Powered by i.TV
April 16, 2014

Al Jazeera turns to YouTube for U.S. distribution - VIDEO

by Brad Linder, posted Apr 16th 2007 6:28PM
Al JazeeraArab news network Al Jazeera launched an English language network almost half a year ago. But the network hasn't had much luck getting on air in the United States, where many broadcasters consider Al Jazeera to be biased against America and Israel.

So what does Al Jazeera do? They go and partner up with YouTube, creating an online channel for their material. The channel went live today, and while the introductory video has been watched a couple thousand views, most of the actual news stories have only been clicked on a few times so far.
Is this a desperate move on the part of a struggling network? Not really. Al Jazeera's available to 100-million viewers worldwide. But the move will give Americans, who have limited access to the channel, the chance to judge for themselves whether it presents a biased point of view, or if it's just too much like the BBC World News to warrant air time in the U.S.

Here's a recent Al Jazeera story, available on the network's new YouTube channel.



[via Mashable]

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

3 Comments

Filter by:
Jim Zackey


One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital priority and concern for the protection and well-being of American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions.

Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant and insignificant issues.

Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries. The following examples serve as a litmus test:
According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate, so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths 16:1 by his estimate is higher than in any other war in U.S. history.

The White House budget director, Rob Portman has asked, in the new budget, basically for another $365 billion over the next few fiscal years. This comes on the $433 billion that ’s already been spent, a total of nearly $800 billion.

And what a lot of people are asking: Is this good money going after bad given the current situation in Iraq? Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the other day: It ’s doubly shameful because we’re trying to restore places like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast here in this country. That’s been held up, and this money’s being wasted in Iraq.
Media outlets ought to probe the cakewalk crowd who promised a casual march to victory in Iraq. Media activists should campaign for accountability of the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”

The Self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves.

All Americans have a right to alternate opinion. More so, when owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts. This is for a country spending $8 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq. The self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground.

Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of accountable media that is injurious to American interest.

April 21 2007 at 7:52 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
const

makes the BBC seem impartial. yikes.

April 17 2007 at 9:53 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Recury

That was better than American cable news in every single way.

April 16 2007 at 7:25 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners