MEDIA: The (Wel)Coming of Al-Jazeera? Three more views.

Pan-Arab news channel al-Jazeera has acquired Current TV to gain access to the US cable TV market.

Al-Jazeera’s Big Gamble, here) we explore further the imminent debut of Al-Jazeera (AJ) on the US media market and its likely implications. The views of most observers range from outright hostile (Wolff) to enthusiastic (O’Connor) and moderately encouraging (Wasserman). How about you? —PG

Even owning Al Gore’s Current will not make al-Jazeera current on US TV

Michael Wolff, theguardian
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 January 2013
If you are a media company with unlimited funds and a hostile environment to your message, is it possible to buy respectability? If not respectability – what does that get you, anyway? – is it possible to buy an audience?

This is different, mind you, than winning an audience. Al-Jazeera, the pan-Arab 24/7 news channel, owned by the Emir of Qatar, one of the richest of the Gulf states, aggressively entered the English-speaking market in 2006, but from the start encountered resistance from both cable operators in the US, and, judging by its internet traffic (which is therefore its unfettered avenue of distribution), the American audience.

Now, however, deploying its substantial (perhaps even unlimited) resources, it has purchased Current TV, the hotly sought-after cable franchise started by, among others, Al Gore, to pursue the liberal segment of the cable market. Gore and company mostly failed to make a meaningful impact on that market, but did – not least because of Gore’s clout – manage to obtain significant “carriage” by the nation’s cable operating systems: some 60m of the approximately 100m cable households.

Al-Jazeera, on the other hand, not just lacking political clout, but being politically toxic, never got beyond 5m American homes.

Current TV, which announced it was putting itself on the market in October, has been a target of great interest, especially thanks to internet video players, because – even failing to gain much audience share – it has produced more than $100m in revenues and significant profit margins. In other words, if you have cable distribution, cable success, no matter how lame your content might be (and Current’s content was usually very lame), is virtually guaranteed.

Although the terms of the deal have not been disclosed, al-Jazeera clearly paid more, probably much more, than the top bidder for this guaranteed success – even though al-Jazeera is the one bidder that likely cannot be guaranteed success. Al-Jazeera paid not only enough to overcome the bad press bound to attach to Al Gore for selling to what is often thought to be a staunchly anti-American voice, but they paid enough to keep Al Gore (and hopefully his clout) close to the station as a member of the new network’s advisory board. (Surely, Fox News will now start referring to Al-Jazeera Gore.)

There is another story waiting to be written about how much Al Gore has made as a post-presidential candidate, media entrepreneur, and environmental spokesman. But for now, the question for al-Jazeera is, having added to Al Gore’s wealth, and having bought, through a back door, access to American’s cable homes, whether it will make any difference.

The network certainly gains itself an advantage and even startles, perhaps even impresses, the US cable market. But it doesn’t fundamentally change the fact of its two primary obstacles.

For one, cable operators get no advantage in carrying the network – indeed, they get at least a passing advantage in dropping it, as Time Warner Cable, which had carried Current, theoretically, into 12m homes, immediately announced it would “as quickly as possible”. (One trusts that the Gore team locked in the price with a steep penalty for withdrawing from the deal, just in case most of its carriage deals collapse with the announcement of the sale.)

And al-Jazeera’s other problem is programming that is, but for a few instances, dreary as all get out.

These two issues – the American media industry’s hostility to al-Jazeera, and the fact that the network is so boring that there is no real reason to be hostile to it, or to even wake up for it – are actually quite connected. There is surely a legitimate and necessary reason to challenge Time Warner’s (and any other cable system’s) obvious and arbitrary decision to throw a channel off-air because of its political views. Indeed, we ought to assume that al-Jazeera is ready for this fight – and willing to pay for it. And even, that the US State Department, always in some negotiation or other with the rich and powerful Qataris, will look for an advantage in this dispute.

This will be an ongoing media contretemps. But in the end, it is hard for anybody to work up much passion for defending a network – or even, for that matter, defending free speech – that fundamentally speaks to no one.

There are probably many reasons that al-Jazeera in English is not very good. It doesn’t really seem to have a clear idea of who its audience is. It has often relied on old-time, marginal or unhappy mainstream broadcasters in an effort to gain some legitimacy and recognition. The heavy hand of state ownership is probably not only heavy, but given the particularly internecine politics of Qatar and its ever-expanding commercial and political interests, unfathomable. And, in general, al-Jazeera clearly does not place much of a premium on wit or style.

Curiously, al-Jazeera’s programming is not all that different from Current TV’s bland and earnest line-up. Current’s one notable moment in the sun was its hiring of Keith Olbermann, whom, proving too cantankerous, it shortly fired.

If al-Jazeera were more passionate, more gutsy, more jaw-dropping to Muslim-fearing Americans, that would be something to defend, with joy in the cause. And even, perhaps, an audience to follow.

But who is really going over the barricades for some super-rich Qataris and their roster of sanctimonious and boring news shows?

Well, I guess Al Gore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953) is an American author, essayist, and journalist. He currently writes a regular column for the magazine Vanity Fair.[1] His most recent book, The Man Who Owns the News, is a biography of Rupert Murdoch, based on more than 50 hours of interviews with the media mogul,[2] although it was criticized upon its release for providing little insight into its subject.[3] Wolff has often been the object of criticism and controversy. The Columbia Journalism Review criticized Wolff in 2010 when he suggested that The New York Times was aggressively covering the breaking News International phone hacking scandal as a way of attacking News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch. CJR called Wolff’s analysis “pathetic”, “disgusting,” “twisted,” and based on “zero evidence.” [25] SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA

______________________________

Welcome to America, Al Jazeera
Rory O’Connor
Rory O’Connor is co-founder and president of the international media firm Globalvision, Inc.

This is an excellent time for any entity interested in making an impact in the US cable news environment, notes author.
Al Jazeera – one of the best cable news networks in the world – has always had a tough time in the US. It’s long been derided by conservatives here as a “terror network” and propaganda organ. It’s been widely denounced by publicity-seeking politicians for airing messages from al-Qaeda.Its reporters have been imprisoned in the Guantanamo gulag for years before being released after having never been tried or convicted of any terrorist ties. Others have been targeted by US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, shot at, had missiles fired at them, and even killed.

Will Al Jazeera [AJA] focus on offering another and fresher perspective to America’s abysmal domestic news sources?

Al Jazeera – one of the best cable news networks in the world – has always had a tough time in the US. It’s long been derided by conservatives here as a “terror network” and propaganda organ. It’s been widely denounced by publicity-seeking politicians for airing messages from al-Qaeda. Its reporters have been imprisoned in the Guantanamo gulag for years before being released after having never been tried or convicted of any terrorist ties. Others have been targeted by US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, shot at, had missiles fired at them, and even killed.

As a result – despite massive lobbying and advertising campaigns – most major cable and satellite television network in the US have refused to offer Al Jazeera’s English-language service to their audiences ever since its inception six years ago. Instead, it’s clearly been blacklisted and made almost impossible to find on America’s airwaves.

Now, in the most American of solutions, the pan-Arab news leader has gone ahead and simply bought its seat at the media table, with the purchase of Current TV, a low-rated cable channel founded by former US Vice-President Al Gore and his partners seven years ago. For the relatively small sum of $500m, it has just bought entree into at least 40 million cable-ready living rooms all across the US.

Sounds good, right? And it is, both for American audiences, starved for real news about what’s going on in the world around them but plagued instead with a surfeit of gossip, celebrity doings and opinionated bloviators from both the right and left on such putative cable “news” channels such as Fox and MSNBC, and for Al Jazeera itself, which will only extend its global influence by finally gaining a foothold in two crucial American marketplaces – that of commerce, of course, but also that of ideas.

Moreover, this is an excellent time for any entity interested in making an impact in the increasingly dismal US cable news environment. Fox News, which has long been the industry leader in ratings, has lost huge audience share since the re-election of its bete noir Barack Obama. Fox stars like Sean Hannity are reportedly “haemorrhaging viewers” – Hannity has lost nearly half of his audience since the election, with the biggest drop in ratings coming in the coveted 24 to 54-year-old demographic, which had been one of his strongest groups of viewers.

Al Jazeera English

And with both Fox and MSNBC still largely focused on opinion and chat, Al Jazeera America’s only “real news” competitor among major domestic cable channels is the weakened and crisis-ridden CNN, now newly under the helm of ex-NBC executive Jeff Zucker, who is expected to transform it soon into more of an entertainment vehicle modelled on his previous success with the Today Show.

Still, some US media observers question whether Al Jazeera has, as Brian Stelter phrased it in the New York Times: “The journalistic muscle and the money to compete head-to-head with CNN and other news channels in the United States.”

What a joke! The last time I checked, Al Jazeera’s owners weren’t strapped for cash. And really, how much “journalistic muscle” does one need to compete with CNN these days – not to mention the braying heads of such opinionated and politicised “news channels” as Fox or MSNBC? Judging from their most recent efforts (such as completely misreporting the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, for example) what little journalism is being practised at outlets such as CNN and Fox these days is, shall we say, far from muscular! Is it any wonder that “the television sets of White House officials and lawmakers were tuned to the channel during the Arab Spring?”

Inquiring minds wanted to now, after all! Meanwhile, “ordinary” citizens like me had to search out a live stream on the internet if we wanted to be informed.

Still, the outlook is not entirely rosy for Al Jazeera’s entry into America. For one thing, the powerful Time-Warner cable system, America’s second largest cable company with 12 million subscribers in New York, the largest media market in the US, used the occasion of the sale to drop its carriage of Current. That means AJA is not yet guaranteed access to Time-Warner’s subscribers, unlike those of such other major distributors as Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, which did consent to the acquisition.

Although Time Warner executives said the channel wasn’t removed for political reasons, and that their decision had more to do with Current’s low ratings, many were quick to see a conspiracy and politics at play, and a firestorm of protest rapidly spread through social media. Late on January 3, as it continued, Time Warner Cable issued a statement that opened the door to carrying Al Jazeera America in the future. “We are keeping an open mind, and as the service develops, we will evaluate whether it makes sense, for our customers, to launch the network,” the statement read.

Now the smart money says that the dispute more likely a money issue, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it settled soon, resulting in AJ America on cable in NYC as well.

The final challenge for Al Jazeera, of course – the proof of the pudding, as it were – will come when we see the tenor and quality of the programming AJ America produces. Will its executives focus on offering another and fresher perspective to America’s abysmal domestic news sources, in the mode of Russia Today or the BBC World News, now available in 25 million US homes after a recent deal with Time Warner Cable?

Will it try to fill the gap in international news instead? Will it attempt to do both?

It’s too early to tell. For now, it’s enough simply to be able to say, at long last, “Welcome to America, Al Jazeera!”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rory O’Connor is the author of Nukespeak: The Selling of Nuclear Technology from the Manhattan Project to Fukushima, and most, recently, Friends, Followers and the Future: How Social Media are Changing Politics, Threatening Big Brands, and Killing Traditional Media.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera

_______

Washington Post Opinions
Sale of Current TV may be a win-win
By Gary Wasserman

The announcement that al-Jazeera is buying Al Gore’s Current TV network can be expected to run into what pundits call “a serious image problem.” Allowing the Qatar-based, Arab-owned network to be seen in 40 million U.S. households may be more than our fragile citizenry can bear.

With its alleged positions against U.S. foreign policies and wars, al-Jazeera is just too “left” to be allowed access to our fearful public.

Has anyone noticed that much of the world is “left” of the United States?

Because of my occasional appearances on al-Jazeera news shows, and having written opinion pieces for its Web site, I can be accused of knowing on which side my pita is being buttered. Fair enough. And my experiences with al-Jazeera will only confirm the obvious. In its selection of stories and editorial slants, it is to the left of mainstream American media.

So what?

Al-Jazeera is also an outlet of professional journalists, generally well-informed and seeking to at least appear balanced. No one has ever suggested to me what to say or write. The network may present Arab voices, but its coverage includes more of the world than this parochial image allows. From oppressed native tribes in Peru to Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa, al-Jazeera reports undercovered news. Its reporters may be pro-Palestinian, but the network provides a rare platform in a region where Israeli officials and dissenters can both appear.

Looking for objective journalism in an era of 400 channels plus the Internet is looking backward to the bygone ideals of three national networks and Uncle Walter. Seeking the widest, most diverse sources for views of the world seems a more realistic goal for American media.

My own opinions may be shaped by experiences with al-Jazeera’s English-language channel. The Arabic part of the network has a separate staff, housed in more modest quarters across the street in Doha from the English channel. And in my few appearances on the Arabic channel, the editorial slant seemed a bit different.

Whether I was invited to comment on congressional elections, global warming or race relations, the questions inevitably veered toward the pro-Israel lobby. As in, after a few questions on the scheduled topic, something like: “Interesting point about liberalizing relations with Cuba, and how does that affect the Israel lobby?”

Obsessed? A bit. But perhaps we should wait for Chuck Hagel to actually be nominated as secretary of defense before we write off this view of the power of the pro-Israel lobby as completely delusional.

al-Jazeera will be running its American operation under a separate U.S.-based news channel with its own staff, which shows recognition of the issue of bias. Much of the paranoia about al-Jazeera rests on a somewhat antiquated notion of media ownership. While any of us writing about media will occasionally fall back on the vision of the willful reactionary owner (read: Rupert Murdoch) controlling the direction of his empire, the reality is more complicated. Reporters, editors, advertisers, sources, competitors, corporate strategists and even the audience shape the content of modern media. Bringing al-Jazeera to more of America may also mean bringing more of America to al-Jazeera.

There may be winners on both sides. We Americans do brag about our marketplace of ideas. The U.S. audience may gain access to the perspectives of a respected international network covering stories from regions of the world — sub-Saharan Africa, the various -stans and South Asia — that our national media has largely ignored. Al-Jazeera may gain insights into people that are far more diverse, engaged and welcoming than many of the images it broadcasts abroad.

Those still stridently opposing this alien investment in our homeland might remember the words of the great media strategist Lyndon Johnson. When asked why he had brought a longtime political antagonist into his camp, he replied: “Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gary B Wasserman teaches government at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar.
wassermg@georgetown.edu
SOURCE: WP OPINIONS