“A future soundtrack to a documentary about early-twenty-first-century malaise,” (Rolling Stone 2008) seems little more than another way of saying that Radiohead is the only fix to fill the cathedral craters one’s left with on a suicide Tuesday, if you know what I mean. If the last decade was a cultural and musical comedown from the British-lead chemically fueled love-fest of the 1990s, it looks like the comedown will outlast the peak, as is often the case this side of the analogy anyway.

The King of Limbs, released online February 18th, is the band’s eighth album and a follow-up to 2008’s In Rainbows. Most reviews note first and foremost, that The King of Limbs was not released like In Rainbows, which the band made available on their website as a pay-whatever-you-think-its-worth download. Unlike the ordinary payment method this time around, the video for “Lotus Flower,” probably the most mainstream-sounding track on
The King of Limbs, is a pretty blatant critique of the Industry from which Radiohead claimed their independence in 2004. The video, released with the downloadable versions (.mp3, or .wav for $5 more), ahead of the physical album (CD in stores March 28th , “Newspaper Package” including two clear vinyls May 9th), features lead vocalist and front man Thom Yorke dancing frantically in a bowler to a song that recalls Kid A’s How To Disappear Completely with the lines “I was thinking I would disappear, I would slip into your groove and cut me off” and “Just to feed your fast ballooning head/ listen to your heart.” The video, which concludes with an obvious “© Radiohead,” and Yorke’s mime-like movements remind us again in 2011 of our enduring need for Radiohead.
The album is only 37 minutes long simply because none of the band was in the mood to put out another full-length studio album. Yorke told The Believer in the summer of 2009, “None of us want to go into that creative hoo-ha of a long-play record again.” Their ever-evolving sound, now accompanied by an evolving form—that of the shorter album—is all at once subtler, smarter and funkier than ever before.

The album’s strongest track is the raw, haunting “Give Up the Ghost,” in which, I find, the lines “I think I should give up the ghost, into your arms,” recall the “haunted outtakes” in which “True Love Waits” (2001). On the funky, controlled “Separator,” Colin Greenwood’s sultry bass-line and Phil Selway’s spicy beat carry home the resounding message that Radiohead is here to stay: “Everyone, wake me up/ if you think this is over, then you’re wrong.”

Radiohead continues to fill important, otherwise unreachable spaces in the modern lives of those of us who listen. And these spaces are all at once more sensitive, more cultivated, and more impervious to what’s good, and what’s not, than they were when they were new. The King of Limbs confirms what we already knew about Radiohead, that they’re one of the extremely few—maybe the only—consistently good and already enduring post-pop groups on earth. The world needs Radiohead. And luckily, they’re not going anywhere.

“A future soundtrack to a documentary about early-twenty-first-century malaise,” (Rolling Stone 2008) seems little more than another way of saying that Radiohead is the only fix to fill the cathedral craters one’s left with on a suicide Tuesday, if you know what I mean. If the last decade was a cultural and musical comedown from the British-lead chemically fueled love-fest of the 1990s, it looks like the comedown will outlast the peak, as is often the case this side of the analogy anyway.

The King of Limbs, released online February 18th, is the band’s eighth album and a follow-up to 2008’s In Rainbows. Most reviews note first and foremost, that The King of Limbs was not released like In Rainbows, which the band made available on their website as a pay-whatever-you-think-its-worth download. Unlike the ordinary payment method this time around, the video for “Lotus Flower,” probably the most mainstream-sounding track on The King of Limbs, is a pretty blatant critique of the Industry from which Radiohead claimed their independence in 2004. The video, released with the downloadable versions (.mp3, or .wav for $5 more), ahead of the physical album (CD in stores March 28th , “Newspaper Package” including two clear vinyls May 9th), features lead vocalist and front man Thom Yorke dancing frantically in a bowler to a song that recalls Kid A’s How To Disappear Completely with the lines “I was thinking I would disappear, I would slip into your groove and cut me off” and “Just to feed your fast ballooning head/ listen to your heart.” The video, which concludes with an obvious “© Radiohead,” and Yorke’s mime-like movements remind us again in 2011 of our enduring need for Radiohead.

The album is only 37 minutes long simply because none of the band was in the mood to put out another full-length studio album. Yorke told The Believer in the summer of 2009, “None of us want to go into that creative hoo-ha of a long-play record again.” Their ever-evolving sound, now accompanied by an evolving form—that of the shorter album—is all at once subtler, smarter and funkier than ever before.

The album’s strongest track is the raw, haunting “Give Up the Ghost,” in which, I find, the lines “I think I should give up the ghost, into your arms,” recall the “haunted outtakes” in which “True Love Waits” (2001). On the funky, controlled “Separator,” Colin Greenwood’s sultry bass-line and Phil Selway’s spicy beat carry home the resounding message that Radiohead is here to stay: “Everyone, wake me up/ if you think this is over, then you’re wrong.”

American TV news is famously factious. In this country we have preserved the individual’s right to trust any, all or none of the many domestic, “serious” TV news channels like Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, among others. This gaggle of non-government-funded news reporting affirms, to a degree, our Americanness often at the cost of accuracy and of candid, level-headed discussion of world events.
Having backed away from the forefront of international news reporting, today’s America has no unbiased, singularly multi-voiced channel for world news, and we are left then to listen around for one. Seek and ye shall find…

Cue the Al Jazeera news channel, which emerged in Qatar a year after a successful generational coup in 1995.  Al Jazeera first descended from BBC’s Saudi station, which was dropped when the Saudis attempted to censor the news. It was then picked up as the first ever 24-hour Arabic news channel by the recently self-appointed Emir of Qatar.

The BBC’s influence is clearly apparent in the tone and aesthetic of Al Jazeera’s shows and website. It is bold and objective—much of the time an Al Jazeera report will opine in one direction and rapidly follow up with a dissenting report from a fresh, foreign perspective. This honest and objective presentation of world events, commonly called “contextual objectivity,” has so far earned the network international acclaim and made Al Jazreera English, its newest network, America’s best new chance at a grown-up domestic media scene.

Al Jazeera is not without some bias. While devoted to “contextual objectivity,” it is unafraid to take a clear stance on a regionally significant issues. When Al Jazeera Lebanon warmly welcomed home (from prison) anti-Israeli terrorist Samir Kuntar in July 2008, the network was forced to admit to having violated its own ethics. The station responsible for airing the story threw a party in honor of his release, part of a 2008 Isreal-Hezbollah prisoner exchange. Israel took the station’s behavior personally, promising to boycott Al Jazeera, a move which later prompted a formal apology from Al Jazeera’s general director. It was not until last spring that the Israeli government sanctioned Al Jazeera—but the sanctions were temporary, a response to Qatar’s having shut down its Israeli trade office (itself a move made in response to Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip).

According to a March 2009 article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, this Qatari-Israeli conflict climaxed in a summit after which Hamad bin Jassim, the Qatari foreign minister, declared that the two nations, “which had formerly enjoyed a working relationship,” would “be cutting ties.” Tensions with Israel, stemming largely from Jazeera’s coverage of Gaza, also contributed to enduring American mistrust of Al Jazeera English, a newer network contingent founded in 2006. Now, Al Jazeera is poised to change the world of news media.

Contrary to the American-Israeli perception, the Al Jazeera network is not anti-Semitic. The news itself, the unaltered truth of what’s going on, cannot discriminate even if it wants to. Only a tilted presentation may steer facts into anti-Semitic territory. And such a tilt, remarkably, has no place in the game with Al Jazeera English, which recently made its way to Canadian cable thanks largely to the exuberant efforts of former Canadian Broadcasting Company executive Tony Burman. Canadian Jewish media leaders are reportedly planning to protest AJE’s introduction, in expectation of its perceived anti-Semiticism. As Frank Dimant, executive vice president of B’nai Brith Canada, has argued, “the introduction of an English-language Al Jazeera into Canadian homes can only provide yet another outlet for vicious anti-Israel propaganda.” Yet North Americans should welcome this kind of controversy. It is exactly because of Al Jazeera’s devotedly unbiased presentation of world news—both sides of Gaza, for example—that this network is so controversial. The most boat-rocking opinions are hoisted to the forefront of the network’s programming, where they belong.

Take Al Jazeera’s coverage of Iran, for example. A recent online headline, referring to Secretary Clinton’s call on Iran to reconsider its nuclear programming, had three video links below: one an Al Jazeera interview with John Kerry; another, the Iranian view of a nuclear standoff with Mashaie arguing that “there is nothing illegal about 20% enrichment;” and another, an explanation of Iranian political gridlock since the 31-year-old revolution. Al Jazeera’s thorough reporting style offers many views of an issue, each set prominently and credibly against the others. Al Jazeera has the journalistic gumption, the influence, and the reputation for fairness to put together such a story.

  But the U.S. has a complicated relationship with the network. Before 2001, America’s stance on the already burgeoning Al Jazeera was that of a disinterested older brother, proud of its perceptible progress but unconcerned with its potential. Then the Osama tapes made a splash: after September 11, Al Jazeera released videos of Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, pleased with themselves, celebrating and defending the attacks they had orchestrated.  The American government accused Al Jazeera of propagating terror, but when the network responded that its only intention was to make known as much true information as possible, many American news stations nationally rebroadcast the tapes.

Still, in October of 2001, Colin Powell—who particularly disapproved of Al Jazeera—recommended that the Emir of Qatar disband the station entirely. Tension grew when an American missile destroyed Al Jazeera’s Kabul headquarters in November of 2001. One of the network’s cameramen was detained, uncharged, at Guantanamo Bay for more than six years, during which time he was asked repeatedly whether Al Jazeera was a front for al-Qaeda. Most recently, a 2008 US election broadcast on Al Jazeera English, including an interview with a Sarah Palin supporter who claimed that Obama “regards white people as trash,” blew up on YouTube. And again, Colin Powell accused Al Jazeera as being anti-American, arguing at the time that “those kinds of images going out on Al Jazeera are killing us.” He apparently does not understand the idea of contextual objectivity.

Truly democratic reporting is distasteful to the United States—for decades, it has deemed itself the premier promoter of democracy unto the lesser world.  We are slow to change here in the U.S., and it is no surprise that Canada would pick up Al Jazeera English before us. But the network’s popularity has escalated as of late. Eventually, we can guess, it will make its way into American homes. Although many Americans still think of Al Jazeera as “Terror TV,” there’s hope for progress—so listen up. Al Jazeera has reached our shores despite years’ resistance, and it is a-knockin’ on the front door. Al Jazeera English is waiting, with all the characteristic persistence of the truth, to be received into America’s living rooms.