Disturbing-protest NOW

[rang1995]

i read an article today in the nypost.com(bellow)During WW2 the same
thing happened,tratiors were on the propaganda stations(radio) of
the germans and Japan,i think some were hung after the war. IF
D* wastes ONE BIT of bandwith for this i will be gone
ASAP ,if i cant get a replacement-I will pay bills Late, or
deduct.or cut back service.As you can see this has me rilled and ranting..remember
they showed the be-headings and are known to be our enemies
mouthpiece!!
PRIME TIME READY
By PETER LAURIA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Al-Jazeera, aiming to boost its credibility ahead of a March 2006
global launch, hired former U.S. Marine Josh Rushing, onetime
Central Command spokesman, and is hoping to hire TV icon David
Frost.



August 21, 2005 -- Al-Jazeera, the Arab TV network that brings us
exclusive footage of Osama bin Laden, is trying to pretty itself up
for an anticipated 2006 U.S. debut.
The network, which is planning a global rollout for its English-
language Al-Jazeera International, has hired Josh Rushing, former
Marine Lt. and spokesman for Central Command during the Iraq war's
early days.

While Rushing's exact role has yet to be announced, his appearance
on the network is sure to lend it some credibility.

At the same time, A-JI is hoping to add TV icon Sir David Frost to
its lineup.

The moves come as the network is talking to U.S. cable and satellite
operators about deals to carry the station.

Acutely cognizant of the backlash distributors may face from
activist groups for agreeing to carry A-JI, sources said the not-yet-
launched channel is consciously hiring an ethnically diverse group
of reporters to mirror the newsrooms of its U.S. counterparts.

It'll be hard to argue that A-JI is little more than a video
instruction manual for radical Islam when your talent includes a
popular former U.S. Marine.



"They understand that there is a perception to overcome, and a
diverse newsroom is one way to combat that," said a source.

Mike Holtzman, A-JI's U.S. spokesman, said the network's hires thus
far are not a deliberate attempt to make carrying it more appealing.

"Our strategy is to provide a 360-degree view of the news, and that
involves different opinions coming from different vantage points,"
Holtzman said.

A-JI executives began "preliminary, introductory" meetings with
nearly all U.S. cable and satellite operators a month ago, with a
goal of launching the network by March. Each said it was too early
to say if they would carry A-JI.


For operators, A-JI represents both an opportunity and an obstacle.
The opportunity lies in the 1.2 million-strong Arab population in
the U.S., half of them in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Florida
and California., according to Census Bureau statistics.

Operators in those areas, including Cablevision and Time Warner, can
potentially attract thousands of subscribers by carrying A-JI.

And, according to Jimmy Schaeffler, a cable industry analyst with
The Carmel Group, subscribers of ethnic heritage sign up for more
advanced products and stay with the service longer than other
subscribers.


But agreeing to carry A-JI also exposes distributors to an equal
amount of risk.

With every channel, the potential to sign up new subscribers must be
weighed against the possibility of alienating existing ones.


While acknowledging that capacity issues and public perception will
make it a tough battle, Holtzman is optimistic that A-JI will be
judged on its merits and gain carriage.

"We've had a constructive response from operators," Holtzman
said. "There's a lot of interest, and we've gotten some good, useful
feedback."

 

[W_Tracy_Parnell]

Yeah, I agree with you. We need to stop rewarding terrorist behavior (like the recent Gaza pullout did) of all kinds. When you give legitimacy to Al-Jazeera, a network that is a mouthpiece for terrorism, you are playing right into their hands.

 

[cdru]

I agree. While we are at it, why don't we get rid of that pesky First Amendment as well. I mean, we don't really have to have that freedom of the press do we?

There is a reason why that amendment was the first one. You may not agree with the message. You may find it distasteful. You may even find it deplorable. But I know I at least respect their right to a free press.

 

[Purogamer]

While al-jazeera would probably want to get on U.S. tv for the sole purpose of recruiting, you have to realize that al-jazeera is just as full of propaganda and flat out lies as some other news stations which you already have.

If you don't want to watch it, don't. Block it so your kids can't watch it, but don't sit here and try to censor what everyone can or can't see. There's plenty of arab-americans in this country who would like to see news delivered from people with their point of view.

If you're worried it'll result in terrorism, or they'll send "secret messages" or whatever, get a clue. Little thing called the internet, terrorists have it too, and our government doesn't have a clue how to stop it.

 

[Chado]

What First Amendment?? What rights?? You forget we live in a Totalitarian Democracy now... You are either with them or against them...

 

[W_Tracy_Parnell]

I agree. While we are at it, why don't we get rid of that pesky First Amendment as well. I mean, we don't really have to have that freedom of the press do we?

There is a reason why that amendment was the first one. You may not agree with the message. You may find it distasteful. You may even find it deplorable. But I know I at least respect their right to a free press.

That's my point. If you are a terrorist or a terrorist mouthpiece you should have no "rights". And where does it say in the first amendment that news agencies from other countries are covered by our constitutional right to free speech?

 

[riggscm]

...And where does it say in the first amendment that news agencies from other countries are covered by our constitutional right to free speech?

Excellent Point!
I for one am in total agreement with your thougts on this

 

[vurbano]

Excellent Point!
I for one am in total agreement with your thougts on this

Agreed. This foreign mouthpiece used by terrorists has no rights here.

 

[Purogamer]

Al-jazeera, in saudi arabia, doesn't have first amendment rights...

When the station is shown here, it will be applicable. You may not agree with their political views, but some people don't agree with mtv's political views. Some don't agree with Fox's Political news, or CNN's, etc...

If it's on your tv, and you're watching it in america, it has first amendment rights to say whatever it damn well pleases as much as any other channel on the dial.

While I certainly don't stand behind this administration, this isn't an issue of rep. vs. dem's, religion vs. religion, ignorance vs. intelligence, or anything else. It's a first amendment issue. Under the constitution, the al-jazeera network has the same freedoms as any other channel.

The simple solution is to not watch. There's really nothing more to it than that.

 

[clanmccan]

Al-jazeera, in saudi arabia, doesn't have first amendment rights...

When the station is shown here, it will be applicable. You may not agree with their political views, but some people don't agree with mtv's political views. Some don't agree with Fox's Political news, or CNN's, etc...

If it's on your tv, and you're watching it in america, it has first amendment rights to say whatever it damn well pleases as much as any other channel on the dial.

While I certainly don't stand behind this administration, this isn't an issue of rep. vs. dem's, religion vs. religion, ignorance vs. intelligence, or anything else. It's a first amendment issue. Under the constitution, the al-jazeera network has the same freedoms as any other channel.

The simple solution is to not watch. There's really nothing more to it than that.

Does that then mean that all profanity, nudity and other regulated niceties should then be free speech and freedom to express oneself in his/her own way? Where do you draw the line? Or do you just pick the line up and move where it suits you best?

 

[sheridan]

The First Amendment does not guarantee that you will have a venue for your "free speech" nor does it say that you are guaranteed an audience. If some programming idiot wants to put garbage up on a channel, that is his decision. Just as would be my decision to not watch. I might even go so far as to notify any advertisers that I will no longer buy their products if it was something I felt strongly about.