US President Barack Obama speaks before Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (3rdR) and other cabinet members during a meeting on November 16, 2012. Credit: AFP/AFP/Getty Images

The United States government will hit its debt limit on December 31 and is set to turn to “extraordinary measures,” says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Economists predict the $200 billion in overhead funding will last the federal government about two months.

This is not the first time the debt ceiling has posed a threat – this time last year the U.S. approached the limit, coming dangerously close to defaulting on the debt. Special measures were taken to continue paying bills while Congress passed legislation to raise the debt ceiling. Despite advance warnings that the U.S. would approach the debt ceiling again at the end of this year, not much progress has been made. Congress will again work with the limited timeframe allowed by the overhead budget to pay government bills while negotiating a new debt ceiling.

This year though, more unpredictable circumstances related to the fiscal cliff may complicate arrangements for a new debt ceiling. Depending on whether or not a fiscal cliff deal is finalized before the end of the year, Congress could have different amounts of time to spend the $200 billion. If a deal doesn’t pass and the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff, the immediate tax increase will mean that the government is spending less money, thus allowing longer negotiations for a new debt ceiling. The timeframe for debt ceiling plans could vary depending on what kind of fiscal cliff deal, if any, passes.

Some analysts have called for the end of the limit on government debt, arguing that the frenzy to raise the debt ceiling to avoid defaulting on obligations is harmful to domestic politics and international relations. How should Congress deal with the debt ceiling during fiscal cliff negotiations? What should the government prioritize? Should there be a debt ceiling at all?

Dave Clarke, Financial Services Editor for POLITICO

(l to r) John Krasinski, Gus Van Sant and Matt Damon on the set of Promised Land, a Focus Features release. Credit Scott Green Credit: Scott Green

Guest host David Lazarus is joined by KPCC film critics Henry Sheehan from dearhenrysheehan.com and Lael Loewenstein from Variety to review the week’s new film releases including Promised Land, Parental Guidance and more. Plus, the critics and David look back at the films of 2012 to highlight the best overlooked films of the year. TGI-FilmWeek!

Promised Land

Parental Guidance

Lael Loewenstein, film critic for KPCC and Variety

Henry Sheehan, film critic for KPCC and dearhenrysheehan.com

Actor Harry Dean Stanton in "Repo Man." Credit: Repo Man

Star wattage and marquee value are all well and good, but what truly brings reality to the screen? The loss this week of Jack Klugman and Charles Durning reminds us of how important great character actors are to the history of film.

"The character actors have been with us for so long and they're so valuable and sometimes they say they make the picture. " said film critic Henry Sheehan on AirTalk. "'12 Angry Men' was Henry Fonda and 11 character actors. they had to put the camera on him a lot just to keep him from being upstaged."

Character actors can be immensely talented, and their performances are frequently praised and awarded. You’ve seen their faces in dozens, maybe hundreds of films, but do you know their names? Despite their on-screen shine, the actors who play, “just one of the guys,” manage to stay out of the limelight.  

"There's a certain familiarity that they bring with them, so for instance the actor James Rebhorn, who was in 'Independence Day,'" said film critic Lael Loewenstein. "That's the tough thing with character actors, is rarely can we put a name to them, but you see them you know them they bring in that little touch of what it is they do...Every now and then you get a character actor who's elevated to a leading actor status, like Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who used to be pretty much known as a character actor."

What are some of your favorites? Let us know in the comments below. 

Lael Loewenstein, film critic for KPCC and Variety

Henry Sheehan, film critic for KPCC and dearhenrysheehan.com

115-year-old Jiroemon Kimura with representatives from the Guinness World Records.

Credit: /© AP

It may be difficult to fit 116 candles on a birthday cake, but the loved ones of Jiroemon Kimura, the oldest man in recorded history, may have to do exactly that as the 115-year-old Japanese citizen inches closer to his next birthday. Kimura was born on April 10th, 1897 in Kamiukawa, Japan when Queen Victoria still reigned over the British Empire, according to birth records. As of December 17, 2012 he is the oldest man currently living, according to Guinness. Japan is home to many of the world’s oldest people and the remote Japanese island of Okinawa has one of the top three oldest populations worldwide.

Residents of Loma Linda, California also regularly live for more than 100 years, making it one of the oldest populations in the world as well. Many health experts attribute the longevity of Loma Linda’s population to their healthy diet and lifestyle.

The oldest living person on record was a French woman named Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122.

What explains extraordinary longevity? What can be done to improve the likelihood of living for more than 100 years? Why do people in certain communities live significantly longer than others?

Mark Lachs, M.D. , Director of Geriatrics for the New York Presbyterian Health Care System; physician, scientist, and gerontologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City; author of What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About Getting Older: An Insider’s Survival Manual for Outsmarting the Health-Care System

Jay Olshansky, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health

An elderly woman rides a tricycle along a road in Beijing. Credit: AFP/AFP/Getty Images

As the holidays wind down in America, some family members may find themselves relieved to escape the presence of their parents. Here in the United States, and other Western countries, we are free to engage with our parents as much or as little as we want. However, a recently amended law in China does not grant its citizens such leeway.

Elderly Chinese parents are now legally allowed to sue their own children if they don’t come to visit them. This is another obstacle in the country’s challenge to care for its elderly, as economic reforms have splintered the traditional family unit. There is a severe lack of alternatives such as retirement homes or care facilities, and thus some parents become neglected, abused or even exploited in their old age.

Across the board, it appears as if Chinese citizens have become suspicious of its elderly sect. There have been a string of incidents over the past few years in which elderly people have fallen and injured themselves, and then went on to blame and sue the good Samaritans which stopped to help them.

Why has it come to this in China? Is it simply a lack of resources and the fact that so many people are living longer these days? How does this issue translate to America? Do we need a law like this? What would you do if you were required to visit your parents? There’s definitely a grey area here about how to handle the drastically growing elderly population, but what is the best solution for both sides?

Dr. Laura Mosqueda M.D., Chair and Professor of Family Medicine at the UC Irvine School of Medicine

This picture taken on September 4, 2012 shows Wu Rui talking with her mother during an interview at her home in Beijing. Credit: AFP/AFP/Getty Images

As the holidays wind down in America, some family members may find themselves relieved to escape the presence of their parents. Here in the United States, and other Western countries, we are free to engage with our parents as much or as little as we want. However, a recently amended law in China does not grant its citizens such leeway.

Elderly Chinese parents are now legally allowed to sue their own children if they don’t come to visit them. This is another obstacle in the country’s challenge to care for its elderly, as economic reforms have splintered the traditional family unit. There is a severe lack of alternatives such as retirement homes or care facilities, and thus some parents become neglected, abused or even exploited in their old age. Across the board, it appears as if Chinese citizens have become suspicious of its elderly sect. There have been a string of incidents over the past few years in which elderly people have fallen and injured themselves, and then went on to blame and sue the good Samaritans which stopped to help them.

Why has it come to this in China? Is it simply a lack of resources and the fact that so many people are living longer these days? How does this issue translate to America? Do we need a law like this? What would you do if you were required by law to visit your parents? There’s definitely a grey area here about how to handle the drastically growing elderly population, but what is the best solution for both sides?

Dr. Laura Mosqueda M.D., Chair and Professor of Family Medicine at the UC Irvine School of Medicine

Spectator boats in Sydney Harbour look on as New Year's Eve fireworks erupt over the Sydney Harbour Bridge on January 1, 2013. Sydney kicked off a wave of dazzling firework displays welcoming in 2013, from Dubai to Moscow and London, with long-isolated Yangon joining the global pyrotechnics for the first time. Credit: MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images

Forget your 2013 plans for a thinner waistline, more savings in the bank and better internal character. Those are not the only failings of the past year. When you look outside of yourself, where do you demand improvement? Do you long for the storyline on "Homeland" to make more sense? Do you want Washington to solve problems rather than cause problems? Do you have a resolution or two for your beloved sports team? If you could recommend resolutions for just about anyone or anything to make 2013 a golden year, what would be top of the list?

The Los Angeles Times building is seen on June 7, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. Tribune owns the Los Angeles Times, KTLA-TV Channel 5, the Chicago Tribune and other media properties. Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

After four tumultuous years, it looks like the Tribune Company is finally out of the financial woods.  The media conglomerate emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy today and is said to be a leaner, cleaner, more financially sound version of its former self, having shaken off around $12 billion of its nearly $13 billion total debt. Tribune currently owns 23 television stations, eight daily newspapers and a number of digital media outlets.  But with a new board of directors made up mostly of Hollywood entertainment executives, Tribune will probably be looking to shed its newspaper holdings, which have been less than profitable as readership and ad revenue has slowed in major markets.

The Los Angeles Times has long been rumored to be up for sale; among the suitors expressing interest are Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp., and the owners of the Orange County Register and the San Diego Union Tribune.  And closer to home, venture capitalist Austin Beutner has hinted at forming an investment group to buy the paper.  The Los Angeles Times has undergone several rounds of layoffs in the past few years.

Could a new owner turn things around? Will dismantling the behemoth Tribune company and returning hometown ownership to its struggling dailies improve their outlook?  Does print media have a future? 

David Folkenflik, NPR's media correspondent

Tim Rutten, columnist for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, formerly with the Los Angeles Times

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) leaves his office and walks toward the exit on Capitol Hill December 29, 2012 in Washington, DC. Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

In the realm of political theatre, the Fiscal Cliff is no mere plot device. The harsh reality of tax hikes and slashed spending is now mere hours away. President Obama said today a deal to avoid going over the Fiscal Cliff is in sight, but not finalized. As the the federal government’s great game of chicken barrels towards its midnight,  January 1 deadline, who will receive the blame if we go over the cliff? Why is the pending compromise reported by the President so narrow in scope? Why can’t the Congress strike what the President called a “Grand Bargain” to deal with deficit reduction and taxes at once?

Kitty Felde, Washington Correspondent, KPCC News

Steven Dennis, White House Correspondent, Roll Call

Visitors take photographs August 31, 2012 at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

It might have been one small step for man, but Neil Armstrong’s historic quote is causing a giant stir over forty years after the fact. That’s because in a recent documentary for the BBC, Armstrong’s brother reveals that the phrase, which the astronaut always claimed was improvised, was actually prepared days in advance. In fact, Dean Armstrong says his brother slipped him a written note with his first draft during a game of Risk. This is an added layer to the aspect that the quote, according to its originator, was intended to be, “One small step for a man,” but the “a” was lost in the transmission.

So, why all this attention paid to a short, simple phrase? Is it just because it was said on the Moon? Or because of the historic importance of the moment itself? What’s your take on this?

Christopher Riley, director of the BBC documentary “Neil Armstrong - First Man on the Moon,” lecturer in science and media at the University of Lincoln

"The Law of SuperHeroes" by James Daily and Ryan Davidson
Credit: Penguin Group (USA)

Invoking suspension of disbelief allows us to enjoy superhero and supervillain sagas without worrying about whether or not these fictional characters are liable for the legal repercussions of their actions; however, what if Lex Luthor could sue Superman for assault? Would Superman be held accountable and be forced to retain legal representation?

Authors James Daily and Ryan Davidson closely explore the legal reality of super fiction in their new book, “The Law of Superheroes.” The book simultaneously serves as an analysis of basic legal theory and an entertaining exploration of the fictional world of comic book characters. Daily and Davidson explain that some comic books do attempt to incorporate legal realism. For example, in the DC comic universe, there is a fictitious Twelfth Amendment , which allows masked superheroes to legally avoid revealing their secret identities. Listen in as authors James Daily and Ryan Davidson put the modern legal system to the superhero test.

James Daily, Co-Author, “The Law of Superheroes,” Attorney and co-founder of Lawandthemultiverse.com; specializes in intellectual property law

Ryan Davidson, Co-Author, “The Law of Superheroes,”  Attorney and co-founder of Lawandthemultiverse.com; specializing in insurance litigation.

The view from Coldwater Canyon Park. Credit: BitHead/Flickr

San Fernando Valley nature lovers and environmental groups say the Army Corps Of Engineers recently cleared too much vegetation from the Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Area. The San Fernando Valley Audubon Society says the Army Corps of Engineers “(L)aid waste to the South Wildlife Reserve in the Sepulveda Basin,” and described the clearing performed by the Corps as “a mechanized blitzkrieg assault.” The Corps says the actions were part of a planned vegetation clearing in the Basin designed to selectively remove some non-native plants and trees. The Corps has agreed to stop further vegetation clearing until they can meet with environmental groups to discuss the plan to clear more vegetation.

Are the local groups overreacting? Shouldn’t the 70-year legacy of brilliant flood control infrastructure exonerate any actions taken by  the Army Corps of Engineers, who designed Sepulveda Dam as part of the channelling of the Los Angeles River after devastating floods in 1938? Or have the Feds overreached?

Kris Ohlenkamp, conservation chairman of the San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
   
Molly Peterson, KPCC Environmental Reporter

View of the Oxford American College dictionary taken in Washington on November 16, 2009. The New Oxford American Dictionary named "unfriend" -- as in deleting someone as a friend on a social network such as Facebook -- its word of the year on Monday. Oxford University Press USA, in a blog post, said "unfriend," a verb, had bested netbook, sexting, paywall, birther and death panel for the honor. "Unfriend has real lex-appeal," said Christine Lindberg, senior lexicographer for Oxford’s US dictionary program. Credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

Every year brings a new crop of overused cliches, meaningless phrases and words with redirected meanings that somehow enter the zeitgeist and won’t leave. Thirty-eight years ago, Bill Rabe, public relations director at Michigan’s Lake Superior State University, compiled the most egregious examples into the first annual list of "Words to be Banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness.”  

In 1975, the list included "detente," "scenario," "macho," and "meaningful," which, the list’s creators claimed, had “lost all of its meaningfulness.”  This year, “bucket list” and “kicking the can down the road”  have joined the phrases “trending” among “haters” on the “Twitterverse.”  Ditto for “artisanal,” “selfie,” and “spoiler alert.”

We don’t like to “humblebrag,” but we’ve been keen on replacing the overused “fiscal cliff" with the far more apocalyptic “Cliffaggeddon.”  What words, phrases and twitterisms are you sooo over?  Call in and tell us - YOLO!

US President Barack Obama delivers a statement late January 1, 2013 at the White House in Washington DC. Obama said he had fulfilled a campaign promise to make the US tax system fairer with a deal to avert the fiscal cliff crisis that passed after a fierce duel in Congress. At left is US Vice President Joe Biden. Credit: CHRIS KLEPONIS/AFP/Getty Images

The freefall over the fiscal cliff only lasted for one day. Late last night, the House of Representatives passed a deal from the Senate to avoid what many economists predicted would be a devastating blow to the stock market, global economy and a United States which is still limping out of recession. In today’s hyper-partisan world of politics, it’s no surprise that it wasn’t easy to get Republicans on board with President Obama’s plan.

However, what might be more interesting is that this issue has exposed rifts within the Republican party itself, thanks mainly to the influence and voting power of the conservative Tea Party. This rift exposed itself even in top Republican leadership, as Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Chairman of the Budget Committee Paul Ryan (R-WI) voted for the fiscal deal, while House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) voted against it.

But analysts are far more concerned about the looming debt ceiling fight which will take place come February. That’s when the real fireworks are expected to go off between the two parties, and surely within them as well. But what about the average American citizen? Politicians may have won or lost depending on what they wanted from this deal, but it’s the taxpayers of this country who are actually affected by it.

How will this deal affect the middle class? What about those who rely on entitlement programs? And does this deal really add up to make any noticeable dent in the country’s deficit?

Dan Gorenstein, Marketplace reporter

Tom McClintock, Republican Congressman representing California’s 4th District and a member of the House Committee on the Budget. The 4th District represents portions of northern California, including Lassen, Butte and Sacramento counties

Adam Schiff, Democratic Congressman for the 29th District, which includes Alhambra, Altadena, Burbank, Glendale, Griffith Park, Monterey Park, Pasadena,  San Gabriel, South Pasadena, Temple City

U.S. citizenship candidate Ricardo Barrera, 8, takes the oath of citizenship as his father Ricardo Barrera (L) mother Reina Barrera and his sister Ashley, 1, look on during a naturalization ceremony at the Los Angeles Central Library on September 19, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. Fifty local children participated in the citizenship ceremony. In recognition of Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, over 32,000 new citizens will be welcomed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from September 14 to September 22. Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Immigrants closely related to U.S. citizens can now apply for visas from the U.S., according to a rule announced by the Department of Homeland Security, Wednesday. Until now, immigrant parents, children or spouses of American citizens were required to return to their home country to apply for legal status. Because of a separate 1996 law meant to discourage repeat migration to the U.S., immigrants who had overstayed a prior visa can be barred from returning for 3 to 10 years. As a result, many immigrants who could be eligible for legal status through a close family member chose to stay in the U.S. illegally and opt out of the visa process altogether. 

Now, family members can seek legal status from the United States, and return to their home countries when a visa is ready, leaving for a few weeks instead of years. The administration says this rule change keeps families together and encourages people who are here illegally to come forward and seek legal recognition.  The rule could affect 1 million of the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally.

Is this step a smart way to ensure that families stay together? Or is it a giant loophole that significantly alters immigration policy? And, what role will Congress play, when recent policy changes have all come from the White House?

Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy at the Center for American Progress

Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies

A budtender pours marijuana from a jar at Perennial Holistic Wellness Center medical marijuana dispensary, which opened in 2006, on July 25, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

Two separate groups sponsoring initiatives to regulate medical marijuana in Los Angeles have submitted signatures to qualify for the May ballot. A Los Angeles city clerk confirmed on Wednesday that the Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative Ordinance, which would permit only the medical marijuana dispensaries that existed before the city’s 2007 moratorium, had over 41,000 signatures.

Major medical marijuana advocacy groups, including Americans for Safe Access and the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance, as well as the local arm of the powerful United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, back the initiative.  If passed, it would leave about 100 dispensaries open in Los Angeles. A separate initiative, the Regulation of Medical Marijuana for Safe Neighborhoods and Safe Access, sponsored by Angelenos for Safe Access, has submitted over 60,000 signatures and hopes to be qualified for the ballot as well. That initiative would provide for a tax increase on marijuana sales in addition to restrictions on dispensary locations to limit their proximity to schools. The L.A. City Council has struggled to regulate medical marijuana; it’s already considering adopting an ordinance that would allow most pot shops to stay open, but would increase regulations on their locations and operations.

Federal crackdown on Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries has increased in recent years – the local U.S. Attorney has issued over 70 cease and desist orders. But that may change: public views on marijuana regulations and restrictions are in flux, and President Obama recently stood up for state marijuana regulations.

During the November election, Colorado and Washington both passed measures legalizing recreational marijuana.  Is California on its way to looser marijuana laws? How should Los Angeles regulate medical marijuana?  With two competing measures on the May ballot, how will Angelenos cast their votes?

Don Duncan, Southern California coordinator for Americans for Safe Access and spokesperson for The Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods, sponsors of the Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative Ordinance 

Aaron Green, spokesperson for Angelenos for Safe Access, sponsors of the Regulation of Medical Marijuana for Safe Neighborhoods and Safe Access

Alice Walton, KPCC Reporter

Correction: An earlier version of this post erroneously stated that both measures had qualified for the ballot. A second initiative is currently under review by the City Clerk. 

Some of the remaining memorial items to Sandy Hook Elementry students and staff who died are viewed in Newtown, Connecticut on January 3, 2013. Students at the elementary school where a gunman massacred 26 children and teachers last month were returning Thursday to classes at an alternative campus described by police as 'the safest school in America.' Survivors were finally to start their new academic year in the nearby town of Monroe, where a disused middle school has been converted and renamed from its original Chalk Hill to Sandy Hook. Credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images

In San Francisco, a high school student has been suspended for writing a poem with violent allusions and referencing the Newtown shooting. Courtni Webb’s poem was discovered by a teacher and sent to school officials, who deemed the poem posed a threat to the school’s zero tolerance policy on violence. While there is obviously a debate to be had over the issues of mixing art and free speech on a school campus, there is an underlying issue here that deserves some attention. When students write or create violent imagery or employ morbid references, what is really going on? Is it an innocent form of expression? Or is it a cry for help? How can you tell the difference, and is it safer to just assume the worst?

What’s the best way to deal with this situation for teachers and parents? What about for the student? Is there an ideal way to approach this issue so that all parties can feel safe and justified, or is punitive action the only acceptable recourse?

Ailleth Tom, Coordinator for School Mental Health, Los Angeles Unified School District; Licensed clinical social worker

A Nexus 7 tablet is shown at the Google Developers Conference as developer Brad McManus tries out the new device on June 27, 2012 in San Francisco, California. Credit: Mathew Sumner/Getty Images

An estimated 122 million tablet computers were sold in 2012. Yet they’re still not as functional as a laptop computer for everyday computing, or as good as a cell phone for texting and talking.

Given the tablet’s already-immense popularity, and the huge predicted growth in the tablet market, guessing right on the next step in its evolution will likely mean a huge financial windfall and industry dominance to whichever computer-maker gets it right. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be Apple, whose share of the tablet market is dipping down towards 50 percent.

Who will get the next generation of tablet computer right? Why are tablets so popular in an era of amazing smart phones and superpowered laptops? What makes your tablet useful to you?

Dan Ackerman, Senior Editor for CNET

Justin Bieber attends the 2012 Victoria's Secret Fashion Show at the Lexington Avenue Armory on November 7, 2012 in New York City. Credit: Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

For decades, paparazzi have plagued the rich and famous and jeopardized the lives of not-so-famous bystanders and motorists with high-speed chases and reckless driving, all in risky pursuit of that million-dollar shot.  This week, photographer Chris Guerra was struck and killed by a car while illegally crossing a street after stopping to nab a shot of Justin Bieber’s car.  

The young star’s Ferrari had been pulled over by a California Highway Patrol officer; as it turns out, Bieber was not even in the car, which was being driven by a friend. The incident sparked renewed calls for a tightening of regulations on dangerous paparazzi activity. Bieber issued a statement saying that  “hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders, and the photographers themselves."

 Such legislation does exist: a 2010 California law makes reckless driving in pursuit of celebrity photos a separate crime with a 6-month jail term and a $2,500 fine. That law was first challenged in 2011, ironically, in the case of a photographer who was after a picture of Bieber. The case was thrown out by the judge and is currently on appeal after the judge concluded that the law violated First Amendment rights and could have stifling repercussions for news gatherers, wedding photographers and others.  

This latest incident, while tragic, didn’t involve dangerous driving; Guerra was on foot when he was killed. Does it still underscore the need for tougher laws?  

Are entertainers, their publicity machines and the star-hungry tabloids somehow complicit?  In the age of Instagram, anybody with an iPhone can shoot for the stars if they’re in the right place at the right time.  So why do paparazzi still go to such dangerous lengths?

Dennis Zine, city councilman representing Los Angeles’ 3rd district, which includes the communities of Canoga Park, Reseda, Tarzana, Winnetka and Woodland Hills.

David S. Kestenbaum, Attorney with Kestenbaum, Eisner and Gorin, LLP

Staff members of Al-Jazeera prepare for a broadcast in Doha, Qatar. Credit: Deborah Amos/NPR

The Qatar-based media company Al Jazeera has purchased former Vice President Al Gore’s Current TV. The cost of Current is rumored to be $500 million, with a $100 million payout to Gore. Current has been struggling to establish itself as a news and talk show on par with the likes of Fox News or MSNBC.

In fact, a 2011 attempt to stage itself as a liberal news source by hiring Keith Olbermann backfired after he repeatedly clashed with management and left. While other major news channels can be found in approximately 100 million homes, Current has a measly 60 million. For these reasons, Current has long seemed doomed to low ratings, small audience shares and poor revenues.

But the purchase by Al Jazeera now has media critics and experts turning their heads. The company, which is run by Qatar’s state government, is widely respected as an unbiased source of straight information, without sensationalized opinions that have come to dominate most cable news outlets here in the United States. Meanwhile, conservatives are up in arms over the fact that Gore recently declined to even entertain an offer from Glenn Beck to purchase the channel. A possible complication might be that Time Warner Cable did not agree to the deal and will drop Current from its lineup, which presently provides the channel with 15 percent of its potential audience.

How do you feel about this deal? Is Current salvageable at this point? And what exactly are the details of the deal between the two companies? What will the face of Al Jazeera’s American presence look like once it all shakes out? Will you watch?  

Bob Wheelock, Executive Producer for the Americas, Al Jazeera English, based in their Washington, D.C. office; formerly with ABC News