Hacker News Reader

Comment by yequalsx | Hacker News Reader

I guess this is a ringing endorsement of Al Jazeera. It's the network the dictators fear. I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they are supporters of radical Islam but from what I've seen of them this is pure nonsense.

It's nice to have a news network that doesn't suck so bad. It's shocking that this network does better (in my opinion) at news reporting than American news networks given that it comes from a part of the world where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.

Look for the network the dictators hate. The network that the ruling class denigrates. That's the one more likely to be telling the truth.

View on HN

> I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they are supporters of radical Islam but from what I've seen of them this is pure nonsense.

"pure nonsense" is exactly what it is :)

The only reason it seems that way from the western perspective is because:

1) They interview Islamist figures 2) They don't portray them as evil

But they also interview people from every color of the political spectrum.

> given that it comes from a part of the world where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.

I was shocked that most channels in North American report mostly on local news (e.g. man bitten by a dog), and if they ever report on global events, it's usually brief. And that's when they run any news at all; most TV is focused on entertainment 100%. From where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them.

From where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them.

It's a conspiracy where the people are a part! The media influences expectations. The expectations shape the market. The market holds the purse strings of the media.

With a cycle like that, all it takes is small corrections, which can be undertaken by organizations with sufficient resources, to maintain general control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Poli...

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." – Steve Jobs in WIRED magazine, February 1996

That describes my experience perfectly!

Statements like this are a result of our innate desire for everything to be black and white. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work. While the news networks are indeed in the business of providing what people want, they also have a hand in shaping their audience's desires.

To lay the blame of crappy news solely at the feet of the audience is about as short sighted as the conspiracy notion IMHO.

>While the news networks are indeed in the business of providing what people want, they also have a hand in shaping their audience's desires.

Yeah. It's a classic feedback loop. Surely this is obvious?

If your definition of "obvious" is a feedback loop, then you clearly have a very sophisticated, very select group of acquaintances. To many people I know, this concept is far from obvious.

>very sophisticated, very select group of acquaintances

I meant in the context of HN. That's a beautiful way to describe this place :)

I don't disagree. While Americans never come across as remotely curious about global affairs for the most part, not unless it directly involves them, perhaps it is because they have just never been exposed to a globally focused media.

I personally despise this stereotype of Americans. There may be more than a bit of truth to it, but I hate it. I try to represent the opposite, and those that I choose to associate with do as well. I also try to represent the best of what "being an American" can be.

An unfortunate stereotype; but it's also accurate.

It's also accurate for most of the world, period. Very few people actually care what is going on outside their sphere of influence.

I think the reason such thinking is particularly and unfairly associated with Americans is because your media agencies tend to be the biggest, the loudest and the most partisan. Plus America is a damn big place, so it is noticeable when many millions of people aren't interested in something...

I often think that those dumping general criticism like this on the US should take a careful look at their own country first, and see if their criticism is even more general than they are making it :)

The United States and it's citizens are stuck on black & white (right and wrong etc), we always have been. You want a real grey area? Try Russia where bribes and laws are close cousins. The problem with B&W is it leaves no room for the most logical explanation for most apparent conspiracies.

I encourage you to see the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media".

The whole thing is on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730...

(Better yet, read Chomsky's book on which the documentary is based, "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media".)

Actually, I wish my local news actually only reported local news. I get the feeling that to survive in the next decade, the successful ones will do just that.

As to the national networks, if it doesn't happen on the coasts or in Texas, it pretty much is ignored unless it is a natural disaster. Heck, the coverage of Nashville flooding was pathetic compared to the dollar cost of the damage. Drew Curtis's (of Fark fame) book has a chapter on it and some interesting stories from Fark.

> where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.

Actually, it all makes sense now. In the West we're used to having free speech as a given right. We don't do much to protect, expand, or enhance it.

More to the point, it's actively abused. You can't say people aren't allowed to lie, so they can heavily editorialize or even outright fabricate and still call it news. Because the average person watches the news to be told, not to think, networks that do as above in a way that reinforces people's preconceived notions are rewarded with viewership. In an effort to regain viewers, the so-called "legitimate" networks resort to cheap gimmicks and demagoguery of their own, and the actual news gets lost in the scuffle.

One of the best parts about having an independent public broadcaster is that they aren't slaves to viewership, and by association ads. BBC, CBC, NPR, PBS... all have quality news programs. CNN, Fox, MSNBC... not so much.

That's a tad bit of hogwash. PBS and NPR are not neutral parties. They have to appeal to viewership just like everyone else. They ask for donations and corporate sponsorship.

I think you can see the difference in their appeal, however. NPR and PBS need to attract enough viewers to keep their programs going, which are made fairly cheaply. The BBC and CBC are government-funded, and have never really operated with an eye towards profitability. You can argue that they aren't objective news sources, but the quality of the news they provide is still much better than on the big US networks.

Not being for-profit doesn't mean there's a lack of budget concerns. BBC World Service will be cutting around 650 people over the next few years. Let's hope they can still provide high quality service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12283356

PBS stations have been having a tougher time than in the past. Costs are rising, they've lost some of their audience to the greater variety of things people view on cable and the net, and many viewers are being tighter with their money.

Even when all sources are truthful, perspectives and emphasis differ. It's good to have a variety of sources available.

A number of international news networks including Aljazeera English are carried on MHz WorldView. It's seen on some cable systems, carried by some public tv stations over the air (often as an added digital sub-channel that many not be on their cable line up) and on direct tv. They can also be seen streamed on demand to those with ROKU.

http://www.mhznetworks.org/roku/

http://proweb.myersinfosys.com/week.php?timezone=0&stati...

Worse than that: the assumption is that since free speech is a given right, whatever we've got must be the maximally free speech available.

Saying that US Networks do a poor job of reporting because their coverage sucks is exactly like saying that Wal-Mart does a poor job of retailing because they sell plastic junk. It's what the people want.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html and apparently legal as well.

To some extent. But "news coverage" can, and is, also slanted by many networks to shape and promote specific behavior and knowledge amongst it's viewers, without them necessarily being aware of that. There is perhaps a deeper evolutionary reason for viewers to crave information of a certain color, but the producers also cleverly manipulate.

One could perhaps argue that "reporting" sucks in inverse proportion to it's objectivity, completeness, and emotional neutrality.

Journalism is not about satisfying consumer demands; it's about getting the truth out.

Or at least that's what I like to think.

Getting the truth is what being a journalist is about. Unfortunately, journalists are rarely in charge of news organizations.

ok, ok. They do an excellent job entertaining people. That's not the same thing as real journalism.

This thread has entered a twilight zone inhabited by True Scotsmen:

Raganwald: "American journos act like they work for WalMart."

HN Chorus: "Those aren't Real Journalists."

:-)

Doing something well and doing something profitably are far from the same thing. No one would deny that Microsoft had a successful, profitable stranglehold on the PC operating system market from the early 1990s to the 2000s. But few people would say that it's because they made good software.

Likewise, making meaningless "news" that gets people's attention but doesn't inform anyone may be a good way to sell ads and gain market share. But it doesn't inform people, and that's what good journalism does.

Objective, factual journalism is the cornerstone of our society. News should not be a product and the content should reflect reality and not the desires of a particular demographic or the fantasies of a particular political group.

Qatar's dictators don't fear Al Jazeera at all.

(I like AJ's role in Egypt, but not the naivete of these comments. Standing up to one dictator doesn't make you a freedom fighter if you're funded by another)

Why are the comments naive? I don't expect AJ to be critical of Qatar's dictator.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia owns a fair chunk of Fox news. Big companies/wealthy people control much of the news media in the U.S. Likewise for AJ but they appear, at least in some instances, to be better than other news outlets.

It says a lot to me that AJ has been attacked by Rumsfeld, Bush, Mubarak, and others and it's something worth pointing out.

finally someone who understands that in all Media there will always be those groups who use finances as a way to manipulate to supply bias..

Qatar's dictators have some real Oil income reasons for pitting one Oil country against another..

Being impartial means that everybody hates your guts equally.

All undemocratic Arab governments fear Al Jazeera.

ie all Arab governments and the US if they are US backed ones.

with one exception. Al Jazeera obviously never digs into the affairs of the Qatari royal family.

The English arm of Al Jazeera is based in Washington DC

AJE is headquartered in Doha with broadcasting centers in Doha, London, and Washington.

source http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/28/dahl_...

I doubt that Ahmadinejad or Bashar elAssad have anything to fear from al-Jazz. In fact, I'm pretty sure that those two would agree with your glowing assessment of their activities.

President Obama has expressed his disdain for Fox News on several occasions. Wouldn't that make Fox a network that is hated by the ruling class?

Fox is a Republican outlet.

Al-Jazeera does indeed endorse certain "causes", if that's what you're hinting at. Usually that cause is the freedom of the people. They don't support the governments of Syria or Iran nor run any of their propaganda. They regularly interview opposition figures.

Have you seen any criticism of the Iran or Syrian regimes on al-J? Have you seen any criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah? Are these guys really beyond reproach?

> Have you seen any criticism of the Iran or Syrian regimes on al-J? Have you seen any criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah?

All the time.

> Are these guys really beyond reproach?

What?

Have you seen anything of Al Jazeera? probably not.

Now, does any western media channel regularly host speakers from Hamas? I doubt it.

Al-Jazeera always interviews people from the Israeli side (and they get a lot of heat for it).

> Have you seen anything of Al Jazeera? probably not.

Please do not make any assumptions about me, I have seen plenty. For example, when al-J threw a birthday party to Samir Kuntar and called him a hero. Samir Kuntar is a guy who was doing time in Israel for killing a 4-year old girl by bashing her head with a rock.

> Al-Jazeera always interviews people from the Israeli side (and they get a lot of heat for it).

You're comparing guys like Samir Kuntar to Israeli government ministers?

See, the thing is, you're obviously biased towards Israel and you're endorsing the Israeli side of the story. Now, I don't know anything about this guy, but clearly the Lebanese side of the story is that he's a resistance figure.

> You're comparing guys like Samir Kuntar to Israeli government ministers?

No, you are. You're also implying the Israeli government ministers are "the good guys", which they are not. To put it more objectively, Al-Jazeera is an Arabic channel, supposed to be supporting Arab causes, like Palestine. Israel is the enemy here. So, network X is supposed to be endorsing a cause where A is the hero and the victim, while B is the evil aggressor. Yet, X interviews people from the B side all the time and gives them a chance to voice their views.

I've yet to see any American media outlets do the same. I remember a long time ago, a Hamas spokesman appeared on CNN for a few minutes, and the title was reading "Spokesman of Terror?".

Maybe I should cloak manipulative fabrications as questions more often. I thought about providing some ridiculous startup-related examples, but couldn't bring myself to do it.

You're both a little wrong and right here. The grandparent is right that journalists shouldn't be outright supporting viewpoints. He's also correct that it's generally agreed that Samir Kuntar was responsible for several deaths in his orchestrated kidnapping of an Israeli family (Wikipedia, I had never heard of this incident before this conversation).

However, the Al Jazeera network head then admitted that the behavior of the Beirut office was wholly inappropriate and should never happen again.

True.

How can you compare a nation and it's minions who are conducting a terrible subjugation of an entire group of people who made the mistake of being born there.

Silly.

As an Israeli I was really hoping Hacker News could be the one online forum where I didn't have to hear generalizations about my country's right to exist. I respect your opinion and I'm sure there's more complexity and historical awareness to mutually discuss, but please keep the snarky one-liners to Reddit.

Repeating this, once again: Criticism of the Israeli government's policies is not antisemitic. Criticism of the Israeli government's policies does not question Israel's right to exist.

One should not blindly support one's government. We all know how that turned out in Europe in the 30s.

Asking someone not to generalize is not the same as claiming someone is an anti-semite. I appreciate your clarification that you're not questioning Israel's right to exist, I read too much into it. Finally, thank you for helping this thread comply with Godwin's law.

Criticism of the Israeli government's policies is not antisemitic.

What? No one said that. Is this like a knee-jerk response or something? Truly shameful.

> where I didn't have to hear generalizations about my country's right to exist.

I'm not sure where you inferred that from. Criticism of Israel's policies and structural flaws is not existentialism criticism unless you have a very paranoid mindset.

> could be the one online forum

There should be no place on this globe where you should be free from the consequences of your actions. It would certainly be nicer if you could retreat somewhere and not have to listen to the grievances that people have and maybe just maybe the way to do that would be to change Israel itself and then the chorus of complaints will be silenced.

> but please keep the snarky one-liners to Reddit.

I'm sick of pro-Israeli policy supporters always using clever language and smear tactics to voice dissent. How about you try to move the debate forward and help us understand your point of view instead appearing as someone who gets touchy when the little "problem" of the ghettoization and subjugation of a whole population is mentioned.

:( "to voice dissent" ... urgh, I meant "to suppress dissenting voices" of course. I really need to triple-check before hitting reply. sigh

Free from the consequences of my actions? How do you know how I voted in the last election?

If anytime you travelled abroad you were treated like a hard-core Iraq ware supporter and Halliburton board member you'd get sick of it too. Or if every time your country vaguely became a topic for discussion things immediately devolved to view you and your nationality as not much except native american murderers and subjugators and ask you to answer for everyone else's actions in the history of your country. And when you have a well articulated answer explaining that it's more complicated than an archetypical narrative, or anything slightly well-written, they dismiss you as a highly-trained PR spokesperson lurking on forums instead of a human being with an opinion.

Yeah, it gets tiring.

As a result, you don't really want to get into details because it doesn't really sound like anyone's too open to hearing what you have to say, just looking for a fight. And then people pre-empt you by saying "stop calling me an anti-semite" and "I'm sick of you people saying ___ " while at the same time completely ignoring other important human rights abuses going on in the world, you begin to wonder why you bother engaging anyone, and instead just resort to asking to talk about it elsewhere, not when you're trying to read Hacker News.

And yes, snarky one-liners that gloss over the entire region's history evoke all of this.

Oops. That's an ambiguity of English and a lack of careful specificity on my part. I meant "your actions" as in one's actions.

If I were from the US I agree that it would get irritating real fast if that was how I was treated while I went about my business - I'm not sure whether that was failed attempt of yours to turn the tables on me or a strange attempt at engendering empathy and garnering support.

I shall repeat because you appear to have missed it: there would be less opportunity to for you to get tired of hearing people calling out Israeli policies if Israeli policies changed, maybe that is where energy should be diverted to maybe just maybe?

Anyway, let's not stray too far from the real real news here, Egypt! The very real possibility of a genuine democracy on Israel's doorstep. That would be awesome, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

can't disagree with any of that...

Your account is less than a day old. Are you a HN regular?

You made an account for that? Wrong site buddy.

Why do you doubt that Bashar has anything to fear from Al Jazeera? Mubarak apparently does and I can't think of why Bashar would be given better treatment than Mubarak. Do you know why this would be the case?

Perhaps because of Syria's pro Hezb Allah stance and Hezb Allah's affiliation with Iran. But Al Jazeera is an Arab, Sunni company based in the Persian Gulf. In that region there is a very strong anti-Iranian stance.

On the surface it would seem that Bashar would have more to fear from Al Jazeera than Mubarak.

I was surprised to see this downvoted. I don't agree with the first paragraph, but I didn't think it subtracted from the conversation. And I thought the second paragraph was a valid point. What were people reacting to?

What were people reacting to?

Probably the short length for a first post, lack of substantiation (just stating an opinion), conclusion from a sample size of one (Obama == ruling class), and the other posts made by the same throwaway account.

Makes sense, thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com