Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:d6b83cb7-86cc-4951-a95a-4d8f28de56de@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 1, 8:53 am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Alternatives for the sake of having alternatives, for those who have
the
> > intelligence and interest to try to ferret out the truth. The Chinese 
> > have
> > no such choice. They are forced to eat whatever the government puts on

> > the
> > table.
>
> Those who have intelligence can tell that the press is always reflects
> the opinions of a small group of people re****ting on a tiny slice of
> world events according their own criteria. The only difference is
> this: In a guided press, the criteria are the criteria of hte
> government which mission is to satisfy the needs of the people. In
> the so called free press, the criteria are the criteria of the
> cor****ations which mission is to maximize profit for the
> shareholders.
>
> You make the assumptions that the government's mission is to satisy the
> needs of the people, without defining which people. It has always been
the
> case that those in power seek to remain in power, and in any situation
in
> which scarcity exists and there is a conflict between personal and
general
> welfare, the needs that government officials seek to satisfy are their 
> own.
>
> Your own government has admitted that combatting corruption is critical 
> and
> the fate of the party depends on doing so in an effective and timely 
> manner.
>
> Except perhaps at the very top, the CCP is corrupt through and through.
> This, by definition, means that there is a distinction between the
"needs"
> of the people and the needs of the government officials, at the expense
of
> the former.
>
> However this is digression. Essentially you are saying that the
government
> can lie to people for their own good, if it perceives this as serving 
> their
> needs. But it is not the mass of people who get served by such
dishonesty,
> it is the select people who promote it. And such a philosophy leaves the
> door open to the worst forms of tyranny and abuse.

Either you beleive the people or you don't. If you don't, then there
will never be any kind of democracy. If you do, you need to trust the
people that they can tell whether the government is serving their
needs. And if not, they will over throw out the governemnt one way or
the other. Free the criticize the government but please do not begin
with the premise that the people are dumb. At least not until you have
become one of them.

People in China are not dumb, they are terrorized. We try to speak to them

and their eyes go wide with fear. We are slipped notes in secret detailing

their concerns and their critical observations, which they cannot openly 
tell us for fear of landing in jail. Indeed, the CCP is well aware that
they 
are in danger for their failures to meet the needs of the people, and this

is precisely why they must use a mulitfaceted strategy to try to keep the 
storm at bay, including heavy repression of journalists and extreme 
punishments for dissent of any kind that they see threating their 
legitimacy.

>
> The whole point of having a free press is to act as a watchdog over
those
> who exercise power, in order to inhibit them from misusing that power. 
> Again
> you confound issues. Any tampering with a free press is to be avoided,
> whether by those who wield power as government officials or by those who
> wield power privately as cor****ate officers. Just because a free press
can
> be tampered with does not mean that the concept is flawed and that it 
> should
> be discarded, rather, a free press has to be strengthened so that it can

> act
> as a bulwark against those who would use the flow of information for
> personal gain.

Nothing but the for profit press's self-advertisement.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/748b77583f8e3002?hl=en
Free press as the "fourth estate": It fails the reality test Options

Also the follwoing:

A soceity with a single voice is only a myth. One can't even find a
family with a single voice. (Kids as young as 2 years old have learnt
to say no. And they have no hesitation to exercise their dissidents'
rights.) Let alone a society with 1.3 billion people.

Press as the fourth estate is also a myth. Of course journalists
would
like to fantasize themselves as members of the fourth estate. But
they
are not. As long as journalists are not elected by the people, they
cannot represent the people like a branch of the government.  They
don't have the mandate. Neither can they be hold accountable like
government officials.

Oh? Are members of the sterling Chinese media elected? I rather doubt
that.

Actually this is faulty logic. The press has never claimed to represent
the 
people. They have a job to do like any other, theirs being to remain 
independent of influence by those in power (in both public and private 
spheres) and re****t on their dealings, as well as any news deemed
im****tant. 
There are generally-accepted criteria for what constitutes good journalism

and schools to teach it. There are press watchdogs to watch the press,
based 
on those criteria. And they are held accountable both by the law and by
the 
people, who can reject their work if it proves to be substandard.


Journalist, if they perform as they should under idealistic
situation,
are no more than educators. They are supposed to inform the people
and
at the same time elevate their readers and audiences such that they
can be more discriminative about news and information in general.
Their readers and audiences, now more informed and more
discriminative, then in turn improve the quality of the press through
the market. The press and their readers hopefully will form an
ascending spiral. More  informed and more discrimiantive are now
capable to force the government institutes and government officials
to
improve their performance.


Of course, the above descriptions about journalsits can also be
applied to chefs. Breakfast for the head can improve the citizens,
breakfast for the stomach can also improve the citizens by making
them
more energetic and their lives less stressful Both are inducive to
increased citizens productivity in mental as well as in physical
activities. More discriminative citiznes likewise can improve the
restaurant industry through the market. Should we not then considered
the restaurants as the foruth estate and the industy respresents the
the poeple or
their stomachs? Well, no one is suggesting that. Not because a
reasonable argument cannot be made. Rather, restaurants owners are
generally not good writers and less boastful. In addition, it will be
irresponsible for any government not to tightly regulate the
restaurant industry by checking many aspects of the restaruants from
time to time.

What a ridiculous argument. I will not even dignify it with a reply.

Toby