Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone watch it?


I watched it properly yesterday for the first time. To my mind it appeared to have it priorities right in terms of what should be considered important. For example, the main news item was that of those killed in land-slides across Guatemala, whereas items such as match-fixing in cricket were much further down the news agenda. The channel also broadcast some interesting (though heartbreaking) stories - the type we would rarely get to see properly covered on BBC News (let alone Sky) - e.g. the plight of some 150,000 refugees from Myanmar basically living in rubbish dumps across the border in Thailand.


For me, it made a refreshing change.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/13114-the-al-jazeera-news-channel/
Share on other sites

I used to watch this in Africa as there was no BBC World where I was and you may as well watch Ceebeeies above CNN for facts and educational commentary.

Whilst not laugh a minute... I always thought it had articles that you wouldnt see elsewhere and the coverage of the storming of the boat by Israeli troops in Gaza was excellent.

I dont think any news channel is (Fox is my favorite for opinions on TV which havent been heard since the 1950s... I am still convinced they will announce that it is actually all a big joke and the right wing nutters interviewed are actually actors) but AJ shows a different viewpoint and highlights global issues that arent considered reportable say in the UK or US.

More balanced doesn't equal impartial and I have seen some very biased reporting from AJ especially on Isreal/ Arab issues.....


I agree no major news channels are impartial, CNN, Fox, even the BBC.......but please let's not kid ourselves that AJ is somehow different. The BBC do also cover very serious issues in an excellent way.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but it's not the most impartial of channels

> though is it.


Perhaps you haven't watched Glenn Beck, strapline "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment". If so, you will not comprehend exactly what partiality is. By comparison AJ is very grounded, very serious, and employs some incredibly professional journalists. It is a different perspective, but a perspective to be taken seriously. Unlike Fox etc.

I certainly wouldnt knock BBC news- its just different perspective - like I read the Guardian, Independent and when it was free used to read Times online. I think it healthy to get a range of views and I suppose we are lucky we have that available to us through a variety of media. I wouldnt like to think I could only rely on one source of news, especially if it was emanating from the Murdoch empire

I thought Al Jazeera largely comprised ex-BBC people, or was at the time Bush decided to drop a bomb on them - no guarantee the dead were replaced by the same.


In this day and age, I don't think any of the news outfits are impartial so if Al Jazeera falls over at that hurdle, it simply joins the rest of its running mates - no better, no worse - though I've also thought of them as being more rounded in their coverage of the news. And one doesn't get the sense that American / UK news is somehow more newsworthy than similar news from other parts of the globe.


Gets my vote.

Will have to try Al-Jazeera, sounds mature.

Any news channel focussing on people being naughty while playing bat and ball in preference to broadcasting useful and meaningful news (some of which has been outlined above) means I need to look elsewhere.

If that also means there's no cheating footballers or 'who slept with who' stories I'm alomost sold !

I agree on the cricket thing......it's not like cheating in sport is a new thing.......


Having said that.....news coverage tends to reflect local interest and perhaps there is a case for saying that the BBC, Fox, CNN and so on reflect what their viewers will watch. Would any of those channels get the same ratings if they only covered more serious political and global news, in more in depth ways? And where channels rely on advertising or sponsorship, ratings are everything...even in news coverage.


A case in point would be looking at the coverage of the recent extremely serious flooding in Pakistan. It didn't get anything like the amount of coverage of many less intrusive disasters.


Whether we like it or not the UK has become a culture that prefers on the whole, titilating scandel over anything that requires serious thought around complex issues. Most people have the attention span of a flea for such things. The demise of documentary and the ratings for documentary in the UK is absolute proof of that. We are lazy and apathetic in comparison to other parts of the world.

Last week I berated Dulwich Library/Southwark Libraries for not having any way at all of identifying documentaries within their DVD holdings, whether via the online catalogue or in person. Sigh.


And on Pakistan, some lessons here for how not to manage land, anywhere in the world. Some coverage thankfully in the (Glasgow) Herald: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/a-land-left-to-drown-by-the-timber-mafia-1.1051230

I'm also thinking of giving the Russian Channel a go. Does anyone watch that one?


As dita above has suggested, we are fortunate to have so many channels at our disposal. To be able to obtain different viewpoints and to watch broadcasts from alternative standpoints is exciting and enlightening (for me, anyway). Don't misunderstand, I like the BBC. However, I sometimes feel that the order in which they broadcast news items is a little skewed and it was very interesting to note how differently they prioritised their agenda to Al Jazeera. From now on I am definitely going to give channels other than the BBC a look-in in addition to viewing the BBC.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...