Burlington, Vermont Welcomes America's Enemies

According to the Boston Globe, the city of Burlington, Vermont owns a cable system.  It has a whopping 1200 subscribers, so it's scarely worth mentioning -as the Globe obviously decided, burying the item here- that it added a new channel to the lineup.  That channel is Al-Jazeera.  I believe Al-Jazeera is a propaganda machine for the terror-sponsoring states of the Middle East.  It is the "respectable" public face of the Islamist movement.  But even more shocking than the indefensible choice to put it on the city cable system is this quote from that cable system's director:

"We were certainly squeamish about it at first, given its reputation in the United States," said Tim Nulty, director of Burlington Telecom. "But if you look at it, it looks like BBC. I think it's more mainstream and more objective than CNN."

More objective than CNN?

When the BBC is your standard of objectivity, and Al-Jazeera seems more mainstream than CNN, you've gone over to the other side.  Embracing BBC just means you're a lefty.  Embracing Al-Jazeera means you hate America.  They do.

I've said the network should be banned in America.  I stand by that.  And the director of Burlington Telecom should be fired.  It's city-owned.  An American city is paying for enemy propaganda.  I'm stunned.

Send them some comments:

Contact Burlington Telecom Hours of Operation: Monday-Friday, 8 AM to 4:30 PM
Central Telephone Number: (802) 540-0007
Office Fax: (802) 652-4220
Mailing Address: 200 Church Street, Burlington, VT 05401

Comments

[Ted]

My first reaction was similar to yours, and I agree with your assesment of Al-Jazerra but then I realised that everytime I'm on an overseas trip I always try to catch the local news ( or what passes for it ) on the local stations. It's fascinating to watch what's shown and the differences in the way events are portrayed.

It's OK with me if they want to show it. (and they do have 1st amendments rights to do so after all) However, If I were a Burlington Taxpayer, I'm sure I'd have a couple of questions for City Hall and the nitwit that runs the cable system. (And I certinly hope that Homeland Security is at least taking some notes on who's tuned in for long periods).

[carpundit]

If it were a private company offering the channel, I'd have a First Amendment concern, but it isn't. It's the city.

And the network itself is owned by a foreign government, so I don't see a First Amendment concern there. We can safely throw them out.

Their "news" is glossy, and professional-looking. And they've hired western anchors and created a western-style news set so they can pass off their propaganda.

Islamism is already an enormous danger to this country, There's no reason to allow pro-Islamist media to masquerade as mainstream news. It's a war of cultures and I think it's unwise to supply our enemy with weapons.

[Erik Schwartz]

It's a bad idea for a government to own media distribution channels. Not surprising in the PRV I suppose.

[Jordi]

I'd have to watch Al Jazeera before deciding whether it's simply heavily slanted, as are Fox News and a number of liberal outlets, or if it crosses the line into another level of hate-ridden calls to violence. Only then would I even consider banning it altogether. Our media is already rampant with fear-mongering on both sides, so I don't see it as negatively as others might.

I also think it's a little sad that we have to ban the [admittedly hate-filled] voice of our opponents. I think liberals should read the drudge report, conservatives should listen to NPR. If the arab world sees us through the eyes of al jazeera, why wouldn't we want to know what they're seeing? How can our two worlds ever come to a mutual understanding without a little research?

[Joe Miller]

Unlike the domestic news services (in which I include AP and UPI), Al Jazeera seems unconcerned about covering up for Islam. They aren't shy about their loyalties or what the ultimate goal of Islamic fundamentalism is. In my humble opinion, the more the average citizen sees of it, the better.

[carpundit]

Joe,
If it's "know your enemy," I understand your point. But I don't think that's sufficient reason to broadcast its propaganda.

Jordi,
It isn't the same as NPR versus Fox News, though I generally agree with your point about consuming those two sources. But you've made my point for me. Our worlds can't come to a mutual understanding. There will be no peaceful coexistence. Our world would be willing to live in peace with that one, but they will not leave us alone. Islamism is not tolerant. Al-Jazeera gives it a veneer of respectability - one that is all too often successful at hiding the ugliness behind it. We shouldn't be helping.

[Erik]

"Our world would be willing to live in peace with that one, but they will not leave us alone. "

Get serious. We (the west) meddle in their world far more than they meddle in ours.

Why is Kuwait a country?

Where did Iraq's borders come from?

[carpundit]

I'm not talking about the better foreign policy.
I'm talking about Islamism. Its proponents will not accept anything but its spread. At the expense of the civilized and uncivilized worlds alike.

[Erik]

"Its proponents will not accept anything but its spread. At the expense of the civilized and uncivilized worlds alike."

True, but if we stopped giving the proponents of Islamism fodder for their propoganda machine they would be marginalized. If we stopped fufilling all their insane prophesies of the US wanting to dominate the region by force, then their population would ignore them the way we (most of us) ignore the loony fundies here.

Islamism was not a problem in Iraq prior to 2003.

[carpundit]

You are mistaken. That is a classic "blame the victim" approach.
I agree that Iraq wasn't ruled by Islamists before we invaded. It was ruled by a mass-murdering despot. Maybe that was better. I don't know. But it doesn't change Islam v. The West.

[Erik]

I agreed with you.

I just said that we're making their job easier by our policies rather than harder.

[carpundit]

You agreed with me?
Well, then you're not mistaken. You're spot-on.
: )

[Mark Jaeger]

I'll bet the folks in Burlington Telecom are also big on the "Fairness Doctrine" too.

If so, let's ask them if they'd be willing to add, oh say, daily programming from Israeli Television in the interest of "diversity" and "balanced viewpoints."

I've got a ten-spot that says Burlington Telecom would quickly find an excuse NOT to do this. Care to make a friendly wager?

[Macker]

Islam delenda est.

[Newfoundmass]

I assume it's the English version of al Jazeera? If so (I don't live in Burlington, I live outside of it), then I've heard no complaints regarding it's fairness. Indeed, the al Jazeera hate in general is misguided and often wrong.

In other words you're an idiot.

[Mark Jaeger]

Oh sweetheart, was it something I said?

Thanks for your erudite and sophisticated riposte. I think it says a lot more about you than it does me.

[Paul Gemebr]

You must bcome more informed about the subtle nature of Al-Jazera. Arab and islamic supremcy is their ultimate message ( not tolerance).

[Jeff]

Have you watched Al-Jazeera yourself or are you basing this off reports of Al-Jazeera's reporting? It wasn't clear to me reading this post, past posts and the comments whether you have or not.

[carpundit]

It's hard to tell to whom the comments are addressed. How about we start them off with salutations? Like this:

Jeff, that's a fair question. I have watched it online only - in excerpts found here and there on the web. I have never sat to watch a newscast. I also took in an article in a major print publication (I forget which) about the network's move into the U.S. and its hiring of mainstream anchors to fit in.

Mark, One would be a fool to take that wager. Everyone knows it's all Israel's fault. Those damn Jews.

Newfoundmass, that was not helpful. Please try to keep comments clear and on-message, but not ad hominem.

[Jeff]

It's kind of weird addressing someone as "carpundit" when you know they must have a real name.

I would just say that I think there is something to be gained seeing an international perspective. I still think that the amount the enemy could gain even if Al-Jazera were spewing Islamist propaganda would still be less than what we would gain from seeing a vastly different viewpoint in our news day.

Also, Al-Jazera must be doing something right considering some of the other places it's been banned - Iran, for instance.

[carpundit]

Jeff,

I think the "other viewpoint" is easily available from another well-known network, the BBC, whose coverage never fails to try to embarrass the U.S. or insult Israel, or both if they can.

I agree it's weird, but you can call me carpundit, or CP, or even dumb-ass, just please make it clear you mean me.

Thanks for the comments.

CP