Al-Jazeera English cleared for Canada

[blake 3:17]

We win again!



Al-Jazeera English network cleared for Canada

Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:05pm EST


Print This Article (http://www.revleft.com/articlePrint?articleId=CATRE5AQ00R20091127)
[- (javascript:sizeDown();)] Text (javascript:resetCurrentsize();) [+ (javascript:sizeUp();)]


By Etan Vlessing
TORONTO (Hollywood Reporter) - Canada's TV watchdog has cleared the way for the English-language Al-Jazeera network to be viewed here as a digital cable channel.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) gave its thumbs-up to the Qatar-based international news service Al-Jazeera English, which is headed by former Canadian Broadcasting Corporation senior executive Tony Burman as managing director.
The CRTC slapped no conditions on the approval for Al-Jazeera English, in contrast to 2003 when it green-lit the Arabic-language al-Jazeera service for Canadian carriage, but ordered cablers and other content carriers to edit out violence or potential hate messages.
No Canadian content carrier has yet taken up the expense, or bother, of editing the Arabic Al-Jazeera service as a condition of carriage.
"Despite concerns expressed by certain parties, there is nothing on the record of the current proceeding that leads the commission to conclude that AJE would violate Canadian regulations, such as those regarding abusive comment," the CRTC said in its Thursday ruling on Al-Jazeera English.
The CRTC received around 2,600 public comments in support of the carriage application by Al-Jazeera English, with only 40 parties expressing opposition, the regulator said.




© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved.

[Ernest Valdemar]

"We" win? Are "we" Al-Jazeera?

So now anybody with several hundred dollars a year to spend on digital cable TV can watch what they can already get for free on the internet?

Al-Jazeera English is actually becoming indistinguishable from CNN.

[Mao "Leon" Joseph Lenin]

Got to love the fact that America is so right wing..... No wait we hate it.
A woman refered to Aljazeera as a slow and subtle jihad, i mean my god, how stupid ca you be.
Then again when you watch fox news...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

it's a lot better than CNN, actually

[Salyut]

it's a lot better than CNN, actually

Yeah, I was was impressed too. Mind you the Blogging Tories are probably *screaming* right now.

Music to my ears. :thumbup1:

[jake williams]

- Al Jazeera English is great for what it is - a product of new wealth and a new localized bourgeoisie in the Middle East. It's really useful, because it covers stories extensively and accurately. It also covers stories a lot of organizations don't. With extensive resources, eg. translators. It's coverage of poverty in the US is also exceptional. No illusions about it, and there are dangerous tendencies, but it's great.

- Putting it on satellite means that people other than geeks on the internet will see it. If I'm not mistaken (I haven't had cable or satellite in years), it'll probably be packaged in with other channels, so people will see it without consciously going out and downloading a player and navigating to the feed etc. etc.

[Saorsa]

Al-Jazeera English is actually becoming indistinguishable from CNN.

CNN would never refer to Nepali PLA fighters as 'freedom fighters'. Al Jazeera is bourgeois media (isn't it funded by Qatar or something?), but it is by far the best of them all.

[KC]

Edit

[Devrim]

If anybody here has watched the Arabic version, they would be quite shocked when they see the English one. I saw the Arabic one long before the English version started, and have seen the English one occasionaly. If you compare them, it is amazing how much the English one has been 'toned down', presumably for the European and American markets. You could be watching a different channel.
Devrim

[ls]

If anybody here has watched the Arabic version, they would be quite shocked when they see the English one. I saw the Arabic one long before the English version started, and have seen the English one occasionaly. If you compare them, it is amazing how much the English one has been 'toned down', presumably for the European and American markets. You could be watching a different channel.
Devrim

Very interesting to hear Devrim, please give us one example if possible , Ifor one would be very interested in understanding the intricate differences between the two in political perspective and such. :)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Devrim just out of interest could you expand on the differences/

[blake 3:17]

Thank you, jammoe.

The thing that has been making me a little crazy is why Bnai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress didn't oppose it this time. Perhaps it is "toned down" -- I think it would be. I imagine the editing would be much tighter.

The other half is that the pro-Zionist lobby has been making a bundle of tactical errors -- opposing the Rachel Corrie play, going after Reena Katz, and the recent Coservative Party smears against Zionist Liberals as being anti-Semitic. They've over extended themselves and the smear of anti-Semitism is losing its power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

tactical errors -- opposing the Rachel Corrie play, going after Reena Katz, and the recent Conservative Party smears against Zionist Liberals as being anti-Semitic. They've over extended themselves and the smear of anti-Semitism is losing its power.

I know there's a Rabble thread on this, but who was the CJC with re. the Tory attack against Zionist Liberals?

[jake williams]

Devrim just out of interest could you expand on the differences/
I can't speak from personal experience because I don't speak Arabic (although I have "watched" the Arabic channel several times - you can judge something without really speaking the language). The fact is they ARE different channels, with entirely different staff for the most part, unless I'm much mistaken almost all of the Arabic channel is staffed and works out of Arab speaking countries, whereas a significant amount of the English channel comes from American (and actually some Canadian) journalists at the Washington bureau. Interestingly, the current head of AJE used to have a senior position at CBC.

I think AJE vs the Arabic channel, "toned down" is probably a good way to describe it. But it's easy to overstate that, and play into racist stereotypes about Arabs all being crazy fanatics. The Canadian readers here will be familiar with the National Post, the right wing rag formerly owned by Lord cum jailbird Conrad Black. Even it acknowledged that the Arabic channel is pretty serious and professional - it's had an important role in actually raising the bar for Arabic journalism generally, and had a pretty profound effect on Arab political culture.

That said it is political (as is the English channel) - the two, however, are working in different political milieux with different staff and independent editorial control, I don't know what else you'd expect.

[RHIZOMES]

- Al Jazeera English is great for what it is - a product of new wealth and a new localized bourgeoisie in the Middle East. It's really useful, because it covers stories extensively and accurately. It also covers stories a lot of organizations don't. With extensive resources, eg. translators. It's coverage of poverty in the US is also exceptional. No illusions about it, and there are dangerous tendencies, but it's great.

Yeah, it is bourgeois media. What I'd like to add to what you said there (which I completely agree with) is that I think one of the reasons Al Jazeera is better is because due to it's Middle Eastern origins it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less Eurocentric. Waaaaay less. So therefore the channel presents a slightly more balanced view of the world (while still firmly bourgeois).

[Saorsa]

Quote:
CNN would never refer to Nepali PLA fighters as 'freedom fighters'.
Where did AJE do this?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nepals-maoist-women-t122580/index.html

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

of course al jazeera is toned down for Westerners
even CNN is toned down for Americans
the American version is very different from CNN international, in which editors are free to be a lot more critical, generally speaking
It's not that Arabs are crazy fanaticals, it's that Americans are extremely conservative
and more importantly reactionary elements in the US have the media by the balls in a big way

[jake williams]

Yeah, it is bourgeois media. What I'd like to add to what you said there (which I completely agree with) is that I think one of the reasons Al Jazeera is better is because due to it's Middle Eastern origins it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less Eurocentric. Waaaaay less. So therefore the channel presents a slightly more balanced view of the world (while still firmly bourgeois).
I agree.

That said there is an interesting tension, I have to assume it's almost conscious - they more openly deal with a lot of the tragedies that are consequent from capitalism, and pretty seriously so, and then the next segment they'll be clearly marketing themselves as a news service for businessmen.

[Devrim]

Very interesting to hear Devrim, please give us one example if possible , Ifor one would be very interested in understanding the intricate differences between the two in political perspective and such. :)


Devrim just out of interest could you expand on the differences/


I can't speak from personal experience because I don't speak Arabic (although I have "watched" the Arabic channel several times - you can judge something without really speaking the language). The fact is they ARE different channels, with entirely different staff for the most part, unless I'm much mistaken almost all of the Arabic channel is staffed and works out of Arab speaking countries, whereas a significant amount of the English channel comes from American (and actually some Canadian) journalists at the Washington bureau. Interestingly, the current head of AJE used to have a senior position at CBC.

Jammoe is right. They are different channels. As for the differences, I think that one that you would pick up just by watching is that the Arabic version is much more graphic. If you have never seen it, or never seen the results of a bomb blast for example, it does not look like it looks on the BBC or CNN. Bits of people, such as children's arms, or corpses are not something you see very often on those channels. The Arabic version is much more graphic. I was quite shocked when I first saw its coverage of an event like this. I have seen these sort of things in real life. They are horrible, but I didn't expect to see them like that on the TV.

The second one is the editorial content. Basicaaly the Arabic version is more overt, and the western one 'tonned down'. I think that mostly it is about marketing. You can be much more critical of America in the Middle East than in the US itself. Of course you can be critical of the US in the US too, but it is not going to work as a commercial televison project.

To give an example, if we go back to the twin towers attack, when I got home from work and told the woman I was living with at the time what had happened, her first comment was 'good'. She wasn't somebody at all religious, but she just thought that America had got 'what it deserved'. I don't think that these are at all uncommon attitudes. Being anti-American is quite mainstream. Now imagine what editorial line you would take on your channel.

Devrim

[blake 3:17]

I know there's a Rabble thread on this, but who was the CJC with re. the Tory attack against Zionist Liberals?

The CJC would have been against it. Their site reproduces the Star article about the Commons Speaker chastising the Tories: http://www.tiny9.com/u/2992