
Why can't people in US watch Al Jazeera? - mih
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/28/dahl_al_jazeera/index.html
======
ajays
Every time Al Jazeera is brought up, people claim that it is anti-semitic,
racist, anti-US, etc.

But to that I say: so what? Do you think Americans are that stupid that they
won't see antisemitism? Do you think we're little children who can't think for
ourselves?

As the old adage goes, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". If
Al Jazeera is indeed "the enemy", then all the more reason to make Al Jazeera
widely available!

Plus: when Al Jazeera started, the staff was almost entirely made up of BBC
MiddleEast service people. So while they worked for BBC, they were unbiased;
but the moment they started working for AJ, they became biased and completely
untrustworthy!!

IMHO, this opposition to Al Jazeera comes from the fact that they (AJ) don't
tow the 'company line'. There's a carefully crafted story around which news is
reported in the US ("US = good; Middle-Easterners = uneducated religious
bigots; Israelis = poor victims who can't do no wrong; etc." ) ; unfortunately
for AJ, they refuse to follow this line and hence piss off powerful people
here.

And before someone starts putting words in my mouth: I support Israeli people,
and want them to live secure, peaceful, happy lives in Israel. In other words:
I support the Israeli people, but not necessarily the actions of their
government.

~~~
mambodog
As I mentioned below, I find it disingenuous that people often use the term
'anti-semitic' when they mean 'anti-Israel', as if any judgement on the
actions of the state of Israel automatically implies hate of Jewish people.

~~~
srean
Not only that. Jewish people are not the only Semites. Arabs are Semites too.
The word anti-semitic has totally lost all of its literal meaning, much like
the word hacker.

~~~
thomasz
This is -- pardon my french -- either the most dishonest or the most
uninformed argument that has been made on this topic so far.

~~~
derleth
I don't think it's either, just a rant about how natural languages need to
MAKE SENSE DAMMIT!

It's a common failure among the half-educated.

~~~
srean
Heh! I had so far restrained myself from adding to the thread. But it tickles
me a great deal to see how just an observation can fuel nay-saying and name
calling. I never made a moral judgment and neither am I ignorant of the
typical use of the word. But was not aware that such usage ruled out making
observations that the well used and common rule of "anti-blah" does not apply
in this case. Then I added another example were words sometimes do not mean
what they are supposed to mean. Oh the outrage, I wonder were it comes from
:).

<tongue in cheek> If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian
accent is _the_ canonical accent. After all there are more who use it.
</tongue in cheek>

~~~
demallien
* If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it.*

I know it's tongue in cheek and all, but I've heard this repeated a few too
many times recently, so for the record:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_num...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers)

Summary: 226 million "native" speakers of English, plus 90 million with
English as a second language. I'd suggest that the canonical English accent is
actually American. And whilst it is true that India will probably overtake the
US in this regard in the not too distant future, they too will probably be
eclipsed by the Chinese
(<http://www.economist.com/node/6803197?story_id=6803197>) before that
happens.

Regardless, the traditional anglo-saxon countries will hold sway as the main
proponents of English for a long time, as aside from the US there is also the
UK (60-odd million), Canada(35 million), Australia(20-odd million), New
Zealand (5 million), and South Africa (50 million) to throw into the mix,
giving a total of somewhere around 500 million native speakers.

~~~
srean
Whoa! No way India has 226 million "native" speakers of English. It still
would be under a quarter million. But upvoted for checking. Tongue was very
much in my cheek in my previous comment, so all can rest easy :)

    
    
      but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently
    

I havent heard it before and that is indeed strange given that I am Indian.

~~~
demallien
:D Yup, I read it wrong... 226 000, not 226 million. Which means that India
has a _looooong_ way to go before getting to number one!

------
r11t
For Linux users wanting to watching without using browser + flash, using
mplayer + rtmpdump:

    
    
      rtmpdump -v -r rtmp://livestfslivefs.fplive.net/livestfslive-live/ -y "aljazeera_en_veryhigh?videoId=747084146001&lineUpId=&pubId=665003303001&playerId=751182905001&affiliateId=" -W "http://admin.brightcove.com/viewer/us1.24.04.08.2011-01-14072625/federatedVideoUI/BrightcovePlayer.swf -p "http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ -a "aljazeeraflashlive-live?videoId=747084146001&lineUpId=&pubId=665003303001&playerId=751182905001&affiliateId=" | mplayer -

~~~
borism
just pulled rtmpdump from macports (I already have mplayer, of course) and I
can confirm it works on mac too... except their rtmp provider seems to be
getting killed right now.

I would recommend switching to Livestation, quality isn't as good, but at
least it works (on Linux too).

~~~
davidchua
It works fine on my linux box. Is there anyway to adjust the screensize to
full-screen?

~~~
yaix
[F11]?

~~~
duskwuff
The default binding is 'f', iirc.

------
iuguy
The reason people in the US can't watch Al Jazeera on TV is because it doesn't
fit into the US MSM model. Modern US news isn't about news, it's about opinion
and entertainment.

I don't know many Americans that watch Fox, but of those that I do know, they
wouldn't watch Al Jazeera partly because it's not American (and therefore not
trustworthy - with the exception of the BBC) but mainly because of the long
form nature of the stories and focus on the news rather than building an
emotionally charged narrative.

~~~
gcb
exactly. just like the history channel wouldn't date to show long feature
history instead of opinions and repetition of a non-fact theory.

or the discovery showing something scientific, and not red neck soap opera
while they chop bikes or trees.

------
araneae
They can. <http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/>

~~~
spooneybarger
Whenever I try, it barely works and usually crashes. Right now, barely works
would be a kind description.

The stations I get via cable/sat tv etc don't have scaling problems of this
sort. They might have crap coverage and you could argue that is a scaling
issue of some sort but.. at least I can manage to watch.

~~~
ComputerGuru
There's an alternate feed available from livestation in both SD and HD
editions. <http://www.livestation.com/channels/3-al_jazeera_english>

And a RealPlayer live stream, which (as much as RealPlayer sucks) may be a
better choice than Flash. But it's pretty low-def:
<http://europe.real.com/smil/aljazeera_us_lo.ram>

~~~
w1ntermute
> as much as RealPlayer sucks

No need for RealPlayer. Just get Media Player Classic Home Cinema
(<http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/>) and Real Alternative
(<http://www.filehippo.com/download_real_alternative/>). With that
combination, RealMedia streams have become one of my favorites. You can do the
same with QuickTime, by getting QuickTime Lite
(<http://www.filehippo.com/download_quicktime_alternative/>).

~~~
ComputerGuru
I don't think they do live streams. I'm on Mac, and usually use VLC to watch
RealPlayer files, but I couldn't get to the RealPlay live media (.ram files).

~~~
w1ntermute
MPC-HC + RealAlternative can play RealMedia files that VLC (and MPlayer)
can't. But this is the best option (IMHO):
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2156494>

------
getsat
There is a large subset of the US population that would distrust any
information from an Arabic source.

BBC, Reuters, and Al Jazeera are amazing compared to CNN/MSNBC/FOX.

~~~
jacobmg
PBS is a better fit to be compared to BBC. You can find low-brow entertainment
based news in the UK and every other country with a free media. It's not like
you can't access quality news in the US and Al Jazeera has to swoop in and
save the day.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Which television news network in the US has had better coverage of the Egypt
protests than Al Jazeera? I mean, MSNBC and CNN are using the Al Jazeera feed
for their coverage in some cases....

------
noonespecial
Interesting. I have cox cable in DC, we get Al Jazeera, and it has been most
useful. When the gulf oil spill was happening and we wanted to find out what
was going on, I turned to CNN only to get 20 minutes on Katy Perry's freakin
wardrobe controversy. Al Jazeera to the rescue.

~~~
smhinsey
By pure coincidence I have it on in the background right now in Arlington. I
have FiOS but I assume Comcast has a similarly wide array of news channels. I
chalked it up to the area. I've certainly never had it anywhere else I've
lived, up and down the East Coast.

------
CountSessine
It's surprising just how good a new source Al Jazeera is.

I wish my cable operator let me subscribe to Al Jazeera in lieu of CNN.

~~~
nodata
In all seriousness, they could generate the news on CNN with an algorithm and
it would be immensely better than what they pump out now.

~~~
yummyfajitas
CNN isn't generated by an algorithm? I thought they were just scraping
twitter.

~~~
borism
_CNN isn't generated by an algorithm?_

it's called Proprietary Relevant News Generating algorithm also abbreviated as
PRNG.

~~~
rasur
It sounds a bit random to me.

------
rospaya
Note that CNN International is a class better than CNN that you watch in the
US. They carry less opinion and showbiz and more news and business, although
go in-depth only in rare shows.

I used to switch between CNN and BBC in the 90s because of the great
correspondent network they both had.

~~~
maqr
I don't get CNN International or BBC News on Comcast, but I do think it's
amusing that every time CNN needs real reporting (like when the Egypt story
broke), they just cut to CNN International, where at least some level of real
reporting is happening.

------
defroost
Their website is excellent. The recently acquired leaked documents, The
Palestinian Papers, are fascinating reading.

[http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122...](http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html)

And I just saw an interview with PJ Crowley about Egypt. There is no US
reporter that would ever ask such tough questions as the Aljazeera
interviewer. No way.

<http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/01/27-1>

~~~
nkassis
7+ minutes is a long interview. That would be interesting to see, what is the
average time guest are given in interviews on different news channel. It that
piece it seemed as if Crowley had a message tailored for under 2-3 minutes but
as it went longer it became way repetitive.

------
mmaunder
There is an opportunity for Al Jazeera in the USA because the signal to
garbage ratio on our local networks has become intolerable.

Most thinkers in this country get their news from the web, but live TV still
has it's merits and there is a cavernous gap in the market for quality
international news coverage right now.

If Al Jazeera manage to capture some of that market, they could attract a more
educated (and wealthier) demographic than CNN, CNBC and Fox. i.e. a more
lucrative market for advertisers.

Because they're streaming online, there really is very little standing in
their way. If I was a major US network, I'd sit up and take notice.

Al Jazeera reaches over 100 million homes:

[http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2007/10/200852518483043...](http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2007/10/2008525184830438575.html)

It wouldn't take much to become the most popular international network in the
country.

Prime time viewers over the age of 2:

Fox News: 2.1 million

MSNBC: 950k

CNN: 483k

CNBC: 303k

HLN: 462k

Source: Nielsen, Jan 28, 2011.

[http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/28/cable-news-
ratin...](http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/28/cable-news-ratings-for-
thursday-january-27-2011-piers-tumbles/80643)

------
jat850
In Canada, at least two cable operators that I know of offer Al Jazeera as a
subscription channel.

~~~
nkassis
Yeah satellite (Bell) has it available. I was going to change my channels
soon, I might see if it's worth it. I'd also like BBC in HD.

------
linhir
The article reminded me of this quotation from JFK: "We are not afraid to
entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien
philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its
people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is
afraid of its people."

------
Isofarro
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English> \-- lists loads of options
for watching, from online, to terrestrial, cable, to satellite, to Internet
TV.

------
seiha
Al Jazeera is freely available over FTA through GlobeCast worldtv.
[http://www.globecastwtv.com/America/WhatsOnWTV/FreeToAirOnly...](http://www.globecastwtv.com/America/WhatsOnWTV/FreeToAirOnly.aspx?Encrypted=Free-
to-Air)

------
kingkawn
I've had the website on for two days straight, it has hardly even staggered.
The coverage is amazing.

------
mmaunder
<http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/>

~~~
bigwally
I would like to watch the HD version?

What is this RealPlayer thing? sounds like a virus.

------
zackb
Hey Guys, check out our startup Frequency. You can see quite a bit of al
jazeera. <http://www.frequency.com/aljazeera>

------
kennywinker
more importantly, why can't people OUTSIDE the US watch hulu?

------
richardw
That's very interesting - I assumed it _was_ widely available. I'm in South
Africa and have been watching it as much as BBC World News or CNN, more so
over the last few months. What I do like about it is that there's a fair
amount of actual 'world news' - stuff from countries that are hardly on my
radar.

------
keeptrying
There's also an iPhone app for watching aljazeera now. It's a great way to
watch it on iPad. Great feed.

------
smackfu
Isn't the real reason that the number of people who watch cable news is
already a small minority of the cable subscribers, and they are already split
three ways? Adding another cable news network isn't going to appeal to anyone
new.

------
Duff
After watching about 45 minutes of inane coverage of Egypt on CNN and Fox,
probably because they are controlled by an offshore entity and don't offer a
point of view remarkably in line with whatever Washington is putting out.

------
garfio
La libertad de información, para decirla y recibirla, tiene que ser ilímite.
Los gobiernos, coomo el deEstados Unidos, que temen a la libretad de prensa,
algo esconden. +Adelante, se;ores de Al/Jazeera!

------
eli
This seems like a question for Reddit

------
gnosis
Does anyone have a direct link to a feed that can be loaded up in mplayer or
vlc?

------
alanh
“Comcast, Charter, Time Warner, Dish Network and DirecTV all passed.”

------
guscost
What is the point of this article? I've been able to watch Al Jazeera the past
few days just fine, and I don't subscribe to any cable company. Why are these
old media folks acting like television is still relevant?

------
jwcacces
because americans are afraid of everything

~~~
chunkyslink
Thats why they carry guns. They are even afraid of each other.

Amazing.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Thats why they carry guns. They are even afraid of each other.

They should be afraid, they've all got guns.

------
berntb
Well, there seems to be much interesting information missed from the US air
waves... :-)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Yusuf_al...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Yusuf_al-
Qaradawi)

In a sermon, which aired on _Al-Jazeera TV_ on January 9, 2009 [...] "Oh
Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the
treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band
of people. [...] Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of
people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their
numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

Edit: I quoted (from Wikipedia) the content of the TV channel people want to
show in the western world. Down voting is for lack of counter arguments?

Edit 2: I think it is really funny that I get downvoted a lot for noting that
antisemitic hatred and prayers for genocide are sent on Al J -- the non-
English one...

~~~
borism
cause they get their share of antisemitism from Fox:
<http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002>

~~~
berntb
You defend Al Jazeera's (with other muslim media) airing of antisemitic
content -- because Fox News is garbage?

I can't see any other way how criticism of Fox can be relevant to what I
wrote. And your argument's logic was worthy of Fox.

Edit: I had a joke (HUMOR PARENTHESIS!) in a comment that "much interesting
information was missing". Then I quoted a prayer for genocide of people of
another religion from Al Jazeera. I DID NOT A CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO ANTI
SEMITISM IN US MEDIA (hardly organized racism at least, it is taboo in the
western world). I might also add -- you understood that.

Edit 2: Anyway, it was really funny that you got up voted so much for that --
and I've been down voted in two threads for showing that Al J has extreme
racist content...

~~~
borism
where did I sound like I was defending Al Jazeera's antisemitism?

You claimed that US airwaves lack antisemitism and I refuted your claim.

------
hugh3
I hate to be "Why is this on HN" guy, but why is this on HN?

------
jacobmg
Here's why: <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/>

"Israel: The ugly truth", "A week of racism in Israel", "An education in
inequality"

Notice something out of proportion here?

I know many people are keen to jump on the "Al Jazeera is great" bandwagon,
but this level of intolerance is simply not appealing to Americans. Yes, there
is anti-Islamic sentiment to a degree among a small portion of Americans, but
it doesn't reach the levels on display here. This is a pattern of Al
Jazeera's, which makes sense because news organizations do tend to slant their
views to fit general trends among the populations of the countries they serve
in.

It makes a lot more sense that Al Jazeera is so well spoken of here just
because it is a significant shift from what were used to in the feeble
mainstream US media, rather than Al Jazeera actually putting a much deeper
level of intellectual effort into their news. In reality it's just an illusion
that it's something objectively better. As far as the sometimes thorough
reports Al Jazeera puts out, people must realize that PBS and NPR are also
American news organizations.

~~~
rdtsc
> In reality it's just an illusion that it's something objectively better.

Why do you say that? They do seem to have a better and broader news coverage.

> "Israel: The ugly truth" ... Notice something out of proportion here?

No. I think it is a well written article. Are you implying that anyone
criticizing Israel should be automatically discarded on the basis of
intolerance?

~~~
jacobmg
> Are you implying that anyone criticizing Israel should be automatically
> discarded on the basis of intolerance?

You don't seem to have listened. It wasn't about that one article, it was
about their _coverage_ of the issue, which is skewed in one obvious direction.
And by the way, the article is nothing more than a bunch of anecdotes
misrepresented as an accurate representation of the issue (the article itself
even acknowledges this but ignores the implications.) When you take instances
of violence by individuals and try to assert it's a general pattern, that is
hate mongering, plain and simple. Quote from the article:

'Bayu says: "It's obvious that [things] can go to another level. This is what
happened in Germany and many other places."'

Look, it even comes with allusions to the comparison of Israel and the Nazis!

>Why do you say that? They do seem to have a better and broader news coverage.

"They do seem" as a claim on it's own has no persuasive power.

~~~
teyc
Jacob, are you in Israel? Would you care to shed some perspective? For
instance, are the races segregated? Are children taught to distrust other
races? Are they taught all peoples are equal?

~~~
jacobmg
Just an American here, but there is no racial segregation or systematized
racism of any kind in Israel. 'Racism' and 'Apartheid' are just thrown around
carelessly at Israel by some critics.

~~~
teyc
You are just making things up.

~~~
jacobmg
No, everything claimed is easy to verify. Races aren't segregated, racism
isn't taught (as in, it's not part of the curriculum.) All races are equal
under Israeli law. Your education on this subject had to have been seriously
skewed to think otherwise.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Segregation doesn't have to be official and in the written law for it to
exist.

Segregation is a real fact in every day Israeli life, as I saw in a 2 year
stint from '04 to '06. Since we're talking AlJazeera, here's a recent article
on segregation and mixed Israeli-Palestinian couples:
[http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201112...](http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/01/201112912322207901.html)

~~~
true_religion
I think it is widely accepted that state-sponsored segregation and
institutional racism are wrong, and should be removed.

However, its a lot harder to make the case that it is _wrong_ for people to
freely choose to separate themselves into ethnic ghettos in the absence of
government controls.

To make a comparison to America, consider an Italian living in a "Little
Italy"-style enclave, who believes it would be best for him or her to marry
Italian-Americans.

Are they a troubling group? Do we perhaps need UN intervention to ease the
tension between them and other near by ethnic enclaves?

