- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
It doesn’t mean that reports are false just because two states are enemies (which is an exaggeration).
“Just because the last 100 articles were bullshit doesn’t mean this one is too!”
No. It does.
Must be easy living with such a black and white world view.
A black and white world where objective measures of press freedoms are apparently inversely proportional to trustworthiness of said journalists.
Random blog with a Soviet flag? Impossible to be propaganda, because only capitalism can do a propaganda.
Some of the world’s oldest free media with a long history of investigating the British government? Literally nothing but propaganda.
Oh my god, are you seriously claiming you can objectively measure press freedoms while saying socialists live in a black and white world? Just want to give you a chance to walk back your statement
I am quite curious to know your methodology for measuring press freedom so we can compare and perhaps find something which can be considered locally objective.
You’re retreating into “locally” objective. In this topic you’re not going to get agreement on what constitutes press freedom, so it is pointless. My point is that the claim of objective press freedom existing is ridiculous. You walked it back, but to a position that still seems ridiculous to me.
For example, I dont believe there is such thing as a free press. Any org that can produce a press machine is going to influence that press, whether that is a government or private interests. Editorial freedom isn’t possible, editorial control just ranges from the subtle to the overt.
You are the only one making assumptions here. I want to find some common ground.
So let’s pull this thread. I agree that bias is inevitable, but do you believe this negates the value of even trying to protect press freedom? And if so, do you extend this to all forms of truth seeking?
Of course bias is inevitable, Im saying institutional bias will always be enforced down the chain onto journalists and writers.
Can you give me your definition of press freedom? Because it seems contradictory if the owner of a press will influence what is published but journalists of that press somehow have press freedom.
Wow, what? Communists talk openly about propaganda… You have no idea what you’re talking about.
We are well aware what our biases are. We are trying to get westerners to see their own biases. Being called out as hypocrites feels like an attack, but when we say everyone have biases, we know it’s true about us too.
Absorb news from a wide variety of sources, including sources from other countries, and you’ll see that the BBC is in fact biased against China.
It takes time, and reading a lot, and you won’t get it from Lemmy/Reddit/twitter(or X or whatever now)/FB. Even ground news only has so many sources. And you know what, the BBC does great coverage for a lot of things, they are a pretty high quality source for a lot of news. But yeah, everyone has biases, and the BBC is biased against China.
It really is. Try it, next time you read a China Bad article, just decide that it’s bullshit first, then check into it and you’ll be proven right.
Come in with preconceived notions and never second guess yourself? Sure, whatever.
You missed the “check into it” part.
Doing research to prove your assumptions correct or incorrect is literally how science works.
I swear some of these people have never even been to China. I’ve had the opportunity, and had a lot of Chinese expat friends. I will say THEY believe the same as rest of the world does on a lot of these issues. I was told in no uncertain terms by my tour guide not to say anything about “things you might have heard” when I went to Tienanmen Square. And trust me, the soldiers everywhere with automatic weapons were enough to dissuade me from THINKING about it.
There are a lot of differences that can be passed off as unpleasant cultural differences (like the one guy was a second class citizen and couldn’t get a city passport because he was from a village… the other guy had a full country Visa with zero effort because he grew up in Beijing), but other things “yeah, we’d look up the truth on all that stuff, but we had to work hard to get around the censors and some of our friends got in caught and got in trouble for doing it”.
These tankies never seem to cover the part where the Chinese government is ACTIVELY suppressing this stuff in China. I could walk up to the site of the Bonus Army massacre and LOUDLY announce “I can’t believe the US government opened fired on American troops here over a peaceful protest” and not so much as draw police attention.
That statement is illogical. You must have huge problems with the simplest logic to argue that. You can’t bent logic by twisting what I said. Stop clowning.
Just because all the other times this faulty logic was used doesn’t mean this one is illogical too!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If they were strongly cited I would not be criticizing people believing them. All sources are biased, the question is how factual a source is.
The BBC is strongly biased against China. If they make claims without proof the most logical course of action is to not assume they are telling the truth and not incorporate what they say into your beliefs. (Note that this is different than “assume they are lying”)
Yeah, China was a major ally, but it is showing its dark (autocratic) side lately.
Aren’t these threads wild? These people don’t want to engage in actual discussion here. They just want to remove your agency by calling you brainwashed, do the sealion “source” thing, and then ad hominem away any sources you do provide.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the world deserves a better class of communist.
It isn’t sealioning to expect a government or corporate news agency to provide strong citations when making contentious claims.