Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:703ff870-ec96-4caf-ab87-8273a89bcb3a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 22, 6:02 am, "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 
> > little
> > 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 
> coverage
> 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.

The point of news and information is not to "feast" on it, but rather to 
gain a clearer understanding of what happens in the world and why it 
happens. People "feast" on entertainment, not on journalism.

> Perhaps if you were talking
> about entertainment (mental consumption) contrasted to dining (physical
> consumption) I could accept it loosely, but news coverage and the
purposes
> 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
news
> for you: there are plenty of Chinese speakers and native Chinese
producers
> 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.

Prejudice of any type is by definition antithetical to truth and 
understanding. This is why quality journalism is so im****tant.

>
> > > The concept of censor****p is anachronistic? It is not a concept, it
is 
> > > 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? 
> > There
> > 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 
> can
> 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.

It is a matter of degree. European and American governments do not
regulate 
the internal information environment near to the degree that the PRC does.

This is the whole point I have been making. I have lived in Europe, the
US, 
Japan and India, and have explored the press in many more countries. None 
since the old USSR control the "news environment" to the degree that the 
Chinese do. To be sure, North Korea is worse, and some African countries
are 
perhaps not so good, but the statistics are clear: China ranks 163 out of 
168 (at the bottom) of press freedom, and has the most journalists 
incarcerated of any country. China employs 100,00 people to censor the 
internet and block sites it deems inappropriate. This happens nowhere else

on earth. And this is not an East vs. West thing. Taiwan, Japan and Korea 
all have much more press and internet freedom than China, as do most all
the 
SE Asian countries.

-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.

Not all governments are alike.I understand why the PRC feels it necessary
to 
censor and control the flow of information in order to stifle dissent and 
enhance cohesion, but I strongly disagree with this tactic of control and 
feel that sooner or later it will prove to be very counterproductive.

>
>
>
> > -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 
> what
> can be printed?

As long as the government are legitimate.

Welcome to 1984.

If a government is really legitimate it should not need to do this. You
will 
find that throughout history that it was the most totalitarian governments

which practiced the most extreme forms of censor****p. At least you are 
honest. I know of no Western individual who would dream of saying that 
governments should have the power to limit press freedom.

So we are back at the same place. The Chinese press is controlled by the 
government and limited in what it can publish. The same is not true of 
Western media. Therefore my statement that at its worst the Western press
is 
immeasurably superior in both content and comprehensiveness of re****ting, 
notwithstanding that there are varying levels of quality in Western 
journalism. At least the right to publish is not limited. And information
is 
not blocked on the internet.

Toby