[Sealobo]

I just wanna say that the US media in general is so full of shit. They constantly paraphrase what the Chinese has to say by simply taking advantage of the fact that 99.999% of you in the US do not understand the language. **** this shit.

/rant

[The Final Dakar]

To the PL!

[OreoCookie]

Care to be more specific?

[DrTacoMD]

I too am intrigued. My Mandarin is limited to "hello", so I cannot corroborate your claim.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

I too am intrigued. My Mandarin is limited to "hello", so I cannot corroborate your claim.

I see how this might be a little confusing, considering how many Chinese people will actually shout in on the street on any given day, but “hello” is actually English, not Chinese.

[The Final Dakar]

*throws rotten tomato*

[imitchellg5]

Move along. Move along.

[DrTacoMD]

Har har.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

I just wanna say that the US media in general is so full of shit. They constantly paraphrase what the Chinese has to say by simply taking advantage of the fact that 99.999% of you in the US do not understand the language. **** this shit.

So the MacNN isn't censored yet, despite the Politicial/War lounge?

Or does the censorship board not control Hong Kong's internet pipelines?

If not: Hello, irony.

[Oisín]

^ Both, as far as I know. Hong Kong isn’t (or wasn’t, at least—I’m not sure if it’s changed) behind The Great Firewall, though certain sites are blocked. But last year when I was in Beijing, MacNN was freely accessible. Either it’s flown under the radar (not that likely), or they’ve just judged it a bunch of people whining and bickering about random political topics not that related to China (more likely).

[Spheric Harlot]

Would you agree, though, that a Hong Kong resident probably isn't the most credible critic of overseas press coverage on China?

Of course, it would be interesting to hear what specifically he's referring to…

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

does the censorship board not control Hong Kong's internet pipelines?

No.

Originally Posted by Oisín 

^ Both, as far as I know. Hong Kong isn’t (or wasn’t, at least—I’m not sure if it’s changed) behind The Great Firewall, though certain sites are blocked. But last year when I was in Beijing, MacNN was freely accessible. Either it’s flown under the radar (not that likely), or they’ve just judged it a bunch of people whining and bickering about random political topics not that related to China (more likely).

It is not behind any Great Firewall, we can access anything, anytime.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Would you agree, though, that a Hong Kong resident probably isn't the most credible critic of overseas press coverage on China?

Of course, it would be interesting to hear what specifically he's referring to…

Your confusing a resident in China with a resident in Hong Kong.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

It is not behind any Great Firewall, we can access anything, anytime.

I was still unable to visit any Chinese Falungong sites when I was there (this was in 2004, mind).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

I just wanna say that the US media in general is so full of shit. They constantly paraphrase what the Chinese has to say by simply taking advantage of the fact that 99.999% of you in the US do not understand the language. **** this shit.

/rant

This rant is worthless w/o pictograms.

-t

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This rant is worthless w/o pictograms.

-t

This thread is worthless without pics®

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

Your confusing a resident in China with a resident in Hong Kong.

No, Im not.

We still don't know which coverage you're complaining about.

But if you are complaining about unfair coverage of Chinese oppression (which I'm assuming until you actually bother explaining what the hell this thread is about), then it's rather ironic to be doing so from the relative freedom of Hong Kong.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[imitchellg5]

I think you're confusing Andy8 with the OP...

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think you're confusing Andy8 with the OP...

Exactly.

I wasn't complaining about China, just pointing out that Hong Kong residents are not the same as residents in China.

[Spheric Harlot]

That i did, yes. Sorry.

You both list HK as location, though.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

This thread is worthless without pics®

Thanks for explaining the joke.

-t

[moonmonkey]

Hong Kong's web is not censored as far as I can tell (I lived in China for 5 years so I know what to look for).
The legal system here is based on English Law with local tweaks, not Chinese law.

It's irritating how most of the world can't grasp the fact Hong Kong has a different people, border, visa requirements, government, legal system, currency, healthcare and stock exchange than China, this is pretty much the definition of a different country.

Except it's technically still China.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

I just wanna say that the US media in general is so full of shit. They constantly paraphrase what the Chinese has to say by simply taking advantage of the fact that 99.999% of you in the US do not understand the language. **** this shit.

/rant

Instead of a pointless rant, why don't you take the time and educate us about what the American media does get wrong? I'm sure many people here would be willing to read and learn from your perspective. A rant full of expletives however makes it looks like the media is right and the Chinese already ran out of arguments.

Or was your Internet access blocked by your government, and that's why you cannot reply here any more?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Hong Kong's web is not censored as far as I can tell (I lived in China for 5 years so I know what to look for).
The legal system here is based on English Law with local tweaks, not Chinese law.

It's irritating how most of the world can't grasp the fact Hong Kong has a different people, border, visa requirements, government, legal system, currency, healthcare and stock exchange than China, this is pretty much the definition of a different country.

Except it's technically still China.

I'm aware of these things (having grown up in HK - hello Stubbs Rd).

What is Sealobo complaining about?

[Sealobo]

The news are generally reporting what they like. Take this piece of news for example:

China calls U.S. a hypocrite over human rights - Yahoo! News

The original chinese report has about 13,000 words, and the "America's economic woes" isn't really a central theme.

This is a link to the actual report: 2009年美国的人权纪录--国际--人民网

Try google translate for your own reading pleasure, i guess. I wonder if CNN or MSNBC even bothered to report. I mean, every country/government has certain dirty laundry to take care of, but the US apparently has the biggest voice against the others so that the people will always have their attention focused elsewhere. The majority of people are stupid. For stability, US' doctrine is to find a common outside enemy, and China achieve the same by exercising control. Whatever, by definition half of the world populace is ignorant; i really shouldn't be pissed.

[Eug]

Once a friend of mine called me from China to ask me what was wrong with iTunes. I just assumed he borked his computer again like he always does, but it turns out China had blocked access to the iTunes store, and it was causing iTunes to reset endlessly for some reason. Apparently the American and European athletes in China were buying Tibetan songs from iTunes while in China as a form of protest. China got pissed, and killed the link completely.

This is just a minor example, but yeah, China has a lot to be criticized about, and most of that is probably deserved.

That said, I generally don't like watching the US news shows for international news, because I find them more one-sided US-centric. Some might argue that's for obvious reasons, but IMHO the BBC isn't necessarily as consistently UK-centric, at least when reporting on international issues. It seems some of these UK BBC reporters are more willing to try to give semi-balanced views of things.

P.S. I'm surprised this hasn't been moved to the PL yet.

P.P.S. Oisin's jokes are getting crappier these days. Perhaps they simply don't translate well from Scandinavian. Heheh. I wonder if this painting-all-those-languages-as-Scandinavian will get him riled up.

[Oisín]

^ Nah, I think my humour’s just generally deteriorating lately.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

The news are generally reporting what they like. Take this piece of news for example:

China calls U.S. a hypocrite over human rights - Yahoo! News

The original chinese report has about 13,000 words, and the "America's economic woes" isn't really a central theme.

This is a link to the actual report: 2009年美国的人权纪录--国际--人民网

Try google translate for your own reading pleasure, i guess.

If I use Google translate I get exactly the same what Yahoo reports. So until you clarify yourself what you mean, I don't get your point. Are you seriously complaining about the Chinese reportedly thinking the U. S. is a hypocrite regarding human rights? Because that is what everyone else is thinking too. I guess at least if they Chinese deny thinking so, at least is doesn't make them hypocrites about their own human rights violations.

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If I use Google translate I get exactly the same what Yahoo reports.

The chinese make an argument with some points, validated or not. The news did not summarize; they paraphrased.

The way news are being reported to you guys would not allow free-thinking. You don't read and judge for yourself because the information is flawed. All these bullshit news are suggestive, thoughts are being directed. Somehow this is worse than the chinese way of control; at least they're obviously about it. what an irony.

[Spheric Harlot]

I haven't bothered to read the article yet, but I get the impression that you're misunderstanding something basic:

"the news" is not about summarizing everything that happens. "the news" is about focussing on things that are of relevance to the audience. This is necessarily so, and part of the journalists'/editors' job is to decide what's relevant.

If somebody holds forty-minute speech on local politics, and two sentences of that speech heavily criticize Germany, then that's the bit that's of interest here.

Same with any other news: you hear about Mel Gibson's racist outbreak at a cop, but for some reason, nobody reported that he went to the bathroom, or that he held his kid's hand the entire night when he had the flu, even though that was much more important to the kid.

[Sealobo]

I am sorry... but if you actually think that the journalists should decide what's relevant for you, then i have nothing more to add.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

The chinese make an argument with some points, validated or not. The news did not summarize; they paraphrased.

Paraphrasing is not a form of bias. And if you translate, you have to paraphrase.
What shapes news are the things you omit.

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

The way news are being reported to you guys would not allow free-thinking. You don't read and judge for yourself because the information is flawed.

We do judge for ourselves even if the information is flawed. What could happen is that we make the wrong decisions, because our information is flawed.

Information is never complete and the choice is always subjective. Nowadays, access to all sorts of information is easier than ever. Despite Iran's best efforts, we still receive videos, images and texts from the Irani opposition. Of course there you have a problem of reliability, but in my opinion, the positives by far outweigh the negatives. We have access to `better' news sources on China if we want to.

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

All these bullshit news are suggestive, thoughts are being directed. Somehow this is worse than the chinese way of control; at least they're obviously about it. what an irony.

Wow: so biased news sources are worse than people being imprisoned for voicing their opinions?
Thing is that modern democracies have had to deal with `bullshit news' for all of their existence. So people know that there is always an alternative news source they can access -- if they want to.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

I am sorry... but if you actually think that the journalists should decide what's relevant for you, then i have nothing more to add.

What exactly do you think a journalist's job is? Or an editor's?

I don't WANT to read about Grandma Thielemans in her Oldsmobile having run a red light and hit the mayor's dog in Podunk, Minnesota, but I'm sure that's big (and relevant) news in the local newspaper.

The best way to hide information is to bury it in a deluge of complete irrelevance (see Fox "News"). Journalism exists PRECISELY to pick out the relevant TO US morsels and relay them to us, so that we - the informed public - may build our own opinion about the world and matters that concern us.

Of course, that only works if the media are independent, and if there's enough variety to allow for different biases to be contrasted (as journalists are human and as such selective). That was the idea, and that is what makes a Free and Independent Media the Fourth Pillar of Democracy (next to the executive, legislative, and judicial).

It does NOT work if all media of note are owned by Rupert Murdoch - or the government.

Note: I'm not saying that your complaints are invalid; I'm saying that you have misunderstood why the "free media" exists at all, and what a journalist does for a living.

[Sealobo]

Free media reveals truths to people. i understand this very well. The media is extremely powerful.

But you guys are getting a lot of BS from the other side of the planet THROUGH the US media. That's all i am saying.

By the way, i never read local news on north america & european events/issues. They're just equally full of sh!t.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

Free media reveals truths to people. i understand this very well. The media is extremely powerful.

But you guys are getting a lot of BS from the other side of the planet THROUGH the US media. That's all i am saying.

By the way, i never read local news on north america & european events/issues. They're just equally full of sh!t.

The only US news sources in my daily news fix are NewScientist, Universe Today, and Wired's Gadget Blog.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

IMHO the BBC isn't necessarily as consistently UK-centric, at least when reporting on international issues. It seems some of these UK BBC reporters are more willing to try to give semi-balanced views of things.

They're somewhat Commonwealth-centric - which is, of course, a HECK of a lot more global, but it seems natural that countries your nation has shared (or dominated) centuries of history with should be on the agenda.

But they do have a lot of stories and front-page features not based in the Commonwealth, as well.

[voodoo]

I have no idea really how biased the US coverage is of China - though I can imagine it isn't very detailed. However there is no way to break the wall of bias or bad reporting unless you speak more languages.

Each language has a world it lives in. I'd say English lives in the most sheltered world, the Anglosphere. It is quite opaque.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

Free media reveals truths to people.

Seriously ?

I could not be that EVERY news site has an agenda, like making money (even if it's just from advertising), promoting views of the owner(s) etc...

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

i understand this very well.

You sure do

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I have no idea really how biased the US coverage is of China - though I can imagine it isn't very detailed. However there is no way to break the wall of bias or bad reporting unless you speak more languages.

...or grab the English language versions of various news sources. Like France 24 or Euronews, for example.

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Seriously ?

I could not be that EVERY news site has an agenda, like making money (even if it's just from advertising), promoting views of the owner(s) etc...



You sure do

-t

If you're talking about those editorial columns, they are not exactly "news". those are opinions.

maybe you just a nationalist and don't appreciate any criticism regarding any US matter from a foreigner.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

maybe you just a nationalist and don't appreciate any criticism regarding any US matter from a foreigner.

That doesn't sound like Turty to me. And anyway, isn't he actually German?

[Sealobo]

I wouldn't know. but he mocked the ideal of journalism.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...or grab the English language versions of various news sources. Like France 24 or Euronews, for example.

Oh yes.. I actually use France 24, works pretty good!

It's a smart way to poke a hole in the 'sphere.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

I wouldn't know. but he mocked the ideal of journalism.

Not really.

You seem to be under some kind of delusion that free media report news out of some altruistic desire to spread Ultimate Truths to the unknowing populace. This is not true. It might well be what initially drives people to study journalism and become journalists, but it’s not how the world works.

Every media outlet has its own twist most news items they report. Most media outlets are, at least partially, political in nature and will report news from their political viewpoint. And all media outlets (even completely government-controlled ones) are ultimately driven by the need to produce non-red numbers on the bottom line of their accounts.

Being aware of this is not mocking journalism, it’s having a bit of realistic sense. You might say that it’s mocking the ideal of journalism, true—but then most journalists and media outlets would be mockeries of the ideal of journalism.