Time Warner Cable’s statement was terse, but its timing spoke volumes. Explaining the end of its relationship with the beleaguered liberal news network Current TV, the cable distributor to 12 million homes stated that “our agreement with Current will be terminated and we will no longer be carrying the channel.” Given that Current TV has few viewers, Time Warner Cable’s decision might have passed with little notice. But only a few hours earlier, the Qatar-based network Al Jazeera had announced it is buying Current TV for $500 million in hopes of gaining traction in US markets. Thus, it is difficult to see how Time Warner Cable’s move wasn’t anything other than a reflexive rejection of Al Jazeera, based on an outdated sense of the network’s content. Time Warner Cable should let the market, and viewers, decide if America is ready for the network’s newest station, Al Jazeera America.
Al Jazeera is a media empire with a presence around the globe. But Al Jazeera has always struggled with American cable operators who recall its early coverage of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was notably more skeptical of US aims than that of American networks. Al Jazeera has evolved considerably since then. It has been a largely independent and indispensable source of news on the Arab Spring and its aftermath. It has been praised by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain for providing high-quality coverage. But companies like Time Warner Cable seem unwilling even to give viewers the option of checking it out. Still, many seem interested; 40 percent of viewers on its streaming English-language Internet network are from the United States.
Comments
Meh. I'm not in favor of any religious states. Qatar is a Muslim State. Qatar owns and controls Al Jazeera. No es bueno. Me no likey.
I'm surprised at you. Afraid of what they might say or report. This is what America is suppose to be about. If I have to hear Christian nutcases on the radio and TV then others should be exposed to Muslim nutcases, although they are pretty good at the news from that area of the world and not really into religious propaganda.
This comment has been removed.
Not a word about Al Gore selling to a terrorist sympathizing media. Shameful. the Globe is more concerned about Time-Warner's decision thaN Al Gores's.
More selective "free enterprise", "free speech", "free" anything. As long as you like it freedom is great. When you don't the name calling starts.
This comment has been removed.
Land of the brave, home of the free and afraid to let "all" viewpoints flow. Have we sunk to new lows. Perhaps the middle eastern states should just block out all the American stations seeing as how they only give America's vision. I recall I used to get the old Soviet Unions newspaper rag just to read what they were thinking. Freedom of speech. My how that becomes selective. Don't we look special. Pretty sad statement about our intellectual cowardice.
If the US government wanted to spend half a billion dollars and go into Qatar with a television station, do you think for a moment it would be allowed? I don't know. Maybe. Probably not, would be my guess. We certainly have a presence there with our military base. The whole idea of an absolute ruling monarchy I definitely can't get past. Sure, the station may currently have a great deal of journalistic freedom, but what happens when the next ruler, son, uncle, whomever takes over? There's too much uncertainty in a system like that. And the whole thing reeks of a giant public relations stunt. Sure, they want good will from the west. The money pours in to the direct benefits of the Petro-lords. The openness, the transparency only goes so deep. Beneath it all is a nasty class-based structure for society that you'd better not try to disrupt if you know what is good for you. It's all trussed-up and clad in a certain brand of Wahabi Islam. Not my cup of tea.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
I agree. Viewers should have the opportunity to view it, judge it, and watch it if they choose. Kudos to those giving AJ TV an opportunity it deserves. We should be encouraging more communication, and more open communication, among all in the West and and East and Middle East, not trying to shut it down, isolate it, or close our minds, without even knowing what's at stake.
So, we outlaw media we don't agree with. How is that in any way the American system? Sounds more like emulation of those we purport to disagree with.
Also, truth stands clear from error. What are we afraid of? If I have an opinion about government, foreign policy, etc. I like to sound off. Why should I say no one else has that right?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
I don't think HHKitchener has actually watched Al Jazeera lately. As the editorial reports, it has evolved considerably and its coverage of low and middle income country issues - health, social issues, economics, education, etc. - is incredibly good and in-depth. Depriving Time Warner subscribers of the chance to make up their own minds (but simultaneously pushing Fox and the other highly partisan channels) doesn't do anything to increase Americans' awareness of issues - and perspectives - in the rest of the world.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
I know that I coming in late to the party but, like HHKitchener2, Iam a first amendment (and 2nd through 10th) amendment absolutist. The goverment has no right to suppress speech, no matter how offensive. However, Time Warner is a private company. They have the right to carry or not to carry any progams that they wish. The Boston Globe makes daily decisions on which news stories, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, comments, and paid adertising to publish or not publish. It seems somewhat hypocitical of the Globe to bash Time Warner on this issue. In end, the marketplace will decide if Time Warner made the right decsion. That is as it should be.
Well "Kitch" if you're still out there I like your absolutist position regarding the 1st Amerndment. However, because a media organ takes a position opposed to our interests or Israels doesn't make it anti-anything. If it is the case that makes it anti-something then everything the US media has progagated in the past, propagates now and in the future must therefore be anti-whoever we oppose at the time. Anti-Iraq, anti-korea. Speech is speech and is either agreed with or not however it is only anti-something if you hold the absolutist position you are right and everyone else is wrong.
This comment has been removed.