Al Jazeera Can’t Find Advertisers for its US Propaganda Channel

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


And now an ad for Bounty Wipes

And now an ad for Bounty Wipes

Not a huge surprise when you consider that Al Jazeera America is replacing Current TV, a failed liberal channel, while inheriting chunks of its programming slate, and is just a vanity project for an oil-rich tyranny that doesn’t really care if it’s financially viable or not.

Advertisers have no motivation to climb on board the Al Jazeera train considering that its viewing audience consists of people who think MSNBC is too right wing or that you can’t get the truth from American news networks because they’re controlled by the Illuminati.

Advertising is about brand identity. Advertising on CNN associates your product with its brand. Advertising on Al Jazeera associates your brand with the news network best known for airing Bin Laden’s Greatest Hits.

But Qatar doesn’t care. It slapped down a wad of cash for Al Gore’s own vanity project because it is seeking to extend its power and influence. It’ll never make money, but it will help build the influence of Al Jazeera which builds the influence of Qatar.

And it’s not hard to imagine a time too far away when companies that do business with Qatar will be “encouraged” to advertise on Al Jazeera. It may be happening already for all we know.

The network launches with just six minutes of commercial time an hour — less than half the typical ad load of a cable news channel. Most of those will be in-house promos and local ad spots as national advertisers shun the controversial network.

The Mideast news outlet, funded by the government of Qatar, is gunning for an American audience despite a deep distrust in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war.

While Al Jazeera is spinning the lack of ads as a positive for viewers, behind the scenes it is having a tough time persuading Madison Avenue to buy airtime on a network perceived as anti-American.

“I wouldn’t give them a dime, especially since we are in New York,” said one advertiser, who asked not to be named.

“They’re owned by an Arab country and they ran the [Osama] bin Laden tapes. I just wouldn’t trust them,” he said, referring to Al Jazeera’s role in gaining access to the late al Qaeda leader.

A major ad agency buyer who was pitched on the channel was even more blunt: “Not touching that one.”

For now. But good for them at any rate.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Well, Al Jazeera could always call on CAIR,the ICNA, the ISNA, the MSA, the Muslim Lawyers Guild, the League of Affiliated Imams, GM, the Coca Cola Company, two or three of Obama’s failed Green companies, and perhaps a handful of Sharia-compliant banks to make “public service” announcements to fill that empty air time.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Actually Al Jazeera America television is stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad that neo-cons like the writer would claim is terrorism, only it isn’t violent so he can’t. Thus, because it isn’t terrorism, which is always and only violent, in stark contrast to jihad, which is both violent and non-violent, it is allowed to manifest totally unopposed, even though it is jihad just as much as the 9/11 jihad attacks were also jihad. Indeed, it was just this kind of unhinged reasoning on the neo-cons part that led to the strategic fiascoes in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

    • Northstar

      The only one unhinged here is you.
      Your rant doesn’t even have anything to do with the post.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Okay…according to you Iraq and Afghanistan were glorious victories instead of what they really are and democracy is springing out all over the Islamic world as a direct result as we have seen in Libya, Algeria, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt. Some of you guys are just more than a little delusional as you just can’t let go of the past and learn from your errors.

        • Northstar

          Unhinged Rant #2
          Doesn’t have anything to do with my comment

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Actually both of them do, but very apparently they sailed right over your head. Oh well.

          • Northstar

            No they didn’t.
            Your unhinged rant did not have a single thing to do with my comment.

        • Moa

          Actually, Iraq and Afghanistan were victories. Hard fought for sure, but the West was still victorious. What has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory are premature withdrawals that Obama did for domestic US political reasons. He’d rather throw away the whole geopolitical situation for his personal domestic political gain.

          Consider Germany, Japan, Korea. These were successfully transformed into countries that advance global civilization because the US invested in them for decades.

          The US could easily have done with Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, it handed them over to Iran and Pakistan (respectively). All the blood an treasure that was spent to gain victory was pissed away due to Democrat defeatist ideology (which originates in Marxist “Critical Theory”).

          So, you think you are being morally superior by condemning war. You are not. You are simply parrotting Marxist Critical Theory – which arises because deep down you don’t want the West to win. You are not interested in advancing human rights and democracy using the muscle of the US. You would rather the US loses (which mean the Iraqis and Afghans lose).

          The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan happened. Get over it, ffs! Instead of aiming for victory moral weaklings like yourself want to endlessly re-litigate the decision to go to war. This only helps the enemies of human rights (Iran and the Taliban). That makes you an enemy of human rights (which sometimes do have to be advanced by occupation, as history shows).

          • defcon 4

            “The US could easily have done with Iraq and Afghanistan”? Only in your delusions.

          • Moa

            Is that all you’ve got? Not facts, not reasoning, no history ? Just a vacuous accusation of “delusion” ?

            Actually I would argue that it is you who is delusional. Why? Because winning the peace was completely within the power of the US. It won the hard military fight, and with the stubborn Bush in power it won against all critics (which actually showed he was the right man for the job – persistence is one of the greatest virtues). It was only the advent of a Democratic government that withdrew unnecessarily, for selfish political reasons. The Democrats signalled to the enemies of Enlightenment Culture their unwillingness to contemplate victory. They “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory”, again. That makes them criminally treacherous in my book.

            The US can win every war it gets in to. What it lacks is the will to win. This is because of the pervasive influence of Cultural Marxism in its academia and culture. It is Marxist Critical Theory that leads you do write “delusion”, when clearly this is false. The US has a dozen aircraft carrier battle groups. Each one of these has more firepower than the air force of most nations. There are a similar number of Marine Expeditionary Units – each of which can invade most countries. But when it came to Benghazi not a finger was lifted. Why? because the US Democratic Party lacks the will to defend its own Ambassador and citizens with the assets gifted to them by the US taxpayer.

            The US loses because of *your* delusion. It loses because it has convinced itself it cannot win. In its obese sloth it lacks the will to exert itself for any kind of victory.

            So quit the bullshit. Your view may be popular, but it is false, defeatist and quite simply delusional.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Dude, lighten up. You make some very valid points but your insulting delivery of them makes people ignore you as a crank. Seriously.

    • TangoTommy

      Who said terrorism is always and only violent. Define “violent”.
      How about brain-washing. Isn’t that violent? If you mean terrorism is always physical violence, I do believe you are dead wrong. Ask the lady cop at Fort Hood down and injured with a malfunctioning gun, while crap-for-brains is standing over her with a pistol pointing at her. She’s only alive because HIS gun malfunctioned.

    • putthehammerdown

      You’re bringing up valid points, but you could have shortened-up your wordiness, considerably.
      Jihad means [effectively], ” Struggle “. No matter if it terroristic or intellectual, it’s all aiming for the same end-point.
      Neo-con precipitated or not, terrorists and revolutionaries throughout history are willing to take hits, play long-ball and do whatever it takes.
      Vietnam is but one example.They [Ho and his buds] knew that eventually France, and then America, would up and leave and they’d still be there, and acted accordingly.
      It was thus in Iraq, Afghanistan and virtually everywhere else we have gone to ‘spread our messages’. Instead of just doing our own good works here, providing a concrete example or two, & encouraging them to come to us for assistance to replicate same, we reversed the scenario and duplicated thousands of years of other countries’ failures.
      The Waste involved, boggles the mind and sends it reeling……

  • defcon 4

    All companies and politicians that collaborate and/or support islam should be boycotted by the najjis kaffir. Any cable company that carries Al Jizz will be losing my business in a quick minute. Ditto for any company advertising on said “news network.”

  • spyeatte

    I wouldn’t buy anything from an advertiser that advertised on Al Jazeera.

    • TangoTommy

      I’m rapidly reaching the point where I won’t buy anything advertised on
      NBC, MSNBC, and CNN

      • EagleJoe

        I agree 100% not only wont i buy anything from them but when i find out that they are advertising i send them a letter and tell them why i wont be buying their product. It is impossible to comply 100% but i will do what i can.

    • putthehammerdown

      Anyone reading these words can ‘do something’, right here and now.
      Pick a program, any program will do, and note all the advertisers.
      Look up all their PR addresses and E/M them. Tell them that they are dead to you [in so many words] and that ‘you are done’. Note alternatives to their products, and that you’re [politely] encouraging all in your social circle to do likewise.
      No swearing, PLEASE, and tell ‘em why, in one paragraph. Too many lines gets you ignored.
      Do it once a month and vary your targets. You’ll be kinda’ surprised at the responses you’ll get, and you will get some.

    • Sam

      I’ve been watching Al Jazeera since it showed up in my selection(no choice of mine). I’m shocked that pretty much the only advertisements that I saw were for themselves or were PSAs. So not buying would be evading your taxes good luck.

  • Bexcee

    Make sure you let all advertisers know they will lose customers if they do advertise the enemies of the US.

  • jan

    florida family assoc. has been actively sending messages regarding advertisers and enables those concerned to easily contact them – check their home page to see how effictive this has been with advertisers! http://floridafamily.org

  • Sam

    The fact that the US government is paying for public service announcements on Al Jazeera despite almost no ratings just shows the danger of Crony Capitalism. They don’t need real advertising so don’t look for this network to drop off your T.V. Guide anytime soon.

  • ANI N DA UK

    Procter and Gamble are their only major advertisers.