Was Al Jazeera America Doomed From the Start?

You may have heard that today Al Jazeera announced it is shuttering Al Jazeera America, the US-based and US-focused version of the wildly successful global news network. Let me start by saying I know a number of people did and in many cases still do work there. So I wish them all the best and admire all the work they did there individually and collectively. But on hearing this news I was reminded of a partnership-type conversation a colleague of mine and I had with an AJA executive I guess maybe two years ago.

It was eye-opening and jarring.

This was around the time of AJA’s launch and the conversation was with an American national – someone with plenty of experience in the US media world. But this person had clearly been in a deep mind meld with the executives in Qatar and deep into the planning and strategy. With all that, and for reasons which will soon become evident, it was still clear that this person had maybe half of three-quarters bought into the concept but also had another part of their head thinking: does this make any sense? O, are we understanding the US market?

I think this person part bought into this and part thought the execs in Qatar would just need to learn the hard way that it might not be that simple.

What we were told were very, very optimistic predictions for the networks roll out. I think I remember hearing about matching CNN’s viewership in something like 6 months or a year. But here was the key. It wasn’t the optimism but the basis of the optimism. For all the money involved, for all the research of the American market and all the Americans hired to run the operation, I was astounded by how much the business strategy seemed to totally fail to understand the American media market.

The idea was basically that AJA – much as the AJ parent company had been in the states of the Arab Middle East – would be a real-talking, looking at the dark underbelly source of news that would rapidly disrupt the state-aligned/corporate media that currently dominated the US news market. In other words, just as Al Jazeera had revolutionized the media world in say Iraq or Egypt or the Gulf States by rapidly displacing what amounted to stolid and tightly-controlled state news services, the AJ execs seemed to think the dynamic in the US would be at least broadly similar.

Now, of course, there is a corporate media. And CBS and ABC and Fox and all the others are owned by generally risk-averse multinational corporations that are reluctant to move dramatically against the government in power or majority opinions. And this general take on ‘corporate media’ may be arguably true in some very deep and subtle Gramscian sense. But if you think it’s true in the way the AJ execs seemed to think it was true you truly have zero understanding of the US media market, US politics, really US anything.

Are Americans who watch a lot of cable news hungering for more hard-hitting news about poverty in America? Is that the ticket to audience growth? I think we should have more coverage of poverty in America. But no, if you are looking for audience numbers, no, that’s not the ticket. Fox News has the ticket. And if you’re not hunting for a conservative audience, there are liberal variants to get you to the same place.

I want to emphasize that I don’t think the people who I saw on the air recently or the ones writing for the AJA website thought anything like this. There are lots of good reasons tied to good journalism which totally justified what AJA was trying to do. But the idea that this approach was a turnkey way to disrupt and become a dominant force in the US news market is simply insane. Indeed, the folks back in Qatar must have been disabused of this nonsense pretty quickly. But all of this makes me think that the whole effort may have been almost destined to failure from the start. This whole effort, on which so much money was spent and from which many hoped for such great things, may have been based on a cartoonishly caricatured understanding of the American media landscape.

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest Edblog
  • |
    August 11, 2022 4:22 p.m.

    Federal judge orders DOJ to confer with Trump lawyers and report to him by 3 PM tomorrow about how to…

  • |
    August 11, 2022 3:41 p.m.

    A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Josh and Kate discuss stunning developments in Kansas…

  • |
    August 11, 2022 3:15 p.m.

    Two significant takeaways from Garland’s presser. Garland personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant and carry out the…

  • |
    August 11, 2022 2:20 p.m.

    We’re awaiting a statement from AG Merrick Garland currently scheduled for 2:30 PM eastern. Presumably this is about the incident…

Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: