Al-Jazeera Youtubed - Good or Bad?

Al Jazeera being located in Qatar, shows X-rated media. Today it's made it's way to youtube to catch a bigger and broader audience. Is such a thing neccessary?


Youtube has been the gateway for all videos from all over the world to be seen right before you. Whether it's a scene from a television program, or a trailer to an upcoming film, it's there. The number of videos on youtube is countless.



Al Jazeera shows such graphic footages of what is going on in Iraq today and other places surrounding on television. Now, it can be shown via youtube. I think it's safe to say that there is enough negativity going around. Why should anyone witness horrible stories that goes on over there?

Al Jazeera has indeed become the biggest source for media in the middle east, no question. However, sometimes their information can mislead people. And now, to have an english version become available, they're trying to reach other countries with their horrific, graphic stories. It isn't neccessary.


By clicking on the title of this post, you can follow a link to where you can subscribe to their channel, and watch videos they've posted of stories that is broadcasted there daily. That is, of course, should you choose to watch such violence.

Bush's Power Over The Media

When war between Iraq and America was on the horizon, it was in the best interests that Bush did whatever he could to justify his decision of going to war. But he went so far as to allow only certain people be able to ask him the questions because he knew that they would do a better job at making him and the rest of his staff look good. Thats cheating in my opinion. Why couldn't he just take all the questions normally, he can't take the critizism? He also knew that it was not on the minds of all Americans to go into this war, he was not completely backed by his country. The questions of why are we going to war, and is this about oil or it this about terrorism were ovious questionable reasons, but who knew what his real intensions are and were. Confusion was wide spread among the minds of Americans and his presidency hanged in the balance of his decisions and he did what he thought would sit best with his nationg, declare it a war on terror and to prevent arms of mass destruction from coing into play.This was Bush's moment to get everyone on his side in whichhe succeeded in because after 9/11 our country for the most part was in avor of some redemption for the lives that were taken as well as the slaughtetthat had been placed on our soil. My ony problem with this situation of choosing who will question him is that it seems unfair and cowardous to appoint who has the right to questiona nd not it almost seems lke he was trying to fray way from any type ofthings that may cause him harm, but if your good enough president should'nt you be able to steer yur way to the right conclusion and be abe to take anything that comes your way. As Rosensteil put it, " There are inherent limits on how aggressive you can be to the president of the United States on the brink of war in the prime time when good questions are asked but not answered."

The Responsibility of the Reporter

"There is a feeling in our newsroom that you need to be as realistic as possible and carry the images of war and the effect that war has on people"(quote taken from In the Line of Fire)

Some reporters treat the job with responsibility. They're on the frontlines standing with (or at least really close to) the soldiers and see what's going on.

Some of these media members feel that these dying young men should get the coverage they deserve. People need to know that these boys and girls are dying for us and our rights.

The audience should feel as if they're at the war and not just because they have Digital Dolby Surround Sound and HD quality picture. How is the audience supposed to know or care about a war a half a world away if they don't see anything more then a watered down edited for television version of the events taking place.

Seeing Both Sides of the Story

"By some measures, its supporters say, Al-Jazeera offers coverage that's more balanced than U.S. networks."(Is Al-Jazeera ready for prime time p. 5)

American media is made up of Americans, so ofcourse they tell the one side of the story, the American side. Theirs nothing wrong with that, after all we don't want to be the bad guys, why would they paint that kind of picture for the public; wouldn't you stop watching the news if it made you feel guilty.

But if you want to know whats going on in America watch the worlds many media stations or "The Daily Show". It's sometimes more reliable and it gives you another perspective and Jon Stewart is funny.

Why does this happen? Maybe the rest of the world doesn't have the censorship laws we have? Maybe they don't worry about being sued for putting horrifying images on the television and scaring the youth of the country? Maybe the rest of the world wants to report what Americas doing, good and bad?

Maybe we're just asking for it. America has a reputation for being arrogant and self-righteous.

The Bush administration-persistence over substance

"As President Bush sent his proposed Iraq attack resolution to Capital Hill yesterday, his rout of Congressional Democrats was virtually complete. The opposition party had all but resigned itself to passing the resolution with the wording Bush desired on the timetable he demanded."

President Bush discovered during his presidency one of the key factors of successful mass persuasion: Keep the message simple, hammer away relentlessly at the public, and eventually, they will come around to your point of view. Well educated, intelligent people can be made to believe the most arrant nonsense if one is patient and forceful in presentation. You don't have to clever, just consistent and persistent:

"The other pattern Bush repeated in his strategy on Iraq was a preference to handle one issue at a time. The president has been at his weakest when he has attempted to juggle many issues -- as he was earlier this year when dealing with the economy, the Middle East and Al Qaeda. But when Bush is able to focus on one goal at a time -- taxes, Afghanistan, and now Iraq -- he is difficult to stop. "He can say the same thing over and over again and eventually it breaks through," said former [Clinton] political director Craig Smith. Those who served in the Clinton White House acknowledge that they occasionally diluted the power of the bully pulpit by working on too many issues simultaneously."

The average American has a limited attention span. Keep it simple, keep it straightforward, and look sincere while lying, and eventually, your message will get through. How depressing.

Who Want's to see the Dead?

"We must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen," Mr Duffy said. "And that's what the policy is based on and that has to be the utmost concern."

During war there are always casualities, some from civilians and others from soliders. But at the end of the day who wants to see this on the tv. I know the truth needs to be shed on the public, but who wants to see a dead American Solider on the news. But we love to see a fallen iraqi solider on the side of the road, while we see this also iraqi's and other supporters are seeing the same images. But it goes both ways when Al-jazeera shows images of dead American soliders, the feeling is mutual. At the end of the day fallen soliders regardless of side should not be shown as a part of propaganda. These are peoples lives and they deserve the respect as anyone else and should not be just a show. Each person is entitled to their own privacy and that privacy needs to be respected even after the person is dead.

Al -Jazeera What's the Deal?!

" The biggest snag for Al-Jazeera International is securing distribution"(Pein,2005)

Al Jazeera is a statellite channel based in Qatar, a country whose population is less than many neighborhoods. The form of news that Al Jazeera shows is one that is extremly graphic and has become a network to be recon with. Other news organizations relay on Al Jazeera footage and reporting on violence that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.Al Jazeera helps these other networks include horrific stories of what is going on in the arabic world. . Al Jazeera has become the main source of media for the arabic world ,but the question is are they misleading their own people??.......... Is these Arabic stations showing such negative images to compete with their competition???........Al Jazeera aims to break the language barrier by launching an english language Al Jazeera station set to air in March 2006.

The main difference between american news networks and Arabic networks is , U.S networks do not show killings and deaths on their newtwork they try to show the viewer what they feel they need to see and know.Which is the complete opposite of Al Jazeera.

Shame on Al-Jazeera

"There is a feeling in our newsroom that you need to be as realistic as possible and carry the images of the war and the effect that war has on people, " he says :If you are in a war, your population shouldn't just eat their dinner and watch sanitized images on TV and video games produces by the technological whizzes in the Pentagon and say, 'This is war' -Hafez Mirazi

Hafez Mirazi discuss why Al-Jezeera covers the war and why the will continue to show images and the reality of wartime. Marazi talks about the network receiving slack from both the U.S. and Iraqi regime. To government went through different measures to prevent or discourage the use of Al-Jezeera covering the war. The try to cut the funding, send signals across the news broadcast but yet this didn't deter Mirazi.

Shame on Al-Jazeera

Think a Second.....

"We hate Americans more than we hate Saddam now"

"In Cairo, some residents with long ties to the United States said that the bombing of civilians made them lose all hope that relations could return to normal"

"For every man they kill, there will be four or five people who want revenge"

(Washington Post, Sunday, March 30, 2003, By Emily Wax)

As an American I sometimes forget that I do not know and cannot figure out the "real" reason we are fighting this war. I believe that we all know that we are fighting for so called freedom of the people and yet if you looked up images and read the articles about this war, you would find nothing, but bombing of innocent people and homes and business destroyed. How is it that when certain people get involved, or places that seem to show what the "Real" war is about are not really mentioned?

In Emily Wax's article for Washington Post describes that many people who supported us in the beginning, now turning their back on the so called freedom of their people. She mentions al-Jazeera, and how they show the horrifying images of markets and innocent children being bombed and killed, yet we sit here and never believe that we are doing something wrong. If for any fact some of us do believe we are doing something wrong, why is it that only stations like al-Jazeera feel the need to show the war at its worst points. to show the negative, to show the humanizing effects that war has? How can we take the next step to figuring the real problems, and conclusions to the White House and Bush Administration.

MY THOUGHTS ON AL-JAZEERA

"People are not going back to protect Saddam," "They are going back to defend their families because the Americans are killing them"- Saad al-Kabe,a young money changer

The above quote represents an interesting point of view about the feelings of the Iraqi people regarding the American military presence in their country. The quote comes from a New York Times article, written by Niel MacFarquhar. Th article entitled, "Arabic Stations Compete for Attention" describes the influence held by Al-Jazeera TV and other smaller , competing Arab news stations. The young man is reacting to images that he saw on Al-Jazeera involving American soldiers killing Iraqi people. The young man makes the argument that may people in Iraq do not hate the Americans because they are defending Saddam, but instead because the Americans are invaders who are killing many innocent people. Images such as these can be seen all the time on Al- Jazeera TV. Leading many people to believe that Al-Jazeera is sympathetic to the Saddam Regime and has led to much criticism. The article goes on to point out some of the networks techniques that have caused it to be viewed by many in America in such a negative light. I think that much of what Al-Jazeera delivers the public is what is actually going on. Though their may be some bias in only showing dead Iraqis and allowing people who criticize America to get more air time than those who don't, there are still touches of real, gritty, don't hold anything back, tell them whats really going on, hard edged journalism. Of course the United States and those symapthetic to the U.S cause in Iraq are going to look down on an Arab station who they feel is only telling half of the story. I must say that I believe that the true goal of Al-Jazeera is to cover the news from the perspective of the arab world, one who views America as an invader who is doing harm to its people. Whether the United States intentions are good or not has no bearing. If a burglar breaks into your home and hurts a member of your family, you are not going to view that burglar in a positive light. What if that burglar was merely breaking into your house to get money to feed his own family. That does not change the fact that he has done harm to those who you love. I your eyes he is still a threat and a criminal. That is how Al-Jazeera and its audiences may view the United States of America.

Al-Jazeera, propaganda or legitimate news?

"So is Al-Jazeera just propaganda? Its programming is difficult to monitor in the States, not least because of the language barrier. Like any round-the-clock network, though, the tone and content varies with the show and the subject matter. Organizations like the oft-cited Middle East Media Research Institute, based in Washington and headed by former Israeli military officer Yigal Carmon, usually translate only the most inflammatory stuff. One could paint a pretty damning picture of the American press, too, by highlighting Joe Scarborough and ignoring the Atlantic Monthly."

Al-Jazeera is becoming an important player in the information wars in an important part of the world; the oil rich middle east. Based in Qatar, one of the tiny oil soaked sheikdoms that dot the region, it has both intrigued and infuriated the Bush administration for years. Inflammatory videos of American corpses alternate with talk shows that open the doors of dialogue in a part of the world that before had some of the most tightly controlled media in the industrialized world. American policy makers recognize that Al-Jazeera is too influential to ignore, but may not be influential enough to be of help to the United States in it's quest to win 'the hearts and minds' of the Arab/Muslim peoples around the world.

Al-Jazeera the Arab-version of Fox?

"Westerners may still debate whether Al-Jazeera provides forward-thinking programming or jihadist propaganda, but soon more of them will be able to judge the controversial channel's brand of programming for themselves."

What this quote is portraying is how Al-Jazerra is now a problem in the media sense. With this much influence on a certain area or certain religion, Al-Jazerra has become one of the largest Arab viewed stations. With them having such an influence it seems they are becoming a the new fox for the Arab viewers. They seem to use the same tactics and same propaganda as fox, but for us it is as is fox is to them. We aren't going to like to watch dead U.S. soldiers as Arab's and Iraqi's don't like seeing dead Iraqi soldiers, but the news plays those images and are used as propaganda and that's is the connection between the two stations. With Al-jazeera becoming so large as a station, they are ready for mainstream and maybe even become as powerful as the fox news station.

Speechwriters meticulously configure Bush’s speeches to shape public opinion.

“Although finessing language to protect intelligence sources and methods is a part of the job that no one envisioned, Gerson’s role has extended well beyond polished rhetoric ever since he joined the Bush campaign a year and a half before the election.”

The basic Idea in this article is that Michael Gerson, President Bush’s “Wordsmith” must devote much attention to the way he constructs the President’s speeches. Any slight imperfection in the word play of the speech can sway the public sentiment in the wrong direction. Gerson must write speeches in a way that would most clearly convey the message. We can see this is often a very difficult task.

“Two Mondays ago, Gerson was assigned to write an address that would offer vivid evidence to the American Public of the risk posed by Hussein, yet try to convince voters that Bush would not attack Iraq rashly. He had to scare people and reassure them at the same time”

Bush’s speeches may reflect his thought but they are never his words. (Except for Nuculear) He has an extensive panel of advisors who contribute to the word configuration of his speeches. They must emphasize the arrangement of the words. It is of utmost importance.

Is Democracy only for America?

Rick Zednik's "Inside Al Jazeera" points out that Al Jazeera's main goal was "to modernize and democratize Qatar."

In one of their shows, The Opposite Direction, hosted by Faisal Al Qasim, guests w/ opposing views square off, w/o any bias from the station. In comparison, Fox News' Bill O' Reilly is known for bringing on guests w/ opposing views but instead of being partial he throws his views down the guests throat. This implies to his audience that the guest is speaking nonsense and they lack credibility. In a way they are limiting news and views, which is undemocratic.
In addition, Fox News is known for bringing opposing guests that aren't aggressive w/ their stance and sometimes they even agree with the Fox correspondent.
From these examples it seems as if Al Jazeera is more democratic than some of America's news stations and this does not sit well with Americans. Zednick states "Al Jazeera's programming irked the United States so much that Colin Powell expressed concern about its inflammatory rhetoric to the Qatari emir during their October 3 meeting. Six weeks later, on November 13, a pair of 500 pound U. S. bombs destroyed Al Jazeera's Kabul bureau." Coincidence?

The United States believes democracy is good to have, good to fight for and good to impose on other countries yet when it is used towards them in a way that seems negative it becomes a problem. Fair somehow equates to bias when it is not in America's favor.

Al Jazeera International(ly sound?)

Al-Jazeera. A name most have come to know as the voice of the Middle East. Most Americans who know it, have come to think of it as the voice of the terrorists in certain instances (such as the showing of dead American soldiers and American P.O.W.s on its programing). They feel that its nothing more then jihadist propaganda or a weapon of the terrorists. According to the article "Is Al-Jazeera ready for prime time?" By Corey Pein, Dated April 22, 2005, Al-Jazeera wanted to make a move out of the Muslim/Arab world and into the whole world. This would mean that they would provide broadcasting, in English, in our own country. This is scaring alot of Americans who believe what I previously stated they believe about Al-Jazeera. It is also scaring the American government and of course Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Channel.

The U.S. government doesn't want influence over here that could spark American Arabs & Muslims to attempt terrorist attacks on the United States again. They feel that Al-Jazeera leans too much to the side of Jihadists and terrorists, and that their programming is to much of a risk to national security. Is this just the American government being too over cautious about national security, or is their some actual evidence that supports their claims. Well for starts, Al-Jazeera showed images of dead Americans and P.O.W.s on their channel, which really pissed the U.S. Government off. It sent signals, that may have not originally been intended, that said that Al-Jazeera completely hated America. Al-Jazeera had stated that their reasons for doing this was because several American news networks showed pictures of dead Iraqis after bombings, almost all of which were civilian, some of which were children. In this you can say that both sides were wrong, but Al-Jazeera's reasons may have been just from their point of view. Still the U.S. government is convinced they support Terrorists, and their is not much that can change that view.

Fox News Channel and Rupert Murdoch are another group against Al-Jazeera going international and coming to America. For starts, you can see why they are strongly against this. Their is rarely a night where Fox News doesn't show a clip from Al-Jazeera, discrediting them. They always support the American government belief that Al-Jazeera is a Terrorist funded propaganda machine, though their reasons for standing against Al-Jazeera's move to the U.S. may be mostly different, though this core reason remains a big part of it. The other big reason that Fox News is strongly against Al-Jazeera coming to the U.S., is because it would become a direct competitor of Fox News ratings. Fox News and Al-Jazeera represent two opposite sides of a coin, Fox News being the extreme right wing station and supporting the war in Iraq and Al-Jazeera being the extreme left wing station and going against the war. Right now Al-Jazeera is limited to only the middle east, so its extreme left wing beliefs can't influence Fox's target market, but if they were to become as wide spread and easily accessible as Fox News, Fox News may have a big treat to the influence it creates. Americans will get a chance to see a stronger influence against Fox News. This is really the main reason why Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are against Al-Jazeera hitting home. Murdoch most likely wants to control a monopoly on public opinion (in a sense).

So what really is Al-Jazeera's reasons for coming to the western world? They stated in the article that they wish to reach the Muslims and Arabs in the world outside the Middle East, that don't speak their native language and may only understand english (Right now, Al-Jazeera is available to them, through a bonus package in some satilight companies, but it is only in Arabic). They feel that they loose alot of their target market by not providing an english service to them. They also feel that they don't have the impact that Fox News, MSNBC, and BBC World (just to name a few) have on the rest of the world. They only reach those in the middle east, and they feel they can provide valuable incite to rest of the globe. They also want to provide more on foriegn news, feeling that most major networks concentrate too much on whats going on in their home region and not enough on the rest of the world. Al-Jazeera International plans to be a "foriegn news only" news service, giving the world as a whole the perspective of others that not alot of people (especially in America) get.

Now as their are many who are against Al-Jazeera going international, their are also alot of people who are in support of it. Many people feel that by Al-Jazeera giving America the Muslim/Arab perspective on the war, it might help Americans to understand Arabs/Muslims more, and later a news network from America could come on to provide Arabs/Muslims with an American perspective on the war, and thus help both sides to understand each other better and make a major move toward peace. This is a great thinking, however it will take major effort to get American's to think outside the box.

So in this writers opinion, this may be a good and bad move for Al-Jazeera, in that I agree it may help to create understanding between our feuding tribes, but at the same time raise creditable fear in Americans and possible increase the level of discrimination that exists between Arab/Muslims and Americans. Still everything has its good effects and bad effects.

Now the closest Al-Jazeera has come so far to getting its information to America and the west comes through their English news service website Al Jazeera English. Here you can read up on world news from Al Jazeera, on not just what is going on in Iraq, but all over the globe. It is completely in English and a link to watch the original Al Jazeera with English translations through streaming video. Its a step in the direction that Al-Jazeera wants to take, but it may be a while before Al-Jazeera can be as readily available as Fox News or MSNBC.

Al-Jazeera on My Televison Screan?

By some measures, its supporters say, Al-Jazeera offers coverage that's more balanced than U.S. networks. A recent American University survey of correspondents in Iraq found that they felt news was often scrubbed of the horrors they witnessed on the ground. Reporters complained of pressure to self-censor, and of unrealistic demands to produce "good news." A typical anonymous comment: "I think we sanitized the images too much so that people do not see the reality of war."

I personally was left shocked by the images I saw when we watched the documentary on Al-Jazeera in class. In the US we do not see dead bodies or blood. Pein is right when he quotes that we do not know the reality of war, how could we? Our news channels show us only the same typical shots and images. We are showed only the minimum truth of the war, and we do not ask to see more. Maybe that is why the US government is so scared of the Al-Jazeera International plan, especially with the plans to broadcast in English. Once they are more accessible to a larger audience, even Americans, then what will our government do. There would be no way of censoring there broadcast, or imposing control on them, as is done with American reporters. They know they can not show such images as Al-Jazeera, it is simply not aloud in America. But if the public will be able to see the difference in reporting, how will they react to the contrast?

The Crawl Effect

Many people have mixed feelings about the 'crawl' that is used on TV. The crawl has been around for years, but it's argued to be either a distraction with too much information crawling on the bottom of the screen of where to look, what to read (whether its breaking news or updating news) on top of what is being broadcasted live on TV and the crawl also being a good thing because the TV segments are crammed as it is to get everything in that TV channels don't have enough room for everything so they scroll it across the screen to inform the viewers.

"The networks say they aren't really certain that viewers can process all the information they're cramming onto the screen. But cram they will; Given that cable news viewers are a restless, remote-control-happy bunch, they say, the crawls offer a new way to deliver news more quickly,". ... " "Whether we like it or not, a faster pace is the reality now," says Susan Bunda, senior vice president of CNN. "People will become accustomed to it. And this story is of such a magnitude that people want as much information as they can get," ('Crawls' March Across TV Territory, by Paul Farhi).

The crawl has become a part of broadcasting. It will probably always be used. Their are so many topics and the TV companies narrow the stories down, condense them and just talk about the main points to get as much in as they can that the crawl becomes important to the broadcast so the channel(s) can display breaking news and give news updates for things to tell the viewers whether or not the news is a priority or that people watching really care, but we do get distracted by the crawl. One minute you are in the middle of listening to the current broadcast then you are hit with another topic along the top or bottom of the screen that you have to read while listening to the reporters talk because the crawl can grab your attention whether or not you chose to read it through or just keep listening to the original broadcast. Until or unless the viewers tolerate it, the 'crawl' will be an issue as long as it is being used.