I love how they failed to mention the taking and killing of hostages and instead tried to distract the reader with irrelevant comparisons to Tibet and state corruption.
Mobs attack XinJiang, PRC police station
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
I love how they failed to mention the taking and killing of hostages and instead tried to distract the reader with irrelevant comparisons to Tibet and state corruption.
The Bloomberg article mentioned the killing of hostages, but the article quickly moved on to other things.
Some times I wonder if those people know that they are doing harm to their own cause by misreporting these facts. They did it in 2008 and it seems like they didn't learn a single thing in three years.
solarz
Brigadier
I think there is improvement. In 2008, the only articles which reported on the rioting were from Xinhua. Every single other piece out there described it as a "crackdown on peaceful protesters".
This time, at least half the articles out there mention "armed men attacking a police station" and the killing of hostages. Some of those articles doesn't even mention the "World Uyghur Congress" claims.
airsuperiority
Captain
yea i remember you used to be there. this is why i try to stay away from topics on that forum that's got to do with china; the wars never stop over there
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Not true. Many countries have sevicemen that enter politics, some of which go on to obtain high office or senior positions in government. Think McCain Bush Senior and go down the list of snators and congressman past and current and see how many you get for a start.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It is quite ridiculous that anyone can believe the WUC BS version of events.
If you were out on a protest and police started shooting people with live bullets, you would run away from them. It's basic human self-preservation, and it takes a lot of training and/or indoctrination to override this highly ingrained human instinct.
The likes of the BBC's reporting of this story is still biased, only less blatantly then previously. Even the haters in the western media couldn't find a convincing way to twist this story to bash China, and the WUC's truly pathetic attempt to try and blame this on China probably didn't give them much ammunition to use. I wonder if this will prompt the WUC's western paymasters to wonder what all their 'donations' are buying them.
But instead of fighting a hopeless cause, the BBC used its secret weapon of 'content editing'.
One day after the above BBC article was written, and two days after the actual event, the story is already effectively buried, on the BBC website it is only a tiny one-line text link at the very bottle of the page, where you usually expect to find old or insignificant stories.
If you check on the dates on the other stories, you can easily see that it is not a matter of simple chronological order and the story getting pushed down because its been a busy few news days. The placement of this story on the website was deliberate. Just as it is a conscious choice on the part of the BBC to keep negative stories about China in prominent places on their site and to keep the stories there for unusually long periods.
The likes of the BBC hasn't gotten less biased, they are just getting more clever about how they do things.
If you were out on a protest and police started shooting people with live bullets, you would run away from them. It's basic human self-preservation, and it takes a lot of training and/or indoctrination to override this highly ingrained human instinct.
The likes of the BBC's reporting of this story is still biased, only less blatantly then previously. Even the haters in the western media couldn't find a convincing way to twist this story to bash China, and the WUC's truly pathetic attempt to try and blame this on China probably didn't give them much ammunition to use. I wonder if this will prompt the WUC's western paymasters to wonder what all their 'donations' are buying them.
But instead of fighting a hopeless cause, the BBC used its secret weapon of 'content editing'.
One day after the above BBC article was written, and two days after the actual event, the story is already effectively buried, on the BBC website it is only a tiny one-line text link at the very bottle of the page, where you usually expect to find old or insignificant stories.
If you check on the dates on the other stories, you can easily see that it is not a matter of simple chronological order and the story getting pushed down because its been a busy few news days. The placement of this story on the website was deliberate. Just as it is a conscious choice on the part of the BBC to keep negative stories about China in prominent places on their site and to keep the stories there for unusually long periods.
The likes of the BBC hasn't gotten less biased, they are just getting more clever about how they do things.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Has there been anything significant to add to the story after the first couple of days.?
cn_habs
Junior Member
Of course like anything else, there have been great servicemen turned politicians but most of them aren't suited in the PR side of the job. Most politicians do have a law background in the West.
Last edited: