Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

On Jul 22, 6:02=A0am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It is not only my view. One simply has to look at the range of news
cover=
age
> in the Chinese media as compared to the Western media to see that it is
> true.
>
> Your restaurant analogy is lame beyond words.

Don't agree. One opens a newspaper to feast on the news articles
prepared by the journalists. One goes to a restaurant to feast on the
dishes prepared by the chefs. One does not judge a restaurant by the
size of its menu and the variety of regional dishes it
offers..Similarly, one does not judge the newspaper by the number of
articles and the range of topics covered. The analogy is straight
forward.

> Perhaps if you were talking
> about entertainment (mental consumption) contrasted to dining (physical
> consumption) I could accept it loosely, but news coverage and the
purpose=
s
> it serves are a completely different story than entertainment.
>
> You seem to think that the Chinese language is some sort of impenetrable
> barrier to coverage of news in China for non-Chinese speakers. I have
new=
s
> for you: there are plenty of Chinese speakers and native Chinese
producer=
s
> and assistants for hire everywhere. If sometimes the Western media makes
=
a
> mistake, which it certainly does, this does not discredit it as a whole.

No. I am not of the opinion that the Chinese language is
impenetratable barrier. Actually, the problem may be the opposite.
Chinese language is relatively easy. Understanding a people or a
cultuer is more difficult. Made impossible by the China ba****ng
mentality.

>
> > > 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. Garbage 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! I 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
> t-o msot citizens. If the government restricts immigration, it is in
> -effect precluding the inofrmation dwelled in the minds of those
> -immigrants.
>
> No, bull****. This is not responsive, and is in fact evasive. I ask you
> again directly: should governments have the power to decide what people
c=
an
> and can not read?

I don't know what is your problem. I gave you a straight answer. It is
not a matter of should or should not. All governments regulate their
countries' internal environment including the information environment.
Hence all governments are already determining what people can or
cannot read.

If you don't agree with me or you don't understand my point, you need
to rethink your concept about government. You need to take an
aggregated view. You also need to ask yourself whether the buck stops
with the government.


>
>
>
> > -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.
>
> And how about governments? Should the have the power to pick and choose
w=
hat
> can be printed?

As long as the government are legitimate.

>
> Toby- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -