Glorious and Free

Edited to take out some weird verbiage (not mine, okay?)

My friend and colleague, the Star's TV critic Vinay Menon, made the Huffington Post's Eat the Press today for using ''douchebag" in the paper to describe talking bowtie Tucker Carlson's impending appearance on ABC's Dancing with the Stars. Apparently we're the first mainstream paper ever to publish the word as a descriptive! This is what Vinay wrote:

You almost feel sorry for the guy. I mean, scrambling up the fame ladder in the footsteps of a former Playboy Playmate or The Guy Who Played J. Peterman on Seinfeld?

So, so sad.

During those Crossfire years on CNN, Carlson seemed to be on the verge of a powerhouse career. Sure, he often came across as just another smug douchebag in the beltway. But, hell, he was perched beside Robert Novak, and next to that crabby ideologue even Lou Dobbs would seem boyishly charming.

Menon gets props for using the word without quotes. Meanwhile I am credited with using it before him, back in 2004 after Jon Stewart appeared (video) on CNN's now-defunct Crossfire. Notes Huff Post ETP editor and native Canadian, Rachel Sklar:

In this case, however, Zerbisias was quoting directly, noting that Stewart had affectionately nicknamed Robert Novak "Douchebag For Liberty." Which technically qualifies as "news" as opposed to "wanton and gratuitous use of offensive terms in a family newspaper."

Was it Canada? Was my homeland secretly a bastion of lax moral newspaper standards and general newsroom debauchery? I turned to The Globe & Mail, that bastion of Canadian journalism: one match, also coincidentally in reference to Jon Stewart (this time in a review for "America: The Book" and the term is also used to describe Bob Novak). Next came the venerable National Post (or, venerable-ish after that whole Iran-badges-on-clothes thing) — a search in Canada.com yielded no usage of "douchebag" (and presumably, less-than-exacting reporting on Jon Stewart).

I turned to the U.S. papers: The New York Times, no ("Your search for douchebag in all fields returned 0 results"); The Washington Post, no; The Chicago Tribune, no ("No articles found on search for: douchebag"); and, somewhat surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times, no (you'd figure aggrieved Hollywood types would go a little blue now and again).

Well then, I would say that our work is done here, wouldn't you?

But Sklar does not entirely approve.

With his column today, Menon has taken it a step further and has himself employed the term as a slur, becoming the first journalist to do so in a mainstream publication, and his editors the first to let it slide.

<SNIP>

Given the term's typically profane nature and it's not-unmisogynistic connotation, I find it disappointing that Menon chose to use the word, and that the Toronto Star chose to publish it.

True enough. The unisex enema-bag would have been less sexist.

Off the rack

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT INDIGO DID NOT INTEND TO BLOCK THIS ISSUE:

The June-July issue of Free Inquiry mag was removed from the shelves at Indigo, Chapters and Coles stores across Canada. The editors are mystified as to the reason. I think they're being naive. (The boldface and link are mine.) Here's their letter to Indigo CEO Heather Reisman, as released to the media late this afternoon.

We have been informed by our distributor that Indigo, Chapters, and Coles stores across Canada declined to shelve the June-July 2006 issue of Free Inquiry magazine. This came at about the same time that the June issue of Harper’s Magazine - containing reproductions of the twelve Danish “Muhammad Cartoons” and commentary upon them by Pulitzer Prizer-winning cartoonist Art Spiegelman - was likewise barred from your shelves. Oddly, it came after our previous, April-May issue of Free Inquiry - which reproduced four of the twelve Danish cartoons - was, as best we can determine, shelved normally. We are also given to understand that Free Inquiry is now being inspected in advance on an issue-by-issue basis to determine its suitability to be shelved.

        First, we are dismayed when a distinguished bookselling organization such as yours - an organization that is, quite literally, in the business of facilitating free speech - stoops to censorship, whether before or after the fact. Whatever their potential to offend, the Danish cartoons had such important cultural and political consequences that all North Americans deserved the opportunity to examine the cartoons and judge for themselves. That many North American media quailed from republishing them is regrettable; that Indigo and its subsidiaries have refused their customers the opportunity to view them - at least, in the June Harper’s - is lamentable.

        In addition, we are dismayed when a major retailer behaves in a way that sends incoherent messages in the marketplace. Indigo and its subsidiaries refused their customers the opportunity to view the Danish cartoons in the June Harper’s, having previously permitted them to purchase the issue of Free Inquiry including some of the cartoons. Then customers were denied the opportunity to purchase the next issue of Free Inquiry. We are left to wonder whether the censorship of our June-July issue was in retaliation for our having published the cartoons in our previous issue, or whether it was motivated by some controversial content in the June-July issue itself. Presumably the controversial item was not Edward O. Wilson and Arthur C. Clarke, among others, congratulating one of us on attaining his eightieth year. Was it scholar Eileen McDonagh’s presentation of a novel defense of abortion rights? Or perhaps the article by controversial ethicist Peter Singer defending the cartoons and condeming the jailing of David Irving for Holocaust denial?

        Ms. Reisman, we find your organization’s behavior in regard to Free Inquiry most disappointing - not just because we abhor arbitrary restrictions on the free exchange of ideas, but also because we are perplexed by restrictions whose purpose seems incomprehensible. We would be most intrigued to know the reason why the June-July Free Inquiry was blocked from your shelves, and why our publication is now subject to issue-by-issue review. Free Inquiry has never retreated from controversy; if the things your organization objects to in our content turn out to engage the core values our organization exists to promote, we will simply have to content ourselves with reaching our Canadian readers through other venues. At present, however, we can do little more than scratch our heads over what your organization’s course of conduct in regard to Harper’s and our magazine might signify.

        We eagerly await your reply.

        Sincerely,

Paul Kurtz                                             
Founder and chair, the Council for Secular Humanism
Editor-in-Chief, Free Inquiry

Tom Flynn
Editor, Free Inquiry

(Note that the Borders chain in the U.S. banned the issue with the cartoons in it.)

Anyway, I read Singer's piece about David Irving and noted this:

Yet, the outcome of the publication of the Danish cartoons ridiculing Muhammad was a tragedy. More than a hundred people died in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and other Islamic countries during the ensuing protests and riots. In hindsight, it would have been wiser not to publish the cartoons. The benefits were not worth the costs. But that judgment is, as I say, made with the benefit of hindsight, and it is not intended as a criticism of the actual decisions taken by the editors who published them and could not reasonably be expected to foresee the consequences.

To restrict freedom of expression because we fear such consequences would not be the right response. It would only provide an incentive for those who do not want to see their views criticized to engage in violent protests in future. Instead, we should forcefully defend the right of newspaper editors to publish such cartoons, if they choose to do so, and hope that respect for freedom of expression will eventually spread to countries where it does not yet exist.

Unfortunately, even while the protests about the cartoons were still underway, a new problem about convincing Muslims of the genuineness of our respect for freedom of expression has arisen because of Austria's conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the existence of the Holocaust. We cannot consistently hold that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust and that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures. David Irving should be freed.

It's tough to argue with that logic. But those who gleefully published the offending cartoons will find a way, no doubt.

Now before some of you jump down my throat, as I know you will, note that I most definitely acknowledge that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, along with six million other Europeans, whether Roma, gays and lesbians, political prisoners or people the Nazis simply didn't like. I am friends with Holocaust survivors. I have seen the numbers tattooed on their arms and the haunted looks that remain still in the eys of many of them. I am friends with the children of Holocaust survivors. I know what it's like for them.

And I take second place to nobody on the history of the Holocaust.

Finally, a deeply personal admission: I called the  diary I kept as a young girl -- I have it still -- Anne, as an homage to Anne Frank's Kitty.

So please stick to the facts of the case here: If indeed Free Inquiry was banned by Reisman because of that Singer article, was it a justified banning? If so, why?

UPDATE (July 8): Today's Globe and Mail reports that the blocking of the magazine was inadvertent.

Joel Silver, senior vice-president of print procurement for Toronto-based Indigo Books and Music, telephoned Tom Flynn, the editor of Free Inquiry, with the news late yesterday afternoon.

According to Mr. Flynn, the Indigo executive "gave me a sort of a stammering apology, said that the June-July issue was blocked by accident, and that they have contacted [Ajax, Ont.-based Disticor Magazine Distribution Services] to send it through again."

<SNIP>

Calls by The Globe and Mail to four Indigo executives, including Mr. Silver, were not returned yesterday.

Mr. Flynn said from his office in Amherst, N.Y., that the June-July Free Inquiry will be available at Indigo for only about two weeks because the August-September edition already has been printed.

Indigo's Mr. Silver told him the issue would be sold "as normal." The retailer usually takes between 300 and 500 copies of each issue.

Mr. Flynn speculated that Indigo's apparent ban may have been prompted by a Free Inquiry editorial by the Princeton bioethicist and animal-rights activist Peter Singer titled "The Freedom to Ridicule Religion -- and Deny the Holocaust."

Mr. Flynn also suggested the apparent censorship may have been "in retaliation" for Free Inquiry's reproduction, in its April-May issue, of four of the 12 hotly contested cartoons that a Danish newspaper published last year satirizing the Prophet Mohammed. Their appearance in Free Inquiry went undetected by Indigo until late May when the retailer unleashed a storm of controversy by banning the June issue of another U.S. publication, Harper's, which had published all 12 Danish cartoons.

Carrier pigeons

The nascent Al Jazeera International, the English-language spin-off of the ginormous Arabic-language satellite news channel, is not getting much of an audience with your friendly local cable/satellite distributor, according to today's Globe and Mail.

A Rogers official said the English-language network doesn't fall under the company's strategy to build its roster of multicultural channels, though it has talked to AJI.

"We have been approached," Rogers spokeswoman Tanta Gupta said. "Our multicultural focus is actually on different languages . . . that's what we told them."

Yes but this is a NEWS channel.

The inability to get support in Canada has angered (Richard) Gizbert, a native of Toronto who will produce a half-hour news show for al-Jazeera out of London. He criticizes Canadian carriers for being too timid to pick up AJI because of the past controversies surrounding its parent network. The Arab-language channel is watched in some parts of Canada, mostly on satellite feeds from the United States.

"Frankly, as a Canadian, when the British ask me about this, I'm embarrassed . . . by the small-mindedness and the anti-intellectual thinking behind it," Gizbert said from London.

And so he should be. What are we afraid of in Canada? Seeing the Arabic point of view -- and so seeing how the other side of this so-called ''clash of civilizations'' see us?

If Canada's broadcast regulator does hold a public hearing to allow cable and satellite providers to argue in favour of adding AJI, the channel will probably face many of the same opponents that the Arabic-language version encountered a few years ago. In 2004, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission received more than 1,200 comments supporting the addition of al-Jazeera, but heard more than 500 comments against the idea.

The regulator decided to allow the channel, but made cable and satellite carriers directly responsible for whatever material was broadcast from Qatar. That proved too big a risk for any of the companies, so the network wasn't added.

Among the opponents were the Canadian Jewish Congress, which argued that several broadcasts promoted hatred toward Jews and Israel.

About the new spinoff, "We are at best skeptical," said Bernie Farber, the CJC's chief executive officer. "Unless there is some significant indication that they have every intention of not being the old al-Jazeera, I can't see at this point that we would not take the same action that we did last time."

That despite how Al Jazeera, the original, is available in Israel and the U.S.

Nothing like pre-emptive censorship.

Secrets police

Yes, it is coming to this. The Bushies are talking about jailing journalists for reporting classified information. That's what former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, now U.S. attorney general, actually said on Sunday while being interviewed on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said on the ABC News program "This Week."

"That's a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation," he said. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

He was referring to the 1917 Espionage Act, which made it a crime for an unauthorized person to receive national defense information and to transmit it to others.

Asked whether he was open to the possibility that the New York Times should be prosecuted for its disclosures in December concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program, Gonzales said his department was trying to determine "the appropriate course of action in that particular case."

Crooks and Liars has the clip and a transcript here.

Taking aim at truth

The ultra-conservative U.S. watchdog group AIM (the laughable acronym for Accuracy in Media) has declared war on Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language satellite news service that is about to launch an English-language channel, Al-Jazeera International.

The first salvo? A website called Stop Al-Jazeera plus Terror Television: The Rise of Al-Jazeera and the Hate America Media, a documentary purporting to supply about the channel:

If the U.S. loses the global war on terrorism, Al-Jazeera, the influential anti-American Arab television network primarily known as a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda, could claim responsibility. Al-Qaeda's second in command, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, has warned the U.S. of "horrors worse than the war in Vietnam" in a video which aired on Al-Jazeera. In a letter from Al-Zawahiri, obtained and deemed authentic by U.S. intelligence, the al-Qaeda leader declared that more than half of the war is taking place in the battlefield of the media. The letter noted the importance of Al-Jazeera in al-Qaeda's propaganda offensive.

Oh so what? Virtually all the media reported that. Here's CNN. Here's Fox. Here's the pro-Israel site Middle East Media Research Institute. (MEMRI.) It was news -- and more credible news than all of the Bushies' phony terror alerts put together,

Would AIM prefer to rip up the U.S. constitution and muzzle all the media -- or just the (non-American-controlled) media that originate from Arabic countries and might show a different perspective than the lapdog corporations stateside?

If you ask me ...

After all, Al-Jazeera is the network at the centre of that mystery leak in Britain which had U.S. Preznit George W. Bush suggesting the bombardment of its headquarters.

Anyway, Al-Jazeera International is negotiating cable and satellite distribution in the U.S. right now, and you can bet the same thing is going on in Canada. But odds are, the same forces that prevented the Arabic-language original from getting on our dial (legally) are already lobbying to ensure we don't see the English version.

If you care about getting this channel on your dial, write your cable and satellite operator NOW.

Media, you're doing a heckuva job!

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Radio-Television News Directors Association convention in Las Vegas that journalists will be embedded with the government during natural disasters.

Chertoff said that it is not a battleground so "we're not going to be censoring information."  But he also said that he doesn't want "interference with our physical operations," according to RTNDA.

So, does this mean that, contrary to previous claims, reports from the battleground in Iraq were indeed censored?

Inquiring minds also want to know whether embedding reporters with the government during natural disasters isn't just a way of putting a lid on the extent of the natural disaster. Remember Hurricane Katrina? If it weren't for the intrepid reporters, whether local or network, who slugged though the muck and mud to get out the ugly truth, just how much would we have seen of what a gigantic screw-up it was?

Gag Reflex

Every time a Conservative MP talks of shooting or jailing journalists for doing their jobs, I think that perhaps s/he would prefer the media systems in, say, North Korea where ''Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il is always flattered or, in Burma, where people are arrested for tuning in to the BBC.

This week, the New-York Based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) published its report on the  ''10 Most Censored Countries." They are listed here.

Note that none of them are democracies.

“People in these countries are virtually isolated from the rest of the world by authoritarian rulers who muzzle the media and keep a chokehold on information through restrictive laws, fear, and intimidation,” said CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper.

Any politician who threatens journalists for asking tough questions, or trying to report on the government, has a totalitarian inside itching to to goose step into perpetual power.

Up against the wall

Now the the U.S. right-wingnuts want to jail journalists for doing their jobs. Just read this --  an adaptation of this blog posting by Glenn Greenwald. (I have added a couple of links for clarity.)

Yesterday, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau received well-deserved Pulitzer Prizes for "national reporting" based on their (year-long-delayed) disclosure of the President's illegal NSA eavesdropping program. That award has unleashed a slew of bitter commentary from Bush supporters, including (former Regan cabinet member Bill) Bennett, proclaiming that Risen and Lichtblau belong in prison. On his radio show this morning, the great free press crusader Bennett said: "I think what they did is worthy of jail."

Here is more of what Bennett said:

We had reporters from The New York Times -- Risen and Lichtblau -- and a reporter from The Washington Post, Dana Priest -- took classified information, secret information, published it in their newspapers, against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president and others, that they not release it. They not only released it, they publicized it. They put it on the front page, and it damaged us, it hurt us. How do we know it damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program, so people are going to stop making calls. Since they are now aware of this, they're going to adjust their behavior.

On the secret sites, the CIA sites, we embarrassed our allies, who were hospitable enough to offer up their countries for these sites. We probably closed up other possibilities for doing this in other places. And by her own admission, Dana Priest said the story is boomeranging around Europe. And so, it hurt us there and, of course, led more and more people to condemn the CIA -- makes it harder for them to do their work. As a result, are they punished? Are they in shame? Are they embarrassed? Are they arrested? No, they win Pulitzer Prizes. They win Pulitzer Prizes. I don't think what they did is worthy of an award. I think what they did is worthy of jail, and I think this investigation needs to -- needs to go forward.

Today, Giant of Journalism Wolf Blitzer had a chance to go at Bennett on CNN but passed, instead giving Bennett a platform for more of his spew.

Oh, and here is one of the nutbars over at the totally whacked ain't-this-a-lovely-war-on-terrorism Power Line. (Emphasis mine)

Following in the footsteps of the AP last year, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize today for their treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists.

Oh yeah. Like terrorists wouldn't know that they might be spied upon.

Isn't it treason by the preznit when he blithely ignores peoples' civil rights?

Return fire

An update on Crossfire, a post a few weeks ago that referenced a damning report by Alison Weirs of If Americans Knew, whose mission is "to inform and educate the American public on issues of major significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media." (From the look of it, right now it's a single issue mission -- and that issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)

Weirs' damning report accused AP (Associated Press) of erasing a video of an Israeli soldier deliberately and randomly shooting a Palestinian boy. (More here, with video.)

When I contacted an AP spokesperson, he all but dismissed Weirs' charges. But, to be honest, he didn't do so as quickly as I would have thought he would have considering that the issue was out there. It took a day to get a statement. What's more, he didn't deny everything outright. You can read AP's statement on my original Crossfire post.

Yesterday I heard from Weirs who emailed:

It is not surprising that AP, which at first refused to comment, is now denying any misbehavior. When was the last time we heard a powerful institution admit, without immense outside pressure, that it had done something wrong? Almost all criminals cry that they didn’t do it. Some did. Claiming innocence does not make one innocent.

So now people have two versions to consider:

   1. My version, based on interviews with eyewitnesses (some on film) conducted in Balata and Nablus two weeks after the event, and
 

    2. The version now advanced by AP through Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, based on we’re-not-told-what evidence acquired over a year after the event, from New York.

The first step is to consider both of these versions carefully, and not automatically accept AP’s version, merely because it is the “establishment” one. I hope that people will not equate power with truth and will not automatically or unconsciously favor an institution over an individual. I hope that people will not automatically believe a corporation over a whistle-blower. I hope that AP’s enormous power and the advantages a journalist may gain from allying with it will not cause commentators to give AP’s assertions greater weight than mine.

In your evaluation, please keep in mind that I had little to gain from writing my article, and no reason to make things up. I have had friends who have been employed by AP and I have long held many AP journalists in high regard. I have no reason to be “anti-AP”, and am not. Moreover, I knew that in writing my article I was taking on a powerful organization with considerable influence and immense resources. Nevertheless, it seemed important to expose the facts I had discovered.

Her missive is much too long to post in its entirety here. I asked if she might put it up on her website so that I could link to it. She did. So here's the link. She provides a point-by-point refutation of the AP statement given to me. Says Weirs:

AP’s power to inform, or to misinform, the American public is truly gargantuan. It is therefore profoundly important that its practices be transparent, that it be open and responsive when there is evidence that its coverage is flawed, and that it abide by its own statement of principles: “Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.”

In 1914, AP’s general manager wrote: “I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect. The frailties of human nature attach to it...the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world’s happenings ... ethical in the highest degree.”

I applaud this shining statement, and deeply hope that AP’s members will hold AP to it.

Read it. Look at the video. Judge for yourself.

 

Getting Jazzed

On Sunday, the New York Times takes a look at Al Jazeera International, the new English-language news channel scheduled to launch in 40 million households in late May. So far -- still -- no cable or satellite provider has offered to carry it.

(S)ince its debut in November 1996, Al Jazeera has offended multitudes with news and commentary that do not necessarily conform to the views of mullahs or kings. To the outrage of social conservatives, the host of a religion show said the Koran did not forbid fellatio. Guests have questioned the right of the Saud family to rule Saudi Arabia. At some time or another, nearly every country in the Middle East — save Israel — has banned or curtailed its reporters.

Meanwhile Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has accused the network of "vicious lies" and of promoting an anti-American worldview. (An Al Jazeera journalist in Spain was sentenced last year in that country to seven years in prison for collaborating with Al Qaeda; Al Jazeera is appealing the verdict.)

The reality of what is on the channel is more nuanced. (See sidebar.) Just as the emir and Qatar play host to the American military while offering asylum to Saddam Hussein's wife, Al Jazeera offers a showcase for dissenting views — such as Dr. Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychiatrist who recently denounced some Muslims for what she called their backwardness — but a definite worldview dominates, one that is pro-Palestinian and skeptical of the West's intentions. Particularly America's intentions, post 9/11. Recently the administration has chosen to engage more with the channel; American officials, such as Condoleezza Rice, have occasionally appeared as guests.

<SNIP>

But since its debut in November 1996, Al Jazeera has offended multitudes with news and commentary that do not necessarily conform to the views of mullahs or kings. To the outrage of social conservatives, the host of a religion show said the Koran did not forbid fellatio. Guests have questioned the right of the Saud family to rule Saudi Arabia. At some time or another, nearly every country in the Middle East — save Israel — has banned or curtailed its reporters.

Meanwhile Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has accused the network of "vicious lies" and of promoting an anti-American worldview. (An Al Jazeera journalist in Spain was sentenced last year in that country to seven years in prison for collaborating with Al Qaeda; Al Jazeera is appealing the verdict.)

The reality of what is on the channel is more nuanced. (See sidebar.) Just as the emir and Qatar play host to the American military while offering asylum to Saddam Hussein's wife, Al Jazeera offers a showcase for dissenting views — such as Dr. Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychiatrist who recently denounced some Muslims for what she called their backwardness — but a definite worldview dominates, one that is pro-Palestinian and skeptical of the West's intentions. Particularly America's intentions, post 9/11. Recently the administration has chosen to engage more with the channel; American officials, such as Condoleezza Rice, have occasionally appeared as guests.

Both the Times and BusinessWeek report that, even if it doesn't get a distributor, it's going to launch anyway.

No matter how daunting its prospects, the new channel has the enthusiastic backing of Qatar's ruling Al-Thani family. Tiny Qatar has the world's third-largest natural gas reserves and fast-accumulating foreign assets, now estimated at $30 billion. Unlike Western broadcasters facing constant financial pressure, the Qataris are willing to fund the new outlet indefinitely, executives say. But it will share some resources with the Arabic channel, with 48 million viewers.

The American snub hasn't dissuaded the Qataris from giving the new channel the money to lure such on-air personalities as Veronica Pedrosa, a CNN Asia anchor, Dave Marash, a correspondent for ABC's (DIS) Nightline, and Rageh Omaar, the BBC's former Baghdad reporter. The attraction? Explains Frost: ``I try to be where the new frontiers are if I can find them, and obviously Al Jazeera is very much the new frontier at the moment.''

Few experts expect the channel to draw a mass audience. ``There is a small core of news junkies in America who will be interested,'' says Richard Wald, the Fred Friendly Professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. But to have a significant impact, he says, Al Jazeera will have to offer more than just Middle East expertise. Frost says he'll be featuring topical political interviews but lightening the lineup with guests such as Paul McCartney and David Beckham.

As tough as it has been in the U.S., Al Jazeera execs say they are not willing to compromise to ink a deal.

I just hope they pump it in, online.