said by Rakeesh:
That particular channel was once LINK, World News, then Current, and now apparently Al Jazeera. It looks to me like this channel hasn't ever had much viewership, and is just kind of the turd that keeps getting kicked around. Why bother keeping it if that trend doesn't look to change any time soon? I mean ask yourself, how many people do you know that will actually regularly tune in to Al Jazeera?
Sorry but this argument makes very little sense... you are saying that since the channel keeps changing it's content it has no viewership so TW should change its content?
The change from Current to Al Jazeera IS
a change of content, regardless of who does it. If TW dropping the channel were not politically motivated, they would simply go with the change and make a decision based on its ratings. The people arguing that the station gets no ratings are leaving out the fact that there is almost no one that carries it. How exactly can a channel have ratings when it is unavailable? There is no doubt the channel would have higher ratings than some of the crap TW is keeping.
The change is political. Your Illuminati comment not withstanding, American media is not willing to let alternate ideas into the American mainstream where they can help it. They want to preserve the status quo where they are in control of what the majority of Americans see and think about. It is very similar to the virtual blackout of 3rd party presidential candidates and I won't be a bit surprised if other outlets also drop them.