Skip

Al Jazeera English
November 15, 2006 7:43 PM   Subscribe

Al Jazeera English, the English-language sister network to Al Jazeera, launched worldwide this week. Familiar faces include Lt. Josh Rushing, who figured prominently in the documentary Control Room. Unfortunately, no cable system or satellite broadcaster in the U.S. is carrying the channel, but you can watch it online.
posted by homunculus (80 comments total)

 
Meanwhile, in the US, Fox News continues its fair and balanced news coverage.
posted by homunculus at 7:46 PM on November 15, 2006


D'oh! Homunculus, I beat you to it but yours is the better post. I concede...
posted by zardoz at 7:46 PM on November 15, 2006


I I love love double double chex chex
posted by sdrawkcab at 7:46 PM on November 15, 2006


um, I don't think it would be very wise for anybody in the US to watch this over the internet. It would get you put on a list.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 7:51 PM on November 15, 2006


I've written some articles for Al Jazeera. I wonder if I'm on a list.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:56 PM on November 15, 2006


"Banned" in Australia by Murdoch's Foxtel (even though the satellite is transmitting it, your STB can't tune in to it).

I frickin hate government sanctioned monopolies.
posted by wilful at 7:58 PM on November 15, 2006


um, I don't think it would be very wise for anybody in the US to watch this over the internet. It would get you put on a list.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts


Oops!

I've been checking in on the english.aljazeera.net web site for way over a year. In fact, a year ago when I first got my satellite connection, I crabbed to my ISP that I couldn't get to it on the satellite connection and that led them to discover that they were installing incompatible routers with the modems...problem fixed!
posted by taosbat at 8:10 PM on November 15, 2006


From what I've seen of them on the internet, you'd get more believable data from the Weekly World News. Their better articles show a clear and obvious bias, their worse ones are 'Jews drink the blood of Palestinian babies' drivel.

They're the Fox News of the Middle East. At best.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:14 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitrovarr, that's not the impression I get at all. Have you any examples?
posted by wilful at 8:21 PM on November 15, 2006


wilful: Mitrovarr, that's not the impression I get at all. Have you any examples?

Nothing immediately specific. It was an impression I got from many articles, over a long period of time.

I suppose they could have improved, but I doubt it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:23 PM on November 15, 2006


um, I don't think it would be very wise for anybody in the US to watch this over the internet. It would get you put on a list.

Yes, and soon thereafter there will come a knock on your door. You'll open it to find two men in plain, dark suits, their faces obscured by the shadow cast from the brim of their fedoras. You'll ask to see their badges, but they'll just snicker and mutter something about "steenking badgess" under their breath. They'll ask if you wouldn't mind "taking a little ride" with them. When you try to object, they'll grab your upper arm and apply pressure to a nerve that will leave you quivering and helpless. You'll be shoved into the back of a large black SUV with tinted windows and no license plate. Eventually you will join the ranks of the thousands of ordinary Americans who have "disappeared" under the Bush administration.

So please, whatever you do: Don't watch this! Remember, MonkeySaltedNuts says it'll get you on "a list."
posted by pardonyou? at 8:25 PM on November 15, 2006


pardonyou?: So please, whatever you do: Don't watch this! Remember, MonkeySaltedNuts says it'll get you on "a list."

There was a story a while back where some anti-war protesters found out they were on the no-fly list.

If you want to watch it anyway, TOR is your friend. But don't count on it to stop a determined observer.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:31 PM on November 15, 2006


You should see the LGF coverage on this story. They seem torn between crapping themselves in terror (OMG jihad TV!) and masturbating themselves raw over the fact that they can put Al-Jazeera and "Democratic control of Congress" into the same timeframe.

Pathetic.
posted by clevershark at 8:31 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitrovarr, are you sure you aren't getting them confused with the much more radical domain-squatters at aljazeera.com?
posted by stammer at 8:33 PM on November 15, 2006


stammer: Mitrovarr, are you sure you aren't getting them confused with the much more radical domain-squatters at aljazeera.com?

Yup. The articles in question that I remember were articles linked to by posters in Metafilter, Fark, and major news sites.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:36 PM on November 15, 2006


pardonyou?: So please, whatever you do: Don't watch this! Remember, MonkeySaltedNuts says it'll get you on "a list."
em>

First they came for the Al Jazeera English watchers, and I said nothing...

posted by TweetleBeetleBattleBookie at 8:37 PM on November 15, 2006


AJI has recruited some very serious British, American and Canadian journalists, and have -- according to the articles in this post and the one below -- more foreign correspondants in more places than all the American networks combined.

That said, they're not an American operation, and they're not nearly as dependant on commercial success as any American station. There's no doubt you'll be watching something very different from the standard fare put out by CNN and the networks -- which also show a clear and obvious bias. I mean, obvious to most non-Americans. Its a shame that AJI will be so hard to get to in the States. From time to time it might be instructive to see what America looks like from the perspective of, you know, the rest of the world.
posted by bumpkin at 8:44 PM on November 15, 2006


bumpkin: From time to time it might be instructive to see what America looks like from the perspective of, you know, the rest of the world.

But it's not the perspective of the rest of the world, it's the perspective of the Middle East. Which, if you haven't forgotten, is completely insane. There are lots of good international news sources, and you can talk to people from all over the world in chat rooms, so trusting a Middle East company (which is notable for falling all over themselves in their rush to act as a terrorist mouthpiece every time they get a Bin Ladin/beheading tape) is a poor idea.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:58 PM on November 15, 2006


Well, now I know I can ignore Mitrovarr.
posted by dhartung at 9:02 PM on November 15, 2006 [2 favorites]


What, no bitching about RealPlayer yet? Harumph!
posted by xiojason at 9:04 PM on November 15, 2006


Apparently, the new channel came close to making it onto Comcast in time for the launch, but Comcast chickened out. That article also says that Comcast is still likely to carry English Al-Jazeera in the Detroit market, and that Dish Network wants to add English Al-Jazeera to their US offerings, since they already offer the Arabic version. They also mentioned Dish Network carrying the channel soon on The World tonight.
posted by ulotrichous at 9:08 PM on November 15, 2006


just a note, mitrovarr seems to be either confused or purposefully making up stuff about al-Jazeera.

I would suggest reading Voices of the New Arab Public by Marc Lynch and checking out his blog at http://http://www.abuaardvark.com/ for some serious discussion of arab media and Al-Jazeera in particular.

His book studies AJ extensively and presents an accurate depiction of the station, at least, one which jives with the impression I have received from the station when I used to view it regularly.
posted by mulligan at 9:09 PM on November 15, 2006


xiojason: What, no bitching about RealPlayer yet? Harumph!

Well, that proves that they're evil, if nothing else does.

Seriously, though, real alternative is your friend. Well, if it works. I tried to test, but I think the video part of the site's been slammed.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:10 PM on November 15, 2006


Al Jazeera is like Fox News or American (not International) CNN. Depending on who's watching it, it's biased. But there is a committment to putting on a good program and getting "the story".
posted by cell divide at 9:29 PM on November 15, 2006


which is notable for falling all over themselves in their rush to act as a terrorist mouthpiece every time they get a Bin Ladin/beheading tape

Given that you haven't seen Al jazeera, you must presumably be watching a replay by a US network. So why is AJ the 'terrorist mouthpiece' but not the US network?

And is what Bin laden says not newsworthy? Most people would beg to differ.
posted by wilful at 9:29 PM on November 15, 2006


But it's not the perspective of the rest of the world, it's the perspective of the Middle East. Which, if you haven't forgotten, is completely insane.

Well I concede that there isn't one thing called "the rest of the world" with a single perspective, the Arab world is considerably less monolithic than you appear to believe. Saying that AJI represents the (single, completely insane) perspective of the Middle East is totally at odds with the range and depth of the journalists that are part of this operation.

I mean is this guy the voice of terrah? Or what about him? Of course, she's clearly "completely insane".
posted by bumpkin at 9:30 PM on November 15, 2006


If you are going to accuse AJ of being horribly biased to the point fo perpetuating the blood libel, you should come to the plate with a little more evidence.

That being said, AJ is and will undoubtedly be biased and more biased that most standard American outlets (which are also biased). But that is really a non-issue. AJ is obvious in its bias and the viewer just needs to keep this in mind when processing the information and data that is presented. AJ is not biased in a propagandistic or deceitful way, they are biased in a "we have a point of view" way, like American, and to a greater extent, European broadcasters. Be an educated and media literate viewer and AJ can provide a lot of information otherwise hard to come by.
posted by Falconetti at 9:32 PM on November 15, 2006




it's the perspective of the Middle East. Which, if you haven't forgotten, is completely insane.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:58 PM PST


Right, sure. Completely insane.

What's the insanity? Trading oil for US dollars? Having one countries soldiers dress up as another nations people and blowing up stuff? Graft? Corruption? Eating goats? Sand in ones shorts? Breathing depleted uranium?

Please, let us know what makes the Middle East completely insane? And, other people of the blue, feel free to make your OWN list of completely insane things in the Middle East!

Extra points if you can tie it to Fox News staffers, Jewish, Muslim, Turks and Pursians!
(If you guess fafial, you get the extra points)
posted by rough ashlar at 9:44 PM on November 15, 2006


wilful: Given that you haven't seen Al jazeera, you must presumably be watching a replay by a US network. So why is AJ the 'terrorist mouthpiece' but not the US network?

And is what Bin laden says not newsworthy? Most people would beg to differ.


Well, there's a difference between the first source and the replayers. In other words, if Al Jazeera gets a tape from the terrorists, they should NOT play it. If they do, they are complicit in the terrorism. If someone else gets it and publishes it, then the tape is out. The news of it being out will escape, and anyone who wants to see it can find a source. In that case a much better argument can be made for it being legitimate news, and little additional damage is done by showing it again.

In any case, since they have so many defenders here, perhaps they've improved. When I noted their severe bias and misinformation, I was certain about it, but that was at least 4 years ago. That's why I didn't link to my source articles, they're long gone. I had expected they'd be the same now, but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't see anything nearly as bad as what I remember on their current site.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:45 PM on November 15, 2006


I really don't see that playing a tape of Osama bin Laden is "complicit in terrorism", unless you buy the idea that there are secret codes in the messages (which I doubt).

but anyway, we've now all got a chance to make up our own minds, don't we? Except that I can't get it in Australia.
posted by wilful at 9:54 PM on November 15, 2006


Honestly, mitrovarr, I doubt that many were actually giving them a chance 4 years ago. 4 years ago, people like you said "terrorist mouthpiece" and that was good enough. We know which side they're on.

Whereas if you actually check them out, you'll at least discover that they struggle with issues like airing inflammatory material, and though they get it wrong sometimes, they actually care about doing the right thing. Probably more than many of your local news outlets.

Actually, this seems to be a regular feature of the press in other parts of the world where their freedom is no sure thing -- the responsibility is taken bloody seriously. It's not just filler between ad time.
posted by dreamsign at 9:54 PM on November 15, 2006


It would get you put on a list.

We may all end up on some ridiculous list for no good reason anyway, so why stress about it?
posted by homunculus at 9:55 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitro: I'll give you $10 if you can substantiate your allegation that Al-Jazeera has ever shown a "beheading tape". Actual proof, not some bullshit conspiracy "they destroyed all the copies" nonsense, not some LGF or Free Republic rant.

$10. Clear via paypal.
posted by clevershark at 9:56 PM on November 15, 2006


In other words, if Al Jazeera gets a tape from the terrorists, they should NOT play it. If they do, they are complicit in the terrorism.

When the 2 people were driving about the US of A shooting at others in Virginia and terrorizing the population, should no news outlets have reported on it, thus adding to the terror?

When I noted their severe bias and misinformation, I was certain about it,

There were a whole bunch of people who were certain about WMD being in Iraq. Perhaps Al Jazeera hasn't changed....but you have?

That's why I didn't link to my source articles, they're long gone.

I don't believe they delete stuff....so whatever you found objectionable should still be there.

But do feel free to work on the insane list.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:57 PM on November 15, 2006


Well, there's a difference between the first source and the replayers.

Yes, you've already said. The first source are kraazy Ayrabs.
posted by pompomtom at 9:59 PM on November 15, 2006


This instantly replaces DailyKos as Metafilter's favorite news source.
posted by LarryC at 10:05 PM on November 15, 2006


...they actually care about doing the right thing. Probably more than many of your local news outlets.

Better than US local TV news? I think that's called "damning with faint praise." There are people who receive coded messages via the interaction of their fillings with the fluoride in the drinking water which are more reliable than the average local news show.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:06 PM on November 15, 2006


I think the people who consider Al-Jazeera to be a pro-terror, blood-libeling Bin Laden outlet are hugely misinformed. They do tend towards sensationalism (although no more than CNN, and probably less than Fox), and they do give airtime to Arab and Muslim nationalists who would never be interviewed on Western cable news (but that's because they're important players in news events that would never even be mentioned on CNN); ultimately, though, they're exactly the kind of bourgeois media that should be welcomed and encouraged by the West, rather than locked in Guantanamo or bombed.
posted by stammer at 10:11 PM on November 15, 2006


rough ashlar: When the 2 people were driving about the US of A shooting at others in Virginia and terrorizing the population, should no news outlets have reported on it, thus adding to the terror?

Sure, you report what they do, but you don't pass on messages they give to the media. That's just giving them what they want and encouraging more violence.

As for the beheading tapes someone mentioned, well, all the news outlets said they had at the time, which is why I remembered that. Some researched showed that they were wrong, which is annoying; I expect bias in the news here, but not outright deception. Still, they did publish Bin Laden tapes when they got them, which I consider extremely reprehensible. They've also shown videos from kidnappers.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:13 PM on November 15, 2006


Sorry but your analysis is overly simplistic. In any case, the side that you're representing makes the more nuanced argument that Al Jazeera's sin is in playing mostly unedited versions of Bin Laden or other high-level Al Qaeda tapes. No one serious thinks that news organizations would not report on, publish the the texts of, or show significant parts of these tapes. They're newsworthy, and even though they end up showing some bad stuff, that's what news organizations do.
posted by cell divide at 10:15 PM on November 15, 2006


There were a whole bunch of people who were certain about WMD being in Iraq. Perhaps Al Jazeera hasn't changed....but you have?

Bingo.
posted by dreamsign at 10:24 PM on November 15, 2006


I've visited al Jazeera in Doha and spoken with many of their staff, from technicians to reporters to the managing director. I've also spoken with many journalists from all sorts of media including many well known names. Journalists I respect admire al Jazeera.

The problem some western governments have is that they're telling an uncomfortable truth about, specifically Iraq. Because of their excellent contacts they can get stories and depth that other news stations can't.

There has been a considered campaign of disinformation about the channel and one thing I have noticed is that most of their detractors have never watched the channel and merely repeat the same old slanders.

And when these people are challenged their 'evidence' evaporates. When, for example it comes to video's from bin Laden et al, because of their contacts they often get them first. As people from CNN, for example, have told me; "if we got them, we would broadcast them".

There is another myth being used in that they're 'like Fox'. This is simply false. Fox have a clear political agenda, al Jazeera have a perspective. Intellectually, al Jazeera are far, far above Fox.

If you're interested in learning more I suggest reading this article by Hugh Miles where he goes through the fact and fictions about the channel. He wrote an excellent book "al-Jazeera, How Arab TV News Challenged the World" and here's an interview (mp3) I did with him.
posted by quarsan at 10:25 PM on November 15, 2006 [4 favorites]


Sure, you report what they do,

Ok.

but you don't pass on messages they give to the media.

Err isn't PART of what is being done also generating messages?

BUT

I do want to see the 'completly insane' list of yours, so what is it gonna take to get you to output that?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:26 PM on November 15, 2006


Wow. I think quarsan's comment just quashed the right-wing baiting going on.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:31 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitrovarr, you don't happen to work for the Lincoln Group? ... SYColeman? ... or ... any other military 'disinformation' group, do you?
posted by Surfurrus at 10:37 PM on November 15, 2006


Here's the first six minutes (Youtube) that was linked in zardoz's deleted post.
posted by Mil at 10:37 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitrovarr: Sure, you report what they do, but you don't pass on messages they give to the media. That's just giving them what they want and encouraging more violence.

Maybe we should also ignore the NYT and WaPo, and chastise the US Justice Department for their complacency in passing on terrorist messages from the Unabomber. Or maybe things aren't always simple.
posted by rider at 10:38 PM on November 15, 2006


rough ashlar: I do want to see the 'completly insane' list of yours, so what is it gonna take to get you to output that?

Well, I was being silly and hyperbolic, not trying to argue seriously (I didn't expect to piss so many people off and have since became serious.) But do I really have to go through a list of all the senseless atrocities that have been committed there? Because it's a long list, and I can go on all day, but all it will accomplish is depressing both of us.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:43 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitrovarr, if you think tthe Middle East is just a list of senseless atrocities, watching al Jazeera will help you to understand the region in more depth and why so many of these atrocities happened and are continuing to occur.

I believe that al Jazeera will help increase understanding and this is A Good Thing.

This applies to a lot of people. As an example I give you the following quote in a recent speech from Tony Blair:

What is happening in the Middle East today is not complex. It is simple.

It's thinking like that which got us into the Iraq quagmire.
posted by quarsan at 11:01 PM on November 15, 2006


Mitrovarr, I'd be interested in seeing your evidence. You're making an extremely strong claim: specifically, that a purported news agency has committed 'senseless atrocities' (your wording, not mine). Claims that strong without evidence are, essentially, propaganda.

So far, the people I've seen that are most critical of AlJ are the extreme rightists. Over the last six years, they've been remarkably wrong about a great many things. Their credibility is extremely low with me; at this point, if they said the sky was blue, I'd probably walk outside to check.

I'm sure you'll pardon me for wanting to see some actual evidence of the WMDs senseless atrocities.
posted by Malor at 11:05 PM on November 15, 2006


You're making an extremely strong claim: specifically, that a purported news agency has committed 'senseless atrocities' (your wording, not mine).

You misunderstood me. I meant that lots of them had occurred in the middle east, it wasn't a specific knock on Al Jazeera.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:21 PM on November 15, 2006


Um, Surfurrus, you do realize that SYColeman is just a gigantic government contract company like EDS, Booz Allen or FedEx, right?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:22 PM on November 15, 2006


But they are like Fox in presentation... they give wars logos, themesongs, and use dramatic music and show more sensational videos and invest in graphics technology. They get the story, but they definitely are just as over-the-top if not more then any American channel.
posted by cell divide at 11:26 PM on November 15, 2006


Very few news networks are anywhere near as over-the-top as American news, cell divide.

I look forward to having AJI as another international news source in the mix. I've been following the leadup to this launch, and I'm pretty impressed. I'm certainly not going to give them carte blanche, but I'm going to give them a shot, and I think the least we could all do as open-minded citizens of the world is to give them that much. I'm sad that Mitrovarr directed the thread immediately to having to defend the Middle East against accusations of being "completely insane", which is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on MetaFilter.

Seriously. We're here to be informed, right? Bias is everywhere; you take it into account by having as many diverse sources for your information as possible. More voices is a good thing.
posted by blacklite at 11:36 PM on November 15, 2006




Both the JumpTV and Real Superpass streams seem to be down, though the 56k 15 minute Real stream is working fine.

I couldn't get the 56k stream working with Real Alternative.
posted by futureproof at 11:51 PM on November 15, 2006


It is to be broadcast in a fortnight by UBI in Australia, unless the John Weasel Howard government invents a way of stopping it.
posted by emf at 12:27 AM on November 16, 2006


Some of you may have laughed at my "get put on a list" comment. I was reminded of some recent case (which I can't google up) where a US Muslim who owned a cable system that was serving various Aribic/Muslim satellite feeds to his customers. He wound up getting arrested for enabling terrorism.

While you may argue that Al Jazeera is not pro-terrorism, that doesn't keep people in DHS and NSA from assuming that people who watch a lot of "Al Jazeera" might be pro-terrorist and maybe should be put on a list to see if they make phone calls to other "pro-terrorists" or maybe they should be added to the list of people who need extra scrutiny when they fly.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:36 AM on November 16, 2006


MSN, that was specifically for Hezbollah's channel Al Manar. Say what you will, but they are on a list as a terrorist orgranization, and I think he was busted on a material support charge.
posted by cell divide at 12:57 AM on November 16, 2006


That Shahnaz Pakravan character certainly does look "completely insane", bumpkin.

If you have any more, um, "crazy" pics of her, you should post them immediately.

(For the good of God and country.)
posted by j-dub at 1:01 AM on November 16, 2006


There is no such thing as an unbiased news organization or an unbiased journalist. When consuming journalism, one must always, always keep in mind the known biases of those presenting the facts. In this respect, Al Jazeera is no different than CNN, the BBC, or Fox News.
posted by Clay201 at 1:06 AM on November 16, 2006


Getting "put on a list" has very little to do with what you watch on tv (how would they know anyway?).

I got on a list because I shared a name with a very, very, very bad man. This meant I got extra scrutiny at the airport, even when on official business trips for the DHS.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:13 AM on November 16, 2006


Mitrovarr is not a member of the reality-based community.
posted by Arcaz Ino at 3:23 AM on November 16, 2006


A friend of mine just started working for ALJ in the Gulf - previously he's worked for both Sky (Fox), and BBC. He says ALJ has an amazing setup, clever and eager people, and is run very well. He was doing Arafat's funeral when a certain unnamed organisation left him high and dry in the middle of a mob of several thousand angry people and he was unsure if he was going to make it out alive. Apparently he thinks that ALJ won't make the same mistake.
posted by meehawl at 4:40 AM on November 16, 2006


Hmm. Apparently I have been confusing them with aljazeera.com for ages. Thanks, stammer!
posted by ~ at 6:19 AM on November 16, 2006


Please, let us know what makes the Middle East completely insane? And, other people of the blue, feel free to make your OWN list of completely insane things in the Middle East!

It's where the Bible comes from. That's all the proof positive I need.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:16 AM on November 16, 2006


The Al-Jazeera English website has been running for some time. It's a perfectly normal, relatively non-controversial English-language news source.

The irony is that all the fuss and bother may actually be enticing people to run over and take a look for themselves. There are some real opportunities for Al-Jazeera to reach a wider audience here.
posted by gimonca at 7:48 AM on November 16, 2006


"Banned" in Australia by Murdoch's Foxtel (even though the satellite is transmitting it, your STB can't tune in to it).

Intriguing. Murdoch's Sky in the UK is carrying it.
posted by vbfg at 8:02 AM on November 16, 2006


My take on AJ, just from reading the .net website and watching Control Room, is that they're western-style TV journalists, with both the good and bad that implies.
posted by atchafalaya at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2006


I don't think they're as beholden to commercial interests as US news channels, for two reasons -- one, they're (mostly?) owned by the Emirate of Qatar, and two, they've always been blackballed by Saudi Arabia when it comes to selling ad time. If you're an AJ advertiser your company tends to have a tough time in SA; you find yourself on the end of numerous audits, business permits are revoked for no particular reason, etc. and you'll find that your competitors get preferential pricing when advertising on the Saudi-backed Al-Arabiya network.
posted by clevershark at 8:26 AM on November 16, 2006


#Pollomacho: Getting "put on a list" has very little to do with what you watch on tv (how would they know anyway?).

Well if you watch your TV over the internet, then it is fairly easy to sniff which IP addresses connect to Al Jazeera. And don't tell me the NSA does not have sniffers on the major backbones.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:40 AM on November 16, 2006




In other words, if Al Jazeera gets a tape from the terrorists, they should NOT play it. If they do, they are complicit in the terrorism.

And if an american news agency publishes pictures of star-spangled-banner-draped coffins from Iraq - they, too, are complicit in the terrorism.

And if you vote for progressive, liberal 'San Francisco' values that recognise humanity's basic equality while not falling for arbitrary distinctions based on flawed millennial superstition - you, too, are complicit in the terrorism.

Goddammit, mitrovarr, stop trying to think for me. Thinking for yourself is much more important.

(note that I am not trying to accuse you of the thoughts behind the links above - I am just illustrating the dangerous stupidity that comes of trying to suppress the free flow of information - and the inanity of using terrorism as some sort of justification thereof)
posted by Sparx at 12:35 PM on November 16, 2006


SF-based pirate stationPirate Cat Radio recently added Al Jazerra's English audio stream to their line up. Listen in at 5am-7am PST.

Disclaimer: I'm a DJ for Pirate Cat Radio.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 3:04 PM on November 16, 2006


And don't tell me the NSA does not have sniffers on the major backbones.

Remember, you can always say some terrorists we hacking into your WiFi network.
posted by tehloki at 3:50 PM on November 16, 2006


I watched the channel for a few hours last night. Some observations:

They have recruited people from news channels like CNN and BBC World, some of them like Riz Khan and Rageh Omar are fronting their own shows. Their Africa bureau is pretty amazing.

One show yesterday talking about Hamas was shocking, in that the journalist was asking the kind of questions I wanted to hear the answers to. Unlike the normal 1 + 1 = 3 bullshit I see all the time on CNN International, BBC World or Sky News.

From what I've seen so far, it's not so much propaganda, per se. There seems to be more variety in the views, and it's more about questioning forms of authority, with rigorous questions for all sides. Maybe the Arabic channel is different, but this English channel is fascinating to watch.
posted by gsb at 11:18 PM on November 16, 2006


I know I'm late to the party, but this might be relevant.

Unfortunately, no cable system or satellite broadcaster in the U.S. is carrying the channel

Not if I did my job correctly. I routed it to the spacecraft myself.

Intelsat Americas 5 (97.0°W)
Transponder 16
Downlink Frequency: 11999 Mhz (Horizontal Polarization)
Symbol Rate: 20 Ms/s
FEC: 2/3
Virtual Channel: 463
Free to Air

Getcherself a FTA receiver and a dish pointed at 97.0°W. That's all you need.
posted by quite unimportant at 4:15 PM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]






« Older You can also sing them to the "Gilligan's Island"...   |   True courage, seeking justice Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post