China: New Superpower?

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

Yes, it is Reuters. No western agenda? I think you'll find that it's mainly Western News Channels that use it. So, how can it not have a western agenda? Why is it you see channels promoting their ideas of "a different angle"? They're simply saying that they don't get ALL their news from Reuters, hence, not a lot of western agenda.

And how is it you suggest I prove this to you?
I got an idea (maybe), next time there is another issue with foreign affairs and china (which there definately will be with all this racist attitude towards the Chinese from many westerners and western media), go watch CCTV 1-12 (CCTV 9 is in english, if you wish to understand exactly what they're saying).
Obviously, I can't prove to you that they did show the protests etc, unless they're on Youtube or something, but you can't prove that this info has be aquired through the internet either. Which brings me to the point, do you think chinese people are stupid? If they aquired this information from the net, and they learnt the truth from the net, yet they saw their media lie, do you really believe that the chinese would be stupid enough to not figure out that the media is lying, or that they are stupid enough to let the media channels go on with their lies?
I find it hard to believe that chinese people would find the truth from the net to the point where they boycott french products, and yet not protest against their news channels that would obviously be "lying" to them

I'm not claiming I DO know the answer. I'm just simply saying that it's not good to say that the chinese are hiding something simply because they're not letting reporters in. Hence me saying, there "could" be other reasons, not only the reason that the media puts on page one. So as you can see, I'm not dodging anything, because I havn't claimed to know the truth. I'm giving my opinion based on the exagurations of media, history of tibet and Chinese people I know and have spoken to.

It's becoming hard to carry on this discussion with you. You haven't acknowledged any of the points I've made by either accepting or rebutting them. I'll say it again. Reuters is too big and to vast to orchestrate any sort of propaganda on behalf of a Western agenda. It works like this. Reuters makes the reports, the networks present them (though of course many of the larger networks have their own reporters too.). You and ivionk3y's only argument is some paranoid, conspiracy theory type hypocritical rant in which because Western agencies use Reuters a lot (never mind the fact that Reuters actually employs many non-Western journalists as well as Western journalists) Reuters not only has a Western agenda but can orchestrate and execute a peice of propaganda which all the parties to the story are in on from the networks who present the reports to the reporters who report it to the editors. Not the fact that all the COMPETING networks and agencies (who would otherwise be quick to exploit such unprofessional journalism as to convert more viewers/readers) would have to be somewhat complicit in such a huge conspiracy.

It's hypocritical because you're telling me that I shouldn't (reasonably in my opinion) be suspicious of anything based on China's unwillingness to let the media in yet you adhere to some massive conspiracy plot involving the Western media, but based on what? You clearly don't understand how the media works as Paul11 has pointed out.

To Ivionk3y. Yes you are correct that News networks exaggerate the news because at the end of the day they have to sell a story. But for them to outright lie or fabricate events is unlikely for the fact that their reports are almost always reported by other competing networks. With regard to the China-Tibet situation, I'm open to the idea that their could be exaggerations in the way the media reported it, not to mention that there could possibly be much in the way of misreporting (after all most of the sources as I said before where accounts from tourists in the area because of China's unwillingness to let the media in.)

But regardless of what the media says, my criticism of China regarding Tibet as I stated before is due to my (and the UN's) belief that nations should have the right to self-determination. Of course self-determination doesn't necessarily mean independence but clearly the Tibetans are unhappy about something. And since I consider media reports reliable they were large scale and of a nationalist nature suggesting their right of self-determination is not being met.

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

To Ivionk3y. Yes you are correct that News networks exaggerate the news because at the end of the day they have to sell a story. But for them to outright lie or fabricate events is unlikely for the fact that their reports are almost always reported by other competing networks. With regard to the China-Tibet situation, I'm open to the idea that their could be exaggerations in the way the media reported it, not to mention that there could possibly be much in the way of misreporting (after all most of the sources as I said before where accounts from tourists in the area because of China's unwillingness to let the media in.)

Noone said anyone outright tells a lie. I'm going on the assumption that no lies are told. However at the end of the day, the news the media gives isn't always black or white in nature. Therefore the truth can be "spun" to suit an agenda and therefore public opinions changed. The news has two functions. One is to give us facts. The second unwritten function is that each news channel/network will give you the opinion that suits its purposes. It is rare that a person will actually use their own opinion, instead using the one given to them by whatever news medium they get their info from. If all people used their own opinions based on "facts", then Broadsheet newspapers would be much more popular than Tabloids.
Like I said, all the Western media is linked. Its quite evident that stories from country to country differ, so your argument about the Western media not being able to lie isn't exactly airtight. For example, an Israeli soldier dying will be given much more coverage than 10 Palestinian civillians dying. It is the spin at work and denying it will just show naivety.
If they wanted to lie, it would be quite easy for them to. Not everybody is able to travel from one country to the next and compare articles and not everybody can verify the facts.

ps. The fact Reuters may or may not have many non-Western employees is irrelevant. A paycheque goes a long way.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

It has about as much improvement to do as the UK and the US. And, you ought to choose your words more carefully. You make it sound as though China already isn't an influencial superpower. I think I mentioned it before; not too long ago, there was a little program on tv. It showed what an average household would look like in England without Chinese products. The houses were left with NOTHING. lol... So i'd say China's influence is pretty huge atm

Your point is arguable but I agree "somewhat" that China's human rights record is comparable to the United States and perhaps other Western countries (meaning I acknowledge that the US and the West is not perfect and also responsible for violating human rights in some instances).

However I'm also a believer of "2 wrongs don't make a right". All human rights issues are a matter of principals, not politics. If you've read my other posts in this thread you'll find I'm not anti-China (in fact I welcome China's new found prosperity as I believe it could address the human rights concerns I have), rather pro-human rights. Because of that I will give criticism where it is due and not minimise it by comparing it to other abuses.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

Noone said anyone outright tells a lie. I'm going on the assumption that no lies are told. However at the end of the day, the news the media gives isn't always black or white in nature. Therefore the truth can be "spun" to suit an agenda and therefore public opinions changed. The news has two functions. One is to give us facts. The second unwritten function is that each news channel/network will give you the opinion that suits its purposes. It is rare that a person will actually use their own opinion, instead using the one given to them by whatever news medium they get their info from. If all people used their own opinions based on "facts", then Broadsheet newspapers would be much more popular than Tabloids.
Like I said, all the Western media is linked. Its quite evident that stories from country to country differ, so your argument about the Western media not being able to lie isn't exactly airtight. For example, an Israeli soldier dying will be given much more coverage than 10 Palestinian civillians dying. It is the spin at work and denying it will just show naivety.
If they wanted to lie, it would be quite easy for them to. Not everybody is able to travel from one country to the next and compare articles and not everybody can verify the facts.

ps. The fact Reuters may or may not have many non-Western employees is irrelevant. A paycheque goes a long way.

I agree with some of your points but not others. As I said before I'm aware of the media exaggerating (i.e. spinning) to SELL a story (as opposed to advancing an agenda). But saying that all the Western media is linked is where you show your naiveity. At least it is if you are implying that it has some sort of collaborative conscious political agenda. As I said before.... too many people would know about it. To many people that are otherwise in COMPETITION with each other.

With your Israeli soldier example. I'm sorry but as a student who is also stuying International politics (as well as Japanese) and relations who has to keep up to date on such things and has to monitor the media quite often then I have to say that the example is not the impression I get. I often hear of Palestinian people being killed by the Israeli military about as much as I hear about Israeli soldiers dying. In fact I'm quite sympathetic to the Palestinian plight (however I'm not completely on their side) because of media reports (not to mention that we did a case study once on Israel in my International Relations and Politics class, which by the way is where I learnt how the media worked as Paul11 as a graduate who majored in journalism would confirm.).

As for your paycheck comment. Frankly the idea that these non-Western journalists are "selling their consciences" to the Western media is quite far-fetched.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

It's becoming hard to carry on this discussion with you. You haven't acknowledged any of the points I've made by either accepting or rebutting them. I'll say it again. Reuters is too big and to vast to orchestrate any sort of propaganda on behalf of a Western agenda. It works like this. Reuters makes the reports, the networks present them (though of course many of the larger networks have their own reporters too.). You and ivionk3y's only argument is some paranoid, conspiracy theory type hypocritical rant in which because Western agencies use Reuters a lot (never mind the fact that Reuters actually employs many non-Western journalists as well as Western journalists) Reuters not only has a Western agenda but can orchestrate and execute a peice of propaganda which all the parties to the story are in on from the networks who present the reports to the reporters who report it to the editors. Not the fact that all the COMPETING networks and agencies (who would otherwise be quick to exploit such unprofessional journalism as to convert more viewers/readers) would have to be somewhat complicit in such a huge conspiracy.

It's hypocritical because you're telling me that I shouldn't (reasonably in my opinion) be suspicious of anything based on China's unwillingness to let the media in yet you adhere to some massive conspiracy plot involving the Western media, but based on what? You clearly don't understand how the media works as Paul11 has pointed out.

To Ivionk3y. Yes you are correct that News networks exaggerate the news because at the end of the day they have to sell a story. But for them to outright lie or fabricate events is unlikely for the fact that their reports are almost always reported by other competing networks. With regard to the China-Tibet situation, I'm open to the idea that their could be exaggerations in the way the media reported it, not to mention that there could possibly be much in the way of misreporting (after all most of the sources as I said before where accounts from tourists in the area because of China's unwillingness to let the media in.)

But regardless of what the media says, my criticism of China regarding Tibet as I stated before is due to my (and the UN's) belief that nations should have the right to self-determination. Of course self-determination doesn't necessarily mean independence but clearly the Tibetans are unhappy about something. And since I consider media reports reliable they were large scale and of a nationalist nature suggesting their right of self-determination is not being met.

Dude, I don't have to say I acknowledge your points for them to be acknowledged. We're having a discussion, and we're discussing eachothers points. If you want me to say, yep, sure, you're right, without giving my opinion, then this convo would have been done ages ago.

I think it's obvious to me that we seem to have different meanings for lies and exagurations. To me, when a news reporter puts a picture of a Nepali police officer, and names it chinese, that's lying. If you want to call it exaguration for a good story, that's your choice.
You know, I'm not even arguing the fact that the west does have some huge anti-china thing going on, I'm arguing the fact that it's not impossible. Just because the size of the company/organisation (reuters) is huge, it doesn't mean that it can't have an agenda. What you don't seem to understand is that News is filtered out but a select few. So it really doesn't matter how many foreigners Reuters employes, it still goes up the chain, until the news is aproved. So, do you really think it's hard for Reuters to put thoughts into people's heads?
I'm not even gonna write an essay to explain to you that i'm not talking about a consipiracy theory. And where does paranoia come into this? You make it sound as if i'm one of those people that watch another form of media that suggested the news channel media is corrupt, hence me being paranoid and a hypocrit? I've seen plenty of lies from media all over the world. I'm simply talking about the west because that's where we're living.

Wow, that's kinda hypocritical yourself. You're thinking in the manner that there is a negative agenda by the chinese goverment from what you've seen on TV (which is a western conspiricy theory ), yet you're saying I'm hypocritical for believing the media has a negative agenda against china (which, I havn't actually said, If you were to ask my what is the western media's agenda, i'd simply say, money and ratings, if you wanted a simple answer).

Care to explain how Paul11 showed I don't understand how the media works?

You have a right to trust the media, if you didn't, then where would you get your info from. All i'm saying, is that you'd be surprised when looking at both sides of the story. Another story that I consider a "lie", was that one about the monks protesting. Western media, clearly said, that all the monks, tibetans were unhappy, hence the protests. Funny how they left out what the lama and head monks said... If you call that exaguration, then I think we agree on pretty much everything. simply semantics.

EDIT; concerning the competition channels taking advantage of the western medias' lies. You clearly havn't seen many non-western channels. There was an incident iin Algeria a couple years back. The french media went overboard with the exaguration, and the algerian tv channel, just ripped into them about how they lie etc.
The chinese media done the same thing about the protests in france and england against the olympics. So, when two parties complain about eachother, and say crap about eachother, how do you know which one to trust? I really don't think you realise how "different" the western media is compared to non-western. The only time they ever seem to agree is when it's not linked to them. ie, zimbabwe elections

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I agree with some of your points but not others. As I said before I'm aware of the media exaggerating (i.e. spinning) to SELL a story (as opposed to advancing an agenda). But saying that all the Western media is linked is where you show your naiveity. At least it is if you are implying that it has some sort of collaborative conscious political agenda. As I said before.... too many people would know about it. To many people that are otherwise in COMPETITION with each other.

Who are these too many people? I haven't seen a single Western type of news media in competition with each other for years. In fact its even easier now to use each others stories and news clips from channel to channel, country to country.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

With your Israeli soldier example. I'm sorry but as a student who is also stuying International politics (as well as Japanese) and relations who has to keep up to date on such things and has to monitor the media quite often then I have to say that the example is not the impression I get. I often hear of Palestinian people being killed by the Israeli military about as much as I hear about Israeli soldiers dying. In fact I'm quite sympathetic to the Palestinian plight (however I'm not completely on their side) because of media reports (not to mention that we did a case study once on Israel in my International Relations and Politics class, which by the way is where I learnt how the media worked as Paul11 as a graduate who majored in journalism would confirm.).

I didn't say you wouldn't hear about it. I said that when an Israeli dies, you see the family crying and the sympathy in the reporters voice. When any number of Palestinians die, there is little, (if any) sympathy and little, (if any) show of the effect on a Palestinian family. This is my experience and anyone else who watches the news here and picks up on these things, which happen often.
I respect the fact that you may have attended a class and thus learned about journalism but that has little to do with the actual practice of journalism which can be seen by plenty of people.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

As for your paycheck comment. Frankly the idea that these non-Western journalists are "selling their consciences" to the Western media is quite far-fetched.

They are as far fetched as your argument against the Chinese media. My point has been that they don't do anything above and beyond what the Western media do. There is just an illusion amongst many people that whatever you get from the Western media is the Gods honest truth.
Also when money is concerned, it isn't at all impossible that people won't bite the hand that feeds it.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

My point has been that they don't do anything above and beyond what the Western media do. There is just an illusion amongst many people that whatever you get from the Western media is the Gods honest truth.

I'd say these two sentences sum up exactly what I've been trying to say

[Suki]

Originally Posted by zachart

well how would they hid them?? we have satilites all over looking at prettymuch ever country..

Is that how you know there're WMD in Iraq? Cause your uber powerful satellites tell you so?

Originally Posted by Alvinho

Suki, the goddess of Geopolitical thinking on this board......hehehe

lol I guess I am.

Originally Posted by Hisu

That's illegal in the UK... what, so, it's not in Spain (sorry, Catalonia!)?

China will have to improve its human rights record in order to become an influential superpower.

Nope, in Spain it isn't. And I fully agree with your last sentence. China has serious issues to be solved regarding human rights.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

Dude, I don't have to say I acknowledge your points for them to be acknowledged. We're having a discussion, and we're discussing eachothers points. If you want me to say, yep, sure, you're right, without giving my opinion, then this convo would have been done ages ago.

I think it's obvious to me that we seem to have different meanings for lies and exagurations. To me, when a news reporter puts a picture of a Nepali police officer, and names it chinese, that's lying. If you want to call it exaguration for a good story, that's your choice.
You know, I'm not even arguing the fact that the west does have some huge anti-china thing going on, I'm arguing the fact that it's not impossible. Just because the size of the company/organisation (reuters) is huge, it doesn't mean that it can't have an agenda. What you don't seem to understand is that News is filtered out but a select few. So it really doesn't matter how many foreigners Reuters employes, it still goes up the chain, until the news is aproved. So, do you really think it's hard for Reuters to put thoughts into people's heads?
I'm not even gonna write an essay to explain to you that i'm not talking about a consipiracy theory. And where does paranoia come into this? You make it sound as if i'm one of those people that watch another form of media that suggested the news channel media is corrupt, hence me being paranoid and a hypocrit? I've seen plenty of lies from media all over the world. I'm simply talking about the west because that's where we're living.

Wow, that's kinda hypocritical yourself. You're thinking in the manner that there is a negative agenda by the chinese goverment from what you've seen on TV (which is a western conspiricy theory ), yet you're saying I'm hypocritical for believing the media has a negative agenda against china (which, I havn't actually said, If you were to ask my what is the western media's agenda, i'd simply say, money and ratings, if you wanted a simple answer).

Care to explain how Paul11 showed I don't understand how the media works?

You have a right to trust the media, if you didn't, then where would you get your info from. All i'm saying, is that you'd be surprised when looking at both sides of the story. Another story that I consider a "lie", was that one about the monks protesting. Western media, clearly said, that all the monks, tibetans were unhappy, hence the protests. Funny how they left out what the lama and head monks said... If you call that exaguration, then I think we agree on pretty much everything. simply semantics.

EDIT; concerning the competition channels taking advantage of the western medias' lies. You clearly havn't seen many non-western channels. There was an incident iin Algeria a couple years back. The french media went overboard with the exaguration, and the algerian tv channel, just ripped into them about how they lie etc.
The chinese media done the same thing about the protests in france and england against the olympics. So, when two parties complain about eachother, and say crap about eachother, how do you know which one to trust? I really don't think you realise how "different" the western media is compared to non-western. The only time they ever seem to agree is when it's not linked to them. ie, zimbabwe elections

First- Your source is a nationalist Chinese website. Hardly a reliable one. Why? They have a nationalist agenda. Not to mention that they seem to be splitting hairs over small things (A Nepali mistaken for a Chinese? Hardly a big issue in the context of the riots in Tibet and around the world including the huge expat/exiled Tibetan community in Nepal and India. Perhaps the photo was relevant after all but you wouldn't know from that Chinese website. After all you only get screenshots of headlines.)

Second- IF the network knowingly reported Nepali police as Chinese then yes that is lying (I'm currently not convinced). When I talk of exaggeration I speak of the general behaviour of the Western media. (Which you seem to agree)

Third- My position is not hypocritical. All along I've shown my reasoning as to why I believe the Western media over the Chinese media which I'll try to sum up:-
I've tried to reason with you that it is practically impossible for the Western media to orchestrate and execute a huge propaganda machine on behalf of a sole political agenda which would only be possible via a huge collaboration (Any belief that it could is a far-fetched conspiracy fantasy AT BEST. It ranks up there with the whole "9/11 was planned and executed by the Americans" conspiracy theory). Also the Chinese acted secretively which would only lead us in the West to SPECULATE, not to mention that the Chinese media do not have the Checks and balances that the media in the west has (not saying that it's perfect of course) as well as a MOTIVE.

Finally- Again you show your ignorance. Reuters doesn't approve it's reports is sells them to agencies that DO approve them. As you know there are MANY agencies out there.

(There... I think I've addressed all the points I could filter out of that rant)

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

First- Your source is a nationalist Chinese website. Hardly a reliable one. Why? They have a nationalist agenda. Not to mention that they seem to be splitting hairs over small things (A Nepali mistaken for a Chinese? Hardly a big issue in the context of the riots in Tibet and around the world including the huge expat/exiled Tibetan community in Nepal and India. Perhaps the photo was relevant after all but you wouldn't know from that Chinese website. After all you only get screenshots of headlines.)

Second- IF the network knowingly reported Nepali police as Chinese then yes that is lying (I'm currently not convinced). When I talk of exaggeration I speak of the general behaviour of the Western media. (Which you seem to agree)

Third- My position is not hypocritical. All along I've shown my reasoning as to why I believe the Western media over the Chinese media which I'll try to sum up:-
I've tried to reason with you that it is practically impossible for the Western media to orchestrate and execute a huge propaganda machine on behalf of a sole political agenda which would only be possible via a huge collaboration (Any belief that it could is a far-fetched conspiracy fantasy AT BEST. It ranks up there with the whole "9/11 was planned and executed by the Americans" conspiracy theory). Also the Chinese acted secretively which would only lead us in the West to SPECULATE, not to mention that the Chinese media do not have the Checks and balances that the media in the west has (not saying that it's perfect of course) as well as a MOTIVE.

Finally- Again you show your ignorance. Reuters doesn't approve it's reports is sells them to agencies that DO approve them. As you know there are MANY agencies out there.

(There... I think I've addressed all the points I could filter out of that rant)

??? What are you talking about? You really think my source is that website? That website I gave you was to give you slight insight to how it is, because you obviously have NEVER even checked out the media in other countries, which brings up the question of how you can even make an un-biased opinion? I HAVE chinese tv, I WATCH their news, I watch, CNN, BBC world, Arte, TV5, Fox, CNBC, Al Jzeera eng and arabic etc AND then I make up my mind up. It has nothing to do with that website. That website, as I mentioned will undoubtadly be VERY biased and VERY anit-west, but that doesn't take away the fact that they've given some excellent proof.

Believe what you will about the Nepali police, and Indian police etc, but you totally dodged the question about the boycotting of French products. If the Chinese media lies, and chinese people find out the truth on the net, why havn't they done or said something about their media? They're not stupid...

This whole thing isn't about which to believe over the other. There isn't a winner. If you re-read what i've been saying all along. I've been saying that it's MUCH better to get both sides of the story before you formulate an accurate non-bias opinion. If you disagree with that, then I say to you; OK, that's fine, it's your choice... why would I even argue with you about how YOU should formulate an opinion?? That'd be like me trying to convince you Banana's are the best fruit in the world... I wouldn't do that, you're entitled to your opinion; but I don't see harm in us discussiing and questioning eachothers' opinions.

Oh really? You believe that Reuters present EVERY bit of news they have? Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell me that Agencies buy useless news, THEN filter them and aprove them? The fact is; Reuters filter a lot of Crap that they know wouldn't sell. If you don't agree with this, just take some work experience in a news channel, or question someone that has worked for a news channel before.