"Al Jazeera America to close: A loss for creative shooter"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was only available on cable, and it was a premium service from our provider. That said, I think there is a market for hard news and good longer stories. The way to do it would be for a big player to put together a network of broadcast channels in major markets. There are numerous channels in every major market that run nothing but 70-year old movies and TV from the 50's. They need content, so they could sell something besides staircase lifts and wheel chairs.
 
I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe AJ folded because what they produced wasn't very good. As in their material wasn't very "creative" and they weren't producing "strong journalism". The fact that they only scraped up 30,000 viewers may be a reflection that they weren't commercially viable. Just like a donut shop that closes because they makes bad donuts...
 
pkw11 said:
I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe AJ folded because what they produced wasn't very good. As in their material wasn't very "creative" and they weren't producing "strong journalism". The fact that they only scraped up 30,000 viewers may be a reflection that they weren't commercially viable. Just like a donut shop that closes because they makes bad donuts...
Click to expand...

I disagree... a lot of the documentary pieces they were doing were really creative and unique. Steve James had a series on there that was amazing. I do agree that perhaps their content wasn't commercially viable... people would rather see the over the top sensational drivel that will likely be airing on the new Viceland channel.
 
Killick said:
I disagree... a lot of the documentary pieces they were doing were really creative and unique. Steve James had a series on there that was amazing. I do agree that perhaps their content wasn't commercially viable... people would rather see the over the top sensational drivel that will likely be airing on the new Viceland channel.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion and a value judgement. AJ is a business entity and it's rather obvious that whatever they were creating had virtually no market. If they want to make art, then they are free to do so. But blaming the lack of advertisers or the American public for not watching, well that's just silly.
 
I never put any blame on advertisers or the American public, I know what people like to watch. Simply stated that they were producing and commissioning work from filmmakers at at time when it is getting more and more difficult to get funding to make independent films. And that losing that is a bummer. That's all.
 
Killick said:
I never put any blame on advertisers or the American public, I know what people like to watch. Simply stated that they were producing and commissioning work from filmmakers at at time when it is getting more and more difficult to get funding to make independent films. And that losing that is a bummer. That's all.
Click to expand...

http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/...tshardearnedsixpartoriginalnewdocumentar.html

I can't see any business in this country buying advertising for a doc series like this. There's always PBS and traditional funding sources--nothing is preventing independent filmmakers from going after funds. It's really unrealistic to expect works such as this to get advertising and obviously, AJ never did have a real business plan.
 
As a sometimes viewer of AJ, I really appreciated there content which had genuine depth and a different perspective than the pablum that CNN serves up. I also appreciated that they didn't always jump to the most sensational story of the day and go non-stop on it in lieu of a more balanced approach. I just don't think many viewers have the attention span to appreciate the depth.

Grant
 
pkw11 said:
I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe AJ folded because what they produced wasn't very good.
Click to expand...

Whether something is a success or not in television rarely has to do with a product being good or not. Just look at the deluge of reality TV like the Kardashians. Success in quality are not linked often and most times being successful is a matter of appealing to the lowest common denominator which is what you see most 'news' stations moving towards. Why have real journalism when you can just have pundits taking extreme positions and yelling at each other.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Whether something is a success or not in television rarely has to do with a product being good or not. Just look at the deluge of reality TV like the Kardashians. Success in quality are not linked often and most times being successful is a matter of appealing to the lowest common denominator which is what you see most 'news' stations moving towards. Why have real journalism when you can just have pundits taking extreme positions and yelling at each other.
Click to expand...
You can't have your cake and eat it too. I think that Spielberg and George Lucas have never made a good film. And "Titanic" was as big a disaster as its namesake's first voyage. I bet that hardly anyone on DVXuser agrees with me and would give their right arm to be the DP for these guys.

So the measure of success and value and "good" is SUCCESS as in $$$$$! That's what commercial television is all about. If we're talking about art, well then that's an entirely different issue. AJ was a TV network. It failed because it didn't have any viewers. Nothing is preventing filmmakers from making films. Just don't expect private companies to pay them for that privilege.

It is also not true that the failure of AJ to attract viewers is because the American population doesn't appreciate "good" or meaningful films about hard hitting, difficult topics. To conclude that is just being elitist. Apparently AJ couldn't even attract 40,000 viewers--surely if they were producing really "good" content, regardless of what that was, they could have found an audience in a country of 318,000,000 people.
 
Last edited:
ggrantly said:
As a sometimes viewer of AJ, I really appreciated there content which had genuine depth and a different perspective than the pablum that CNN serves up. I also appreciated that they didn't always jump to the most sensational story of the day and go non-stop on it in lieu of a more balanced approach. I just don't think many viewers have the attention span to appreciate the depth.

Grant
Click to expand...

+1

Both from being an arab/foreign-owned network, and a legacy of giving interviews to Al Queda in the 90s; the potential for AJ America was probably limited from the get go. Add to that the really poor availability in the US (on cable, they were in very few markets); how could they realistically build any kind of substantial audience?

The definitive reason AJ America is ending, is because the new Emir of Qatar sees AJ as more of an impediment to his political goals than his father did. The press is saying the entire enterprise is likely to scale back dramatically and probably end entirely.

I think on balance AJ America did some very good journalism; miles ahead of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.
 
pkw11 said:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. I think that Spielberg and George Lucas have never made a good film. And "Titanic" was as big a disaster as its namesake's first voyage. I bet that hardly anyone on DVXuser agrees with me and would give their right arm to be the DP for these guys.

So the measure of success and value and "good" is SUCCESS as in $$$$$! That's what commercial television is all about. If we're talking about art, well then that's an entirely different issue. AJ was a TV network. It failed because it didn't have any viewers. Nothing is preventing filmmakers from making films. Just don't expect private companies to pay them for that privilege.

It is also not true that the failure of AJ to attract viewers is because the American population doesn't appreciate "good" or meaningful films about hard hitting, difficult topics. To conclude that is just being elitist. Apparently AJ couldn't even attract 40,000 viewers--surely if they were producing really "good" content, regardless of what that was, they could have found an audience in a country of 318,000,000 people.
Click to expand...

Yup Titanic sucked.....I totally agree 😉
 
Hey Moderator, LOCK THIS THREAD

Hey Moderator, LOCK THIS THREAD

Moderator, just lock this thread because it has become political. Making value judgements against American news organizations and expressing the opinion that AJ somehow produced better journalism is just ridiculous. So lock it now--people here should stick to arguing about film vs. video and the merits of the latest gizmo out of Japan.
 
I shot the film "Midterms", a 3 part series that aired on AJA in 2014. It was an independent production that was commissioned by AJA, and I can say from experience that at no point in the process did any political or religious bias play into the making of the program.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/midterms.html

I had also been speaking with them about a new film I am producing which is a poetic look at adolescent boys transitioning to adulthood in dying industry towns across the US. They were looking to expand their "Americana" journalism and documentary content. It was actually pretty exciting to see an organization so interested in more artistic and character driven films when the landscape is so saturated with "issue" documentaries.

Say what you will about their viewership and ad revenue, but the documentary programs they were broadcasting were top notch and not at all influenced by political or religious bias. And I am saying that based on my experience working with them. Again, it's a bummer to lose that kind of content.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top