Al Jezeera to shut down in April

Very sad. An indictment of American capitalism, and of American consumers. Deutsche Welle is the only thing left.
Very troubling that there really is no widely available serious independent tv news or tv journalism for the American public. PBS tries but has none of the necessary news bureaus or on-the-ground reporters, and cannot do current coverage of breaking news. It’s really a serious problem for American democracy.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/media/al-jazeera-america/index.html

Very sad. An indictment of American capitalism, and of American consumers. Deutsche Welle is the only thing left. Very troubling that there really is no widely available serious independent tv news or tv journalism for the American public. PBS tries but has none of the necessary news bureaus or on-the-ground reporters, and cannot do current coverage of breaking news. It's really a serious problem for American democracy. http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/media/al-jazeera-america/index.html
BBC World News is available on cable. I predicted AJ would fold...did they seriously think a channel with that name (which to the average american sounds like just another terrorist group...Al Qaeda for example) would be successful in the US? It bewilders me how smart people can sometimes be so dumb. Almost serves them right.

Yes Cuthbert and furthermore I forget, what was so special about Al Jazeera?
The NYT is online. If one can’t get the news in this day and age you aren’t awake.

Yes Cuthbert and furthermore I forget, what was so special about Al Jazeera? It's been truly fair and balanced with broad coverage of international news (not just through the lens of the Americn view--something rare to non existent on television. The NYT is online. If one can't get the news in this day and age you aren't awake.
It's a welcome option to see it on screen and see and hear newsclips and people speaking. Reading the news in a newpaper or online is a different experience altogether, and even the Times is biased in some of its coverage, It is nearly always pro-Israel, for example, no matter what the issue. It also has an American bias, generally. Lois

Al Jezeera will be available online. Not as good or as convenient as on television, but better than nothing.
Doha and New York: Al Jazeera Media Network on Wednesday announced from Doha its intention to expand its existing international digital services to broaden its multi-platform presence in the United States. As audiences increasingly turn to multiple platforms, including mobile devices, for news and information, this expansion will allow US and non-US consumers alike to access the Network’s journalism and content wherever and whenever they want.
The expanded digital platform will augment the Network’s successful current digital offerings, including AJ+ which has achieved more than two billion online video views since its inception in September 2014.
The Network’s commitment to its digital transformation of its global operations is consistent with its mission to inform and engage audiences no matter who or where they are. By expanding its digital content and distribution services to now include the US, the Network will be better positioned to innovate and compete in an overwhelmingly digital world to serve today’s 24-hour digitally focused audience.
Over the coming months the Network intends to provide more details around the forthcoming expansion of its multi-platform digital services to the US.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/al-jazeera-160113151725873.html

I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News.
I don’t watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc.
News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn’t, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines.
Anyone who can’t do this, shouldn’t bother watching the news to begin with…the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.

Yes Cuthbert and furthermore I forget, what was so special about Al Jazeera? It's been truly fair and balanced with broad coverage of international news (not just through the lens of the Americn view--something rare to non existent on television. The NYT is online. If one can't get the news in this day and age you aren't awake.
It's a welcome option to see it on screen and see and hear newsclips and people speaking. Reading the news in a newpaper or online is a different experience altogether, and even the Times is biased in some of its coverage, It is nearly always pro-Israel, for example, no matter what the issue. It also has an American bias, generally. Lois I agree that it is a significant loss, in terms of the availability of a relatively unbiased, and relatively comprehensive, TV news source for American audiences.
I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News. I don't watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc. News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn't, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines. Anyone who can't do this, shouldn't bother watching the news to begin with...the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.
You and I have powers of discernment that most Americans, I daresay, do not have, when it comes to interpreting "news". It would be better, I think, if most Americans had more, relatively unbiased and comprehensive news sources, rather than less. Since we live in a society that, at least, in principle, strives to be a democracy, the fewer of us who are ignorant, the better, I would say.
You and I have powers of discernment that most Americans, I daresay, do not have, when it comes to interpreting "news". It would be better, I think, if most Americans had more, relatively unbiased and comprehensive news sources, rather than less. Since we live in a society that, at least, in principle, strives to be a democracy, the fewer of us who are ignorant, the better, I would say.
Some points for any of us to consider... 1. Do most people want straight news? 2. Is it even possible to make straight news appealing or "marketable" in this information deluge age?(bad word combo there...deluge-age...ooof.) I'm curious on anyone's thoughts.
You and I have powers of discernment that most Americans, I daresay, do not have, when it comes to interpreting "news". It would be better, I think, if most Americans had more, relatively unbiased and comprehensive news sources, rather than less. Since we live in a society that, at least, in principle, strives to be a democracy, the fewer of us who are ignorant, the better, I would say.
Some points for any of us to consider... 1. Do most people want straight news? 2. Is it even possible to make straight news appealing or "marketable" in this information deluge age?(bad word combo there...deluge-age...ooof.) I'm curious on anyone's thoughts.Very good point. It'd be interesting to conduct a study where two news programs are made available in exactly the same markets, timeslots, etc. AND feature the same exact commercials BUT one only has news stories that are negative, and the other only positive. Then, see which one is more profitable. I'll bet you it'd be the positive news channel.
Very good point. It'd be interesting to conduct a study where two news programs are made available in exactly the same markets, timeslots, etc. AND feature the same exact commercials BUT one only has news stories that are negative, and the other only positive. Then, see which one is more profitable. I'll bet you it'd be the positive news channel.
That's a slightly different take but that would be interesting. You think positive? Hmnn. My test would be to have one news channel that just gave the straight news. And another that colored the news with commentary and nuance.
I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News. I don't watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc. News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn't, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines. Anyone who can't do this, shouldn't bother watching the news to begin with...the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.
There is no news source in the world that is unbuased one way or another. The thing to do is get your news from the least biased sources--more than one is preferable--and analyze it yourself. I would never include Fox news in my least biased list. It will skew your analysis. You should include foreign news sources, too. Lois
I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News. I don't watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc. News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn't, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines. Anyone who can't do this, shouldn't bother watching the news to begin with...the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.
You and I have powers of discernment that most Americans, I daresay, do not have, when it comes to interpreting "news". It would be better, I think, if most Americans had more, relatively unbiased and comprehensive news sources, rather than less. Since we live in a society that, at least, in principle, strives to be a democracy, the fewer of us who are ignorant, the better, I would say. Yes, I agree. Al Jezeera gives a broader perspective than US news does. We need a fair and reasonable news source to do that. American news sources are just too biased toward exclusively American interests. We live in a global economy and we need a global perspective--but we don't have it. When the United Stares was the undisputed "leader" of the world it was a different story. Then we could ride roughshod over everyone else and threaten military attack every time we didn't get our way. It didn't matter so much if our news was biased toward America almost exclusively. It's now one of many powers and we need to learn how to share power. It will never again be the way it was when we were the only game in town; we'd better get used to the idea fast and learn what other people's needs and wants are instead of strong-arming everyone and dismissing their needs as we did for two centuries. The world has changed but US news has stayed the same. L
I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News. I don't watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc. News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn't, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines. Anyone who can't do this, shouldn't bother watching the news to begin with...the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.
Well said, separating the real thing from the nonsense is simple for anyone who doesn't live under a rock. All the bitching about the news we hear of really comes down to which personalities someone likes.
I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News. I don't watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc. News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn't, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines. Anyone who can't do this, shouldn't bother watching the news to begin with...the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.
Well said, separating the real thing from the nonsense is simple for anyone who doesn't live under a rock. All the bitching about the news we hear of really comes down to which personalities someone likes. Unfortunately most of the American population does live under a rock and American news helps keep them there. Lois
I have the ability to get the news from any source. Even Fox News. I don't watch news to get opinion or takes or slants etc. News should be straight reporting. Facts. But if it isn't, I can easily discern what is going on by reading between the lines. Anyone who can't do this, shouldn't bother watching the news to begin with...the problems this creates are very evident nowadays.
Well said, separating the real thing from the nonsense is simple for anyone who doesn't live under a rock. All the bitching about the news we hear of really comes down to which personalities someone likes. Unfortunately most of the American population does live under a rock and American news helps keep them there. Loislol, my point.

The thing is, “news” sources are not the same as they used to be. They have evolved. “News” networks, more than ever are sources of spreading memes for particular ideologies, rather than purveyors of relatively objective information. The obvious example is Fox. The less obvious newcomer for right wing propaganda is One America News.
One might suspect that a network named “Al Jazeera” would be a biased propaganda network for Arab ideology, but it has been, in fact, one of the most unbiased and comprehensive purveyor of relevant information.
There is a war, of sorts, going on for the belief systems of Americans… and, in the arena of TV network news, and talk radio, right wing ideology is winning that war, hands down. They have the advantage of not needing to rely on objective facts. They have the advantage of better funding (whether that be corporate funding through commercials or thru the backing of individual plutocrat wannabes). They have the advantage of most Americans wanting simple answers that fit their transiently occurring emotions, rather than nuanced answers that address complex realties.
Politically speaking, what it comes down to in our quasi-democracy, is who can get who to believe what. News sources that strive to present purely objective information are a dying species. News sources that pretend to present objective information as their primary objective, while actually promoting an ideological agenda, are thriving.
Now, really. Is that a good thing?

Some guy named Orwell warned about these developments.