• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Al Jazeera Buying Current?

I'm confused. Supposedly Rupert Murdock had to become a US citizen before the government would allow him to buy Fox, but foreigners can buy an existing cable network without any fuss from the knuckleheads in DC?

What's missing here?
 
I think that USA Today mentioned that....
Programming a Cable TV network is not the same thing as controlling a broadcast license.
 
Pat Cook said:
Me thinks Doubtful because while Time Warner may be more of a Conservative-Leaning company (Afterall, they do own CNN which tends to lean Conservative),

Since when?

G
 
upstate29651 said:
Pat Cook said:
Me thinks Doubtful because while Time Warner may be more of a Conservative-Leaning company (Afterall, they do own CNN which tends to lean Conservative),

Since when?

G
That's my question too. Since when has CNN leaned conservative? This person must think that MSNBC is middle of the road then.
 
bpatrick said:
Now if somebody would give us back Peter Mansbridge
and the CBC's hour of "The National" and "The Journal"
(those already living near the Canadian border excepted
since you already have it).
Amen!!!!!!!
 
Bill DeFelice said:
I'm confused. Supposedly Rupert Murdock had to become a US citizen before the government would allow him to buy Fox, but foreigners can buy an existing cable network without any fuss from the knuckleheads in DC?

What's missing here?

Murdoch had to do that to own the Fox TV stations. There is not now and has never been a citizenship requirement for cable network ownership.
 
Bill DeFelice said:
I'm confused. Supposedly Rupert Murdoc[h] had to become a US citizen before the government would allow him to buy Fox, but foreigners can buy an existing cable network without any fuss from the knuckleheads in DC?

What's missing here?

Cable TV and satellite TV networks were not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission like the stations owned and operated by the FOX Broadcasting Company.
 
Bill DeFelice said:
I'm confused. Supposedly Rupert Murdock had to become a US citizen before the government would allow him to buy Fox, but foreigners can buy an existing cable network without any fuss from the knuckleheads in DC?

What's missing here?

I think with Murdock it had to do more with him owning Television stations. In order to purchase the stations which became the original FOX O&O's, he had to become a US Citizen.
 
I'm going to assume that's sarcasm and not ignorance.

- Trip
 
EJ204 said:
...Here's one thing we really haven't discussed. Americans don't seem to be interested in news channels that give us the news. HLN used to be an operation that 48 times a day gave us a 30 minute newscast. Now it's a mix of news, gossip, talk shows, etc. The Weather Channel used to update the weather 24 hours a day. Now much of its line up is reality shows and documentaries about the weather.

And the most news-driven of the big three news channels, CNN, finds itself with lower ratings than Fox and MSNBC, which are filled with opinionated talk programs, one on the right, one on the left...

There are (at least) two sad facts in all of this:

1) For anyone who wants to be fully informed about current events it's necessary to check a variety of different news sources. I say this is sad because it's the result of there not being a single relatively unbiased, straight, reliable news source to turn to. The major broadcast and print organizations have long ago lost sight of the concept of objectivity and now view themselves as either profit centers appealing to the lowest common denominator or propaganda bureaus for the ideological and/or political outcomes they wish to promote. I suspect most of the pretty boys and leggy girls in the "news" business these days wouldn't have a clue about how to be objective if their careers depended on it.

2) Even if there were an organization that tried to present meaningful "hard" news in as objective and factual a way as possible, most people who even bother to ever check "the news" would likely flip to the channel that has the flashiest graphics and prettiest girls in the shortest skirts talking about the latest Hollywood gossip, or stories about wealthy teenagers being abducted in the Carribean.
 
SixtiesGuy said:
Even if there were an organization that tried to present meaningful "hard" news in as objective and factual a way as possible, most people who even bother to ever check "the news" would likely flip to the channel that has the flashiest graphics and prettiest girls in the shortest skirts talking about the latest Hollywood gossip, or stories about wealthy teenagers being abducted in the Carribean.

The main reason why I shun TV news, and the fact that I will never give up the newspaper, the only place outside the internet where hard news is still easily available.
 
azumanga said:
SixtiesGuy said:
Even if there were an organization that tried to present meaningful "hard" news in as objective and factual a way as possible, most people who even bother to ever check "the news" would likely flip to the channel that has the flashiest graphics and prettiest girls in the shortest skirts talking about the latest Hollywood gossip, or stories about wealthy teenagers being abducted in the Carribean.

The main reason why I shun TV news, and the fact that I will never give up the newspaper, the only place outside the internet where hard news is still easily available.

Print media may be a more reliable source for what is actually news, but it, too, frequently has big shortcomings when it comes to objectivity.
 
Re: REPORT: ALJAZEERA WANTS CURRENT

only1moore said:
It'll be very interesting to see where The Young Turks, Joy Behar, Jennifer Granholm, Elliot Spitzer and the rest of the Current TV personalities will end up.

Meanwhile, Oceanic Time Warner in Hawaii has pulled Current off the line up (it was at channel 900 on the digital tier) and left it blank. At this point Oceanic has no plans to replace it.

Elliot Spitzer has been making noise about running for office again.
 
I'd admit that Al-J isn't my favorite channel. However, the English language programming isn't all that terrible. Of course, they're presenting the news for their own audience, which have different perspectives from many of us here. That's expected.

Any channel that's supported by the state is going to reflect the policy of the government, and that's including the BBC. It'd be naive to think otherwise. I think some people here have a problem with the marketplace, which is why they flock to foreign channels, thinking that they'd get "real news" but those are just as biased as those for-profit channels they dislike. I guess when you like what you hear it's "unbiased" but when it's not what you want to hear it's "biased".

In an a-la-carte world I would drop most of them, except for NHK, as at least they air some interesting stuff.
 
Could it be all this hubbub over Al Jazeera taking over Current (much of it seeming to come from CNN) CNN's way of trying to discredit Al Jazeera America before it even gets a foothold in America? Somehow, CNN seems especially nervous about Al Jazeera moving in more than anyone else - ironically, more than even Fox News.

Just an observation.
 
Bongwater said:
Could it be all this hubbub over Al Jazeera taking over Current (much of it seeming to come from CNN) CNN's way of trying to discredit Al Jazeera America before it even gets a foothold in America? Somehow, CNN seems especially nervous about Al Jazeera moving in more than anyone else - ironically, more than even Fox News.

Just an observation.

Because apparently Fox News viewers think that Al Jazeera is a terrorist organization... :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom