Hillary Clinton praises Al Jazeera, meanwhile, hell freezes over

[Kuya]

Hillary Clinton Praises Al Jazeera as "Real News"

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has surprised many after she praised the news programming on Al Jazeera, while she criticized the over-commercialization of news programs in the United States. Speaking before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton said the United States is losing the "information war."

Hillary Clinton: "Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news, which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."

While Al Jazeera English is broadcast to more than 200 million homes around the world, it is hardly available in the United States due to what critics have described as a media blackout by U.S. cable and satellite providers.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/4/headlines#4

It's very confusing given that American news media has been particularly hepful to the US government.

[Demosthenes11]

I thought this was interesting too. I especially don't get it because we are about to go to war while having a willing public because of our media and their relationship to the government.

[Surealistic]

the US news scene is so out of control im not suprised at all

we no longer have any, i repeat, THERE ARE NO UNBIASED news outlets anymore, no one just reports the news, they all have to have their own spin on it to fit their agenda, it was only a matter of time before someone stood up and said "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE"

bravo hillary

[Demosthenes11]

the US news scene is so out of control im not suprised at all

we no longer have any, i repeat, THERE ARE NO UNBIASED news outlets anymore, no one just reports the news, they all have to have their own spin on it to fit their agenda, it was only a matter of time before someone stood up and said "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE"

bravo hillary

I'm not convinced that is what's going on. I'm not sure what she gains by having a good media that reports things the public needs to hear, because, as I said, we are about to embark on another unjustified war for profit.

Also, bias will always exist - always. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

[Kuya]

the US news scene is so out of control im not suprised at all

we no longer have any, i repeat, THERE ARE NO UNBIASED news outlets anymore, no one just reports the news, they all have to have their own spin on it to fit their agenda, it was only a matter of time before someone stood up and said "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE"

bravo hillary

Everything has bias. This is not the problem with US media.

[Souj]

FOX is the problem with US media.

[Demosthenes11]

FOX is the problem with US media.

if you believe that you are delusional. FOX might actually have it the most right, but their bias makes it so painful.

[Xajii]

Everything has bias. This is not the problem with US media.

Agreed, I think the transformation away from journalistic integrity toward obsession over ratings/money etc has more to do with it than political bias. Fact is, both liberal and conservative news outlets will interrupt an intelligent debate to update us on the status of Lindsay Lohan's court case.

[Surealistic]

uhhhhh, faux news is by far the worst, im convinced they dont even try anymore, basically just throw a dart at a wall of half written stories and run with it

[Kerberoz]

A politician, in office, being honest about the American news media?

*looks out the window*

So, when's the asteroid going to hit? Can't see it yet.

[Kuya]

The media has two particular problems:

1. "He said, she said reporting". They bring in two seemingly opposing view points and either let them argue it out or parrot what they say without checking if the two sides are equivalent, if there are more than two sides, or if the things either side says or true or not. The latter they avoid because they think that pointing out that one side is wrong or wrong about certain things might make them appear bias and partisan. So what happens is that there is little actual news reporting (facts) and more of a cesspool of opinions.

2. Self-censorship. For example, in beltway media, reporters who report on the US gov might want to have good relationships with it in order to be given access. This usually means no adversarial reporting or reporting of anything that might seem to make the government mad. Oftentimes, the reporters might end of being friends of washington insiders, to the point that they're invited to birthday parties and the like. In otherwords, too close relationships between media and govenrment even while the former is privatized.

[Demosthenes11]

uhhhhh, faux news is by far the worst, im convinced they dont even try anymore, basically just throw a dart at a wall of half written stories and run with it

problem is, fox probably has the most news on it and the most discussion. We just don't like it because it is full of smoke and mirrors to disguise massive bias.

fox is the root of journalism gone bad as well as corporate interest spilling into media, but they are not the root of the problem with media

[guartz]

Hillary is clearly anti-samite because she supports anti-samite news organizations.

[Surealistic]

NEWS GOES IN, SHIT COMES OUT

CANT EXPLAIN THAT

[Mizango]

problem is, fox probably has the most news on it and the most discussion. We just don't like it because it is full of smoke and mirrors to disguise massive bias.

fox is the root of journalism gone bad as well as corporate interest spilling into media, but they are not the root of the problem with media

Spot on

[guartz]

This is all old news. People made careers exposing this.

Here you go, documentary from 20+ years ago, still relevant.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/118171/manufacturing-consent

[Mizango]

Guartz youre a goddamn commie. Stop.

[Mizango]

Red scourge all up in this bitch.

[Anton]

I'm not convinced that is what's going on.

No that's exactly whats going on. Trust me, I live in another country.

I nearly spilled my Tim Horton's medium when the wikileaks revealed thoughts about CBC news as sort of an unamerican propaganda machine.

Let me tell you how our news shows run. First you see this guy
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P6G5YMvob5...nsbridge07.jpg

He sits at a desk. He introduces himself. Then, straight into world news for 10 or so minutes. And that's good for three quick stories or one/two really important ones.

Maybe a 2 minute conversation with one news analyst.

Then some local news.

Then how supermarket scales more often than not weigh in the customers favor. Good times.

Then the weather.

Total time: 30 to 60 minutes, depending on if there's a hockey game on the schedule.

THAT'S IT. That's the Canadian news day. You want some more? Read a paper online or watch George Strombo later that day. Or BBCNews, which runs an entire day like this. There's nothing exciting about it. No glitzy glamour. No new visual representation-ometer. Person. Desk. Paper. Field Correspondant. All of this technology has existed for 60 years, how can you make news better than that?

It was only a few years ago the "Senior XYZ Correspondant" was a thing of comedy...

http://mije.org/files/u426/CNN_post_debate_0.jpg

Now they can't even all fit on the same fucking table! And what you get is anywhere between 4 to 20 chuckleheads trying to get an opinion out, which is especially funny when news happens outside of the continent, where CNN has all-but-forgotten what happens.

Look, it's important to hear multiple sides of the story if you're pragmatic. But it's not okay for the story to be less important than your station's pro news panel discussions. Hillary hit the nail right on the head - how can anyone stay well informed when one story dominates an entire day? What if you're not interested in the story? What if there's no new information? Suck it up and talk about banks in Portugal then.

Everybody has bias. If you read the MidEast thread, it's widely accepted that Al Jazeera will always spin the shit out of any stories involving Quatar, where they're incorporated. Other than that, they also have the most competent MidEast news coverage, if that's your area of interest. AJE was running interviews with gov't officials while CNN was trying to understand a fuzzy situation about a place they don't cover from a 5-hour "expert". And it showed, that's all Hillary said.

[Shuvo]

I'm not convinced that is what's going on. I'm not sure what she gains by having a good media that reports things the public needs to hear, because, as I said, we are about to embark on another unjustified war for profit.

Also, bias will always exist - always. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

MSNBC with Cenk Uygur is pretty unbiased, even though he's a liberal he articulates his position really well every time. I've been watching the guys internet show for a few years now and I was happy to see he didn't sell out his principles when he got offered a spot on MSNBC. It's just too bad he toned down his sense of humor when he moved there, but some change is expected I suppose!