Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:dccb2a4e-bb12-4bc5-a8f9-91a437a2706f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 2, 11:37 pm, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im 
>
Newsbeitragnews:687fc208-4b1b-49e2-92a6-f1121b483fc8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 2, 12:19 am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Without getting into philosophy, how does it follow that because 
> > > yellow
> > > press exists as part of free press America has become a democracy
> > > without
> > > citizens (which does not even make sense, since a democracy cannot 
> > > exist
> > > without citizens)?
>
> > ;If you hadn't read the article cited in the beginning post. Please
do.
> > ;The author, actually William Lind, lamented that the American press
is
> > ;degenerating into yellow press. He did not say yellow press exists as
> > ;part of free press. If you want to relate the two, then American free
> > ;press = American yellow press according to William Lind.
>
> > Having been in the news business for over 20 years, I totally agree
with
> > Mr.
> > Lind. Yes, unfortunately, the US press is becoming more and more like 
> > the
> > Chinese press, cedeing their role as independent and critical
watchdogs
> > and
> > mindlessly printing "government bulletins".
>
> I see. You agree that thhe American press is turning into the yellow
> press based on you experience.
>
> I agree that on balance the mainstreamWestern press is, in some ways,
less
> thorough and independent than it has been in the past. I do not agree
that
> it is turning into "yellow" press, which is characterized by false and
> sensationalistic re****ting. There was a bad period of yellow press about
a
> century ago, which was counterbalanced by an upsurge in serious
journalism
> soon after. And in any case there are at present many alternative news
> sources available, especially on the Internet.
>
> Sadly, since China employs over 100,000 people to censor the Internet,
in
> the name of "harmonizing" it, Chinese people are denied even this source

> of
> information.
>
> > However this process is much
> > more complete in China than in the US, and hence my assertion that the

> > US
> > press, at its worst, is still light years ahead of what is on offer in
> > PRC.
>
> You are repeating yourself. If you are going to make comparison,
> please lay out your objective criteria? Else your accusation is not
> meaningful. Anyway, the Chinese media does not claim to be a "free
> press." And no one should see it as so. As I had explained before, all
> presses handicap the truth. One is either a fool or a liar if he clams
> that more bookies means better better chance of picking the winner.
>
> So you yourself admit that the Chinese press is not free. If it is not 
> free
> it must be beholden to someone, right? And that someone is the CCP, 
> correct?
> So it serves the interests of the government at the expense of other
> interests. So, you have answered your own question.

Look who is twisting words?

I did not admit that the Chinese press is not free. I said that the
Chinese press was not claimed to be free. As a matter of fact, I don't
know what is the significance of the "free" in the so called free
prss. To me, the press, if privately owned and privately managed, it
is just a business like the restaurant business. It could be and
should be judged by one thing only: Whether it helps the people. If
many people got poisoned after they consumed the food from the
restaurants, then the resataurants nd/or the restaruant industry are
bad. Similarly,  if the press misled and misinform the readers as in
the case of 9/11-Iraq link, the press is bad.  Whether it is called
"free press" or not is irrelevant.

And you accuse me of twisting words?

If you don't know the significance of "free" in free press then you have 
basis on which to argue at all.

>
> > There has also been an big accounting in that regard in the years
after
> > the
> > Iraq invasion and occupation, with major news sources such as the New 
> > York
> > Times offering large and sincere mea culpas for their lack of
> > responsibility
> > in uncritically towing the government line. And throughout the darkest
> > days
> > of press kowtowing, there existed a vigorous, if marginalized, sector
of
> > the
> > press critical of both the government and the mainstream media. Unlike

> > in
> > China, they were neither censored nor prosecuted for their stand.
>
> So?
> As a reader, the failure of American journalist and its tragic
> consequence is obvous. American press misled and misinformed the
> American public such that 2 out of 3 beleived the linkage between Iraq
> and 9/11. Their misunderstanding led to their sup****ting the ivasion
> of Iraq. This made the "independent" press a war enabler. If I can
> vote between the censoring/prosecution of a handful of journaolists
> and the death of thousands of American soliders and millions of
> Iraqis, I will have no problem choosing the former.
>
> You are Chinese; I would not expect you to understand my argument,
however
> it was precisely because some of the press lost their independence and
> became government lapdogs that this fiasco happened. Since that time
steps
> have been taken in the press to ensure that such a lapse does not occur
> again. In China the press are nothing but government propagandists; they
> have no independence, thus in China they could (and are) far worse 
> enablers
> of government policy than ever could happen in the West at its lowest 
> point.

It is not a matter of whether I am Chinese and you are not. Chinese or
not Chinese, we cannot use our race or ethnicity to escape our
responsibility of being humans. As a rational human trying to maximize
the benefits of all, I will have no problem choosing the censoring/
prosecution of a handful of journaolists and the death of thousands of
American soliders and millions of Iraqis. If you don't agree, please
suggest why I or anyone should choose otherwise.

Since the CCP was responsible for the deaths of untold millions of Chinese

during the Great Leap Forward, and responsible for the repression of 
millions and millions more during the Cultural Revolution, don't you then 
think that we should get rid of that handful of troublemakers. China still

wor****ps that mass-murdering pedophile, Mao Zedong.

>
> And of course your argument is competely contradictory. You are in favor

> of
> the authorities prosecuting journalists for towing their line? That
could
> only happen in China...

No. I am not in favor of the authorities presecuting journalists for
not towing the government's lines.

Well, that is exactly what is happening in the PRC. Your country has
another 
first: the most journalists in jail in any country in the world. You must
be 
proud.


> Nothing more "Timothy McVeigh rent a truck; Timothy McVeigh got
> executed." Objectively speaking, both statements are truth. Hoever, it
> does not mean that Tim McViegh got executed soley for renting a
> truck.
>
> What does that mean?

Two thing occurred objectively. 1. Timothy McViegh rent a truck. 2.
Timothy McVeigh got execulted. Howeverm it does not follow that
Timothy McVeigh got executed soley for renting a truck. To establish
that one have to show that reinting a truck is punishable by death
with court do***ent or from the code of the lasw.

Similarly, journalist A wrote an article and journalist A got jailed
does not mean that journalist A was jailed for writing the article. To
established that one ahve to show that writing that kind of article is
an offense with court docuemnt or from the code the law.

Yes, indeed. Your journalists are mostly in jail for sedition and 
endangering state security. How very handy that the government both
defines 
and prosecutes those offenses.

> Do you admit that China represses journalists, as re****ted in this link?

>
> Here are some more that I would ask for your comments on:
>
>
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=26930http://www.2008olympicsbeijing.org/pressrepressionchina.htmhttp://www.wan-press.org/article16862.htmlhttp://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070808155115...http://thefungus.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/beijing-olympics-press-repr...http://www.freepress.net/node/42117http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/22/AR200...http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj03-1/kurlantzick.html

Can't you get something from China? Or you can only masturbate?

Can't you answer the question? Too scared?

You really are pitiful. All such news is censored in China. If China wants

to play with the Western Big Boys, China is going to have to respect 
internationally recognized law, like it or not.

I will take your non-responsiveness as an admission that you cannot refute

the allegation that China is a police state that represses the free flow
of 
information and prosecutes those who try to exercise their rights as 
journalists.

Toby