Al Jazeera America who reported the Peyton Manning HGH allegations is shutting down.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/media/al-jazeera-america/index.html
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
OT- Al Jazeera America Shuts down
January 13th, 2016 at 3:39 PM
#1
OT- Al Jazeera America Shuts down
January 13th, 2016 at 3:43 PM
#2
Damn, Payton doesn't play.
Damn, Payton doesn't play.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 3:52 PM
#3
You don't want to fuck with
You don't want to fuck with the Denver mafia.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:01 PM
#4
C'mon now ...
there is quite the irony here ... considering that the Qatar "family" is currently being bludgeoned by the price of crude (lowest since 2003). This is 100% a financial decision ... no reason to make it political.
Go Blue!
January 13th, 2016 at 4:25 PM
#5
BS
There were no actual politics here. Mentioning Peyton is a sports comment, not a political one. Your post actually has more elements of politics in it than the others do.
I intend to continue enjoying the snarky comments. YMMV.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:29 PM
#6
Al Gore
He's not in politics any more - can we discuss him?
Didn't he make a boat load of money selling his company to Al Jazeera so they could launch this network?
January 13th, 2016 at 4:52 PM
#7
Don't know if it was a boat load of money
He was part owner, so he did have to share the profits. But yes, he did profit from the sale of CurrentTV to Al Jazeera. Once sold, they were rebranded as Al Jazeera America and utilized the same distribution channels that Current had.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:59 PM
#8
Al Gore
One of the great scientific minds of our time.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:17 PM
#9
LOL, is this the same Qatar
LOL, is this the same Qatar that is preparing to spend $250+ Billion to host the 2022 World Cup? Do you really think the few tens of millions that it costs to run Aljazeera America was more than blip on its radar?
Oil prices are down, but Middle East oil is very cheap to extract and refine, which means those countries are able turn a profit at low price per barrel while having a much larger impact on the profitability of rival oil producers (e.g. Russia, Venezuala, Canadian tar sands).
Qatar in particular has one of the lowest breakeven oil prices in the world and coincidently one of the fastest growing economies.
This story is about Aljazeera simply being unable to gain a foothold in the U.S. market, not the infintesimally small amount of money that it costs to run.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:04 PM
#12
(No subject)
January 13th, 2016 at 4:10 PM
#13
Peyton Is Buying
Chicken parms for everyone to celebrate. I hope they're in sub form, because I've heard things can get crazy...
January 13th, 2016 at 4:27 PM
#14
"I've just shut down
Jazeera..."
January 13th, 2016 at 4:34 PM
#15
did anyone else
automatically say that in the nationwide jingle?
January 13th, 2016 at 5:00 PM
#19
Just ask the trainer
in which he decided to sit upon her face.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:44 PM
#20
I predict that
A calm and completely rational discussion will take place in this thread.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:45 PM
#21
That'll teach them to tattle
That'll teach them to tattle on Peyton.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:45 PM
#22
"But hey, that's just part of
"But hey, that's just part of it." -Ed Zahler
January 13th, 2016 at 4:17 PM
#23
I'm pretty sure you're
I'm pretty sure you're writing in English, but I don't understand what the fuck that means.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:46 PM
#27
probably not the smartest
probably not the smartest thing to name a news network with an arab name in the united states at the current moment. Good reporting but bad marketing.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:50 PM
#28
...anxiosly waiting for the
...[anxiosly waiting for the "i was obviously making a joke" defense post]
January 13th, 2016 at 3:56 PM
#29
I would love to live in a
I would love to live in a world where anything starting with Al didn't automatically bring up terrorism in ignorant people's heads. Unfortunately we don't.
The name could be a big reason along with the poor marketing.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:00 PM
#30
So..... is Al Bundy a
So..... is Al Bundy a terrorist?
January 13th, 2016 at 4:05 PM
#31
I sure hope not
I sure hope not!!! If Al Bundy is Bad, Im moving to Canada
January 13th, 2016 at 4:39 PM
#32
Al Bundy: terrorizing hooters everywhere
January 13th, 2016 at 4:02 PM
#33
I would vote for this Al....
I would vote for this Al....
January 13th, 2016 at 4:09 PM
#34
The face of terrorism
January 13th, 2016 at 4:15 PM
#35
The face of terrorism
January 13th, 2016 at 4:15 PM
#36
I don't know, for all his
I don't know, for all his shortcomings I don't quite see this guy as a terrorist.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:23 PM
#37
Obviously didn't see our oline in 2013
.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:41 PM
#38
Gorgeous Borges?
Who know terrorist were so good looking?
January 13th, 2016 at 4:19 PM
#39
Poor Al Kaline.
Poor Al Kaline.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:24 PM
#40
When I was little I thought
When I was little I thought alkaline batteries were endorsed by him.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:43 PM
#41
Ah, the first political salvo sighted.
I love the disconnect in people like you where you think it is perfectly acceptable to broadbrush smear Amercians as bigots while decrying broadbrush criticisms in the reverse.
I also notice as a woman that men tend to paint concerns about the Arab world solely in terms of "terrorism" when I'd personally think the treatment of women and LGBT people in those contexts would be the most pressing concern of those who profess belief in equality and fairness.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:06 PM
#42
Fair points
I include the "treatment of women and LGBT people" part of the terrorism practiced.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:07 PM
#43
As long as we contrast the
As long as we contrast the moderate Arab world from the fundamentalist crazy Arab world.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:33 PM
#44
How does linking American
How does linking American xenophobia with Islamic sounding names mean I support/don't care about oppression of women/gays in Islamic countries?
You can criticize both. Your equivalency is a figment of your imagination that you would love to bash over some idealistic liberal's head with.
Sorry. Your gotcha moment failed. You'd also be surprised to know much of a disconnect there are between regimes and the populations of the countries themselves... Saudi Arabia and Iran are two interesting case studies on how the leaders of said countries completely differ from the population when it comes to beliefs.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:34 PM
#45
Yes, you CAN criticise both.
Yes, you CAN criticise both. I do. But I consistently see a problem of only anti-Muslim bigotry being discussed by "idealistic liberals." On the left only a subset of liberal atheists, feminists, and ardent secularists (where I fall) really discuss women's rights, LGBT tolerance, and free expression in the Muslim and/or Arab world and in diaspora communities with any frankness or regularity.
Your free to cite two or three liberal critics of Islam of whom you approve if you really wish to put my "equivalency" to rest.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:04 PM
#46
I don't think the discussion
I don't think the discussion regarding women's rights specifically is one that even falls on a political spectrum.
I think many are reluctant to talk about it because it strays very close to the line of what is acceptable for the west to criticize.
Trying to change cultural norms of countries like a Saudi Arabia is not practically feasible and will be deemed as imperialism by opposing factions. When your population is more conservative than your leaders, like in Saudi Arabia, you will have a hard time changing anything without a revolt that CAN and probably WILL lead to worse outcomes for the marginalized groups you fight for.
People like to bring up the recent "elections" for women as some form of positive change, yet at the end of the day they still can't be seen in public or drive... Many women, themselves, believe in these types of things whether it be on their own will or cultural brainwashing. This is only in Wahabi Saudi Arabia. Every other country has a vastly different set of beliefs and cultural norms.
There is no "broad" Islamic discussion to be had here.
January 13th, 2016 at 9:09 PM
#47
First of all the fact people
First of all the fact people heavily downvote my post shows the hypocrisy at work in terms of when broadbrush criticism are acceptable and the kneejerk discomfort being reminded there are serious normative issues with gender equality and sexual freedom in the Muslim world, hardly limited to Saudi Arabia.
As I predicted you failed to name any "acceptable" critics and scoffed at the very notion of critiquing Islam. Here I'll help you: Salaman Rushdie, Asra Nomani, Sarah Haidar, Saif Rahaman, Ali Rizvi,... I could go on. I deleiberately only mention critics from a Muslim background, whether presently Muslim ro not, to countermand your risable suggestion that there is a limit to "acceptable" criticism when the topic is women's basic dignity and equality as people from "the west."
The very notion of "acceptable" debate is an ideologically-laden notion that rests in Postmodernism's discomfort with objective truth. If this were a political blog, I'd start goign through major Islamic countries like Egypt, Indinesia, Pakistan, Iran, and (northern) Nigeria to prove my point with hard evidence, but I'm guessing these posts get deleted anyway.
January 14th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
#48
I'm well aware of Rushdie's
I'm well aware of Rushdie's work and commend him for it. That being said, I don't think his stance against cultural relativism is practical b/c truths are shaped by the culture surrounding it.
Everything influences something else. The question is which form is most accepted by societies. Good luck forcing change using your approach tho.
Regardless of what we think, globalization will foster change for many conservative cultures around the globe from the Americas to the Middle East etc over time.
January 14th, 2016 at 6:15 AM
#49
Truth are shaped by the
Truth are shaped by the facts, culture can only impact truth by relatively encouraging or discouraging the discovery of said facts and the critical analysis thereof.
It is telling you started shouting at me about "forcing" things upon other people when all I have asked for is an honest discussion.
January 14th, 2016 at 8:14 AM
#50
This
discussion is now taking place only in a hypothetical "philosophical" world where ideas are conflated with action. Madonna, what do you propose TO DO about the issues you are advancing. From a policy standpoint, clarify your position by setting forth how U.S. policy, foreign and domestic needs to change or adapt to address these issue. You have won the "argument" on the your terms, but since this discussion is remaining active, where do we go from here?
January 13th, 2016 at 6:48 PM
#51
oh come on
If you want to pretend to be up on who discusses what about the "Muslim and/or Arab world" you should probably try to figure out how to correctly characterize the countries where the issues you are worried about are serious problems.
Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjxPR36qFU
January 13th, 2016 at 8:47 PM
#52
I am using the common
I am using the common nomenclature. Some concerns relate to the Muslim world at large and others are specific to Arab culture. The fact you cite a YouTube video really says it all about the lack of intellectual seriousness in your rebuttal.
January 14th, 2016 at 5:04 AM
#53
jmfc
The YouTube video is of an academic explaining the difference between nonsensical bluster about Muslims and truths about extremist regimes to CNN anchors. Don't be such an egregious troll.
January 14th, 2016 at 6:06 AM
#54
Aslan is a professor of
Aslan is a professor of creative writing who masquerades as a an expert on religion. His ignorance can be summed up by his denial regarding the correlation between Islam and female genital mutilation. Here is what an anthropologist at Ocford determined:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/guest-post-the-relat...
Calling me a "troll" just shows you have no interest in critical though on this subject.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:25 PM
#55
ISIS is slaughtering thousands, Syria is locked in an
exceedingly brutal civil war, and your most pressing concern is the treatment of women and LGBT?
January 13th, 2016 at 5:38 PM
#56
Yes, before that war began
Yes, before that war began and when it ends, the massive problem of the majority of the population (women + LGBT persons) being denied equality and opportunity will remain. I guess you missed the part where one of the most grievous crimes committed by ISIS is the mass rape and literal enslavement on women and the execution of gay men by throwing them off high buildings.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:55 PM
#57
I guessed you missed the part where 300,000 have died
Unlike you, I mourn the deaths and mlstreatement of all involved, not just subgroups.
DO you honestly believe that straight men were also not subjected to persecution before this war? Do you really believe that women and LGBT are the ONLY ones to be subjected to oppression?
Yes, what ISIS is doing to gays and woman is heinous. It's one reason why they need to be crushed. But it's not the only one.
The world is bigger than you and your narrow concerns.
January 13th, 2016 at 9:26 PM
#58
Nothing I wrote suggests I
Nothing I wrote suggests I don't recognize the injustices heteronormative men face from oppressive regimes or fail to be saddened by the sense death. You choose to take my comments in that disingenuous vein because it obviously discomforts many to be reminded that most societies are built to service the status of a minority.
If I wrote something identical about whites in the U.S. almost no oen but actual racists would really object, but when I do it for women and LGBT people, even supposed supporters of equality and universal human rights, suddenly get upset. That disconnect is exactly what I intend to elucidate, however unpopular my views are.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:24 PM
#59
Cart before the horse
Both set of issues are important, and both sexism/terrible treatment of LGBT community, as well as mass murder of innocent lives, are worthy and valid issues which were, are, and will continue to be pressing concerns in the region.
However...one is worse than the other. Murder is worse than discrimination, beating, false imprisonment, etc. (generally speaking here). You have to, you know, actually be a living human being to experience discrimination, beating, false imprisonment, whereas murder takes your entire existence from you. The other problems you mention w/r/t to the LGBT community and women, while also unspeakably awful, take something less from a person than their very existence. I'd rather lose my dignity/be discriminated against/be treated terribly/be false imprisoned... but keep my life/existence on this earth, personally, if given the choice; I think most human beings would agree. (Obviously, of course, I'm not saying any of these is a good choice, and in fact I'm saying they are all morally repugnant...just that one-- murder-- is worse than the others; our penal code in the U.S. reflects this, as it does in most industrialized nations. That's why murder carries the highest sentence).
January 13th, 2016 at 8:57 PM
#60
so you really are madonna! i knew it!! :)
so you really are madonna! i knew it!! :)
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 9:18 PM
#61
You got me.
Despite making
You got me.
Despite making tens of millions of dollars in my career, it kept me up at night not having that A.B. I cleverly snuck back as a Korean woman (you know to fool the paprazzi) to finally graduate. I even managed to release Ray of Light my senior year.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:51 PM
#62
you're going to get negged to hell for this
But you're not wrong. The "average" American is pretty damn stupid.
/not you guys, those other fans.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:22 PM
#63
Correction: The average HUMAN is stupid.
Stupidity is the most common trait shared among humans.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:31 PM
#64
The Era of Idiocracy is nigh.
The Era of Idiocracy is nigh. Prepare thyselves.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:27 PM
#68
As I like to say, the masses
As I like to say, the masses are the asses. How else can you explain why more people vote for American Idol than they do the Presidential Election. Or even more mind-blowing, how do you explain why people continue to buy Budweiser products?
January 13th, 2016 at 4:30 PM
#69
Because there are more than
Because there are more than two choices to vote for on American Idol, unlike the presidential elections. And if you do, your vote is essentially pointless. Not that your one vote is going to decide anything if you do side with either gang.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:31 PM
#70
The 2000
Presidential election would like a word.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:34 PM
#71
Wasn't decided by one
Wasn't decided by one vote.
Wasn't there a comedy movie about that happening?
January 13th, 2016 at 4:45 PM
#72
I'm going to stop talking
now, because you're young and obviously don't know any better. This is a conversation that would likely end with my account getting nuked.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:52 PM
#73
murica
amirite
January 13th, 2016 at 6:03 PM
#74
Doesn't matter if you vote
Doesn't matter if you vote red or blue, either you look at it you lose.
Come call me when the TV networks cover more than just the blue or red gangs seriously.
Also, it's funny how you dismiss my thoughts even though I have the right to vote just as you do. Don't worry though, it's going to take a completely different electorial system for me to ever vote.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:21 PM
#75
in the age
of the internet and social media everything you need about and candidate is out there and using a cop out like the TV networks didn't give me a third option is just kind of silly.
I don't think anyone is dismissing your thoughts; but frankly voting takes 15 minutes. Saying your vote doesn't matter or doesn't count is just silly and wrong. The non-voting population could easily decide every election ever if they actually just voted.
If you don't like either of the candidates than write in someone. You won't see any real change until above 50-60% of the population voted. If we had 100% participation and only 60% went with a named candidate you would say a major change in candidates. Or vote against what your area is; if you live in a republican area vote democrat and vice versa; it won't change that election but it will show future candidates where there might be weakness. If we just stopped voting for incumbents and actually voted people and AND out of office it would be a different story all together.
January 14th, 2016 at 10:00 AM
#76
Given your views on some issues
Kind of glad about that. Doesn't cancel my vote out. And while it usually isn't close in presidental elections, where I live several school districts around us and my own have come down to one or two votes. Ours in 2010 passed by two votes. A neighboring district failed when it tied. http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2010/11/30/story-amanda-clearcreek-l...
January 13th, 2016 at 9:40 PM
#77
Devotee you really need to study up on the 2000 election.
Devotee you really need to study up on the 2000 election.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 4:50 PM
#78
Or the 1876 election. Or the 1800 election.
O the 1824 election.
In 1876 the Democrats LET the Republicans take the White House in exchange for the Republicans letting the South re-impose white supremacy on blacks. One of the many charming tales of American history that is rarely discussed.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:00 PM
#79
Yep... Grant was great for
Yep... Grant was great for blacks in the south and then corrupt ass Rutherford B Hayes got the Presidency and it all went to shit.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:15 PM
#80
re-impose???
at what point in American history has white supremacy not been imposed upon black people?
January 13th, 2016 at 4:58 PM
#81
Even in 2000, most individual
Even in 2000, most individual states weren't seriously in play. That probably discourages turnout. If you're a member of the minority party in your state, you may not feel very motivated to wait in line and vote for a candidate whom you know won't carry the state.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:37 PM
#82
I think
it has more to do with general political apathy, a necessary component of inverted totalitarianism. Look it up, it is worth a read, and a thought or two.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:05 PM
#83
I was going to respond to this with a rant.
But I thought better of it.
I don't agree with idea of inverted totaliarianism taking place in the US. That's all I'll say on that.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:22 PM
#84
No,
by all means rant a bit. The mods are cutting us some slack here.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:13 PM
#85
Interesting
I'd never heard the term before. And after reading less than a page about it, that's exactly what's happening in this country today.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:50 PM
#86
Oh, no, no, no.
Not when Leftists dominate the media, academia, and the entertainment. Not when universities are indoctrination centers. Not when documentaries are seen as "the truth" rather than the biased and manipulative mediums that they are.. Not when blaming the rich and corporations sells books, documentaries and wins votes.Too much is be gained in power and financially to not to appeal to the prejudices of people.
If you consider the fact that the Left has honed and develop political manipulation techniques and tactics for well over a century it then ought to occur to a person who possess a sovereign mind that this concept is part of the ongoing propaganda campaign.
Not that the Right doesn't do any of this. They do. But the Left is especially capable at this. So much so that the Nazis(who were superb themselves at this) openly borrowed from them.
The lesson, kids, is that politics are one big game of deceit and manipulation. Always has been. Always will be.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:58 PM
#87
Have
you considered that "the left" and "the right" are actually illusory distinctions perpetuated to both divide the population and create the illusion of choice? it would seem that that kind of compartmentalization results in the exact kind of political subversion advanced by the theory of inverted totalitarianism.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:04 PM
#88
Have you considered that they are not?
That the country is fundamentally more divided than we wish to admit?
The reality is that human beings are a naturally divided race. We see and understand the world differently. It's an naturally occurring trait of humans that emanates from our different experiences and how we react to them.Because our experiences are different and because we are temperamentally different our intellectual and emotional responses to events differ.
The Left-Right paradigm in American political terms is very real. It's origins-philosophically-speaking--is most often assigned to Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke, two very real and very influential men.
Democracies are forever sweating under the Damocles Sword of disunion because of Man's inclination towards wildly divergent points of view.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:11 PM
#89
Yes.
by all means I have considered it. I am in fact considering it right now. I give a lot of thought to most every idea and possibility.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:17 PM
#90
Those damn liberals! I hate
Those damn liberals! I hate them so much!
But seriously, bruh, maybe it's time to stop posting, leave work, and have a big drink.
January 14th, 2016 at 2:44 AM
#91
I agree.....with your
I agree.....with your original impulse to avoid posting this kind of rant.
January 14th, 2016 at 6:28 AM
#92
The irony is that although
The irony is that although you jumped down my throat I agree with what you wrote here and respect your overall critically-minded approach to issues. The reason I am so hard on the liberal-left from a liberal-left standpoint is because of the double-standards and manipulation that runs rampant. I'm not trying to turn it into an indentity politics contests but rather point out how they fail to even be consistent with their professed approach by abandoning women and LGBT people (and Asians as I could have added on a personal note) when it suits political ends.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:58 PM
#93
all
all of our fandom is essentially pointless in the outcome of the game - so why bother? Why watch, why cheer, why buy all of the apparalz
January 13th, 2016 at 4:31 PM
#94
It can be explained by
It can be explained by convenience. You don't have to take time off of work to vote for American Idol. Budweiser is sold in a lot of stores and it's cheap as fuck.
January 13th, 2016 at 9:52 PM
#95
Has it ever occurred to
Has it ever occurred to anyone that's how our own government wants us; Fat, stupid, and dependent.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 3:59 PM
#96
They named it that because
They named it that because that's the name (it's from Qatar originally)
January 13th, 2016 at 4:02 PM
#97
They could have and probably
They could have and probably should have changed the name for the American market like they did with their sports network.
BeIN Sports.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:40 PM
#98
I agree that maybe they
I agree that maybe they should have marketed themselves more, but I think people mostly understand what it is at this point. It would have shut down years ago otherwise. And maybe keeping the sports channel as Al Jazeera would have been better actually.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:44 PM
#99
Al Jazeera had a pretty poor
Al Jazeera America had a pretty poor distribution system as well.
I don't think many cable/satelite providers carried the channel. That's on the execs for poor business strategy.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:55 PM
#100
well that and people
calling the cable companies and bitching about having to pay for the terrorist news network.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:46 PM
#101
Eh, wouldn't have changed the
Eh, wouldn't have changed the fact their reporting mirrored MSNBC's. If you're going to copycat, at least copycat the channel with the good ratings.
In the end Al Gore sold to them because Current was going down the tubes, all the oil money in the world can't change the underlying fundamentals which are that messing with Peyton Manning apparently gets you killed(did they not watch his SNL United Way ad?)
January 13th, 2016 at 3:47 PM
#102
WE BEAT THE TERRORISTS!
... oh, you said Al Jazeera.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:46 PM
#103
This is surprising
Even though I never used them as my main news source, I had heard their name come up in various reports and had assumed they were doing well. I sincerely hope the name wasn't the reason it got so little traffic.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:52 PM
#104
I think it has less to do
I think it has less to do with the name, and more to do with the fact that TV news viewers seem to largely prefer sensationalized rhetoric to anything resembling actual news.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:29 PM
#105
I think this is more to do with the price of oil
Qatar has to tighten up their spending with oil prices plumetting. Al Jazeera was just a luxury they could spend their wealth on. I don't think they were in the media business to turn a profit or attract viewers. They just wanted their own news network.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:47 PM
#106
Thoughts
and prayers to everybody at Al Jazeera America.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:49 PM
#107
first comment of the day
to make me laugh out loud. All the upvotes to you.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:55 PM
#108
RIP, Al Jazeera America
It's terrible when a boutique cable news network dies.
It's even worse when one dies so damned young!
January 13th, 2016 at 4:12 PM
#109
(No subject)
January 13th, 2016 at 3:48 PM
#110
Grief Counseling is Available
for those so inclined...
January 13th, 2016 at 3:50 PM
#111
I don't watch any news on TV so I never saw these guys
but strictly and solely from a marketing/branding standpoint, their name could not have been more poorly suited to their goals in the American news media market.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:07 PM
#112
You are correct, but in spite
You are correct, but in spite of that, they really did a good job of covering the news as opposed to partisan ranting.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:50 PM
#113
It's tough to get a foothold
It's tough to get a foothold in the American market when you're not talking about Kim Kardashian or other sensationalized bullshit 24/7.
I'm sure the foreign Arabic name didn't help either with scared xenophobes.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:22 PM
#114
In fairness, Stern's
In fairness, Stern's interview with Khloe Kardashian this morning was riveting.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:36 PM
#115
Did he ask her about her
Did he ask her about her professional opinion on vaccinations too?
January 14th, 2016 at 11:08 AM
#116
Or the fact that Al Jazeera
Or the fact that Al Jazeera openly cheered attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Fuck them.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 3:49 PM
#117
Too bad, I actually like that
Too bad, I actually like that network for the varied content provided.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:51 PM
#118
Take that, Osama bin Laden!
Good luck getting your Mexican immigrants across the border with their fake global warming and hatred of freedom now!
January 13th, 2016 at 3:57 PM
#119
Well,
IBD, but that was funny. Also, assauit weapons, video game violence, drones, and government officials using private email accounts - take that!!
January 13th, 2016 at 3:54 PM
#122
I never really watched the network
But I will say that they covered a lot of international stories that are completely ignored by the other US based media outlets.
American's don't want news. They want to be entertained.
/that rumbling sound is Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow spinning in their graves.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:12 PM
#123
Damn straight. And perceived
Damn straight. And perceived news has to be unquestioned press releases from da gubmint.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 4:15 PM
#124
Gotta give the public what
Gotta give the public what they want. I am old enough to remember when both Fox and CNN actually were news channels.....
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 5:36 PM
#125
Wow. You're still pretty
Wow. You're still pretty sharp for your age if you remember that.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:56 PM
#126
I'm not surprised.
I'm not surprised. Especially since Current TV before them wasn't doing much better in the ratings.
Are they shutting down or are they looking to sell? If I win the powerball tonight I might want to buy a cable network.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:57 PM
#127
But where will I go
to listen to anti-American propaganda? I guess I will have to un-delete MSNBC from my cable.
January 13th, 2016 at 3:59 PM
#128
Dumb.
Dumb.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:03 PM
#129
You
deleted one particular bundled channel from your cable? Take me through this process, step by step.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:16 PM
#130
First step is to cut the
First step is to cut the cable. Do that and then get back to me
January 14th, 2016 at 10:34 AM
#131
You make a favorites list
and get rid of things like public access, any home shopping networks, jesus related channels, and any other stuff that has no relevance to what you want to view. Pretty standard.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:10 PM
#132
Where will you go to hear
Where will you go to hear things the US mainstream media refuses to report on?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 4:16 PM
#133
You should use this search engine Google sometime.
It's really awesome.
Seriously, your comment is absurd in the day and age of the internet. You can find any and all points of view in a matter of seconds.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:33 PM
#134
I don't think his comment is
I don't think his comment is absurd at all. Finding a FACTUAL news source these days is not as easy as it seems. Almost all network news sources are playing to an audience and shape their reporting accordingly as do almost all bloggers. Having opposing points of view allows you to see the arguments both sides are setting forth, but first, you need facts and getting them isn't always easy.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:39 PM
#135
It's quite easy to get facts if
Facts can be found in abundance.It's the contextualization of said facts that is the issue.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:49 PM
#136
Even factual reporting is not
Even factual reporting is not as straightforward as some people like to think. Without going political, look at unemployment. There are lots of different benchmarks that are reported upon and available from BLS, but there is constant division between political groups as to what the benchmarks actually mean to say nothing as to changes in the manner data is collected. Change the channel and the report that sounded great on channel A is getting lambasted on channel B.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:44 PM
#137
Everyone here is familiar
Everyone here is familiar with biased reporting in the sport world, and that is Deflategate. I read every report, hearing transcript and pleading filed in the case and you eventually reach, relatively early, the opinion that Brady was being taken down, particularly by the totally biased talking heads on ESPN. I mean, crap, you didn't have to know much more than the Ideal Gas Law to think that a 20 degree temperature drop equates to a loss of a couple of PSI (thank you Michigan Engineering) but most of the jerks, like Mark Brunell, didn't seem to take the same course work.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:32 PM
#138
Inspired by the "Deflatriots"
Inspired by the "Deflatriots" three of my son's 3rd grade classmates did Science Fair projects to Test the hypothesis of whether having a deflated ball is advantageous.
All three experiments concluded that you can throw a partially deflated ball further than a fully inflated one.
Still not sure how that's a material advantage and the name "Deflategate" is gay to begin with, but the whole scandal was as much about being uncooperative with the almighty Roger than anything else.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:28 PM
#139
lol, so which bandwagon Pats
lol, so which bandwagon Pats fans are butthurt over 3rd graders using the term "Deflatriots"?
January 13th, 2016 at 7:24 PM
#140
If you mean that Brady should
If you mean that Brady should have given his phone to Wells, I'd suggest that he had absolutely no requirement to do so as well as no punishment. Wells didn't even push the point.
That the balls had lower air pressure is not the issue be rather the cause of the lower pressure.
January 14th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
#141
I wouldn't have given Roger
I wouldn't have given Roger my phone either, broham. But of course that's irrelevant to the point (unless your Brady's lawyer or agent) when the commish is dictator and can do what he wants.
Systemic issues with pushing boundaries or crossing the line will draw attention in any business or industry. Maybe if New England would stop cheating in all these different ways, Roger wouldn't get so pissed off and act so incredulously, demanding someone's phone like a power hungry, paranoid dictator.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:39 PM
#142
Says the guy that.... Never mind.
Says the guy that.... Never mind.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 4:40 PM
#143
Oh, you again.
Nice to see you.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:43 PM
#144
Well, you haven't changed
Well, you haven't changed much either. Happy New Year. No hard feelings.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 5:31 PM
#145
Um...
I don't think you thought his comment through, unless you're suggesting Googling "things the mainstream media refuses to report on."
January 13th, 2016 at 5:48 PM
#146
Um, I don't think you thought your post through.
unless, of course, you are unaware that you can Google a story and see tons of articles from a wide variety of outlets.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:02 PM
#147
You're complicating a simple
You're complicating a simple comment, G. I still like you though. Today.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 7:28 PM
#148
And how do you know there's a story to Google
if it isn't being reported on? I can't wait for this answer, because this could completely change my understanding of at least two industries.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:12 PM
#149
Daily Mail
They report loads of stuff the US media won't. They also have lots of Jenner/Kardasian news so take it with a grain of salt.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:36 PM
#150
These Comments...
NOTE:
Yeah, comments like WorldFlyer's are the sort we do not need in this thread - please endeavor to keep politically charged opinions out of this thread, eveyone. If you really want to focus on what this means, quite a few journalists are going to lose their positions when this channel shuts down in April, so there's a human cost to events such as this.
We can try it out and leave this as it is rather significant media news, but let's keep certain subjects out of the discussion.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:54 PM
#151
As opposed to the flurry of
As opposed to the flurry of Americans are fat and stupid type comments from earlier.
Don't get me wrong, I agree Worldflyer's comments were out of line, but there were other examples to be highlighted as well.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:00 PM
#152
Are you trying to argue
that American's aren't fat? That is a verifiable fact.
Also, we're #19 amongst nations for average IQ. Not bad, but not so great either.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:13 PM
#153
No I'm saying those are just
No I'm saying those are just about as political and indicative of a certain skew as the comment LSA highlighted, but I found it odd only the one got mentioned.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:27 PM
#154
No, they are not political
They are facts. The comment highlighted by LSA was idiotic hyperbole.
Simple Definition of fact
· : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
· : a true piece of information
January 13th, 2016 at 5:44 PM
#155
I was also using hyperbole to
I was also using hyperbole to make my point, but good job taking the literal interpretation of what I said to try to argue with a strawman.
Simple definition of Strawman:
: a sham argument set up to be defeated.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:23 PM
#156
so you introduced
A logical fallacy into a discussion, and I'm the idiot?
Ok cool.
January 13th, 2016 at 10:16 PM
#157
You can get your bigoted and anti-science views at Fox News!
You can get your bigoted and anti-science views at Fox News!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 3:59 PM
#158
More like, don't mess with
More like, don't mess with the NFL and their hand picked face of the game (at least until Andrew Luck returns).
January 13th, 2016 at 4:02 PM
#159
I sure hope
this doesn't mean Al Gore has to give the money back.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:26 PM
#160
(No subject)
January 13th, 2016 at 4:57 PM
#161
Before he tragically turned into a Crazed Sex Poodle
January 13th, 2016 at 4:07 PM
#162
Sweet.
Sweet.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 4:16 PM
#163
Looks like I will have to
Looks like I will have to rely more on RT for my news and analysis.
Well that and TMZ..
January 13th, 2016 at 4:22 PM
#165
This sucks. Most of the best
This sucks. Most of the best investigative news stories I have seen over the past several years have come from AJA.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:25 PM
#166
Clearly
you have never visited a little site known as Before Its News, that is the good stuff.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:18 PM
#167
Yeah, given the total
Yeah, given the total corporatization of news outlets they were the closest thing to independent news channel in America.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:28 PM
#168
Nationwide jingle
"Fuck with me and I'll shut you down"
Time for some queso dip...
January 13th, 2016 at 4:36 PM
#169
That's a first rate post right there!
That's a first rate post right there!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 4:36 PM
#170
Fuck 'em
Fuck 'em
January 13th, 2016 at 4:37 PM
#171
In before
Nationwide commercial.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:47 PM
#172
At least Al Gore got his $500 million out of the
At least Al Gore got his $500 million out of the deal.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:08 PM
#173
all the monies
belong to Al.
January 13th, 2016 at 4:56 PM
#174
I get all my news from
I get all my news from MGoBlog anyway
January 13th, 2016 at 5:00 PM
#175
I've got a good friend that works for Al Jazeera America
He works on the distribution side of the business (I used to work in cable too.)
He told me the choice was made internally to not hide the ownership of the company and be transparent. He also told me how hard it was selling the channel to cable operators in certain parts of the States because of the name.
I'm bummed not just for him, but because I thought AJ America was the best TV news reporting out there. Got tired of the other "news" channels that were just mouthpieces for the various political parties.
Most people that have seen the network and its reporting would agree that it's serious and good journalism. It's definitely a real loss for everyone.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:10 PM
#176
I'll politely disagree.
One, there are plenty of good sources of news out there for people to acquire their information. The demise of Al Jazeera does not impact this one bit.
Secondly, mostly old people watch TV news. The real basis for news i the internet. That's where the future of news is. Unregulated(or nearly so) and can be accessed almost anywhere.
I, myself, read the news with the occasional clip. I rarely watch cable or even network news. I am far from being an anomaly.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:21 PM
#177
He said it was one of the best TV news sources
And it was.
I don't get most of my news from TV, but AJA was waaaaay better than CNN, MSNBC or FNC. Those are all gabarge merchants.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:46 PM
#178
And I say that it wasn't.
It's a matter of opinion.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:27 PM
#179
Fair enough
Fair enough, so what TV News outlet do you feel are better?
January 13th, 2016 at 9:03 PM
#180
Except you didn't say what,
Except you didn't say what, on TV, you think is better. BBC sure, but what else?
U.S. cable "news" is a joke. Reporting is bad and analysis worse.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 6:22 PM
#181
I get my news from more than the TV
I get most of my news from the Internet too (considering I have an Internet-focused job, I should), but I'm certainly not old. However, I have news running in the background in my office and frequently watch AJ for their in depth reporting.
For those people who rely on the TV for their news, it is a loss. Anytime you have a concentration of media or news reporting, it isn't good for democracy.
FWIW, my wife used to work for CNN, which she says is now crap. She thinks AJ America has a lot of good reporting (it is many of the old guard at CNN).
January 13th, 2016 at 5:00 PM
#182
Stud Bronco Gives Jazerra Face Job
I'll show myself out
January 13th, 2016 at 5:03 PM
#183
Spring Football
I think we need there to be two football seasons a year.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:08 PM
#184
I'd be more excited if I heard the Freep was
Next to shut down.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:19 PM
#185
As long as
Animal Planet isn't shut down, I'll be fine.
January 13th, 2016 at 5:20 PM
#186
Oh well, fuck them!
Oh well, fuck them!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 5:37 PM
#187
Good. One less outlet
Good. One less outlet telling me Im a bad person because of my sex and pigment.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:09 PM
#188
So I guess we're all in
So I guess we're all in agreement that the us media sucks, regurgitates government propaganda to push an insider's only agenda, and that most of the public are too distracted, dumb, or blindly subservient to their political party, favorite politician, or pet cause to figure it out. Great! Everyone reaching this conclusion gets an A.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 13th, 2016 at 7:21 PM
#189
What do you expect. Politics
What do you expect. Politics in America for most Americans these days is tantamount to rooting for a sports team. You know what that isn't fair at all. Even the worst behaved sports team fan is more rational, and polite than most of the political drum beaters in this country.
January 13th, 2016 at 6:48 PM
#190
It probably didn't help that
It probably didn't help that when most Americans hear Al Jazeera they think "That terrorist channel".
January 14th, 2016 at 12:31 AM
#191
Well, this just makes the HGH
Well, this just makes the HGH story that much less believable. Just appears they were making a last ditch effort to become relevant and attract an audience.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
