Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:599485f9-df92-4053-83cc-27c2d758660c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jul 23, 4:26 am, "Toby" <kyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im 
>
Newsbeitragnews:703ff870-ec96-4caf-ab87-8273a89bcb3a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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.

-Of coruse, a restaurant owner can also insist that food is more that
-to be feasted on. Food is to nourish you body and soul. One will have
-have great difficulty to have a clear head if he does not eat right.
-No clear head, of course, means no clear understanding.  Yes. Media
-people used to think their services are special. But this is only self-
-aggrandizement.

You are just so completely stupid that I will no longer waste my time on 
this line of drivel.

> 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 am glad you recognize that all coutnries regulate the internal
information environment and the differeence is a matter of degree.

Of course, and the degree in China is stifling, as can be seen by the fact

that China ranks five places from the bottom out of 168 in press freedom.

Do you want an example of how this is harmful? During the beginning of the

SARS epidemic the Chinese government hid the extent of the problem, 
endangering many lives. Only when Time magazine blew the whistle was the
CCP 
forced to act, potentially saving thousands or perhaps even tens of 
thousands.

Here is another: the Chinese press claims that the air in Beijing has been

getting consistently better over the past decade, based on their 
measurements of pollutants and "blue sky days". What is not mentioned, 
however, is the fact that the air has actually been getting worse by 
absolute measurement of pollutants. The difference is that the Chinese 
government has simply changing the relative ratings; a level that used to
be 
"poor" is now called "good", and dropping measurements of pollutants which

they cannot contol.


>  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.

So?
Different countries or different states within a country also imposed
different speed limits on how far an automobile can travel. For
example, one can drive 75 mph on on a segment of a certain highway in
America. One can only drive 50 mph on a different segment of hte same
highway. Of course, 70 mph confers more freedom than 50 mph. Is one
speed limit better than the better and should be adopted as universal
standard? I don't think so. I also don't see why different countries
cannot have different speed limits on their information superhighway.

The Chinese are not putting up speed limits, they are blocking roads, 
asshole.


> 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.

-Before the 1980 oil shock, the speed limit of most American highway
-was 75 mph. Most highways were designed to accomodate up to 95 mph.
-The speed limit was than lower to 55 mph to preserve oil. A stiffle of
-drivers' freedom? It was. But then highway fatality also dropped from
-50,000+ to 40,000+. Is the more restrictive policy productive or
-counterproductive? I will defer such judgement to the poeple. How
-about you?

This is totally non-related to the matter at hand. Perhaps you think you
are 
clever with your non-analogies, but you do nothing but prove your
dishonesty 
and waste everyone's time. This has nothing to do with press freedom: 
blocking peoples access to information does not save lives.

Toby