Fight over al-Jazeera in Burlington, Vermont

• MrPumpernickel
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  Al Jazeera should come bundled with FOX News (or vice versa), that way they can cancel each other out.

• john allabaster
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm

  They should absolutely allow Al-Jazeera to be broadcast. It does provide another perspective and you can at least see what the viewpoints are of that area. It sheds light on why they hate us so much and also tells controversial news stories that US networks won’t touch. This also goes for the BBC or any other countries news networks

• Thomas
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  (sarcasm) Adam! I thought you’d learned your lesson about promoting political items on this blog. Shame on you! (/sarcasm)

  Why shouldn’t they be allowed to brodacast. Its not like they’re giving advice for how to bring down buildings. Its just news with a slant. If you take away news with a slant, my god, what’s left?

• bean
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm

  As some one who doesn’t even get BBC America, I’d love to get al-Jazeera. If someone is worried about al-Jazeera being too sympathetic to the vast majority of Arab Muslims, there’s another station based in the UAE that is specifically biased against al Qaeda. They can play a subtitled version of that channel opposite al-Jazeera.

• roger
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm

  I wonder what the reaction would be if a white supremacist cable station attempted to broadcast throughout America. Would the same freedom-lovers rush to their defense? Why not? Would they be afraid of a “different perspective”? What? Can’t they change the channel?

  Adam, what are your opinions on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Do tell. I receive Al-Jazeera broadcasts here, where I can assure you a very “open discussion” is accessible to all viewers on this and other subjects, like whether Jews are descended from “Pigs and Monkeys”, as well as exposes on the “Zionist-controlled media”.

  If you insist that in favor of the marketplace of ideas, a tax-funded cable service ought not restrict its broadcasts, that’s fine. Just be sure not to raise any objections when David Duke requests his slice of the pie.

• glitch44
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm

  Anyone who’s watched Al-Jazeera knows that it’s actually a very good news channel that provides balanced coverage. It does show graphic coverage of events, which I think startles those in the US who are accustomed to Paris Hilton being the lead news story.

  Anyone who’s curious might enjoy the documentary Control Room, in which a US Marine in public relations tries to balance his job (providing spin) with counter viewpoints, including those of Al-Jazeera news correspondents. That marine has since left the service and is employed by Al-Jazeera.

• glitch44
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  Adam… you haven’t really watched Al-Jazeera, have you?

• glitch44
  June 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  oops. change Adam–> Roger. my mistake.

• roger
  June 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  glitch44: I have, and do watch it regularly. I also a receive a roundup broadcast of various other Arab media. Al-Jazeera is remarkably consistent. Arabs are always the victim, and the U.S./Israel/Europe is ALWAYS at fault. Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are regarded as freedom-fighters, in any and all cases. Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are treated as heroic operations, and no presenter may ever, in any way shape or form, defend or even give the appearance of presenting Israeli or US actions in a favorable light. While Fox News is laced with bias and tendentiousness, Al-Jazeera makes Fox News look truly fair and balanced in comparison. I can see many reasons why people would want to include Al-Jazeera in their news-gathering, but to deny that it is a propaganda vehicle is absurd. Don’t cut off your noses to spite your faces. Keep your heads about you and don’t embrace Al-Jazeera just because you have grievances with the U.S.

• Rocky
  June 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  I guess it all depends on whether or not Al-Jazeera is actually reporting news or if they are spouting propaganda and lies, like the folks over at Fox news.

  An honest look at ourselves from an outside source is always a good thing. I frequently catch the news from the BBC for just such an angle. If Al-Jazeera will offer another perspective like the BBC does, then I’m all for it. If they “invent” news stories like Fox’s “terrorist fist jab” nonsense then we need to keep them out.

• Anon
  June 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  Al Jazeera English is a better channel than CNN it gives information on events outside the US in a way that you would never see.

  Unlike CNN, when they report on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan they do it in a neutral manner, they don’t have a dog in the fight, so they actually report both favorable and unfavorable news from Iraq. They rarely use polls to try to influence the way that you think. They do have a love affair with Barack Obama, but what network news station doesn’t? I was quite surprised to see how good Al-Jazeera English was. They do have some faults from time to time, but they do have an anti Israel slant, they love reporting how the US media ignores the Palestinian side. I have seen them show interviews of Palestinians who are against terrorism and are tired of Hammas and Hezbola ruining things for them. But for a station based out of Qatar, it is an interesting perspective. People who are strongly pro-Israel might have a hard time accepting that Israel can make mistakes and is racist. Being American, it is kind of silly for us to fault a nation for stealing land from a bunch of other people. This also goes for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, and All of South and Central America. They have a hard time understanding the US, they are sometimes as laughable as Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC with how much they lack in understanding American society, but they are a foriegn perspective in a country that is very pro-American (Qatar).

• Rob
  June 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  IMO Al-Jazeera is as straight an unbiased as any other quality news service. For it to have any credibility it has to be far more so than any commercial news service in the USA (or here in Australia). Of course it does that admirably.

• Baltimore_Yeti
  June 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  Why not do the democratic thing and let the market decide? If you are for having al-Jazeera on cable then keep your cable service. If you have no opinion then keep your cable service. If you do not want al-Jazeera on cable then cancel your service. Allowing a minority of the people decide something for the majority is un-democratic and Anti-American. I know congress often does just that, but at least we empower them by putting them in office in the first place.

• kris
  June 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  I never had much of an opinion about Al-Jazeera until I recently saw a series of videos they made about my hometown, Midland, Texas. Laura and George W. Bush also claim Midland as their hometown, and it is a center of oil and Christianity, so I wondered what they would have to say.

  It was interesting to see what a balanced viewpoint Al-Jazeera offered about the town and its inhabitants, especially in comparison to some of our own new services.

  The videos I mentioned are all on youtube, from the Al-Jazeera English channel, if anyone is interested in watching them.

• CitizenPolitician
  June 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  I am an American, one who can trace my ancestors to the original 13 colonies and first peoples of the Americans, and I proudly read al-Jazeera EVERY DAY!

  As a regular reader of al-Jazeera online the station is one of the sources I go to find out what is going on in the world. The journalism is impeccable, in many ways, like the BBC far superior to the mush the US Media spews. If any stations are biased, prejudice, and ant-”insert country” just turn on your American news stations for half-truths and blatant omissions.

  Most people who criticize al-Jazeera have NEVER read or seen the news service. How can you criticize something you have never watched or read?

• medussa
  June 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm

  I have NOT watched al-Jazeera, and I’m wishing right now that I could. I follow the news on German and British websites and magazines, simply to get another perspective. I don’t always agree with their conclusions, but they do tend to be more balanced in their presentation.
  That being said, I think Roger has a valid point: I would strenuously object to a publicly funded channel for the KKK. But maybe the difference is that the KKK has proven itself to be nothing but a terrorist organization, which targets people based on inherent characteristics (skin color, sexual preferences, jewish culture), while al-Jazeera might conceivably be presenting valid information from a different perspective, and at least claims to despise people based on their actions (and yes, I realize there’s a lot of spin there).
  I would be equally offended by a publicly funded evangelical channel, or any separatist organization, left or right.

• WordyGrrl
  June 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  By all means, do watch “Control Room” if you get a chance. Al-Jazeera’s policy is to show a story from all angles — even if some of those angles are radical or just plain false. Al-Jazeera assumes it’s audience is capable of analyzing the stories and coming up with their own opinions based on what’s presented.

  US news shows are all about making money via the ratings that attract advertisers. What grabs ratings? Shocking news and celebrity crap that manipulates viewers emotions instead of educating their brains or assuming they’re willing to analyze what’s presented.

• Ashley
  June 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm

  Very interesting. I’m going to have to start reading that news service. From the comments I’ve read, it seems like al-Jazeera is a far cry from terrorists. Therefore, what are we objecting to? Someone (gasp) suggesting America isn’t perfect? News from the point of view people we love to hate?

• Pol x
  June 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  I have to say that Roger is out and out lying about AL Jazeeera doing endless stories on how jews are decended from pigs and monkeuys and all that hopped up looney juice.

  It’s a news Channel, which is not pro Al Quaeda, it is arab news for arabs, and the world.

  It is not based in a cave in Afghanistan or some other conspiracy tripe, it’s in a big tv studio in Qatar.

  And having seen the shit that p[asses for ournalism from Fox, I’d be far more inclined to take AJ’s take on most things.

  I applaud the people of Burlington who understand that what makes America great would be diminshed and broken by banning AJ.

• Steve
  June 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  First of all, channels should not be “allowed” or not. Second, if we’re entering a system of censorship, and we’re getting rid of Al Jazeera, I’d like to also get rid of FoxNews, please.

• Valerie
  June 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  Uh, you did hear that Fox News was found to be the most fair in reporting the primaries this year, right? Right? They were the only channel not in Obama’s pocket, making him out to be the messiah, day after day, after day after day.

  You people with your anti-Bush, anti-Right, anti-Fox mindsets are incredible. You write that you are all for having al-jazeera broadcast here, it’s a free country, blah, blah, blah, but you then try to make out that Fox News is right-wing propaganda and shouldn’t be allowed to be on air???

  Do you not see the cognitive dissonance in your stance?
  If you believe that it’s OK to have a pro-arab, pro-islamist, pro-islamic channel available in the USA, then how on earth can you justify hating Fox News so much???!!! Do you even watch Fox News? Just because they sometimes report things from a less Lefty point of view, doesn’t make them liars, for pete’s sake. The Left do not have the monopoly on Truth-telling. Far from it.

  You people amaze me…

• Mother Theresa
  June 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  Burlington? An interesting city? Oh yah. Typical collegiate leftard town.
  This is the city that spawned a berkley-esque minority who suggested that Vermont secede from the U.S.A. Of course, most Vermonters are
  not interested in seceding and never heard of the handful of ‘tards who
  DEMANDED secession…ah but…to the subject at hand, of course
  Al Gibberish should be allowed alongside the white supremacists’ crap and the major network hollywood pandering too. We can always use more propaganda. Let’s not kid ourselves shall we?

• Mother Theresa
  June 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  Valerie, bless you my child

• AM
  June 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm

  I think they should have a space. They bring a new perspective and beyond any opinion, they show content that other networks don´t.

• Courtney
  June 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  I would LOVE it if this were part of my cable package. I probably wouldn’t often watch, but it would be great to have for infrequent comparisons.

• Dave
  June 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  @ Alex: “Yes - people like this really do exist.”

  Um, Alex? Your ignorance is showing. I see no problem with a cable operator offering a station like that, but I also see nothing wrong with a special interest group trying to pressure said operator to shut off the tap. Isn’t that how you socialist types get your way when the law and the free market don’t go your way?

  @ Valerie: You go girl! The trouble with Fox News is that it is so different from so many other news outlets that claim to be objective, yet can’t see their own biases. When people who see nothing wrong with mainstream media reporting (an affliction many Neatorama readers suffer from) finally see news reported that is slightly positive toward the right. Is Fox News perfectly objective? No. But neither is any other left-leaning news outlet.

• Ben Song
  June 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  I think many of the Fox News, gun toting, super conservative types in America could do with a bit of al-Jazeera in their lives. They might begin to understand how America is viewed in certain parts of the world.

  Personally I haven’t actually watched al-Jazeera but from what I’ve read of them they are simply presenting a different perspective on the world. If the United States is truly the land of the free, then surely anyone who wishes to view al-Jazeera should be allowed to do so.

  If they don’t like it, watch something else. I don’t like the agenda pushed by Fox News, but you don’t see me protesting its existence - I just change channel.

• NOT_AdamsFriend
  June 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm

  oooooooh brother here we go again. this is not neat in anyway and does not belong on neatorama. *sigh* Neatorama was better before Adam came around.

• Booger
  June 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  Valerie, your last name isn’t Plame is it? Heh. I guess you wouldn’t be such a frothy-mouthed rabid Republican if it were.

  My estimation is that 99% of Americans don’t know JACK SHIT about Arabs and just do what their preacher/president tells them to do… Hence the Iraq War.

  Al-Jazeera was a voice in the wilderness questioning the human cost of the war from the beginning, because they were out there, near the people. For that, it is valuable.

  I can understand why they’re controversial. The Arabic name is probably a big turnoff for Americans since 9/11… also some of the materials they broadcast rubbed people the wrong way, and they got associated with the terrorists. But ask yourself if US networks wouldn’t do the same thing.

  BTW al-Jazeera was started with a lot of ex-BBC people.

  P.S. All media are biased in some way.

• Perceive
  June 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  Al-Jazeera really isn’t that exotic. It’s pretty similar to the BBC in that it is a partially state-funded (by the country of Qatar), partially ad-funded news channel with some degree of autonomy. The only difference, from what I’ve seen, is that they focus more on their area, the Middle East. Other than that, they’re mostly professional, diligent reporters, with far less punditry than you’d get on US cable news.

• Saddaaam
  June 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  It should definitely NOT be aloud. Every channel
  should be a FOX channel. They are the only reliable news source. I only watch FOX and I consider myself to be very
  informed. GWB RULES!!

• Johnny Cat
  June 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm

  yeah, 60 minutes just had an amazing story about another news channel, al Hurra. This is the news channel launched by the Bush administration to compete with al Jazeera in the middle east, and to be pro-American and a total propaganda machine. Funny thing is, they broadcast out of southeastern US, the staffers are Jordanian catholics, and on a day Hamas had inflicted heavy damage, al Hurra was broacasting cooking shows. It’/s also the least rated tv network in the middle east.

  al Jazeera is actually more informed, as far as objectivity is concerned, they could use more. But they get a 51% market share, which is unheard of. If anything, I predict a worldwide boom in that network.

• Johnny Cat
  June 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm

  and..oh Adam, I really wanted to see that bit about the obituaries! The tom bergeron lookalike set it up in the first few moments. Then, nothing but a tease at the end.

  Also: butterflies? i almost thought this was fake then.

• Christophe
  June 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  Arabic TVs with their quality and their flaws are keeping a whole population worldwide with strong cultural and linguistic ties to their origins. Much stronger than the regular immigrant, melting in the common pot.
  As any other foreign TV, it keeps people from really integrating in a common culture. The immigrant langage barrier makes those TV the mostly watched. In my South of France street, North African immigrants’ houses all have a satellite dish to get Arabic TV. They wouldn’t need a French Al-Jazeera anyway, since they have the original one.

  I myself, as a US immigrant, remember watching the Bush-Kerry presidential election on US TV (including Fox and France 2 public channel. Wow. What a difference! Kerry was going down on one side of the Altlantic while getting elected on the other (you picked the wrong country, John).

  So, should we allow any TV? Free speech says yes.
  Should we be happy about it? I’m not so sure. I admit I hope those TVs will be monitored for extremism.

  As for Burlington it’s so close to the Ben&Jerry’s ice cream factory it can’t be a bad town

• Alex
  June 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 am

  @Dave: Um, Alex? Your ignorance is showing.

  The post was by Adam Stanhope, Dave, not me.

• ohmy
  June 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 am

  Oh, I really hope they don’t give in. I am so sick of companies bending to the desires of special interest groups.

  Rachael Ray’s Dunkin’ Donuts commercial was yanked because she was wearing a scarf that looked like a kaffiyeh and “symbolized terrorism.” That is RE-FUCKING-TARDED. Get it together people!

  We don’t need to ban donut commercials, or news stations. If CNN reports about Britney Spears, if America’s Funniest Home Videos is STILL ON an if Fox News and Tila Tequila have audiences…okay. Let us have an alternative. Not everyone is into that, and we’re Americans, too. That kind of censorship is exactly what this country is supposed to oppose! Al- Jazeera is NOT going to make anyone a terrorist, and anyone who thinks it will seems to misunderstand the situation severely. How can anyone cave to that? Squeaky wheels don’t always DESERVE the grease, but nagging is effective. There are a lot of things to love about this country, but morons with money sure seem hell bent on making it suck for the rest of us. Come on, Burlington. You’re so progressive (and pretty, I’ve been there), don’t pull it!

• Tim Giachetti
  June 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 am

  Adam, I’m telling you the same thing i told the turd who spouted “legalize weed” in a comment the other day.
  Take your political view to another site. Open your own blog. You lessen the site here with your bullshit controversy filled posts.
  It’s either this or worthless music vids.
  I vote Adam lose his posting rights.
  From here on in I skip your posts dipshit.

• ted
  June 23rd, 2008 at 6:02 am

  “Yes - people like this really do exist.”, “Does it empower Americans by contributing another viewpoint to our diverse media landscape?”

  I only hope it’s less biased than what you’ve posted. I thought being American was all about protesting stuff, but only when they protest what you think they should?

  Interesting how people slam Fox for its bias (undeniable), but support al-jazeera, because of course it’s fair and balanced.

  I think the al-jazeera you see in Burlington is one hell of a watered-down version of what you see in Qatar. This is thanks to your “system of censorship”, where channels must be approved before they can go on the air.

  Yes, Arabs hate Jews, and Jews hate Arabs. Why can’t we all just do a silly jig and get along?

• tomtheman5
  June 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 am

  lol

  “I call it soft, subtle, cultural Jihad.”

  lady, I call it freedom of speech…

• stiggy
  June 23rd, 2008 at 8:56 am

  call me an idealist.. but we are a ‘free speech’ country, which means.. every news channel, even the ones touting communist ideals, nazi ideals, KKK ideals, or even Anti-American ideals should be allowed to broadcast whatever they want. I won’t watch it, and I refuse to make anyone who doesn’t want to watch. With that being said, I don’t believe the American people (as a generalization) to be smart enough to make a logical decision about which news channel to watch. This is why shock jocks are popular and people get their news from the Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Not trying to discredit the shows, just merely suggesting they aren’t news, but entertainment. I guess what I am trying to say is: whether or not AJ is a quality news source is not the question, The question is should we allow a different angle on the happenings of this world. And for me, the answer is yes, and will always be yes.

• silly neocons
  June 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am

  In many parts of the Arab world Al jazeera is viewed as a western propaganda machine from US funded rent-an-ally Quatar. In the US it is viewed as an arab propaganda machine. So these folks must be doing something right.

• amdela
  June 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am

  I’m Canadian, so this whole freedom of speech argument is not something I’m experienced in. But why shouldn’t al jazeera be on tv? Do Americans not have those remotes that can be used to block out channels if they don’t want to see them? (sarcasm all over the place, btw).

• Tom Farrell
  June 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 am

  They’re idiots if they want al-jareeza turned off because they think it’s anti-american. It’s always best to *know* what your enemy is up to.

• Another Alex
  June 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am

  the first few times that i watched al jazeera, i went into watching it expecting something in the lines of foxnews.

  was i ever wrong.

  al jazeera doesn’t hold anything back. it airs facts on the ground and also opinions from all sides, without censorship. this is why the network has been banned in many arab countries and is so loathed by many in the bush administration.

  here is a review of the book “Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story Of The Arab News Channel That Is Challenging The West” by Hugh Miles

  The Al-Jazeera television network has been called many things, usually not very complimentary. The Israeli government says it is anti-Israeli, the Syrians call it a Zionist front. Some Arabs say it is a CIA plot, while U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has accused it of “working in concert with terrorists” and “consistently lying.” The upstart Qatar network’s remarkable story is now finally told in journalist Hugh Miles’s book Al-Jazeera. Miles, an Arabic-speaking British journalist born in Saudi Arabia, tells how Qatar’s liberal young emir, Sheikh Hamad, created Al-Jazeera in 1996, a year after coming to power in a coup against his own father. Shekh Hamad stunned the Arab world by liberalizing the country, giving women the vote, introducing limited democracy, and ending press censorship. Other Arab media outlets slavishly kowtowed to their governments and were distrusted by the public, but the emir gave Al-Jazeera complete editorial freedom. Its motto was: “The opinion and the other opinion.” Arabs were amazed to see TV news that finally broadcast interviews with dissidents and held their governments accountable for policies. Some Arab states retaliated by closing Al-Jazeera bureaus, disrupting potential ad revenues, and breaking off relations with Qatar.

• GreenvilleRoad
  June 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am

  I have FTA Satellite so I get al jazeera among many other news channels. We use basic cable service only because it is bundled with the internet. Which should be illegal.. but that is another topic. At some point you have got to realize that there are two types of americans. One that believes in freedom and one that pretends. Sadly the corporations belong to the latter. Stop supporting them with your hard earned money and use FTA Satellite which cost $0 per month. Simply purchase the equipment and that’s it. No more money to the fascist amerikans.

  I’ll be more than willing to help any persons interested in FTA Satellite. Click the link to my site and leave me a comment so I can contact you.

  Your friend: A white Yeshua praising southerner from Kentucky

• Dave F
  June 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  Question: Do we have freedom of the press?

  If you answered yes, then al-Jazeera must be allowed.
  If you answered no, then you not a patriotic American.

  A conundrum for all you right-wingers!

• Neatoramawontsendmeapassword
  June 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  Hey, if Fox News is allowed to broadcast…

  Really, it’s not that difficult. I don’t go around trying to ban the Bible-thumping stations or the sports stations just because I don’t like them. I just change the channel!

• Dave
  June 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm

  @ Alex: “The post was by Adam Stanhope, Dave, not me.”

  My apologies. I knew it was Adam, I meant to write Adam, I thought I wrote Adam, but… And it wasn’t even that late!

• Paul T
  June 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  I’d want the right to choose for my self.

• Martha Allen
  June 23rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm

  Al Jazeera is fat

• smak
  June 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm

  This post is not what I’d consider “neat”, nor is it the lighthearted fare that has made neatorama one of my favorite sites to visit. The political b.s. around here is starting to stink up the joint.

  Instead of partisan posturing (which, if desired, is easily obtained on one of a myriad of news aggregate sites), how about more posts about music, art, bizarre history, etc.?

  Please, for the luvva, stop with the politics. PLEASE.

• mjgolli
  June 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm

  I like how I hear some people bitch and moan about al-Jazeera but glorify Fox “News”. Sheesh…fair and balanced my left nut. “The Onion” is a billion times more informed and balanced than Fox News.

  I wholeheartedly agree with “GreenvilleRoad”: FTA Satellite really is the way to go if you want to get any real information since most cable and satellite carriers are only interested in carrying the fluff that make them real money. Why do you think many channels on pay tv services are shopping channels? Count them and see.

  FTA Satellite can be fun to play with, too. Finding all the goofy, strange and wonderful wild feeds can be a good time waster on a cold, snowy winter night.

  I just wish cable and satellite were ala-carte so I could pick and choose the channels I wanted to watch. Weather Channel, Cartoon Network, Food Network, Starz/Encore, TBS, TNT, BBC America, Sci-Fi and a small selection of news stations would be about it for me. Oh, the days of ala-carte C-band!

  I don’t see where this is even a politically biased posting. It is about public opinion on a channel broadcast via a public utility. The public has a right to voice its opinion on this issue and it has to be taken seriously. Can the same be said for Time Worthless or Comcrap? Heck no! This is a highly unusual event…how many community-owned cable systems are in the US? Not many.

• anathema
  June 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm

  Agreement with Smak. I stopped visiting boingboing because of politics being shoved in my face. I can get that with all the pointless posturing elsewhere.

• thenight_1
  June 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am

  I think that al-Jazeera should be included for multiple reasons but mostly due to free speech. If those who run the service wish to include it, that is their right.

  An informed viewer should always consider the source when viewing any news broadcasts. I am a conservative evangelical christian and I disagree with much of what Al-Jazeera says but I check their website regularly to get a view ‘from the other side’. I find it very informative.

• Jim
  June 25th, 2008 at 6:50 am

  As the Cable Advisory Committee probes if having Al Jazeera English brings any value to Burlington viewers, it may look at how the jury at two presigious media awards looked at AJE’s merits and demerits.

  Al Jazeera English has excelled at the 17th Amnesty International UK Media Awards announced in London on 17th June . The awards recognise excellence in human rights reporting and acknowledge journalism’s significant contribution to the UK public’s awareness and understanding of human rights issues. In the category of International television and radioAl Jazeera English’s entry “The lost tribe - Secret army of the CIA” was declared the winner. The team which contributed in the production of this documentray comprised Eunice Lau, Stephanie Scawen, Tricia Tan and Tony Birtley.

  The other two contestants short-listed were:
  Assignment: Louisiana burning, BBC World Service - Joanna Mills, Jeremy Skeet, Mike Williams Inside Myanmar - the crackdown, Al Jazeera English - Tony Birtley, Lucy Keating, Marcus Cheek, Badrul Hisham.

  Those serving on the Amnesty’s panel of judges for entries in the category of International television and radio were Mike Blakemore, Katherine Butler, Tim Marshall, Naresh Puri and Tim Singleton.

  It may be recalled that on 10th June 2008, the award for “Best 24 Hour News Program” at the 48th Monte Carlo Television Festival conferred upon Al Jazeera English is not an aberration, but, one in a series of accomplishments scored by a news channel launched only in November 2006. The award recognized Al Jazeera English’s “extensive international reach and efforts to dig deeper to give its international audience a richer understanding of the events that affect their lives.” Al Jazeera English beat entries from BBC News, Sky News, Lisboa TV and the Phoenix Satellite Television Company to take home the award.

  Even a cursory glance at AJE’s accomplishments since its launch Al Jazeera English has proved it to be a unique news channel, winning a number of nominations in recognition of its professional quality and technical accomplishments. This also shows AJE’s potential to set new standards in the coming years:

  Al Jazeera English’s Far East Correspondent Hamish Macdonald won Royal Television Society’’s Young Journalist of the Year Award for 2007 while it’s Africa correspondent Haru Mutasa was also among the three nominees.

  Al Jazeera English was nominated for news channel of the year in its first year of broadcasting and was up against BBC News 24 and 2006’s winner Sky News. The awards were presented on 20 February 2008 at a ceremony at the London Hilton, hosted by ITV News at Ten’s Julie Etchingham. Over all, Aljazeera English won Royal Television Society Television Journalism Award nominations in the following categories: News - International Afghanistan: Taliban Embed - Al Jazeera English News Hour Al Jazeera English News Channel of the Year Al Jazeera English Young Journalist of the Year Hamish Macdonald - Al Jazeera English News Hour Al Jazeera English Haru Mutasa - Al Jazeera English News Hour Al Jazeera English.

  At the 12th Asian Television 2007 Awards, it won the award for Best Single News/Report (Kylie Grey, Orange) Environment Special, and came runners-up for Best news programme Half Hour Bulletin-from Kula Lumpur.

  Additionally, Al Jazeera English has won three awards at the BDA World Gold Awards. AJE was presented with three Bronze trophies at the 2007 PROMAX & BDA International Conference in New York 14 June 2007 in the categories of Art Direction & Design: Topical Campaign

  An even-handed approach to judge a news channel is to look at its demerits and merits. Are there some commentators overwhelmed by an urge to become an executioner before even pretending to be judge and jury? In Aljazeera’s case, many critics with a disposition to dismiss everything new, haste to pass a judgement prior to looking at it sufficiently enough and objectively enough.

• Charles Pigott
  June 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  As an American who lives part-year in France and watches Al Jazeera English regularly, I hope that Burlington maintains their original, commendable, decision to offer the station.

  Compared to other major international news stations (BBC international; CNN international; France 24..), Al Jazeera English offers the widest coverage of stories in all regions of the world. (I won’t mention the U.S. networks, which, as far as international stories go, are barely worthy of being regarded as genuine news sources) Its coverage of Africa is at least comparable to that of the BBC and its coverage of the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America is more extensive than that of any of other stations, all of which I have watched. Stories are often longer and more in depth than those aired by the other majors. If you want to get a sense of major developments in places like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Irag, China, …(and yes, even Israel, Al Jazeera is overall the best English-language network to watch.

  I have found the reporting on Al Jazeera English to be very objective. Unlike their counterparts on American stations, Al Jazeera commentators do not try to be ‘entertainers’ and normally refrain from the editorialising via sighs, pauses, and other theatrical gestures that you see all too often on American stations. I too find it difficult to believe that any honest person who really had watched Al Jazeera English (while sober) could make the assertions advanced by one of the earlier writers here.

  A few minutes ago, I watched a several minute segment on the latest glitch in the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The reporting stuck to the facts, on both sides: that Israel closed the crossings into Gaza after rocket attacks by a (non-Hamas) faction in Gaza; and that those responsible for the rockets claimed that they were in response to Israel attacks on members of their group in the West Bank. Just the facts. The story was followed by an equally objective story on recent killings of civilians by American soldiers. It mentioned the anger of many Iraquis about these deaths but it also clearly reported that the deaths occurred in the course of raids or other combat and reported the justifications given by American military authorities.

  It would not be possible to show the Iraq story on an American station, of course. The Al Jazeera story showed bodies of some of those killed, which violates the injunction against disturbing Americans by showing them what war really involves. Even without the bodies, even hints that Iraqis might be less than thrilled with the American presence is something that major U.S news outlets seem to deem inappropriate for broadcast.

  This is really the problem. News and objective informed discussion in the media have become so limited that something more objective and in-depth seems alien, like it has come from another planet. Too many people believe that truth, if it is unpalatable, is propaganda; that reality is unpatriotic if it doesn’t fit preconceptions. (I am always struck when I return to the U.S. by how much public debate of key issues is restricted by political correctness and ‘things we all know’). Opposition to Al Jazeera Enlish also fits with the broader Islamophobia that unfortunately has become all too widespread in the U.S.

  Retention of Al Jazeera English by Burlington would be a small step, but a useful one, toward a more rational approach to understanding the rest of the world. So I hope they will do the right thing.

• HAMZA
  June 29th, 2008 at 4:07 am

  hey people wake up and look what is going on the world, other wise you will wake up when some thing like 9/11 happens.

• Stephanie
  June 29th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  It depends on what they are broadcasting really. If the alternative viewpoint is Jew-hatred and Islamic supremacism along with conspiracy theories then hell no! We see what that has wrought in Islamic-dominated countries. (shows on how to properly beat your wife etc…go see whats on MEMRI for more examples of some Islamic media)

• daveb
  July 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am

  Having grown up there and being a resident for 26 years, before getting out, I’m entirely unsurprised.

  Vermont (including Burlington) is not nearly as conservative as they like to think of themselves.

  They also like to complain…a lot.

  Burlington can be a great town, I guess. If you like mediocre food, little entertainment, a homogenized and pedestrian music scene and drinking, because there’s very little to do that you can’t find much, much better someplace else. In winter, it is a pit of slush and you would do well to avoid it.

  If it’s the scenery and quiet, laid-back thing you’re looking for, go to Stowe or any of the small towns that dot Vermont. Burlington is overrated.

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!