Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:daf5f00f-4b70-490b-afea-632ca199ad0e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 16, 11:59 pm, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > I would never pretend that the Western press is completely free from
> > corruption, self-interest or dishonesty, and this is indeed what the
> > originally quoted article laments. However I do know that there are
> > mechanisms in place to correct for this, and a tradition in which
people
> > feel free to strive to practice the profession of journalist 
> > honestly--as
> > individuals trained in objective observation, re****ting at least two 
> > sides
> > to every story. While this is not always possible, at least the power
to
> > control the media is not centralized and unified, and in fact there
are
> > anti-monopoly laws in all Western countries to make sure that no
single
> > seat
> > of power has undue influence across the board.
>
> -History is clear. American free press could not save America from the
> -Civil War. It could not save it from the Spanish War. More recetnly,
> -it could not save it from the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. Only think
> -skinned journalists are still blowing its own trumpet.
>
> You obviously don't know the first thing about U.S. history, or the
causes
> and provenance of the Civil War. So don't go making such stupid 
> statements.

-How so?

I'm not going to write an essay on the causes of the Civil War. Look it
up.

>
> Let's get to a point that you have yet to answer. You are obviously
saying
> that because of certain failures to live up to its ideals, the Western 
> media
> is a flawed institution and should be abolished.

-You keep on putting words into my mouth. I did not say western media
-is a flawed institution. Rather, I said the western media is not as
-advertised. As I had said before, it don't see the significancy of
-free" in "free press" or "free restaurant." However, a plenty of
-estern commentors, many of them experts in journalism themselves are
-ritical about western media.

I will agree that the Western media is not as advertised in some circles. 
That doesn't change the fact that it is infinitely better than the Chinese

media, which is also not as advertised.




at the CCP is a failed system of government and should immediately be
> abolished?

I am not a leader of the 1.3 billion Chinese. Hence I follow. I don't
see myself above the 1.3 billion, hence I concur with their implicit
and/or explicit decision on the CCP. What is good enough for them is
good enough for me. How about you? Are you their leaders? Do you see
yourself above them?

Not the point at all. You seem to think that since failures in the Western

media helped the US govt gain approval for the Iraq invasion, the whole 
media is flawed and should be abolished. Yes or no?









ultiple times. It is the quality of the dishes
> will determinet whether a restaurant is a good one or a bad one. Not
> the owner****p. Similarly, I judge the quality of the news. Owner****p,
> be it government owned or cor****ation owned, is irrelevant.
>
> And I have also gone over this multiple times. The dishes served by the
> Chinese media are badly prepared, unbalanced and of poor nutritional
> quality.

Whether the dishes are good or bad can only be determined by the
Chinese people who consume them. So far, I do not see them protesting
them about Chinese media. Conclusaion: They do not dislike the dishes
served by the Chinese media.

Wrong conclusion, or at least only one among many possible conclusions.

Perhaps they are not protesting because they will be jailed or otherwise 
punished if they do. And perhaps they are not protesting because they
don't 
know that a better media is possible.

Any rice is better than no rice at all.


 involvement in the arms trade in Darfur. There is not a single
> > quote
> > from the BBC--the institution is savaged without being given a voice
to
> > respond. This is purely propaganda, not responsible journalism.
>
> I read plenty of BBC re****t. They are pure propaganda. Again,
> propaganda or not propaganda can only be judged by how far is the
> reprot deviating from the truth. Given a voice or not is irrelevant.
> As I had explained, saying "The sun will rise tomorrow" and "The sun
> will not rise tomorrow" as if they are equally probably is deceptive.
>
> As usual you ignore the main issue, which is presenting both sides of an
> issue in an unemotional way. Whenever the media does not do this it
fails 
> in
> its duty to inform in an impartial manner. One need only look at Chinese
> media to see that it is much worse at this than the Western media, in
> general. This is why I originally said that now matter how bad the
Western
> media gets, it will never match the Chinese media's poor quality.

-t is funny. You ignore my answers and then you repeat your whinning
-nd boasting.

OK then. Please detail which BBC re****ts you have seen and why they are 
propaganda. What I say is neither whining nor boasting, as you well know, 
hence your efforts to discredit it.

You are a complete imbecile if you think  that your example with the sun
has 
anything to do with presenting more than one side of an issue in the
media.


>
> Oh, so is it now your contention that the only measure of quality of
life 
> is
> whether one has enough rice? Don't be so ingenuous. The CCP knows well 
> that
> when starving people are given rice they will be grateful only so long
as
> they remember their former hunger. Once bellies are full other desires
> emerge in the hierarchy of need. They are clearly terrified that before 
> long
> the people will begin to realize what they don't have, and thus their 
> desire
> to keep telling the people how good they have it.

-Of course, rice is not the only human need. But it is a clear case of
-human needs and not a human desires. To the extend that a need is a
-need, it cannot manipulated away. If you think the example of rice and
-sand is not good. Feel free to illustrate with other examples on how
-the Chinese government has manipulate the people need away.

How many examples do you want? Start with these:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye/print

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/08/02/china4187.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080501/ai_n25392737

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E6D71530F933A15752C0A9659C8B63

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK1977320070709

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/02/17/2-million-chinese-kicked-out-of-homes-for-olympics-98487-20321671/
>
> If you think that people cannot be kept from rising up when their needs 
> are
> unmet (by a combination of force, persuasion and propaganda) you only
have
> to look at North Korea. The difference between NK and PRC in many ways
is
> only quantitative, not qualitative.

-I read about re****t of famine in North Korea from western media. But I
-don't know how reliable are those reprots. In addition, NK are still
-sanctioned by the western world. This alone will persuade the NKers
-that the situation is externally induced. Again, famine because of
-drough is a natural disaster. Not a matter of demcoracy and or free
-press. As a matter of fact, democracy and free press do not seem to
-help to avert famine and starvation.

If you read the Western media, you would know that there are no sanctions 
against the civilian population of NK, and in fact much of the food aid
from 
the West to NK never gets to the starving people because it is seized and 
sold in local markets to enrich NK cadres. I have personally seen video of

this smuggled out of NK.

NK farming is inefficient because the government prefers to spend the
money 
it gets (for instance from Korean expats in Japan) for military goods
rather 
than farm goods. NK barely gets by in the best of years, and has no
reserves 
for bad years because of this. This happens precisely because the
government 
does not care about its people. Tens of thousands starve and do not rise
up. 
So much for your assertion that people will rise up against their
government 
if their needs are not being met.

Toby

The following is excerpted from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/arts/01HUNG.html

--------------------
Does Democracy Avert Famine?
By MICHAEL MASSING

"Now, however, in India, the main focus of Mr. Sen's research, there
are growing re****ts of starvation. In drought-ravaged states like
Rajasthan in the west and Orissa in the east, many families have been
reduced to eating bark and grass to stay alive. Already thousands may
have died. This is occurring against a backdrop of endemic hunger and
malnutrition. About 350 million of India's one billion people go to
bed hungry every night, and half of all Indian children are
malnourished. Meanwhile, the country is awash in grain, with the
government sitting on a surplus of more than 50 million tons. Such
want amid such plenty has generated public protests, critical
editorials and an appeal to India's Supreme Court to force the
government to use its surpluses to feed the hungry."

"In his book "Hunger and Public Action" (1989), Mr. Sen (along with
the co-author, Jean Drèze) noted that nearly four million people die
prematurely in India every year from malnutrition and related
problems. That's more than the number who perished during the entire
Bengal famine."
--------------------

Is Indian a case of you don't need rice when you have democracy and
free press?

India is a case of extreme poverty being eased over time. I have lived in 
India in the 80s and I saw its enormous infrastructural problem firsthand.

At least in India there is the possibilty of open action. From your
article:

 "Such want amid such plenty has generated public protests, critical
editorials and an appeal to India's Supreme Court to force the
government to use its surpluses to feed the hungry."

Such things could not happen in China.

Toby