4 ms·

Because the west has been stepping up propaganda. I remember 5 years ago, most outlets had very pro-China things to say. Now it's undoubtedly taken a very neg

by Mikeb85 11y ago

Because the west has been stepping up propaganda. I remember 5 years ago, most outlets had very pro-China things to say. Now it's undoubtedly taken a very negative turn. Daily stories about China's impending economic collapse, their various 'crackdowns', and so on. Even this article. To be honest, half of the stuff they want to ban isn't even allowable in Canadian media (literally, 3 out of 6 bullet points are strait up illegal in Canada), and we're hardly a totalitarian state. But when western media and NGOs are stepping up the propaganda and support for violent secessionist groups (Occupy HK took a violent turn recently, some Uighur groups are strait up terrorists with US support), China has to do something. A collapse would be catastrophic, yet that's exactly what the US government is trying to achieve (as evidenced by Syria). Edit - Anyone want to address these points? Or is the propaganda working too well?

ascorbic 11y ago
Coverage has taken a negative turn because events have taken a negative turn. Growth is weakening. Shares have fallen sharply. Exports are down. And they're doing things like this.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  It's funny, I see this all the time in the media. Yet observers whose opinions I trust far more, have differing thoughts. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/macroeconomic-insights/growth-of-china/ http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/macroeconomic-insig... And of course, China's stock exchange is holding steady now, around their long term growth average. It was overvalued before, now it's corrected, and definitely hasn't crashed.
  - zipwitch 11y ago
    roflmao Goldman Sachs lies to people who pay them millions, and you think that anything they publish for free is reliable? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/how-goldman-execs-screwed-their-clients-and-lied-to-congress-20110511 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/how-goldman-ex... Any report from Goldman Sachs is designed to advance Goldman Sachs' interests. Any resemblance to reality it might hold is sheer coincidence.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      A 2011 article from Rolling Stone proves what? Furthermore, it's not particularly well written or objective. The point is, they're pretty spot on when it comes to forecasting. More so than pretty much any media outlet. If they say China isn't going to descend into Mad Max style anarchy in the next decade, I believe them.
jsloss 11y ago
I see one point that would be illegal in Canada. All the others have language that makes them far more broad than any restrictions placed on our media here. But I'm probably brainwashed just like you my friend.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  2, 3 and 5 are illegal in Canada (disclosing state secrets, inciting ethnic hatred/violence, and slander).
  - refurb 11y ago
    That's a generous reading of those points. You're not including everything. #2 - endangering national security, or harming national honor and interests [national honor? not illegal in Canada] #3 - undermining national unity, or going against ethnic customs and habits [going against ethnic habits? not illegal in Canada] #5 - insulting or slandering others, infringing upon the legitimate rights of others [I'll give you that slander and infringing rights is illegal in Canada, insulting is not] Note that all of these are vague, intentionally vague at that. Whether or not you violated these rules is entirely up to the interpretation of the CCP.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      > You're not including everything. And you're not including the first words of each bullet point, which clearly ARE illegal here. - disclosing state secrets, endangering national security, or harming national honor and interests Illegal, possibly illegal, and while we don't have a concept of national 'honor', going against national interests can be illegal, depending on context. - inciting ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination, undermining national unity, or going against ethnic customs and habits Even the second point (inciting ethnic discrimination) is contrary to our hate speech laws, and the first point definitely is. - spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or undermining social stability I didn't include this because it's a maybe, but unfounded rumours are often considered slander, and disturbing social order is often considered hate speech (though not always). - insulting or slandering others, infringing upon the legitimate rights of others Illegal. > Note that all of these are vague, intentionally vague at that. Whether or not you violated these rules is entirely up to the interpretation of the CCP. You're not familiar with 'common law', are you? Canada's law system (I assume the same holds true for other countries who adopted Britain's system of laws) isn't set in stone, are quite a bit is left to interpretation. It's not particularly unusual. For instance, our last government used an anti-terrorism law to try strip the citizenship of and deport someone who was born in Canada, on the basis that he 'could' be eligible for citizenship in a country he's never stepped foot in. Granted he was convicted of a crime, but goes to show that, even in Canada laws can be interpreted rather broadly.
microcolonel 11y ago
The definitions are far more vague in this case. They could basically make the case that anything is "undermining social stability"; whereas making the same judgement in Canada would be tougher. "endangering social morality or national cultural tradition" could probably even include publishing anything upsetting or otherwise true about the party.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > making the same judgement in Canada would be tougher. Kind of like stripping the citizenship of and deporting a Canadian who was born in Canada and never stepped foot in the country they're being deported to?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ommunist 11y ago
    that would be a waste. Indefinite prison term and slavework in forest enterprises of Saskatchewan would suit better to anyone undermining social order of Canada.

by Mikeb85 11y ago

ascorbic 11y ago

Coverage has taken a negative turn because events have taken a negative turn. Growth is weakening. Shares have fallen sharply. Exports are down. And they're doing things like this.

Mikeb85 11y ago
It's funny, I see this all the time in the media. Yet observers whose opinions I trust far more, have differing thoughts. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/macroeconomic-insights/growth-of-china/ http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/macroeconomic-insig... And of course, China's stock exchange is holding steady now, around their long term growth average. It was overvalued before, now it's corrected, and definitely hasn't crashed.
- zipwitch 11y ago
  roflmao Goldman Sachs lies to people who pay them millions, and you think that anything they publish for free is reliable? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/how-goldman-execs-screwed-their-clients-and-lied-to-congress-20110511 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/how-goldman-ex... Any report from Goldman Sachs is designed to advance Goldman Sachs' interests. Any resemblance to reality it might hold is sheer coincidence.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    A 2011 article from Rolling Stone proves what? Furthermore, it's not particularly well written or objective. The point is, they're pretty spot on when it comes to forecasting. More so than pretty much any media outlet. If they say China isn't going to descend into Mad Max style anarchy in the next decade, I believe them.

jsloss 11y ago

I see one point that would be illegal in Canada. All the others have language that makes them far more broad than any restrictions placed on our media here. But I'm probably brainwashed just like you my friend.

Mikeb85 11y ago
2, 3 and 5 are illegal in Canada (disclosing state secrets, inciting ethnic hatred/violence, and slander).
- refurb 11y ago
  That's a generous reading of those points. You're not including everything. #2 - endangering national security, or harming national honor and interests [national honor? not illegal in Canada] #3 - undermining national unity, or going against ethnic customs and habits [going against ethnic habits? not illegal in Canada] #5 - insulting or slandering others, infringing upon the legitimate rights of others [I'll give you that slander and infringing rights is illegal in Canada, insulting is not] Note that all of these are vague, intentionally vague at that. Whether or not you violated these rules is entirely up to the interpretation of the CCP.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    > You're not including everything. And you're not including the first words of each bullet point, which clearly ARE illegal here. - disclosing state secrets, endangering national security, or harming national honor and interests Illegal, possibly illegal, and while we don't have a concept of national 'honor', going against national interests can be illegal, depending on context. - inciting ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination, undermining national unity, or going against ethnic customs and habits Even the second point (inciting ethnic discrimination) is contrary to our hate speech laws, and the first point definitely is. - spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or undermining social stability I didn't include this because it's a maybe, but unfounded rumours are often considered slander, and disturbing social order is often considered hate speech (though not always). - insulting or slandering others, infringing upon the legitimate rights of others Illegal. > Note that all of these are vague, intentionally vague at that. Whether or not you violated these rules is entirely up to the interpretation of the CCP. You're not familiar with 'common law', are you? Canada's law system (I assume the same holds true for other countries who adopted Britain's system of laws) isn't set in stone, are quite a bit is left to interpretation. It's not particularly unusual. For instance, our last government used an anti-terrorism law to try strip the citizenship of and deport someone who was born in Canada, on the basis that he 'could' be eligible for citizenship in a country he's never stepped foot in. Granted he was convicted of a crime, but goes to show that, even in Canada laws can be interpreted rather broadly.

microcolonel 11y ago

The definitions are far more vague in this case. They could basically make the case that anything is "undermining social stability"; whereas making the same judgement in Canada would be tougher. "endangering social morality or national cultural tradition" could probably even include publishing anything upsetting or otherwise true about the party.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> making the same judgement in Canada would be tougher. Kind of like stripping the citizenship of and deporting a Canadian who was born in Canada and never stepped foot in the country they're being deported to?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ommunist 11y ago
  that would be a waste. Indefinite prison term and slavework in forest enterprises of Saskatchewan would suit better to anyone undermining social order of Canada.