4 ms·

China (as usual) painted as an evil villain to the righteous U.S. A great startup idea, would be a media outlet that didn't push such a massive point of view o

by Volpe 14y ago

China (as usual) painted as an evil villain to the righteous U.S. A great startup idea, would be a media outlet that didn't push such a massive point of view on everything... Likely, a lot of media outlets probably started that way...

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
You mean the high-quality unbiased news we can get from CCTV? China has a fairly opaque government that is not very sensitive to public opinion (and especially international opinion); that they are often painted as the bad guy has nothing to do with bias.
- Volpe 14y ago
  > You mean the high-quality unbiased news we can get from CCTV? No, I didn't mean that. I never mentioned such a thing... :\ > China has a fairly opaque government that is not very sensitive to public opinion (and especially international opinion); that they are often painted as the bad guy has nothing to do with bias. I'm curious where you got this view from, from the varied news sources I've read, the Chinese govt is VERY sensitive to public opinion... hence why it runs 24 hour propaganda platforms like CCTV. But regardless, is it 'bad' to be a non-democratic government? Why? What is the 'bad guy' view based on, if not bias? (Of course in the context of how the U.S itself operates, given that was the basis of my comment).
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Just for the record, I'm not downvoting you (only have 200 karma points, can't downvote) and disagree that you need to be downvoted. The CCP is not sensitive to real public opinion since they censor/hide/or simply ignore facts. They are very much vested in shaping opinion, of course, but they care nothing about honest opinions. Consider that they don't even want to perform scientific polls (or have them performed by third parties), since they don't care about the results and would find them embarrassing regardless. That China is the bad guy has nothing to do with them being non-demecratic, and everything to do with just being overtly dishonest about world truth. If the CCP tomorrow started being honest about everything, good and bad, we would see them in a much more sympathetic light even as we contined to disagree with them and bad things continued to happen (we want clarity, not perfection). But the CCP contines to see face as being much more important to their continued existence than truth, and so I doubt this will end very soon.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      But there are not many nations that operate in a "honest about everything" way. I mean wikileaks highlighted a whole lot of stuff about the U.S. that was very far from 'honest about everything'. Are we holding China to a higher bar than the U.S? Or do we have blinders on when viewing the U.S's actions?
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        Its one thing to get your hand caught in the cookie jar, and another thing to claim the sky is hot pink when its really blue (or that the air is clean in Beijing when its obviously not). Certain parts of the US government lie, yes, but they get caught (and a handslap), don't do it all the time, and don't come off as insane.
        Volpe 14y ago
        I don't know, I'd much prefer the lies to be obvious "Beijing isn't polluted" than "No, that Apache isn't gunning down civilians". (Hmm, I realise, that is possibly inciting a whole other discussion). That aside, I still reckon, that article was biased for no reason, other than to continue the 'us against them' mentality that gets no where. And a non-biased fact/data based media outlet would be a great addition to the the world/national (which ever level) media.
        seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        But the article wasn't biased, it was talking about a company who broke the law of the country they were operating in, it wasn't talking about so much the "evil" Chinese government as much as it was talking about the "evil" American company breaking American laws that just happen to export restrictions to China. It could have been export restrictions to France and they would still be breaking the law. Chinese get sensitive about any article that mentions China, whether they make value judgements about the Chinese or not. I've seen even the most fact-based empirically-evidenced articles posted from the most reputable unbiased international news agencies get shot down by wu mao dang commentors as being unfair.
rurounijones 14y ago
Well to be honest, assuming that the facts are correct and reported as such, how exactly would you class China's behaviour in this matter? I cannot see them doing anything in good faith on this one.
- Volpe 14y ago
  Do you think the export ban was in good faith?
  - rurounijones 14y ago
    That is beside the point. There was an export ban in place from before the deal started. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not it was in place. Now it appears from this article that China did their best, in bad faith, to do an end-run around these laws. So I don't really see how the Chinese could be painted in a good light in this article given the above fact that they appeared to be trying to circumvent another country's laws. I also don't really see the US being depicted as righteous in this article. (Note, replies of "But America does that to other countries too!!!" or "This happens all the time" is also beside the point, I am talking about China's actions in this specific case, not general global import/export shenanigans ) [EDIT] seanmcdirmid said it better than me: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4197928 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4197928
    - Volpe 14y ago
      But general global import/export shenanigans is exactly the point. Everyone does this. It's a big mess of politics. You could highlight any country you like, and you'll find corporations/government doing shady business. Consistently highlighting China, or Russia or any country you are building a different narrative than what ALL the facts present.

by Volpe 14y ago

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

You mean the high-quality unbiased news we can get from CCTV? China has a fairly opaque government that is not very sensitive to public opinion (and especially international opinion); that they are often painted as the bad guy has nothing to do with bias.

Volpe 14y ago
> You mean the high-quality unbiased news we can get from CCTV? No, I didn't mean that. I never mentioned such a thing... :\ > China has a fairly opaque government that is not very sensitive to public opinion (and especially international opinion); that they are often painted as the bad guy has nothing to do with bias. I'm curious where you got this view from, from the varied news sources I've read, the Chinese govt is VERY sensitive to public opinion... hence why it runs 24 hour propaganda platforms like CCTV. But regardless, is it 'bad' to be a non-democratic government? Why? What is the 'bad guy' view based on, if not bias? (Of course in the context of how the U.S itself operates, given that was the basis of my comment).
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Just for the record, I'm not downvoting you (only have 200 karma points, can't downvote) and disagree that you need to be downvoted. The CCP is not sensitive to real public opinion since they censor/hide/or simply ignore facts. They are very much vested in shaping opinion, of course, but they care nothing about honest opinions. Consider that they don't even want to perform scientific polls (or have them performed by third parties), since they don't care about the results and would find them embarrassing regardless. That China is the bad guy has nothing to do with them being non-demecratic, and everything to do with just being overtly dishonest about world truth. If the CCP tomorrow started being honest about everything, good and bad, we would see them in a much more sympathetic light even as we contined to disagree with them and bad things continued to happen (we want clarity, not perfection). But the CCP contines to see face as being much more important to their continued existence than truth, and so I doubt this will end very soon.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    But there are not many nations that operate in a "honest about everything" way. I mean wikileaks highlighted a whole lot of stuff about the U.S. that was very far from 'honest about everything'. Are we holding China to a higher bar than the U.S? Or do we have blinders on when viewing the U.S's actions?
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Its one thing to get your hand caught in the cookie jar, and another thing to claim the sky is hot pink when its really blue (or that the air is clean in Beijing when its obviously not). Certain parts of the US government lie, yes, but they get caught (and a handslap), don't do it all the time, and don't come off as insane.
      - Volpe 14y ago
        I don't know, I'd much prefer the lies to be obvious "Beijing isn't polluted" than "No, that Apache isn't gunning down civilians". (Hmm, I realise, that is possibly inciting a whole other discussion). That aside, I still reckon, that article was biased for no reason, other than to continue the 'us against them' mentality that gets no where. And a non-biased fact/data based media outlet would be a great addition to the the world/national (which ever level) media.
        seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        But the article wasn't biased, it was talking about a company who broke the law of the country they were operating in, it wasn't talking about so much the "evil" Chinese government as much as it was talking about the "evil" American company breaking American laws that just happen to export restrictions to China. It could have been export restrictions to France and they would still be breaking the law. Chinese get sensitive about any article that mentions China, whether they make value judgements about the Chinese or not. I've seen even the most fact-based empirically-evidenced articles posted from the most reputable unbiased international news agencies get shot down by wu mao dang commentors as being unfair.

rurounijones 14y ago

Well to be honest, assuming that the facts are correct and reported as such, how exactly would you class China's behaviour in this matter? I cannot see them doing anything in good faith on this one.

Volpe 14y ago
Do you think the export ban was in good faith?
- rurounijones 14y ago
  That is beside the point. There was an export ban in place from before the deal started. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not it was in place. Now it appears from this article that China did their best, in bad faith, to do an end-run around these laws. So I don't really see how the Chinese could be painted in a good light in this article given the above fact that they appeared to be trying to circumvent another country's laws. I also don't really see the US being depicted as righteous in this article. (Note, replies of "But America does that to other countries too!!!" or "This happens all the time" is also beside the point, I am talking about China's actions in this specific case, not general global import/export shenanigans ) [EDIT] seanmcdirmid said it better than me: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4197928 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4197928
  - Volpe 14y ago
    But general global import/export shenanigans is exactly the point. Everyone does this. It's a big mess of politics. You could highlight any country you like, and you'll find corporations/government doing shady business. Consistently highlighting China, or Russia or any country you are building a different narrative than what ALL the facts present.