• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al-Jazeera buys Current TV from Al Gore.....[W:187,319]

marsden said:
I heard from Uncle Rush that NO ONE pays $500,000,000 for an American TV network with as few viewers as Current TV boasts.


They are actually buying Al Gore's entre into America's living rooms.

They are expecting Al Gore to help them gain acceptance here.

Why?

Answer that question honestly and then you'll know what the uproar is about.
Click to expand...

They are a media company tapping into a market ...
 
MMC said:
So are you saying a Country should not be concerned about any Foreign entity broadcasting and producing with in its own borders? That they should not have any concern for Propaganda?
Click to expand...

Like BBC and Fox News (largely foreign owned)?
 
RGacky3 said:
Like BBC and Fox News (largely foreign owned)?
Click to expand...

Did you notice the terminology of "Any"?
rolleyes.png
 
Grant said:
Please show where Joe McCarthy didn't believe in the first amendment.
Click to expand...

McCarthy's whole campaign had the goal of preventing anyone who had ever held communist viewpoints, or ever belonged to certain organizations, from holding government jobs. McCarthy did not focus solely on spys, suspected spys or others committing crimes, he targeted everyone in government who ever held certain views or joined certain organizations. McCarthy and his supporters also successfully destroyed the careers (although not necessarily through legislation) of anyone with such views working in the motion picture business. The goal with the motion picture hearings wasn't to stop spying, it was to stop expressions of opinion in media that they did not approve of. McCarthy was largely successful, but in subsequent years courts and legislatures eliminated most of the laws created during the McCarthy era that called for viewpoint discrimination because they clearly were violations of the first amendment.



"Another key decision was in the 1957 case Yates v. United States, in which the convictions of fourteen Communists were reversed. In Justice Black's opinion, he wrote of the original "Smith Act" trials: "The testimony of witnesses is comparatively insignificant. Guilt or innocence may turn on what Marx or Engels or someone else wrote or advocated as much as a hundred years or more ago.[...] When the propriety of obnoxious or unfamiliar view about government is in reality made the crucial issue, [...] prejudice makes conviction inevitable except in the rarest circumstances."[96]

Also in 1957, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Watkins v. United States, curtailing the power of HUAC to punish uncooperative witnesses by finding them in contempt of Congress. Justice Warren wrote in the decision: "The mere summoning of a witness and compelling him to testify, against his will, about his beliefs, expressions or associations is a measure of governmental interference. And when those forced revelations concern matters that are unorthodox, unpopular, or even hateful to the general public, the reaction in the life of the witness may be disastrous."[97]

In its 1958 decision in Kent v. Dulles, the Supreme Court halted the State Department from using the authority of its own regulations to refuse or revoke passports based on an applicant's communist beliefs or associations."
Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by MMC
"So are you saying a Country should not be concerned about any Foreign entity broadcasting and producing with in its own borders? That they should not have any concern for Propaganda?"

A government with a guarantee of free expression has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech, or who is speaking. (outside of fraud, libel and false advertising) Anyone with confidence that their viewpoint is correct and can be verified with facts has no concern about "propaganda." For the truth to emerge we only need to promote a media environment in which all viewpoints can be expressed and heard. Propaganda is only effective when other viewpoints are suppressed.
 
Hard Truth said:
McCarthy's whole campaign had the goal of preventing anyone who had ever held communist viewpoints, or ever belonged to certain organizations, from holding government jobs.
Click to expand...

High level government jobs, yes, and we can see why.
McCarthy did not focus solely on spys, suspected spys or others committing crimes, he targeted everyone in government who ever held certain views or joined certain organizations.
Click to expand...

He did not target everyone in government and indeed there were spies who were apparently being deliberately ignored.

McCarthy and his supporters also successfully destroyed the careers (although not necessarily through legislation) of anyone with such views working in the motion picture business.
Click to expand...

McCarthy was more interested in government than the motion picture industry.

The goal with the motion picture hearings wasn't to stop spying, it was to stop expressions of opinion in media that they did not approve of.
Click to expand...

We still do that in the cases of Nazism, Fascism, Racism, etc. There are some things, such as slavery, which would be reprehensible if shown in a positive light.

McCarthy was largely successful, but in subsequent years courts and legislatures eliminated most of the laws created during the McCarthy era that called for viewpoint discrimination because they clearly were violations of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but many of these organizations were secret organizations, if its a matter of freedom of speech why not openly admit to being a Communist, etc.? And of course the McCarthy era was not all McCarthy.

"Another key decision was in the 1957 case Yates v. United States, in which the convictions of fourteen Communists were reversed. In Justice Black's opinion, he wrote of the original "Smith Act" trials: "The testimony of witnesses is comparatively insignificant. Guilt or innocence may turn on what Marx or Engels or someone else wrote or advocated as much as a hundred years or more ago.[...] When the propriety of obnoxious or unfamiliar view about government is in reality made the crucial issue, [...] prejudice makes conviction inevitable except in the rarest circumstances."[96]
Click to expand...
But of course it wasn't all about Marx or Engles, though we can see his point. In fact the Communists were deliberately killing millions, there were spies in the US Government, and all of that should have been pointed out and brought to public attention.
 
marsden said:
I heard from Uncle Rush that NO ONE pays $500,000,000 for an American TV network with as few viewers as Current TV boasts.


They are actually buying Al Gore's entre into America's living rooms.

They are expecting Al Gore to help them gain acceptance here.

Why?

Answer that question honestly and then you'll know what the uproar is about.
Click to expand...

Well they needed ed a station to enter the market and Current TV is a way into it. They are floating on the fact that they can increase name awareness.
 
Re: Al-Jazeera buys Current TV from Al Gore.....

Grant said:
What did you find wrong with what Limbaugh said? Or is this just another as hominem?
Click to expand...

I didnt even read it cuz i know the typical Limbaugh line. Anything that doesnt spout conservative **** "hates America blah blah blah blah"
 
Hard Truth said:
Quote Originally Posted by MMC
"So are you saying a Country should not be concerned about any Foreign entity broadcasting and producing with in its own borders? That they should not have any concern for Propaganda?"

A government with a guarantee of free expression has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech, or who is speaking. (outside of fraud, libel and false advertising) Anyone with confidence that their viewpoint is correct and can be verified with facts has no concern about "propaganda." For the truth to emerge we only need to promote a media environment in which all viewpoints can be expressed and heard. Propaganda is only effective when other viewpoints are suppressed.
Click to expand...

Hows that Free Expression working out for the US Citizen that Made an Anti Muslim Film?
rolleyes.png
 
Hard Truth said:
Quote Originally Posted by MMC
"So are you saying a Country should not be concerned about any Foreign entity broadcasting and producing with in its own borders? That they should not have any concern for Propaganda?"

A government with a guarantee of free expression has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech, or who is speaking. (outside of fraud, libel and false advertising) Anyone with confidence that their viewpoint is correct and can be verified with facts has no concern about "propaganda." For the truth to emerge we only need to promote a media environment in which all viewpoints can be expressed and heard. Propaganda is only effective when other viewpoints are suppressed.
Click to expand...

On the face of it your position makes sense and can't be argued against.

However, like the theory behind Communism, when applied in real life situations things aren't so cut and dried as you'd like to believe.

There is little dispute from either side of the political divide that the US media helped Obama win re-election. There is also little dispute that the media in America is a propaganda arm of the Democrat party and reflects
and promotes the leftist agenda.

You say the government has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech or who is speaking, outside of fraud, libel and false advertising.

But what if the government actually supports a biased media which has commonly been caught committing fraud, libel and false advertising? And doing so ON BEHALF OF THE RULING PARTY OF GOVERNMENT!

Who or what entity can prevent outside groups from abusing and misusing the media's traditional trusted place in our society to spread a worldview which is antithetical to our population who've already proven themselves readily malleable and vulnerable to manipulation?

It's like letting a fox loose in the chicken coop.
 
Let's be clear on who and what is behind Al Jazeera.

http://news.yahoo.com/al-gore-super-rich-sellout-080000697.html

There are other signs of disturbing pro-Islamist bias. In the midst of the "Arab Spring" celebrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Feb. 11, 2011, some 200 men sexually assaulted CBS correspondent Lara Logan. Al-Jazeera English, which was credited by Hillary Clinton and other liberals for its ubiquitous coverage of the uprising, deliberately ignored the assault on Logan. When they were called out by Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Al-Jazeera English publicist responded that the network "believes as a general rule" that journalists "are not the story." Capehart then noted that just days before, Al-Jazeera touted a story on how "Domestic and foreign journalists have come under siege amid the turmoil in Egypt."

Then there's the case of honoring Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar. In 1979, Kuntar was imprisoned for shooting an Israeli civilian in front of the Israeli's 4-year-old daughter, and then bashing in the little girl's head with his rifle. In 2008, Al-Jazeera in Qatar threw a televised birthday party for Kuntar, then newly released in a prisoner exchange. An Al-Jazeera interviewer told Kuntar, "You deserve even more than this," then brought out cake and sparklers. The cake had pictures on it, and Kuntar declared the "most beautiful picture" on the cake was of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. "There cannot be anything more beautiful," he proclaimed.

Al Gore could see nothing but positive qualities in his buyer, putting out a shameless statement that claimed, "Al-Jazeera, like Current, believes that facts and truth lead to a better understanding of the world around us."

Gore rebuffed an offer from conservative radio/TV personality Glenn Beck to buy Current TV. Beck was told, "The legacy of who the network goes to is important to us, and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view."

Beck is not aligned with the Gore viewpoint, and yet Al-Jazeera is? Al Gore, too, would celebrate a child-murdering terrorist with a birthday cake? Why isn't this alignment controversial or newsworthy?

Then the story gets worse. While Beck told his listeners he was rejected within minutes, Gore became a lobbyist for Al-Jazeera. New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter revealed that to preserve the deal and his big payout, Gore went to some of cable distributors looking for an excuse to drop the low-rated channel, "and reminded them that their contracts with Current TV called it a news channel. Were the distributors going to say that an American version of Al Jazeera didn't qualify, possibly invoking ugly stereotypes of the Middle Eastern news giant?"

So dropping Al-Jazeera became anti-"news," anti-Arab and Islamophobic.

But the networks won't breathe a word about Beck, and never allowed a conservative or a critic of radical Islam to offer any criticism of either Al Gore the super-rich sellout, or his terror-enabling buyer. None dares express horror that the man who was almost president on 9/11 was allying himself with al-Qaida's video jukebox.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Quote Originally Posted by MMC
"So are you saying a Country should not be concerned about any Foreign entity broadcasting and producing with in its own borders? That they should not have any concern for Propaganda?"

A government with a guarantee of free expression has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech, or who is speaking. (outside of fraud, libel and false advertising) Anyone with confidence that their viewpoint is correct and can be verified with facts has no concern about "propaganda." For the truth to emerge we only need to promote a media environment in which all viewpoints can be expressed and heard. Propaganda is only effective when other viewpoints are suppressed.
Click to expand...

There is an obvious bias in the US media and we can see the consequences of that bias everywhere, even on these boards. The left wing propaganda in the US doesn't seem to have done the country much good.
 
Seems like fox has it figured out.
Grant said:
There is an obvious bias in the US media and we can see the consequences of that bias everywhere, even on these boards. The left wing propaganda in the US doesn't seem to have done the country much good.
Click to expand...
 
MMC said:
Hows that Free Expression working out for the US Citizen that Made an Anti Muslim Film?
rolleyes.png
Click to expand...

I don't know. Ask him.

I'm glad that we live in a country where anyone can make a film and not face censorship or imprisonment as a result.
 
If I recall corectly it had something to with probation violation.
Hard Truth said:
I don't know. Ask him.

I'm glad that we live in a country where anyone can make a film and not face censorship or imprisonment as a result.
Click to expand...
 
marsden said:
On the face of it your position makes sense and can't be argued against.

However, like the theory behind Communism, when applied in real life situations things aren't so cut and dried as you'd like to believe.

There is little dispute from either side of the political divide that the US media helped Obama win re-election. There is also little dispute that the media in America is a propaganda arm of the Democrat party and reflects
and promotes the leftist agenda.

You say the government has no business concerning itself with the content of any speech or who is speaking, outside of fraud, libel and false advertising.

But what if the government actually supports a biased media which has commonly been caught committing fraud, libel and false advertising? And doing so ON BEHALF OF THE RULING PARTY OF GOVERNMENT!

Who or what entity can prevent outside groups from abusing and misusing the media's traditional trusted place in our society to spread a worldview which is antithetical to our population who've already proven themselves readily malleable and vulnerable to manipulation?

It's like letting a fox loose in the chicken coop.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that you are arguing against the first amendment? To me, that amendment is virtually the only thing that makes the USA a better place to live politically compared to much of the world.

With censorship there is no way to know if you have access to all the facts and opinions on controversial matters. Without these facts and opinions you can not be an informed voter, and democracy is sham. Ultimately, the goal of all censors is to preserve the power of the people in charge of the censors.

The mainstream media is not leftist, it is corporatist and centrist. Many of you have never even experienced leftist media. Watch Democracy Now, listen to a Pacifica radio station or read the Guardian (British) or the Nation to see what the real liberal/progressive/leftist point of view really is. It is not very similar to the mainstream media in the USA.

If you don't trust the government or the mainstream media (neither do I, but in different ways), why would you trust whoever would be empowered to control access to mass media and ban Al-Jazeera?
 
marsden said:
...But what if the government actually supports a biased media which has commonly been caught committing fraud, libel and false advertising? And doing so ON BEHALF OF THE RULING PARTY OF GOVERNMENT!

Who or what entity can prevent outside groups from abusing and misusing the media's traditional trusted place in our society to spread a worldview which is antithetical to our population who've already proven themselves readily malleable and vulnerable to manipulation?

It's like letting a fox loose in the chicken coop.
Click to expand...

1. The government should not be supporting any particular viewpoint in the media and I don't think that it does as much, or in the way, that paranoid conservatives think it does. In general, the government doesn't need to control the media because lazy corporate controlled media outlets are usually all too willing to accept the pronouncements of government officials as facts.

The only way to effectively address this is to cultivate a media marketplace that provides more access to diverse opinions and facts. That is why net neutrality is so important. That is also the reason why I welcome the addition of Al Jazeera to more cable TV systems. It will provide people with previously unavailable content.

2. Again, more media diversity will get people closer to the truth than a narrow range of corporate sponsored opinions and facts. No one can stop people from putting out "bad" messages. People need to learn media literacy in school and seek out the most reliable sources of information. Education and freedom are the keys to a functioning democracy.
 
Hard Truth said:
Do you realize that you are arguing against the first amendment?
Click to expand...

No, he isn't. Nowhere did he say that the first amendment should be abolished or that censorship prevail. In fact he is participating in his first amendments rights.
To me, that amendment is virtually the only thing that makes the USA a better place to live politically compared to much of the world.
Click to expand...

Of course. But what we have in the US, and elsewhere, is the media following their own political agendas through telling only half the story, restricting hiring of those who don't share their own points of view, or the self censorship of the public, the latter a commonplace occurrence with the Left.
With censorship there is no way to know if you have access to all the facts and opinions on controversial matters. Without these facts and opinions you can not be an informed voter, and democracy is sham. Ultimately, the goal of all censors is to preserve the power of the people in charge of the censors.
Click to expand...

And that is happening in much of the US Media today. As we have seen in the last Presidential election it is the media who decides the issues and what they report to the public. The Democrats know that full well, as does everyone else.
The mainstream media is not leftist, it is corporatist and centrist.
Click to expand...

You're probably one of the few people alive who would say that.

Many of you have never even experienced leftist media.
Click to expand...

Everyone in the world has experienced Leftist media. perhaps you're unable to recognize it .

Watch Democracy Now, listen to a Pacifica radio station or read the Guardian (British) or the Nation to see what the real liberal/progressive/leftist point of view really is. It is not very similar to the mainstream media in the USA.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're discussing degrees of leftism here.

If you don't trust the government or the mainstream media (neither do I, but in different ways), why would you trust whoever would be empowered to control access to mass media and ban Al-Jazeera?
Click to expand...

I don't think Al Jaz should be banned either but we should all recognize the effect media and propaganda has on the public. You only have to look at the historical anti Americanism in western Europe to know that.
Click to expand...
 
Hard Truth said:
1. The government should not be supporting any particular viewpoint in the media and I don't think that it does as much, or in the way, that paranoid conservatives think it does. In general, the government doesn't need to control the media because lazy corporate controlled media outlets are usually all too willing to accept the pronouncements of government officials as facts.

The only way to effectively address this is to cultivate a media marketplace that provides more access to diverse opinions and facts. That is why net neutrality is so important. That is also the reason why I welcome the addition of Al Jazeera to more cable TV systems. It will provide people with previously unavailable content.

2. Again, more media diversity will get people closer to the truth than a narrow range of corporate sponsored opinions and facts. No one can stop people from putting out "bad" messages. People need to learn media literacy in school and seek out the most reliable sources of information. Education and freedom are the keys to a functioning democracy.
Click to expand...


Talking Points Memo & Impact Segment Media largely ignores the Al Gore-Al Jazeera deal Guests: Bernie Goldberg

"The network news pretty much ignored Al Gore selling his far-left cable network to Al Jazeera; MSNBC in prime time didn't mention it at all. But what if Mitt Romney had sold one of his companies to Al Jazeera? Do you think the national news media would have ignored it? They would have been hysterical, proving again how corrupt the national media really is. The same standards of reportage are not applied to Republicans and Democrats. Al Gore sold out his principles to people who are unfriendly to human rights, who make massive money trafficking in oil, and who couldn't care less about Gore's big passion, global warming. Al Gore is an unbelievable hypocrite, but you would not know that by watching the network news. The implication of that is huge: No longer are we getting fair news coverage from many broadcast operations. We are living in a complicated age where the federal government is amassing enormous power over all our lives. The harsh truth is that the American press, which is supposed to look out for all the folks, often ignore stories that go against their guys. And since the national media is overwhelmingly liberal, conservative Americans are getting hammered."

The Factor asked Bernie Goldberg to opine on the mainstream media's handling of the Al Gore - Al Jazeera story. "Isn't it interesting," Goldberg observed, "that the mainstream media that hyperventilated over Mitt Romney's comment that he had 'women in binders' shows virtually no interest in anything you just talked about. Al Gore said he wanted to sell to an organization that shared his journalistic values, but in 2008 Al Jazeera threw an on-air party for a Palestinian terrorist who had kidnapped an Israeli family and bashed in the head of a 4-year-old girl. The mainstream media is apparently willing to accept the explanation that Al Jazeera English is different from Al Jazeera Arabic." The Factor added that Al Gore has been hiding under his desk, saying, "He has not provided any statement or defended himself in any way."
Click to expand...

Bill O'Reilly: The O'Reilly Factor - Monday, January 14, 2013



 
Bill O'Reilly: The O'Reilly Factor - Monday, January 14, 2013

Talking Points Memo & Impact Segment Media largely ignores the Al Gore-Al Jazeera deal Guests: Bernie Goldberg

"The network news pretty much ignored Al Gore selling his far-left cable network to Al Jazeera; MSNBC in prime time didn't mention it at all. But what if Mitt Romney had sold one of his companies to Al Jazeera? Do you think the national news media would have ignored it? They would have been hysterical, proving again how corrupt the national media really is. The same standards of reportage are not applied to Republicans and Democrats. Al Gore sold out his principles to people who are unfriendly to human rights, who make massive money trafficking in oil, and who couldn't care less about Gore's big passion, global warming. Al Gore is an unbelievable hypocrite, but you would not know that by watching the network news. The implication of that is huge: No longer are we getting fair news coverage from many broadcast operations. We are living in a complicated age where the federal government is amassing enormous power over all our lives. The harsh truth is that the American press, which is supposed to look out for all the folks, often ignore stories that go against their guys. And since the national media is overwhelmingly liberal, conservative Americans are getting hammered."

The Factor asked Bernie Goldberg to opine on the mainstream media's handling of the Al Gore - Al Jazeera story. "Isn't it interesting," Goldberg observed, "that the mainstream media that hyperventilated over Mitt Romney's comment that he had 'women in binders' shows virtually no interest in anything you just talked about. Al Gore said he wanted to sell to an organization that shared his journalistic values, but in 2008 Al Jazeera threw an on-air party for a Palestinian terrorist who had kidnapped an Israeli family and bashed in the head of a 4-year-old girl. The mainstream media is apparently willing to accept the explanation that Al Jazeera English is different from Al Jazeera Arabic." The Factor added that Al Gore has been hiding under his desk, saying, "He has not provided any statement or defended himself in any way."
Click to expand...

I wonder what O'Reilly and Goldberg would have to say - if they were willing to admit reality - about the following
Jon Stewart gleefully points out Murdoch’s ownership of anti-American network

On his show Thursday night, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart mocked the “four hour erection” of Fox News over Al Gore’s sale of Current TV. The late-night comedian ended up using their own criticisms to slam the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch.

Current TV, a fledgling cable network, was bought by the Arab news network Al Jazeera last week. Various Fox News personalities have blasted Gore for selling his channel to an allegedly “anti-American” network that was owned by Qatar.

To see what all the fuss was about, Stewart played a clip of a Saudi cleric saying that Jews made matzos with human blood, among other absurdities.

“You know, if that were true you’d think matzos would be more flavorful, but its not,” he joked. “That’s just awful. To air that on Al Jazeera — oh, I’m sorry, that didn’t air on Al Jazeera, that aired on a network called Rotana. That’s my fault, that’s another television station in the Arab world. That one is owned not by Qatar, but by a Saudi prince named Al-Waleed bin Talal and also 20 percent of that is owned by a guy named Rupert Murdoch.”

Stewart noted Rotana had also aired a movie that portrayed American soldiers as “the bad guys,” who massacred Iraqi civilians and sold their organs to Jews.
Click to expand...

Someday some folks will finally admit that people like Rupert Murdoch have no political agenda, they only have agendas that put money in their pockets. He has however realised that the best way to make money for himself and a few others, like Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, is to provide a product that a certain segment of the population in each market will buy, regardless the truthiness of said product.
 
Somerville said:
I wonder what O'Reilly and Goldberg would have to say - if they were willing to admit reality - about the following


Someday some folks will finally admit that people like Rupert Murdoch have no political agenda, they only have agendas that put money in their pockets. He has however realised that the best way to make money for himself and a few others, like Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, is to provide a product that a certain segment of the population in each market will buy, regardless the truthiness of said product.
Click to expand...

And rather than calling Murdoch on his hypocrisy the Jon Stewarts of the world chose to wat until they could play, 'tit for tat' with this matter.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And no matter what Murdoch might be guilty of doing or not doing, Algore is WRONG to have sold his network to Al Jazeera.
 
marsden said:
And rather than calling Murdoch on his hypocrisy the Jon Stewarts of the world chose to wat until they could play, 'tit for tat' with this matter.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And no matter what Murdoch might be guilty of doing or not doing, Algore is WRONG to have sold his network to Al Jazeera.
Click to expand...

He's "wrong" becuase you hate capitalism?
 
marsden said:
And rather than calling Murdoch on his hypocrisy the Jon Stewarts of the world chose to wat until they could play, 'tit for tat' with this matter.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And no matter what Murdoch might be guilty of doing or not doing, Algore is WRONG to have sold his network to Al Jazeera.
Click to expand...


I thought you were a staunch believer in "free market" capitalism - you know, that whole "governments should have nothing to do with the actions of corporations"


By the way who is Algore? I know of a former politician by the name of Al Gore but who is Algore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom