3 ms·
It's a letter to the editor from the Chinese consul in response to an editorial.
by razakel 5mo ago
It's a letter to the editor from the Chinese consul in response to an editorial.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- kjkjadksj 5mo agoDoes that justify publishing propaganda on your platform though? Editorial board should be media literate enough to know this. Of course, the LA times credibility has been tarnished since their billionaire owner bought it and started putting their thumb on things. Many journalists quit in protest due to this owner.
- razakel 5mo agoHere is the piece in question: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-09/chinese-official-responds-to-times-editorial-on-uyghurs https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-09/chinese-off... It's very clearly labelled as an official response from the Chinese government. So it's what the people they're accusing have to say, and that's why they published it. Whether or not to believe them is left to the reader.
- kjkjadksj 5mo agoIt still breathes legitimacy into this propaganda by hosting it as such without any qualification. People might be inclined to believe the PRC, after all it is in the LA times, how untrue might it even be, they might think. Editors ought to be aware of the power of their platform. The chinese ultimately wanted to put this story in the LA times and they were allowed to do so.
- razakel 4mo agoThe right of reply is widely considered part of journalistic ethics. If you accuse someone of something in print, you should at least give them the opportunity to refute it.