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

261–270 of 301 posts

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#261

Post by gotchange »

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?…

Nearly all major players in the region have a dedicated news channel/network in Arabic to serve or defend their interests and disseminate propaganda.

Less well known players that often get overlooked in similar discussions are:

1) RT Arabic from Russia

2) DW Arabic from Germany

3) TRT El Arabiya from Turkey

4) Sky News Arabia (It's more of an Abu Dhabi rulers' mouthpiece than a Murdoch's)

The country that's surprisingly missing at least conspicuously is the US but they do have a news channel « Al-Hurra » but man it's pathetic and silly even for the region's standards.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#262

Post by lmm »

phillipamann wrote: post #41

I'm sorry but why do people love a news organization that is funded by Qatar? People claim that they were completely separate but they weren't at all and gripped by controversy that one would expect from an organization based out of Qatar [1]. I think there are better sources for American and global news than what is essentially the media arm for the corrupt and fascist government of Qatar. [1] https://pmcdeadline2.f…

I wouldn't expect them to be objective about stories in or involving Qatar, but what proportion of important news is that? A source whose biases are irrelevant to you is almost as good as an unbiased source.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#263

Post by gotchange »

jonathankoren wrote: post #96
jackreichert wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not the funding. It's the editorial independence that matters. Should we have believed NBC prior to 2013 on national security issues, because they were owned by General Electric, a defense contractor that would make handsome profits in the case of war? Good luck in finding any media outlet that doesn't have financial ties to the subjects of their coverage. You shouldn't dismiss Al Jazeera out of hand. The (sad)…

> They actually report dissenting views.

But not critical of the ruling family in Qatar and that actually what counts the most and would demonstrate their journalistic integrity and editorial independence but they're hypocrites and their credibility is suffering as a consequence.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#264

Post by mapt »

MereInterest wrote: post #230
mapt wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"1 in 6 watches it, 6 in 6 pay for it". Except that the marginal cost of providing ESPN service to people who do not watch ESPN is nearly zero. A-la-carte pricing makes sense if the corporation is spending a-la-carte costs, but they're not: the cable hookup and maintenance costs almost the same either way. There are some issues with a cap on the number of channels that can be simultaneously transmitted in a cable pip…

The cost of the hookup is just one part of the cost. Licensing fees are also present. A quick Google search finds that for ESPN, these are on the order of $5/customer/month. For someone who doesn't watch ESPN, that is a hefty subsidy compared to that of other networks. Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dish-espn-trial-off...

Simple_Example_Cable_Company has 200k subscribers, charges $30/month, and licenses:

$10/customer/month to Channel A, which has 100k viewers who only watch it

$10/customer/month to Channel B, which also has 100k viewers who only watch it

...

In 2018, consumer activists manage to break up SECC and institute an a-la-carte system.

In 2019 they can choose to pay $20/customer/month to channel A (which is going to charge enough to keep its revenue at $2M/month), or they can choose to pay $20/customer/month to channel B (which is going to charge enough to keep its revenue at $2M/month).

On top of that, to secure either channel you're going to need a $10 subscription fee to the service provider for hookup (which is going to charge enough to keep its systems operational).

A-la-carte pricing is a zero sum game for the median viewer, so long as the content and the infrastructure keep getting paid for. It is nothing like "But I just want to be able to buy an appetizer, why are you making me pay for an entree!", because appetizers and entrees are both real goods which cost money to produce, while additional permissions to change the channel to something else, are not real goods. Food prices will not drastically rise for the same dish, if the customers order less of it, while entertainment prices will.

I think people are hanging their monopolistic concerns, which are valid for the most part, on a-la-carte pricing, and it's just nonsense.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#265

Post by icebraining »

SilasX wrote: post #245
icebraining wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the story wasn't that "someone" mocked the name, it was that the car was a commercial failure because of it. As far as I know, EE had at least quite a few years of success despite the name.

The snopes debunking of Nova/no-va insists that native Spanish speakers wouldn't automatically see the similarity and irony between the words. They did, just as English speakers did for EE. Though they both may have sold well in spite of the meaningful names.

Well, as I wrote earlier, as someone who has been fluently reading and listening to Spanish conversation, TV, magazines and books since childhood, I find it hard to believe that any significant number of Spanish speakers would automatically read the irony.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#266

Post by espadrine »

geowwy wrote: post #222
largote wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of their articles and videos seem to be quite objective. Might be run as a way of raising awareness (every once in a while) of Middle Eastern progress, but I certainly wouldn't call that propaganda.

Their reports on Israel and the Syrian civil war are a very one-sided. http://www.aljazeera.com/topics/regions/middleeast.html

They try to be objective, but nobody blames any media for siding against ISIL.

As for Israel, I feel like Al Jazeera isn't one-sided; there simply are more articles about Palestinian deaths because there are more Palestinian deaths. Even when around 20 Israelis across a few attacks died at the end of last year, with each death heavily reported around western media, a comparative death toll puts it into perspective: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/10/mapping.... It seems that one side simply has better weapons, and so, causes more deaths.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#267

Post by mikeash »

gotchange wrote: post #256
mikeash wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Arabic is what's off-putting.

Do you feel the same when you hear "Alcohol, Algebra, Alchemy, Algorithm, Albuquerque ...etc" or you're just turned off by "Aljazeera"?

Albuquerque is a pretty tenuous example.

Anyway, I don't know. I'm not talking about me, just saying this is how a lot of people react.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#268

Post by gotchange »

mikeash wrote: post #267
gotchange wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same when you hear "Alcohol, Algebra, Alchemy, Algorithm, Albuquerque ...etc" or you're just turned off by "Aljazeera"?

Albuquerque is a pretty tenuous example. Anyway, I don't know. I'm not talking about me, just saying this is how a lot of people react.

No, it's not tenuous.

Americans (Spanish settlers/Mexicans?) imported the name from Spanish (Castellano) and Spanish got it from Arabic and the list I made is just arbitrary and there are many many more Arabic origin words starting with "Al" that made their way to English and don't seem to have the same negative effect on the English speaker as claimed by you and the other poster.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#269

Post by JBReefer »

jonathankoren wrote: post #96
jackreichert wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not the funding. It's the editorial independence that matters. Should we have believed NBC prior to 2013 on national security issues, because they were owned by General Electric, a defense contractor that would make handsome profits in the case of war? Good luck in finding any media outlet that doesn't have financial ties to the subjects of their coverage. You shouldn't dismiss Al Jazeera out of hand. The (sad)…

The Economist.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#270

Post by unprepare »

mapt wrote: post #264
MereInterest wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of the hookup is just one part of the cost. Licensing fees are also present. A quick Google search finds that for ESPN, these are on the order of $5/customer/month. For someone who doesn't watch ESPN, that is a hefty subsidy compared to that of other networks. Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dish-espn-trial-off...

Simple_Example_Cable_Company has 200k subscribers, charges $30/month, and licenses: $10/customer/month to Channel A, which has 100k viewers who only watch it $10/customer/month to Channel B, which also has 100k viewers who only watch it ... In 2018, consumer activists manage to break up SECC and institute an a-la-carte system. In 2019 they can choose to pay $20/customer/month to channel A (which is going to charge en…

20/month is 240$ - for 240$ I can buy a season pass (40$) to 6 individual shows. Unless i want to watch more than 6 of AMCs shows concurrently, its much more expensive to pay 20$/ month. Even including shows that are over, I cant think of 6 successful shows on any single cable network. (walking dead, mad men, breaking bad, better call saul?, talking dead?, ??)

On top of this, pricing has already been set and normalized in this market.

Netflix is 7.99

amazon prime is around 8$

hulu is around 9 for ad free

hbogo is 14.99 and is seen as premium in the marketplace

I cant see any network pricing themselves above HBO and being successful.

Post reply on HN