This was commented on a little in the submissions queue, but when I first read the writeup, I wondered about just who "Accuracy in Media" was. Certainly from their name, they sound like a "fair & balanced" group, pre-Fox-irony. It didn't really take long for me to decide that, like Fox's "fair & balanced," they aren't quite what they sound like. The first tip-off was Kincaid's call for ports-like security around the TV programs Americans are allowed to watch. (I find this kind of funny, because I keep hearing its liberals who want to take away our freedoms). But, you could be forgiven for saying that's just my own liberal bias that's painting him a far-right wing-nut.

This wikipedia article has some good info on them, and basically puts them squarely on the right as well. But I was kind of interested in Kincaid specifically, which led me to this Media Matters bio of him, with a nice (or slanted, you may argue) run-down of his exploits and some choice quotes. His remarks on the "homosexual agenda" really caught my eye, so I kept looking. His comments in this opinion piece, about gay Republicans really being closeted Democrats, and, even more tellingly, there being a "secret gay network" at the root of the Foley scandal, really put the coffin in the nail for me. I have to say, his opinion on Al-Jazeera now means less than nothing to me, and AIM's claims of being a "watchdog of the news media" ring intentionally false.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but I do think it's important that we know who's speaking, especially when the speaker is trying so hard to present themselves as something (I think) they're not.

Now with caps!

I had the good fortune of working a closing shift at a bar the night before AJE made its big debut.  Therefore, I was still awake and nerding it up on ye olde Internet when it kicked off and I got the chance to catch about the first 6 or so hours of the network.   Presented here in blurb form, are my impressions of our new TV news friends:

1. As far as presentation goes,  its carbon-BBC/NPR/PRI.  They take you to some exotic and troubled location,  present you with an English speaker with a non-American accent, and fret their brow about the squalor/death/bad luck of it all.   Its far better then anything corporate American TV has to offer, and roughly on par to PBS in style.  

2. The "top" story they kept returning to was a rocket attack that claimed the life of one Israeli civilian.  A loop of footage of a person on the stretcher (presumably the deceased) was shown.  I was informed that Israel promised retaliation.  I'm not sure I was shown an actual Israeli person speaking on camera.  I did see lots of footage of devestation in Gaza and a Hamas government member describing the desperation in which people live that compels them to commit such senseless acts.

3.  There is lots of carnage in Iraq,  and seven seconds of footage of a car on fire seems more effective than the standard American two seconds.  Also,  I got to see plenty of Iraqi government members get dubbed over,  which is a change since American networks usually only show that Maliki guy, and maybe al-Sadr.

4. It will be fashionable to contrast FOX news with this new al-Jazeera experiment, as if they are a mirror to each other.     I think a better comparison is to the CNS broadcasts---you may think I'm crazy, but the Christian news shows have the best foriegn reporting in America these days.  That's more of a slam on the mainstream media,  but its also a compliment to PAX news, or whoever---The Christian news network goes to far away places,  reports on the squalor, and tells you that the US government could prevent it--really!  They even often present cited economic data to back their analysis up.   The catch, of course, is accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal Savior, which believe it or not, is tough to sell to the entire US as a foriegn aid policy.     Al Jazeera is essentially the Middle East version of this---they show the ugliness in the world,  and they explicity implicate the United States as either a cause or a neglector for these problems.    No mention of what local oil money profit pays for, though......

5.  I could see this network catching on in the east, in places like Indonesia and Malaysia where there are lots of English speaking Muslims who hate CNN and merely loathe the BBC,  but I don't think the west will buy it.   FSTV and Air America may kind of suck due to budget constraints,  but even people who really like that sort of thing will be slightly insulted by al-Jazeera's English news, despite its slick veneer.

6. In conclusion,  I don't debate the factual accuracy or the quality of the production values of the english al-Jazeera.  But I do say this:  I know propaganda when I see it--hell, I'm practially the living embodiment of a Daily Show focus group nerd.  This network is like bizarro CNN, and its interesting, but not really compelling--they want to tell you what to think, and I don't like these young turks any more than I liked the old guard.  

Won't this cut into Fox's market share?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"If Congress can review a foreign-owned company taking over American ports, they ought to take a look at the operation of a foreign-government sponsored television channel."

Kincaid knows who's buttering his bread, seeing as how NewsCorp was Australian until 2004.

(is 3fingerspointback)