Pentagon blames China
- Thread starter satcom
- Start date
Am I ignorant if I admit that I have never heard of the newsweek article before?
And I didn't belief in the wast stocks of WMDs they said Saddam had...
I was able to inform myself with a free access to different medias.
For sure there is a lot of BS in the western media but in the end there is also enough good stuff.
The problem is that in China for example the media doesn't has the freedom to write every bs they want.
And I didn't belief in the wast stocks of WMDs they said Saddam had...
I was able to inform myself with a free access to different medias.
For sure there is a lot of BS in the western media but in the end there is also enough good stuff.
The problem is that in China for example the media doesn't has the freedom to write every bs they want.
Well, since you have this wonderful free access to the media you can try google "koran toilet Newsweek apology". I am indeed surprise you didn't hear of this incident. It caused riots in Islamic citites. Turned out to be someone's imagination in Newsweek.Am I ignorant if I admit that I have never heard of the newsweek article before?
And I didn't belief in the wast stocks of WMDs they said Saddam had...
I was able to inform myself with a free access to different medias.
For sure there is a lot of BS in the western media but in the end there is also enough good stuff.
The problem is that in China for example the media doesn't has the freedom to write every bs they want.
Millions had access to the internet in US and elsewhere in the world, too. Pity we were not as well informed as you inspite of that when it came to the WMD BS. And now they want us to support a strike on Iran. What's your opinion on that?
In the U.S the magazine media also seems to be geared towards a political party, newsweek tends to lean towards the republicans while time magazine leans towards the democrats, same can be said for news channel media, Fox news is geared towards republicans while CNN news leans towards democrats.Am I ignorant if I admit that I have never heard of the newsweek article before?
And I didn't belief in the wast stocks of WMDs they said Saddam had...
I was able to inform myself with a free access to different medias.
For sure there is a lot of BS in the western media but in the end there is also enough good stuff.
The problem is that in China for example the media doesn't has the freedom to write every bs they want.
For sure big parts of the media lean towards one or the other side. In the end a free press still gives a wider view onto current events than a more controlled one.
And I am not going to talk here about my opinion regarding Iran. This would lead far too much into an off-topic discussion.
I actually don't get what you want to tell me?
I am not saying that everything in the western media landscape is bright and wonderfull.
I just rate it as better suited if one wants to inform hisself than for example here in China.
And it is better suited for critics of ones own government which is defenitely needed.
And I am not going to talk here about my opinion regarding Iran. This would lead far too much into an off-topic discussion.
I actually don't get what you want to tell me?
I am not saying that everything in the western media landscape is bright and wonderfull.
I just rate it as better suited if one wants to inform hisself than for example here in China.
And it is better suited for critics of ones own government which is defenitely needed.
As off topic as it is, I can say I am at the stage where I dont believe anything I read in western news papers about Iran, Russia, or China, there are a few exceptions to this, a few publications that try to keep a sence of perspective, but most seem to have abbandoned objectivity and research in the rush to demonise and sensationalise.
The "PLA" hacking story is a case in point. The Russian bomber flights is another one (you should read the London times or Daily Mail's take on this!).
Say what you want about the Chinese press, at least you know where you stand, by default you just reinterprate everything in light of Goverment control.
In the west it is much harder to sort the lies and spin from the real information, for me, most newspapers have no interest in educating their readers. I work in the media industry and see this first hand.
The "PLA" hacking story is a case in point. The Russian bomber flights is another one (you should read the London times or Daily Mail's take on this!).
Say what you want about the Chinese press, at least you know where you stand, by default you just reinterprate everything in light of Goverment control.
In the west it is much harder to sort the lies and spin from the real information, for me, most newspapers have no interest in educating their readers. I work in the media industry and see this first hand.
My point is that both political parties will use the media to help in their justifications when they need something from congress or the support of the American people.For sure big parts of the media lean towards one or the other side. In the end a free press still gives a wider view onto current events than a more controlled one.
And I am not going to talk here about my opinion regarding Iran. This would lead far too much into an off-topic discussion.
I actually don't get what you want to tell me?
I am not saying that everything in the western media landscape is bright and wonderfull.
I just rate it as better suited if one wants to inform hisself than for example here in China.
And it is better suited for critics of ones own government which is defenitely needed.
Then why i can access to Wiki , here ,today in shanghai?I am not able to enter any part of Wiki...
And for sure it makes sense for a regime to use censorship.
As well as it makes sense to do other nasty things...
If the western press is so full of propaganda don't you think the chinese people are intelligent enough to see through this?
BTW, talking about propaganda is interesting when one looks at the media output here.
below are the content of which after I enter keywords about Tiananmen square event
a piece of tip : don t search for the obious in yahoo ,try someway circumbendibus. I use baidu to easily find access to wiki .
Censorship is happaning as I have to admit(and how I hate it) however, it seems that apart from China , lots of so called free-state wield censorship too. The only difference lays on the fact that the western country s authority are so adept at it that they use censorship not as a ban but as a jetton to persuade mass media goes their way in a collaborative mutual benefit.I am not able to enter any part of Wiki...
And for sure it makes sense for a regime to use censorship.
As well as it makes sense to do other nasty things...
If the western press is so full of propaganda don't you think the chinese people are intelligent enough to see through this?
BTW, talking about propaganda is interesting when one looks at the media output here.
So sandwiched by stick of censorship and radish of information, Mass Media has done a great amont of services to their government----consider the come out of cold war and iraq war ----Even though there is sometimes quarrel between the pair . By and by , the 89.6.4 is triggered by VOA in a deliberate design. Although the inner motivation of the Tiananmen lays domesticly ,however, if not for the restless fan up of the VOA, things wont came that sour ( I m not going to argue over the cause and fact of the event , just lend a example trying to illustrate how media can serve the purpose of "the free nation" )
Therefore with the bitter memory of being too enthusiasm to the credit of your dear free media , Major chinese choose to oberservation by two orbs, one is CCTV likes, other is VOA sorts. To my amusement the two appearing paradoxical views on certain matthers can always be join up to form a more convencing scenery ,echos the perverb: there is no truth and false in reality , just which side you choose to behold. .
radiosilence
jints
The media stop reporting the news a long time ago. There are a few exceptions but most newspapers have become tabloids. It started with the Murdock crowd and everyone followed. The internet is good source for those who seeks "real news".
@Eckherl
I know. I just wanted to say that there is still more access to information in countries like the US than in countries like China. One just have to use this access and that is sometimes the problem in our society.
@ever4244
Strange I tried to enter Wiki since I arrived in Shanghai (Some 7 days ago). Now is the first time I can enter it. Maybe it was not a problem with chinese blocking but with wiki itself?
Anyway,it is not about me not finding any informations. As I said I can search in german language which is not blocked at all.
It is about the fact that China is locking parts of its internet traffic to make it more difficult for chinese people to get access to sources which are not seen well by the chinese government.
I know. I just wanted to say that there is still more access to information in countries like the US than in countries like China. One just have to use this access and that is sometimes the problem in our society.
@ever4244
Strange I tried to enter Wiki since I arrived in Shanghai (Some 7 days ago). Now is the first time I can enter it. Maybe it was not a problem with chinese blocking but with wiki itself?
Anyway,it is not about me not finding any informations. As I said I can search in german language which is not blocked at all.
It is about the fact that China is locking parts of its internet traffic to make it more difficult for chinese people to get access to sources which are not seen well by the chinese government.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
One needs to differentiate between the discussion about the quality of data/information and the access to it, whatever the quality.
Censorship usually restricts access with reference to the quality. I think it disenfranchises the citizen to do this.
Btw, I can somehow recognise the mindset re information and the state in Chinese philosophy and how access/restriction is employed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
(For those of you with access to Wiki)
Censorship usually restricts access with reference to the quality. I think it disenfranchises the citizen to do this.
Btw, I can somehow recognise the mindset re information and the state in Chinese philosophy and how access/restriction is employed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
(For those of you with access to Wiki
)Great link, very interesting
I dont think anyone here is advocating Chinese style censorship, or any kind of political censorship for that matter!
But for us in the west the quality of data avalible to the average citizen is defently an issue, esp for some countries where the goverment have powerfull state secrets acts (France and the UK for example).
Dispite what some may think the US citizen has the possiblity to be the most informed about policy out of all the major western countries.
Unfortunatly most citizens just do not have the time to persue information at its source, and must relay on the main stream media. This can lead to policy debate taking place in a atmosphere of near hysteria, witness the recent media failure on the Iraq War. Dubious (at best) White House statements were neither investigated or adaquatly questioned by the US media, many of which quickly adopted a my country right or wrong attitude.
It was a clear, and in my opinion shocking faliure of the American press.
It was telling that, for the most part, it was unable to explain where it went wrong, blaming disinformation on the part of the White house and the pressures of the news cycle. This inability to examine its own behavour does not bode well for the future and will inmost lightly hood lead to repeat failures.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
@Merocaine
Post 9/11 US politics and media went haywire. Certain views and ways of setting the agenda won the day. It is a function of American debating culture, i.e. playing the patriotism card and the sense of the need to be proactive (another American trait).
That being said, the premise that the volume of data/information/analysis is undermining the citizens ability to understand the world surrounding him, I disagree with. Because it somehow implies that there has been a "Golden Age" of citizen/democracy interaction.
In the US there is a notion that disinterest in politics is tied primarily to socioeconomic issues, like disenfranchisement, and the complexity of society. These are causes, but to me the primary reason is the structure of the electoral system, like electing delegates for pointing out a president, or having a two chamber system in Congress.
But back to the issue of information in a democracy in general. The volume of data and information is not the problem. The volume actually makes it possible for the citizen to make better, knowledgebased decisions than ever before.
The issue is to make sure people have the tools to perform their own analysis. This requires schooling, like being able to do a basic evaluation of the quality of the source of information and to determine if an analysis has been carried out properly.
The stereotype is that the democratic citizen, the Americans in particular, are making stupid, uninformed decisions. This is just not the case; it is a gross underestimation of the voter. People put a lot of effort into determining where to put their vote. How the result of the vote is executed (or expressed) in the real world is a function of the structure of the political system, which may not perform optimally.
Post 9/11 US politics and media went haywire. Certain views and ways of setting the agenda won the day. It is a function of American debating culture, i.e. playing the patriotism card and the sense of the need to be proactive (another American trait).
That being said, the premise that the volume of data/information/analysis is undermining the citizens ability to understand the world surrounding him, I disagree with. Because it somehow implies that there has been a "Golden Age" of citizen/democracy interaction.
In the US there is a notion that disinterest in politics is tied primarily to socioeconomic issues, like disenfranchisement, and the complexity of society. These are causes, but to me the primary reason is the structure of the electoral system, like electing delegates for pointing out a president, or having a two chamber system in Congress.
But back to the issue of information in a democracy in general. The volume of data and information is not the problem. The volume actually makes it possible for the citizen to make better, knowledgebased decisions than ever before.
The issue is to make sure people have the tools to perform their own analysis. This requires schooling, like being able to do a basic evaluation of the quality of the source of information and to determine if an analysis has been carried out properly.
The stereotype is that the democratic citizen, the Americans in particular, are making stupid, uninformed decisions. This is just not the case; it is a gross underestimation of the voter. People put a lot of effort into determining where to put their vote. How the result of the vote is executed (or expressed) in the real world is a function of the structure of the political system, which may not perform optimally.
GD,
I could'ent agree more, the more information the better, and I certainly dont feel that information is overloading the average citizen, quite the opposite, its the simplified drivel people watch on sky/fox/msn ect that is the problem, this narrowing of the terrific range of information out there.
I agree that public education is the key to making informed decisions, and actually in a strange way in Ireland the EU has been the driving force behind making the citizen more central to state policy, in this case more regulation is better
Your right about there being nostalgia for some lost golden age of press accountablity that never was. And as I see it the press has never been in possession so many potentioal sources of information and ways to inform the citizen. But it was also quite startling to see how easliy the White House was able to control and shape the debate in the press. This has never been explained, althought the washington post did apologise and the fact.
As to the struture of the electoral system in the US, it is a somewhat frenzied process, your hardly in goverment before your fighting your next campain for reelection! this hardly helps when your trying to develope a cohesive policy.
I could'ent agree more, the more information the better, and I certainly dont feel that information is overloading the average citizen, quite the opposite, its the simplified drivel people watch on sky/fox/msn ect that is the problem, this narrowing of the terrific range of information out there.
I agree that public education is the key to making informed decisions, and actually in a strange way in Ireland the EU has been the driving force behind making the citizen more central to state policy, in this case more regulation is better
Your right about there being nostalgia for some lost golden age of press accountablity that never was. And as I see it the press has never been in possession so many potentioal sources of information and ways to inform the citizen. But it was also quite startling to see how easliy the White House was able to control and shape the debate in the press. This has never been explained, althought the washington post did apologise and the fact.
As to the struture of the electoral system in the US, it is a somewhat frenzied process, your hardly in goverment before your fighting your next campain for reelection! this hardly helps when your trying to develope a cohesive policy.
appearing that i was substantially influenced by chinese philosophy without awareness----i have only chosen western philosophy as my operational class ----but how i zealed for middle ground and hot pot muttonOne needs to differentiate between the discussion about the quality of data/information and the access to it, whatever the quality.
Censorship usually restricts access with reference to the quality. I think it disenfranchises the citizen to do this.
Btw, I can somehow recognise the mindset re information and the state in Chinese philosophy and how access/restriction is employed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
(For those of you with access to Wiki
Last edited:
China's population:
1,321,851,888
By a generous estimate - I would say about 30%, or 400 miliion, of China's population are well-educated, intelligent, rational, responsible and disciplined.
A minority.
...
So is some censorship a bad thing in a country with hundreds of millions of potentially volatile and gullible people?
I don't think so.
Some control is definitely needed. Hopefully it'll ease up gradually. If it is done overnight it'll do more harm than good like a starving man suddenly given a feast.
..
When people talk about removing censorship, freedom of speech, free access to information, end disenfrenchisement, democracy,etc for China, I wonder if their concern for the Chinese people are based on a true on-the-ground understanding of China? Or is it a decision they formed based on what they read in the western press, and immediately accept as true and accurate.
1,321,851,888
By a generous estimate - I would say about 30%, or 400 miliion, of China's population are well-educated, intelligent, rational, responsible and disciplined.
A minority.
...
So is some censorship a bad thing in a country with hundreds of millions of potentially volatile and gullible people?
I don't think so.
Some control is definitely needed. Hopefully it'll ease up gradually. If it is done overnight it'll do more harm than good like a starving man suddenly given a feast.
..
When people talk about removing censorship, freedom of speech, free access to information, end disenfrenchisement, democracy,etc for China, I wonder if their concern for the Chinese people are based on a true on-the-ground understanding of China? Or is it a decision they formed based on what they read in the western press, and immediately accept as true and accurate.
Social disorder disseminated and instigated over the networks:
A couple years ago there were massive anti-Japanese demonstrations in many Chinese cities where there were some destruction of property by thouasnds and thousands of youths too young to have suffered from the war.
They were demonstrating cos they got the idea that this is the way to demonstrate their patriotism.
So how did hundreds of thousands get the idea?
The fervour was whipped up by internet postings and messages sent via mobile phones. Pictures of Nanking massacres were posted in forums like this one. And youtube wasn't even up yet.
Pictures of the first demonstrations and violence in Beijing was immediately posted and kids in Shanghai and elsewhere got encouraged and planned their own even without even having to meet or even know one another. All done through the internet and SMS messages.
The government media did its best to suppress the news so as to avoid embarrassment.
To counter this, the government also used the internet and mobile phone networks to try and stem the tide.
I got a message on my phone from the Shanghai police warning me not to attend such a demonstration scheduled for that weekend.
(If anyone didn't know about the rally beforehand, the police message certainly informed them about it.)
Of course, one theory says the Chinese government was behind it all along.
This is the reality of modern day technology. Information or disinformation can spread like wildfire.
The lessons, I'm sure, were not lost on anyone in the Chinese government thinking of using these phone and internet networks to cause trouble for other people.
A couple years ago there were massive anti-Japanese demonstrations in many Chinese cities where there were some destruction of property by thouasnds and thousands of youths too young to have suffered from the war.
They were demonstrating cos they got the idea that this is the way to demonstrate their patriotism.
So how did hundreds of thousands get the idea?
The fervour was whipped up by internet postings and messages sent via mobile phones. Pictures of Nanking massacres were posted in forums like this one. And youtube wasn't even up yet.
Pictures of the first demonstrations and violence in Beijing was immediately posted and kids in Shanghai and elsewhere got encouraged and planned their own even without even having to meet or even know one another. All done through the internet and SMS messages.
The government media did its best to suppress the news so as to avoid embarrassment.
To counter this, the government also used the internet and mobile phone networks to try and stem the tide.
I got a message on my phone from the Shanghai police warning me not to attend such a demonstration scheduled for that weekend.
(If anyone didn't know about the rally beforehand, the police message certainly informed them about it.)
Of course, one theory says the Chinese government was behind it all along.
This is the reality of modern day technology. Information or disinformation can spread like wildfire.
The lessons, I'm sure, were not lost on anyone in the Chinese government thinking of using these phone and internet networks to cause trouble for other people.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
You're illustrating my point perfectly. Legalism seem to be built into Chinese culture.
Personally, I don't get excited about the issue of personal freedoms in China. But in the medium to long term, the lack of them will be one of the great inhibitors of the Chinese economy. And such relationships I find interesting to study and observe.