"China" - BBC Two's new 4-part documentary

KYli · Jul 5, 2006

FuManChu said:
Unless you are saying the BBC can never, ever make a "fair" report (assuming other media groups can), then you need to tell me whether you saw this or not and raise specific points about it. I don't accuse the Chinese media of always being "unfair", only when I've seen something specific.

Fumanchu, I don't know about Always, but so far I had only heard your accusation and complaints about Chinese media.

only the AIDS activist from yesterday was really "extreme" - I would say she was passionate.

Few years back, when I first heard about the AIDS problem in China, I was really concern. As the western meida report six million Chinese in one province are HIV positive, and some of the AIDS acitivist even suggested that there were more. For awhile, eventhough I knew six million people were probably exagggerate, but I dont believe or don't trust the Chinese media either, that they were reporting there were only tens of thousand or hundred of thousands. But at the end of the day, the number of Chinese media
had prove to be most accurate.

I think some of the AIDS acitivist is passonate, and they are doing a good thing. But for many others, they were just wanting attentions and making up numbers. But why the Western meida such as BBC or others take these people so seriously, as a professional and mature news organization. They don't really bother to do some basic caculation and checking before reporting the news. If BBC is more balance and less bias, it won't make so more mistakes and misleading reports about China or many others countries. I still regard BBC as one of the better news media, but if BBC continues to ignore and relucatant understand OPV. BBC will be no better than Chinese media.

And most HKers are quite positive about British rule today. Whereas in China you can't elect who you want and HK today is not so trusting of the central government.

It depends on who you are talking to, but HK upper class and western educated people tend to be more favorable to British rule. People who lived in HKers in 80s or 90s also have better opinions on British, but many others especially middle class and older generations they would view much more differently. Many people still remember the oppression, corruption and racism in the early days.

I don't know about "China you can't elect who you want have anything to do with HK", but HK never had fully demacratic election under British rule. And eventhough there are always some minor complaints, British still had absolute authority and powers on HK until 97. I think you are wrong to say HK today don't trust the central government, even the pro-west media in HK conducts polls have been suggesting over half of HKers do trust Central government.

Deleted member 675 · Jul 5, 2006

KYli

1. I do not like a lot of the Chinese media's commentary on some issues, but that does not mean I would automatically assume a documentary series made inside China would be especially biased or untrue. In the same way, surely you look at reports from the non-Chinese media before you judge their content - just as people here should see the BBC series on China before they criticise it.

2. The AIDS activist was described as someone who was well-regarded inside China for her hard work - a kind of celebrity as it were. She was quite old, though very energetic, so I'm sure she would not be someone "seeking attention".

3. I did not say most people in HK don't trust the central government. I said that there was more trust of British rule in 1997 then there has been subsequently of the central government in China today. If HK people trusted the central government a majority of the directly elected seats in the HK elections would not go to the pro-democracy parties.

However discussion about HK is not related to the BBC programme and so off-topic, so if you want to talk about that more please PM me.

KYli · Jul 5, 2006

FuManChu said:
KYli

1. I do not like a lot of the Chinese media's commentary on some issues, but that does not mean I would automatically assume a documentary series made inside China would be especially biased or untrue. You don't like the non-Chinese media from what you infer, but you don't think it automatically lies or is unfair do you? Surely you look at the report in question first - just as people here should see the series before they criticise it.

Fair enough, but actually nowadays I treat Chinese and non-Chinese the same, many years ago I have more faith in Western media.

2. The AIDS activist was described as someone who was well-regarded inside China for her hard work - a kind of celebrity as it were.

I knew who she was, and as far as I knew she is a honest person. But for many others, eventhough they might be helping in some sort of ways. They were more interesting in fame and attentions, and not very reliable and honest.

3. I did not say most people in HK don't trust the central government. I said that there was more trust of British rule in 1997 then there has been subsequently of the central government in China today. If HK people trusted the central government a majority of the directly elected seats in the HK elections would not go to the pro-democracy parties.

The Pro-Central government got about 40% of vote and Pro-West got about 60%, but I don't think it is a good way to determine how much HK people trusted the central government. Many HKers trusted the Central government, but still vote for pro-West.

SampanViking · Jul 5, 2006

so far Sampan is the only person to show he did, and I have rebutted his complaints

What a conceit!! you have expressed an opinion perhapse, but nothing more.

The BBC series was in the style of documentaries you see in the UK all the time.

Then your complaint is ill-founded. Panorama talks about specific issues, not an overview of the country.

The words Cake Eat and Have spring immediately to mind: rather a self contradiction I would say.

Britons seeing a Panorama about Salmonela in Cadbury's chocolate would not be able to balance the views aired much better than they would have those raised in the BBC China documentary.

totally disagree, Britons know Cadbury, its products and the brand status they enjoy in this country. It would mean little in the Far East where these products are all but unknown. It is this familiarity with the central theme that provides the balance, without that familiarity there is no meaningful perspective. Even in this country scenes of disorder in a town will have a different impact if the viewer know the place to be either a leafy suburb in the South East or a deprived former Pit Village in South Yorkshire. The viewers of China had no such perspective and therefore much significance and perspective was lost.

Anyhow this could go on for ever, but as you say Fu Man Chu only you and I seem to have watched the series, lets put it to the test.

Who's view then; gentleman of the forum, do you most trust?

Will you Vote Fu Man Chu for Major or for the Vikings Paradise of the People?

KYli · Jul 5, 2006

SampanViking said:
Anyhow this could go on for ever, but as you say Fu Man Chu only you and I seem to have watched the series, lets put it to the test.

Who's view then; gentleman of the forum, do you most trust?

Will you Vote Fu Man Chu for Major or for the Vikings Paradise of the People?

:roll: I don't think you need to ask, Samapan.

Deleted member 675 · Jul 5, 2006

SampanViking said:
What a conceit!! you have expressed an opinion perhapse, but nothing more.

I'm sorry. Of course no one can best you in a debate.

The words Cake Eat and Have spring immediately to mind: rather a self contradiction I would say.

Not at all. I refered to the style being prevalent in the UK. I said nothing about Panorama offering overviews of the country.

totally disagree, Britons know Cadbury, its products and the brand status they enjoy in this country.

But they know little of its safety record, its hygenie procedures, etc. So they would not have easily be able to balance a documentary about the salmonella outbreak or a similar topic.

It is this familiarity with the central theme that provides the balance, without that familiarity there is no meaningful perspective. Even in this country scenes of disorder in a town will have a different impact if the viewer know the place to be either a leafy suburb in the South East or a deprived former Pit Village in South Yorkshire. The viewers of China had no such perspective and therefore much significance and perspective was lost.

But you're assuming those people would have such knowledge. How much do people in Bristol know about Yorkshire and how much do people in Yorkshire know about the South West? Supposedly a lot of people in the Northern half of the country haven't even been to the South. So I think you're making an incorrect assumption.

Of course a lot of viewers, if not a majority, would not know much about China. But equally they would not have the prejudices that people who do know about the place do. They would be a clean page, more-or-less, that would assess the information on their own terms, rather than thinking "that's not the China I know - that's nonsense" or "yes, that's what I've always thought about China". I'm sure that people in Yorkshire have lots of stereotypes about Southerners and vice-versa, that would cloud their interpretations on reports about the other.

Anyhow this could go on for ever, but as you say Fu Man Chu only you and I seem to have watched the series, lets put it to the test.

So in that case asking anyone else is pointless, as it would just be a popularity contest. If that is how you try to get yourself out of a sticky situation then I'm rather disappointed in your debating skills.

Sounds to me that someone wants a justification to pull out, like Bush from Iraq. Will you sign off from this thread with "Mission Accomplished"?

Deleted member 675 · Jul 5, 2006

KYli said:
I knew who she was, and as far as I knew she is a honest person. But for many others, eventhough they might be helping in some sort of ways. They were more interesting in fame and attentions, and not very reliable and honest.

She was the only AIDS campaigner on the show, so it wasn't really relevant to talk about others then.

The Pro-Central government got about 40% of vote and Pro-West got about 60%, but I don't think it is a good way to determine how much HK people trusted the central government. Many HKers trusted the Central government, but still vote for pro-West.

"Pro-West"? Really that's completely unfair to suggest the pro-democracy campaigners have anything to do with a "pro-West" view. They're campaigning for HK's future - the US and Europe doesn't come into it.

Roger604 · Jul 5, 2006

SampanViking said:
Who's view then; gentleman of the forum, do you most trust?

Will you Vote Fu Man Chu for Major or for the Vikings Paradise of the People?

I think its about time people realized that Fu Manchu likes to just pop up and demonize China whenever he has a chance. It's a totally futile debate.

Dongfeng said:
I am not going to join the debate here as I can see where it is leading to.

Truer words have never been said.

AssassinsMace · Jul 5, 2006

FuManChu said:
Yes, because I haven't committed any myself. It's not surprising that as usual apologists are trying to deflect from the main issue by finger pointing.

Mace mistakes have been made in Northern Ireland and HK, but things are a lot better in the former now. In Northern Ireland the people there can vote for their future, even if they parties somewhat hostile to London. And most HKers are quite positive about British rule today. Whereas in China you can't elect who you want and HK today is not so trusting of the central government. So don't pretend the UK is as bad as China - as if that would stop me from commenting anyway.

So, come on, guys, please talk about what's happening in China (or, SHOCK-HORROR, the TV programme itself), given that's what this is about.

All it goes to show is the UK only acts good when its to their own interests not because it's their nature. You do know that the British denied democracy from Hong Kong for 150 out of the 156 years of their occupation? And only the last six came because of the coming hand-over not because the British cared. And it was never a real democracy. They never allowed the people of Hong Kong to elect their own governor so just because they don't deny Hong Kong that right today, it's not because they've seen the light. It's because they don't control Hong Kong anymore. Just like when Western colonialists occupied China. They didn't care about the rights of the Chinese then. They only cared when they got kicked out. And that's not because of altruism. It's a cover to hide their anger that the Chinese stole China from them. If the British were all that great, wouldn't they teach the truth in their own schools about what the Empire did to the world? They certainly don't tell the truth about what they did in China.

Why don't you ask the Irish about they think about the British? How can the British be praised for giving democratic rights in Northern Ireland when it was theirs in the first place. Rights aren't given. They can only be taken away. So if the British gave it them, they took them away in the first place. That's like praising Hitler for the Jewish people he didn't kill.

This world ain't black and white like the West wants to make it.

"I'm the good. If you disobey me, it must be because you're evil."

I want greater freedom in China. I just don't trust the West to dictate it to the Chinese. Because it's quite clear the West hides their self-interests behind democracy and freedom. Do I have to point out the history to this very day of allied dictators of West where democracy and freedom aren't suddenly as important? I live in the US and the majority of people and all I personally know of that cry about human rights in China also have personal hatreds for the Chinese in general. Democracy and human rights is just the latest excuse for those that want to hate to continue and legitimize their hate. So contrary to what Westerners think, just because one holds up democracy and freedom in front of him or herself, it doesn't make him or her impervious to criticism nor deny anyone the right to question their motives. How ironic in the rights and freedom loving West.

Deleted member 675 · Jul 5, 2006

Roger604 said:
I think its about time people realized that Fu Manchu likes to just pop up and demonize China whenever he has a chance. It's a totally futile debate.

And I think you should stop rushing to China's defence over things that cannot be defended. Accept criticism when it is true, rather than go sulk in a corner and make pathetic allegations about other forumites.

Or even better why don't you download the series and watch it - then you can actually back your criticism up with some facts. Then again I know how much you detest facts, as they so often disprove your prejudices.

"China" - BBC Two's new 4-part documentary

KYli

Brigadier

Deleted member 675

Guest

KYli

Brigadier

SampanViking

The Capitalist

KYli

Brigadier

Deleted member 675

Guest

Deleted member 675

Guest

Roger604

Senior Member

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

Deleted member 675

Guest