Terror TV, al Jazeera, Pays Al Gore $100 Million for U.S. Media Access

Time Warner responds by dropping Current Terror TV. via Terror TV Pays Al Gore $100 Million for U.S. Media Access.

Al-Jazeera, once considered the voice of Osama bin-Laden and known for anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric, has announced the purchase of Al Gore’s low-rated cable channel, Current TV, in a transparent attempt to buy access to the U.S. media market for operatives of the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Gore has reportedly made $100 million from the $500 million deal.

The Arab government-funded TV channel, labeled “Jihad TV” by Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, says the purpose of the unprecedented acquisition of Current TV is to create a channel called “Al-Jazeera America” and reach a potential audience of 40 million U.S. homes. It claims this will bring Al-Jazeera “into closer competition with American news channels like CNN, MSNBC and Fox.”

Current TV features liberal programs hosted by such figures as former Democratic governors Jennifer Granholm and Eliot Spitzer. These programs will presumably go off the air as the channel takes on the Jihadist leanings that characterize Al-Jazeera’s Arabic and English channels.

But it is not at all clear that the new “Al-Jazeera America” will be able to hang on to Current TV’s existing contracts with cable television providers.

As noted by writer Henry Blodgett, “…Al Jazeera wanted access to America’s TV viewers—specifically, the cable distribution contracts that enable Current to be watched in tens of millions of American households.”

But Current TV co-owner Joel Hyatt, in a Wednesday memo to employees, revealed that one of Current’s distributors, Time Warner Cable, did not consent to the sale to Al-Jazeera and as a result “Current will no longer be carried on TWC.”

Even after Time Warner dumped Current because of the sale, Current TV is available in about 30 million American households, notes Blodgett. But the cable distributors into those remaining households will have the same right as Time Warner to drop the channel as its programming changes. Whether they do this or not will depend on public opinion and reaction to the blatant power grab by the regime in Qatar and its attempt to manipulate the U.S. media market.

Many observers are watching the cable giant Comcast, which owns about 10 percent of Current TV, for its next move.

AIM originally raised awareness on the issue in 2006 with the documentary, Terror Television: The Rise of Al-Jazeera and the Hate-America Media, and was instrumental in defeating the channel’s efforts to seek carriage in U.S. markets.

Jeff Timmons, a communications lawyer, told AIM that there are federal restrictions on foreigners owning the means of communication but not the programming itself. As a result, he foresees no successful legal challenges to Qatar’s acquisition of Current TV.

But Florida broadcaster Jerry Kenney, a strong critic of Al-Jazeera’s attempts to enter the U.S. media market, says, “If this doesn’t fall under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, nothing does.”

Read it all.

20 Responses

  1. Al Gore the Rapist of the Masseuse in his hotel room now tries to rape America selling his worthless POS TV channel which has zero ratings to Terrorists

  2. Well, as I sit here and contemplate this, a thought enters my mind: If not for the grace of God, Gore would have been our president. Thank-you, Jesus. God only knows what other “devoid of love for our country” act he would have implemented if given the chance. “What does it profit a man if he gains the world but forfeits his soul?” Mark 8:36.

  3. I have to admit I have no idea why people have such a dislike of Al Jazeera. Linking it to terror, jihadism or the MB is simply rubbish.

    It all comes down to not liking programing that fits into what is called the Anglophonic model (ie the way English-language journalism has formed itself into).

    Donald Rumsfeld and co tried to play the old-world tactic on Jazeera because they remained neutral in both Gulf Wars and thus showed the harsh reality of how civilians die. That episode showed the power of media and how important a war-tactic controling the media was. It should not be forgotten that they even drove a missile into one of the head quaters.

    The other are that people who only sit in front of televisions in America and to a less degree over here in Europe is that standards differ to what is acceptable and not. We do not show blown-up bodies on TV or in newspapers but most of the world has no issue with that. It is hard to get used to but it is a sign of wanting to show the reality. Al Jazeera’s Arabic channel (not their English version) will show a lot more detail.

    They also have no issue with taking the completely neutral stance and thus will give even Al Qaeda a chance to express their views. Their policy has been from the beginning to simply show the events and let the public decide. In that sense it is logical even though I think there is even limits to that. The parents of Daniel Perl obviously have a personal and emotive link and as much as they have expressed that, their view is in fact wrong.

    Personally I do watch Al Jazeera Internatioal (the English channel) as it has gone to lengths to give independance to their editors and have employed some of the best television journalists around. It is nothing like the Arabic version which is very pan-Arab in culture and thus gets long-winded. My Arabic is not bad but when they get all hot-under-the-collar I simply cannot follow. I have noticed there is a huge difference in content in both.

    I think credit is due to the quality of their reporting and independance. They are certainly not linked nor support any form of terrorism and their stand in neutrality is respected by everyone (except the American far-right as per usual and of course Israelis linked to the current Government).

    When giving credit, criticism should also be pointed when clear and apparent. Not blog-gossip but context-based reality. Though Al-Jazeera pushes press-freedom and independance, the one BIG THORN in their reputation is simply that they NEVER criticize the government of Qatar. I think it has something to do with their ownership and HQ being in Dohar.

    • DC ,(DIRTY CUNT) THATS IT UGLY PEADOPHILE IM LOOKING FOR YOU ,,YOUR MUM IS A WHITE WHORE YOU FUCK HER ASS ,,YOUR DAD IS A PEADOPHILE,WHO SUCKS YOUR ČOČK DAILY ,YOU SICK FAMILY,OF MUSLIM LOVING SCUM

      • No, no, no. Such language is not called-for. Do you eat with that mouth? Please refrain from such language and try to get your point across without the profanity. I know you can do it. Thank-you very much.

        • I hear you joy ,but i think dc (dirty cunts) language is worse he makes me sick,im not good ať expressing myself ,as i normaly use violence to get point across to left wing scum, i used them words to vent my anger ,i would rather put a bullet in the back of his head ,is that ok ? You might not agree with that but thats whats needed with lefty scum ,,and that is FREEDOM OF SPEECH , hes a MUSLIM LOVEING LEFTY CUNT ,,excuse my bad words joy ,

          • Yes, we still have freedom of speech…or at least something that resembles it. One of these days, soon, I think, any views expressed that are critical of a one-world government, religion, and financial system will be viewed as “hate-speech”, and then free-speech as we know it will be a thing of the past. Anyway, in the meantime, you and I both want your views to be taken seriously and your message is diminished when sprinkled with such profanity. God bless you.

    • You lost me at your first paragraph where you wrote:

      “I have to admit I have no idea why people have such a dislike of Al Jazeera. Linking it to terror, jihadism or the MB is simply rubbish.”

      You seem to be either not aware of Al Jazeera’s very history — or if that’s not the case then you seem to be deliberately obscuring the facts.

      Nothing you wrote after that second sentence is even valid, not even worth reading, because you’re starting out from a position of untruth. It follows that everything you write after that from that position will also be untruth.

      • No. As English is my second language perhaps that can be blamed for misunderstandings but I think my position is clear enough and I stand by it.

        My question to you is do you watch Al Jazeera in English or is all your information based on blogs like this one?

        My view is also not the only one. Below, from the Washington Post today I have copied an item. Even with him I do not agree with all he says but it represents a professional veiwpoint that has to be respected.

        ……

        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.”

        By Gary Wasserman, Published: January 4

        Gary Wasserman teaches government at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar.

        • Dc (dirty cunt) everyone is wrong except you ,,,you know it all ,,you defend everything muslim,,,one thing i know you cant say is not true ::::YOU ARE ONE UGLY LOOKING PEADOPHILE MUSLIM LOVEING BASTARD ,,,sorry joy only 2 swear words this time,,getting better, (god bless you aswell joy)

      • Very true. Also, Al Jazeera has been very anti-Israel. The Bible says that during the end-times that Israel will be surrounded and attacked and that only intervention by God will save her. Slowly, but surely, the world is going to become more anti-semitic and vehicles like Al Jazeera will help take it there. The Bible also says that God will bless those who bless the children of Abraham and that He will curse those who curse them. Genesis 12:3. So, promoting Al Jazeera is not an option, and the opportunist Al Gore should have known better.

      • Just search our archives for “Al Jazeera” and “terror” – that should bring up some articles

  4. @ dc,
    and again, merde, fil de un cochon.

  5. Money talks and bullshit walks, eh Al?

  6. [...] In this case, both domestic enemies including the media, elected officials and their cronies (Al Gore and Feinstein’s husband) and foreign enemy al Jazeera. FFA is single-handedly holding U.S. [...]

Your comments & your IP address are your legal problem, not ours.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37,992 other followers

%d bloggers like this: