My opinion of Al Jazeera is based on following certain events and coverage going back more than a decade.
As for certain fundamentalists and dictators hating them, the whole Mid East is a huge, primitive hate fest. Al Jazeera themselves are a dictatorship funded channel.
What 'events and coverage'? Their showing OBL videos? Their showing the massive civilian deaths in Iraq?
They were just being more broad-based in their coverage, and perhaps more honest. The US networks were, after all, showing both, but on a 'wink, wink' basis, or with a condescending 'American viewers are immature and can't handle the truth' type of approach.
I'd rather be shown all the facts, regardless of how painful or hard it is. I am mature enough to process it.
(Add: I agree with the state-/dictator-ownership point, though).
Apple is doing more than anyone else. But it's not only Apple's problem to solve. If it bothers you so much then perhaps you should buy your products from someone else.
I don't think that this is Apple's issue alone & are trying to do the right thing but, couldn't you say the same for business to business transactions? If Apple believes in the ethical treatment of labor (& have stated that there are issues of concern) by your logic they should stop all money (business transactions) with companies that don't live up to that standard.
Apple is doing more than anyone else. But it's not only Apple's problem to solve. If it bothers you so much then perhaps you should buy your products from someone else.
I don't think that this is Apple's issue alone & are trying to do the right thing but, couldn't you say the same for business to business transactions? If Apple believes in the ethical treatment of labor (& have stated that there are issues of concern) by your logic they should stop all money (business transactions) with companies that don't live up to that standard.
If there were other viable options then maybe, but I suspect that Apple's response would be that they do more good, long term, by working with these companies and driving changes in their behavior than by simply driving themselves out of business.
Apple say they look after their workers, including, especially including, those working for contractors. BBC find examples where they don't and that is the BBC's fault. er, struggling a bit with this.
If there were other viable options then maybe, but I suspect that Apple's response would be that they do more good, long term, by working with these companies and driving changes in their behavior than by simply driving themselves out of business.
Yes I agree. That doesn't change the logic used in her statement.
I don't give two hoots about any terrorist supporting channels or those that work for them.
When have Al Jazeera supported terrorists? They're a news organisation, reporting news isn't support. Besides which, the USA and a number of its peoples have definitely supported their fair share of terrorists too, so your broad strokes are just painting a whitewash over your prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
It is a state funded channel, and Qatar is a dictatorship. I am not surprised that certain western leftists would admire such a channel.
Given that dictatorships are antithetical to most leftist politics you probably should be surprised. Nevertheless, the quality of Al Jazeera's journalism speaks for itself, quite apart from its sources of funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
This is war, and being a "journalist" is indeed a risky business. Sometimes crap happens. It doesn't bother me at all. I applaud it.
The USA is at war with Qatar? Given that you call them allies, sell a shed load of arms to them and have numerous military bases there, that seems a bit ill-advised.
Given that dictatorships are antithetical to most leftist politics you probably should be surprised. Nevertheless, the quality of Al Jazeera's journalism speaks for itself, quite apart from its sources of funding.
The USA is at war with Qatar? Given that you call them allies, sell a shed load of arms to them and have numerous military bases there, that seems a bit ill-advised.
I would disagree that dictatorships are antithetical to most leftist politics. The two often go hand in hand.
I've never claimed that the USA is at war with Qatar. I am talking about the greater war, the bigger picture.
I'd rather be shown all the facts, regardless of how painful or hard it is. I am mature enough to process it.
I'd rather not be watching the same "facts" being repeated over and over again in an endless loop, such as showing the same clips of a few supposed dead civilians, mostly because it is irrelevant.
It is very easy for Apple - #apple to Remedy this problem, just make all the products in the USA as it is not about the cost of the products as we in the USA pay less than anywhere in the world for Apple products.
I am not sure Apple can make these products without using third parties to push the boundaries of Human Resources. As far as sustainability there is no way Apple is being responsible in their resources. in closing it is apparent that Apple is showing its self in helping bring awareness to the LGBT culture (Personal Venture by Tim Cook) but why doesn't Apple do more at home or tell us what they are doing to help others? as they have no fear in promoting their relationship with LGBT?
It is appalling how low the BBC has sunk. It no longer is reliable as a source of unbiased information.
They join the stink of the websites who repeatedly post factually incorrect critical articles of Apple as click bait.
Shame on the BBC and the Queen.
The Chinese workers probably want to make a lot of money and they are in a feast or famine situation with the ramp up of new phones.
I assume the BBC is judging from Western eyes where Westerners would not work that hard for long shifts.
And same reason for finding underage workers. They want to make a buck and buy things and they won't make much money on the family farm.
So, story is definitely one-sided. Unless there were any interviews? Or polls taken among the workers? Probably not. Easier that a "picture/video is worth a thousand words."
Philosophical issue: why does state owned media still exist? Where is the market failure?
And isn't the BBC licence terribly regressive?
Just the expression "state-owned media", in implying "state-controlled media", misses the point to begin with. State control of the BBC has always been rather minimal. The license system does seem archaic but, historically, it has permitted a well-funded and high-quality source of news, documentaries and other programming without the annoying commercials that everyone else endures and without an imposed partisan bias. There is nothing wrong with government funding per se if it doesn't engage in editorial meddling. That does not mean that every program is good, or balanced, and the Panorama documentary in question does not look like one of their finest moments.
while state owned media certainly can be state controlled, that wasn't the question I was asking. It was why scarce taxpayers' funds were still being used to spend a kings ransom on a service already provided by a multitude of private sector providers. There is no market failure to be addressed and there should be a hell of a lot of more worthy uses for those dollars/pounds, like hospitals, schools etc.
The issue I have with the licence ( it's a tax) is that a very poor person pays the same as Branson and they have to pay it whether they watch the BBC or not. It should be funded like PBS, privatised, or if it must be publicly funded just because it should be funded out of the UK consolidated fund from general taxation.
On your issue, in the Anglosphere countries I would observe that quasi-government institutions tend to be captured by the interests of their staff rather than the taxpayer or the politicians. So in the media world BBC, CBC and ABC (Australia) are essentially made up of multiple little fiefdoms each running their own agenda with no attention paid to management.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'd rather be shown all the facts, regardless of how painful or hard it is. I am mature enough to process it.</span>
I'd rather not be watching the same "facts" being repeated over and over again in an endless loop, such as showing the same clips of a few supposed dead civilians, mostly because it is irrelevant.
'Few' and 'supposed' dead civilians in Iraq?
Look, I can often look past your extreme -- and sometimes childish, but I have to admit, often funny -- views on issues.
But such a high level of ignorance is quite sad to see. I really expected better.
Look, I can often look past your extreme -- and sometimes childish, but I have to admit, often funny -- views on issues.
But such a high level of ignorance is quite sad to see. I really expected better.
Who mentioned anything about Iraq?
I was referring to terrorist coverage in general, in a variety of places. Numerous times, it has turned out that the "innocent" are not quite as innocent as certain fraudsters would like you to believe.
Just the expression "state-owned media", in implying "state-controlled media", misses the point to begin with. State control of the BBC has always been rather minimal. The license system does seem archaic but, historically, it has permitted a well-funded and high-quality source of news, documentaries and other programming without the annoying commercials that everyone else endures and without an imposed partisan bias. There is nothing wrong with government funding per se if it doesn't engage in editorial meddling. That does not mean that every program is good, or balanced, and the Panorama documentary in question does not look like one of their finest moments.
After the completely biased coverage of the Scottish independence campaign it is clear who the BBC get their orders from. They buried loads of positive articles regarding independence until after the vote. The BBC is just the flag waving arm of the Government.
Just the expression "state-owned media", in implying "state-controlled media", misses the point to begin with. State control of the BBC has always been rather minimal. The license system does seem archaic but, historically, it has permitted a well-funded and high-quality source of news, documentaries and other programming without the annoying commercials that everyone else endures and without an imposed partisan bias. There is nothing wrong with government funding per se if it doesn't engage in editorial meddling. That does not mean that every program is good, or balanced, and the Panorama documentary in question does not look like one of their finest moments.
After the completely biased coverage of the Scottish independence campaign it is clear who the BBC get their orders from. They buried loads of positive articles regarding independence until after the vote. The BBC is just the flag waving arm of the Government.
Well, you probably have quite strong views on that issue yourself, so you may not be an impartial judge of the BBC coverage. I followed that issue quite closely and the BBC reporting seemed fairly balanced. I'm not clear what you mean by "buried articles". Articles by whom? In any case, the BBC has a long record of pissing off governments of both flavours on any number of issues, so the accusation that they are a state propaganda organ is just silly.
Comments
My opinion of Al Jazeera is based on following certain events and coverage going back more than a decade.
As for certain fundamentalists and dictators hating them, the whole Mid East is a huge, primitive hate fest. Al Jazeera themselves are a dictatorship funded channel.
What 'events and coverage'? Their showing OBL videos? Their showing the massive civilian deaths in Iraq?
They were just being more broad-based in their coverage, and perhaps more honest. The US networks were, after all, showing both, but on a 'wink, wink' basis, or with a condescending 'American viewers are immature and can't handle the truth' type of approach.
I'd rather be shown all the facts, regardless of how painful or hard it is. I am mature enough to process it.
(Add: I agree with the state-/dictator-ownership point, though).
Apple is doing more than anyone else. But it's not only Apple's problem to solve. If it bothers you so much then perhaps you should buy your products from someone else.
I don't think that this is Apple's issue alone & are trying to do the right thing but, couldn't you say the same for business to business transactions? If Apple believes in the ethical treatment of labor (& have stated that there are issues of concern) by your logic they should stop all money (business transactions) with companies that don't live up to that standard.
Apple is doing more than anyone else. But it's not only Apple's problem to solve. If it bothers you so much then perhaps you should buy your products from someone else.
I don't think that this is Apple's issue alone & are trying to do the right thing but, couldn't you say the same for business to business transactions? If Apple believes in the ethical treatment of labor (& have stated that there are issues of concern) by your logic they should stop all money (business transactions) with companies that don't live up to that standard.
If there were other viable options then maybe, but I suspect that Apple's response would be that they do more good, long term, by working with these companies and driving changes in their behavior than by simply driving themselves out of business.
Apple say they look after their workers, including, especially including, those working for contractors. BBC find examples where they don't and that is the BBC's fault. er, struggling a bit with this.
If there were other viable options then maybe, but I suspect that Apple's response would be that they do more good, long term, by working with these companies and driving changes in their behavior than by simply driving themselves out of business.
Yes I agree. That doesn't change the logic used in her statement.
I don't give two hoots about any terrorist supporting channels or those that work for them.
When have Al Jazeera supported terrorists? They're a news organisation, reporting news isn't support. Besides which, the USA and a number of its peoples have definitely supported their fair share of terrorists too, so your broad strokes are just painting a whitewash over your prejudice.
It is a state funded channel, and Qatar is a dictatorship. I am not surprised that certain western leftists would admire such a channel.
Given that dictatorships are antithetical to most leftist politics you probably should be surprised. Nevertheless, the quality of Al Jazeera's journalism speaks for itself, quite apart from its sources of funding.
This is war, and being a "journalist" is indeed a risky business. Sometimes crap happens. It doesn't bother me at all. I applaud it.
The USA is at war with Qatar? Given that you call them allies, sell a shed load of arms to them and have numerous military bases there, that seems a bit ill-advised.
Given that dictatorships are antithetical to most leftist politics you probably should be surprised. Nevertheless, the quality of Al Jazeera's journalism speaks for itself, quite apart from its sources of funding.
The USA is at war with Qatar? Given that you call them allies, sell a shed load of arms to them and have numerous military bases there, that seems a bit ill-advised.
I would disagree that dictatorships are antithetical to most leftist politics. The two often go hand in hand.
I've never claimed that the USA is at war with Qatar. I am talking about the greater war, the bigger picture.
The war with all arabs?
The war with everything that isn't America?
What war exactly is Al Jazeera and/or the Qatari royal family so wrapped up in that you would sanction bombing their journalists?
I'd rather be shown all the facts, regardless of how painful or hard it is. I am mature enough to process it.
I'd rather not be watching the same "facts" being repeated over and over again in an endless loop, such as showing the same clips of a few supposed dead civilians, mostly because it is irrelevant.
The war with all arabs?
The war with everything that isn't America?
What war exactly is Al Jazeera and/or the Qatari royal family so wrapped up in that you would sanction bombing their journalists?
The war against all Islamic terrorists and all those that show even minimal support for them.
It is very easy for Apple - #apple to Remedy this problem, just make all the products in the USA as it is not about the cost of the products as we in the USA pay less than anywhere in the world for Apple products.
I am not sure Apple can make these products without using third parties to push the boundaries of Human Resources. As far as sustainability there is no way Apple is being responsible in their resources. in closing it is apparent that Apple is showing its self in helping bring awareness to the LGBT culture (Personal Venture by Tim Cook) but why doesn't Apple do more at home or tell us what they are doing to help others? as they have no fear in promoting their relationship with LGBT?
And how is reporting news from a war zone the same as showing support for terrorists?
BBC = Yellow Journalism.
It is appalling how low the BBC has sunk. It no longer is reliable as a source of unbiased information.
They join the stink of the websites who repeatedly post factually incorrect critical articles of Apple as click bait.
Shame on the BBC and the Queen.
The Chinese workers probably want to make a lot of money and they are in a feast or famine situation with the ramp up of new phones.
I assume the BBC is judging from Western eyes where Westerners would not work that hard for long shifts.
And same reason for finding underage workers. They want to make a buck and buy things and they won't make much money on the family farm.
So, story is definitely one-sided. Unless there were any interviews? Or polls taken among the workers? Probably not. Easier that a "picture/video is worth a thousand words."
The issue I have with the licence ( it's a tax) is that a very poor person pays the same as Branson and they have to pay it whether they watch the BBC or not. It should be funded like PBS, privatised, or if it must be publicly funded just because it should be funded out of the UK consolidated fund from general taxation.
On your issue, in the Anglosphere countries I would observe that quasi-government institutions tend to be captured by the interests of their staff rather than the taxpayer or the politicians. So in the media world BBC, CBC and ABC (Australia) are essentially made up of multiple little fiefdoms each running their own agenda with no attention paid to management.
'Few' and 'supposed' dead civilians in Iraq?
Look, I can often look past your extreme -- and sometimes childish, but I have to admit, often funny -- views on issues.
But such a high level of ignorance is quite sad to see. I really expected better.
-
-
-
'Few' and 'supposed' dead civilians in Iraq?Look, I can often look past your extreme -- and sometimes childish, but I have to admit, often funny -- views on issues.
But such a high level of ignorance is quite sad to see. I really expected better.
Who mentioned anything about Iraq?
I was referring to terrorist coverage in general, in a variety of places. Numerous times, it has turned out that the "innocent" are not quite as innocent as certain fraudsters would like you to believe.
Ah such memories, D.C. Thomson ....
After the completely biased coverage of the Scottish independence campaign it is clear who the BBC get their orders from. They buried loads of positive articles regarding independence until after the vote. The BBC is just the flag waving arm of the Government.
Seems endemic of most British media, really…
Just the expression "state-owned media", in implying "state-controlled media", misses the point to begin with. State control of the BBC has always been rather minimal. The license system does seem archaic but, historically, it has permitted a well-funded and high-quality source of news, documentaries and other programming without the annoying commercials that everyone else endures and without an imposed partisan bias. There is nothing wrong with government funding per se if it doesn't engage in editorial meddling. That does not mean that every program is good, or balanced, and the Panorama documentary in question does not look like one of their finest moments.
After the completely biased coverage of the Scottish independence campaign it is clear who the BBC get their orders from. They buried loads of positive articles regarding independence until after the vote. The BBC is just the flag waving arm of the Government.
Well, you probably have quite strong views on that issue yourself, so you may not be an impartial judge of the BBC coverage. I followed that issue quite closely and the BBC reporting seemed fairly balanced. I'm not clear what you mean by "buried articles". Articles by whom? In any case, the BBC has a long record of pissing off governments of both flavours on any number of issues, so the accusation that they are a state propaganda organ is just silly.