2 ms·
Your comment makes no sense. First you acknowledge that everyone does it, but then you assert that the article is "rich in hysteria". So, which one is which?
by geezerjay 8y ago
Your comment makes no sense. First you acknowledge that everyone does it, but then you assert that the article is "rich in hysteria".
So, which one is which?
If anything, the article makes it quite clear that the US feels threatened by China, and Huawei is used to inplement a strategy of global domination that actually poses a real and credible threat to the US's dominance, to the point that the article quite literally addresses that concern. That isn't the case with "UK, Korea, Japan, Rusia, France, Germany, etc.", isn't it?
- mark_l_watson 8y agoI was saying that we have more than one technical competitor and also that the news media seems to go all-hype, covering one or a few stories instead of more broad spectrum. For me, PBS news is the best model: cover a broad range of stories. The article covered just one competitor, and I stand by my ‘rich in hysteria’ comment. Also, completion from China, Europe, etc. is in general a good thing in my opinion. Do you like the current ‘one big story’, let’s beat it into the ground style news coverage? Just curious. Anyway, my opinion is that this article is awful.