4 ms·

Anytime I read something along the lines of "The nation’s Communist leaders" Except that that's the conventional journalistic way to refer to leaders who come

Anytime I read something along the lines of "The nation’s Communist leaders" Except that that's the conventional journalistic way to refer to leaders who come from the political party with the formal name Communist Party of China (中国共产党). The party has been ruling China as a one-party state, in effect, since 1949, and Marxist-Leninist official ideology (which declares that China is currently in the stage of "socialism," in Marx's view of history) is still the framework for discussing national policy in the state-controlled press. Unfortunately, the constitution mostly has not been followed. That's an understatement. Yep, most countries that are ruled by a formal Communist Party have very appealing language in their written constitutions, because the constitutions are strictly propaganda documents, not legal documents that a citizen can take to court to rely on for protection of individual rights. I'll trust the journalists who are not under direct party control for information about China, thanks.

ObviousScience 12y ago
> I'll trust the journalists who are not under direct party control for information about China, thanks. I'm not sure I'd trust a lot of US press to be entirely objective on China, though, and in particular, when it comes to a different economic strategy than is the norm in the US.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  I get my news about China from journalistic sources all over the world (including China's state-controlled press) but especially from the many Chinese people I know, with whom I can converse and correspond in Chinese. AFTER EDIT: It would be interesting to me and might help me learn something if I heard from a reader about what could be objectionable about this comment, especially because I was responding to another reader's assumption that I only get news from United States sources (which has not been true about news from China, for me, since I began studying Chinese in 1975).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  China is run by the "Chinese Communist Party" or CCP for short. The journalists refer to China's communist leaders because that is how they and China's public identifies them. As professionals, they cannot editorialize as you've just done. If China claimed they were run by Santa Clause and merry Elves, the journalists could at best put it in quotes.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Anyone who lives in China knows it's "complicated," but journalists just report, they don't editorialize. The quote thing is used more often by Chinese reporters to talk about the "president" of Taiwan, which is obviously sensitive for them. They might also say the leader of Taiwan, but this is unprofessional. Incidentally, the ROC government has more congruity with pre 1949 China than the PRC one. As for DPRK, reporters say that, and they refer to Kim Jong Un as "dear leader" since that is what the North Koreans use, not because he is particularly dear. Even when Stalin was in charge, communism was more of a name than a stringent mantle to uphold. The communist party might not be very communist, the Nazi's weren't very socialist. Names are just that.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        > but journalists just report, they don't editorialize. I don't know what media you pay attention to, but I don't know of a single media source that don't editorialise. > and they refer to Kim Jong Un as "dear leader" since that is what the North Koreans use When Western media refers to "dear leader" it is almost always ironic, as a standing joke about how ridiculous over the top DPRK propaganda is, not because "that is what the North Koreans use". It is very often interjected in contexts where there is no reason to include it other than because it sounds ridiculous to their audience. > The communist party might not be very communist, the Nazi's weren't very socialist. Names are just that. Names are not just that when they are intentionally used to colour public perception. It is perfectly valid to question why journalists word things the way they do. If the NYT often refers to "friendly" governments the same way - by including a reference to the governing party - then it's probably just a stylistic choice. If they single out certain nations/parties, then that's a different matter.
gretful 12y ago
Looks like the US Constitution is becoming more of a propaganda document as we move along the timeline. So I would have to say it's not just a failing of a formal Communist Party, it's a failing of humanity.
vidarh 12y ago
> Except that that's the conventional journalistic way to refer to leaders who come from the political party with the formal name Communist Party of China Is it? Picking about a dozen random articles from the NYT "World" section today, I found none that referred to "X's [ideology/party designation] leaders" other than this one. Though that does not necessarily mean that there's intentional bias from the NYT here - the above selection of articles also avoided an opportunity to do the same for North Korea. > which declares that China is currently in the stage of "socialism," in Marx's view of history And this is one of the big issues I have with the constant use of "communist" by the media when referring to these governments and parties, because they pretty much never make the distinction you just did, which is a quite major one. > Yep, most countries that are ruled by a formal Communist Party have very appealing language in their written constitutions You can extend that to "most dictatorships" regardless of the name or claims of the ruling party. Very few dictators are prepared to publicly announce they are bad. Many even appears to believe in their own propaganda.

ObviousScience 12y ago

> I'll trust the journalists who are not under direct party control for information about China, thanks. I'm not sure I'd trust a lot of US press to be entirely objective on China, though, and in particular, when it comes to a different economic strategy than is the norm in the US.

tokenadult 12y ago
I get my news about China from journalistic sources all over the world (including China's state-controlled press) but especially from the many Chinese people I know, with whom I can converse and correspond in Chinese. AFTER EDIT: It would be interesting to me and might help me learn something if I heard from a reader about what could be objectionable about this comment, especially because I was responding to another reader's assumption that I only get news from United States sources (which has not been true about news from China, for me, since I began studying Chinese in 1975).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
China is run by the "Chinese Communist Party" or CCP for short. The journalists refer to China's communist leaders because that is how they and China's public identifies them. As professionals, they cannot editorialize as you've just done. If China claimed they were run by Santa Clause and merry Elves, the journalists could at best put it in quotes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Anyone who lives in China knows it's "complicated," but journalists just report, they don't editorialize. The quote thing is used more often by Chinese reporters to talk about the "president" of Taiwan, which is obviously sensitive for them. They might also say the leader of Taiwan, but this is unprofessional. Incidentally, the ROC government has more congruity with pre 1949 China than the PRC one. As for DPRK, reporters say that, and they refer to Kim Jong Un as "dear leader" since that is what the North Koreans use, not because he is particularly dear. Even when Stalin was in charge, communism was more of a name than a stringent mantle to uphold. The communist party might not be very communist, the Nazi's weren't very socialist. Names are just that.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      > but journalists just report, they don't editorialize. I don't know what media you pay attention to, but I don't know of a single media source that don't editorialise. > and they refer to Kim Jong Un as "dear leader" since that is what the North Koreans use When Western media refers to "dear leader" it is almost always ironic, as a standing joke about how ridiculous over the top DPRK propaganda is, not because "that is what the North Koreans use". It is very often interjected in contexts where there is no reason to include it other than because it sounds ridiculous to their audience. > The communist party might not be very communist, the Nazi's weren't very socialist. Names are just that. Names are not just that when they are intentionally used to colour public perception. It is perfectly valid to question why journalists word things the way they do. If the NYT often refers to "friendly" governments the same way - by including a reference to the governing party - then it's probably just a stylistic choice. If they single out certain nations/parties, then that's a different matter.

gretful 12y ago

Looks like the US Constitution is becoming more of a propaganda document as we move along the timeline. So I would have to say it's not just a failing of a formal Communist Party, it's a failing of humanity.

vidarh 12y ago

> Except that that's the conventional journalistic way to refer to leaders who come from the political party with the formal name Communist Party of China Is it? Picking about a dozen random articles from the NYT "World" section today, I found none that referred to "X's [ideology/party designation] leaders" other than this one. Though that does not necessarily mean that there's intentional bias from the NYT here - the above selection of articles also avoided an opportunity to do the same for North Korea. > which declares that China is currently in the stage of "socialism," in Marx's view of history And this is one of the big issues I have with the constant use of "communist" by the media when referring to these governments and parties, because they pretty much never make the distinction you just did, which is a quite major one. > Yep, most countries that are ruled by a formal Communist Party have very appealing language in their written constitutions You can extend that to "most dictatorships" regardless of the name or claims of the ruling party. Very few dictators are prepared to publicly announce they are bad. Many even appears to believe in their own propaganda.