U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-06-2014, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Taipei
6,790 posts, read 5,149,934 times
Reputation: 4596

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Look, I think you are a well educated guy that's why I reason with you.

Nobody denies the bad reputation of current China. Even the Chinese nationals criticize their country constantly. Talk to any Chinese, those who think China is fantastic versus those who considered it hopelessly corrupted is probably 1:5.

Plenty negative things about China but I am afraid the media propaganda, especially American (and Canadians one, many don't know) is out of proportion.

In 1989, the students protested peacefully against corruption, but later they were used and manipulated by special groups with different agendas, many with US assistance. Do you really think the government all of sudden just started shooting defenseless students on hunger protest? Even the CCP is not that evil, or stupid.

First the students, then many others, factory workers, small business owners etc. It started peacefully but quickly turned into something else. Violence started and chaos created. Protesters, under some "leaders", started to break public infrastructure, blocking traffic and engaged in violent tussles. The government sent police and troops to maintain stability (every government will do), and inevitably violent clashes started to occur between protesters who become increasingly impatient and police/soldiers who were trying to contain the situation. It was not supposed to be violent but with the involvement of more and more people, including many extremists who wanted nothing but chaos and opportunists, who were more interested in taking advantage of the situation, everything got out of control.

Then casualties and death happened. Honestly I seriously doubt that the soldiers started killing the protesters. Many observers confirm that it were the peacekeeping soldiers who became victims first. A small group of angry mob probably started it. The dead soldiers were not only killed, but also burned and exposed in the public. Situation quickly escalated into large scale violence in Beijing and it worried the authorities, and the CCP eventually decided the crack down using military forced and ended it through bloodshedding - basically at all cost.

I am not defending the Chinese government for such an atrocity, but bear in mind that it is far more complicated than simply China killing hundreds of peaceful students - like most westerners tend to believe. Nothing is as simple as that. Given the situation, I still believe the Chinese government made the right decision, although lives were lost and the country will always be haunted by what happened.

I say it is the "right" decision doesn't mean I believe it is the best decision. However, in 1989, China just started to take off after decades of endless internal fight and nonsense. It would be extremely dangerous, and harmful to the vast majority of the population if such a path is suddenly ended and drastic changes, most likely anarchy and long term social unrest happened and persisted. By ending the riot and avoiding large scale chaos, the country was put back to the right track immediately- economic reform and development and therefore the 1B Chinese were able to improve their living standard within such a short period of time. There was a huge social cost but there probably was probably no other way.

Of course it is easy for outsiders to judge, because they don't have to live in China, and they don't have to suffer the consequences of chronic social unrest and poverty. They can simply point fingers and say “murder, slaughter, massacre" and keep vaunting their value, and I am sure US and its allies will keep doing that until their imaginary communist enemy collapses like the USSR and better become part of their system.

Speaking of the US, they definitely supported the protesters, not because they support democracy, but because they antagonize China as a "communist country". A fool would believe America support freedom and democracy in other countries - they couldn't care less. They only use it as a noble reason when it suits their national interest. Plenty of pro-freedom protests happened in Saudi Arab, Qatar, Bahrain, all those extreme dictatorship countries with the worse human right record, do you know what the US did? They sell weapons to those regimes to crush any protests, because those dictators are friends with Uncle Sam. Remember, the US and its allies don't give a rat's ass about freedom and democracy in other nations. Everything they do is solely for their neo-imperialism under various often noble disguise.

My baseline has always been: what's the point of democracy if you are stuck in poverty and don't even have decent roads to use and enough toilet to go to?
The story I read is completely different from yours,but it can also lead to another discussion.The article in the first page didn't premise anything either.He(presumably) also said that some Chinese think the government did the right thing,some have no idea at all,while some condemn the action.

As for the democracy part.I agree that China would've gone all chaotic if some drastic democratic steps were taken,democracy takes time to mature(the idiots in Taiwan are living proofs of immature democracy)but I'm on a fence if the suppression was necessary for China's economy.Nobody knows what things would have turned out if the incident didn't happen,a gradual reform may or may not have been even more helpful.

As for the US thing,actually almost every democracy in the world don't really care about how other countries are either.I mean have you ever heard of Sweden or Norway or Switzerland said anything about the dictatorship all over the world?Not really,especially the Swiss.They are very good at keeping their mouths shut and staying away from all kinds of troubles.

Those that criticize the dictatorship are always the reporters or random people,a "country" or the businessmen only care about themselves.China has a bad reputation,but she's still the biggest trading partner with almost every other country in the world and no one will ever give up that market just because of the poor human rights.The Arabian states are scary,but people still need oil from them.
Take France as an example,it's a democracy by all means,but French have always been selling weapons to China via other countries despite the policy of EU that prohibits doing so.Not that much difference between US selling weapons to the dictatorship in other countries.It's hard to find a politician or a businessman who's not a hypocrite.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2014, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Western Oregon
1,379 posts, read 1,278,090 times
Reputation: 1268
Quote:
Originally Posted by xhgz View Post
Chomsky (You can google him about this political view) has a series of books about political views/propaganda. United States propaganda and history outlets usually fill with "feel-good" distortion of history in the education system. You'll commentators are not familiar with the Chomsky in the post because mainstream media never allow him to speak/elaborate his idea because his idea is totally contrary to "feel-good" mood. ...
This has nothing to do with what I posted. It seems you are the one who doesn't know the facts.
I know that the USA has mastered propaganda. But it seems you are taking what some Americans say as what most Americans think. Here you are mistaken. And you go on an on with the point you were making, which is a valid point, but the "facts" you mentioned were not facts.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2014, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
9,790 posts, read 13,388,896 times
Reputation: 11313
Noam Chomsky's points are valid, and I agree with plenty of them, but it's important to differentiate between factual data and the opinions that come from them. Many of Chomsky's points are indeed opinion; it's not necessarily the case that his book is a treasure trove of heretofore unknown facts.

Another point to understand is that although critical of American socioeconomic mores, his main readership is American and America is where he made a name and career for himself. It's certainly true that the American citizenry are bombarded with "infotainment," which selects the most sensationalist stories or presents an pverblown level of focus on things of minimal consequence to the greater portion of society, such as the round-the-clock coverage of the Malaysian Airliner or the Jodi Arias trial, while it was still going on.

When people use this as a counterpoint to American or Western criticisms of Chinese laws suppressing free speech and dissemination of information, it misses a critical point: the US has no central, government controlled media outlet, and thus the news is generally handled by private entities, which any American is free to pick to pay attention to or ignore based on their sensibilities. Look at the differential between Fox and NBC News viewers; there is no equivalent spectrum in China because the government regulates what information is given, the manner in which it's given, and the depth to which is covered. In the US, you're also able to read at length about thongs such as the My Lai Massacre, the Waco siege, the Manning or Snowden leaked files, etc. Ugly things that the US gov't would certainly like to forget, and which the mainstream media may attempt to spin whichever way it wants, but all the information is freely available to anyone who cares to look for it.

Look at the more moonbatty stuff out there - chemtrails, black helicopters, freemasons, FEMA camps, etc - which are touted as fact on online news portals or media such as Art Bell's radio shows. Would China a llow a radio show where people call in seditious and negative conspiracy theories about the government? No.

And in fairness, as usual, I'll say that I can see the pros and cons of this approach. The con is that legitimate dissent or criticism is mitigated. The pro is that groups which are antisocial and potentially dangerous for society don't have a platform or mouthpiece with which to gain popular support or prominence (think: the Tea Party, BNP, Moonies). As I stated before, like it or not, these realities are why US growth and progress is mired in political bickering and red tape, while China is growing, modernizing, and becoming stronger. Interestingly, the US' biggest troubles started when it deregulated protectionist economic policies in the favor of an unfettered free market.

But, back to the issue of media awareness, opinion, etc. Disagreeing with something because it's wrong doesn't make you right. If you put a banana on the table, I say it's a fish, and another guy tells me I'm wrong because it's a schooner, then he's right that I'm wrong, but neither of us is actually right.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 05:13 AM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,676,194 times
Reputation: 972
I was a teenager during that time, and while I do not claim to really know much about what actually happened, I was in Beijing in May 1989 for a cultural tour with some high school friends. We were young and pretty much oblivious to what was going on around us! We were initially mad that the curfew was early (explained to us that it's not a very good time), but nightlife in Beijing in 1989 was pretty much non existent anyway. However, I would say that during early May, it was actually possible to go around Beijing without that much inconvenience, so in my opinion, it's not entirely accurate to say that the protests made everyday life in China difficult as a justification to quell the students. It was my first time in China, so I wouldn't notice if anything is amiss. In fact, I only noticed that there was some signs of mourning for Hu Yaobang on Tiananmen Square from our photos in early May after the massacre happened. We even visited Peking University early May. It was only on our last day in Beijing (end of May) when the traffic was horrible as we needed to pass by near Tiananmen Square that we were aware that there were protests. But being young, it did not occur to us that this was China and any dissent is taken very very seriously.

Anyway, I only got to know more about the massacre from media outside of China (less than a week after leaving Beijing). I know there's also some bias from Western media, but it's my opinion that the students were not the first ones to use force (with all those tanks and the students having no weapons, how can they?), that these protests were not going on for that long so as to justify killing them or that this massacre was necessary for economic reforms to prosper. If anything, in my opinion, China was a sleeping giant that will somehow be successful economically as long as they do not have a civil war or having some radical Communist movements such as the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward. I would rather say that the CCP did what it did to maintain its control over the government in China. If the massacre did not happen and there were more government reforms, my own opinion is that the Chinese economy will still grow at a very fast pace. Maybe not as fast as what we saw, but certainly much faster than any developed country in the 1990s and 2000s. The difference might be that the CCP may not be the only party in China anymore.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:09 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,300,838 times
Reputation: 7587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
it misses a critical point: the US has no central, government controlled media outlet, and thus the news is generally handled by private entities, which any American is free to pick to pay attention to or ignore based on their sensibilities.
I think you miss a point here by believing that the US media outlets are somehow "independent" and are free to say whatever facts they like. It is hardly true.

Sure various American media outlets have different opinions and present various "Facts", creating the illusion that people have access to all the information they need. But don't forget while the constitution prohibits the government to control the mass media and the information it disseminates, no laws say the government has to provide the media with any information at all. The media relies on government agencies for information and has to cooperate in some way with the government, especially when it come to important issues.

For example, immediately after 911, any sensible journalists would be interested in dig deep into the history and relationship between Washington and Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. Has any major newspaper discussed the fact that the US government actually supported Al Qaeda in the Serbia War? Or the sheer fact that Al Qaeda is the creation of the CIA and all the so-called Al Qaeda affiliation in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia are being used by their Western intelligence handlers to destroy and destabilize sovereign countries?

In condemning Iraq's "nuclear program", has the media cared to mention the fact that in the 1990s the US companies with approval of the Reagan and Bush administration have sent numerous fatal biological weapons including antrax to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the US?

In demanding Iraq/Iran to destroy their nuclear weapons, has the American media ask the question why its government has no interest in apply the same standard on Israel, which is known to already possess large amount of nuclear weapon too? Moreover, why doesn't it talk about the fact that the US itself possesses by far the largest amount the MDW and American nuclear weapon is just as dangerous as Iran's? There is no good or bad nuclear weapon, at least the US itself shouldn't be the judge.

No, the media on many occasions chose to be collectively silent. You don't see CNN broadcasting such discoveries 24/7 with their fancy technology and in their indignant tones. The media, at the will of the government oftentimes, choose to present facts they want the people to know, and conveniently hide more facts for nothing but their own agenda.

The US media gives the illusion of free press but that's just a result of more skillful manipulation. I used to admire such freedom in the US when I was much younger - see nothing is banned or blocked and you can talk about anything, until I realise that it is just hypocrisy in the disguise of freedom replacing downright authoritarianism.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Taipei
6,790 posts, read 5,149,934 times
Reputation: 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I think you miss a point here by believing that the US media outlets are somehow "independent" and are free to say whatever facts they like. It is hardly true.

Sure various American media outlets have different opinions and present various "Facts", creating the illusion that people have access to all the information they need. But don't forget while the constitution prohibits the government to control the mass media and the information it disseminates, no laws say the government has to provide the media with any information at all. The media relies on government agencies for information and has to cooperate in some way with the government, especially when it come to important issues.

For example, immediately after 911, any sensible journalists would be interested in dig deep into the history and relationship between Washington and Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. Has any major newspaper discussed the fact that the US government actually supported Al Qaeda in the Serbia War? Or the sheer fact that Al Qaeda is the creation of the CIA and all the so-called Al Qaeda affiliation in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia are being used by their Western intelligence handlers to destroy and destabilize sovereign countries?

In condemning Iraq's "nuclear program", has the media cared to mention the fact that in the 1990s the US companies with approval of the Reagan and Bush administration have sent numerous fatal biological weapons including antrax to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the US?

In demanding Iraq/Iran to destroy their nuclear weapons, has the American media ask the question why its government has no interest in apply the same standard on Israel, which is known to already possess large amount of nuclear weapon too? Moreover, why doesn't it talk about the fact that the US itself possesses by far the largest amount the MDW and American nuclear weapon is just as dangerous as Iran's? There is no good or bad nuclear weapon, at least the US itself shouldn't be the judge.

No, the media on many occasions chose to be collectively silent. You don't see CNN broadcasting such discoveries 24/7 with their fancy technology and in their indignant tones. The media, at the will of the government oftentimes, choose to present facts they want the people to know, and conveniently hide more facts for nothing but their own agenda.

The US media gives the illusion of free press but that's just a result of more skillful manipulation. I used to admire such freedom in the US when I was much younger - see nothing is banned or blocked and you can talk about anything, until I realise that it is just hypocrisy in the disguise of freedom replacing downright authoritarianism.
You're blinded by your anti-Americanism.

There's no way an administration would give all the information to the public.The media could only get what they can get and say what they want to say.Reporters are humans,they don't have any super power to reach every single detail.That's why Snowden was such a shocker,he made a filthy secret of the US government come out to public.
Btw is there any country out there that actually demands the government to let everyone know about just everything?

And what did you expect the US citizens to react to the 911?It was one of the most shocking event in recent history,especially for Americans.How would any media said anything about the stuffs you mentioned when the whole country was in a hot mess?They still need revenues.

Nobody says that US is a transparent country,in fact I have never once met any US citizen said that he/she is content with their political environment.Reporters choose to present facts they want the people to know and hide more secrets,I agree,that's why critical thinking is an important skill.But to think they are all completely manipulating people is just ridiculous,if that's the case,people should all stop watching any news or reading any newspapers,because they'd all brainwash us.

Actually all of the points can be totally overthrown by simply asking where did you get your information from?Media outlets are not trust worthy,sure,I agree,but didn't you get all those ex-secrets about Iraq and Iran from other media outlets?Unless you have secret super mind-reading power.You said that the protests in June 4th,1989 in Beijing were manipulated by some sort of propaganda,what makes you believe that your sources are realer than the rest of the world's?Because you're a Chinese?Or because you actually witnessed the whole thing?The way you reach the information is no different than everyone else-all secondhand.

As for the authoritarianism,that's nothing but bs.As if the US media has never criticized their administration.Press is never 100% free anywhere,but you can always criticize or ***** about just everything in the US,that's the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 10:33 AM
 
501 posts, read 463,217 times
Reputation: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Sure various American media outlets have different opinions and present various "Facts", creating the illusion that people have access to all the information they need. But don't forget while the constitution prohibits the government to control the mass media and the information it disseminates, no laws say the government has to provide the media with any information at all. The media relies on government agencies for information and has to cooperate in some way with the government, especially when it come to important issues.
There is a law that states the government has to provide information. It's called The Freedom Of Information Act. Sure, the government often tries to provide as little information as possible on sensitive issues, but in the end the information always comes out. The courts nearly always rule against the government.

Quote:
For example, immediately after 911, any sensible journalists would be interested in dig deep into the history and relationship between Washington and Al Qaeda/Bin Laden. Has any major newspaper discussed the fact that the US government actually supported Al Qaeda in the Serbia War? Or the sheer fact that Al Qaeda is the creation of the CIA and all the so-called Al Qaeda affiliation in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia are being used by their Western intelligence handlers to destroy and destabilize sovereign countries?
Of course the news reported this. Tom Hanks even made a movie about it.

Quote:
In condemning Iraq's "nuclear program", has the media cared to mention the fact that in the 1990s the US companies with approval of the Reagan and Bush administration have sent numerous fatal biological weapons including antrax to Iraq when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the US?
This was widely reported too, complete with pictures of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Most of the "news" channels in the US do a terrible job of reporting news, but it is not due to fear of government or lack of information. It is simply because this kind of news isn't what Americans want to hear, and these news channels main goal is making money. Our news agencies are controlled by corporations and businessmen and profits, not by the government (although since our government is also controlled by businessmen and corporations, maybe that is the same thing :-p)

On my TV right now I have CNn, Foxnews, MSNBC, bloomberg, etc but I also have the Russian channel RT, I have the BBC, I have China's CCTV, I have Al Jazeera, I have Canadian CBC--are all these foreign news channels also somehow controlled by Washington? And the US also has completely uncensored access to the internet.

Access to information is not a problem in the US, trying to filter out all the disinformation is.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
9,790 posts, read 13,388,896 times
Reputation: 11313
Well, they said most of what I was going to say. No one is going to say that US media reporting is always accurate and fair, and you may have missed my point.about infotainment, but that's why I always peruse multiple media outlets and on any topic that piques my fancy I dig deeper.

The pointa you tried to make about the media giving a free pass to American transgressions is off base because nearly all of those stories were in fact reported by American agencies and journals. Pictures of Rummy and Saddam were on the evening and national news. In the days after 9/11 there were articles about past CIA support of Al Qaeda that alternately questioned or accused Reagan as being responsible for arming the men who just then attacked America. Many Americans, especially since at the time country was going on a sociopolitical neoconservative kick, chose to either ignore these realities or justify them, and thus turned to news outlets such as Fox or the NYP which told them what they wanted to here. This is the ugly result of infotainment and news as a business commodity... stories that people don't want to hear aren't ignored, they just aren't put to the forefront.

The government technically does have to provide information to the public via the FOI though of course, it is in the position to meter out what it actually provides. To say that the press has to rely on the gov't or its permissions tjough is totally false - again, look at Snowden, Manning, the Fast and Furious scandal, et al. It's not like the media approached the gov't and asked if they could report on these ugly and profoundly damning scandals, they just did. If you went to the Chinese media with a report of a far-reaching scandal, you'd basically be going to an arm of the government to report that it was doing something bad. Whqt do you think the result would be? Even if it resulted in action and thr guilty parties were punished, it wouod be kept from the public arena because the attitude is that it's not necessaey for people to know.

but ultimately this is fairly moot; the Western media situation doesn't change the realities of the media situation in China. It's a case where one hand does not wash the other, thry iust sitin their own dirty corners. Deflecting the discussion to the failings of the Western media doesn't change the fact that there's a concerted effort to black out the event from Chinese media. Western media portrayal and interpretation of the situation may not be totally correct but it's also hardly invalidated by the official party line on the matter.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Guangzhou, China
9,790 posts, read 13,388,896 times
Reputation: 11313
Also, sorry for any typos, im tapping this on my phone on the metro...
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top