121–130 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seemed far more accurate and reported on issues glossed over or ignored by other major networks.
It sounds like you're just more tolerate to their brand of bias.
The article did not mention Al Jazeera deciding to remove their Internet streaming, and requiring that you can only view via your local cable provider. See this page with the big note to US people: http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/201146152255537258.html I used to check in on their coverage on the Roku channel, but they made a business decision to prevent that. I can understand their decision to make their success…
Whenever people talk about the money in college football right now, I generally tell them to blame Tivo (and subsequently Netflix). Tivo started it with the ability to record and watch later while fast forwarding through commercials. Netflix with it's mountains of commercial free content followed next. That put a huge advertising premium on content that people NEED to watch live like sports or hit shows like Walking…
Yup. Unfortunately, even just getting ESPN (and similar channels like FS1 etc) means buying huge bloated bundles. I'm hopeful this will change in the next couple of years though.
I think it would have been a real challenge to get to the mainstream with their logo and their finances [0] with financing from the deep pockets of the Qatar government when the sentiments being purported by Fox, CNN et al were in stark contrast. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/business/media/al-jazeera-...
Even without that financing, and without the logo, the financing itself is a good reason to not trust them as a source. I'm sure there are other news sources that should be de-legitimized due to their funding, and it would be nice if they too go away. Due to the current nature of how people consume their news it creates echo-chamber bubbles that only reenforce misinformation or misleading perspectives.
i suspect you meant to convey something different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever people talk about the money in college football right now, I generally tell them to blame Tivo (and subsequently Netflix). Tivo started it with the ability to record and watch later while fast forwarding through commercials. Netflix with it's mountains of commercial free content followed next. That put a huge advertising premium on content that people NEED to watch live like sports or hit shows like Walking…
For $20/month you can get ESPN & ESPN2 and about 20 other channels (Food Network, HGTV, Cartoon Network, Discovery, History Channel are a few of the main ones I use) streamed via Sling TV. For another $5 you can add a few more Sports channels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That story always sounded off. I have to admit I mostly listen to European Spanish, but "Nova" doesn't really read like "no va", the intonation is very different.
No it is not. The only difference is which syllable is stressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of their propaganda or slant, these outlets are useful specifically because they are not part of the US media cycle "play list". US audiences are in a filter bubble. Also some of the domestic outlets are too busy reposting Vines to cover enough stories in between sports and weather. Once encountering a story on those alternate sources, you can read with some critical thinking maybe, and then look for other…
You're trading one filter bubble for another. Unless you want to see how the population of another country experience propaganda, I don't see how it could be useful. You could do critical thinking on any source, not just alternates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Moving away from service chord cutters at this point was just odd. Embracing alternative media has done wonders for outlets like Russia Today (Though that's state sponsored so it might not be the best comparison).
> Russia Today (Though that's state sponsored so it might not be the best comparison) Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar. However, I agree with you that it's not a good comparision. BBC also is state sponsored, but generally considered to be trustworthy. RT is propaganda run by a government that has propaganda as its modus operendi; I wouldn't trust their weather reports.
Brit here: The BBC is state-funded, but it's output is not state-driven. The news team (IMHO) generally takes an editorial view that is to the left of the current Tory government. For once I think the BBC is to the right of the current Labour opposition, whose new leadership is the furthest left it has been for a generation. And perhaps worryingly non-electable to people who are mildly left-of-centre.
My current approach to getting the UK news is to interpolate between the Guardian (pro-Labour, but less so of its current leadership) and the Telegraph (Torygraph).
"Al Jazeera America went on the air in August 2013 after it bought Al Gore’s Current TV for $500 million." Why did they pay half billion for Current TV? First mistake.
Too bad. Al Jazeera America should have renamed themselves for the American market. Not to hide who they are, but to get past any initial negative impression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it is not. The only difference is which syllable is stressed.
And the pause between them. In a four letter word, I'd say that's quite different. Would you have read it as "no va"?