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

291–300 of 301 posts

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#291

Post by br_smartass »

cooperellis wrote: post #275
br_smartass wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree, getting multiple perspectives on an issue can be extremely time-consuming and challenging. This site shares three different perspectives on current events in one place: http://pxw.news/whos-to-blame-for-the-iran-saudi-dispute/

Thats really interesting, thanks! I'll be following this one :)

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#292

Post by aagha »

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…

No, they didn't. Part of the terms of them being able to buy Current and retain broadcast rights with the existing networks was a requirement that AJ stop online streaming. Without the deal, they would have lost all the distribution Current came with.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#293

Post by jessaustin »

brightball wrote: post #282
jessaustin wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever people talk about the money in college football right now, I generally tell them to blame Tivo... Surely at least some of the blame can be shared with the total abdication of the educational mission on the part of thousands of university administrators. The athletic tail has been wagging the academic dog for decades longer than Tivo has been around.

People say that a lot, but most athletic departments aren't actually profitable. The biggest thing that athletics helps with is marketing exposure for the university. Applications go through the roof when a team is on TV. It improves morale in the alumni base which has a big effect in academic donations as well. I'm a Clemson grad for example and 15 years ago, Clemson's athletic department budget was about $30 millio…

Sure, some athletics departments are "profitable", others are not. That doesn't contradict the proposition that there is too much money involved in college athletics, and that it is and was the responsibility of college presidents and boards to prevent that. Blaming Tivo for this is more ridiculous than any Tivo-blaming we ever heard from the copyright mafiaa.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#294

Post by wyclif »

legulere wrote: post #279
wyclif wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more accurate to say that the BBC is disliked by lots of people are aren't culturally Marxist. BBC is fine for left-leaning Anglosphere types, but it's not very broad in terms of the views covered.

When you use the word cultural marxist you're outing yourself as a right-extremist conspiracy theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...

That's actually not the meaning I was using. It's pretty obvious that BBC is not centrist in content.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#295

Post by wyclif »

amyjess wrote: post #281
pessimizer wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"culturally Marxist" sounds like a right-wing way of saying "not Marxist." It makes about as much sense as being "culturally vegetarian."

"Cultural Marxism" is a shibboleth used in far-right white nationalist circles to mean "not racist". It's typically paired with claims that "cultural Marxism" is a "Jewish plot" to cause "white genocide". If you see anyone use it unironically, run away.

Sorry, but you're not going to be able to tag somebody like me with the alt-right label. I'm none of those things. The point is that the BBC isn't only disliked by Indian nationalists. That's what I was responding to.

And actually, that's not what Marxism is or means at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#296

Post by known »

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…

You can question BBC on Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/...

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#297

Post by brightball »

jessaustin wrote: post #293
brightball wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say that a lot, but most athletic departments aren't actually profitable. The biggest thing that athletics helps with is marketing exposure for the university. Applications go through the roof when a team is on TV. It improves morale in the alumni base which has a big effect in academic donations as well. I'm a Clemson grad for example and 15 years ago, Clemson's athletic department budget was about $30 millio…

Sure, some athletics departments are "profitable", others are not. That doesn't contradict the proposition that there is too much money involved in college athletics, and that it is and was the responsibility of college presidents and boards to prevent that. Blaming Tivo for this is more ridiculous than any Tivo-blaming we ever heard from the copyright mafiaa.

The TV advertising value of college and pro football relative to everything else on TV has gone through the roof ever since skipping commercials became the norm.

If you can identify another reason why TV contracts for the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12 and PAC 12 suddenly skyrocketed in the last 15 years I would love to hear it.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#298

Post by brightball »

mikeash wrote: post #286
brightball wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is on a broadcast where people are listening to a single signal (radio, antenna, satellite, etc). Over the internet, it has to operate as a point to point TCP connection for each device so 50,000 people watching is 50,000 individual HD streams. If multicast over the internet worked it'd be another ballgame of course.

I understand the difference between broadcast as found in radio and how a "broadcast" would work over the internet. But 50,000 people watching 50,000 individual HD streams that happen to contain the same thing still seems slightly easier than 50,000 people watching 50,000 individual HD streams with different content. I'm taking it as a given that the technology and infrastructure is already there to support millions…

When Netflix does it, during high viewing hours I've seen reports claiming that they account for 30% of all US internet traffic. It's still a very high bandwidth operation.

The equivalent of a CDN where each ISP has a box receiving the broadcast so that all of their local customers don't have to stream direct from ESPN will make it more tolerable, but the big hit will be on people trying to do it from cell networks.

When Netflix does it they are working with pre-optimized content. They get to prepare all of the video to stream in advance, optimize it for each screen size, transfer each variant it down to each ISP and then turn it on when it's ready. With a live feed you've got to do all that on the fly to each ISP appliance that you've got in place.

I'm sure it can be done, somehow, but I have serious concerns about the technological cost of scaling that for a huge audience. Just as a comparison here, the college football title game that just happened garnered about 29 million viewers on TV and about 800,000 streaming with WatchESPN. That was the most streaming traffic ESPN had ever had.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#299

Post by cptskippy »

peckrob wrote: post #233
cptskippy wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

Funny thing is, I don't watch those channels either. That's why I don't have cable, there is almost no value in it. There are maybe 2 or 3 channels that I'd want but I can't get them without paying for 70 channels I don't want.

Re: Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April

#300

Post by unprepare »

mapt wrote: post #276
unprepare wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 normaliz…

You have succeeded in completely missing the point, by fixating on an arbitrary number while missing the simple principle that the contrived example is meant to illustrate. If the service remains the same, the total that consumers pay will necessarily have to remain about the same. Instead of getting the freedom to change channels, they'll be stuck with the limited selection they have subscribed to. The bundling busi…

You have succeeded in completely missing the point.

It doesnt matter what ESPNs current revenue is, and it doesnt matter how many subscribers the lose when the shift towards a la carte.

The fact is that the pricing for sports content has already happened; if ESPN wanted to weigh in on how much sports should cost, they should have gotten to market before the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc.

ESPN can launch at whatever price they want, but if that price exceeds the price of the official league packages that i intend to watch, there is absolutely 0 chance that i subscribe to ESPN

You're chasing illusory revenues, "If I just set the price at X$, we could drop everyone who doesnt watch" cannot mathematically happen, because NFL et al would have to crank down their prices for ESPN to remain competitive.

>or end most of their production to survive

DING DING DING - this is exactly what will happen when espn finds out people dont value their more recent tabloid/drama centered content

An actual example:

I currently pay $150/year for NFL gamepass. This allows me to watch every single NFL game in HD live, including pre and post season games.

150/year is 12.50/month. IF ESPN released a service costing 13/month, i wouldn't buy it. What value does ESPN add to my existing NFL gamepass package? Do they think i would pay 13/month purely for sportscenter? purely for their terrible discussions of the latest drama in the sports world? Maybe if they offered some kind of sports news and debate like they did a decade or so ago.

This is ESPN's competition. They have to compete with existing services that already fill the need for watching sports.

I imagine ESPNs current broadcast contracts do not specifically allow them to move to a la carte structure, nor do i imagine it allows them to begin any kind of streaming service. I very much doubt the leagues are going to be very kind when renegotiating those contracts now that they all have their own streaming services.

Post reply on HN