4 ms·

There is something rather disingenuous about the way the article is written: it takes advantage of an inattentive reader who only reads the title and not the ac

by qiqing 9y ago

There is something rather disingenuous about the way the article is written: it takes advantage of an inattentive reader who only reads the title and not the actual article text. Most readers will probably miss some things. * Broadcom is a Singaporean company, not Chinese. * The article asserts that Huawei and other Chinese chip manufacturers will indirectly benefit from the proposed merger. * Cfius, who is looking closely at the Broadcom-Qualcomm proposed deal, looks closely at other investment / merger deals from China for national security reasons. .... and most readers will at this point incorrectly assume that Broadcom is a Chinese company, having forgotten what was read in the first 3 paragraphs.

mlb_hn 9y ago
I see that as well. There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China (No judgment as to the veracity of those fears). Definitely something to keep in mind when reading pieces like this.
- qiqing 9y ago
  I've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against. I worry when the FBI Director claims all Chinese student organizations are under suspicion because they have evidence that one university student club accepted donations from an embassy in order to fund a Chinese New Year party. Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving?
  - trhway 9y ago
    >Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving? no imagination needed. In Russia the organizations accepting foreign resources (private or public doesn't matter) must register as "foreign agents".
  - darawk 9y ago
    > I've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against. Let's not draw a moral equivalence between US surveillance and Chinese surveillance. Chinese surveillance is explicit, and profoundly more invasive and pervasive than the US's. It's also explicitly used as a political tool - to enforce the will of the party, not the state. These are extremely critical differences that it is irresponsible not to continually and stridently point out. What China is doing to its citizens is infinitely more frightening than anything the NSA has ever done.
    - qiqing 9y ago
      I'm not drawing a moral equivalence. As someone who grew up in the US and has experienced racism, I fear where this campaign could lead. Here, we have an article about a Singaporean company trying to take over a US company. And the entire narrative is about China.
      - abacadabra 9y ago
        You're not going to find any empathy here on HN. Given your experiences you should already know this. In the long run the only reliable way to avoid racism in the US is to avoid the US. The fact that you have to worry about potential racism already shows that you already know that it's an untenable position associate with US.
- shanghaiaway 9y ago
  ＞There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China 10+ years. NYT is at the frontier of American propaganda, as we saw with their Iraq lies following 9/11
- echevil 9y ago
  That's more like a common practice of all western media, and it's not just the past few months. I'm glad you noticed.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
The article is not misleading at all if you actually read it. It can only be considered twisted because the narrative contains non trivial details, which I don’t think the author could have avoided considering the facts at hand.
- qiqing 9y ago
  The article also omitted this crucial detail that was mentioned in the PC Mag coverage: "Broadcomm added that most of its board of directors and senior management team is made up of Americans. It also contends that the company's plan to buy Qualcomm will no longer fall under CFIUS's review when Broadcom finishes relocating to the US." Yes, I did actually read the article (unlike many commenters going on about China this or China that), which is why I found the title misleading, since Broadcom isn't even a Chinese company. I'm glad that the other commenter linked to that article because that author doesn't forget to remind the reader "However, Broadcom is not a Chinese company."
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Seriously? From the article > The proposed acquisition by the Singapore-based Broadcom would have been the largest deal in technology history, creating a major force in the development of the computer chips that power smartphones and many internet-connected devices. I mean, if the company is a Singapore-based company, then how is the author not reminding us it isn't Chinese? Broadcom is only mentioned twice in the article, so a 50% reminder rate isn't that bad.
    - qiqing 9y ago
      The entire narrative of the article was about China. And zero of the HN commenters prior to my comment seemed to realize Broadcom isn't Chinese.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Yes, the article was about China. No, the article didn't try to pass Broadcom of as being Chinese, it did however, mention that Huawei was Chinese, for whatever that is worth. I hardly see how the article was factually incorrect in any way, or even deceptive.
ausjke 9y ago
it might be deeper than that, I won't be surprised if Chinese has some big hidden stake in the money involved for the merger, end of the day, money talks, politics follows. by the way this is not unique to any country, they all do this sort of things.
- qiqing 9y ago
  > I won't be surprised if ... Do you think you would be more surprised, less surprised, or about the same, if the situation were reversed? Let's try a thought experiment. Hypothetically, say, a Singaporean company was trying to take over a Chinese company (both companies in this case have Chinese citizen executives), and the Chinese government was trying to block it. And let's say there's news coverage apropos of nothing, that American companies would be the indirect beneficiaries, so the US was (wink, wink) behind it all. What is your level of surprise then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - ausjke 9y ago
    no need to over-react, unlike in china, here we do have free speech so just get used to it, and the comment is actually neutral to all countries, as it stated.
    - qiqing 9y ago
      I grew up in the US. I'm accustomed to free speech, thanks. Not sure why you're offended by the thought experiment. A thought experiment where you swap one variable and see how it sounds reversed is a very useful tool for detecting cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is a major source of racism. Racism is something I experienced growing up here, and one of my chief worries when reading articles like this.

by qiqing 9y ago

mlb_hn 9y ago

I see that as well. There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China (No judgment as to the veracity of those fears). Definitely something to keep in mind when reading pieces like this.

qiqing 9y ago
I've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against. I worry when the FBI Director claims all Chinese student organizations are under suspicion because they have evidence that one university student club accepted donations from an embassy in order to fund a Chinese New Year party. Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving?
- trhway 9y ago
  >Can you imagine if a student organization supporting American students studying abroad was deemed suspicious because the US Embassy bought them a turkey or two at Thanksgiving? no imagination needed. In Russia the organizations accepting foreign resources (private or public doesn't matter) must register as "foreign agents".
- darawk 9y ago
  > I've noticed that too. While there are legitimate criticisms of Chinese surveillance over Chinese social media (just like there are legitimate criticisms of American surveillance over American social media), I can't help by worry about something else: that this is how it begins. I worry that people who look like me will be deemed suspicious and discriminated against. Let's not draw a moral equivalence between US surveillance and Chinese surveillance. Chinese surveillance is explicit, and profoundly more invasive and pervasive than the US's. It's also explicitly used as a political tool - to enforce the will of the party, not the state. These are extremely critical differences that it is irresponsible not to continually and stridently point out. What China is doing to its citizens is infinitely more frightening than anything the NSA has ever done.
  - qiqing 9y ago
    I'm not drawing a moral equivalence. As someone who grew up in the US and has experienced racism, I fear where this campaign could lead. Here, we have an article about a Singaporean company trying to take over a US company. And the entire narrative is about China.
    - abacadabra 9y ago
      You're not going to find any empathy here on HN. Given your experiences you should already know this. In the long run the only reliable way to avoid racism in the US is to avoid the US. The fact that you have to worry about potential racism already shows that you already know that it's an untenable position associate with US.
shanghaiaway 9y ago
＞There's been an interesting trend over at least the last several months where NYTimes has been promoting fears about China 10+ years. NYT is at the frontier of American propaganda, as we saw with their Iraq lies following 9/11
echevil 9y ago
That's more like a common practice of all western media, and it's not just the past few months. I'm glad you noticed.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

The article is not misleading at all if you actually read it. It can only be considered twisted because the narrative contains non trivial details, which I don’t think the author could have avoided considering the facts at hand.

qiqing 9y ago
The article also omitted this crucial detail that was mentioned in the PC Mag coverage: "Broadcomm added that most of its board of directors and senior management team is made up of Americans. It also contends that the company's plan to buy Qualcomm will no longer fall under CFIUS's review when Broadcom finishes relocating to the US." Yes, I did actually read the article (unlike many commenters going on about China this or China that), which is why I found the title misleading, since Broadcom isn't even a Chinese company. I'm glad that the other commenter linked to that article because that author doesn't forget to remind the reader "However, Broadcom is not a Chinese company."
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Seriously? From the article > The proposed acquisition by the Singapore-based Broadcom would have been the largest deal in technology history, creating a major force in the development of the computer chips that power smartphones and many internet-connected devices. I mean, if the company is a Singapore-based company, then how is the author not reminding us it isn't Chinese? Broadcom is only mentioned twice in the article, so a 50% reminder rate isn't that bad.
  - qiqing 9y ago
    The entire narrative of the article was about China. And zero of the HN commenters prior to my comment seemed to realize Broadcom isn't Chinese.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Yes, the article was about China. No, the article didn't try to pass Broadcom of as being Chinese, it did however, mention that Huawei was Chinese, for whatever that is worth. I hardly see how the article was factually incorrect in any way, or even deceptive.

ausjke 9y ago

it might be deeper than that, I won't be surprised if Chinese has some big hidden stake in the money involved for the merger, end of the day, money talks, politics follows. by the way this is not unique to any country, they all do this sort of things.

qiqing 9y ago
> I won't be surprised if ... Do you think you would be more surprised, less surprised, or about the same, if the situation were reversed? Let's try a thought experiment. Hypothetically, say, a Singaporean company was trying to take over a Chinese company (both companies in this case have Chinese citizen executives), and the Chinese government was trying to block it. And let's say there's news coverage apropos of nothing, that American companies would be the indirect beneficiaries, so the US was (wink, wink) behind it all. What is your level of surprise then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ausjke 9y ago
  no need to over-react, unlike in china, here we do have free speech so just get used to it, and the comment is actually neutral to all countries, as it stated.
  - qiqing 9y ago
    I grew up in the US. I'm accustomed to free speech, thanks. Not sure why you're offended by the thought experiment. A thought experiment where you swap one variable and see how it sounds reversed is a very useful tool for detecting cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is a major source of racism. Racism is something I experienced growing up here, and one of my chief worries when reading articles like this.