Do you want Al Jazeera in the states?
Options
Alkindus
Members Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭
read the article and check out the poll
I want my Al Jazeera
The lack of availability in the United States of international news outlets is a cause for concern, author argues.
Naomi Wolf Last Modified: 05 Apr 2011 11:20
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback
Ayman Mohyeldin, who is currently building up support in the US, was one of the reporters on the ground in Gaza during Israel's offensive in 2009, and was arrested in Egypt during the popular uprisings there
Al Jazeera correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin is on a victory lap in the United States – or rather, Al Jazeera is sending him on its own victory lap.
After all, Mohyeldin is a modest guy, despite being one of Al Jazeera's best-known reporters – and clearly a rising international media star.
Al Jazeera has good reason to gloat: it has a new cachet in the US after millions of Americans, hungry for on-the-ground reporting from Egypt, turned to its online live stream and Mohyeldin's coverage from Cairo's Tahrir Square.
So now Mohyeldin is in the US for three weeks of media events – there will even be a GQ photo shoot – having become well known in a country where viewers are essentially prevented from seeing his station.
The network has been targeted by the US government since 2003, when former vice president ? Cheney and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld described it as tantamount to an arm of al-Qaeda.
Two of its reporters were later killed in Baghdad when US missiles hit its office. Al Jazeera and others voiced suspicions that the channel's reporters had been deliberately targeted.
And, to this day, Al Jazeera, which, together with BBC News, has become one of the premier global outlets for serious television news, is virtually impossible to find on televisions in the US.
The country's major cable and satellite companies refuse to carry it – leaving it with US viewers only in Washington, DC and parts of Ohio and Vermont – despite huge public demand.
So Al Jazeera is sending its news team around the US in an effort to "mainstream" the faces of this once-demonised network. And Mohyeldin can sound like Robert F. Kennedy: when the cry rose up from Tahrir Square hailing Mubarak's abdication, he commented, "One man stepped down and eighty million people stepped up."
The station's US push could hardly be more necessary – to Americans. By being denied the right to watch Al Jazeera, Americans are being kept in a bubble, sealed off from the images and narratives that inform the rest of the world.
Consider the recent scandal surrounding atrocity photos taken by US soldiers in Afghanistan, which are now available on news outlets, including Al Jazeera, around the globe.
In America, there have been brief summaries of the fact that Der Spiegel has run the story. But the images themselves – even redacted to shield the identities of the victims – have not penetrated the US media stream.
And the images are so extraordinarily shocking that failing to show them – along with graphic images of the bombardment of children in Gaza, say, or exit interviews with survivors of Guantanamo – keeps Americans from understanding events that may be as traumatic to others as the trauma of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
For example, the leading US media outlets, including the New York Times, have not seen fit to mention that one of the photos shows a US soldier holding the head of a dead Afghan civilian as though it were a hunting trophy.
So, for America's sake, I hope that Al Jazeera penetrates the US media market. Unless Americans see the images and narratives that shape how others see us, the US will not be able to overcome its reputation as the world's half-blind bully.
Indeed, Egyptians are in some ways now better informed than Americans (and, as Thomas Jefferson often repeated, liberty is not possible without an informed citizenry). Egypt has 30 newspapers and more than 200 television channels.
America's newspapers are dying, foreign news coverage has been cut to three or four minutes, at most, at the end of one or two evening newscasts, and most of its TV channels are taken up with reality shows.
I met Mohyeldin before a recent public appearance in Manhattan. His analysis of the Egyptian revolution, and others in the region, is that the kind of globalised media to which Americans do not have full access created the conditions in which people could rise up to claim democracy.
He points out that, "People are aware of their rights from the internet, from satellite TV – people are watching movies and reading bloggers. This was a revolution of awareness, based on access to fast-travelling information. The farmers, the peasants in Tahrir Square, were aware of their rights."
Americans have a hunger for international news; it is a myth that we can't be bothered with the outside world. Maybe Americans will rise up and threaten to boycott their cable and satellite providers unless we get our Al Jazeera – and other carriers of international news.
We would then come one step closer to being part of the larger world – a world that, otherwise, will eventually simply leave us behind.
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.
This article first appeared on Project Syndicate.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
I want my Al Jazeera
The lack of availability in the United States of international news outlets is a cause for concern, author argues.
Naomi Wolf Last Modified: 05 Apr 2011 11:20
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback
Ayman Mohyeldin, who is currently building up support in the US, was one of the reporters on the ground in Gaza during Israel's offensive in 2009, and was arrested in Egypt during the popular uprisings there
Al Jazeera correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin is on a victory lap in the United States – or rather, Al Jazeera is sending him on its own victory lap.
After all, Mohyeldin is a modest guy, despite being one of Al Jazeera's best-known reporters – and clearly a rising international media star.
Al Jazeera has good reason to gloat: it has a new cachet in the US after millions of Americans, hungry for on-the-ground reporting from Egypt, turned to its online live stream and Mohyeldin's coverage from Cairo's Tahrir Square.
So now Mohyeldin is in the US for three weeks of media events – there will even be a GQ photo shoot – having become well known in a country where viewers are essentially prevented from seeing his station.
The network has been targeted by the US government since 2003, when former vice president ? Cheney and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld described it as tantamount to an arm of al-Qaeda.
Two of its reporters were later killed in Baghdad when US missiles hit its office. Al Jazeera and others voiced suspicions that the channel's reporters had been deliberately targeted.
And, to this day, Al Jazeera, which, together with BBC News, has become one of the premier global outlets for serious television news, is virtually impossible to find on televisions in the US.
The country's major cable and satellite companies refuse to carry it – leaving it with US viewers only in Washington, DC and parts of Ohio and Vermont – despite huge public demand.
So Al Jazeera is sending its news team around the US in an effort to "mainstream" the faces of this once-demonised network. And Mohyeldin can sound like Robert F. Kennedy: when the cry rose up from Tahrir Square hailing Mubarak's abdication, he commented, "One man stepped down and eighty million people stepped up."
The station's US push could hardly be more necessary – to Americans. By being denied the right to watch Al Jazeera, Americans are being kept in a bubble, sealed off from the images and narratives that inform the rest of the world.
Consider the recent scandal surrounding atrocity photos taken by US soldiers in Afghanistan, which are now available on news outlets, including Al Jazeera, around the globe.
In America, there have been brief summaries of the fact that Der Spiegel has run the story. But the images themselves – even redacted to shield the identities of the victims – have not penetrated the US media stream.
And the images are so extraordinarily shocking that failing to show them – along with graphic images of the bombardment of children in Gaza, say, or exit interviews with survivors of Guantanamo – keeps Americans from understanding events that may be as traumatic to others as the trauma of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
For example, the leading US media outlets, including the New York Times, have not seen fit to mention that one of the photos shows a US soldier holding the head of a dead Afghan civilian as though it were a hunting trophy.
So, for America's sake, I hope that Al Jazeera penetrates the US media market. Unless Americans see the images and narratives that shape how others see us, the US will not be able to overcome its reputation as the world's half-blind bully.
Indeed, Egyptians are in some ways now better informed than Americans (and, as Thomas Jefferson often repeated, liberty is not possible without an informed citizenry). Egypt has 30 newspapers and more than 200 television channels.
America's newspapers are dying, foreign news coverage has been cut to three or four minutes, at most, at the end of one or two evening newscasts, and most of its TV channels are taken up with reality shows.
I met Mohyeldin before a recent public appearance in Manhattan. His analysis of the Egyptian revolution, and others in the region, is that the kind of globalised media to which Americans do not have full access created the conditions in which people could rise up to claim democracy.
He points out that, "People are aware of their rights from the internet, from satellite TV – people are watching movies and reading bloggers. This was a revolution of awareness, based on access to fast-travelling information. The farmers, the peasants in Tahrir Square, were aware of their rights."
Americans have a hunger for international news; it is a myth that we can't be bothered with the outside world. Maybe Americans will rise up and threaten to boycott their cable and satellite providers unless we get our Al Jazeera – and other carriers of international news.
We would then come one step closer to being part of the larger world – a world that, otherwise, will eventually simply leave us behind.
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.
This article first appeared on Project Syndicate.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Comments
-
Yes, when i interned at MSNBC I watched quite a bit of it.
-
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Wonders who really controls Al Jazeeras media.....the ME is known to control there own people.
They're mainly from Qatar, which so far is the big winner of all these revolutions I think. But obviously its a free nation, al jazeera's reporting is amongst the best in the world, especially when it comes to Africa and the Middle-east. Many if not all arab dicators/regimes hate Al Jazeera and lock their journalists up etc, al jazeera is a very critical/international newschannel/outlet. They have grown for the better/improved for the better the last few years. -
i have Al Jazeera English on my Galaxy Tab and watch it at work since most of my customer base is in the ME. it's all the same ? i don't see the difference really
-
i assume you mean "do i want Al-Jazeera to be widely available in the US?" in that case, i don't really care, because i don't watch cable news, but i am honestly surprised SOMEONE hasn't thrown it onto a package by now.
...however, there is a slight catch: your article was written by a stupid, self-important ? , so if she wants Al-Jazeera in the US, there must be something wrong with it.
article-specific comments:
i'd like her to elaborate on this, beyond claiming we shot their Iraq office with missiles, but it's doubtful that will happen because it's much less juicy to try to further support the claim.The network has been targeted by the US government since 2003-
pretty sure that, whether or not it's been extensively covered on network news --and broadcast television isn't ever going to provide Al-Jazeera any more than it provides the BBC-- the internet and print arms of the media have touched on it more extensively than she is claiming.In America, there have been brief summaries of the fact that Der Spiegel has run the story. But the images themselves – even redacted to shield the identities of the victims – have not penetrated the US media stream.
really? let me quote the New York Times from 03.21.2011: Photos Stoke Tension Over Afghan Civilian Deaths:For example, the leading US media outlets, including the New York Times, have not seen fit to mention that one of the photos shows a US soldier holding the head of a dead Afghan civilian as though it were a hunting trophy.
"One of the pictures published by Der Spiegel shows a soldier, Specialist Jeremy N. Morlock of Wasilla, Alaska, posing, a grin on his face, next to a dead Afghan who is mostly undressed, his body streaked with blood, as the soldier is lifting the man’s head as if to show him off like a trophy."
so she's just kind of a liar, then. but it's cool because... uh... it suits her article?
the United States has more than 30 newspapers and more than 200 television channels. is she trying to say something more than that? because i doubt 200 television channels in Egypt are all news/international events related. maybe i'm wrong.Indeed, Egyptians are in some ways now better informed than Americans (and, as Thomas Jefferson often repeated, liberty is not possible without an informed citizenry). Egypt has 30 newspapers and more than 200 television channels.
Americans obviously have the same access to the internet, and Al-Jazeera is available on that... so...He points out that, "People are aware of their rights from the internet, from satellite TV – people are watching movies and reading bloggers. This was a revolution of awareness, based on access to fast-travelling information. The farmers, the peasants in Tahrir Square, were aware of their rights."
fixed it!Naomi Wolf is a a stupid, self-important ? .
topically, though, it's weird no one seems to carry the channel -
American news outlets are pretty weak, especially television news... I don't see how having another voice could hurt.
I vote yes -
HC knows whatsup -
We got in the UK.
I rarely watch it though. Most of the time I'm watching Sky News.
I sometime put Fox news on to laugh at how bad it is. That Hannity guy is a ? . -
Anybody watch "Cross Talk" on Russia Today? It's a debate show. Pretty good.
-
I love Al Jazeera. NOt that it doesn't have its problems, but that's the fun.
RT does a great job, I'm glad they rose to prominence.
Asia Times needs a tv station. Even Haartz does a better job than any US based news dealing with Israel. -
I live in DC and its available on broadcast TV.....I mostly watched it for its wide coverage in Tunisia and Egypt, they did a really good job getting every side of the story........other than that its all the same to me........
-
I get non-local news online, so it wouldn't affect me.
-
Definately. That way americans eyes can be opened to the propaganda that stop daily on its news network. I bet my republican ass former boss would have a heart attack. He's one of those muhfuckaz that beleives everything that comes on fox.
-
they already have al jeezerah correspondents on CNN
aint nobody hiding ? from all yall. -
Yeah we should have Al-Jazeera in the states. It's available online, but not in the cable networks. That needs to change, and hopefully Americans can get the full truth of what's going on around the world. The average American knows very little of the truth in America's foreign policy.
-
politicalthug202 wrote: »they already have al jeezerah correspondents on CNN
aint nobody hiding ? from all yall.
The Al-Jazeera correspondents on CNN report only what CNN WANTS them to report. They don't give the full story. Al-Jazeera shows anti-American demonstrations and shows WHY so many hate American foreign policy.
If one watches only CNN, MSNBC, or Foxnews, one would think people hate Americans for no reason. They give little insight as to why the hatred is so strong for America in the Middle East. -
correction: not nationwide on most cable networkskingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah we should have Al-Jazeera in the states. It's available online, but not in the cable networks. -
Al Jazeera is the can of ether the average American can't handle in terms of truth and facts presented in documentaries and reports.
CNN/FOX news been stuck in the the brains of many that they will refuse to believe the facts from Al-Jazeera. -
You actually think that? I don't know how many times I've stated that Americas foreign policies are the biggest reason for the hatred. They also hate the freedom that America enjoys and you know this. Yeah there's lots of naive & ignorant Americans out there...but to say Americans need to see it from their point of view is sorta ironic....like Al-Jazeera wouldn't twist the news to fit there agenda....don't make me laugh. You actually think those people in the ME are illiterate because they don't wanna be able to read and understand how subjugated they really are. Fyi check these links out
http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/a/me090425b.htm
********************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Middle_East_and_North_Africa#Literacy_rates
I understand the problems facing the Middle East when it comes to education but let's be honest, American foreign policy is the MAIN reason so much of the Middle East hates America. There are other problems there but you know the funny ? ? America has plenty of problems of its own too.
How about America take care of its own problems before it tries to solve the Middle East's problems through killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and propping up dictatorships?
And what agenda do you think Al-Jazeera has? What's their agenda compared to, oh say CNN and Foxnews? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »I understand the problems facing the Middle East when it comes to education but let's be honest, American foreign policy is the MAIN reason so much of the Middle East hates America. There are other problems there but you know the funny ? ? America has plenty of problems of its own too.
How about America take care of its own problems before it tries to solve the Middle East's problems through killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and propping up dictatorships?
And what agenda do you think Al-Jazeera has? What's their agenda compared to, oh say CNN and Foxnews?
they hate the US, cuz the US comes in wit force because they didnt wanna make a deal wit them to sell them oil or watever resources their country has at ? head prices...
they hate the US cuz the US only seems to back up the leaders who can be manipulated, at the same time playin both sides of the field.. they finance the" rebles" at the same times they defending the leader who the rebesl are after.. if that leader doesnt give them wat they want then they let the rebels get him, if he agrees, they make the "rebels" sit down until further notice... the US i divided.. the states, the ppl, the poliiticians, the corporations, the world bank, and the CIA... the cia, world bank, and corporations work together and influence other coutnries to either revolt or get worse if the leader doesnt broker the deal wit them fro resources or watever it is they want.. most likely land...
at the end of the day, the states str8 up ullyin these countries without the ppl knowing it... wen ? gets ruff the president makes a statement, the media controls our sentiments, and we call congress to do sumtin about it... send money.. wen we here they are taxing t support this movemtn.. we agree cuz we knows its for our own safety.. which is ? .. jus making things worse and putin a bigger target on the states....
same ? that happened since Mosadegh in Iran, hussein in Iraq, Chavez in Vnezuela (who they havent gotten yet cuz his ppl are behind him and arent cowards to the system), they got Aristide of Haiti, his first coup was CIA sponsored, he had to go to the states and broker deals wit clinton... wen he finally made those deals, CIA told the leader of the coup to go sit somewhere, we got wat we want... wen Aristide comes back to haiti.. heis a different man.... prominent ppl who fought for haiti besides him are gettin killed left n right.... Haiti's economy goes down once again.. every thing now goes downhill from there..
and thats why most countries dont like the USA... ? .. before 9-11 Afganistan had no ? or heroine.. after the war on terror was declared and the fighting the taliban, Afganistan now has about 90% of the worlds heroine and ? production... think about it.. -
unfortunately for your argument, this is completely untrue. the Taliban took a cut then and they take a cut now. their major issue was the USE of such drugs by Muslims.? .. before 9-11 Afganistan had no ? or heroine.... -
they hate the US, cuz the US comes in wit force because they didnt wanna make a deal wit them to sell them oil or watever resources their country has at ? head prices...
they hate the US cuz the US only seems to back up the leaders who can be manipulated, at the same time playin both sides of the field.. they finance the" rebles" at the same times they defending the leader who the rebesl are after.. if that leader doesnt give them wat they want then they let the rebels get him, if he agrees, they make the "rebels" sit down until further notice... the US i divided.. the states, the ppl, the poliiticians, the corporations, the world bank, and the CIA... the cia, world bank, and corporations work together and influence other coutnries to either revolt or get worse if the leader doesnt broker the deal wit them fro resources or watever it is they want.. most likely land...
at the end of the day, the states str8 up ullyin these countries without the ppl knowing it... wen ? gets ruff the president makes a statement, the media controls our sentiments, and we call congress to do sumtin about it... send money.. wen we here they are taxing t support this movemtn.. we agree cuz we knows its for our own safety.. which is ? .. jus making things worse and putin a bigger target on the states....
same ? that happened since Mosadegh in Iran, hussein in Iraq, Chavez in Vnezuela (who they havent gotten yet cuz his ppl are behind him and arent cowards to the system), they got Aristide of Haiti, his first coup was CIA sponsored, he had to go to the states and broker deals wit clinton... wen he finally made those deals, CIA told the leader of the coup to go sit somewhere, we got wat we want... wen Aristide comes back to haiti.. heis a different man.... prominent ppl who fought for haiti besides him are gettin killed left n right.... Haiti's economy goes down once again.. every thing now goes downhill from there..
and thats why most countries dont like the USA... ? .. before 9-11 Afganistan had no ? or heroine.. after the war on terror was declared and the fighting the taliban, Afganistan now has about 90% of the worlds heroine and ? production... think about it..
Yeah, very true and sad how manipulative American govt is. American govt gets away with its many crimes because the media in this country, including MSNBC and CNN, VERY RARELY show the truth of what's really going on. Al-Jazeera is needed in the states for this very reason, nice post -
unfortunately for your argument, this is completely untrue. the Taliban took a cut then and they take a cut now. their major issue was the USE of such drugs by Muslims.
Good point, Afghanistan has had ? production for a long time now. But production has gone UP since the American invasion, interesting isn't it? I wonder if the CIA is getting a cut off those profits, like the CIA got a cut off the drugs coming from Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
I'm willing to bet a 100 dollars on Paypal the CIA and ? knows how many other corrupt American govt officials are getting a piece of the poppy field pie. -
has it? i've seen numbers that put current production at something like 3600 metric tons; Afghanistan was producing something like 4500 metric tons in 1999 (although i think that was the high-water mark). it's fluctuated, obviously, but i don't think it's as cut and dry as you think. if it was something like 3400 metric tons in 2000 and 3600 metric tons now... meh. still a problem either way, of course.kingblaze84 wrote: »Good point, Afghanistan has had ? production for a long time now. But production has gone UP since the American invasion, interesting isn't it?
you're giving the CIA too much credit and you're presuming something far more complicated than it need be: the instability in Afghanistan allows groups like the Taliban to foster and tax the ? trade.kingblaze84 wrote: »I wonder if the CIA is getting a cut off those profits, like the CIA got a cut off the drugs coming from Vietnam during the Vietnam War. -
We got in the UK.
I rarely watch it though. Most of the time I'm watching Sky News.
I sometime put Fox news on to laugh at how bad it is. That Hannity guy is a ? .
With all due respect bruh.....YOU LOST. Like arsenal in the 93rd minute.
Sky News is a slightly less rightwing FOX. Their content revolves around the royal wedding, missing persons, immigrants, stabbings, missing persons, immigrants, wayne rooney and missing persons.
Al Jazeera must be hitting a wrong nerve. Time for America to implement their mantra of freedom of speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zW4AKrOIak
