Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Television News

Al Jazeera Gets a US Voice 444

Posted by Soulskill
from the hopefully-it's-not-gilbert-gottfried's-voice dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Al Jazeera plans to start an English-language channel available in more than 40 million U.S. homes, with newscasts emanating from both New York and Doha, Qatar. They announced a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore seven years ago. But the challenge will be persuading Americans to watch the award winning network with 71 bureaus around the world — an extremely tough proposition given the crowded television marketplace and the stereotypes about the channel that persist to this day. 'There are still people who will not watch it, who will say that it's a "terrorist network,"' says Philip Seib. 'Al Jazeera has to override that by providing quality news.' With a handful of exceptions, American cable and satellite distributors have mostly refused to carry Al Jazeera English since its inception in 2006. While the television sets of White House officials and lawmakers were tuned to the channel during the Arab Spring in 2011, ordinary Americans who wanted to watch had to find a live stream on the Internet. Al Jazeera's Robert Wheelock said, We offer an alternative. It's a broader coverage of news. It's a broader spectrum into countries that aren't traditionally covered.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Al Jazeera Gets a US Voice

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    After all, a non American involved in US broadcasting is clearly beyond the pale.

    Why next somebody from Rand McNally will make us wear hats on our feet and reverse the direction the water flows in our toilets.

    • After all, a non American involved in US broadcasting is clearly beyond the pale.

      The only people this will upset are the talking-heads journalists and folks who are too old (or too uninformed) to realize that the internet "does" TV.

    • by tepples (727027) <tepples@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:34PM (#42491447) Homepage Journal

      Subject: I expect Fox News to report on this heavily.

      After all, a non American involved in US broadcasting is clearly beyond the pale.

      That was sarcasm, right? K. Rupert Murdoch, head of Fox News Channel's parent company Fox Group (formerly News Corporation), isn't even as American as Barack Obama.

      • You haven't been paying attention. Rupert Murdoch became a naturalized US citizen in 1985, so that citizenship restrictions on US media ownership would cease being a problem.
    • by hoboroadie (1726896) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @08:53PM (#42492003)

      I use a diversity of sources, funny how all the big American networks are (un-)weighted on the slant/credibility scale.
      Al Jazeera is very easy to read as the CPU doesn't have to compensate for a lot of bias overhead .

      • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @10:58PM (#42492659)

        Everyone has bias, and if you havent seen it in your favorite news source its simply because
          * You agree with them, and / or
          * You havent been paying attention

        • False equivalence. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TapeCutter (624760) on Sunday January 06, 2013 @02:00AM (#42493389) Journal
          False equivalence [wikipedia.org] is the favorite propaganda tool of Fox news and similar organisations.' Sure all sources are biased, but not all sources are equally credible or equally biased. The difference between Fox and AJ is that Fox is first and foremost a political organisation and AJ is a news organisation. AJ aspires to be a credible representative of the free press specializing in it's own region, and they do a pretty good job of it. Fox wants to persuade you to vote against your own self interest and will knowingly lie to it's audience to achieve that, they also do a pretty good job but they're not doing the same job as AJ, BBC and other members of the "forth estate".
  • by bugs2squash (1132591) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:07PM (#42491239)
    Well actually I do, it's great to have an alternative voice and hopefully this will bring more understanding and humanity to the news.
    • by ivi (126837) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:26PM (#42491377)

      CBC's "As It Happens" & "The Current" news & current events programs are well worth a listen, eg, via podcasts.

      Warm - asking difficult questions sensitively (eg, about tragic stories), & providing time both for the whole answer -and- transitions between adjacent stories... sometimes playing fitting music between them.

      Smart - asking excellent & concise questions, giving time for interviewees' answers... but also asking excellent follow-up questions, so their probing questions -get- answered.

      Ever since the days of the (late) radio journo Barbara Fromm, these & other Canadian programs have kept the hard-hitting interview tradition alive & well. We love em!

      • Yeah, they cover a lot of important stuff that gets short shrift down here. [www.cbc.ca]

      • by Maow (620678)

        CBC's "As It Happens" & "The Current" news & current events programs are well worth a listen, eg, via podcasts.

        Warm - asking difficult questions sensitively (eg, about tragic stories), & providing time both for the whole answer -and- transitions between adjacent stories... sometimes playing fitting music between them.

        Smart - asking excellent & concise questions, giving time for interviewees' answers... but also asking excellent follow-up questions, so their probing questions -get- answered.

        Ever since the days of the (late) radio journo Barbara Fromm, these & other Canadian programs have kept the hard-hitting interview tradition alive & well. We love em!

        Love(d) AiH though haven't been listening in past couple years; still have to "second" your recommendation.

        Although - it's Barbara Frum - mother of David Frum, who was author of the "Axis of Evil" line whilst one of GW Bush's speech writers.

        More details here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frum) [wikipedia.org]:

        In 1971, she joined CBC Radio as one of the first hosts of As It Happens, a newsmagazine program which used the telephone to conduct live interviews with newsmakers and other witnesses to news events, as well

    • by Auroch (1403671)

      Well actually I do, it's great to have an alternative voice and hopefully this will bring more understanding and humanity to the news.

      Unfortunately, the simple fact of having an "alternative voice" does nothing to further understanding or humanity. To be directly beneficial, you must have something worthwhile to add with that voice, and it should be clear of bias and misdirection. As I understand it, Al-Jazeera is as biased and controversial as both the left- and right- leaning institutions already in place, and I fail to see how an additional news network adds anything beneficial to the conversation. Simply having another viewpoint isn

      • As I understand it, Al-Jazeera is as biased and controversial as both the left- and right- leaning institutions already in place,

        And how do you understand it?

        • As I understand it, Al-Jazeera is as biased and controversial as both the left- and right- leaning institutions already in place,

          And how do you understand it?

          Not sure what you're asking for - I already said that I understand it to be biased and controversial. If you'd like specific points of controversy, I'd suggest you do some research - as they say, google is your friend. You can start with their views on homosexuality, the dispute over journalistic independence from Qatar, and the anti-semitic tone that the arabic language version of the network has been known to support.

          As I said in the original post, I'm not saying the views they express are right or wron

          • I already said that I understand it to be biased and controversial. If you'd like specific points of controversy, I'd suggest you do some research - as they say, google is your friend.

            When people make claims such as yours, I expect them to provide support.

    • by poity (465672)

      Let's be careful to not be over-enthusiastic here. People have a tendency to regard new challengers as the bringers of light against the establishment. But history tells us that true change is rare, and more often than not it is just another group of liars for another group of tyrants.

      I hope we will regard them as critically as we regard any news outlet.

  • ... won't be finding viewers, it will be hanging onto their cable allocations.
  • Listed along with BBC & NPR, the Australian ABC broadcasts news & current events from Al Jazeera.

    However, what I want is to be able to hear current events & news from CBC, eg:

    + As It Happens
    + The Current
    + Quirks & Quarks (Sci.)
    etc.

    Until the ABC adds such CBC programs to their list, we can & do auto-fetch them as podcasts (eg, using an XP box + Juice 2.2)

  • On Dish Network, Link TV has shown the Al Jazeera English World News program as part of its Global News Hour for as long as I've had Dish Network. It's very hard to get me to part with money for a non-profit TV station, but I've actually donated money to Link TV before. Not much, but I did.

    Though certainly more liberal, they aren't just Democrats or Republicans, and have aired some great documentaries that none of the big players would have ever touched. And if you think they were all bleeding heart lefties

  • Seems that the Western Winter will come after the Arab Spring
  • by theedgeofoblivious (2474916) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:26PM (#42491367)

    As someone who's actually watched Al Jazeera English, I'd just recommend that people watch it before they judge it, rather than just assuming it's the "Al Qaeda network". It's not.

    • As someone who's actually watched Al Jazeera English, I'd just recommend that people watch it before they judge it, rather than just assuming it's the "Al Qaeda network". It's not.

      It would be wrong to simply evaluate the merits of Al Jazeera based on the opinions of others. It is equally wrong to assume that because you (or any individual) likes what they have heard, that it has merit. Multiple data points and opinions have value, and proving merit is much more difficult that disproving it.

      It takes a lot of time and evidence to prove credibility, and very little evidence to disprove it. Has Al Jazeera spent the time proving credibility? Or have they lost credibility through sloppy

      • by grcumb (781340) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @11:00PM (#42492665) Homepage Journal

        Al Jazeera is probably no better (or worse) than any of the american news networks.

        Al Jazeera are vastly better than American news networks. Vastly. First and foremost, they actually report on things that do not directly concern the USA. And when they do report on events in which the US is involved, the consider other perspectives, giving equal weight.

        If you want news from Africa, Central or South America, from the Asia-Pacific region - or hell, anywhere East of Iran - Al Jazeera is your best possible source. They have a great network of solid, professional journalists. They also recruit widely from outside the Beltway when bringing in outside analysis. Rather than balance, they tend to rely on expertise. The tone of their interview/discussion shows is respectful but quite pointed. Their interviewers generally avoid 'gotcha' questions, instead trying to legitimately present the ramifications of current events.

        As an example, if you want to understand the current tension between Islamism and progressivism in Egypt, there is no other source that even comes close. People who claim they are apologists for Islamic fundamentalism are just... wrong. Yes, they give time to the Muslim Brotherhood, because they're the largest faction in the fucking government right now. You simply cannot claim to understand the news if you ignore them.

        To use a less charged example, Al Jazeera's coverage of China's expansion into sub-Saharan Africa is simply world class. They don't weight their analysis with geopolitical or ideological bias, but neither do they pull any punches when demonstrating the economic, social and political tensions that have arisen as a result. Most refreshingly, their reporting is based on good old investigative journalism. They report from the factories, warehouses and marketplaces where the effects are most vivid. To my limited knowledge, no other news service has even come close.

        Al Jazeera does have a blind spot. There is virtually no mention of any bad news originating from Qatar, whose royal family sponsors them. They give more time to Libya, Egypt and Syria than to Bahrain and Iran (which is a short missile ride across the water). There is virtually no mention whatsoever of the US presence in Qatar or Bahrain, and no criticism whatsoever. But the unspoken diktat from the Crown Prince seems to be 'here's a short list of things you cannot talk about, but you are free to do what you like in every other respect.' It's not a perfect situation by a long stretch, but it's better than the global blind spot that US networks have to anything that doesn't impact their interests.

        Unfortunately, that's not a particularly strong supporting argument ...

        Viewed from the outside world, the US television media establishment is a sad, sad joke. I travel a lot in the Asia-Pacific region, and though I keep trying, I cannot watch CNN for more than a couple of minutes at a time. The other news channels don't even get a look in. It's the BBC World Service, Al Jazeera, or nothing, I'm sorry to say.

    • by surfdaddy (930829) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:59PM (#42491645)
      I've watched it a few times and came away impressed. My initial impression that it would be "Arab Propaganda" was changed to a belief that it is in some ways more open-minded than US journalism. It doesn't hurt to listen to multiple perspectives. They appear to be working very hard to do legitimate news in a very serious way.
      • by Dusty101 (765661) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @08:31PM (#42491851)

        Agreed. Al Jazeera is already available as one of the free OTA digital channels in many places in Europe - this should not be seen as a big deal.

        It's my understanding that many of its journalists have been trained in the West, and/or with Western news organizations such as the BBC. The BBC produced a fly-on-the-wall documentary about Al Jazeera a few years ago, & the staff definitely came across as modern, professional journalists to a fault. In one instance, the real-time translator stayed at his post even while his family were in an area of heavy fighting and he was unable to determine if they had been injured.

        Having watched it myself, as a white, non-Muslim Westerner with no connections or affiliations at all to the Middle East, I have generally found their news coverage to be more content-rich and less opinion-piece-filled than many of the major US news networks. if nothing else, their service is mercifully free of the obnoxious Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck "talking head" types that are unfortunately so common on the US networks.

  • by caseih (160668) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:30PM (#42491417)

    Yup here they come. Except for issues that have directly to do with the Qatari government and its interests (for example Arab Spring in Qatar), Al Jazeera english is quite fair and balanced. And they go a lot of places other news organizations are unable or unwilling to go. This may be unpleasant to Americans (the inside story of the civil war in Syria, for example), or even uncomfortable when the results of western action are exposed.

    In any case, give it a look see yourself. Go to their web site and watch right there online. Or do this:

    rtmpdump -v -r rtmp://aljazeeraflashlivefs.fplive.net/aljazeeraflashlive-live/aljazeera_eng_med | mplayer -

    • Here's the web url for watching if you don't want to use mplayer or vlc:

      http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/ [aljazeera.com]

    • by Andy_R (114137) on Sunday January 06, 2013 @07:16AM (#42494551) Homepage Journal

      In common with most 'world news' channels that claim to be unbiased, Al Jazeera is actually pretty good, provided you change channels when they report (or omit) events close to home. The same applies to another channel that Americans are likely to dismiss on name alone, Russia Today - they actually provide a solid and unbiased English language news channel when reporting on things that (to them) are both foreign and outside their sphere of influence.

      My advice is, if you want a really independent view of the world, watch BBC World, Al Jazeera and Russia Today, and trust them whenever 2 or 3 out of 3 agree.

      (disclaimer - I've briefly appeared on all three as founder of the Pirate Party UK, but not received payment from any of them. I did accept awful tea and coffee from the BBC and Russia Today â" the Russians hired satellite link facilities from the BBC so it was the same studio with the same BBC drinks â" while Al Jazeera bought me a tea from Starbucks. From an interviewee's point of view, Al Jazeera asked the toughest questions, the BBC seemed to have the lowest budget but were the only ones who offered to cover my travel expenses, and Russia Today were he only ones who expected me to want to pre-approve their questions).

  • by some old guy (674482) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @07:32PM (#42491439)

    I'm sure Nickelodeon and The Comedy Channel are already feeling the heat.

  • I believe with Al Jazera, and Fox "News"; we get White Noise! XD
  • My local PBS station carries Mhz Worldview which carries Russia Today, Al Jazeera, France 25 and NHK World broadcasts. I welcome this move.

    Hopefully we won't bomb their headquarters again like we did in Iraq. I can honestly say I get better, factual news from international sources about my own country than what CNN/MSNBC/Fox/ABC/CBS provides. It's pretty easy to see where the blackouts are when all the US networks won't cover one story but the international networks do.

    Yet people are still pissed off bec

    • by kenh (9056)

      "Yet people are still pissed off because AJZ played Osama Bin Laden videos?"

      No, they are pissed because they supressed some of the tapes [guardian.co.uk], edited or delayed the release of others.

      From the linked-to article:

      The network even canned an interview with Bin Laden conducted in October 2001, the month after the September 11 terror attacks in the US, because it did not consider it to be in al-Jazeera's style.

      I bet many would have liked to have seen that interview one month after the September 11 terror attacks...

  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @08:00PM (#42491655) Journal

    Its owner is the state of Qatar, hosts to the U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and Combined Air Operations Center. There is nothing "radical" about them. All "news" must receive clearance, Clarence...

  • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @08:02PM (#42491673) Homepage Journal

    I read Al Jazeera's English website regularly. They provide good news, good video clips, and seem right up there with the BBC or CBC for the quality of their reporting.

    But unlike the BBC and CBC, a lot of their news is about Asia and Africa, areas which aren't even *mentioned* on "mainstream" channels unless there is a major disaster or a few dozen people killed.

    Oddly enough, they manage to cover the world with only one front page to their website, the same screen real-estate that the other channels have.

    In comparison, the BBC and CBC are "local" news channels. And the US news feeds are just a freakin' joke -- they don't cover anything that can't be directly related to US white house policy. Navel-gazing waste of time -- no wonder most Americans are so ignorant about world politics and economic issues.

    • by isorox (205688) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @10:26PM (#42492501) Homepage Journal

      I read Al Jazeera's English website regularly. They provide good news, good video clips, and seem right up there with the BBC or CBC for the quality of their reporting.

      But unlike the BBC and CBC, a lot of their news is about Asia and Africa, areas which aren't even *mentioned* on "mainstream" channels unless there is a major disaster or a few dozen people killed.

      Oddly enough, they manage to cover the world with only one front page to their website, the same screen real-estate that the other channels have.

      In comparison, the BBC and CBC are "local" news channels. And the US news feeds are just a freakin' joke -- they don't cover anything that can't be directly related to US white house policy. Navel-gazing waste of time -- no wonder most Americans are so ignorant about world politics and economic issues.

      The BBC gives a tailored page depending on where you're connecting from.

      In the U.S. You get the U.S. front page. That's what americans want. I'm currently sat in Singapore, the stories on the front page are
      MAIN
      * Venezuela
      * India
      * Sudan

      VIDEO
      * Spain
      * USA
      * Czech Republic
      * UK

      Special report
      * arab uprisings
      * eurozone

      Now if I go through a U.S. proxy it's similar, drops the Sudan piece for some non-news on yet-another-shooting in Colorado. The in depth reports are different though.

      * Venezuela
      * India
      * Colorado

      VIDEO
      * Venezuela
      * Bolivia
      * Denmark

      SPECIAL REPORTS
      * China
      * US Election
      * US Sex Slaves

      It's only very recently that BBC World has become more widely viewable in the u.s.,

      • The BBC gives a tailored page depending on where you're connecting from.

        In the U.S. You get the U.S. front page. That's what americans want.

        I'm American, and I don't want that. But they let me switch to the international front page, so it's all good.

  • The first is that the Goracle accepts $100,000,000 of dirty oil money. The second is they closed the deal before the end of the year to avoid higher taxes. I thought democrats wanted higher taxes on the wealthy?

    Again, nothing wrong with a muslim, foreign nation's state owned media apparatus broadcasting into other nations. Could you imagine the outcry if the CBN bought the BBC?

    • Re:Oh the Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whistlingtony (691548) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @09:16PM (#42492141)
      " they closed the deal before the end of the year to avoid higher taxes. I thought democrats wanted higher taxes on the wealthy?"

      The deal closed after the new year. Gore will pay higher taxes. You're either wrong, or lying.

      " [] a muslim, foreign nation's state owned media apparatus broadcasting into other nations"

      What's wrong with muslims? We can talk about who's controlling the strings, and if that's good or not, but you busted out Muslim as a bad thing all by itself.

      You should perhaps consider that you're an uninformed racist, at best.

  • by mlookaba (2802163) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @08:50PM (#42491979)
    Let me understand this... Al Gore, Eco Warrior, founds Current TV, a left leaning political news cable channel. It is (last year) put up for sale. An offer from a conservative group is rebuffed, with the Current spokesperson saying, "the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.” Instead, they sell it, for $500 million (of which Al Gore gets $100 million), to the Government of Qatar, one of the top producers of fossil fuel in the world, a country were women have no voice, and homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. As icing on the cake, apparently Mr. Gore tried to push for the sale to be complete before the new year, so he could take advantage of expiring tax laws. "we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.”
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      to the Government of Qatar, one of the top producers of fossil fuel in the world, a country were women have no voice, and homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death.

      The Government of Qatar may make America's Christian Dominionists jealous, but don't try to use guilt-by-association to smear Al Jazeera.

      Al Jazeera is a moderate organization that focuses on news and not opinion.

    • by westlake (615356) on Sunday January 06, 2013 @12:28AM (#42493075)

      a country were women have no voice and homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death

      Where are these "facts" coming from?

      Among other things, the country is known for being the first country among Arab States of the Persian Gulf to allow women the right to vote.

      Women in Qatar vote and may run for public office. Qatar enfranchised women at the same time as men in connection with the 1999 elections for a Central Municipal Council. These elections --- the first ever in Qatar --- were deliberately held on 8 March 1999, International Women's Day.

      Qatar sent women athletes to the 2012 Summer Olympics that began on 27 July in London.

      Sodomy between consenting adults in Qatar is illegal, and subject to a sentence of up to five years in prison. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not covered in any civil rights laws and there is no recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

      Human Rights in Qatar [wikipedia.org]

  • This is London! (Score:5, Informative)

    by vm146j2 (233075) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @08:54PM (#42492011)

    Those of you not familiar with the history, Al Jazeera was founded by the staff of the BBC's Arabic language channel when they went into retrenchment (shut down the channel they did). The Qatari's foot the bill, but the overarching philosophy and quality are Auntie Beeb's. They only got a bad rap from the Bush administration for reporting honestly during the Iraq invasion, but basically they are the straightest shooters in the Arabic world, and one of the best sources of world news period now that the U.S. desks have given up on maintaining foreign bureaus.

  • by davmoo (63521) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @09:23PM (#42492195)

    I'll watch the channel, assuming Concast (and no, I didn't accidentally misspell it) will carry it. Al Jazeera can't possibly be any more biased than Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

    • I read and watched it for years and started as soon as they had stuff online in english. They seemed like it was made up of BBC people and then I read that many people there were former BBC people; which explained why the news was so much better than the American "news." I still prefer the BBC but for some stuff they are quite good. When the USA propaganda machine started on them it seemed unfounded given what I already knew about them (at least the english part of it.) The BBC didn't say anything bad abo

  • Al Gore (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @09:24PM (#42492205)

    The funniest part of this whole deal is that Al Gore pushed the sale to get completed prior to the new year to avoid Obamas tax increases. Not that I wouldn't do the same... but it's more of Al Gores "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense. I wonder if he was the sole passenger on a private jet that took him to sign the deal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

      Not that I wouldn't do the same... but it's more of Al Gores "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense.

      That's same BS as saying the Occupy guys were hypocrites for using apple products - as if they should cripple themselves into ineffectiveness by not using any and all tools available to them. Following the law and simultaneously wanting to change the law for everybody including yourself is not a case of "do as I say, not as I do."

      I wonder if he was the sole passenger on a private jet that took him to sign the deal.

      The jet plane which uses fuel that is priced above market to cover the carbon-offsets he thinks out to be made mandatory? How exactly is that hypocritical?

      If you want to critize

  • It's just what we need -- another "fair and balanced" network.

    Take an article from Al Jazeera that potentially makes the U.S. or a Muslim country look bad. Go to the Arabic version of Al Jazeera and translate the same article to English. You will then have two dissimilar articles from two not-so-compatible viewpoints.
  • by jbolden (176878) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @10:17PM (#42492453) Homepage

    The thing that Al Jazeera brings to the table is not unbiased journalism but journalism with totally different biases than US journalism.

    Al Jazeera doesn't care much about the Washington consensus.
    Al Jazeera is much more plugged into the UN
    Al Jazeera is not beholden to US corporate interests
    Al Jazeera is not likely to go through the same emotional cycles as Americans when important events happen

    I'm thrilled by the idea of Al Jazeera taking its place next to BBC America.

  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday January 06, 2013 @12:21AM (#42493047) Homepage

    Watching Al Jazeera as TV is somewhat wasteful of time, but it's worth reading their site. [aljazeera.com] Today's important item: trouble is brewing in the Balkans again.

    Other viewpoints to watch:

    • Russia Today. [rt.com] It's the official line, but it's worth seeing what that line is. (Russia Today, which is more of a tabloid, is less biased than Pravda. [pravda.ru]) Important item from Pravda: Russia is building a new generation of bigger ICBMs, in case the US builds missile defenses.
    • Xinhua [chinaview.cn] the semi-official paper of the China. Important item today: "Yuan to strengthen mildly in 2013: analysts". The US has been lobbying for a weaker yuan. Not going to happen.
    • South China Morning Post, [scmp.com] Hong Kong's top newspaper. If something important appears in People's Daily, they'll have some good commentary on it. Important item today: multiple stories on trying to figure out what Xi Jinping is going to do now that he's taken over.

    It's hard to find any coverage of those subjects in US dailies.

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.

Working...