In China, unlike America, political legitimacy is built on competence and experience - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15182567
@JohnRawls

I don't see the article that way.

Media firms often present various viewpoints, some of those contradicting one another, so as to show it is a "balanced" platform.

Also, when one of them comes true, they will jump and proudly proclaim, "I told you!"

Everything else probably matters little to them.
Last edited by Patrickov on 26 Jul 2021 17:03, edited 1 time in total.
#15182593
JohnRawls wrote:Good CNN article bringing up some of things that I brought up from page 1. I mean it has too much words for little substance but even if CNN sees it then I am not sure how most people can't: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/25/chin ... index.html

CNN is a propaganda outlet and little else when it comes to matters concerning China, so nothing they say on China is credible. You said it yourself, the article had a lot of words and little substance.

They only quoted a 'party critic'.

At least they didn't quote any anonymous US government officials, on this particular occasion.

"If CNN can say it how can others not?" Not only did you answer your own question, with respect to the article, but also, again, CNN is not a credible source on China. They're coverage of China merely serves a political agenda, i.e. American yellow peril-ism.
#15182597
Crantag wrote:CNN is a propaganda outlet and little else when it comes to matters concerning China, so nothing they say on China is credible. You said it yourself, the article had a lot of words and little substance.

They only quoted a 'party critic'.

At least they didn't quote any anonymous US government officials, on this particular occasion.

"If CNN can say it how can others not?" Not only did you answer your own question, with respect to the article, but also, again, CNN is not a credible source on China. They're coverage of China merely serves a political agenda, i.e. American yellow peril-ism.


Whatever your perception is, propaganda has parts in it that are legit. We just call it propaganda because we expect some source to always criticize and say nothing nice basically. Which doesn't mean that everything that the propaganda machine says is wrong, just a lot of the present information will be negative or negatively presented. (Or positively if its pro something)
#15182617
While I am aware of the massive flaws in my (the U.S.) government, it goes without saying that the Chinese government is not democratic. The National People's Congress is a rubber stamp as pointed out earlier in this thread. I also question the merit of claim that no interest groups are controlling leadership selection and while that may be true, the leadership does represent special interests. The government allows the theft of foreign trademarks and allows many businesses to be unregulated. There's a reason why our companies outsourced jobs and production there.

In addition, the treatment of minorities are not often great. Especially in places like Tibet and Xinjiang.
#15182623
Random American wrote:In addition, the treatment of minorities are not often great. Especially in places like Tibet and Xinjiang.


Not totally true. The Chinese treat themselves as bad as Tibetians and Uighurs.

Hong Kong is a Chinese majority city. Do you see how we are treated? It's only a matter of time before China imposes the Xinjiang way down here.
#15182628
JohnRawls wrote:Whatever your perception is, propaganda has parts in it that are legit. We just call it propaganda because we expect some source to always criticize and say nothing nice basically. Which doesn't mean that everything that the propaganda machine says is wrong, just a lot of the present information will be negative or negatively presented. (Or positively if its pro something)

Bullshit, propaganda has a clear connotation in conventional usage. As should be clear, I am referring to their selective and manipulative presentation of information for political reasons.

I would not consider worthwhile anything published or broadcast by CNN on China.
#15182643
Rugoz wrote:There's no way you will gain insight into the inner workings of the CCP from anyone still loyal to it.

Gross nonsense.

There are many academics studying China with much to say on China.

Further, asking an official representative of the government would yeild an official position obviously; as is the case for any government in the world; and that's not at all what I am talking about.

No, in typical fashion, they quote someone with an axe to grind.

This is all that CNN does every time. That, and quote so-called anonymous US government 'sources'.

I do not regard as credible one iota of information on china published or broadcasted by CNN.

If CNN reported it was a sunny day in Shanghai, I would want a second, credible source, just to be sure.
#15182646
Crantag wrote:Gross nonsense.


I should have added "in public".

Crantag wrote:Further, asking an official representative of the government would yeild an official position obviously; as is the case for any government in the world; and that's not at all what I am talking about.


I don't see how a party member is necessarily an official representative of the government.

Crantag wrote:No, in typical fashion, they quote someone with an axe to grind.


A lame attempt at character assassination. AFAIK Cai Xia gave up her position out of her own choice.
#15182650
Rugoz wrote:I should have added "in public".



I don't see how a party member is necessarily an official representative of the government.



A lame attempt at character assassination. AFAIK Cai Xia gave up her position out of her own choice.


A lame attempt at misdirection.

I don't know or care who Cai Xia is, and my commentary had really nothing to do with her, as I was addressing the tactics of CNN.

And China is a major, important country in the world, there are no shortage of China analysts. The only available analyst is not a public opposition figure.

Should I spell out again the basis of my point being my disaffection with CNN on China coverage?

They are effectively a mouthpiece for the foreign affairs establishment in the US on matters like China, sort of like the BBC in the UK.

The BBC and CNN are both completely not credible with respect to China (and as a regular consumer of their respective programming, I feel okay to make such judgements).

The BBC runs more reliably blatant smear pieces, with a particular dramatic flare engaged. The BBC is well known indeed for their production style.

BBC and CNN are pretty similar in their regular 3-minute hate campaigns against China. They are not to be considered reliable sources on China, in my stern opinion.
#15182669
Crantag wrote:And China is a major, important country in the world, there are no shortage of China analysts.


Yes, there are tons of them, but I have yet to read/hear from one who thinks the inner workings of the CCP are transparent or easy to decipher. Nobody really knows what the fuck is going on.

Crantag wrote:They are effectively a mouthpiece for the foreign affairs establishment in the US on matters like China, sort of like the BBC in the UK.


I don't know what the "foreign affairs establishment" is supposed to be. In any case, I never watch CNN or BBC.
#15182673
Rugoz wrote:

I don't know what the "foreign affairs establishment" is supposed to be. In any case, I never watch CNN or BBC.



The government has an opinion. You might call it the 'company line'. That doesn't make it right or wrong. One of the MSNBC talking heads, Richard Haas, makes a nice living from doing it. He writes books that do a really good job at providing an analysis of the challenges we face in foreign affairs. But they aren't so hot at providing a road map for making things better. That would usually include problems America doesn't want to face.

At this point it's easier to disaggregate. You've got the State Dept, which is literally the 'company line'. Along with them there are groups of people, people that often disagree, that contribute to the discussion of what our policy should be. There are the intellectuals, foreign policy academics, think tanks, foreign affairs publications, corporate types, politicians (not many that are influential).

In a real administration (meaning not Trump) a policy gets attention from at least a dozen different departments. The people in the government will want to persuade the top layers, and they will use the work of scholars or think tanks, or even foreigners that agree with them. It's usually a long process because so much has to be considered. However, politics will often provide limits or goals. For example, Biden will have closed off avenues of discussion about staying in Afghanistan at some point.

These things change over time. Ambassadors used to have a lot of power back in the days when a letter from DC could take a month to get there. Now they are tightly constrained by the constant communications from the State Dept, the White House and other agencies. The fact that we go to war more often than we used to also diminishes their influence.
#15182680
Rugoz wrote:Silly. The West wasn't worse than any other empire in history. I don't remember the Russians, Ottomans or Chinese ever apologizing for their imperialism.

There were dozens of famines in British ruled Ireland and India because the British imposed a free market doctrine and insisted food be exported for profit rather than used to meet people's needs. Why is it inexcusable for China to have an unintentional famine but Britain can impose them at will without criticism?
#15183095
Patrickov wrote:Not totally true. The Chinese treat themselves as bad as Tibetians and Uighurs.

Hong Kong is a Chinese majority city. Do you see how we are treated? It's only a matter of time before China imposes the Xinjiang way down here.

Well, yeah, the Chinese people are ill treated as well, but the post was a counter to some CCP talking points about my country's treatment of minorities. I'm saying on that issue, there is no real high ground.
#15183096
Random American wrote:Well, yeah, the Chinese people are ill treated as well, but the post was a counter to some CCP talking points about my country's treatment of minorities. I'm saying on that issue, there is no real high ground.


Actually what I said was where the Chinese is worse than the Westerners, or most other countries in this sense. At least other people treat their own kind well.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

A lot of people will vaccinate if not being so pre[…]

I'm merely stating that one promise of the Brexit[…]

This have gone a little OT since, but payed daycar[…]

So we're all getting a 'death dividend' check i[…]