Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

On Jul 2, 1:49=A0am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:d6b83cb7-86cc-49=
51-a95a-4d8f28de56de@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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
o=
n
> > > 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
gene=
ral
> > 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
"nee=
ds"
> > 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
governm=
ent
> > 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
dishones=
ty,
> > it is the select people who promote it. And such a philosophy leaves
th=
e
> > 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.

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

> We try to speak to them
> and their eyes go wide with fear. We are slipped notes in secret
detailin=
g
> 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
t=
hey
> are in danger for their failures to meet the needs of the people, and
thi=
s
> 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
tho=
se
> > 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
wh=
o
> > 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
ca=
n
> > 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...
> 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. =A0They
> 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
tha=
t.
>
> Actually this is faulty logic. The press has never claimed to represent
t=
he
> 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****ta=
nt.
> There are generally-accepted criteria for what constitutes good
journalis=
m
> and schools to teach it. There are press watchdogs to watch the press,
ba=
sed
> on those criteria. And they are held accountable both by the law and by
t=
he
> 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 =A0informed 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -