NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Al-Jazeera

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Commercial television news provider specializing in the Arab world. [d] [e]

Thanks, Ro, for adding to this. For some reason, this is an article I have had trouble starting. --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hard. One thing you might mention later is how AJ English has poached a number of journalists from the BBC (Pedrosa, Omaar, Cole...) Ro Thorpe 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

'...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! Ro Thorpe 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, Ro. The removed phrase was "That strategy means that it focuses on meeting the demands of its principal viewers, which are not necessarily those of a Western news service.". That is to say, the removed phrase stated that AJ catered to its audience. That does not seem such a biased thing to say about any news service, or indeed any company. Nonetheless it was unreferenced. Replacing it, however, is the phrase "Al-Jazeera English is increasingly being accepted as a global player, reaching and even exceeding the standards of established broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN.". That seems quite a bold statement and one that may not be universally held, and is unreferenced. The suggestion is that we could reference it, but that reference would need to come in a form other than the personal opinion of a single person, whether that person be a CZ author or a politician, or else it should be labelled as opinion. Either way, maybe we could find an Editor who could shed light on the matter. For now I have removed the "and even exceeding" part which, in the absence of any references, seems unduly promotional. I would note that I came to this article by way of the article on Qatar which displays a similarly promotional tone regarding AJ, stating that Qatar has "distinguished itself" with the introduction of this news service, whilst providing no reference to show that is a widely held opinion. David Finn 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have some data, but it was not published, but only done as part of a consulting contract. Perhaps some academic there would like to reproduce the work, which was done, at the time, on Foreign Broadcast Information Service translations from the Arabic.
I took 189 consecutive A-J news reports and presented them to a panel of 10, using standard opinion research methods. They were asked to categorize articles from 1 (strongly anti-Western) to 5 (strongly pro-Western). When I did the data reduction, I was surprised to see an essentially normal distribution, skewed slightly to the anti-Western side, but with a median of 2.6 or so.
My guess only is that would be a considerably more neutral distribution than Fox News. As a stray comment, the neutrality of CNN appears to vary significantly if one sets the US version option versus the international version. I read the international.
Hmmm...I wonder if there is an idea here, presenting possible research and publication projects to our Eduzendium academics? Howard C. Berkowitz 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You might find this helpful

el-Nawawy M (2010) Al-Jazeera English. A conciliatory medium in a conflict-driven environment? Global Media and Communication 6:61-84 "Launched in November 2006, Al-Jazeera English (AJE) stands out amongst its competitors and is considered by many an anomaly when it comes to its journalistic code and identity. AJE is neither dominated by geopolitical nor commercial interests, and is the first of its kind to have the resources, mandate and journalistic capacity to reach out to typically ignored audiences throughout the world. This study argues that AJE’s model of journalism offers an alternative to today’s mode of news journalism that continues to encourage stereotypical attitudes towards cultural ‘others’. .." Gareth Leng 14:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting indeed just from the abstract -- the PDF showed as "damaged". Thinking out loud, I wonder if we could do a reasonably synthetic model of alternative models for news, which certainly has to change some traditional economic models. Political opinion broadcasting is an article I haven't touched in a while.
see Jon Snow on a changing media in a changing world.Gareth Leng 16:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the increasingly polarized trend in news more a characteristic of news worldwide, or is it a particularly U.S. annoyance? I've also tried to write objectively on people such as Glenn Beck, letting his own words speak for him -- but I fear for the increasing platform for demagogues that connect with real anger in the population. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
See Al Jazeera English: The Brave New Channel They Don't Want You to See Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Sep/Oct 2007 by Hanley, Delinda C Gareth Leng 16:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
When the US Secretary of State makes a formal statement on behalf of the government, stating that Al-Jazeera and other new channels are outclassing US channels in their quality of coverage... that CNN et al are merely talking heads, I suggest that this is enough to suggest that this channel is now accepted as being of higher quality than traditional ones. This is also my opinion, and seems to be widely held amongst academics and other educated professionals. On CZ, we do not have to source, but we do have to justify in debate. I consider that Gareth's comments and my additional explanation are sufficient. If somebody has knowledge of serious opposition to this evaluation of the channel's success, please state it here and we can debate further. Also, note that the channel is unpopular with Arab politicians: that ought to tell you something on its own. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
'Arguably' is fine with me. Ro Thorpe 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can hear over the noisy shoveling of snow by Satan, I tend to agree here with Martin. There is little doubt that American advertisers are drawn to the television channels that draw the most watchers, and controversy and dramatics appear to draw them -- something that makes me despair for my countrymen. There are U.S. newspaper websites with much better coverage than U.S. television news on the web, although the New York Times is limited free content at the end of the month, as the Wall Street Journal did some time ago. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)