Al-Jazeera will be broadcasted in the United States

if you have high speed internet you can watch the broadcasts from the website... they are provided free, unlike CNN and FOX

I think the reason for the BBC's lack of bias is the fact they don't need to rely on sensationalism to get their money, thanks to the British public forking out £100 each to the BBC for their TV license every year.

Also don't forget Ted Turner own s FOX, SKY and many other media outlets around the word.

I find it interesting that he rely's on the "christian right", in the US for his FOX network... yet was the first to promote soft core porn in the media via his newspaper "the sun" in the UK... now holder of the infamous page 3 girls.

Ted Turner is scum...

I think you mean Rupert Murdoch--owner of NewsCorp, parent company of FOX, SkyTV, NY Post, HarperCollins publishing, among other things...

www.cjr.org...

Ted Turner seems to have seen the light....

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

[edit on 2/4/05 by lmgnyc]

Originally posted by Lucretius
Also don't forget Ted Turner own s FOX, SKY and many other media outlets around the word.

WRONG!

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and Sky news.

Ted Turner owned CNN only till 2003, a few years after AOL and Time Warner Merged.



[edit on 2-4-2005 by negativenihil]

Originally posted by supercheetah


There are a few important things to keep in mind about Al-Jazeera:
1) This is AlJazeera.NET, NOT Aljazeera.COM, so when you criticize them, criticize the correct one. I will mercilessly pounce on any post that gets this wrong.

I get the points that follow this quote, but someone please tell me what is the difference between aljazeera.com and aljazeera.net. Which one is about as fair and balanced as foxnews (or are they both that way). I honestly never knew that there were two before.

Someone mentioned that News Corp. Alas I got some kind of strange error (three times) when I first tried to post about it and thought I encountered a conspiracy so I went to a movie

Originally posted by Corgidancer

I get the points that follow this quote, but someone please tell me what is the difference between aljazeera.com and aljazeera.net. Which one is about as fair and balanced as foxnews (or are they both that way). I honestly never knew that there were two before.

Aljazeera.com is owned by London-based Aljazeera Publishing and is completely unaffiliated with the Al Jazeera News Network. Aljazeera.com is known for being quite inaccurate and extremely biased against the U.S. & Israel--and frequently mistaken for the Qatar-based Al Jazeera news network (aljazeera.net).

I'm not their apologist, I'm playing devil's advocate. Remember what I've said in my original post. I encourage replies to this, but please, think critically about these things, lest I must reply to my own post, which would make me very sad.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
All media is biased, if you even add the word "should" or "but" or "however" into a sentence you add bias. All of the networks report casualty figures. However, it was Al-Jazeera that said US forces (or maybe they said Coalition force, I don't remember, and it doesn't matter) killed 500,000 children. It didn't happen, even CNN or CBSnews didn't report it (and they salivate over the idea of making the US look bad... unless of course you're talking about and playing down the idea of a liberal and the stain on a blue dress.) Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya all encourage terrorism and brutality by broadcasting in entirety the murders of kidnapped westerners - tapes which are propaganda for the terror groups and help them gain recruits.

Hmm, I don't remember hearing about this one, although I can't claim that it didn't happen. All I can say is that perhaps you were talking about the malnutrition of 400k children? That has been reported here (and elsewhere) in multiple newspapers: Washington Post, USA Today, BBC, etc., etc. , etc.

Our government denies it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Finally, there have been many times in the past when Al-Jazeera would report on something, only to eventually have the American networks re-report. The inverse is much rarer.

Some of you feel FOX is conservative, but they don't say the war is good, nobody thinks war is good. They simply give us a little more than doom and gloom - they have personal interests stories about soldiers' lives. They showed the statues of Saddam getting pulled down and how ecstatic the Iraqis were that they could now spit on their tormentor with impunity. They showed the pictures of American soldiers getting handed flowers and getting hugs by Iraqi civilians. All CNN did was show the most prominent statue down and declare that there is much more to be done.

Now, granted it's not highly ethical to show all doom and gloom, but by not showing occasionally the hardships of war, do we not risk losing sight of its costs? Personal stories are good, but we must not forget the dead either, be they soldiers or innocent Iraqis. If all we see of the dead are numbers, then they become little more than statistics in the eyes of the public, and that's very dangerous.

Sure, let Al Jazeera into the US, everyone has a right here to let their opinions be known, but calling it a news network is a stretch, unless they have the disclaimer of a name like JNN (Jihad News Network with your anchors Osama bin Hidin' and former Iraqi Information Minister Baghdad Bob - Dan Rather and Maureen Dowd, JNN contributors). Like Flyersfan noted, Al Jazeera is like getting your current events from Leno, The Daily Show, or TheOnion... Luckily, most of us in the US are not Islamic fundamentalists and are not blind to their antics so we've voted with our remotes, and have chosen the news channel that rightly deserves the #1 spot. The most terrible thing to me is when I travel to Europe and have to watch the European versions of CNN... don't get me started on them.

Did I not say that Al-Jazeera is hated by the Wahabis, including Osama bin Laden? Osama bin Laden would like nothing more than to shut them down because they make Arabs think. They take pride in not censoring anyone, along with exclusive access to very hard to reach individuals. This anti-censorship policy extends not only to terrorists, but anybody that report on.

Finally, (this is getting somewhat off-topic) sometimes the truth can be hard to swallow. This is a site that attracts many who have great distrust in the government. Government is yet another human institution that's heavily influenced by politics in a way that's greater than most human institutions. Don't you always want the truth, no matter how hard it is to take?

Originally posted by lmgnyc
I think you mean Rupert Murdoch--owner of NewsCorp, parent company of FOX, SkyTV, NY Post, HarperCollins publishing, among other things...

www.cjr.org...

Ted Turner seems to have seen the light....

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

[edit on 2/4/05 by lmgnyc]

bollocks... yes I meant rupert murdoch