2 ms·

> Decontextualizing the nature of the interview and soundbite into a headline is not responsible journalism IMO No, not particularly. However, having read both

by shkkmo 7y ago

> Decontextualizing the nature of the interview and soundbite into a headline is not responsible journalism IMO No, not particularly. However, having read both the contents and the piece the and summary of the "rebuttal", I find the headline sufficiently accurate. If find the headline more accurate that your attempt to characterize it as "the kind of headline one would engineer to dismiss Chinese perspectives" >as for the balancing Chinese perspective, it was one paragraph of people who are disturbed that the publication is "synonymous with government propaganda" and a more detailed examination of one named individual who is apathetic towards the role of journalism to further support the narrative that Chinese students are "melon-eating masses". I count 11+ paragraphs that detail the opinions of 3 different Chinese individuals (Xiao, Fang and Huang) and they are not presented as monolithic.

dirtyid 7y ago
Both Fang "a communications professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong" and Xiao who "teaches at the U.C. Berkeley School of Information and runs a bilingual Web site called China Digital Times" (a great resource) are commenting on general issues regarding Chinese journalism / media propaganda apparatus doesn't meaningfully elucidate divergent perspectives of netizens on College Daily. The article doesn't deviate from generic all Chinese media is state controlled narrative which while true omits the fact that Chinese student diaspora doesn't exclusive derive information from Chinese sources or even trust Chinese sources, specifically in reference to College Daily which I've seen even die-hard /r/sino tankies dismiss. Instead condescendingly portraying Chinese media readers as "conditioned" to propaganda, "dissociated from truth", "one of the melon-eating masses", "passive onlooker with neither the means nor the interest to know what’s truly going on", deserving of "sympathy" because they're not even deplorable enough like western fringe opinion holders who had the freedom to form their own worldview. A brainwashed monolith. The headline is accurate in the sense that's it's not factually wrong, but that's the nature of propaganda via omission. Repeat such pattern over many articles and it gives credence to the "rebuttal" that identifies the piece as one of many designed to "orchestrate a defamatory campaign" against China and in particular increasing politically active Chinese students in context of current political climate. I'm going to end my contributions here, but thank you for the discussion.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  Calling something propaganda by omission is still not a rebuttal, especially when that rebuttal also fails to provide any of the supposedly "omitted" facts. You can't just ignore things you disagree with because they are biased.

by shkkmo 7y ago

dirtyid 7y ago

Both Fang "a communications professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong" and Xiao who "teaches at the U.C. Berkeley School of Information and runs a bilingual Web site called China Digital Times" (a great resource) are commenting on general issues regarding Chinese journalism / media propaganda apparatus doesn't meaningfully elucidate divergent perspectives of netizens on College Daily. The article doesn't deviate from generic all Chinese media is state controlled narrative which while true omits the fact that Chinese student diaspora doesn't exclusive derive information from Chinese sources or even trust Chinese sources, specifically in reference to College Daily which I've seen even die-hard /r/sino tankies dismiss. Instead condescendingly portraying Chinese media readers as "conditioned" to propaganda, "dissociated from truth", "one of the melon-eating masses", "passive onlooker with neither the means nor the interest to know what’s truly going on", deserving of "sympathy" because they're not even deplorable enough like western fringe opinion holders who had the freedom to form their own worldview. A brainwashed monolith. The headline is accurate in the sense that's it's not factually wrong, but that's the nature of propaganda via omission. Repeat such pattern over many articles and it gives credence to the "rebuttal" that identifies the piece as one of many designed to "orchestrate a defamatory campaign" against China and in particular increasing politically active Chinese students in context of current political climate. I'm going to end my contributions here, but thank you for the discussion.

shkkmo 7y ago
Calling something propaganda by omission is still not a rebuttal, especially when that rebuttal also fails to provide any of the supposedly "omitted" facts. You can't just ignore things you disagree with because they are biased.