[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I went back to read Acidreptiles posts and I don't think you read them right. Even if you filter out his rhetoric, the only point he "made" was that "China is rising while the USA is falling". A point that MIGHT have some merit if he cared to explain his reasoning though at best it's arguable. Personally I would argue that the US isn't falling, rather China is catching up to it. China may be an emerging superpower or even a superpower in their own right depending on the definition and the context you use that term (though in general I refer to it as an emerging superpower), but the best guesses are that it will be at least 50 years untill China can seriously challenge the United States world's sole hyperpower status.

The way he writes his stuff isn't the most palatable way to digest information, I agree However his points in most cases are valid about this issue, even though his opinions are clouded by his own personal feelings. (like the majority of people.)
Yes you're right, China is indeed catching up to America but with all of Americas dabbling in weird affairs, making mistakes, showing its own self interest with blatant disregard of others... its quite easy for China to learn from this and be a better Super Power.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I find it strange that the Western media is being accused of propaganda. I mean seriously when you look at how the media works in the West you'll find that this is a stretch at best. The Western media is very rarely state owned, and when it is, (the BBC for example) it is not answerable in terms of what it reports rather is run as a state owned enterprise. The only agenda the Western media has is to sell a story. And while I think it capable of exaggeration to sell a story I don't think it capable of fabricating lies. I mean do you really think that ALL the Western media outlets in competition with each other for our attention would have the will or the ability to collaborate with each other to report the SAME lies so that it appears so very real? Are they really ready to risk their integrity which would mean risk losing viewers/readers to the competition? (I mean you see what happens to Fox News. Outside the US it is not a respected media outlet. Heck even in the US it is not relied on by a good percentage of the population.)

Not to mention that the Chinese state owned and operated media are hardly angels. The difference between the two is that China's state media HAS not only a motive, but also the ability to fabricate lies. Do you remember the Olympic torch coverage? The Chinese population were not exposed to the disruptions all over the globe (From Britain to Japan) because the Chinese media did not report it. Instead they told the Chinese people that everything went smoothly. Also why did China BAN foriegn media from Tibet during the riots? What did they have to hide? If there is a serious case of misreporting, then perhaps it is China's fault for not allowing foriegn media in which lead them to rely on second hand information from the many tourists inside Tibet at the time. (Are all the tourists selling the same lie too?)

Fox is an example of blatant propaganda. It caters to viewers who agree with that side of the element, rather than converting them to a Republican way of thought.
The one thing that sets the Western media apart from anywhere else is that they are all ultimately linked.
For me, there are two types of news.
One type shows you its propaganda straight away, leading you straight into the fire so to speak. Fox is classed as this type but to quite an extreme level in that it has typical Republican views. Channel 4 news also reminds me of this sometimes but it caters more to the English persona. I liken it to a Tabloid newspaper where there is little depth to the story, just pure entertainment in a sense, to what their audience "wants".
The second type is the BBC, who take their time and seem to balance their portrayal of whatever propaganda they will ultimately want you to follow. I liken this more to the Broadsheet type of news, which gives the entire depth but ultimately the conclusions are the same as their tabloid counter parts.
Either that or the conclusions that point away from their agenda are forgotten and not reported on as much.
What has this got to do with China?
Well recently i've been seeing an interest in China itself, in terms of the BBC.
They've been showing one or two documentaries, which almost always conclude in an anti-Chinese light. To back those up, the news stories about China always have a certain dark air to them. For example the Chinese Earthquake was dealt with a weird spin. There were shots of para-troopers jumping into the disaster zone to help civillians but at the same time, the reporter didn't seem to highlight any positive points about the efficiency and handling of the situation. Instead, the report made it sound like the Chinese were ultimately doomed. Every report recently to do with China, has had a similar connotation.
I dunno how much you believe TV can influence you, but its quite easy to influence the mass public with constant reports like these. The information gradually builds up in the sub-concious and before someone knows it, they're Anti-whatever.
As for Chinas media, they're definitely not perfect. China itself is not perfect and that's quite established. However like I said earlier, their reports cater to their own populace. They rather their media put their own spin on things rather than a media which doesn't have the best interests of China in mind.