Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

On Jul 19, 6:24=A0pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 3:39=A0am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ltlee1" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:1dfca676-055d-=
41a8-b695-4f5874d8311c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Jul 16, 11:15 pm, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > "ltlee1" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im
> > >
Newsbeitragnews:4fc6b57c-6270-4b7d-8a1d-5dfca2b79832@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Jul 13, 6:56 am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > One cannot choose to read what is not available to read, or that
=
which
> > > > > one
> > > > > does not know is available.
>
> > > > So? What is the big deal? The earth has over 6 billion people each
=
one
> > > > a potential source of news. What is available inevitably
represents=
 a
> > > > tiny percentage of all potential news. Hence independent news does
> > > > not necessarily mean more informed.
>
> > > > Another red herring. Do you approve of the censor****p of news?
>
> > > Not at all. All presses are written by a small number of people on a
> > > small number of topics. Hence all of them are censored. Not a matter
> > > of approval or not approval. Anyway, the concept of censor****p is
> > > anachronastic.
>
> > > Let me put it another way: do you approve of deliberate censoring of
=
news
> > > by
> > > governmental power structures?
>
> > -I answered that question already.
> > -If you think adding the word "deleiberate" is changing anything. It
> > -did not. Non-reflexiive human behavior are deliberate.
Self-censor****p
> > -by western journalists on what to write and what not to write is
every
> > -bit as deliberate as government or cor****ate guideline.
>
> > Bull****. The very quality of Western journalism as compared to
Chinese
> > journalism--the range of information offered, puts the lie to this
litt=
le
> > bit of disingenuity.
>
> It is only your view.
> One can say that a restaurant which offers a larger menu can
> potentially satisfy a larger range of customers. However, no one is
> really evaluating restaurants by counting size of the their menu. As a
> matter fact, restaurants with usually large menu are like to to
> improve the quality of its food by reducing its menu. Asking an
> Italian chef to cook Chinese is a quick way to bad reputation.
>
> The same reasoning applied to the media. Asking a journalists who
> don't speak and read Chinese well enough to acquire some baisc
> information such as KaiFung was overrun the Mongolian invaders are
> likely to make western media a laughing stock.

The above paragraph is badly garbled.
The same line of reasoning applied to the media. Ask a journalist who
doesn't speak and read Chinese well enough to to acquire some basic
informaton such as KaiFung was overrun by Mongolian inaders to cover
China is likely to maek western media a laughing stock.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The concept of censor****p is anachronistic? It is not a concept, it
i=
s a
> > > fact. Do you consider the concept of murder anachronistic? How about
=
the
> > > concept of freedom of action?
>
> > -All government laws involve telling the citizens what they can or
> > -cannot do, should or should not do. Why single out the so called
> > -"censor****p" which is similarly involving a governemnt telling its
> > -citizens can or cannot, should or should not? Several hundred years
> > -ago, if the authority forbiding the publication of one book, it
> > -greatly reduce the information available. Not today which is the age
> > -of information ovlerflow. The problem is too much information and too
> > -many people repeating bad and/or false information. =A0Garbage in,
> > -garbage out.
>
> > So you say that governments should be responsible for what citizens
are
> > allowed to read, and what information can or cannot be disseminated?
Th=
ere
> > goes free speech right out the window. And how convenient for those in
> > power! =A0I don't think you will find many takers for your grand idea.
>
> It is not a matter of should or shouldl not. It is in effect. For
> example, if the government does not enourage the people to read
> Chinese, it is in effect close out their access to most Chinese news
> to msot citizens. If the government restricts immigration, it is in
> effect precluding the inofrmation dwelled in the minds of those
> immigrants.
>
>
>
> > -Yes. I consider the concpet of censorhip anachronistic. Rather, I see
> > -governments managing their internal environment no different from
> > -immigration control and im****t control. Let me ask you this. When a
> > -government is limiting the immigration of foreigners, is it not also
> > -"censoring" all the thoughts and ideas accompanying the foreigners
> > -from getting into the country?
>
> > Not if the press is free. Ideas are like water, and can slip through
in=
 ways
> > that people cannot.
>
> Ideals are like water. But journalists are not. They pick and choose.
> Or "censor" if you like the sound of the word.
>
>
>
> > This is what petrifies the CCP. Speaking of managing the
> > internal environment, you and other readers of this thread might be
> > interested to see just how the Chinese are doing this, and why.
>
>
>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_...
>
> > Welcome to Orwell's world, plus alpha.
>
> > Toby
>
> > Toby- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -