Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 301 posts

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#231

Post by mtbcoder »

chris_wot wrote: post #38
hackuser wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Same with the Australian ABC. Pretty much only rusted on supporters of the Liberal and National parties are the only ones who don't support it, and even they watch it over the commerical networks. That said, I really want to see what Netflix can do with the news cycle.

> I really want to see what Netflix can do with the news cycle.

I don't see this as a good fit for Netflix as I'm not quite sure what they would bring to the news cycle table that isn't already being done. Commercial free broadcasts? Infrastructure? Most quality, public media stations already upload full, commercial free shows to their Youtube channels (and often with quick turn-around from the original broadcast date.) You just simply need to subscribe to their channel (something that I can't do in Netflix).

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#232

Post by superuser2 »

brightball wrote: post #86
rogerbinns wrote: post #7

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…

Multicast has been sitting there in the specs since forever. If ISPs ever feel like switching it on, there's your scalability problem solved.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#233

Post by peckrob »

cptskippy wrote: post #165
peckrob wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality for cord cutters and cable companies alike is that, if it weren't for ESPN I'd have no reason to have cable. It's the only reason I have a pay TV package. During college football season I got a Sling subscription solely to watch college football (ESPN and the SEC Network mostly). I never even really used the Sling app much - it's terrible, crashes a lot, and isn't on AppleTV. I just used my Sling accoun…

> an unbunbled or streaming subscriber would need to pay $36 a month for ESPN access for them to generate the same revenue they generate through current cable carriage contracts. ESPN and professional sports are way over valued and forcing everyone to subsidize sports fans. This is literally the reason why people are becoming cord-cutters, they're tired of paying for things they don't want. Right now 1 in 6 cable sub…

I don't disagree with you, but I could apply this same logic to the 50 gazillion channels of reality TV cable was offering me that I could not possibly care less about. I don't like subsidizing them, but I was still paying for them.

I wish there was an unbundled option so I could buy just ESPN. That is literally the only thing cable companies have that I care about. Even better for me would be to just cut the cable companies out entirely and let me pay $20 a month or something directly to ESPN for WatchESPN access.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#234

Post by mikeash »

brightball wrote: post #86
rogerbinns wrote: post #7

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…

Isn't having millions of people watching the same thing at the same time easier than millions of people watching different things at the same time?

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#235

Post by mikeash »

gotchange wrote: post #91
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said they had to hide their origins, just change their name. "X - an affiliate/subsidiary of Al-Jazeera." You only see it when you actually go to the channel. Then once you hear the reporting and commentary you can balance it with your predispositions, but at least they have a chance to sell themselves, if only for a minute. If I tell you there's a new channel called "X" and you go to check it out and notice…

Al-Jazeera just means "The Island" in Arabic. What's off putting about something called "The Island"?

The Arabic is what's off-putting.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#236

Post by phillipamann »

Mizza wrote: post #61

What does this mean for "AJ+", their SF-based social-tech-media-incubator-youth-mobile-blah thing?

AJ+ is all the worst things about social media. These bite sized share friendly hip news clips about complex issues lacking tons of context. Their Israel coverage is fucking terrible. I have to hand it to them though. They are very clever for coming up with it.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#237

Post by Cyph0n »

hackuser wrote: post #141
Cyph0n wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do a good job of separating the regional channels from the main one. AJ English is quite different from AJ Arabic that at times I feel it's a different channel entirely. However as an Arab Muslim my goto is AJ Arabic as it focuses on the region and I feel covers important events and causes. It's documentaries and investigative pieces are awesome as well.

> AJ English is quite different from AJ Arabic that at times I feel it's a different channel entirely. I'd be very interested to know about AJ Arabic (and I don't speak Arabic at all). If you don't mind sharing a little more: How does it differ from AJ English? Also, maybe 15 years ago I'd hear how AJ Arabic was the only real journalism in the Arab world and a force for democracy and reform. Was that your experience?…

> I'd be very interested to know about AJ Arabic (and I don't speak Arabic at all). If you don't mind sharing a little more: How does it differ from AJ English?

In general, the "feel" of the channel is different, to the point where if AJ English had another name, you'd have no idea they're related. More specifically, AJ English is a bit more general in its global coverage, whereas AJ Arabic focuses more on the region. The two channels are completely independent entities actually, and it seems to work well.

> Also, maybe 15 years ago I'd hear how AJ Arabic was the only real journalism in the Arab world and a force for democracy and reform. Was that your experience? Is it still?

Personally, I believe yes, it's the only channel that actually cares about the Middle East. Granted, I've only been watching it for 8 years or so.

> Finally, how and how much does AJ Arabic serve Qatar's rulers' interests? How much better or worse is it than the other government sponsored competitors

As with any other news channel, AJ Arabic has a clear agenda. Put briefly: anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, anti-Egyptian government, pro-Brotherhood, anti-Iran, anti-Syrian government. Even with their clear biases, I feel they do a good job showing both sides of the equation, especially in their discussion programs.

The other competitors in the region are Al Arabiya, BBC Arabic, and France 24 Arabic. Al Arabiya is sponsored by the Saudi government I believe, but is headquartered in the UAE. Similar to AJ, it is anti-Israel and anti-Iran/Syria, but the rest is the opposite. So as you can see they usually cover regional news differently. BBC Arabic and France 24 are pro-Israel and neutral when it comes to Iran.

> The best coverage I've found, in English, of the Middle East is Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, both from Israel. [...] They cover important stories I don't see in AJ English and cover other stories better - though I read all three anyway.

I have not read it to be honest. I might take a look at it when I get the chance. However I would be truly surprised if it was actually neutral.

The way I see it is that there simply is no neutral news source. For me however, I feel that AJ Arabic properly represents and covers the Arab/Muslim causes, and does so in a professional manner.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#239

Post by wyclif »

virtuabhi wrote: post #110
hackuser wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

BBC is not considered trustworthy in India. We listen to BBC for English language but also recognize that BBC still suffers from colonial-era mindset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Indophobi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Anti-Hind... "Writing for the 2008 edition of the peer-reviewed Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Alasdair Pinkerton analyses the coverage…

BBC is not considered trustworthy by lots of people in the West, too. They're very left-biased, and very poor at presenting opposing viewpoints.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#240

Post by erikpukinskis »

br_smartass wrote: post #217
seanp2k2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It can be hard to get a non-US spin on middle eastern events, which is I regularly look to AJ and BBC. The value is in getting a different perspective, not completely unbiased reporting. Associated Press feeds can also be somewhat helpful: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/APNewsFeeds

Yep. There's whole different point of views to be seen. People are saying propaganda like it means only the caricaturization of propaganda(i.e.: overt), and, corollarily, like what is not overt is not propaganda or like it's "but ours is nicer/good". It's not like this, propaganda is everywhere. To me, anything that's not the pure facts plus context is the same as propaganda/ideology, there's only reality or propagan…

Yes, and even when you are publishing pure facts, which is a good goal for journalists, there is still some editorial in which of many facts you choose to publish.
Post reply on HN