dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
14175

bohratom
My Jersey Giants finally winning again..
join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ

bohratom to matcarl

Member

to matcarl

Re: Al Jazeera channel is live

said by matcarl:

Wasn't this a bug a long time ago, where if you tried to add something to Favorites, it would also add the Spanish one also? It isn't supposed to work like that.

Must be a bug because many channels are duplicated in the 1700+ range yet Al Jazeera America is the only one I find that will add two channels to favorites when just selecting 1. No big deal for me as it's not HD ...
UnnDunn
Premium Member
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY

UnnDunn to matcarl

Premium Member

to matcarl
I know I've had CurrentTV on my favorites list for a long time. I can't remember what number it used to be on--143 or something. Anyway, it moved to 1750 and it's now on 114, and I never had to update my favorites list or series recordings.

matcarl
Premium Member
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

matcarl

Premium Member

said by UnnDunn:

I know I've had CurrentTV on my favorites list for a long time. I can't remember what number it used to be on--143 or something. Anyway, it moved to 1750 and it's now on 114, and I never had to update my favorites list or series recordings.

Oh, now I know what you mean Dunn, but I think you misunderstood the other guy. This channel is in both positions. He just wants to add 114 but 1750 is getting added with it. That shouldn't happen. He didn't mean it moved from 1750 to 114, it's in both spots.
justin9876
join:2006-04-21
Mount Juliet, TN

justin9876

Member

said by matcarl:

said by UnnDunn:

I know I've had CurrentTV on my favorites list for a long time. I can't remember what number it used to be on--143 or something. Anyway, it moved to 1750 and it's now on 114, and I never had to update my favorites list or series recordings.

Oh, now I know what you mean Dunn, but I think you misunderstood the other guy. This channel is in both positions. He just wants to add 114 but 1750 is getting added with it. That shouldn't happen. He didn't mean it moved from 1750 to 114, it's in both spots.

And if you delete either one of them from your Favorites, 114 or 1750, it deletes both. Doesn't seem right to me.

icemannyr1
join:2001-04-11
Township Of Washington, NJ

icemannyr1 to germ

Member

to germ
Al Jazeera does not want Al Jazeera English to compete with the new Al Jazeera America.
That's why Al Jazeera English was removed from WRNN.

matcarl
Premium Member
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

matcarl

Premium Member

said by icemannyr1:

Al Jazeera does not want Al Jazeera English to compete with the new Al Jazeera America.
That's why Al Jazeera English was removed from WRNN.

I wonder if WRNN will replace it? I'm surprised Verizon didn't just drop the subchannel. It's just a simulcast now of the main WRNN on channel 6.

TPC
@netapp.com

TPC to knarf829

Anon

to knarf829
If they show "Faux News"......why not Al Jazeera?

bhan261
join:2001-02-12
New York, NY

bhan261

Member

...and MSNBC

Costme
@rr.com

Costme to knarf829

Anon

to knarf829
said by knarf829:

I have already registered my complaint with Verizon about carrying the domestic offshoot of this anti-American propaganda channel and urge everyone to do the same.

Sure it's "tailored" for an American audience - they'll tone down the hate when broadcasting into our living rooms - but all the money goes right back to the same main channel that held an on-air birthday party for a terrorist that killed 4 people - including bashing the head of a 4 year old girl - and said Jewish people were told not to go to work at the WTC on 9/11.

No thanks.

Thanks for trying to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate for us to watch. If u don't like it put a parental lock in the channel.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

1 recommendation

JPL

Premium Member

I don't want to delve into the political or ideological, and I know I've differences with knarf in the past, but I'm going to come to his defense on this one. Everyone is mischaracterizing what he said. He never said that the content on the channel is bad or inappropriate, or whatever. He said that the channel subsidizes a parent company that has provided support to terrorists. That's his reason for saying that Verizon shouldn't carry the channel. Not because of the content on that one channel, but because of who the parent company is. And can we please stop with the comparisons between say Fox and AJ - if you disagree with what FNC broadcasts, fine... but to say there's an equivalence between their views and terrorism is nothing but hyperbole.

Greg2600
join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ

Greg2600

Member

Wait what? Al Jazeera has never provided support to terrorists, and neither has it's parent. If you are talking about the parent's parent, Saudi Royal family? They are no longer provide funding for the network, and even so, we're all able to buy their oil/gasoline for our cars but can't watch their TV channel? BeIN Sport is owned by the same company, so off with its head too?
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

I never said financial support. But AJ is a propaganda platform. Especially in Arabic, they've broadcast some of the most virulent anti-semitic, anti-American hatred anywhere. Even AJA, which is supposed to be more tailored for an American audience, had as one of the first interviews broadcast, an interview with an American author who is an anti-semitic, anti-zionist conspiracy whack job.

The parent company for AJ has celebrated attacks on the US, and on Israel by terrorists. That's what I mean by 'support'. Whether they also provide financial or material support, I have no idea. But some of the post-9/11 stuff that they broadcast on AJ was nauseating.

Ike1
join:2012-06-02
Brooklyn, NY

Ike1

Member

said by JPL:

Even AJA, which is supposed to be more tailored for an American audience, had as one of the first interviews broadcast, an interview with an American author who is an anti-semitic, anti-zionist conspiracy whack job.

Who's that? I didn't see this interview.
said by JPL:

The parent company for AJ has celebrated attacks on the US, and on Israel by terrorists. That's what I mean by 'support'.

Can you cite unbiased sources for this? I'm curious to see evidence. Thanks.
said by Mike:

this is no time for rational statements

:)
said by Andy from CA:

I'm an FNC viewer, MSNBC hater and I like AJA and will add it to my viewing schedule.

Cool! I'm psyched there is at least FNC viewer who is giving AJA a chance. I'm a bit skeptical of AJ English's coverage of Israel-related stories but other than that, they've been excellent. Unfortunately Al Jazeera has pulled AJ English from distribution here to make us all switch to AJA but so far it seems pretty similar, just with a lot more American accents.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

Here's a reference to the interview:

»www.nationalreview.com/c ··· -johnson

Yes, this is in National Review, which is a conservative site, but note the comments about the author from the likes of Alan Dershowitz (hardly a conservative).

dimi1963
join:2001-12-27
Union, NJ

dimi1963 to germ

Member

to germ
Well said!

Greg2600
join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ

Greg2600 to germ

Member

to germ
The FCC has no control over cable operations, and we still have Freedom of Speech. The more speech the better, the worst thing is to prevent discussion. Bashing Israel or even the United States should not be grounds for stopping the 1st amendment.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

Who said anything about the FCC getting involved, or the US banning the channel? You're reading more into it than was discussed. Also, if Verizon, a private company, decides not to carry a channel for whatever reason, that is NOT an abridgement of the first amendment. Private entities CAN'T abridge your constitutional rights. Only the government can do that. While freedom of speech is a protected right, the requirement that your speech be heard is not. Verizon isn't obligated to give a venue for speech. Nor are you or anyone else obligated to allow such speech being heard. If you come into my house spouting some racist rant, and I kick you out, have I abridged your first amendment rights? No, I haven't. Likewise, if Verizon, because of pressure from its customer base, decided to not carry the channel anymore, because a significant portion of the customer base doesn't like what's said, that is not a violation of the first amendment either.

BTW, if you note, I haven't called for any such thing. I was just trying to clear up what I kept reading as a flagrant mischaracterization over what someone wrote. Knarf never said that the channel shouldn't be carried because they have some ideological bent. He said they shouldn't be carried because of who their parent company is. He even gave the example of having a cable channel by some racist group. Even if that channel was the most balanced channel on the dial, the fact that it was that group that is benefiting from that channel is what makes it objectionable. That's what he was getting at.

I don't care about divergent view points. If you read my posts, I'm a big advocate of a system like Verizon carrying channels that I don't watch - even those that I might find offensive - because even though I won't watch the channel, there are others who will. And that base would draw more customers to their system. The more customers they have, the more pull they have in setting rates for carriage of channels. Which, in the end, actually helps to keep price increases in check. Am I calling for Verizon to drop the channel? No, I'm not.
blue_trooper
join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA

blue_trooper to JPL

Member

to JPL
So they interviewed this guy? This is a country where David Duke can get elected to the House of Representatives.

60 Minutes has interviewed the Imperial Wizard of the KKK. Shut down CBS?

ESPN has celebrated the football activities of known dog killer Michael Vick. Boycott Disney?
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

1 edit

JPL

Premium Member

It wasn't just AN interview. It was the first one aired on the channel. And it fits right into the concerns that many have about the channel. It also goes to the heart of the notion that the channel is all about fair and balanced reporting.

I'll use your example of Duke. Let's say some white supremist group decides to launch a news channel, and people get concerned because of who the group is. Then let's say that representatives from that channel say 'no... we're looking to just have a fair and balanced news channel... you don't have to worry about that kind of bias.' Now... say that same channel airs as its first interview, a discussion they had with David Duke... what would that tell you about the motivations for that channel? It would tell me that their explanation that they're looking to be a fair channel is nonsense.

Do I care that this guy gets air time? Not really. But the guy is a conspiracy whack-job of the mold that believes that the Jews were really behind 9/11. If I were representatives from AJ and I wanted to really create a fair news channel... this wouldn't make it on my channel. I just kept reading on here about how balanced their reporting is. That interview tells me that those who were concerned about the content of the channel were correct to be concerned. Do I think the channel should be banned? Nope. In fact, I think the best way to discredit a clown like this is to let him talk.

One last point - who said anything about boycotting the channel? You're missing the point of what's being said. The interview simply illustrates that the channel is unbiased and balanced is nonsense. I don't care if Verizon carries the channel. I don't care if the channel gives this clown time to spew his nonsense. I'm simply explaining that this is an example that what I keep reading about how fair the channel is is not totally true.
blue_trooper
join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA

blue_trooper

Member

said by JPL:

Let's say some white supremist group decides to launch a news channel, and people get concerned because of who the group is.

Nobody has provided an unbiased source that confirms that AJ has ties to terrorist organizations so I'm not sure the analogy to a channel started by a white supremicist group fits. People arguing against AJ's inclusion in the channel portfolio seem to be taking that for granted.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

In the follow-on to 9/11, bin Laden kept putting out propaganda videos. AJ kept airing them. They kept giving air time to utter propaganda that served the purposes of the number 1 international terrorist organization in the world, just weeks after this same organization launched the 9/11 attacks. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. AJ has also long been accused of holding some pretty severe anti-zionist/anti-semitic views which colored their reporting.

My point in all this is that what I'm seeing being reported on the channel (haven't watched it myself yet, so I'll reserve judgement) matches the concerns that were aired about having such a channel put out there. They assured everyone that we were nuts to believe that they would be an outlet for anti-American/anti-Israel hatred... that they just wanted to create, as they put it, an international version of what something like PBS would show. This interview is just one piece of evidence that what they were saying was utter crap. That they do have a bias. Is it a severe bias? I don't know. But it makes me question the channel.

No, I don't want it banned. I don't want the FCC or the government in any way to step in (why 'concern about a channel being carried on Verizon' always seems to translate as 'we want the channel banned!' is beyond me - no one has made that case as far as I can tell). But it seems simply disingenuous to me to claim that the channel is nothing but a fair and balanced news outlet, and that we should flush all reservations that it's really an outlet for anti-American/anti-Israel nut-jobbery.

I will check out the channel, and I'll reserve full judgement until I do so. I'm just saying that those who have expressed concern about the channel don't appear to be wrong in having that concern.
PJL
join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA

PJL

Member

said by JPL:

...
... That they do have a bias. Is it a severe bias? I don't know. But it makes me question the [inserted: replace "the" with "a"] channel.

... But it seems simply disingenuous to me to claim that the [inserted: replace "the" with "a"] channel is nothing but a fair and balanced news outlet, and that we should flush all reservations that it's really an outlet for ...

Unfortunately these comments could be said for all "news" channels, per my inserts into the quote.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

said by PJL:

said by JPL:

...
... That they do have a bias. Is it a severe bias? I don't know. But it makes me question the [inserted: replace "the" with "a"] channel.

... But it seems simply disingenuous to me to claim that the [inserted: replace "the" with "a"] channel is nothing but a fair and balanced news outlet, and that we should flush all reservations that it's really an outlet for ...

Unfortunately these comments could be said for all "news" channels, per my inserts into the quote.

Yes, that's true. I'm a conservative (very much so), but I would be the first to admit that FNC has a conservative bent (although I do find it humorous when liberals tell me MSNBC is right down the middle). That's not what I have issue with. If AJA were some independent station that had ties to no one and they put on nothing but anti-American programing 24x7 I would have no concerns whatsoever. But there are allegations that AJA's parent company has provided support for terrorists. Again, not financial support, necessarily, but those bin Laden videos still stick in my craw. THAT'S the concern that I have.

On top of that, all I keep reading is how balanced and fair the channel is. That statement is made for one reason - to discount the concerns that people have about the channel. I've provided (limited, granted) evidence to the counter. Which, to me, calls into question all the virtues being extolled about the channel.

Again, it's not the fact that it's a divergent view point that I have issue with. It's not even that they put on some whack-job with a tired and insulting conspiracy theory about 9/11. It's the fact that part of the money I pay to Verizon is going back to a company that has aired terrorist propaganda. Finally, all comparisons with what AJ aired, and what FNC airs is, like I said, hyperbole. People may think that O'Reilly is a blow-hard, or that Hannity can't go two sentences without blaming Obama for something. But that's just polemic disguising as political discourse. People just shouting their political views. To claim that that's on par with providing an avenue for terrorists to spout their propaganda is wrong and insulting.

Maybe I'm wrong... maybe the channel is everything that its proponents say it is. I'll find out for myself, and if I'm wrong in my concern, then I'll be the first to admit it.

Ok, enough said. I think I've done enough damage here .

bohratom
My Jersey Giants finally winning again..
join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ

2 recommendations

bohratom to germ

Member

to germ
Im more confused between the names JPL and PJL atm...
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

JPL

Premium Member

You wouldn't be the first . I've read some of PJL's posts, and misread the handle, thinking 'did I really write that... my memory must really be going because I really don't remember writing that.'

germ
join:2006-09-30
Long Beach, CA

1 edit

germ to JPL

Member

to JPL
said by JPL:

In the follow-on to 9/11, bin Laden kept putting out propaganda videos. AJ kept airing them. They kept giving air time to utter propaganda that served the purposes of the number 1 international terrorist organization in the world, just weeks after this same organization launched the 9/11 attacks.

Is that much different than when NBC decided to air excerpts from Seung-Hui Cho's manifesto and video(the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre), despite protests from many affected by his crimes?

Also, it's funny, the previous director of Al Jazeera, Wadah Khanfar, resigned for supposedly being under the influence of the US. Like I previously said, Al Jazeera has pretty much angered everyone at one point or another.
billhere
join:2011-10-21
Santa Monica, CA

billhere to germ

Member

to germ
FNC - Right
MSMBC - Left
CNN - somewhat center
BBC News - straightforward
Al Jazeera America - too early to call

...and the last two are not HD channels, although the picture is reasonably good on both.

Sanjay 973
@mycingular.net

Sanjay 973 to matcarl

Anon

to matcarl
It will be replaced by France 24 English feed. It was suppose to be on since yesterday on channel 481

Ike1
join:2012-06-02
Brooklyn, NY

Ike1

Member

said by Sanjay 973 :

It will be replaced by France 24 English feed. It was suppose to be on since yesterday on channel 481

Just so it's clear for everyone else reading, channel 481 (WRNN-DT2) is in the greater NYC/northern NJ area only. (The higher 400s are local digital sub-channels.)

I'm curious to see France 24 English. I'm glad WRNN is picking that up since AJE has pulled itself.
jpradley
join:2002-02-03
New York, NY

jpradley to UnnDunn

Member

to UnnDunn
Can you give me an example of opther pairings similar to that of 1141750?