4 ms·
The article presents many opinions as though they are facts. One of the crucial aspects to understanding the South China Sea situation is the dispute of the so
by xnull2guest 10y ago
The article presents many opinions as though they are facts.
One of the crucial aspects to understanding the South China Sea situation is the dispute of the sovereignty of the waters. The New York Times doesn't provide context on the sovereignty disputes, or provide the Chinese argument. Instead misleads its readership by quoting "international waters in the South China Sea."
This is an editorial error of enormous magnitude affecting the quality of the publication. An non politicized publication would write "disputed waters in the South China Sea."
Indeed, you can read back only a couple of years where US media reporting did exactly this. The recent propaganda push inside US media has been to use the term "international waters" in association with the geography to affect public opinion.
- revelation 10y agoThis is a great article for a role reversal. Imagine a Chinese military "research" ship off California gathering data on "water salinity". There would be calls for nukes.
- greglindahl 10y agoActually, no. Back during the Cold War, Russia sent "trawlers" close to the US all of the time. No nukes were fired.
- revelation 10y agoThis makes the point. (We are still around after all, so yes, "no nukes were fired")
- greglindahl 10y agoI think you're missing the point. The US policy is symmetric. Here's the agreement signed with the USSR to try to reduce the possibility of collisions etc with the "trawlers" that the USSR had parked in international waters outside US naval bases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Soviet_Incidents_at_Sea_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Soviet_Incidents_...
- miles 10y agoNo nukes were fired. Only by some divine Providence. Or this guy: Vasili Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov Thank you Vasili Arkhipov, the man who stopped nuclear war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-stopped-nuclear-war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/27/vasili... You (and Almost Everyone You Know) Owe Your Life to This Man. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/25/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/ http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/25/you-and-a...
- thesimpsons1022 10y agonot really. russia hacked our election and we did nothing
- gscott 10y agoDo you mean brought out information about Clinton and her promoters trying to hack the election by getting questions to debates beforehand, rigging the election against Sanders, and when the head of the DNC was found to be only working on Clinton's behalf having to resign then given a juicy job in Clinton's foundation? Well certainly!
- Amezarak 10y agoRussia, China, and other nations regularly send ships much closer to the US than this ship was to China. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/25/pentagon-russian-spy-ship-operating-near-us.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/25/pentagon-russian-... https://www.rt.com/usa/russian-nuclear-sub-gertz-097/ https://www.rt.com/usa/russian-nuclear-sub-gertz-097/ The US response was: > "We respect the freedom of all nations, as reflected in international law, to operate military vessels beyond the territorial seas of other nations." Here are reports of Russian plans and ships patrolling the Californian coast in 2014: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-jets-fly-to-california-coast-in-show-of-force-over-ukraine-commander-says/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-jets-fly-to-california-co...
- mythrwy 10y ago"Off the coast of California" isn't really a good comparison though. The sub was seized something like 50 miles from Subic Bay in the Philippines. In international waters. A long way from the coast of China. So it would be more like a Russian sub cruising around Venezuela or something.
- greglindahl 10y agoThe location is more than 200 miles away from the nearest thing that China claims is an island. But that's just for economic stuff; 12 miles is the limit for sovereignty.
- dba7dba 10y agoI believe sighting of Russian fish trawlers (actually sig intelligence vessel) off Florida coast during earlier launches of space shuttles was pretty common. That didn't lead to nuclear wars.
- dba7dba 10y agoI believe sighting of Russian fish trawlers (actually sig intelligence vessel) off Florida coast during earlier launches of space shuttles was pretty common. That didn't lead to nuclear wars.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- greglindahl 10y agoThe NYT has extensively covered the South China Sea sovereignty dispute. You can write the Public Editor if you think this is an actual error, but you'll probably get a chuckle.
- xnull2guest 10y agoThat's a good idea. I'll write them an email.
- vonklaus 10y agoThey also backed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and disobeyed orders to not publish info on the pantagon papers. They used to be a legitimate news organization and I agree with parent post.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoAgree. Every article doesn't need to recap the context. The average Times reader is no doubt familiar with China's and the UNCLOS's conflicting definitions of territorial waters around the South China Sea.
- xnull2guest 10y agoThe problem is that the Times takes a side rather than reporting independently. It's a glaring editorial error to present a dispute as being concluded with your own opinion. That's what the Times has done. Whether its readership is aware of it or not. I furthermore disagree with the assertion that the average Times reader is no doubt familiar with the context. I find it troubling you present the context improperly yourself (China v. UNCLOS) in writing your opinion here.
- pjc50 10y agoReporting both claims equally when one of them is clearly bogus is ruining US politics already.
- 10y ago
- Amezarak 10y agoDo China's claims really extend to where the drone was seized? According to reports, it was about 50nm northwest of the Phillipines. As best as I can determine, it happened outside the nine-dash line, which is what the dispute is over. If their claims go that far, that seems almost absurd.
- itp 10y agoIs "in association with the geography" a tacit admission that the Chinese claim[0] appears ludicrous when you look at it? I could jot down lines on a map[1] too, and it wouldn't make it any more sane. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line
- xnull2guest 10y agoNope. The point I was making is that across US broadcasting, there has been an attempt to associate the geography "South China Sea" with the term "International Waters."
- pjc50 10y agoWell, that's because it's international waters. There's also an attempt by China to associate the geography "Taiwan" with "China", when it's obviously a separate country.
- xnull2guest 10y ago> Well, that's because it's international waters. We're back to pretending opinions are facts, are we? > There's also an attempt by China to associate the geography "Taiwan" with "China", when it's obviously a separate country. Interestingly here, Taiwan's constitution and official policy does not claim there are two Chinese states. The United States and world consensus also recognizes the People's Republic of China as a government, but not Taiwan. Do you explicitly disagree with ROC, PRC and the US about the status of Taiwan as a separate country?
- kahnpro 10y agoThe official status of Taiwan is playing politics. Nations stopped recognizing Taiwan as a result of PRC's ascendancy. But the PRC does not govern there. Technically Crimea belongs to Ukraine and most of the world acknowledges this. But in all practical realty--de facto--Crimea is now Russian territory. It's not foolish to acknowledge this.
- robotjosh 10y agoIt actually makes publications LESS credible if they were to publish chinese government propaganda.
- xnull2guest 10y agoI agree with you that it is a common American sentiment that American propaganda is credible, and opposing opinions and facts are not.
- jpetso 10y agoIt's also Canadian propaganda, and German propaganda, and who knows how many other media sources publish similar information. Personally, I find it very understandable when two countries or cultures have differing viewpoints about what's right or not. However, I think it's imperative for their integrity to accept rules and international courts if you sign up for it. Many countries have been culpable of such incidents, and they're always in the wrong for unilaterally breaking such agreements. This time, it's China doing so. Don't sign up for common rules if you don't intend on following them. Sure there are propaganda and opinions everywhere, but the question of integrity and ethics is clear in this example.
- kurthr 10y agoI notice that this incident was less than 50 miles from the Philipines (main Luzon/Manila Island) and Subic Bay, and outside of the "Nine Dash Line" of territorial waters claimed by China so if this article wanted to be inflammatory, it certainly could be. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Scarborough+Shoal/@13.7576461,120.7104677,7.43z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x33eac40a29e58811:0x68aa73d0f15ed504!8m2!3d15.2191312!4d117.7402694 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Scarborough+Shoal/@13.7576... Do I need to read more than 10 sentences before getting to this part of the article? The overseas edition of The People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s flagship newspaper, said on its social media account Saturday night that the Chinese capture of the drone was legal because rules about drone activities had not been clearly written. “This is the gray area,” the newspaper said. “If the U.S. military can send the drone, surely China can seize it.” In its statement, the Defense Ministry scolded the United States over what it called its longstanding practice of conducting “close-in reconnaissance and military surveys” in waters claimed by China. It's true that quote is in the last half of the article, but it seems to provide the context that you say is missing, or do you think the article should be several times longer?
- gscott 10y agoThis was outside of the purported 9 dash line. So this was not in disputed waters.