More bad news for progressive radio, probably:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57561745/al-jazeera-acquires-al-gores-current-tv/
Several former KPOJ programs (Bill Press Show, The Stephanie Miller Show for example) are simulcast on Current. It seems likely these move will curtail or end those arrangements.
BET on it....
Not much difference...
So does this mean there'll be more of a chance that we'll see AJE over the air around here within the next couple years?
Shocking.
Sounds like capitalism to me. What's the difference between this and Murdoch buying Fox News?
Are you saying Al Jazera is not fair and balanced?
How many cable companies carry Current-TV? Perhaps some do with their extended premium extended bonus extended add-on tier. (sarcasm). Not sure Al-Jazezera understands how difficult it is to become valid to a cable system, or even dish. Non-story, except for some media outlets who want to make this a bigger story than it really is.
Current TV is on digital basic in Seattle, channel 125.
And I should say I agree with DUX... aside from the flippancy, Like minds attract in the media as everywhere.
Are you saying Al Jazera is not fair and balanced?
FAUXNews of the middle east!
Current is ch 215 on dish... When I checked a few hours ago they were running a program called "The Young Turks". 
I like that program.
I do not watch Al Jazeera, so I do not have a feel for how they present news stories. It would be interesting, however, if it ended up being simulcast on 1150 kHz or 1480 kHz. Also, we do not yet have the Voice of Russia on a local outlet in this area.
I probably won't see it even if I wanted to because Time-Warner Cable has booted Current TV off its lineup....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/time-warner-al-jazeera-current-tv_n_2399370.html
American media can only be better served by more diverse perspectives, especially those from outside the country, even more especially those with a solid journalistic reputation. Al Jazeera is all of these. I welcome the merger.
Comcast in PDX carries Current, as well. Al-Jazeera also owns the beIN Sports Network, which currently (no pun intended) runs on Comcast Ch. 643 in Spanish, with an English SAP. The network carries lots of European soccer matches, notably La Liga of Spain and the Italian Premiere League. The English feed of beIN will be added by Comcast on Ch. 423, starting on 15 January. In order to make room for that, Comcast will drop Gol TV on 15 January. Comcast added beIN Spanish in the summer of last year (2012).
The Oregonian reported today that most of the current Current programing will be dropped and the channel will be renamed Al-Jazeera America starting this spring or summer. Some of the staff will be invited to stay. Al-Jazeera's English newschannel is now seen in the US in DC and NYC only. I'd assume the AJA will likely simulcast AJE overnights at least.
Best, Mike 
Right - it's not a "merger" it's an acquisition. Current is basically done. Al-Jazeera bought them just to expand its operations in the US and increase its cable visibility.
Poor Glenn Beck, he's mad Gore turned down his offer before Al Jazzeera.
http://fox8.com/2013/01/03/glenn-beck-rejected-by-current-tv-tweets-about-it/
Apparently there is a clause in every cabel/sat (comcast, dish, etc) providers contract that if a station/channel changes ownership the contract can be ended.
That's how Time Warner bailed.
I agree with Edselehr. That's why I was happy to see Comcast add BBC World News fulltime on Ch. 131 last year. Now that Headline News has been degenerated into an unwatchable talking-heads channel, BBCW fills the gap quite nicely. (Comcast can't drop HN because of longterm carraige deals signed years ago that they inherited when they bought out AT&T Brodband.) Let's give Al-Jazeera a chance. They do focus a lot on the Mideast, which makes sense because AJ is based in Qatar. (BBC also has people on the ground in many places where the American networks don't.) NHK of Japan has an English language newschannel, NHK World, which I think would go over in Portland very well, but it's not seen here...yet.
Best, Mike
I can understand that type of a contract provision. What if some religious cable channel was sold to Hustler? 
Interesting that Beck showed his hand that he is looking to get back into traditional broadcasting...guess that internet model isnt working too well for him..whoops!
As for Gore, he won't sell to a conservative, but he will sell to a network that is likely financed at least in part via oil sales?
Oh well, seems like an awful lot to spend on a network that averages 50,000 viewers...and before you think that the name "Al Jazeera" will bring in hundreds of thousands of new viewers, just ask Oprah how thats working out for her
What does 50,000 viewers have to do with the sale? Al-Jazeera is dumping the format and changing the name. They don't give a damn about the ratings of programming that's going away - they wanted the inroads to the cable networks, even if some of them will cancel their contracts.
The value of the deal will depend on how much access to cable subscribers Al Jazeera gets for its purchase. If most of the cable networks dump the channel formerly known as Current TV then this will have proven to be a bust...
In the past, the Portland Public Schools cable channel has used Deutsche Welle News from Germany as their overnight/weekend service. They rotate between English, Spanish, and German-language newscasts, with documentaries (usually in German with English captions) and occasional sports (usually German only) on weekends. The DW service is excellent. Seeing it added here on 24/7 basis would be a plus. DW used to produce those German Budesliga soccer highlight shows that used to run on OPB on Sunday afternoons some years back. Being based in Berlin (formerly Munich until after the Wall fell), they focus a lot on European news, and given the economic mess the EU has become in recent times, having the DW perspective would be invaluable.
CBC in Canada has a very good newschannel, too, but it's not available to American viewers. Darn!
Best, Mike
The government of Qatar (the owners of Al-Jazeera) most likely do not care about the US viewership of their channel according to any commonly accepted broadcasting industry metric. It is just like nobody at China Radio International or its US subsidiaries is losing any sleep over the Arbitron ratings of KXPD.
Why do we need foreign government owned "media" outlets on US airwaves? Wasn't that formerly illegal? And it is available online right?
If I want to find out whats happening in the middle east or China I'll check in with the BBC, thank you.
The BBC online is great, no longer need to keep the shortwave setup, unless the end of the world comes and there is no net...
China Radio International does not directly own KXPD or other US stations that carry its programming. Instead, there are a variety of US-headquartered companies such as EDI Media, G&E Studio, and Riverside Broadcasting that own the stations and take care of managing them. These companies also own sister stations that air commercial programming, and they do sell blocks of airtime to outfits like Focus on the Family. I am not a lawyer, and I have not studied the books of these companies, but my guess is that because these companies do generate their own income, the money that comes in from the Chinese government is merely a subsidy to help them keep the lights on and to make payroll.
I am undecided on whether we "need" CRI, the Voice of Russia, and the BBC broadcast terrestrially in the US. But then again, do we really "need" as many religious programs, syndicated political and sports programs, and jukeboxes as we have? Is there any point to K-Love and Air-1 appearing in multiple places on the FM dial? Is there any point to Bustos simulcasting Russian programming on 1130 kHz and 1150 kHz? Rhetorical questions aside, I can say that international broadcasters like the ones previously mentioned plus the VOA have been moving their programming that was once available only on shortwave to terrestrial stations, primarily FM, in the target areas they wish to reach. Somewhat ironically, they started doing this in third-world countries in the 1990s and only today are we starting to see it happening in North America.
The CBS News story linked at the top of this thread explains that foreign entities can legally own cable networks, whereas they can't buy terrestrial radio and television stations. What I am left wondering is whether Al Jazeera's acquisition of Current TV includes any physical items such as production facilities, equipment, or offices. Does it include any employees of Current TV? Or did Al Jazeera simply buy out contracts that Current TV had with satellite and cable providers?
Notalent: Why do we need foreign government owned "media" outlets on US airwaves?
Is someone talking about broadcasting Al-Jazeera on US airwaves? I hadn't heard. I'm only aware of the Current deal to carry them on cable outlets, not airwaves, where they'll be among hundreds of other channels.
The only thing that gets less attention than cable channels are internet feeds.
I think there would be a great value for one or more of the major television networks in partnering with the BBC or the CBC and running their reports of the same news story side by side with their own network report... I wonder what the CBC thought of the "fiscal cliff"?
Now that is an interesting idea.
A TV news aggregation channel...
The same story from as many different sources as possible back to back.
MHz TV sorta does that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHz_Networks
My understanding is that Al-Jazeera will invite some staff people from Current to stay on...don't know how many. Gotta give a cheer, though, to Al Gore. Against the odds, he kept Current going for nearly seven years. Given the way the news biz and the cable biz are set up here nowadays, that's no mean feat. He tried to change the game. Maybe by bringing in AJ, he opens the doors for other international bradcasters/news outfits to come here. Not quite the effect Beatlemania had on the US music industry, but if selling Current to AJ does that, then the seven years of work by The Man Who Should've Been President will have paid off. As I said before: Let's give AJ a chance.
Best, Mike
A chance to what?
A chance to present news from a different perspective?
OK.
Deane... from what little I know of you (which is sad because I find you one of the more interesting people on the board), I think you are likely to be "up" for seeing things from different perspectives. The perspective you present on the board is the one that you find the most comfortable and I enjoying seeing your posts because it challenges me to think ... just like Missing's posts... and a number of others who I regularly read...
I still say this is a minor story that is being made major by some. Current TV is one of 300+ channels available. It is not common on most systems. Even if they do come into 1 out 25 homes, I doubt it will make any major difference in political discourse or beliefs. Also, they are not as extreme as many believe. Check the documentary, "Control Room", which concludes that this network is no more extreme than Fox.
Paul, I guess if you have no interest in progressive media, it is a non-story for you. For those of us who want to see more not fewer progressive media outlets (given that most media commentary is right-wing), it is an important story, losing another media outlet for non-conservative viewpoints. I don't even have cable so never watched any Current shows, though I listen to Stephanie Miller and Bill Press (both simulcast on Current) once in a while.
.
A TV news aggregation channel...
There's 'Newsy' (http://www.newsy.com)
and 'NewsLook' (http://www.newslook.com)
Also check out:
http://www.quora.com/Aggregators-and-Content-Aggregation
Thank you, Andrew. You understod what I was trying to say. It'll be intersting to see how this transition works out.
Best, Mike
You must log in to post.
