Al Jazeera English News Network

[zaza]

I first watched Al jazeera in Saudi during the 9/11 attacks. I could not believe the coverage I was seeing. I can not speak Arabic, but that wasn't needed to get the idea of their particular slant on the event. The imagery together with the triumphant music conveyed their take on things. This together with the mad mullahs I used often to see ranting on that channel and being interviewed were enough for me to form a very negative opinion of the whole enterprise. Regardless of who is presenting the program and how good it is I will get my news elsewhere

Same as what had happen to me while watching Cartoon Network in another language (not the ones I can understand or speak).

I felt all were shouting at me,calling my mother's name repeatedly ( I swear they were shouting my mother's name) and they were making fun of my mind !

How dare them???? we should launch blood-y wars against each one we can not understand or we'd fail to comprehend with !

[Richb2004v2]

I first watched Al jazeera in Saudi during the 9/11 attacks. I could not believe the coverage I was seeing. I can not speak Arabic, but that wasn't needed to get the idea of their particular slant on the event. The imagery together with the triumphant music conveyed their take on things. This together with the mad mullahs I used often to see ranting on that channel and being interviewed were enough for me to form a very negative opinion of the whole enterprise. Regardless of who is presenting the program and how good it is I will get my news elsewhere

Same as what had happen to me while watching Cartoon Network in another language (not the ones I can understand or speak).

I felt all were shouting at me,calling my mother's name repeatedly ( I swear they were shouting my mother's name) and they were making fun of my mind !

How dare them???? we should launch blood-y wars against each one we can not understand or we'd fail to comprehend with !

That wouldn't be the first time thats happened would it. Those of the religion of Al Jazzera and cartoons that they don't like.

[zaza]

I first watched Al jazeera in Saudi during the 9/11 attacks. I could not believe the coverage I was seeing. I can not speak Arabic, but that wasn't needed to get the idea of their particular slant on the event. The imagery together with the triumphant music conveyed their take on things. This together with the mad mullahs I used often to see ranting on that channel and being interviewed were enough for me to form a very negative opinion of the whole enterprise. Regardless of who is presenting the program and how good it is I will get my news elsewhere

Same as what had happen to me while watching Cartoon Network in another language (not the ones I can understand or speak).

I felt all were shouting at me,calling my mother's name repeatedly ( I swear they were shouting my mother's name) and they were making fun of my mind !

How dare them???? we should launch blood-y wars against each one we can not understand or we'd fail to comprehend with !

That wouldn't be the first time thats happened would it. Those of the religion of Al Jazzera and cartoons that they don't like.

Same as the ones who claimed that others are terrorists and process WMD and invaded them for that reason.

Same as the ones who had bombed the other TV stations who exposed their acts and viewed another side of a dirty Real war and not Video games ,babe.

Finally, I do watch cartoon always, so I guess this is not the first time it did happen!

Edited April 18, 2008 by zaza

[rixalex]

You still don't understand that in some cultures showing peoples body's on T.V is NOT seen to take away the victim's privacy and dignity, the victims family may WANT the news to show that so they can get across to the world the awful things that have taken place. You assume because in your culture it is not acceptable to show unedited footage that it must be so elsewhere and everywhere. Very small minded but not surprising really.

May want? Maybe they do, but how in the hel_l do you or does anyone else actually know what the family feel? Do you think they stop and consult with relatives as the story is live and breaking? Or for that matter does the victim who lies bleeding to death with cameramen hustling to get the best angle, get asked whether he wants his or her final moments going out live for the world to get a good look-see? They are not asked and those sorts of news networks, like you, simply don't care because all that drives them is getting the best shot that will attract the biggest ratings and convey the message they want delivered.

Your assertion that in some cultures showing a dead body on TV does not take away the victim's privacy or dignity is an interesting one. I'd be interested to know which cultures you are referring to. My only experience is with Thailand and although it's certainly the norm for the media to film without much sensitivity, all of the educated Thai people I speak to find it quite appalling to have personal tragedy sensationalized in the way it is, especially by the press. In Thailand the media gets away with it just because they can, lack of regulation, not because Thai people think there's anything dignified about showing colour close-ups of someone's dead daughter, son, mother or father.

Edited April 18, 2008 by rixalex

[jstumbo]

....and most of the times the offender and his media doesn't like to be reminded of the crimes he'd committed so how would it be if he was exposed just like what had happened in Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad or Al-Ameryiah shelter in the first gulf-war or many other similar cases.

So, let them rest peacefully in their sofas enjoying watching the ME&ME-Only channels that do the required patting on their flattened egos and beaten conscious.

Making a mistake on a target in the time of war is not a crime. If you think that the US purposely targeted a shelter because they wanted to kill a bunch of civilians you are truly delusional. If the US wanted to kill civilians, it would be much easier to do than that. The Iraqis would purposely put weapons near schools and hospitals in the hopes that the school would be hit just to create a PR nightmare for the US.

Abu Ghraib, sure they should not have done that, but it was not really that bad. Not like the previous landlords were doing. You make it sound like they were hooking up electrodes to the genitals of the prisoners and electrocuting them. Or burning them with blow torches or something like that.

I still do not believe that they should have ever invaded and it was a huge mistake. I wish Bush would have been impeached for it. But you cannot convince me that the US attacks civilians without any military value on purpose.

Edited April 18, 2008 by jstumbo

[madjbs]

My only experience is with Thailand

and there lies your problem, you insist on discussing something you don't understand or even try to understand. As I said before, small minded.

I have had enough as I am waisting my time.

[way2muchcoffee]

Why are people on this forum so rude to one another?

Edited April 18, 2008 by way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

My only experience is with Thailand

and there lies your problem, you insist on discussing something you don't understand or even try to understand. As I said before, small minded.

I have had enough as I am waisting my time.

For goodness sake then, enlighten us with your worldly wisdom.

And yes, i agree, you are wasting your time if all you can do is condescend and get in a huff because someone doesn't share your opinion.

[madjbs]

I don't care that you have a different opinion, I can't be bothered discussing something you admit you have no experience with but still insist that you are right.

Bye

[koheesti]

Why are people on this forum so rude to one another?

Because they are sitting behind the safety of a keyboard. Then again, forums would be much less interesting if people behaved towards one another like they would if talking face to face.

[koheesti]

So I guess the lesson learned is that Arabs don't mind turning on the TV and reliving seeing family members in pain and dying several times a day. Perhaps they'll get lucky and get to see it again during The Week in Review or what a reminder it would be if it made the Years Top Bombings Show.

[Naam]

I first watched Al jazeera in Saudi during the 9/11 attacks. I could not believe the coverage I was seeing. I can not speak Arabic, but that wasn’t needed to get the idea of their particular slant on the event. The imagery together with the triumphant music conveyed their take on things. This together with the mad mullahs I used often to see ranting on that channel and being interviewed were enough for me to form a very negative opinion of the whole enterprise. Regardless of who is presenting the program and how good it is I will get my news elsewhere

you UNhonourable Sir are a f@cking liar! (or perhaps just some poor biased ignoramus?) al-Jazeera TV broadcasting did not exist in 2001.

come on moderators... what about a ban or at least "holidays" for me because i dared to call a f@cking liar a "f@cking liar"?

[Naam]

Why are people on this forum so rude to one another?

because some of them had way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

I don't care that you have a different opinion, I can't be bothered discussing something you admit you have no experience with but still insist that you are right.

Bye

I've actually been to more than 50 countries in the world, but spent the most time in the UK and Thailand. What exactly are you saying? For me to be qualified enough to dare to have an opinion and debate with you, i need to have done what or been where exactly?

Insisted i am right? No, i just have an opinion as you do, but whereas i am happy to discuss with those whose opinion differ from mine, it seems that this is beyond you. With that being the case, it's a good decision for you to leave. Bye bye indeed.

[Naam]

The Iraqis would purposely put weapons near schools and hospitals in the hopes that the school would be hit just to create a PR nightmare for the US.

signed:

Bill OReilly

FAUX News

[madjbs]

As we saw in one of your previous posts you simply believe that your opinion is better than anyone else's. I can't understand people that think like this, completely unable to look at different points of view without labeling them inferior simply due to having and being used to different social norms etc..

Edited April 18, 2008 by madjbs

[Naam]

Same as the ones who claimed that others are terrorists and process WMD and invaded them for that reason.

haram aleik ya bint! you mean there were/are no weapons of mass destructions in Iraq? and you don't believe that Osama bin-Laden is living on his ranch in the outskirts of Basrah breeding bulls for bull fights in Spain

[rixalex]

As we saw in one of your previous posts you simply believe that your opinion is better than anyone else's. I can't understand people that think like this, completely unable to look at different points of view without labeling them inferior simply due to having and being used to different social norms etc..

Well it's true that i do think my opinion that people who have been maimed and are dying deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, is better than the opinion of someone who purely sees them as a good bit of footage material to get over a political message. Guilty as charged.

But completely unable to look at different points of view? No, not me. You need to look a little closer to home.

Anyway, i thought you were leaving us? No? If you are staying about perhaps you might like to respond to some of the many questions i've asked you, rather than just short wise cracks.

[madjbs]

I am completely open to other peoples point of view and I can understand why you think its not acceptable to show those kinds of pictures in the news etc.. What I was pointing out was your apparent inability to look at it from any other points of view apart from your own.

Here are some other points of view

1. Showing shocking pictures of car crash victims may help reduce the number of accidents in the future

2. In many cultures it is not as much a Taboo as in western culture

3. Showing war scenes may help the plight of the suffering people

4. Some people may want to see whats really happening in the world instead of being protected by a cotton wool ball

I can understand how people could agree with any one of those or your points of view, depending on the situation they find themselves, on the other hand it appears you are strictly stuck to your own opinion whatever the circumstance.

[rixalex]

I am completely open to other peoples point of view and I can understand why you think its not acceptable to show those kinds of pictures in the news etc.. What I was pointing out was your apparent inability to look at it from any other points of view apart from your own.

Here are some other points of view

1. Showing shocking pictures of car crash victims may help reduce the number of accidents in the future

2. In many cultures it is not as much a Taboo as in western culture

3. Showing war scenes may help the plight of the suffering people

4. Some people may want to see whats really happening in the world instead of being protected by a cotton wool ball

I can understand how people could agree with any one of those or your points of view, depending on the situation they find themselves, on the other hand it appears you are strictly stuck to your own opinion whatever the circumstance.

strictly stuck to your own opinion ? Well i guess that's the same as believing strongly in something, which i do, but i don't see how we are different in that respect. I haven't seen you changing your opinion either.

It was good though this time to see you provide some reasoning to your opinion. I can see what you are saying about the possible positive knock-on effects of showing disturbing images, but i still feel that the rights of the people in front of the camera come first and foremost.

I guess another factor that for me influences my feelings regarding the showing of horrific scenes, is the sad number of people i have come across who actually find such images amusing and take considerable glee making jokes about the sorry victims. These people (and before you jump on my back, "these people" doesn't refer to people of any specific race) thoroughly disgust me, and they alone would give me enough cause for concern about putting such images in the public domain.

[madjbs]

I guess another factor that for me influences my feelings regarding the showing of horrific scenes, is the sad number of people i have come across who actually find such images amusing and take considerable glee making jokes about the sorry victims.

I agree that is distasteful and unacceptable, I guess the question is whether or not a small amount of personal privacy is worth giving up in order to seek out any benefits that could occur. For example, since seeing nasty clips of motorcycle accidents on T.V in Thailand, I decided I didn't really want to risk my life in that manner any more, these days I use the car whenever I can. If you are from the U.K you might remember that the police actually ran an official campaign on T.V with similar gruesome shots.

My opinion is neither one or the other, I just like to look at all the perspectives and sometimes it's annoying to me when other people can't do that, although I suppose everyone has certain subjects they feel very strongly about

[Kerryd]

.......al-Jazeera TV broadcasting did not exist in 2001.

From Wikipedia:

"History

The original Al Jazeera channel was started in 1996 with a US$150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa.

In April 1996, the BBC World Service's Saudi-co-owned Arabic language TV station, faced with censorship demands by the Saudi Arabian government, shut down after two years of operation. Many former BBC World Service staff members joined Al Jazeera, which at the time was not yet on air. The channel began broadcasting in late 1996. Al Jazeera's well presented coverage of the Lebanese Civil War in 2000-2001 gave its viewer ratings a boost throughout the region. However, it wasn't until late 2001 that Al Jazeera achieved worldwide recognition, when it broadcast video statements by al-Qaeda leaders."

"The station gained worldwide attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it broadcast video statements by Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders."

[madjbs]

I think Naam may have been referring to the English version?

[Kerryd]

I think Naam may have been referring to the English version?

Unfortunately, I don't think so. He was responding to a previous poster, who mentioned:

I first watched Al jazeera in Saudi during the 9/11 attacks. I could not believe the coverage I was seeing. I can not speak Arabic, but that wasn’t needed to get the idea of their particular slant on the event. The imagery together with the triumphant music conveyed their take on things. This together with the mad mullahs I used often to see ranting on that channel and being interviewed were enough for me to form a very negative opinion of the whole enterprise. Regardless of who is presenting the program and how good it is I will get my news elsewhere

He (Richb2004v2) cleary mentions that he was watching the events and doesn't speak Arabic, but that it didn't matter. I'm sure if he had been watching a program in english (on any channel), he wouldn't have had to make that distinction.

(I didn't copy it, but I thought I saw a reference to the English Language version being launched in March 2003)

[Naam]

I think Naam may have been referring to the English version?

no i was referring to the arabic version. and i was wrong! because i overlooked

quote: "I first watched Al jazeera in Saudi"

al-Jazeera TV arabic version could indeed be watched in Saudi Arabia in 2001. that's why i sincerely apologise having insulted the OP in this respect

[britmaveric]

^Insert foot in gob Naam??

[Pepe']

Why are people on this forum so rude to one another?

---------------

It's refered to as "standard and customery practice."

[Naam]

^Insert foot in gob Naam??

please translate in one of the languages i understand.

[Pepe']

Why are people on this forum so rude to one another?

---------------

It's refered to as "standard and customery practice."

[geriatrickid]

You still don't understand that in some cultures showing peoples body's on T.V is NOT seen to take away the victim's privacy and dignity, the victims family may WANT the news to show that so they can get across to the world the awful things that have taken place. You assume because in your culture it is not acceptable to show unedited footage that it must be so elsewhere and everywhere. Very small minded but not surprising really.

Perhaps. Sure there will be all those raisins awaiting the martyrs once they reach paradise, but it's a stretch for most people that don't think sending off the mentally infirm to blow themselves up merits the graphic pics.

There are several roving carnival shows in China that show off all forms of human deformities for the curious masses and I do admit to a morbid delight in spending a day at the medical museum in Montpelier staring at the pickled human embroyos and children from the past several hundred years. However, there are a great many people that do not derive any pleasure or delight from such scenes. I believe these people are called well balanced and civilized.

I'll have more respect for your beloved Al Jazeera once it starts asking tough questions of the dictatorships and mullahs spewing mass murder in the middle east. When is the last time, Al Jazeera took any ministry of education to task for teaching hatred? On the other hand, even the hated Fox news does such stories particularly when african-americans and hispanics are up in arms about something.