"The Al Jazeera Revolution" - Foreign Policy Magazine Giving AJE The Respect They Deserve

[Turborama]

The satellite television station is seizing the message away from the bland propaganda of Arab autocrats.

BY LAWRENCE PINTAK | FEBRUARY 2, 2011



As darkness fell on Tahrir Square the night of Feb. 1, a giant makeshift TV screen broadcast Al Jazeera's live coverage of the Egyptian uprising to the enthusiastic crowd. The channel would later transmit Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's speech, in which he announced that he would not stand for reelection but would stay in office for the remainder of his term; below the screen, the protesters chanted their displeasure at what they viewed as this insufficient concession.

It was a moment that spoke volumes about the unique link between the Qatar-based channel, the uprising in Egypt, and the Tunisian revolution that was its inspiration.

It also underscored the new reality facing Arab regimes: They no longer control the message.

Since Jan. 28, Al Jazeera has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with the Mubarak regime, http://www.cpj.org/2011/01/egypt-blocks-al-jazeera-transmissions-orders-burea.php">which knocked it off the government-controlled Nilesat satellite, shut its bureau, seized its transmission equipment, and arrested some of its staff. But over the weekend, at least 10 other satellite broadcasters in the region began replacing their own programming with Al Jazeera's feed, foiling the Egyptian regime's efforts to prevent its citizens from watching the channel that has become its chief nemesis.

Much more: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/02/the_al_jazeera_revolution?page=0%252C1&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d4a4274de1154c9,1

(Found courtesy of http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/02/live-blog-feb-3-egypt-protests">AJ English's Live Blog)

[NBachers]

1. I can use my Roku TV box to get Al Jazeera English without cable

I don't have cable- I hate the cable companies, and can't pay for their overpriced products.

I give Roku credit for posting Al Jazeera as one of their news channels.

[sabrina 1]

5. What is a Roku TV Box?

[Turborama]

7. Hi Sabrina. I posted about it

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x327137

[sabrina 1]

15. Thanks, I'll go check it out, sounds interesting.

[Hannah Bell]

2. Why wouldn't they? AJ is a creation of former BBC personnel. It was never the "radical" outfit

it was made out to be at the time of the Bush war.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were spies/operatives involved, in fact.

[Turborama]

3. Because it has been maligned in America since the illegal invasion of Iraq

And when Bush and Rumsfeld murdered their reporters and wanted to wipe it off the map: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6848728

"I wouldn't be surprised if there were spies/operatives involved, in fact." :rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

4. Why do you think that laughable? There are spies & operatives in every news service on the planet.

and you apparently didn't read my post, as i noted that AJ had been made out to be some radical outfit during the bush wars.

but the staff & readers of Foreign Policy are not the rubes the Rumsfeld/Bush statements were aimed at -- propagated by our own spy & operative-ridden media.

in fact, FP itself is a journal for spies & operatives, & founded by same.

Samuel Huntington: "The architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate." —— American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, p. 75.

Oh, & the al-thani family, i.e. the emir that financed aj, was put in power by the british & has remained in power due to the backing of the british & americans.

[Turborama]

6. Yeah, ok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slate_Group

BTW I was answering your question: "Why wouldn't they?"

[Hannah Bell]

8. and my answer to your answer was: FP isn't addressed to the same audience that Rumsfeld & Bush's

remarks were.

i think you don't understand the irony of the link to "the slate group" (headed by donald graham of the graham/meyer house).

In 1940 (phil) Graham married Katharine Meyer. The following year he became clerk to Felix Frankfurter. Graham joined the Army Air Corps in 1942. He worked as an assistant to William Donovan, head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In 1944 Graham was recruited into the "Special Branch, a super-secret part of Intelligence, run by Colonel Al McCormick". He later worked under General George Kenney, commander of the Allied Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgrahamP.htm.

His father-in-law, who actually owned the paper, was the first head of the world bank and a federal reserve chair.

[Turborama]

9. It doesn't matter who it was "aimed at". It's out there and hopefully being widely read by Americans

I don't take kindly to you coming into the thread I started and patronizing me for the title I chose to use, and your continued patronization is extremely irksome.

The continued kicking of my thread is helpful though, thanks.

[Hannah Bell]

10. sorry you read it as "patronization" for the thread title you chose to use.

the fact that i disagree with your take -- that aj is "finally" getting the "respect they deserve from FP" doesn't mean i'm patronizing you, it means i'm disagreeing with your take.

that the fp article is "out there" & "being read" is something else again.

i didn't realize this was a private thread, i thought it was open to discussion like other threads at du.

my point was rather simple & non-controversial & i don't get why you are offended.

[Turborama]

11. It was. "Foreign Policy Magazine Giving AJE The Respect They Deserve"

You: "Why wouldn't they?"

Now you say: "the fact that i disagree with your take -- that aj is "finally" getting the "respect they deserve from FP""

I didn't say finally or "from FP" in the title so stop making shit up.

It is an open thread, feel free to post what you want. If you want to go into people's threads and start being patronizing to other DUers, go for it. If you do it to me I'll call you out on it, though.

On edit: I'm not going to bother replying to you apart from one word answers from now on to assist you in keeping this thread kicked, as your edits are making this conversation useless.

Edit 2: FWIW I added "Giving AJE The Respect They Deserve" because they haven't been shown any respect in America since they began and it's a personal bug bear of mine.

[Hannah Bell]

12. my apologies, you didn't say "finally". i stand by my comments, however, & i don't believe my

remarks were patronizing.

foreign policy is not written for the people the bush propaganda was directed at. it's written for people who know something about how global politics actually works.

therefore it's not surprising fp treats aj as a legitimate news org, and there was never any doubt to that audience such as your thread title implied.

[Turborama]

13. Or "from FP"

Carry on.

[Hannah Bell]

14. i assumed that, since you wrote the header, the "respect" was demonstrated by the laudatory

article in fp, but whatever. not a big deal; not sure why you need to make it so. what a tempest over a 4-sentence post, none of which referred to *you* at all.

& on the spies/operatives/slate media...i just noticed from the article i linked before:

It is claimed that Graham had close links with the Central Intelligence Agency. He had a close relationship with Tracy Barnes and Frank Wisner. it has been claimed that Graham played an important role in Operation MB, the CIA program to infiltrate domestic American media....


frank wisner 1st being the father of the second frank wisner, that is, obama's new special envoy to egypt.

that is not intended to be patronizing, just pointing out the continuity of "government".

[Turborama]

16. Ok. Thanks for showing how you assumed what I was thinking. n/t

Bye :hi:

LOL even more editing. I'm sorry, I'm not going to bother reading it or anything else you write.

[Hannah Bell]

17. we all assume such things. if we made no assumptions, no communication would be possible.

thanks for pointing out your own assumptions, however. i will tread much more carefully next time. or less carefully, as it doesn't seem to matter.

[Turborama]

18. You assumed what I meant by the title, later misrepsented what I wrote in the title

And just go on and on and on about it.

I like the way you feel like you always have to have the last word. It's helping keep this excellent article at the top of the page.

Cheers for that.

[Hannah Bell]

19. and you made a big deal out of very minor things, none of which had anything to do with my point.

but glad to kick your thread for you. the article is interesting, but it has nothing to do with what you chose to re-title it.

[Turborama]

20. Thanks again.

On edit: (because I like to make sure people know what's added after I originally post)

And the reason I chose to title it the way I did is explained above. If you don't like my motives, well that's just tough shit.

"but it has nothing to do with what you chose to re-title it." Doesn't even make sense.

[Turborama]

21. Kick for anyone who may have missed this excellent article...

:kick: