America responds to Al Jazeera: "Oh."

[kpete]

[onehandle]

1. I can't help but think that 'Al Jazeera' must make many wary of them.

They should call it 'The Kardashian News Network' to get broad acceptance in 'Murka.

[truebluegreen]

2. Priceless.

[totodeinhere]

3. Their management has said that they do not intend to compete with the other

cable news channels on the basis of ratings. They want to produce an alternative for those who want straight and in depth news, but they have no illusions about ratings, especially since they will be in only half as many homes as the other news channels. They are backed by a parent company with very deep pockets and their aim is to have a presence in this country, not to be a ratings juggernaut.

And BTW, when I refer to those other channels as "cable news channels" I do that very advisably.

[Auggie]

4. Most "'Muricans" have no idea what Al Jazeera is. Guaranteed.

They would rather watch 'Murican Idol anyway.

[SCVDem]

5. Ali Velshi

I couldn't stand him on CNN and I surely won't watch on AJAm.

Did they hire him for his name?

[MgtPA]

6. I couldn't stand him on CNN either, but I saw him yesterday.

Big difference, I thought; toned down and not as annoying.

[starroute]

7. I've been watching heavily and so far I like them

I've had some nasty bug this week, so I've been flaked out on the couch flipping channels -- and since AJAM started on Tuesday, I've been mostly there except when shows repeat.

I was impressed that they consider climate change to be a thing and not a controversy.

I was impressed that they interviewed Daniel Ellsberg at length about the Bradley Manning verdict.

I really enjoyed their investigative segment on the United Nations not taking responsibility for bringing cholera to Haiti -- which reached almost Michael Moore-like heights when their reporter started pursuing UN dignitaries through the halls of the United Nations building, until they threw him out and told him never to come back.

I love how many women they have in high profile positions, almost none of whom are bleached blonds, and what a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds they feature.

I'm struck by the fact that their background segments feature actual experts and not the usual think-tank "experts." When those segments end, I feel I know more than I did before rather than less.

It remains to be seen what their weak spots are, what subjects they avoid or soft-peddle, where they short out. But so far, I'm very happy.

[underpants]

8. I have looking for it I don't know if we are even getting it here

Richmond va

[MgtPA]

9. Comcast channel 107 in Philly, replacing Current TV in the lineup

[starroute]

12. If you were formerly getting Current TV, you probably now have AJ

We get it on Dish Network, but the name hasn't yet been replaced in the on-screen menus, so you wouldn't necessarily know it was there.

According to Wikipedia, "Al Jazeera America is expected to replace Current TV on Comcast, Dish Network, Verizon and DirecTV. Due to a contract dispute, AT&T U-verse will not be carrying the Al Jazeera America network. Al Jazeera responded with a lawsuit against AT&T for breach of contract. Shortly after the acquisition announcement, Time Warner Cable, which broadcasts Current TV to nine million households, stated that it will drop Current TV because it did not consent to its sale to Al Jazeera. The cable operator later said it will consider carriage of Al Jazeera America. The two are currently in negotiations over carriage of the channel."

Here's a page that will let you know if your carrier provides it and tell you how to request it if they don't. http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/getajam.html

[Fawke Em]

15. Nope. AT&T yanked it.

Now Al Jazeera is suing them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/20/al-jazeera-america-launches/2679407/

I WANT to watch it and can't. And we switched to AT&T because they carried Current.

Sucks.

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. I wonder if other countries have segments of their populations

that are as hateful, prejudiced, and nasty toward other segments of their populations as we are.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. Can't think of a single one. n/t

[polichick]

11. Unfortunately, a lot of 'Murkins are truly dumbshits...

That's really why we're in this mess - easily manipulated dumbshit citizens.

[malaise]

13. Delish

Rec

[DonCoquixote]

14. I welcome AJZ

though I truly miss Current, as it did serve a badly needed niche.

[UTUSN]

16. I'll say the unpopular thing: Well, it IS deadly dull in delivery.

Yeah yeah, all the suspicions that I am a Neanderthal are finally confirmed from my own mouth. And, GASP, I also don't habituate NPR, PBS, and CSPAN (except BookTV).

I'll just say that life is short and getting shorter as it goes, and I need to get a point and move on to the next one. No, I don't need pretty mannequins downloading sounds from their mouths, but it would help if the MINDS yapping at me give, at least, the semblance of being LIVELY, even a little WITTY, instead of unrelentingly INTENSE and deadly DEPRESSED.

Try an experiment: Univision vs some American outlets. In my area the American local outlets are staffed with drab looking people, piercing their eyes into the camera lenses, behaving like robots who are "professional journalists." Switch it to Univision and there are bright colors, lively people, and dare I say, frequent SMILES.

No, this isn't a sign of my superficiality. All of those people are READERS, not PROFOUND people. It is a fallacy that you have to be dull as a two by four board stunning others on the head in order to communicate information, maybe just the opposite if you're knocking them unconscious.

[cascadiance]

17. I think we've been getting too used to tabloid style "flair" in so-called "news media"

I really do think they are wise to try and just find a way back to providing what Americans used to have and many of us miss (and many aren't aware existed before), and that is objective Walter Cronkite style old journalism of the past, or at least an attempt to be that way. Hoping they do a good job of that and find a way to overcome some people's prejudices to be given a chance by them if they do things right.

I keep pointing out that many of them that wouldn't want to watch a channel owned by those from the middle east are already doing so when they watch Faux News, since it has heavy ownership by Saudis. Perhaps if they are confronted with that fact, they might consider looking at Al Jazeera.

I think that keeping it a non-opinionated channel is probably why Al Jazeera didn't keep on the Young Turks and other similar Current shows, as they tended to be pretty opinionated, and might work against the image they're trying to create now. And so many other channels have a "punditocracy", whether it is for liberals or conservatives, that it is perhaps a good idea to step out of that mold.

I do think there's a role for a Current TV-style channel. I think FSTV is trying to evolve in to that now, with taking on Bill Press in addition to having Thom Hartman, Dave Pakman, and Ring of Fire shows on the weekends. Not sure they are resourced enough to provide it to everyone, but they're doing a pretty decent job of it now. I think they're growing a theme and an audience. I think LINK TV has dropped back a bit and might more now without carrying Al Jazeera. They need to develop more of a personality that grows a bigger unique audience. Not sure they want to do a "me to" approach to do the evolution that FSTV is doing now, but they probably need to do more of a newer reset soon.