Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

On Jul 19, 4:40=A0am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:daf5f00f-4b70-49=
0b-afea-632ca199ad0e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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
peo=
ple
> > > 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
a=
re
> > > anti-monopoly laws in all Western countries to make sure that no
sing=
le
> > > 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
cau=
ses
> > 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
u=
p.
>
>
>
> > Let's get to a point that you have yet to answer. You are obviously
say=
ing
> > 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
Chines=
e
> 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
Wester=
n
> media helped the US govt gain approval for the Iraq invasion, the whole
> media is flawed and should be abolished. Yes or no?

NO. Not at all. The west can choose whatever system westerners people
see fit.

>
> 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.

You speculation is just speculation. First of all, no matter what you
say,  objectively speaking, one still have to rely on the people's
response as a guide. At prsent, they are not protesting concerning the
press and it is a fact.   In contrast, they protest against many other
things. Hence, you specualtion is groundless.

>
> Any rice is better than no rice at all.
>
> =A0involvement 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
a=
n
> > issue in an unemotional way. Whenever the media does not do this it
fai=
ls
> > in
> > its duty to inform in an impartial manner. One need only look at
Chines=
e
> > 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
West=
ern
> > 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.

Let me repeat myself. "..propaganda or not propaganda can only be
judged by how far is the reprot deviating from the truth. " Are you
now of the postition that BBC re****ts never deviate from the truth? If
not, no details is needed.
>
> You are a complete imbecile if you think =A0that your example with the
su=
n has
> anything to do with presenting more than one side of an issue in the
medi=
a.

It is an example of how one can deceive by presenting both sides of
hte story. No?
>
>
> > Oh, so is it now your contention that the only measure of quality of
li=
fe
> > 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_...
>
> 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=3D9E07E6D71530F933A15752..=
..
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK1977320070709
>
> http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/02/17/2-million-chines...

Please summarize.
>
>
>
> > 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
h=
ave
> > 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
f=
rom
> 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
o=
f
> this smuggled out of NK.
>
> NK farming is inefficient because the government prefers to spend the
mon=
ey
> it gets (for instance from Korean expats in Japan) for military goods
rat=
her
> than farm goods. NK barely gets by in the best of years, and has no
reser=
ves
> for bad years because of this. This happens precisely because the
governm=
ent
> 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
governm=
ent
> if their needs are not being met.
>
> Toby
>
> The following is excerpted
fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/arts/01H=
UNG.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 Dr=E8ze) 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
artic=
le:
>
> =A0"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."

Yet the problem persist.
>
> Such things could not happen in China.

Lucky Chinese.
>
> Toby- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -