
Al Jazeera America to Shut Down in April - coloneltcb
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/business/media/al-jazeera-america-to-shut-down-in-april.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
======
rogerbinns
The article did not mention Al Jazeera deciding to remove their Internet
streaming, and requiring that you can only view via your local cable provider.
See this page with the big note to US people:
[http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/201146152255537258.html](http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/201146152255537258.html)

I used to check in on their coverage on the Roku channel, but they made a
business decision to prevent that. I can understand their decision to make
their success dependent on the existing way of doing content business in the
US (cable channels), but the number of cord cutters keeps increasing, the most
valuable segment for advertisers (younger folk) are the most likely cord
cutters (or cord nevers), and the cable business depends heavily on bundling.
For example Disney owns ESPN (most of it), so they can make the cable
companies to take a portfolio of channels, or get none of them. Al Jazeera had
no such leverage.

Their business model was a big gamble, based on the past, and didn't work.

~~~
brightball
Whenever people talk about the money in college football right now, I
generally tell them to blame Tivo (and subsequently Netflix). Tivo started it
with the ability to record and watch later while fast forwarding through
commercials. Netflix with it's mountains of commercial free content followed
next.

That put a huge advertising premium on content that people NEED to watch live
like sports or hit shows like Walking Dead that have community reactions as
episodes air.

The reality for cord cutters and cable companies alike is that, if it weren't
for ESPN I'd have no reason to have cable. It's the only reason I have a pay
TV package.

When you break down the technology, that won't change anytime soon either.

With Netflix or other streaming services 50,000 TVs is 50,000 individual
streaming sessions. With a broadcast 50,000 people watching the same thing is
1 broadcast. It's just a question of scalability that gets complicated if
millions of people all want to watch the same thing at the exact same time.

~~~
peckrob
> The reality for cord cutters and cable companies alike is that, if it
> weren't for ESPN I'd have no reason to have cable. It's the only reason I
> have a pay TV package.

During college football season I got a Sling subscription solely to watch
college football (ESPN and the SEC Network mostly). I never even really used
the Sling app much - it's terrible, crashes a lot, and isn't on AppleTV. I
just used my Sling account to connect to WatchESPN. That, plus an antenna for
the marquee matchups on the major networks covered everything I wanted to see
this last year at 1/6 the cost of a cable subscription.

All of my football-watching friends were doing the same thing this year.

The fact is, if I could, I would pay ESPN directly what I paid Sling for
access to WatchESPN. Because, just like cable, Sling was giving me a bunch of
stuff I don't really care about just to get ESPN. There's nothing else on TV
that I can't wait for other than sports.

> With Netflix or other streaming services 50,000 TVs is 50,000 individual
> streaming sessions. With a broadcast 50,000 people watching the same thing
> is 1 broadcast. It's just a question of scalability that gets complicated if
> millions of people all want to watch the same thing at the exact same time.

I really don't think the problem here is technological so much as it is
economic. The scalability problems could be solved if there was the will. But
according to one article [0] an unbunbled or streaming subscriber would need
to pay $36 a month for ESPN access for them to generate the same revenue they
generate through current cable carriage contracts. Considering ESPN is
starting to feel the crunch [1] from cord cutting and is beginning to trim
costs, I imagine it will eventually become a reality.

[0]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2015/03/25/are-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2015/03/25/are-
you-willing-to-pay-36-per-month-for-espn/)

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-television-espn-
househo...](http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-television-espn-households-
layoffs-2015-10)

~~~
cptskippy
> an unbunbled or streaming subscriber would need to pay $36 a month for ESPN
> access for them to generate the same revenue they generate through current
> cable carriage contracts.

ESPN and professional sports are way over valued and forcing everyone to
subsidize sports fans. This is literally the reason why people are becoming
cord-cutters, they're tired of paying for things they don't want. Right now 1
in 6 cable subscribers watch ESPN but 6 in 6 cable subscribers pay for it.
Cable companies really need to move to an a-la-carte pricing model if they
want survive but they're afraid of the large networks pulling their bundles.
It's almost like we need a cable monopoly or union to break the network
monopolies.

~~~
mapt
"1 in 6 watches it, 6 in 6 pay for it".

Except that the marginal cost of providing ESPN service to people who do not
watch ESPN is nearly zero.

A-la-carte pricing makes sense if the corporation is spending a-la-carte
costs, but they're not: the cable hookup and maintenance costs almost the same
either way. There are some issues with a cap on the number of channels that
can be simultaneously transmitted in a cable pipe, but it's perfectly feasible
to launch a few hundred simulcast channels on current tech. You're not paying
for the stuff you don't watch, you're paying for what you do watch; Providing
the selection of things that you can refuse to watch, is basically free.

~~~
MereInterest
The cost of the hookup is just one part of the cost. Licensing fees are also
present. A quick Google search finds that for ESPN, these are on the order of
$5/customer/month. For someone who doesn't watch ESPN, that is a hefty subsidy
compared to that of other networks.

Source:[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dish-espn-trial-
off...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dish-espn-trial-
offers-a-422301)

~~~
mapt
Simple_Example_Cable_Company has 200k subscribers, charges $30/month, and
licenses:

$10/customer/month to Channel A, which has 100k viewers who only watch it

$10/customer/month to Channel B, which also has 100k viewers who only watch it

...

In 2018, consumer activists manage to break up SECC and institute an a-la-
carte system.

In 2019 they can choose to pay $20/customer/month to channel A (which is going
to charge enough to keep its revenue at $2M/month), or they can choose to pay
$20/customer/month to channel B (which is going to charge enough to keep its
revenue at $2M/month).

On top of that, to secure either channel you're going to need a $10
subscription fee to the service provider for hookup (which is going to charge
enough to keep its systems operational).

A-la-carte pricing is a zero sum game for the median viewer, so long as the
content and the infrastructure keep getting paid for. It is nothing like "But
I just want to be able to buy an appetizer, why are you making me pay for an
entree!", because appetizers and entrees are both real goods which cost money
to produce, while additional permissions to change the channel to something
else, are not real goods. Food prices will not drastically rise for the same
dish, if the customers order less of it, while entertainment prices will.

I think people are hanging their _monopolistic_ concerns, which are valid for
the most part, on a-la-carte pricing, and it's just nonsense.

~~~
unprepare
20/month is 240$ - for 240$ I can buy a season pass (40$) to 6 individual
shows. Unless i want to watch more than 6 of AMCs shows concurrently, its much
more expensive to pay 20$/ month. Even including shows that are over, I cant
think of 6 successful shows on any single cable network. (walking dead, mad
men, breaking bad, better call saul?, talking dead?, ??)

On top of this, pricing has already been set and normalized in this market.

Netflix is 7.99

amazon prime is around 8$

hulu is around 9 for ad free

hbogo is 14.99 and is seen as premium in the marketplace

I cant see any network pricing themselves above HBO and being successful.

~~~
mapt
You have succeeded in completely missing the point, by fixating on an
arbitrary number while missing the simple principle that the contrived example
is meant to illustrate.

If the service remains the same, the total that consumers pay will
_necessarily have to_ remain about the same. Instead of getting the freedom to
change channels, they'll be stuck with the limited selection they have
subscribed to. The bundling business model is a natural best fit for the
technology that permits channels to be streamed simultaneously over the same
lines; Anything else is a waste for the consumer and for the company.

You guys are chasing illusory discounts: "If I just had to pay $5 to ESPN and
I could drop everythng I don't watch..." cannot mathematically happen, because
ESPN has to crank up their prices or end most of their production to survive
as soon as their customer base drops by 90% due to the end of bundling.

~~~
unprepare
You have succeeded in completely missing the point.

It doesnt matter what ESPNs current revenue is, and it doesnt matter how many
subscribers the lose when the shift towards a la carte.

The fact is that the pricing for sports content has already happened; if ESPN
wanted to weigh in on how much sports should cost, they should have gotten to
market before the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc.

ESPN can launch at whatever price they want, but if that price exceeds the
price of the official league packages that i intend to watch, there is
absolutely 0 chance that i subscribe to ESPN

You're chasing illusory revenues, "If I just set the price at X$, we could
drop everyone who doesnt watch" cannot mathematically happen, because NFL et
al would have to crank down their prices for ESPN to remain competitive.

>or end most of their production to survive

DING DING DING - this is exactly what will happen when espn finds out people
dont value their more recent tabloid/drama centered content

An actual example:

I currently pay $150/year for NFL gamepass. This allows me to watch every
single NFL game in HD live, including pre and post season games.

150/year is 12.50/month. IF ESPN released a service costing 13/month, i
wouldn't buy it. What value does ESPN add to my existing NFL gamepass package?
Do they think i would pay 13/month purely for sportscenter? purely for their
terrible discussions of the latest drama in the sports world? Maybe if they
offered some kind of sports news and debate like they did a decade or so ago.

This is ESPN's competition. They have to compete with existing services that
already fill the need for watching sports.

I imagine ESPNs current broadcast contracts do not specifically allow them to
move to a la carte structure, nor do i imagine it allows them to begin any
kind of streaming service. I very much doubt the leagues are going to be very
kind when renegotiating those contracts now that they all have their own
streaming services.

------
rm_-rf_slash
This comes as absolutely no surprise at all. It doesn't matter if you are the
most accurate, informed, respectable news source in the world, because almost
no Americans know what Al Jazeera is, and the name evokes the image backdrop
of a middle eastern city most Americans can't find on a map, discussing topics
of primary interest to American Muslims and few else, while the female anchors
are veiled. Not to mention it sounds like a group Americans are more familiar
with that starts with "Al-".

This is almost as bad as the Latin American failure of the Chevy Nova
(Spanish: no go). They could and should have named it anything, but they
really seemed to think their brand would carry any weight at all.

One may say this is proof that Americans don't want truth and reason, just
entertainment in their news. We do, but the simple fact is that if you fail to
appeal to people's simple desires, fears, and impulses, you will fail
entirely.

~~~
hackuser
> They could and should have named it anything, but they really seemed to
> think their brand would carry any weight at all.

I also wondered at the branding, but if they tried to hide their origins they
would rightfully be accused of deception in a business, journalism, where
credibility is paramount.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I never said they had to hide their origins, just change their name. "X - an
affiliate/subsidiary of Al-Jazeera." You only see it when you actually go to
the channel. Then once you hear the reporting and commentary you can balance
it with your predispositions, but at least they have a chance to sell
themselves, if only for a minute.

If I tell you there's a new channel called "X" and you go to check it out and
notice the affiliation, then your judgement will be your own. But if I
recommend a network with an off-putting name, you likely won't check it out,
even for a second.

~~~
gotchange
Al-Jazeera just means "The Island" in Arabic. What's off putting about
something called "The Island"?

~~~
mikeash
The Arabic is what's off-putting.

~~~
gotchange
Do you feel the same when you hear "Alcohol, Algebra, Alchemy, Algorithm,
Albuquerque ...etc" or you're just turned off by "Aljazeera"?

~~~
mikeash
Albuquerque is a pretty tenuous example.

Anyway, I don't know. I'm not talking about me, just saying this is how a lot
of people react.

~~~
gotchange
No, it's not tenuous.

Americans (Spanish settlers/Mexicans?) imported the name from Spanish
(Castellano) and Spanish got it from Arabic and the list I made is just
arbitrary and there are many many more Arabic origin words starting with "Al"
that made their way to English and don't seem to have the same negative effect
on the English speaker as claimed by you and the other poster.

~~~
freehunter
It's not claimed, its real. Facebook and Twitter have this great thing where
you can see into the minds of other people, and Al-Jazeera was trending the
other day, so you got to see lots of people talking about it. Lots of hate,
literally 100% because the name sounds Arabic.

Hate doesn't care about entomology. We're talking about a country that renamed
"french fries" to "freedom fries" to protest one of our oldest allies, when
the "fries" aren't even "french" to begin with.

Albuquerque doesn't sound Arabic. Americans are familiar with it, it just
sounds funny, maybe Mexican, but it's still in America. Al-Jazeera has an
Arabic logo, Arabic anchors, and an Arabic name. These are people who key in
on the president's middle name of Hussein and use that to claim he's a Muslim
terrorist. You honestly think they wouldn't blink an eye at an Arabic news
channel?

People are perhaps a bit more xenophobic than you think they are.

~~~
gotchange
Anecdotally speaking, I had no idea that the average American was so close
minded like this that he would reject a channel just based on its foreign
name.

This level of language chauvinism is not healthy at all.

However, I truly believe that Aljazeera punched above their weight when they
ventured into the US market and that they pulled the plug quite early for any
meaningful results to materialize but I think that they could find some solace
in the fact that other established players like BBC would struggle
considerably if they entered the US market to make headway in this saturated
and hyper-competitive market.

~~~
freehunter
Yes, the problem is they didn't get enough viewers. Lots of reasons for that.
The people who are going to care about high-quality journalism and not care
about the negative connotations of an Arabic ownership are less likely to
subscribe to cable, the only place to find Al Jazeera. Conversely, the
majority of people who watch cable news tend to be older and more
conservative, which is why Fox News has the number one viewership among cable
news channels. Most people who watch Fox News will fit into the xenophobic
demographic I mentioned above. If you don't think the "average American" (in
this case "American" is defined as "someone who watches American cable news
channels", not actually the average American) is that closed minded, remember
that in 2012, Fox News had 2 million viewers compared to CNN's >700,000. Fox
News has more viewers than every other cable news channel combined. [1]

It's not necessarily about the language, it's about the connotations. If you
watch Al Jazeera, you're watching the terrorist propaganda. To the majority of
people who watch cable news, that's where the thinking ends. You're right,
it's not healthy, it's destroying our nation and the entire world with it.

Liberals are going to be pretty happy with NPR. Younger people are going to
get their news from social media, not from cable. Conservatives are going to
be very happy with Fox News. Older people aren't going to want to switch their
news channel to something unproven. Al Jazeera has no audience in the US if
they're trying to break into the cable news market.

[1] [http://press.foxnews.com/2012/12/fox-news-channel-
dominates-...](http://press.foxnews.com/2012/12/fox-news-channel-dominates-
cable-news-viewership-for-11th-consecutive-year/)

------
hackuser
This is too bad. They were one of two sources of serious news on cable TV [1]
and their global breath of coverage, including many important, original
stories I didn't see elsewhere, was exceptional.

I always held my breath a little, expecting some propaganda because Al Jazeera
is owned by the government of Qatar, but I never noticed any even in Middle
East coverage. That doesn't mean it wasn't there - the point of propaganda is
to convince the audience that it's legitimate.

[1] IMHO: The other serious news on cable is Bloomberg. Some of their content
is obvious shilling or advertorial (bring on the CEO and give them a platform
and t-ball questions), much is over-stylized, and their priority obviously is
business and not other news. However, at least they address serious topics,
and provide sophisticated analysis and valuable knowledge. Fox, CNN, MSNBC are
a complete waste of my time - all I learn is various political groups' talking
points. BBC's analysis is too superficial and too many stories are not hard
news, for my taste. As always, print/text news are by far the best sources.

~~~
Cyph0n
They do a good job of separating the regional channels from the main one. AJ
English is quite different from AJ Arabic that at times I feel it's a
different channel entirely. However as an Arab Muslim my goto is AJ Arabic as
it focuses on the region and I feel covers important events and causes. It's
documentaries and investigative pieces are awesome as well.

~~~
hackuser
> AJ English is quite different from AJ Arabic that at times I feel it's a
> different channel entirely.

I'd be very interested to know about AJ Arabic (and I don't speak Arabic at
all). If you don't mind sharing a little more: How does it differ from AJ
English?

Also, maybe 15 years ago I'd hear how AJ Arabic was the only real journalism
in the Arab world and a force for democracy and reform. Was that your
experience? Is it still?

Finally, how and how much does AJ Arabic serve Qatar's rulers' interests? How
much better or worse is it than the other government sponsored competitors
(e.g., I seem to remember Saudi Arabia runs one, and of course there is the
BBC).

The best coverage I've found, in English, of the Middle East is Haaretz and
the Jerusalem Post, both from Israel. I know people may assume they would
follow the Israeli government line but I haven't noticed it in the journalism
which reports much that challenges the government, including abuse of
Palestinians (maybe in the editorials support the government but I don't read
them, and Haaretz is against Netanyahu). They cover important stories I don't
see in AJ English and cover other stories better - though I read all three
anyway.

~~~
Cyph0n
> I'd be very interested to know about AJ Arabic (and I don't speak Arabic at
> all). If you don't mind sharing a little more: How does it differ from AJ
> English?

In general, the "feel" of the channel is different, to the point where if AJ
English had another name, you'd have no idea they're related. More
specifically, AJ English is a bit more general in its global coverage, whereas
AJ Arabic focuses more on the region. The two channels are completely
independent entities actually, and it seems to work well.

> Also, maybe 15 years ago I'd hear how AJ Arabic was the only real journalism
> in the Arab world and a force for democracy and reform. Was that your
> experience? Is it still?

Personally, I believe yes, it's the only channel that actually cares about the
Middle East. Granted, I've only been watching it for 8 years or so.

> Finally, how and how much does AJ Arabic serve Qatar's rulers' interests?
> How much better or worse is it than the other government sponsored
> competitors

As with any other news channel, AJ Arabic has a clear agenda. Put briefly:
anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, anti-Egyptian government, pro-Brotherhood, anti-Iran,
anti-Syrian government. Even with their clear biases, I feel they do a good
job showing both sides of the equation, especially in their discussion
programs.

The other competitors in the region are Al Arabiya, BBC Arabic, and France 24
Arabic. Al Arabiya is sponsored by the Saudi government I believe, but is
headquartered in the UAE. Similar to AJ, it is anti-Israel and anti-
Iran/Syria, but the rest is the opposite. So as you can see they usually cover
regional news differently. BBC Arabic and France 24 are pro-Israel and neutral
when it comes to Iran.

> The best coverage I've found, in English, of the Middle East is Haaretz and
> the Jerusalem Post, both from Israel. [...] They cover important stories I
> don't see in AJ English and cover other stories better - though I read all
> three anyway.

I have not read it to be honest. I might take a look at it when I get the
chance. However I would be truly surprised if it was actually neutral.

The way I see it is that there simply is no neutral news source. For me
however, I feel that AJ Arabic properly represents and covers the Arab/Muslim
causes, and does so in a professional manner.

~~~
hackuser
Thanks for taking the time to respond; it's hard to get that perspective in
the U.S. and on HN.

> As with any other news channel, AJ Arabic has a clear agenda.

> The way I see it is that there simply is no neutral news source.

While it's literally true (there is no perfectly neutral news source) I
disagree. There are large differences of degree. Similarly we could say that
neighborhood A as a burglary rate of 1% and neighborhood B has a rate of
0.01%, therefore all neighborhoods are dangerous. While literally true, the
statement obscures the facts.

In the U.S., Fox News is much more biased than the NY Times (or AJAM), but of
course the latter sources do have some bias.

------
phillipamann
I'm sorry but why do people love a news organization that is funded by Qatar?
People claim that they were completely separate but they weren't at all and
gripped by controversy that one would expect from an organization based out of
Qatar [1]. I think there are better sources for American and global news than
what is essentially the media arm for the corrupt and fascist government of
Qatar.

[1] [https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/al-
jazeera-...](https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/al-jazeera-
discrimination-lawsuit.pdf)

~~~
surge
Because oddly, in their attempt to build credibility, or maybe because a
completely different set of people ran the American branch or the
organization, the American version of it was really really good. It spoke out
about issues other new orgs ignore, had little in the way of sensationalism
and focus on non-sense stories and celebrity scandals. I expected some Islamic
propaganda, but it was shockingly progressive in a lot of things it reported
on (thinking mainly of its investigative specials). They would talk about the
issues with drug prohibition, abuses by police, violations of free speech, one
of the only networks that covered privacy issues especially when it comes to
the Snowden leaks, NSA, etc and gave it more than the 4th grade reading level
version of it and gave time to both arguments, didn't just end the discussion
with "because terrorists/pedophiles" like most networks. Jon Oliver regularly
used their clips in his show for a reason.

They would also mention their campaign to free investigative journalists
jailed by the Muslim Brotherhood run government in Egypt.

~~~
gotchange
> I expected some Islamic propaganda, but it was shockingly progressive

The Islamist/conservative propaganda is reserved for the Arabic speaking
channels such as their main channel AJN. They usually adopt editorial policies
and fit their narrative based on the target market and Qatari foreign
government policy goals. So, in the Arabic-speaking market, they push
reactionary and backward messages to accommodate their conservative Islamist
audience beside helping Qatar achieve goals like the wars in Yemen, Syria or
Iraq (Sectarian and Sunni dominant militant propaganda) while for its English-
speaking channels like AJE, they adopt softer stance on those issue and cater
more for the Western liberal viewer with local relevant stories and
progressive takes on current affairs.

> They would also mention their campaign to free investigative journalists
> jailed by the Muslim Brotherhood run government in Egypt.

Sisi the military dictator who staged the coup in 2013 not the MB who jailed
those 3 journalists and then reluctantly freed them after much fanfare.

------
nikolay
Al Jazeera and their AJ+ are funded by the Qatar monarchy. I closely monitor
their "news" on Facebook, the hidden agenda is so obvious! I think they might
be closing down because oil price keeps dropping.

~~~
taurath
All media has a hidden agenda - its nice to get a different one sometimes,
because when you're only exposed to one all the time you start to forget it
has an agenda. There are many things not said and topics not covered in US
media, the first and foremost being any direct representations of people
suffering from US-led military ventures.

~~~
nikolay
There's no independent media when it comes to geopolitics, unfortunately. We
as hackers should challenge the status quo!

------
curun1r
It's a sad commentary on the state of America's appetite for intelligent
analysis when serious journalism can't compete with attractive talking heads
ignorantly spouting talking points. Obama may have said that the increased
political rancor was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency, but I
think this points to how little of that was attributable to him.

Though I'd be willing to bet that their name was half their problem. With the
amount of xenophobia we're seeing these days, a large percentage of the
population likely wrote them off based solely on that and was never exposed to
their content.

~~~
roymurdock
More of a commentary on the appetite of the average cable consumer. I imagine
their online business will see an uptick as they do more streaming content and
(hopefully) continue to publish interesting pieces and documentaries,
especially on the ME, that are hard to find elsewhere.

~~~
manachar
I don't think the internet is any better. Sure, it can sustain some pockets of
awesome journalism, but sites specializing in clickbait are the most
prevalent.

------
geuis
This is a sad end to a line of good news services in the US.

My ex gf and I used to be regular viewers of Newsworld International. They
showed excellent international news programs and a lot of broadcasts from CBC.
We were disappointed when Current took over and watched the switchover as
NWI's cast signed off the last time and Current started.

Current turned out to be pretty interesting. They were aiming for a younger
demographic and were among the first cable networks to really integrate an
online presence. It wasn't the same as NWI but had good things going on and we
enjoyed watching. When I moved to SF I even worked there for a short period
and got to experience the energy of the team at the time.

We used to watch Al Jazeera online too. They've always had really good
journalism and frequently would have better coverage of American issues than
any mainstream news media here.

When AJ bought Current, it didn't really make a lot of sense to me as a
product. I think AJ wanted to make a move into American cable news, but the
department responsible for that wasn't the ones handling their existing online
English content. They wanted Current for the cable tv slot, in much the same
way Current wanted the slot from NWI. I don't know a lot about the industry,
but I think this is something like limited numbers of liquor licenses and taxi
medallions in cities.

So Al Jazeera shut down the Current office here in SF and opened a news room
in DC. They didn't do anything with the online presence Current and AJ already
had, and actually made it harder to get the old English content here.

Now they're shutting down and so ends a line of good international news in the
US.

------
lazaroclapp
Al Jazeera proper however spins this as increasing their direct (online)
presence in the U.S: [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/al-
jazeera-16011315172...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/al-
jazeera-160113151725873.html)

It always did seem weird to me how much Al Jazeera America focused on very
local issues, when the entire point of going outside of U.S. media, to me, was
to get a more balanced view on global issues (by aggregation, not saying AJ
doesn't have its own biases). So maybe, for those of us who get our news
online, this might actually be a good news. On the other hand, it makes cable
TV news in the U.S. even more homogeneous than it already is...

------
russnewcomer
This is unfortunate but expected. Al Jazeera has a severely unfair reputation
in America, and most people probably had no idea of the difference between
AJ(Qatar) and AJ(America). Hopefully they will continue to have coverage in
America, and this doesn't actually mean their total exit of America-based
reporting.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think AJ had much of a reputation at all in the US. I wouldn't even
know where to find it.

~~~
dublinben
>“Most Americans associate Al Jazeera with Al Qaeda”[0]

[0] [http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/americans-associate-
al-j...](http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/americans-associate-al-jazeera-
al-qaeda-braodcaster-faces-uphill-climb-pin-tv-audience-article-1.1232777)

~~~
tptacek
Well, if The New York Daily News says so...

------
BummerCloud
Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) summarized Al Jazeera's collapse very
succinctly:

"Al Jazeera America execs chose early on to try to be a voice-less, diluted
version of CNN rather than embracing its global identity & brand."

[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/687352891372339200](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/687352891372339200)

------
ipsin
I did not have a chance to see Al Jazeera America, but based on the number of
times John Oliver used AJA clips on his show, and based on the topics related
to those clips, I strongly suspected I was missing out.

I'd like to know when things our going wrong in our society (because that's
how you can start to fix them), without the weird pro-Russian slant of a
channel like RT.

------
transfire
Al Jezeera is an excellent news station. Much better than the others for being
more fact oriented. Unfortunately its all about ratings today, facts be
damned.

I think they give up too easily. I bet if they 1) changed the name to
something "all American" and 2) made a reality show about what goes on behind
the scenes, that might have been a big enough of a "killer app" to propel the
network out of the shadows.

However I was disappointed that AJ got rid of the Young Turks.

------
joshstrange
I like AJ news quite a bit, their election night report is often the best IMHO
(no real bias) but once they launched you couldn't get english streams of
their content and our TV plan didn't include them... Maybe now I will be able
to get streams again and start watching it more.

------
snake_plissken
Man this stinks. Al Jazeera America is reliable and has done some solid
reporting over the years. It wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade. Next to
BloombergTV it's the only news channel worth watching.

On a tin-foil hat aside, but the timing on this; coming a few weeks after they
ran the story about performance enhancing drug use by some big name
athletes...I can't help but think the two are somehow related.

~~~
ptaipale
Having seen and understood just a few fragments of Al Jazeera behaviour in
Arabic, I have some difficulty in trusting it in English either.

E.g. just today came up this post which points out how Al Jazeera used a
picture:

[https://twitter.com/ranaharbi/status/685357579615232000](https://twitter.com/ranaharbi/status/685357579615232000)

They stole a picture taken by photographer Serkan Gülsen in Istanbul in 2007
from his Flickr feed

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/serkangulsen/771185410/in/date...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/serkangulsen/771185410/in/dateposted-
public/)

and now (January 2016) published it as evidence of suffering in the town of
Madaya.

It's likely that the suffering in Madaya is more than horrible, but why be so
lazy as to forge a picture like this? Are they actually trying to destroy
their reputation, or do they just trust that the Arabic audience will not
notice?

And if it does that in Arabic, do I trust it in English?

------
golergka
Good riddance.

If it was closing because of government intervention, censorship, or anything
else like that, I would be fighting it, of course. But since it the main
reason for the fact that it's closing is sincere audience disinterest, I'm
pretty glad.

------
bruceb
"Al Jazeera America went on the air in August 2013 after it bought Al Gore’s
Current TV for $500 million."

Why did they pay half billion for Current TV? First mistake.

~~~
ashark
Maybe that bought them existing distribution deals worth that much (or more)?
Can't think of another reason.

~~~
6stringmerc
Airlines have done it with routes and gate access in the past, so that does
make sense.

------
unixhero
The naming of the channel and hence branding was a real stupid move by them.
As if lesser informed members of the public would see past their collectively
understood common enemy meme AL-*.

It doesn't take a PhD in philosophy to prescient this. Why couldn't they just
have chosen something more "user friendly". Hell I even got talked behind my
back by HR in a world class consultancy (CAPGEMENI, there I said it) firm for
reading Al Jazeera, as if it was something dangerous and that I had dangerous
intents (Nothing further happened).

------
gscott
This is too bad as I find the news on Al Jazeera to be more balanced then CNN,
Fox, or MSNBC. Unfortunately it seems people want a spin on news. Al Jazeera
is to the tv news as a long form article is to written journalism.

------
zitterbewegung
I remember hearing about this channel being hyped in the media but I never was
able to watch it (required more expensive cable plan) and also I never even
saw it being referenced online like from youtube or anyone.

------
VLM
As a percentage of the population almost no one watches cable news. Fox's best
nights sometimes approach a significant fraction of one percent of the nations
population, usually less. And all other channels are far, far lower ratings.

Another thing to consider is MSNBC is also nearly unwatched. If you thought
28K AJ viewers during daytime was bad, imagine MSNBC at exactly half or 14K
viewers. Given deep enough pockets, AJ could have continued.

Narrowcasting is strange, watching channels fight over almost no viewers is
like watching academics fight over nothing. Yet supplying the almost no
viewers with an internet feed would require quite a few gigs/sec of internet
bandwidth. There's quite a wide, unserved gap in the media industry between "a
couple people watch me on youtube" and "I have a cable TV channel". There's
probably a startup opportunity in there, somehow.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
_If you thought 28K AJ viewers during daytime was bad, imagine MSNBC at
exactly half or 14K viewers._

While I don't think you're intentionally cherry-picking numbers here, I'm
fairly sure you're quoting a Mediaite article about AJAM beating MSNBC during
the 2PM newscast in mid-2015. Those are _not_ total viewership numbers. If you
want to compare cable news networks, it'd be better to compare their primetime
viewerships. AJAM had trouble breaking 30K in primetime, according to the NYT,
but at least as of August 2015 (the most recent data I can find), MSNBC's
primetime total viewership was 639K -- actually beating CNN slightly.

As for "almost no one watches cable news," well: yes, but. Given how much of
the HN discussion is centering around cord cutting, it's worth considering how
many people get their news from the _web sites_ of CNN and friends. In January
2015, for instance, cnn.com had over 64M unique visitors; foxnews.com had
about 55M, while nbcnews.com had about 30M -- even though NBC News has far
more viewers than CNN (nearly 10M compared to CNN's under 1M).

Sources:

[http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-jazeera-america-beat-msnbc-
for...](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-jazeera-america-beat-msnbc-for-2-hours-
in-the-key-25-54-ratings-demo/)
[http://www.mediaite.com/tv/august-2015-ratings-fox-
news-1-in...](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/august-2015-ratings-fox-news-1-in-
all-primetime-cable-msnbc-last-in-demo/)
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/business/media/al-
jazeera-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/business/media/al-jazeera-
america-to-shut-down-in-april.html)
[http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/cable-news-fact-
sheet/](http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/cable-news-fact-sheet/)
[http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/abc-david-muir-nbc-lester-
ho...](http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/abc-david-muir-nbc-lester-holt-evening-
news-ratings-1201677863/)

------
ianphughes
I was annoyed when this launched because it was no longer easy to get to the
English language version of Al Jazeera even if you wanted to, unless you took
steps to change your location.

~~~
dhimes
Actually, in the US when they put up the aljazeera/america site they started
automatically routing me away from aljazeera/english. I pointed this out via
email, and said I preferred the English version (Europe slant vs American) and
they put a link at the bottom of the page to allow people to choose the
English site. So try them- they are (were? it was a while back) very
responsive.

------
aaronkrolik
>And Al Jazeera America has not been free of controversy in recent months. In
November, the news station’s general counsel, David W. Harleston, was
suspended following a report in The New York Times that he did not appear to
be licensed to practice law. In late December, Al Jazeera aired an hourlong
documentary that linked some of the biggest stars in Major League Baseball and
the National Football League to performance-enhancing drugs. The most
prominent athlete mentioned in the report was the Denver Broncos quarterback
Peyton Manning, who angrily denied the report, calling it “complete garbage”
and “totally made up.”

Lets not forget that they are being sued for libel

[http://deadspin.com/ryan-howard-ryan-zimmerman-sue-al-
jazeer...](http://deadspin.com/ryan-howard-ryan-zimmerman-sue-al-jazeera-
america-over-1751240312)

~~~
slg
I surprised their is no discussion of that here. It might not be the most
important story Al Jazeera had broken, but it was their biggest pop culture
story in a country that often puts a huge pop culture emphasis on their news.
The story has been mostly ignored by the mainstream American media and the
people accused were more aggressive in their responses than similar athletes
have been after similar reports. I can't remember the last time a news
organization was immediately sued for libel after these type of accusations.

If you are being critical of Al Jazeera, it was a shoddy reporting job and
didn't merit being published. If you are being generous, it shows they have
almost no impact on American news cycles. Either way, the response wasn't good
news for Al Jazeera.

------
vonnik
Al Jazeera in general and its US arm in particular were always more of an
instrument of foreign policy for Qatar than a money-making endeavor. I covered
the channel as a journalist at a competing news organization, and spoke with
dozens of journalists on the inside of AJ.

My guess is that Qatar decided they didn't want to waste quite as much money
and time trying to sway public opinion in the US. The Arabic version of AJ has
always been much more important. Pure speculation, but the cuts may be due to
the plunging price of oil, which in turn is affected by the slump of the
Chinese economy.

~~~
aikah
Al Jazeera tended to be more or less balanced when it came to western news,
however, the propaganda was clear when it came to middle eastern/ Israel
issues. It was in my opinion no different from how RT(Russian today) operates.
AJ is still quite popular in UK though, unlike the russian channel.

------
falsestprophet
It's sad that it won't be easy to find news in the United States that
represents the view of the Emir of Qatar.

------
coupdejarnac
Too bad. Al Jazeera America should have renamed themselves for the American
market. Not to hide who they are, but to get past any initial negative
impression.

~~~
fensterblick
They often called themselves "AJ America" or "AJAM"

------
jordache
Good! now I can live stream the international al jazerra broadcast. They shut
that down for US after the launch of this american channel

------
Mizza
What does this mean for "AJ+", their SF-based social-tech-media-incubator-
youth-mobile-blah thing?

~~~
phillipamann
AJ+ is all the worst things about social media. These bite sized share
friendly hip news clips about complex issues lacking tons of context. Their
Israel coverage is fucking terrible. I have to hand it to them though. They
are very clever for coming up with it.

------
ck2
Every time there is news somehow connected to Gore, I can't help but think
somewhere in a parallel universe, the supreme court stayed out of election
politics, didn't hand the election to Bush instead of Gore

then 9/11 never happened the following year because he actually paid attention
to the memo about "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" \- then Iraq was
never invaded - then the TSA was never created - Gitmo wasn't created - the
NSA didn't abuse its power - then credit default swaps were stopped in their
tracks before they destroyed the economy.

Imagine how incredibly different the US would be today if that series of
events was alternated.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
It would be a lot different, but in that same universe, the entire population
of the Earth was killed by a virus spread by unicorn poop, so be glad it
didn't happen.

~~~
ck2
You consider a couple votes by the supreme court changing everything to fairy
tales?

It really, seriously, could have been in favor of Gore. Not far fetched at
all.

In fact they could have declined to hear the case entirely, which they
probably should have done.

~~~
stvswn
I know. Really makes you think, right? Think of all the bad things that have
happened in the past 16 years. Now imagine they didn't happen. Wow. Just one
vote.

------
sp332
I thought the coverage was pretty crummy, back when it had just launched which
was the last time I looked at it. Hopefully we'll get access to Al Jazeera
English videos back when AJA goes away!

Edit: Why is this off the front page already?

~~~
jgh
Is there any indication we will? I really hope so! I enjoyed the AJE content
and thought AJA was pretty terrible. It really sucked that they cut off people
in the USA from watching AJE everywhere.

~~~
Rayearth
Indeed, I was a little surprised that AJA was both a thing at all and also a
thing completely different from AJE. I first discovered AJE while living
abroad in a place where the only english news channels were CNN, BBC and AJE,
and my impression was that AJE was worthy to stand alongside the other two
channels.

------
Tepix
The Intercept also has a piece on this development with some background
information [https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/al-jazeera-america-
termi...](https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/al-jazeera-america-terminates-
all-tv-and-digital-operations/).

------
xufi
I actually liked AJ to watch besides watching RT a change of the mainstream
media news sources, sad to see them go. They were like the BBC but had
reporting from more places that even typical alternative news channesl dont
spend time on. They also had great documentaries from time to time.

Wonder if they'll ever come back perhaps in a different form

------
flubert
The most funny take on Al Jazeera you'll read today:

[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/how_does_the_shutdown...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/how_does_the_shutdown_relate_t.html)

------
homulilly
Does this mean Al Jazeera English will be viewable online again in the US? I
never watched AJA because I don't particularly want to watch US-Focused news
and I have never had and will never have a cable subscription.

------
myth_buster
I think it would have been a real challenge to get to the mainstream with
their logo and their finances [0]

    
    
      with financing from the deep pockets of the Qatar government
    

when the sentiments being purported by Fox, CNN et al were in stark contrast.

[0]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/business/media/al-
jazeera-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/business/media/al-jazeera-
network-in-turmoil-is-now-the-news.html)

~~~
jackreichert
Even without that financing, and without the logo, the financing itself is a
good reason to not trust them as a source.

I'm sure there are other news sources that should be de-legitimized due to
their funding, and it would be nice if they too go away. Due to the current
nature of how people consume their news it creates echo-chamber bubbles that
only reenforce misinformation or misleading perspectives.

~~~
jonathankoren
It's not the funding. It's the editorial independence that matters. Should we
have believed NBC prior to 2013 on national security issues, because they were
owned by General Electric, a defense contractor that would make handsome
profits in the case of war?

Good luck in finding any media outlet that doesn't have financial ties to the
subjects of their coverage.

You shouldn't dismiss Al Jazeera out of hand. The (sad) fact is, that Al
Jazeera is pretty much the least biased on most straight forward of all the
media outlets in the Middle East. They actually report dissenting views. No,
they're not perfect, but are in a completely different league compared to
their regional rivals.

~~~
gotchange
> They actually report dissenting views.

But not critical of the ruling family in Qatar and that actually what counts
the most and would demonstrate their journalistic integrity and editorial
independence but they're hypocrites and their credibility is suffering as a
consequence.

------
known
Victim of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency)

------
known
Some staffers saw that as a tacit admission that falling oil prices were
behind the closure

------
arbitrage
And just when it seemed to start gaining traction, too. Pity.

------
eklavya
I am sorry, I have seen two interviews by Mehdi Hasan of Al Jazeera. The bias
was really really obvious. I don't buy the arguments about how good it is by
some commenters here.

