CNN vs Aljazeera America

I agree it is better than CNN and likely the other news channels as well. It is a big improvement over the shopping channels my wife usually has on for back ground noise.

I think the non-American Al Jazeera isn't even Muslim focused. It might be Middle East focused, but that is actually different than a Muslim focus.

 

I was dining with friends over the weekend and they mentioned they'd come across Aljazeera and were impressed, their comments were similar to yours. I don't have a TV (I find the pics are much better on the radio)

DROID4 ?

 

I always liked Ali Velshi who had been with CNN.
Don't think COX carries Al jazeera but I should check.
There is really a lack of news and news is what I like...like Weather Channel, CNN has morphed into reality TV.

 

al jazera is only as good as their financing.

 

That could be said of all the news networks. Al Jazeera looks lower budget than the rest, but perhaps they just aren't wasting money on flashy effects.

It is SD only on FiOS.

 

agreed. the more they need money, the more they need ratings.

 

CNN has a lot of ex-BBC people too.

There's an Australian al-Jazeera journalist, Peter Greste (formerly of CNN, BBC, ABC, Reuters and WTN) who is currently on trial in Egypt for interviewing people from the Muslim Brotherhood. You know, like a news interview. The sort that journalists do.

Anyway, yes, I'm a big fan of al-Jazeera. I find CNN - even the international version - vacuous and overly simplistic. BBC World tends to get itself tied up on one story for too long, and can get very boring (this was a particular problem with the British phone-hacking scandal, which it just wouldn't let go of for about 18 months). Al-Jazeera gives you nice, straightforward, clear news. Its production values are similar to BBC World's, but there's a lot more variety in what it covers. More and more hotels in China now have al-Jazeera as well as CNN and BBC World: I tend to split my viewing between al-Jazeera and BBC World, and only bother with CNN if it's the only news channel available.

 

When the broadcast channel news departments were captured by their respective, entertainment divisions, we sort of stopped worrying about keeping current via TV. CNN was a welcome relief until after the first Iraqi war when they became "Personality TV." So MSNBC was tolerable but they have their 'moments.' As for BBC, well better than static, I think.

When al-Jazeera bought out Current TV, we went back to channel surfing. There were some infantile, startup problems (aka., dealing with satellite delays and 'cue the tape') but it looks like they play it straight as far as we can tell from the news. Given how FOX castigates the al-Jazeera staff, I can think of no better endorsement.

Bob Wilson

 

I like BBC World's documentaries at the weekend. But their news can get very repetitive.

Here, we have a dedicated BBC documentary channel called BBC Knowledge, and a British (BBC, ITV and Channel 4) drama and comedy channel called UKTV. Both are very good.

 

If you want "headline news" BBC is the way to go. Same news every hour with the new stuff sprinkled into the rotation.

CNN randomly decided to go for major ratings at the expense of actual news. For me that point was during the 2008 election when the hologram appeared... Really? Wow...

MSNBC is the network of choice on American TV for opinion pieces, but with the over the top coverage of the New Jersey bridge thing in an obvious attempt to sully Chris Christie before the 2016 elections it has become too much. After Maddow went on Bill Maher, it seemed to tone down a bit, but it is still a little heavy on the coverage.

When I want real world news on the TV, I watch CBC on the Canadian satellite dish. It is actual news, with real reporters and good journalism. More focus on world events and events of importance. Local news does "the world in 60 seconds". Less focus on sports which I view as completely useless whereas the local news dedicates 10 of the 22minutes to sports.

And of course Faux News has entertainment value.

It is pretty sad when The Daily Show and The Colbert Report give better news than a "news network". Also silly that so many people get their news from these comedy shows. I do love watching them though.

 

Toaster, you hit it. We go to Comedy network for news and F News for comedy.

 

A couple weeks ago CNN basically decided that they were going to go "all in" on the MH370 mystery...

Quite honestly I've given up on TV news. TV news, and news in general no longer report and investigate. its more regurgitate, and entertain are the primary goals.

 

But you don't have to pay the compulsory £150 a year just to have a tv, regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not. The funding of that £150 goes to the BBC. If I want to watch anyone else, even commercial stations I still have to pay the BBC. There is no way round it if I want to watch live tv. Grrr

So is some UK tv good? Yeah some. Would I prefer not to pay the BBC over £12 a month regardless of whether I watch them or not? Sure. Would I subscribe if they went subscription only? Nope, unless it was included in my cable package.

You'll know that it is a CRIMINAL offense not to pay your tv licence/BBC. Not just an offense but criminal. So if I don't pay it I get a criminal record and thus couldn't ever get a visa to visit the USA. If I don't make the payments on my car I just get a poor credit rating. I think Americans (and some Aussies) will be surprised at the nonsense that is our outdated tv licence.

And on the subject of boring news channels. I agree that they're all the same. They all report the same stories (or non stories), at the same time in the same order, with sport and then weather at the end, every half hour, all the same.

Never bothered to watch aljazeera, but I have found the UK version of RT Russia Today to be a refreshing change. We all mock American news for being insular, but our UK news is very much the same . RT however, does all sorts of articles on technology, space, the world etc and it doesn't dumb it down like western tv tends to do now. Remember those interesting science shows from the 1970's when they talked to you as an adult? Well they're like that.

So if you have the option of watching the UK version of RT, give it a go.

 

The BBC channels I get here - BBC World, BBC Knowledge, and later this year BBC First - as well as BBC America for the Americans, make a profit for the BBC. So they reduce your licence fee. Every time I sit on the sofa and stare at Top Gear or a Brian Cox isn't-space-lovely documentary, I'm saving you money. Although I'm not saving you any money by listening to BBC 6 Music online while I type this.

In other countries with State-owned media (such as the ABC in Australia), we just pay through our normal taxes. I agree that the licence fee is a weird anachronism, but if you didn't have it, you'd just be paying through taxes anyway.

 

You know that's half true and biased

Australia has half the UK population (thereabouts). What does the ABC in Australia cost in tax? Does the ABC have 4 tv channels, a Scottish (or minority) Language tv channel, a 24 hour news channel, 6 or 7 national radio channels and a plethora of local stations.

We don't need all those State tv channels and we don't need all those radio stations. There are many good commercial stations who struggle (the BBC run DAB fiasco blocking many small, local radio stations out is another story). But if we really really do need something from the BBC, then let's have 1 tv channel and 1 national radio channel and open up the rest to commercial stations.

If the BBC were an optional supplier then I think it would be value for money at £12.50 a month for all those channels BUT I have no option. If I want to watch tv at all (including satellite), then I HAVE to pay the BBC first and any other subscriptions on top.

Imagine having to do the same on your mobile. Image 'StateNet' hypothetical mobile network insist you pay $15 a month to support them, yet you are with Telstra and pay them $15 a month. So to be with Telstra it costs you $30 a month, but if you chose the State network you'd pay $15. That even makes American protectionism look lame!

I don't like the BBC because it's compulsory and very bloated. It once had a good reputation internationally, but I think it's a little tarnished here of late.

Television licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Well, you would be paying for it in tax. It just wouldn't be quite so easily identifiable.

We actually have two State-owned broadcasters: the ABC and SBS (and SBS subsidiary NITV). ABC does cost us less than the BBC - about A$ 3 per month, I think), but it is not as good, and what is good is often bought in (helping subsidise your licence fee) from the BBC. But yeah, the cost difference does suggest a degree of bloat.

The ABC operates five TV stations, all in English - four are national, and one covers the whole Asia-Pacific region. There are four national ABC analogue radio stations: Triple J (about halfway between Radio 1 and 6 Music), ABC News Radio, Radio National, and Classic FM, as well as at least three digital ABC stations that I can think of, and loads of local stations. With our rather peculiar population spread, some of these stations broadcast to tiny populations: there are multiple local stations across the Northern Territory, covering an area bigger than Britain, Germany and France combined but a population slightly bigger than Harrogate.

But as for minority language stuff.... SBS' two free-to-air TV broadcasts in over 100 languages, and SBS radio broadcasts in more than 60; it has a speciality cable station too. NITV broadcasts in I have no idea how many aboriginal languages.

SBS carries adverts, and I think it operates on a break-even basis.

I'm not sure that that works. There's stuff the BBC does that could be done just as well by a commercial station (all that reality stuff on BBC TV at the weekends, like the Great British Bake-Off and Strictly Come Dancing, or pretty much the entire content of Radio 2 and most of 5 Live), but there's a lot that can't - Radio 1, Radio 4, 6 Music, the high-quality documentaries, and so on. The closest 6 Music has to a rival, for example, is XFM, which is unbelievably conservative. In Australia, commercial radio stations do nasty far-right talkback on AM, and FM is pretty much wall-to-wall Pink. In Australia, the ABC and SBS news programmes give you actual news; the commercial stations' news programmes offer "breaking news" about incredible price wars that mean there are amazing bargains at Woolworth's this weekend (and then there's a Woollies' ad in the break).

Britain and Australia both punch weigh above their weight in the pop music world because of their State-owned stations pushing new music.

So I think there's a lot to be said for State-owned media. If it's done right, it can provide a service that couldn't be provided in any other way.

 

Oh, and another thing. I think the lack of State-owned media is the reason that American music falls into a few easily-defined genres that all sound the same. The radio stations are scared to play anything that might be slightly outside their narrowly-defined box, so they just go for music that sounds the same as the music they market-tested as appealing to the demographic they promised their advertisers.

I think the clearest example of this was way back in 2002: I still remember this happening, so I did a quick Google, and there it was: Shadow over Craig David's US tour | UK news | The Guardian . Here's the key bit:

The "reverse racism" that marked the careers of jazz musicians such as Billie Holliday and Louis Armstrong is now threatening to blight the path of British R&B singer Craig David. ​

More than 50 years after Armstrong was criticised by black newspapers for working with a white trombonist, David, 21, is being encouraged to drop white guitarist Fraser T Smith from his backing band to maximise sales during a two-month promotional campaign in the US. ​

Black executives at urban radio networks in America have advised him that the presence of a white guitarist will hamper his potential for a bigger fanbase. ​

David says he was told an all-black support band would maximise sales among an African-American audience. ​

Really, if someone as middle-of-the-road Craig David was too outside-the-box for American radio stations, it's hard to hold out too much hope for the rest of them.

I've heard similar stuff about Bloc Party too.

I know there are other social factors at play, but I think the unimaginative pigeonholing is in large part due to the constraints of commercial media.

 

I listen to BBC Radio 1 all the time at work and in the car here in the US. They actually play all sorts of music and new artists. Many American bands even start on BBC because of it.