Please have the readings done by Tues.
In your blog response, please focus on the purpose, content, or effect that these news channels are having. What is the Western response? Are these channels good for global communications? If so, how? If not, what are the issues involved? There is a lot to choose from for this week's response.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInMHhuMHlNN2NPMWs/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInV1JMdEprQUh1T28/edit?usp=sharing
I thought that both of these articles were very interesting. I never really saw the need for eastern news stations like Al Jazeera, but I now believe that America would benefit from receiving their broadcasts. While I am not surprised by that the Western world has essentially rejected this station, I think that it is unreasonable and unwise to do so. The United States is such a major player in world politics that it is important for us to try to understand different points of view and not to think that the world revolves around us.
ReplyDeleteNot only would the United States benefit from gaining a better understanding of different cultures, we would also get a more unbiased look at the news. Our own news corporations are greatly influenced by political agendas and advertising dollars. The mere presence of an external news source would increase the need for our news organizations to present news in a less biased way.
I think the these international media stations are great for global communications. The American perspective has dominated the news for decades and I think the opportunity to see the world through different eyes and different values is exciting. I am tired of watching the news influenced by political agendas and would be very interested to watch networks like Al-Jazeera present similar stories that we see from a different angle. I agree somewhat with what the first article said in saying that America's ability to influence people is diminishing. We need to recognize that other countries are capable of producing quality news as well. I think the biggest problem here as we have discussed in class is even with greater access to more global news, how much of this international news will we actually be interested in? Unless it connects to home, stories won't seem to gain much interest. The Western rejection of stations like Al-Jazeera being the "mouthpiece of of Al-Queda" saddens me to think that we would be so closed minded to not even welcome the opportunity to open our eyes to different perspectives from around the world. I do not necessarily think global media stations will ever surpass the popularity of channels like CNN but I hope that the opportunity for greater access to international news would at least be provided for.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea behind Al-Jazeera International is very grounded. Launching an international media organization that isn't "western" seems to make a lot of sense, meaning that non-western people would be very interested in following it. Gathering information from various sources and viewpoints I think is key if one wants to understand the entire picture and become informed. It is true that CNN and BBC report on stories with a western bias. Admittedly I have never viewed or read Al-Jazeera's content, but I still am hesitant to believe that an organization created to combat western bias will remain unbiased. I think it far more likely that Al-Jazeera's content would be non/anti-western biased. It will be interesting to see how different parts of the world come to accept Al-Jazeera's content, and if they accept it as unbiased as it claims to be.
ReplyDeleteI think in the long run these stations will be very beneficial to global communications. They will share a point of view that may not be seen through other stations. Also, there is a level of credibility because they are genuine and trying to portray news in a balanced light. Although no news station will fully portray the news in an unbiased manner, they are truly making an effort for the news to be balanced.
ReplyDeleteI think another way these stations are good for global communication is they open up our world to different cultures. Since the news circuit is dominantly Western, it is good to have some diversity with news. They will have different view points of global news, and it will benefit the world to read them.
American feelings towards the Muslim world have overall negative, especially after the 9/11 attacks. In a Gallup Poll from 2010, it was reported that “43% of Americans admit to feeling some prejudice toward followers of Islam,” (http://xrdarabia.org/2010/01/22/american-attitudes-toward-muslims-dropping/). Due to generalized beliefs, a great number of westerners have feelings of distrust and connect anything in the Middle East with the Islamic world. I have watched several reports and stories from Al Jazeera’s English Channel. I have always felt that they showed good work and did great journalism. My first exposure to Al Jazeera is probably like many Americans as it showed video footage of Osama Bin Laden taking credit for terrorist acts. It seems to me that this example lead to this channel in particular being a media group that Americans would distrust. I found it very interesting to read the Cohen article and see how Al Jazeera affects Americans. I found it interesting to point out how Americans would find this media group as taking away their influence or power, and how it could create anti-American feelings in the rest of the world. Due to these effects, it is understandable how western countries (especially the US) would feel threatened by rising-foreign media groups.
ReplyDeleteI also liked and favored the ideals put forth in the Rosenbach article. We have mentioned the North-South Gap quite a bit in class and mentioned the dominance by media coverage in the Northern Hemisphere. I think that growing media companies in the rest of the world will be better for the world’s media and news coverage as it gives the little guy a voice. The problem is that in many developing nations, they do not have the funding to really grow and branch out. This is why I think it is great that established companies are making regional broadcast groups or groups segmented by country or language. This could give the underdeveloped nations that are not focused on a voice in world media; which will help give more knowledge of nations domestically and abroad.
Eric Vincent
Having an international news channel that was not of the typical "western" ideals and viewpoints would add a whole new flavor to the way global communications is disseminated. One article pointed this out when describing word differences that would appear in the same news story on different stations, such as "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" vs "martyr". Also the other article as a good point that the addition of this new Al Jazeera station would be beneficial to high schools in comparing it to the way CNN and BBC portray news stories. I feel like there's is some controversy over this--some people think its a good idea to have diversity in news viewpoints, but others see it as more of a "war" within the communications arena. Personally, I think it might do the world some good to put themselves into the shoes of other cultures and see all the sides before making any decisions. This would help improve international communications and interaction.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these articles were very interesting. I think that having a station like Al Jazeera could be a good thing and benefit our country. We have talked a lot in class about the Western Ideals and about censorship in the media. And I think that Al Jazeera would be a good thing to incorporate into our western culture so that we can get a look at other people's viewpoints that haven't been exactly tailored for the media like some might say Western media is. However, I think with any program or news station, there is always going to be some type of bias. I mean, everyone as a writer has some opinion, and I think that is hard to leave out of your article or program. So although Al Jazeera might not be in tune with our western ideals or bias and may have some bias of its own, I think it would benefit global communications by bringing in more information from different viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to find so many new news media systems trying to compete in a difficult market. Of all the countries trying to compete, why would France want to make an all-french speaking CNN channel. France's population is barley growing and that is only because of the rising muslim population. Since the article was a little outdated, I did some research and found out the channel never got started. Poor funding and a bad business model made failure imminent.
ReplyDeleteWill Al-Jazeera have the same fate? History is proving otherwise. With Al-Jazeera International gaining in popularity and their recent purchase of Current TV, I believe they will grow in popularity. The bigotry towards Arabs has greatly decreased since knowledge has replaced ignorance. The more people are informed about what is really happening, the more people will be accepting. I cannot speak for the Arabic version of Al-Jazeera, but their international version has been winning praises from people all around the world. We need that type of coverage in the U.S. I believe we are ready for it. The Western response now is more inviting and accepting. Enough time has passed since September 11 and we have learned to separate terrorists from their religion.
Overall, stations such as these will be good for global communication. A diverse coverage will help get new perspectives and ways of thinking into our lives. America needs to tear down the wall of narcissism and learn about the world that surrounds their borders. Hopefully these new global news stations will help accomplish that difficult task.
I think that these channels have the possibility to be good for global communication, but it completely depends on the channel in question. While the French channel mentioned probably wouldn't be the best idea, I think that Al Jazeera is excellent for both global communication and Western communication (especially U.S. news media). The channel gives both the East and the West a fresh, unbiased (or less biased) news perspective. This is exciting for the East, whose news media is often overly-censored or just a lot of propaganda. However, it is also great for the U.S., because it is a much more globally-focused news station and has less Western bias than other news stations. I am not surprised that Al Jazeera has been pretty much rejected in the U.S. , however, I think that it has a lot to offer and has the potential to change the Western news media market.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that these new channels and sources for news were being created in order to counteract Western news. I think it is beneficial to world and international media if there are channels with different perspectives. This will hopefully close, or at least assist in eliminating the north/south gap. If other countries that are not part of the Western World, or have a Western bias start to become prominent, it would equal the playing field.
ReplyDeleteEven though it may even this playing field, I worry that it will only create more bias. Though the bias may not be Western, the countries that run the different news channels will have their own bias towards their country. Bias will always be an issue when it comes to media. People are going to have to get their news from sources they "trust", and decide what stations those include. But regardless of bias, these new stations will open up new viewpoints, more global news, and reach many more people across the globe.
To be honest before reading about Al Jazeera I had a pretty typical stigma of them as a radical newsgroup that as many have said is "the mouth piece of Al Queda". In all fairness that was an ignorant interpretation of the dynamic little news group from Qatar that has grown to hold massive power in the international news scene. While their credibility is questioned here in the states due by pressures from Western Media groups and political agendas around the world they are actually seen as a pretty reliable international news group that shows a less western slanted viewpoint. While this may be threatening to the United States on a global scale Al Jazeera represents a sort of balance to the heavily western biased news. Al jezeera truly is full of strongly opposing viewpoints that often contradict what western media would have us believe but propaganda is not what it does. If America wants to pass off any idea not in accordance with their views as merely propaganda it might persuade its own citizens but Al Jezeera seems on route to expand to something even larger. Al Jezeera certainly will be one to watch and sooner or later the United States might have to recognize them as the credible albeit non western news agency it claims to be.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good thing to have channels like Al Jazeera, who don't have a western agenda. At the same time, anything too extreme isn't a good thing. I thought it was super interesting that there are some providers in the U.S. who have Al Jazeera available for their viewers. It sounds like they got a lot of grief for it, which seems bizarre to me. Who cares if they are available? As a viewer, you have the choice of what you want to watch. If you'd rather watch FOX News, go for it. It is also interesting that the providers who don't have Al Jazeera claim it has nothing to do with politics. I think politics controls too much here in the U.S, especially in the corporate world. I think it is always good to have different opinions and resources, and these channels give people that opportunity. I honestly don't believe that there will ever be an "ideal" or "perfect" news channel, there are always going to be motives affecting the news, whether they be politics, money, etc. The more variety we have, the more objective our experience with the news will be.
ReplyDeleteI think Western societies could really benefit from having broadcasts from eastern news channels such as Al Jazeera. Most of the news in the United States tends to focus on just our nation, and when other countries are mentioned, I feel like it's generally how the U.S. is involved in that country in some way. Many Americans are looking for ways to understand global events more fully, and having a non-western news station would definitely help them to gain a better understanding of global issues. The most important issue is making sure that these news sources are as close to unbiased as possible. Obviously in the industry of news there are always going to be biases, as evidenced by every news source in the U.S., but neutrality is especially important when talking about global issues that span across various cultures and nations.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these articles and what we've discussed in class, I completely understand why it would be beneficial to have a news station like Al-Jazeera broadcast in English. It is great to have that eastern perspective for westerners to listen to, however I do not think it could ever have a market in the US. Meaning, of course people will watch or listen on the internet, but I don't believe it would ever be broadcasted on television in America.
ReplyDeleteThe different perspectives discussed in the articles would definitely be good for global communications. We need to be expanding communication and there needs to be contributors from places other than the US. If the US is the only contributor to global news, is it really global news? The hard part is getting most Americans to expand their news coverage, not limit it to the United States.
At first when I thought about an eastern news channel I thought it was just a political group trying to make sure they would get their opinions in. But the article talked a lot about how Al Jazeera wants to be politically unbiased. I think that is definitely a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI think western news probably won't like it and are probably trying to combat it, but I think it is necessary. The line that made me think that was in the second article where it talked about how after September 11, 2001, all of the western media became so patriotic towards the U.S. While that is something that many of us in the United States appreciated, I am sure others did not. The line about the west not having a monopoly on the news if it is going to push its agenda rang true to me. I think other voices need to be heard, whether they are politically independent or biased, and Al Jazeera is a good start to that.
Having had the opportunity to present on Al jazeera this up coming week, I have been shocked by the way that we respond to eastern influence. Al jazeera is receiving accolades from all across the world for being a front runner in news. Still, America struggles. I think we need these news channels. Our eyes need to be opened just a little bit wider. I feel they are beneficial to global news and the way we communicate. They may not agree with everything we believe or want to see, but why not let it inform us?
ReplyDeleteI feel like I still need more information on Al Jazeera to truly form my opinion. These articles make America sound elitist and selfish, and I'm not sure that is the reason we don't have Al Jazeera on public broadcast channels. I just think the majority of people don't watch it. True, if it were on normal broadcast channels more people would watch it, and who knows if that would be a positive or a negative thing. I do appreciate their goal toward fair and balanced reporting but there are also plenty of other networks that claim to report fair and balanced as well, but they don't.
ReplyDeleteBased on what we've learned in class, Al Jazeera doesn't sound like a bad idea. It would open our eyes to eastern opinions, but I just think America is dealing with massive fiscal issues right now and should now be worrying about this because the people who want to read and listen can find it all online.
I agree with Alexis, It's difficult for me to really come to an opinion on Al Jazeera. I mean, all the info you read about it has been put through the filters of someone else and they have ranted or raved their their point of view. But what is this news channel really doing? How is it effecting the world? In theory, I think it could be great. But anything great can go sour if the wrong people are in charge. But who is to decide who the "right" people are? News and its coverage is always biased and no one will ever be able to produce a neutral newscast. It's impossible. So what stations do is just try to get viewers so that their newscast can keep advertisers and stay afloat. Corrupt? Who's to decide? but broadcast is a business and a business has to make money.
ReplyDeleteComcast and most other cable carriers aren't carrying Al Jazeera, but I think they don't carry it for 2 reasons. 1: They don't think a lot of people will watch it (so it won't make them money). 2: It could make their company look Anti-American or have people question the character of their company (so they may lose money). Each option is driven by green. Welcome to the world we live in.
I definitely beleive that these news stations are good for international news. It brings a great diversity. However, the western world is quite split. Especially when it comes to Al Jazeera. The US does not have a very high viewership. I do feel that it's growing. Especially in the Internet and digital age. Al Jazeera English is expanding in leaps and bounds. It brings a diversity to the international news. They don't keep the normal political agendas and such. They have diverse reporters. They even actually rely on public content from twitter and YouTube.
ReplyDeleteI think these channels are good for global communications. As mentioned in previous posts I think it shows a good perspective of "Easterners." It allows us to get the whole picture not just our sides of the stories. I found it interesting that Congressman Jim Moran said that these channels have credibility in Asia, Middle East and Europe that American channels need. I think partially the lack of credibility is because alot of our news can be infotainment. I think the other part is because some countries just don't trust America so they don't find our news channels credible.
ReplyDeleteIn your blog response, please focus on the purpose, content, or effect that these news channels are having. What is the Western response? Are these channels good for global communications? If so, how? If not, what are the issues involved? There is a lot to choose from for this week's response.
ReplyDeleteNaturally the Western response is a little bristled. When you have a station with a sole goal to try and overtake you and overpower your influence, the last thing you are going to do is invite them over for tea and crumpets. Obviously the Al Jazeera is a threat to the U.S. international influence and will be treated like that. Now the reasons might be more political than business but I would assume the U.S. will put it on the guise of business or that they are bias, to protect themselves.
I am always an advocate of diversity and just letting competition decide who wins. I think when start messing with things and adding restrictions, it will lead to problems. So having the Al Jazeera competition will only force CNN and other U.S. news sources to step their game. In the end it will benefit the U.S. population. But, personally I will always put more stock in my country's news source and not outside sources. I don't trust media that much as it is, so why would I trust another countries media over my own country?
It's interesting to me that as Americans, we are only interested in pushing our ideals to the rest of the world. Yet, at the same time, we dismiss Al Jazeera altogether and don't allow it in our society. Honestly, I feel that this is a policy that has substance and reason. We do have ideals here in West that we try to push out, but we have good reason for it. In a lot of cases, our beliefs and ideals are grounded and sane, whereas in the Middle East, terrorism is more of a common trend; and in places like Japan, it is honorable to go kamikaze. I honestly wouldn't want some of the propaganda from other nations being shown to my children through the tv.
ReplyDeleteThe news articles for today painted a pretty bleak picture of American's role in international television news. While this made me feel a little nostalgic since I love America & think it's the greatest country on earth, I think this is actually a sign of progress in global communications. It is an encouragement of balance and increase in media voices. However, anti-Americanism was also mentioned, which I think is taking these advances to a different extreme.
ReplyDeleteThe news channels we read about for today are challenging BBC world and CNN's role as the dominant players in global TV news. Al Jazeera was discussed most extensively, but other channels such as the new French CNN are taking a role in this shift as well. This change in access to global information puts the USA in a less relevant position in the lives of some foreigners, which I think is ok.
The second article labeled this as a defensive response from the rest of the world that was prompted by the extreme patriotism expressed on American networks following 9/11. I think this is an interesting point to bring up. Since as American's we couldn't help but respond with patriotism, sensitivity, and love for our country's people, we were probably less perceptive to this "extreme patriotism" that bothered other countries. Maybe after 9/11 we weren't reporting news as unbiasedly as we should have been, and this is a problem.
I found both articles really interesting but especially the article discussing the reaction of the US media to Al Jazeera. Simply because they show different perspectives doesn't mean it should be blocked. I feel that the world and the US would greatly benefit from having other news sources that aren't based on western ideals. Like we talked about in class there is so much going on that we simply don't know about because our news doesn't cover it. Al Jazeera seems to cover at a more universal and unbiased level than western journalism and therefore covers news of all types not making exceptions based on certain ideals.
ReplyDeletePreston Wittwer
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any research to back this up, but I get the feeling that American politicians and businesses were hesitant about the launch of Al Jazeera because it is a news source they have no connection to and no control over. Since Al Jazeera English's launch, the station has struggled to find cable providers to carry their broadcast even though there is a market that wants to watch the channel. American politicians and businesses can more easily influence the way news stations are run if they are based in the US and run by Americans than they could with Al Jazeera based in Qatar. Because of this there isn't a lot of opportunity for back door deals and special agreements. The cable companies in the U.S. are among the most corrupt and I for one think it is great they coming under fire for not providing the types of channels like Al Jazeera English that there is a public demand for. It may be an international media system, but it is forcing changes in our domestic media system as well.
Western countries have not been as receptive to international news channels as they could be. Western channels tend to dominate the "air waves" in these countries and the approach to issues is often one-sided. These countries could learn a lot from listening to these channels. They can bring challenging and informative viewpoints. Even if the Western countries do not agree with the channels it is always a good thing to be more informed about the opposite side of an issue.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the main barriers to these channels doing good or being accepted is the fact that they are often one-sided as well. This appears to be a problem throughout news channels worldwide. Because there isn't really an end to this problem in sight the best solution for this is to look at a lot of opposing viewpoints and try to find the truth in all of it. For this reason, Western countries can learn a lot from these channels and should be more accepting of them.
I don't really care to watch these channels and non-Americans don't care to watch FOX. I don't know why anyone outside of the US would watch US news. It's only about our country and extremely tailored to political opinions. So if you want news as it is, don't look at CNN or FOX. The US used to derive power from military and communication internationally, but times are changing, even if we don't like it. Our view of the world is US is number one and we are always right, completely alienating or one-sided. Our response is we are right. It's almost as if we've gotten more self-righteous if that was even possible. These other channels probably are good for global communications. Supposedly these channels are free of any nation agenda, but you have to keep in mide that media is a business after all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roger Cohen that America needs to realize its new place in the modern world. We are no longer the strongest world power and hanging onto the traditional views of media will not help us adapt to the changing world. While new news channels in France and Africa aren't good economically for Western news networks, I think that it is an important step for any community to have their own means of news gathering and distribution. It is hypocritical for America to not allow news channels like Al Jazeera in our country when we are pushing out channels onto the rest of the world. These channels are good for global communication and can allow for the distribution of more ideas.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Riggs
Frankly, I think that the coverage provided by Al Jazeera is positive. I think any network that challenges the monopoly of Western media provides a positive diversity. I know Al Jazeera is controversial, and a lot of Americans are afraid of its reach, but there is no denying that it represents (in one sense) a step forward for the Middle East. Also, Al Jazeera's coverage of recent Middle Eastern events (such as the protests in Egypt) were arguably better than Western media's coverage.
ReplyDeleteI think both of these articles openly acknowledge that news organizations such as the BBC and CNN dominate global news media, and that alternatives should be encouraged. Granted, both of these articles were written before 9/11, and now Al Jazeera is more controversial, but honestly, I think most of the excuses for Al Jazeera being "anti-American" and "dangerous" are simply products of American Xenophobia.
I like what these articles are saying. I like the fact that other countries and demographics are striving to get their voice heard. The U.S. has not been historically very inviting of global news penetrating our media hubs but I think this is a step in the right direction. I think it would be good for Americans to start listening to other broadcasting channels besides CNN and the BBC like Al Jazeera but the typical American is not prone to wonder about world news.
ReplyDeleteI personally cannot comment on Al Jazeera. I know who they are and a bit about their content but I felt like the article by Roger Cohen was definitely not sufficient to create an unbiased opinion about their future. I'll admit I'm not the most informed on global communication channels and judging from these articles, it sounds like it may still take some time for the U.S. market to be completely permitted (seeing as how they were written six years ago).
I personally agree with other sources that portray different perspectives of a problem. It is good for the world to have a wider perspective of what is going on outside Western control, ideals, and a more universal "big picture. In class, we talked about China, and how there news are controlled. Even though in the United States news are not controlled like China, we are not complete aware of what is going outside the United States or other countries perspectives of what is going on in the USA.
ReplyDeleteEveryone competes with America and hates on America, because America is the best. It is a natural human inclination to be jealous of the best. The perception is that Americans think they are the best; they are arrogant hypocrites. If you travel oversees, Americans are extremely easy to identify because of their clothing, emotions, personality, etc. Many Americans do not understand theat they are acting this way, it is subconscious. the middle eastern countries don't like us. Everything is about strength and power to them. We I'll give them money and think we are helping and being selfless and they will take us for all that we are worth. The strong survive. If you can dominate someone else, then that is what is culturally valuable.
ReplyDeleteNow, there is coming a time, where the united states is being forced to accept these cultural differences. This is proven through our study and discussion of al jazzera. As international networks are rising, they are greatly impacting western nations. Everyone that works in communication will be effected by international media networks. We, as Americans, think at British accents are more credible than Americans. We are just trained to pay more attention to accents and deem them as smarter or more correct than their American counterparts.
What I think is really interesting is that most of these news channels seem to be in some sort of response to others. One news channels bias leads to another, answers which then leads to bias, and so on. During our class discussion I was actually thinking about how maybe all of these channels have actually separated us more than bring good to global communication. I say this because I know not only very few people who watch news, but very very few who watch news from multiple sources. So now that news is more specifically targeted, the audience is smaller and the news more specific. Which means less people are hearing about less things. You can no longer run a new channel trying to please everyone, its just not possible or smart.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect of these controls over international programming like Al Jazeera, is that Advertising is controlling its presence in the US. The networks don't want to allow it on there channels as they are worried Advertisers will pull themselves from their stations.
I think our Western response to this, is seclusion. We pretend like we would like to know what is happening around the world, but don't ask for it. Just like all media with demand there is normally a supply short after.