# ALJAZEERA english international service is "up"



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Yup, effective, ALJAZEERA international service in english is up, but it isn't on the air.

Aparently, none of the US networks has chosen to pick up the service...... the Religious right has taken credit for the official cold shoulder.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/17B9CA05-C477-4881-AAE7-E0EE9E44985F.htm


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Nov 2006)

Hmmm, wonder if we will get it on Bell?


----------



## Teflon (15 Nov 2006)

Great, just what Canada needs - Un-biased news reporting


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Nov 2006)

From CTV.CA

Al-Jazeera English-language station hits airwaves
Updated Wed. Nov. 15 2006 11:41 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Arabic television news channel Al-Jazeera launched its long-delayed English-language service into millions of homes today. 

"It's November 15th, a new era in television news," said anchor Sami Zeidan.

In one of the first reports, the correspondent spoke of "the agony of Gaza'' as the pictures showed Palestinians scavenging for food in the rubble of homes destroyed by Israeli bombardment. 

The news bulletin gave less time to Wednesday's report from Israel, where a rocket attack by Palestinian militants had killed an Israeli woman.

Al-Jazeera English appeared keen to show its international reach, using live broadcasts from correspondents in Sudan's Darfur, Iran, Zimbabwe and Brazil, and breaking in with news of a tsunami striking Japan.

The controversial all-news network, which is bankrolled by Qatar's royal family, said it will reach 80 million cable and satellite TV viewers, double its initial target audience.

For now, the channel will broadcast for 12 hours a day before becoming a 24-hour news operation at the beginning of next year.

The Doha, Qatar-based broadcaster said the channel will reflect its Middle East "heritage and perspective,'' and taking advantage of the channel's "unique access to some of the world's most troubled and controversial locations.". 

It hopes to woo viewers away from CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. by giving the world's 1 billion English speakers their first chance to watch news from an Arab viewpoint.

In London, BBC Global News Director Richard Sambrook told The Associated Press that Al-Jazeera may take away some of his network's viewers, but the new channel's reach stands far below BBC World's 270 million homes.

"They've made a very confident start, which isn't surprising since they have a large budget and had a long time to prepare," Sambrook said.

But their focus on developing countries could backfire, he said.

"It will take some time to see whether they can do that and still keep broad appeal," Sambrook said.

Al-Jazeera English hasn't applied to broadcast in Canada, however, the network will be streamed live on its Internet site english.aljazeera.net. 

Many Arabic-speaking Canadians currently watch Arabic Al-Jazeera by satellite but it appears that no major Canadian cable companies are expected to pick up the network any time soon.

No cable television companies in Canada have applied to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to carry the English-language network.

In 2004, the CRTC ruled that the Arabic network can be broadcast in Canada, but imposed such strict rules that cable companies were reluctant to carry the channel.

For Canadian companies to pick up the network, they would be force to start the application process all over again.

The broadcaster made its name internationally after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, when it showed exclusive footage from Osama bin Laden.

Al-Jazeera's frank Arabic news channel also rose to international prominence by angering leaders in the West and the Arab world, where it has been banned from operating in 18 countries at one time or another. 

The station has broken new ground with its forthright style and coverage of taboo political, religious and social subjects.

The broadcaster has also given a fresh voice to opposition figures and Israeli officials who were previously absent from other Arab networks. 

But Bush administration officials and other American conservatives have branded the network as the propaganda arm for al-Qaeda and other Islamic radical groups, and have also criticized its often graphic coverage of bloodshed in Iraq. 

The network has responded by saying its messages are newsworthy and that it is the ideal venue for U.S. officials to address the Muslim world.

While the channel will be widely available on major cable providers in Britain, Germany, Italy and even Israel, most Americans will have no chance to see Al-Jazeera to judge for themselves. 

Al-Jazeera's list of U.S. carriers included none of the major U.S. cable TV providers: Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Charter Communications or Cablevision, nor the two major satellite TV providers, Dish Network and DirecTV. 

Al-Jazeera English will be available to American customers of GlobeCast, the subsidiary of a French company that offers satellite TV service. 

The channel also has deals in place with Fision, a digital service that will be available shortly in Houston; Jump TV, which describes itself as "the world's leading broadcaster of ethnic TV over the Internet; and VDC, a service that offers TV on the Internet to about 10,000 customers in the United States. 

The launch was originally scheduled for early 2006 but a string of delays including technical problems and licensing issues repeatedly postponed the date. 

Al-Jazeera executives said they are negotiating with carriers in the United States, Asia and elsewhere to broadcast its signal. 

Al-Jazeera, which employs some 800 people, poached some of the world's most renowned journalists to work for the new channel, including former BBC reporter Rageh Omaar, former CNN anchor Riz Khan, the BBC's David Frost and former ABC correspondent Dave Marash. 

It will broadcast in high-definition TV with four chief hubs in Doha, London, Washington and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Nov 2006)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> From CTV.CA
> 
> Al-Jazeera English-language station hits airwaves
> Updated Wed. Nov. 15 2006 11:41 AM ET
> ...




Shy of the word television, sounds like a blurb from 1930's Germany. AJ is simply a propaganda tool used by our ememies to push radical views onto the mainstream population of Canada. I reckon if its picked up in Canada, only those that way inclined will subscribe.

Its a waste of time and a joke in my opinion. Lets hope it fizzles out like a fart in a hurricane.

Wes


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2006)

Actually, it has not been approved by the CRTC in Canada. This launch is for the US only. I believe the CRTC awhile back approved the Arabic version in Canada, but not the English version.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (15 Nov 2006)

I think it will be great  Only if you watch this way.

Have your CNN or FOX news on the TV and then split screen Aljazeera in the corner with no volume. You get to see the artillery shell depart the allies guns and see the landing on the split screen. Too cool.


----------



## Synthos (16 Nov 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijsNmMZt9fc

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/

They say their viewpoint is neutral... What are people's thoughts on that


----------



## HDE (16 Nov 2006)

I'll be interested to see how the killing of Iraqii/Afghan civilians by "resistance fighters" is covered?  I'm always amazed how the death of a "coalition soldier" is shouted out and the loss of a dozen or two civilians in the same incident is barely mentionned.

I wonder how much room for rebuttal of questionable stories will be allowed.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Nov 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> I'll be interested to see how the killing of Iraqii/Afghan civilians by "resistance fighters" is covered?  I'm always amazed how the death of a "coalition soldier" is shouted out and the loss of a dozen or two civilians in the same incident is barely mentionned.
> 
> I wonder how much room for rebuttal of questionable stories will be allowed.



In Baghdad alone, the death toll from roaming death squads, and VBIEDs etc just on civilians alone (not including IP and ISF) is at times well over 600 per week. Again thats not including any AIF which have been killed by ISF and Coalition forces.

Complete and deliberate murder caried out by both sides of this 'peaceful religion'. Muslims killing muslims, with us in the bleachers watching.

It seems that AJ never really points this out, and only gobs off when a stray bomb kills a group of people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have ZERO faith in AJ, and any story they cover, in reality should be taken with a grain of salt, if that.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## d-fi (16 Nov 2006)

I'm think this could be very interesting,

I'll admit that i have a number of reservations about Aljazeera's claims of neutrality, but I'll watch it myself before i start jumping to conclusions about bias. I think it could be a very good thing to have a 'non-western' news source showing a 'non-western' viewpoint available in english.  If it was done well it may be a valuable news source since it's an international network that is based in the developing world.

Personally I'm very interested in Aljazeera's coverage of Africa, Asia, and South America. I'm not as confidant about coverage of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as bias goes if Aljazeera is better than FOX news it'll be 2 steps ahead in my opinion   

This is a bit off topic but which news source do you all reckon is the least biased? I'd say the BBC is the best but i would be interested to hear what others think.


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2006)

ALL I mean ALL network news broadcasts have a built in bias.
Sometimes the Bias is bening, other times it is glaring right back at ya.

To get the big picture, to appreceate the whole enchalada, you have to consult all of the resources that are at hand in the time you have to dedicate to the task.

I am not convinced that the arrival of ALJAZEERA as an english news provider is a bad thing.  It will offer a perspective that we did not have before - like it or not.... you should give it a passing glance


----------



## Trinity (16 Nov 2006)

Watched a so called expert who wrote a book on Al Jazeera....

there were some interesting points made in favour
such as.... Al Jazeera is hated by most Muslim governments
for pointing out major flaws, they put Israeli government officials
on tv and gave them air time to express their side of the story.

Totally unbias.. no.

Interesting to compare.... yes.

Can the propaganda war work both ways???

It's avail on the net btw... if anyone wants to watch.


----------



## armyvern (16 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Watched a so called expert who wrote a book on Al Jazeera....
> 
> there were some interesting points made in favour
> such as.... Al Jazeera is hated by most Muslim governments
> ...



I'd agree Trinity. I watched Al Jazeera during tours to the gulf area and during my time in Syria. They do put both sides on the air and are a whole lot less unbiased than the MSM in North America would lead one to believe.

As a matter of fact, I found them to quite good. They actually *report the news*, both sides, raw and real. Not like over here where they spin only certain items (and ignore the others like say - hmmm - the ongoing construction in Afghanistan) to make those items the news, supporting their own political/personal bias.


----------



## Synthos (16 Nov 2006)

One of the things that they do make a good point about is to give news in such a way that it will allow people in the U.S. / Canada / UK to connect at least on some level with the people from the middle east. I don't think the general populace knows very much about their culture or how they live.


----------



## GAP (16 Nov 2006)

Does anybody know enough Arabic to compare the Arab and English versions?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (16 Nov 2006)

I knew this would come back - 

Here's a look at what Al Jazeera is and isn`t  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3497

As usual - you have to draw your own conclusions.

Many opponents of Globalisation say more info is bad because it allows the locals to compare their situation with information from a different source.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Nov 2006)

I think you would have to be pretty ignorant to discount AJ out of hand. Just by looking at who is against it (US govt) you can tell it is worthwhile having it in Canada. We get Fox News here, why not AJ? I would argue that Fox is much more biased than AJ. It actively beats the war drums for the Bush admin...at least AJ does not have any affiliation with a govt that is that obvious in its reporting. Also the fact that it is critical of most muslim regimes is great...because they are also among the govts who are against it. Bottom line: the more govts against a news network the better. The job of the journalist is to monitor the centres of power.To have more powerful people against it means its doing its job.


----------



## Teflon (16 Nov 2006)

Funny I thought the job of a journalist was to report the news?


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2006)

News means something different to each and everyone of us.

CBC French & English will put a slightly different spin to whatever they are reporting and the same can possibly be said for ALJAZEERA.

It's new, it's different but the accuracy and honesty of the NEWS they report will have to be juged by, you, me and everyone else without necessarily taking someone else's word for it.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Nov 2006)

Synthos said:
			
		

> One of the things that they do make a good point about is to give news in such a way that it will allow people in the U.S. / Canada / UK to connect at least on some level with the people from the middle east. I don't think the general populace knows very much about their culture or how they live.



They make a good point?

Mate, they are they ENEMY. They and their supporters are killing your countrymen, and promoting it to boot! AJ are disgusting beyond all belief, and their plug should be pulled.

I know I sure and the helll don't want any connections with this festering boil on the arsehole of the world, because thats exactly what it is.

AJ is a propaganda tool for terrorism and the promotion of anti-westernism, perhaps influencing many near-radical muslims within the west, maybe in your city! 

Do you really what to know how they live? Come here and see for yourself!



Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Nov 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Hmmmm?  Ever been to Qatar?  I have numerous times and "The Peninsula" is funded by the Emir of Qatar!  It is also interesting to note that the 10th anniversary special had one of the leads of "The Penninsula" saying the west was the enemy.  My question is how do they get choice video showing attacks on coalition forces?  Reporting the news or making the news?  Or in bed with the terrorists?  Time to find an alternative to oil and Natural Gas, yesterday!



Sir, 

I fully support your quest for alternative fuels yesterday!

If I could have a beer and toast this thought with you, I truly I would.


Regards ,

Wes


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (18 Nov 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Does anybody know enough Arabic to compare the Arab and English versions?



A very little,  and some stories are just translations while some stories run only in one language.  I thought I noticed a few cases of "different angles" but I see that in french and English newspapers.

http://www.google.ca/language_tools?hl=en  <-- google has translation software.  It does Arabic - about as well as it does french/German,  but that is to be expected.  You can get the basic meaning,  but I assume just like with the other languages "subtle" messages are lost.

(My Arabic is horrible,  and I havn't used it in years - I gave it up to study Dari - which I'm worse in)


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2006)

I would be interested to see what all the fuss is all about.  Propaganda gobshite from the enemy as mentioned by Wesley it may be, but my Dad and his Regimental mates would have listened to Lord HawHaw in their day for pure entertainment value alone if nothing else.  I would find it interesting from the point of seeing what drives the Devil so to speak.  How else is one to know your enemy as counseled by Sun Tzu as partially listed below.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR 
THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD

Translated from the Chinese
By LIONEL GILES, M.A. (1910)

III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
18. Hence the saying:  If you know the enemy
    and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
    hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy,
    for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. 
    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
    succumb in every battle.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (18 Nov 2006)

Our Senior Service Rep above is bang on

The attached link is a look back at how Containment or better Engagement came into play. http://www.dni.gov/nic/articles_x_+_911.htm

Every conflict situation is the same - and it builds up into the campaign that Wesley Down Under is supporting now. 

The trouble from our perspective - if we can generalise - is the powers that be will consistantly downplay a bad situation and then the pot boils over and then its "we never saw that coming" - time after time after time. 

The take home point is - this is the norm - and peace (Containment) as we knew it supposedly from 1945 - 1989 - is the abnormal condition.

If we look back to the wars of the British Empire pre 1901 - everybody is on the make - to rip off a piece for themselves. 

The big boys have no option but to guide the willing - channel the reluctant and clobber the fools.

Most of the work will be done by commercial corporations as it was first done in history through entities like the British East India Company or manufacturers seeking low paid workers which was the case post 1783 with UK and the new USA.

Trade grows and compliance follows.

Its a long drawn out process. Lots of medals and misery to go around for long into the future.

All that said - as soon as a military talking head, from who evers uniformed forces comes on TV you must ask yourself - where`s the Winston Churchill character who`s supposed to be leading this dog and pony show. If you only see the Military Talking Head - its a cue that the government doesn`t have the political strength to talk to the voter. And so the default position is the main diplomatic effort is all about the soldiers buying time until the elected reps get their act together.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Nov 2006)

> Funny I thought the job of a journalist was to report the news?



Anyone can report the news. It's the good journalists who uncover the news, or expose previously unknown facts about newsworthy events. Look at Bernstein and Woodward. They reported the news, but did additional research, and as a result got Nixon to resign. That's what "monitoring the centres of power" is all about, and it's crucial to any healthy democracy.




> Hmmmm?  Ever been to Qatar?  I have numerous times and "The Peninsula" is funded by the Emir of Qatar!  It is also interesting to note that the 10th anniversary special had one of the leads of "The Penninsula" saying the west was the enemy.  My question is how do they get choice video showing attacks on coalition forces?  Reporting the news or making the news?  Or in bed with the terrorists?  Time to find an alternative to oil and Natural Gas, yesterday!




How do they get choice videos of attacks on coalition forces? Perhaps there is an embedding program for AJ journalists wishing to report on insurgents. I doubt very much there is, but it is a fact that Western network and independent journalists as well as AJ journalists have interviewed insurgent leaders, and in some cases, filmed attacks. I do not see anything wrong with that. Coalition forces embed journalists all the time. I agree that the line can be blurred between combatant and journalist. Apparently Oliver North used an M-16 in combat during OIF, and he was there strictly as a journalist. There was also a reporter, I think from CBS who admitted at times he was considering using a rifle when he was pinned down with a US army unit underneath a bridge during the attack on Baghdad. Similarily, Robert Fisk admitted accepting an AK from a Soviet soldier in a convoy as they were travelling through a route known to be popular for mujahadeen ambushes. It goes both ways. 

As far as AJ is concerned, the reason they seem to get such dramatic footage is firstly, they will air it. You won't see CNN or FOX news airing graphic attacks on coalition forces, or anyone else for that matter. This doesn't mean they don't possess such footage. Secondly, since most AJ reporters are Arab, they can more effectively report in dangerous areas in Baghdad, the result being that they see more attacks, by both Coalition forces and insurgents. They may  be biased, but do you really think the media we have access to in the West is not?


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Nov 2006)

The only thing I find Al jazeera good for is when I need a very biased article. They make study papers about bias in the media super easy...


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

S.Smith said:
			
		

> The only thing I find Al jazeera good for is when I need a very biased article. They make study papers about bias in the media super easy...



Really? Ever actually watched the channel? I have. Want to watch a Muslim woman without headcovering beaking off about her Governments failings and shortfalls ? You'll find all this and more on Al Jazeera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAXoDHy3_Ek&mode=related&search=

I've read about Al Jazeera and listened to the gabbering about them on the western TV channels too, and what the western media writes and broadcasts about them is not necessarily what you get. They are no more biased than the western media IMHO.


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Really? Ever actually watched the channel? I have. Want to watch a Muslim woman without headcovering beaking off about her Governments failings and shortfalls ? You'll find all this and more on Al Jazeera.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAXoDHy3_Ek&mode=related&search=
> 
> I've read about Al Jazeera and listened to the gabbering about them on the western TV channels too, and what the western media writes and broadcasts about them is not necessarily what you get. They are no more biased than the western media IMHO.



Point taken. I have only ever used the website, and maybe a half dozen articles. In those few articles, the bias was VERY notable but I will try to be more objective from now on when reading.

Thanks for the link.

Regards,


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

One can always find what they look for on the internet.

Search google for "bias on Al Jazeera" and that's the hits you'll get.

Search Google for "Bias on XXX (insert Western media org here)" you'll get the same results.

Vern


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Nov 2006)

Well, the other day in the CP I was watching the english version of AJ. The weather for the middle east came up on a map, and guess what, Israel was not enev mentioned, ha! Everywhere else but!

Goes to show you, doesn't it.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## geo (22 Nov 2006)

Wes,
did they have Israel cut out of the map?
or was it that they felt it wasn't particularly important or called it "greater palestine"?


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Wes,
> did they have Israel cut out of the map?
> or was it that they felt it wasn't particularly important or called it "greater palestine"?



Not that it was cut out, but more so ignored. Unless you new where it was you would not know if it was there.

Cheers,

Wes


----------

