike.



That is utter bull**** and you know it. Al J has never encouraged terrorists.. in fact they have been highly vocal against Al Q and been extremely critical (even more than Fox News) of their actions. But what they dont do, unlike Fox News, is to coat the news in bias for one or another side.. they do both sides and for the most part allow the viewer to make up their own mind.

That is why, on Al Jazeera I see Israeli representative's far more than on the BBC, CNN, NBC and what not..almost combined. They do both sides of the story and often go after the big guy for abusing the small guy. Their English station has a lot of investigative journalism where they go after major companies, Putin, Chavez, Castro, Obama, and pretty much every major power on the planet for their abuses and wrong doings. That is what real journalism is about.



You mean like the images of a US attack helicopter butchering Iraq citizens? Yes they are very important! Exposing such acts is just as important as exposing a terrorist cell or showing the aftermath of a terrorist attack. But I guess you have no problem that US troops butcher an Iraqi family in a car... they are only ragheads right?

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

You're wrong and your low-information on this is showing. Are you a Muslim?

Click to expand...

PeteEU said:

Hope you get better soon.. can be healthy living in such a paranoid twisted world. Hope you get help.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

your thimble overflows with ignorance...

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is pulling out all the stops in his bid to crush opposition to his authoritarian rule in the election scheduled for October 7. Chavez is seeking to discredit challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski by pointing out his Jewish roots. Chavez has sought to intimidate Venezuelan Jews in the past as a result of the close ties he has fostered with Iran and Hezbollah and his virulent hostility to Israel. But his attacks on the leader of the opposition have escalated the latent Jew-hatred of his regime.

As the Jerusalem Post reports, a study conducted by Tel Aviv University shows that the Caracas government has produced a steady stream of vilification of Capriles that centers on his Jewish roots. Capriles is a Catholic but he is the grandson of Holocaust survivors and many of his mother’s family perished at the hands of the Nazis.

“This is done in a variety of methods, such as defamation, intimidation and conspiracy theories, many of which portray Capriles as a Zionist agent, and by mixing classic and neo-anti-Semitism,” said the report, authored by Lidia Lerner, an expert on Latin America. “A Capriles victory, it is claimed, will inevitably lead to Zionist infiltration.” …

Op-Eds warning of a “Zionist takeover” if Capriles wins repeatedly have appeared in government-controlled media since Radonski’s candidacy was announced in February, the report said. He also has been the subject of anti-Semitic cartoons.


The Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League have expressed concern about the government’s attempt to whip up Jew hatred. The Huffington Post reported in May that Chavez’s allies have compounded the vilification by trying to float the rumor that Capriles is gay as well as Jewish. snip...

Chavez Playing the Anti-Semitism Card « Commentary Magazine

Click to expand...

Dooble said:

At first I thought you were kidding, then I looked at your political lean, and now it makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

OK, I see problem right there with the name.



Absolutely. Once it overcomes the name problem.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

because its obvious to those who are educated and the base that watches it are not educated..

Click to expand...

0bserver92 said:

What naming problem, I'm sure more people would watch AJE instead of Current TV.

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

1 why would it matter if I was a Muslim?

Click to expand...

MMC said:

...

Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English's website is from the U.S.

Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation's second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal.

"Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.

Previous to Al-Jazeera's purchase, Current TV was in 60 million homes. It is carried by Comcast Corp., which owned less than a 10 percent stake in Current TV, as well as DirecTV. Neither company announced plans to drop the channel.

In 2010, Al-Jazeera English's managing director, Tony Burman, blamed a "very aggressive hostility" from the Bush administration for reluctance among cable and satellite companies to show the network...

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

You got it all figured out dont ya...

your talking to someone who lived though 9/11..who hass followed the jihad and how it operates for over 17 years...

Click to expand...

OldWorldOrder said:

Ummm...you guys all know that Al Jazeera is heavily pro-Sunni, right? Or you just don't care because it's not a bias that you have the ability to notice?

France 24 is much better.

(lol, all the partisan lefties here just breathed a sigh of relief that at least I didn't mention an American station and the partisan righties just cursed that for all that, it still wasn't an American station)

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

That's what you think, given your perspective and opinions. And I think your position on this is crap.

Click to expand...

solletica said:

Americans (notably those in the right wing) determine whether something is "crap" solely based on their prejudices, and the name of an organization/station, etc. is what affects that prejudice.

In the US, it's all about packaging. Packaging determines appeal. What's inside is irrelevant... Case closed.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

Well, if someone was all "The Christian Science Monitor" is just as objective as the mainstream news sources and it would be accepted were it not for "Christian" in the name!

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

1. We should first the claim that the US public relies mostly on name in choosing news sources. That's an insult, even to stupid people.

Click to expand...