[PacHead]

Absoultely ridiculous.


http://frontpagemagazine.com/Article...e.asp?ID=14302

[lil'babykitten]

Say's a lot about Fox's appeal!

[PacHead]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Say's a lot about Fox's appeal!

No, it says alot about Canada.

[Millennium]

There's a quite a bit of hypocrisy involved in allowing one but not the other. They're both so blatantly biased -and equally guilty in lying about those biases- that they're basically nothing more than two sides of the same coin.

If they allow both or disallow both, that's no problem, because it shows consistent treatment of deceptively-biased media. But to allow only one is hypocritical.

[Spliffdaddy]

Canada seems to have a lot of silly rules and regulations.

Might explain what's holding them back as a nation.

Honestly, when I hear the word 'mediocre' I think of Canada.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There's a quite a bit of hypocrisy involved in allowing one but not the other. They're both so blatantly biased -and equally guilty in lying about those biases- that they're basically nothing more than two sides of the same coin.

If they allow both or disallow both, that's no problem, because it shows consistent treatment of deceptively-biased media. But to allow only one is hypocritical.

[angaq0k]

CRTC NEWS RELEASE

News release


July 15th, 2004


The CRTC approves nine new non-Canadian satellite services and begins a process to review its approach to authorizing non-Canadian third-language services


OTTAWA-GATINEAU — The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) released three public notices today approving the addition of nine new non-Canadian third-language services to the lists of eligible satellite services and denied six others. The authorized services will enable Canadians to benefit from new programs, principally in Spanish, Arabic, German and Romanian.


The Commission also released today a call for comments on various questions related to its assessment of requests to add non-Canadian third-language services to its lists of eligible satellite services for distribution on a digital basis. The Commission wishes to determine whether there are ways to improve access by Canadians to non-Canadian third-language programming, while continuing to foster Canadian third-language and other ethnic services, in accordance with the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act (the Act).


The Commission’s approach

The Commission’s approach to authorizing the distribution of non-Canadian services in Canada aims to strike a balance among the objectives of the Act. For example, the Act states that the Canadian broadcasting system should, through its programming, serve the needs and interests and reflect the circumstances of Canadians, including the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society.

The Commission’s policy precludes the addition of non-Canadian services to the lists if the Commission determines them to be either partially or totally competitive with Canadian specialty or pay television services. This serves to ensure that the Canadian licensed services are in a position to fulfil their commitments and obligations regarding the airing of Canadian programming, a responsibility that their non-Canadian competitors do not have. Canadian services make an important contribution to fulfilling the objectives in the Act, for example by airing Canadian programs that enrich Canadian culture and encourage the development of Canadian expression.

When it deals with requests to add non-Canadian services to the lists, the Commission takes a case-by-case approach in assessing competitiveness. Many factors are taken into account. Such factors include the nature and genre of programming, the target audience, the language or languages in which the programming is broadcast, the source of programming and any relevant competitive concerns raised by parties during the proceeding. The Commission weighs these factors as they relate to the relevant Canadian services and the sponsored non-Canadian service in order to determine the amount of overlap between the services, and thus the extent to which they might compete with each other.


Approved services

The services approved today will increase the range of services in a third language that are already offered to Canadians of various origins:

German TV: German-language general interest service

Canal SUR: Spanish-language predominantly news and non fiction service with programming by independent broadcasters from Latin America

CineLatino: Spanish-language movies from Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Colombia, Chile, Venezuela and Peru

Grandes Documentales de TVE: Spanish-language documentaries

Utilisima: Spanish-language programming service originating from Argentina directed to women

Eurochannel: Spanish and Portuguese subtitled European movie service

Romanian Television International: Predominantly Romanian-language general interest programming service

ART Movies: Arabic-language movies

Al Jazeera: Arabic-language news and public affairs service

The authorization to distribute Al Jazeera is subject to the broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) wishing to offer the service having a condition of licence governing its distribution. The Commission has decided that distributors must record Al Jazeera programming and keep the recordings for a specific length of time. This measure will enable the Commission and licensees of BDUs to verify and assess the context of the programming in the event of any future concerns about abusive comment on Al Jazeera’s programming. The Commission is also requiring that BDUs distributing Al Jazeera not distribute, as part of that service, any abusive comment. Finally, the Commission will allow BDUs to alter or delete the programming of Al Jazeera solely for the purpose of ensuring that no abusive comment is distributed. The Commission found that this condition is necessary to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the distribution of abusive comment on the service pursuant to the Commission’s statutory responsibility to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in the Act, while at the same time minimally impairing freedom of expression.

Denied services

The following services were denied on the grounds that they would be competitive, either in whole or in part, with one or more Canadian pay or specialty services:

Azteca 13 International: Spanish-language general interest service

GOL TV: Spanish and English-language soccer programming service

LBC America: Arabic-language general interest service

TV Chile: Spanish-language general interest service

TVE Internacional: Spanish-language general interest service

RAI International: Italian-language general interest service

With its request to add RAI International, Rogers, RAI’s sponsor, filed an undertaking from RAI that the service would not hold, obtain, nor exercise preferential or exclusive rights in relation to the distribution of programming in Canada. However, based on other statements made by RAI and its sponsor on the record of this proceeding, the Commission was not persuaded that RAI would not exercise preferential or exclusive rights to at least some of its programming.

Call for comments

The Commission also released today a call for comments on various questions in order to review its approach to authorizing non-Canadian third-language services for distribution on a digital basis.

Statistics Canada data indicates that Canada’s already considerable level of ethnocultural diversity will continue to grow. The Commission therefore considers that it is essential to ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system provides adequate service to Canada’s increasingly diverse population, particularly those communities that may not have sufficient access to programming in third languages. The Commission further considers that the availability of additional third-language services within the Canadian broadcasting system could serve to reduce the appeal of services offered through the “grey market”, which offers services from distributors unauthorized to operate in Canada.

Comments should be sent to the Commission on or before 13 October 2004.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is an independent public authority that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada.

[angaq0k]

About FoxNews and the CRTC

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-45

Ottawa, 9 July 2004

Call for comments on proposals for the addition of Fox_News and NFL Network to the lists of satellite services eligible for distribution on a digital basis

The requests

1.
The Commission has received two separate requests from the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), acting as the Canadian sponsor, to add two non-Canadian satellite services to the lists of satellite services eligible for distribution on a digital basis (the digital lists). The CCTA described the non-Canadian services as follows:

_Fox News: A 24 hour seven day per week national U.S. cable news network devoted to delivering objective coverage of the day’s events. The service broadcasts original news and information programs including live breaking news stories and coverage of significant events in the United States and around the world.

NFL Network: A 24 hour year round television lifestyle and entertainment sports service for NFL fans intended to complement and promote NFL games that are aired by other broadcasters. NFL Network broadcasts original news and information shows, magazine style shows and a weekly game preview show. Programming also includes press conferences, fantasy football shows and in 2004 some live exhibition games. NFL Network is not a live event sports service and will not be carrying live NFL games with the exception of some exhibition games and NFL Europe League games not currently offered by existing Canadian broadcasters.

2.
The CCTA stated that authorizing the above services for distribution in Canada would be beneficial to the Canadian broadcasting system in that the services would (i) offer Canadian viewers the benefit of increased choice, (ii) increase the penetration of digital services which, in its view, is critical for the health of Canadian diginet services, high definition television, video-on-demand and potential interactive services, and (iii) be an effective tool in combating the appeal of the black market.

Background

3.
In Call for proposals to amend the lists of eligible satellite services through the inclusion of additional non-Canadian services eligible for distribution on a digital basis only, Public Notice CRTC 2000-173, 14 December 2000 (Public Notice 2000-173), the Commission invited proposals to amend the lists of eligible satellite services through the inclusion of additional non-Canadian programming services that would be authorized for distribution on a digital basis only. The Commission also stated in Public Notice 2000-173 that any such requests must include the following:

evidence that the non-Canadian service has agreed to be sponsored by the Canadian party filing the proposal;

a statement from the service provider that it has obtained all necessary rights for distribution of its programming in Canada;

a brief description of the service;

a copy of the current program schedule;

evidence of potential demand, as gathered through discussions with distributors; and

an undertaking from the non-Canadian service provider that it does not hold, will not obtain, nor will it exercise, preferential or exclusive programming rights in relation to the distribution of programming in Canada.

4.
The Commission is satisfied that the CCTA has provided the supporting information required by Public Notice 2000-173 and that it is now appropriate to call for comments on the requests set out above.

5.
As stated in Public Notice 2000-173, the Commission intends to assess the current requests against the background of its general policy which, among other things, generally precludes the addition to the lists of eligible satellite services of new non-Canadian satellite services that are either partially or totally competitive with Canadian specialty or pay television services. In applying this policy, the Commission will take into account the services of all specialty and pay television programming undertakings whose licence applications have been approved by the Commission, including all of the launched and unlaunched Category 1 and Category 2 specialty and pay television services.

The sponsor’s views on competitiveness

6.
With respect to NFL Network, the CCTA submitted that this service would not be partially or totally competitive with a licensed Canadian specialty or pay television service. The CCTA stated that NFL Network would complement both the live NFL games currently aired by Canadian broadcasters and the NFL Sunday Ticket pay package offered on a digital basis by Canadian cable companies.

7.
The CCTA was of the view that Fox News would serve to complement the news currently aired by Canadian broadcasters. Further, the CCTA submitted that the Commission has already recognized that non-Canadian news and information satellite services are not competitive with licensed Canadian services that operate with similar formats. In this regard, the CCTA noted that the Commission has added such non-Canadian news services as CNN, CNN Headline News, C-Span, Euronews and BBC World to the lists of eligible satellite services despite the existence of Canadian services such as CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet.

8.
In Fox News Canada, Decision CRTC 2000-565, 14 December 2000, the Commission approved an application by Global Television Network (OBCI) (Global) for a new Canadian Category 2 specialty programming service to be known as Fox News Canada. In Deadline to commence operation of Category 2 specialty and pay television services, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-599, 16 December 2003, the Commission approved a request by Global for a one year final extension until 24_November 2004 to the implementation date for Fox News Canada.

9.
The CCTA attached to its request a letter dated 31 March 2004 from Fox News, the non-Canadian partner in Fox News Canada. In that letter, Fox News addressed the Fox News Canada service as follows: "Fox News does not intend to implement this service and therefore will not meet the extended deadline to commence operations." The Commission notes that the CCTA did not provide any information from Global concerning Global’s plans for Fox News Canada.

[angaq0k]

Retrospectively

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission turned down the request made in June, saying the cable firms had not made a strong enough case.

In June the Canadian Cable Television Association, which represents cable firms providing services to six million households, said the addition of more major U.S. channels to the digital lineup would encourage more Canadians to sign up for service.

U.S. channels that were mentioned included HBO, ESPN, Fox News and Nickelodeon Kids.

"We believe that adding popular U.S. services to digital will accelerate the digital transition and provide added lift to Canadian digital services that were launched in 2001, " Janet Yale, CEO of the association, said in a statement in June.

In the past year, about 50 new digital channels have been launched, cutting into broadcasters' profit margins as they try and squeeze more money from advertisers.

[angaq0k]

In clear:

Canada Broadcast Regulators Allow Al Jazeera and CNN, Fox News still under Consideration

OTTAWA, July 15, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian Broadcasts regulators who years ago gained notoriety for allowing the Playboy channel on the same day they turned down the all-Catholic EWTN (more recently allowed in Canada), announced today that they have approved the Arab news station most noted for airing terrorist threats - Al Jazeera. Yesterday, the regulators noted that they are just now considering allowing Fox News into Canada and are seeking public input, even though Ted Turner's left-leaning CNN and CNN Headline News have been long permitted in Canada.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) released three public notices today approving the addition of nine new non-Canadian third-language services to the lists of eligible satellite services in Canada one of which was Al Jazeera. The approval contained a note about Al Jazeera that CRTC would monitor it for "abusive comment" and distributors would be permitted to alter or delete some of the programming to prevent such "abusive comment."

The CRTC was requested to allow Fox News by the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA). CCTA noted in their arguments to allow Fox News that the CRTC had already approved similar news services such as CNN, CNN Headline News and C-Span. The documents filed also reveal that part of the delay of Fox News in Canada may be thanks to the Asper family's Global Television which had proposed a Fox News Canada which never materialized.

The CRTC has called for public comment on the application for Fox News to be allowed in Canada. All responses must be received by August 9.

[BRussell]

I'd personally love to have access to al jazeera. I think it would be good for both al jazeera and for the US if we got it; good for al jazeera because they'd have another audience to think about, and good for the US because we'd know what many in the Middle East were seeing.

[Invictus]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Absoultely ridiculous.

Canadians are grateful for your concern. They realize that many evil veggies are occupying your world plate at the moment and to be concerned with their television programming is especially appreciated. And they also wish to end the Bill O'Reilly boycott of Canada peacefully.

Could you please help them get that new PrOn channel too.

[Invictus]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Absoultely ridiculous.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118511,00.html

Yes it is.

[DBursey]

You guys are so knee-jerk anti Canadian it's pathetic. First of all, the average Canadian is as interested in watching Al Jazerra as he is in watching cricket matches. Secondly, if any of you stoners had bothered to check, you'd find that the CRTC has saddled, nay hobbled the Qatar based news network with restrictions so severe as to virtually insure that no Canadian distributor will ever carry it.


from http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...544179-cp.html:

... the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, in a ruling released Thursday, set stringent rules designed to keep anti-Semitic or other abusive comments off the air. The result may be that most cable TV firms will pass up the chance to carry the 24-hour news channel often described as the CNN of the Arabic world.

The effect of the CRTC decision is to turn distributors into censors, said Michael Hennessy, president of the Canadian Cable Television Association.

"Cable companies do not want to be forced into the position of having to decide what is appropriate for Canadians to watch. This sets a frightening precedent and virtually ensures that no distributor will ever carry the service in Canada."

The cable association had been one of the prime movers in an application to the CRTC for permission to bring Al-Jazeera to Arabic-speaking Canadians.

The move generated intense controversy, especially among Jewish groups who objected to what they saw as anti-Semitic commentary on the network, which broadcasts from Qatar on the Persian Gulf.

These events have generated considerable controversy in Canada, whatever remote chance al jazeera has of broadcasting here. But don't get your xenophopic hopes up, boys. The real debate concerns how exactly the CRTC should balance concerns over free speech with concerns of minorities of being vilified or targeted by hateful or abusive comment.

Fox TV is not carried here because no one wants to carry it here. That's because the distributors poll their audience - they know there's no demand for such a right-wing biased news source here. We already have FOX network all over the cable and satellite networks.

"Canadians embrace jihad tv" indeed. Have your head unpacked before your creeping lack of cranial function permanently cripples your credibility.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Fox TV is not carried here because no one wants to carry it here. That's because the distributors poll their audience - they know there's no demand for such a right-wing biased news source here. We already have FOX network all over the cable and satellite networks.

I am no expert on internal Canadian affairs since I do not live there, but the cable companies of Canada certainly seem to disagree with your statement, since many have filed petitions inorder to carry Fox news.

OTTAWA, Ontario, April 15, 2004 - The Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) today filed an application with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for authorization to offer FOX News Channel to cable customers across Canada.

"FOX News Channel is the number one news service in the United States and is available in more than 50 countries," said Michael Hennessy CCTA President. "We believe that there is a clear demand from our customers for this service and we are excited about the possibility of offering FOX News Channel in Canada."

The Canadian Cable Television Association is the national association representing 83Canadian cable companies that advance media in the home through a wide range of entertainment, information, Internet and telecommunications services. CCTA's primary role is to communicate the industry views to regulatory bodies, governments, and other stakeholders.


And you say that Fox News is not carried there because there is no demand for it, so can I assume that the terrorist friendly Al-Jazeera got approved because there are many Jihadists and anti-semites living in Canada ?

From what I understand, this is a case of clear evil socialist, liberal bias and censorship trying to keep other viewpoints from the air, because they are afraid that it will gain in popularity, just like it has in the USA, the #1 cable news network.

I will hold this opinion until Fox News is offered in Canada. As for being a stoner, I assume you have tons more of them up where you are. Everybody knows tons of weed come from there. I happen to like Canadian weed myself, so at least Canada has a few positive things going for it, besides fascist socialists.

[angaq0k]

Woaw.

I am glad I posted from the source.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by PacHead:
From what I understand, this is a case of clear evil socialist, liberal bias and censorship trying to keep other viewpoints from the air, because they are afraid that it will gain in popularity, just like it has in the USA, the #1 cable news network.

I will hold this opinion until Fox News is offered in Canada. As for being a stoner, I assume you have tons more of them up where you are. Everybody knows tons of weed come from there. I happen to like Canadian weed myself, so at least Canada has a few positive things going for it, besides fascist socialists.

8.
In Fox News Canada, Decision CRTC 2000-565, 14 December 2000, the Commission approved an application by Global Television Network (OBCI) (Global) for a new Canadian Category 2 specialty programming service to be known as Fox News Canada. In Deadline to commence operation of Category 2 specialty and pay television services, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-599, 16 December 2003, the Commission approved a request by Global for a one year final extension until 24_November 2004 to the implementation date for Fox News Canada.

9.
The CCTA attached to its request a letter dated 31 March 2004 from Fox News, the non-Canadian partner in Fox News Canada. In that letter, Fox News addressed the Fox News Canada service as follows: "Fox News does not intend to implement this service and therefore will not meet the extended deadline to commence operations." The Commission notes that the CCTA did not provide any information from Global concerning Global’s plans for Fox News Canada.

It was FOX who decided to not offer the service, no?
I'm confused.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
It was FOX who decided to not offer the service, no?
I'm confused.

I believe that was for a special Fox News Canada service, that got scrapped. The cable companies want to just carry Fox News Service.

[BRussell]

I'm really sick of all this anti-Canadianism sweeping the globe.

[PacHead]

Here's a site with some angry Canadians who don't like to be told what they can and cannot watch from a bunch of liberal girlie men (thank you Arnold) and fascists.

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/thre...amp;Number=285

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Absoultely ridiculous.

Why do you care?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm really sick of all this anti-Canadianism sweeping the globe.

If you are referring to anti-Americanism, the mental defects of other people are not our problem.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why do you care?

I'll keep that in mind if you ever comment on any thread that has to do with the USA or any other place besides Canada.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm really sick of all this anti-Canadianism sweeping the globe.

I honestly think that post is funny.



Seriously, I don't really want FoxNews.

But I don't really care anyway since I do not have television (4 years,4 months now!).

The debate is interesting though. I do prefer more access to European media, for we are sumbmerged already with American media and shows and whathaveyou. There is a limit to the bandwith, and most channels are uninteresting. Adding FoxNews is adding boredom IMHO.

I do enjoy PBS when I go at my folks, and some sitcoms were really great too (from NBC, ABC, CBS and some from Fox as well).

But more "fair and balanced" reports from Fox?

Naaaah!

[PacHead]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I honestly think that post is funny.



Seriously, I don't really want FoxNews.

But I don't really care anyway since I do not have television (4 years,4 months now!).

The debate is interesting though. I do prefer more access to European media, for we are sumbmerged already with American media and shows and whathaveyou. There is a limit to the bandwith, and most channels are uninteresting. Adding FoxNews is adding boredom IMHO.

I do enjoy PBS when I go at my folks, and some sitcoms were really great too (from NBC, ABC, CBS and some from Fox as well).

But more "fair and balanced" reports from Fox?

Naaaah!

For a person who doesn't even own a TV set, I find it interesting that you are so concerned with "limited bandwidth". I don't hear you saying anything negative about the Jihad channel.

[DBursey]

edit: i'll save my breath. you're not worth it

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by PacHead:
For a person who doesn't even own a TV set, I find it interesting that you are so concerned with "limited bandwidth". I don't hear you saying anything negative about the Jihad channel.

True.

I forgot to say (and this is what I hint on when I say we already have too many American channels in Canada) that I love the idea of variety, diversification etc.

Adding FoxNews is redundancy to me. With limited bandwith, I'd rather have channels in languages I don't understand, no subtitles, with shows about strange customs (strange to me anyway) than have the same right-wing rhetoric repeated over again.

Bush is its own channel and he is presented on all the others as well.

Non merci, c'est amplement suffisant.

[Invictus]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'll keep that in mind if you ever comment on any thread that has to do with the USA or any other place besides Canada.

This thread is so funny!!!

The world is in the toilet right now and pac is worried about little ol' Canada.

They're coming to invade us...wooo...

[PacHead]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
True.
With limited bandwith, I'd rather have channels in languages I don't understand, no subtitles, with shows about strange customs (strange to me anyway) than have the same right-wing rhetoric repeated over again.

I'll agree with that. Calling for murder and killings is certainly a strange custom, but I'm sure you Canadians will appreciate the foreign variety that is offered to you. Even some of their reporters are terrorists, but hey, it's diversity.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Invictus:


This thread is so funny!!!

The world is in the toilet right now and pac is worried about little ol' Canada.

They're coming to invade us...wooo...

You should know that no personal attacks are allowed on this forum. Go read the rules, since you obviously have a fairly limited comprehension of them.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by DBursey:
edit: i'll save my breath. you're not worth it

It's ok, I read what you originally wrote, but I didn't take any offence.

[Invictus]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You should know that no personal attacks are allowed on this forum. Go read the rules, since you obviously have a fairly limited comprehension of them.

Canada is coming...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by PacHead:
you Canadians

I agree.

No really, I do believe we have a right for fair and balanced news, and I welcome Al-Jazeera.

Maybe I'll watch them next Christmas when I'll visit my parents, if they still want the cableTV, which does seem to be the case anyway.

[dcolton]

Me thinks we have been spending a little too much time discussing Canada, France, and homosexuality.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'll keep that in mind if you ever comment on any thread that has to do with the USA or any other place besides Canada.

OMG

*SMACKDOWN*

[Invictus]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Me thinks we have been spending a little too much time discussing Canada, France, and homosexuality.

Yes I agree...lets discuss Mexico for awhile.

And homosexuality too if you're inclined that way.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You should know that no personal attacks are allowed on this forum. Go read the rules, since you obviously have a fairly limited comprehension of them.

sup ghost_flash?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by MindFad:
sup ghost_flash?

I'm not sure what you are implying, that I am ghost flash ?

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm really sick of all this anti-Canadianism sweeping the globe.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'll agree with that. Calling for murder and killings is certainly a strange custom, but I'm sure you Canadians will appreciate the foreign variety that is offered to you. Even some of their reporters are terrorists, but hey, it's diversity.

Care to back any of those claims up?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Care to back any of those claims up?

Oh come on Logic, you never heard of that Al-Jazeera reporter charged in Spain ?

What about the Al-Jazeera cameramen in Iraq who allegedly were at the scene of a suicide bombing attack, and started filming before the bomb went off !

It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not, you will never believe that Al-Jazeera is pro-terrorist anyhow. Strange how all of those Bin Laden tapes and other various videos always seem to make it to Al-Jazeera. Is he being sponsored by them ? Have they filed a five year endorsement deal or something ?

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Oh come on Logic, you never heard of that Al-Jazeera reporter charged in Spain ?

What about the Al-Jazeera cameramen in Iraq who allegedly were at the scene of a suicide bombing attack, and started filming before the bomb went off !

It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not, you will never believe that Al-Jazeera is pro-terrorist anyhow. Strange how all of those Bin Laden tapes and other various videos always seem to make it to Al-Jazeera. Is he being sponsored by them ? Have they filed a five year endorsement deal or something ?

Have you ever watched Al Jazeera or checked out their web-site?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Have you ever watched Al Jazeera or checked out their web-site?

As far as watching it on TV, the only time I see Al-Jazeera footage is when various other networks need to show some Bin Laden tape or various hostage or beheading videos. I have been to their site before, but I do not go there to get my information.

My cable network recently scrapped Tech TV, so there's an open slot. Hopefully they won't be replacing it with the Jihad channel.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
As far as watching it on TV, the only time I see Al-Jazeera footage is when various other networks need to show some Bin Laden tape or various hostage or beheading videos. I have been to their site before, but I do not go there to get my information.

My cable network recently scrapped Tech TV, so there's an open slot. Hopefully they won't be replacing it with the Jihad channel.

So you have no idea how they cover their stories but you still claim to be able to label them as a terrorist network?

Keep the blinders on, you might need them in the not so distant future..........

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you have no idea how they cover their stories but you still claim to be able to label them as a terrorist network?

Keep the blinders on, you might need them in the not so distant future..........

Logic, this ain't no discussion. Everytime you pop in to one of my threads, it is merely an interrogation. You do nothing but ask me silly questions.

What's your opinion on Al-Jazeera ? Show me why they are not pro-terrorist. It is you who needs to convince me that they are not. I don't need to convince you of anything. And why might I need them in the not so distant future ?

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Logic, this ain't no discussion. Everytime you pop in to one of my threads, it is merely an interrogation. You do nothing but ask me silly questions.

What's your opinion on Al-Jazeera ? Show me why they are not pro-terrorist. It is you who needs to convince me that they are not. I don't need to convince you of anything. And why might I need them in the not so distant future ?

Silly questions? I'm trying to get you to back up your silly claims.

I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm just showing the rest of the macnn that you aren't ever able to back up your claims. That's all.

As for why you need the blinders, you'll know it when that time comes.........

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Silly questions? I'm trying to get you to back up your silly claims.

I don't need to convince you of anything, I'm just showing the rest of the macnn that you aren't ever able to back up your claims. That's all.

As for why you need the blinders, you'll know it when that time comes.........

Like I thought, you don't give your opinion of Al-Jazeera. I have already given mine.

A typical exchange between you and I goes something like this. We've been through this before.

1. Logic asks something
2. PacHead replies
3. Logic asks something else
4. PacHead replies
5. Logic asks yet something else
6. Pachead replies
7. Logic asks yet again, another question
8. PachHead gets tired of Logic, and will not play 20 questions with Logic anymore.

I assume your next reply, will end with a ?

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Like I thought, you don't give your opinion of Al-Jazeera. I have already given mine.

A typical exchange between you and I goes something like this. We've been through this before.

1. Logic asks something
2. PacHead replies
3. Logic asks something else
4. PacHead replies
5. Logic asks yet something else
6. Pachead replies
7. Logic asks yet again, another question
8. PachHead gets tired of Logic, and will not play 20 questions with Logic anymore.

I assume your next reply, will end with a ?

I asked you to back up your claim about Al Jazeera to see if you had anything what so ever to back it up. You proved that you don't "need" to back up your claims because to you it doesn't matter if it's true or not. As long as you follow the party line on the subject you think you'll be fine.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
I asked you to back up your claim about Al Jazeera to see if you had anything what so ever to back it up. You proved that you don't "need" to back up your claims because to you it doesn't matter if it's true or not. As long as you follow the party line on the subject you think you'll be fine.

I already backed it up. Three words for you : Al-Jazeera, Reporter, Spain

If you don't follow the news, that is not my problem. There's only like a gazillion things about that story on google. I'm not here to do google searches for other people, especially regarding stories that are common knowledge.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I already backed it up. Three words for you : Al-Jazeera, Reporter, Spain

If you don't follow the news, that is not my problem. There's only like a gazillion things about that story on google. I'm not here to do google searches for other people, especially regarding stories that are common knowledge.

You mean the reporter currently out on bail working again and who hasn't been found guilty of anything?

And you mean the reporter and not Al Jazeera don't you? Because if we are going to judge a whole company(institution or branch of government) because of what one person did I think the US would be in some serious trouble.

So which is it? Should we judge a whole company(institution or branch of government) for the acts of one person? Should we scrap the innocent until proven guilty part of our justice system?