Liberal cable channel Current TV was sold to Al Jazeera for a reported $500 million. The low-rated Current, owned by Al Gore, struggled to connect with viewers, but they did a decent job of getting national distribution. The latter is apparently what attracted Al Jazeera‘s interest, which has failed to convince cable providers to even give them a chance at finding an American audience.
Al Jazeera‘s plan is to create a new channel, Al Jazeera America, that will essentially replace what is now Current. So the price tag would seem to be the amount of money they’re willing to spend just to get on American television at all.
But will cable providers, who have been unwilling to give Al Jazeera English a chance, behave differently now? In New York City, Time Warner Cable promptly pulled the plug on Current. And it would seem that other providers could go that route too. As Paul Farhi reports in the Washington Post (1/4/13):
Al Jazeera‘s plan to turn Current into a new channel called Al Jazeera America could run afoul of some of Current‘s programming contracts with cable operators; the contracts prohibit cable networks from making major programming changes without the operators’ consent.
The cable industry likes to say it doesn’t carry Al Jazeera English by saying that there’s just no room for another channel. But Al Jazeera was regularly vilified by U.S. government officials during the Iraq War, and, as many of the new reports note, the news organization must fight the perception that it harbors some kind of “anti-Western” bias. As the New York Times‘ Brian Stelter (1/2/13) put it:
Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, has long tried to convince Americans that it is a legitimate news organization, not a parrot of Middle Eastern propaganda or something more sinister.
The Washington Post story today, for instance, quotes from Steven Stalinsky of the right-leaning group MEMRI, who “has documented ties between Al Jazeera‘s management and journalists–including its former boss, Wadah Khanfar–and the Muslim Brotherhood, the pan-Arabic political movement.”
And this is a good time to raise some larger questions about cable TV. A Reuters article (1/4/13) focusing on the business aspects of the deal noted that cable news channels get money from subscribers:
SNL Kagan said Fox News averages 89 cents per subscriber per month, while CNN gets 57 cents and MSNBC collects 18 cents.
That’s per subscriber–as in, everyone who has cable television. So all of us cable subscribers pay for Fox News Channel. We pay quite a bit, as a matter of fact, whether we watch it or not.
Does it make sense to force views and non-viewers to subsidize programming they don’t watch? It’s hard to see the upside, especially in a journalistic sense–we pay for some of the cheapest, least informative reporting one can imagine. And there’s no way for viewers to say that they’d like to not pay for that–but that they’d be happy to pay for other programming, or to simply get a chance to watch it, whether that’s Free Speech TV or Al Jazeera English. A different system, like an a la carte model, would give viewers the opportunity to make these decisions themselves–and not keep paying for things they either don’t watch, find objectionable or both.
The current model is great for certain people: monopolistic cable companies and big media owners like Rupert Murdoch. It rewards TV hosts like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. And it makes it harder for competitors to get a chance to offer viewers something new.
The New York Times editorial (1/4/13) in support of Al Jazeera included a funny line:
Many American policy makers and cable companies have had doubts about the impartiality of Al Jazeera, which is owned and financed by the emir of Qatar.
Of course, cable companies happily carry Fox News, which is no one’s idea of impartial.The same could be said of liberal MSNBC (which is a lot cheaper to customers).
So the problem isn’t that American TV viewers might be subjected to news with a point of view. It’s news with what many elites might consider the wrong point of view that is the problem.
Let’s don’t softpedal the Al Jazeera – Qatari gummint link. While the network has done some useful reporting, it has also avoided or skewed coverage of topics that those in power in that nation wouldn’t want to see honestly explored. In that sense, it’s much like, say, the Guardian in the UK.
There are limits, and those at those outlets know them, and abide by them.
But it’s patently obvious that this isn’t about “objectivity”, as the FOX example makes all too clear.
And if Al Jazeera can’t get on, what chance would a bonafide independent news operation have?
As for the agitprop cable subscribers are forced to subsidize …
I’m glad that price and paltriness of decent programming led me to switch my set off a couple of years ago.
I think we’d be far better off if more folks followed suit, don’t you?
Hear, Hear! Thank you Peter Hart. I am so furious and have been for years that I have to pay for Tv channels I never watch, about 90% of what I am forced to pay for. Garbage. I like Cspan and sometimes PBS, Bill Maher etc but that’s extra & too expensive. If we are refused al jazeera, we will seriously consider quitting, unplugging, the whole dismal, disgraceful, stone age, greedy satellite industry. It is responsible for most of the US dumbing down.
I wouldn’t say Al Jazeera is exactly an unbiased, independent news source. It is basically the Middle Eastern version of Fox News. That said, they’re maybe a little more likely to report accurate information about the US than US news services are.
We gave up on tv a long time ago. Internet gets us to Al Jazeera and BBC where we can get more real news. Perfect they are not, and carry their own political baggage, but, a real vacation from the cesspool of “talking heads.”
If Americans can watch Fox News, they can watch Al Jazeera. It’s no better, and certainly no worse, than Murdock’s bile and fantasies.
My PBS station broadcasts 1-hr of Al-Jazeera. Their reporting on Middle East issues is excellent and not to be found on any US channel. They can report on anything as long as they’re not critical of Qatar, where they’re based.
Their Inside Story segment is especially good.
I can watch it online anytime and do so often. I want a different point of view than the pap fed to us on US news.
Lol, the comments on here are weird. I’ve been watching AJE for years online. It seems excellent and objective to me. I’m satisfied with it and would like to see more.
mary ann and greg nichols share my point of view. “Al” is not perfect but it’s way better than mainstream american stuff.
Shame on Time Warner. I fully agree with Mary Ann and Alexandra’s comments! As far as I’m concerned, it’s pure censorship . Time Warner is depriving Americans of the opportunity to watch an outstanding channel which can be viewed by everyone in all the world, except in America. Al Jazeera is a first-class news organization. The reason Al Jazeera is not welcome in the US is that it deals in facts, and exposes and talks seriously about issues that some people don’t want Americans to know. As a result, a large majority of Americans are deprived of knowing and learning about what really goes on in the world and also in the US. I guess Time Warner wants to continue to keep Americans the least informed people on earth. TW’s slogan should be: “Let them watch sports”!
We do not need to overdefend Al Jazeera, which opens up relatively free and open debate in the Arab world (so long is it does not conflict with the interests of Qatar), to welcome the potential for more voices from more diverse viewpoints into the media landscape.
From one “Al” to another “Al:” No one has mentioned that the one Al (Gore) will make a pretty penny on this. I wonder how the people who have worked there for years will make out in this deal. Huffington Post redux?
We have Al Jazeera in New York City on TimeWarner’s channel 92. If nothing else, the news coverage is quiet, to the point, non-hysterical, non-chummy, non-jokey, not given to cueing the emotions they want the viewer to feel, sort of like the BBC used to be.
For the price a couple of weeks of cable service you can buy a Roku box that will put AJ English on your TV via home wireless. AJ is one of their “private” channels. (There are lots more channels to choose from. See http://streamfree.tv/apps/roku-private-channels/all/)
What is there to fear here? My own cousin posted a ‘like’ comment that called Al Gore an ‘almost’ traitor for selling his interest to Al Jazeera.
@Peter – I think your wrong about it being the “Wrong point of View”, it is simply another point of view which is what they really don’t want. If it was the “wrong POV” they would simply allow it in, and then bash it to hell using the full force of the FuxSnooze morons, and Aile(ment) Tush Limburger.
This is a POV they cannot allow because it will be impossible for them to just “Sound Bite it” on the ass, like they do with the rest of the media who then react in the standard fashion, thus allowing them to diss everyone with little or no effort.
FuxSnooze is like the Darkness at sea, all pervasive, all-encompassing and blankets everything; it so dark, that light of even a single match can be seen for more than 3 miles due to the contrast. Anyone not peeping the FuxSnooze mono-winged budgies of despair script (as opposed to the cry of the war-hawks) is by comparison, a match of light in an otherwise dark, dismal, and encompassing black out of reality.
I’ve watched Al Jazeera. As a Gulf War veteran, I had trouble translating it into English sometimes, but was able to see it broadcast online in English as well. Despite a pro-Palestinian bias, which is to be expected, I liked it well enough. It’s not a touchy-feely news service like so many are nowadays and it’s journalists are fact-driven and behave more like commandos when they go after stories in battleground areas than reporters. Still, they do have an agenda, but no more so than any other news station. I’m a news junkie. I’d tune in.
I always watch AL Jazeera when traveling in Europe, Asia or Africa. Very informative and less biased than FOX. Don’t know what people are worried about.
Ya just cant make this stuff up can you?Oh well it is a free country.Go for it Al.Making millions selling to a group that is not in any way a friend to this country is still legal.And just about par for a liberal
Chrigid if the al jazera news agency celebrates this country- as the greatest nation on Gods green earth because of our constitution, and inherent freedoms,(as fOX does )than we can talk.They do not ,and will not ever believe that.They come from the standpoint of American imperialistic design.And yes i do listen.I also listen to Iranian/North korean news agencies, as well as Democracy now.
Mary Ann below hit the nail on the head,
“They can report on anything as long as they’re not critical of Qatar, where they’re based.”
Just replace the word “Qutar” with “America” and you have the Fox mission statement.
Al Jazeera is the property of the terrorist-supporting regime of Qatar, a US shill dedicated to destabilizing nations in the ME that do not tow the US foreign-policy line, along with Saudi Arabia. A bit of research would show how the Qatari government aided in the overthrow of Gadhafi by sending terrorists to Libya (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576627000922764650.html). And how Al Jazeera/Qatar has been instrumental in promoting fundamentalist Islamic terrorism in the secular state of Syria (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/08/qatar-syria-opposition), as one “mainstream” article amongst many others citing Qatar’s interference in an independent nation’s affairs along with other NATO allies. Regularly, Al Jazeera has as guests the Free Syrian Army, a terrorist force backed by Hillary Clinton and the State Department, which declared it will kill all Iranians, Russians, and Ukrainians inside Syria. They target for killing Druze, Alawite, Christians–basically any group that does not pledge allegiance to Salafist Islamic goals.
Please do MORE research before you spout off about how news from a state with close ties to the US military and international financial elite might present a “different” point of view from the claptrap we get from FOX or CNN.
I have DirecTV, and while it does not carry the AJE channel, it does carry Link TV, which is an independent media organization focusing on international and global issues. lt has regular time slots for the AJE show, as well as Democracy Now!, Latin Pulse, LinkAsia, Mosaic, etc. It’s an excellent source of global news without the American/corporate spin.
Chrigrid how wrong you are.ANY press…. anywhere, should celebrate this country because at our core(whether or not we attain it is still a question)is freedom of the press.This country is the mecca of this ideal.So if your goal is to come here as a nationalized force bent on attacking the perception of this country through having control of a news network that is an arm of some very anti American propagandists ……Do you really want to compare that to FOX? Or Msnbc?CBS? or any of the American Networks.They hate this country.And mean to prove it.
All news programs have their biases, however diversity in “the marketplace” should be encouraged.
Al Jazeera was at the forefront of exposing the source of the cholera epidemic in Haiti as the UN occupation force — the Nepalese military contingent in Mirebalais.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but Michael e, without spelling it out, seems to see everything from the prism of “is it good for Israel”. Qatar is an ally of the United States. Nobody “hates” America, they hate our policies sometimes. The more points of view, the better. Americans are in need of more information and more factual reporting. I say, it’s good for America and Americans to learn what’s really going on in the rest of the world.
I watch current tv very often. It’s unbiased and direct to the truth. It does not matter who owns the station. It is tv at its true best.
It is my understanding that Al Gore received $100,000,000 of the $500,000,000 sale of Current TV. Which is kind of interesting since he speaks out against “oil” money which he accuses of causing “climate change”. Qatar is owned by its emir and has plenty of cash laying around from its oil wells just for these kinds of opportunities. Did Mr. Gore just sell his soul?
Here’s a story not on Al Jazeera: UN human rights office concerned about Qatari poet sentenced to life in prison
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43888&Cr=&Cr1=#.UOzSW2_BF8E
Stop defending fake journalism, whether it be on the left or the right
Gore is gonna get 500 million for this deal.Funding comes from oil revenue through Arab factions that fund All jazzera.You know …evil oil companies that foul the earth.You cant make this stuff up
The really bad thing about this is, it didn’t really need to happen. If the cable industry wasn’t so concerned with money, money, money, and shoving things down our throats we don’t want, maybe Current wouldv’e had a better chance.
And Time Warner are one of the main culprits with this. Recently they removed more channels from the non-digital cable in my area – in particular C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 – meanwhile there are dozens of channels I still can get but never watch (3 shopping channels!). I remember that C-SPAN was created by the cable industry to be a public service, and yet, now I don’t have that. I do have the ‘local’ Time Warner News channel (where local can be 200 miles away in a part of the state that has nothing to do with where I live), but nome more C-SPAN.
And, despite years of protests, they won’t give us a CW affiliate on our basic cable (two are available from cities that we have other network stations from). Now, I can live without it, but in a great irony, the CW is part-owned by Time Warner. These idiots won’t even provide their own newtorks, let alone Current or Al Jazeera
I get a big kick when reading about both progressives and conservatives who complain about what’s on the TV that they are paying directly for. Anybody who parks it in front of the TV – free or pay -falls into the big-dummy category.