> My point still stands, the mainstream media's report on Xinjiang is lazy, they have no first-hand deep reporting. That is demonstrably false. I think the pr

> My point still stands, the mainstream media's report on Xinjiang is lazy, they have no first-hand deep reporting. That is demonstrably false. I think the problem is that you expect them to report on this like it was an easy story to report, but it's an extremely difficult story to report because of the interference. > For example, when reporters are followed by government employees, that's the usual lazy bureaucratic reactions to western media. Those are not evidences of "vanishing Uyghurs". It's the exact opposite thing to do if you're trying to dispel allegations of such a thing. The interference, on its own, proves nothing, but lends credence to the things that have been learned about through other channels. > Instead, if they just pretend to be normal travellers, and hop on trains, on bus, on the street, and gather the information through small talks and gossips with real locals, they'll have much more freedom to reach deeper. I don't think what you describe is actually legal in China. First of all, journalists need to declare themselves by getting a special visa, and its unlikely they could fly under the radar if they worked for a major outlet. Secondly, if they do try that approach the government is going to swarm them with minders and plainclothes police to prevent what you're suggesting. e.g.: https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/going-to-comic-lengths-to-stifle-foreign-coverage-in-xinjiang/ https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/going-to-com... > Hoping to hear both sides, Mr. McDonell spent several days traveling across Xinjiang, planning to interview local residents and Chinese officials. Instead, he filmed a segment that communicates the lengths to which the government was willing to go to prevent him from finding out what is really happening in the region. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/insider/china-xinjiang-reporting-surveillance-uighur.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/insider/china-xinjiang-re... (posted earlier) There was also one account I read where a journalist had to go through ridiculous lengths to avoid the minders, but that only bought him less than a day (maybe only an hour or two) before they caught up (he traveled at that last minute with no warning and made sudden changes). > There has never been any successful deployment of voting democracy outside of US for decently sized countries, let alone the largest country on earth. Huh? I'm sure there are at least a few other countries that would like a word. > Considering the historical importance of Cold war and its victory by the western world, don't you think China deserves some mentioning. No, never... not even a hint. It does get mentioned, or at least it did when it was relevant. I mean, this alliance was even mentioned in an action movie from the 80s I watched as a teenager (Red Dawn, about a Soviet Invasion of the US. Some teenage insurgents ask a down piloted who was helping the US fight the Soviets, the answer was only China, not even Europe). > That's the problem, right? One should start realize that their preferred media might not have the 1st-hand information on other regions of the world. And start looking for that. But the MSM does have first hand information. For instance, like that gathered from foreign correspondents and foreign bureaus. > And for that, because of the vast size of China, YT videos, even rando ones are more useful than media reports, because they are showing nuances. Or are fabricated: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/22/technology/xinjiang-uyghurs-china-propaganda.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/22/technology/xi... > These and thousands of other videos are meant to look like unfiltered glimpses of life in Xinjiang, the western Chinese region where the Communist Party has carried out repressive policies against Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities. Most of the clips carry no logos or other signs that they are official propaganda.... > A monthslong analysis of more than 3,000 of the videos by The New York Times and ProPublica found evidence of an influence campaign orchestrated by the Chinese government. > The operation has produced and spread thousands of videos in which Chinese citizens deny abuses against their own communities and scold foreign officials and multinational corporations who dare question the Chinese government’s human rights record in Xinjiang. > ... Establishing that government officials had a hand in making these testimonials is sometimes just a matter of asking. > When reached by phone, the man said local propaganda authorities had produced the clip. When asked for details, he gave the number of an official he called Mr. He, saying, “Why don’t you ask the head of the propaganda department?” > And I need to see it through my own eyes to be confident about my judgement. And what of things you're not allowed to see?