Mobs attack XinJiang, PRC police station

plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
bladerunner said:
Has there been anything significant to add to the story after the first couple of days.?
Click to expand...

When I first read about the story, it was headlining as a very brief matter-of-fact report of what happened.

Less than one day later (probably less than 12 hours in fact, but I did not note down when the first report broke, and that has since disappeared so I cannot check), a more detailed version was published, which was on the 19th and the one linked above. Yet barely a day later and that story is at the very bottom of the page ready to be pushed into the archives by anything newsworthy at all? That is hardly normal for a matter as serious as this, and extremely quick turnaround for any story.

Hell, I nearly didn't find it and I was looking for it today. It would have been very easy for your casual reader to miss this entirely, which I think is the whole point.

Yet can anyone remember a negative story about China that disappeared into the archives anywhere close as this rapidly?

Anything positive or that paints China in a sympathetic light gets reported, but is taken off the news page and dumped into the archives with indecent haste while negative stories about China gets prime placement and kept there for as long as possible to maximize exposure, so the casual reader forms the desired negative impression about China without the BBC having to lie or make things up. But that is close to just as manipulative and more underhanded.

Say what you like about censors, but at least they are upfront about what they are doing instead of trying to sell a twisted version of events as the unvarnished truth.
 
Last edited:
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
To be fair the incident wasn't ongoing was it. I mean those terrorists involved were either dead , arrested or temporarily on the run within 48hrs.
Heck I can't find any news in the NZ Herald's Wednesday edition (20th) But then thats hardly unusualas news about the Kurds, Basques. and various Indian minorities playing up barely lasts two days either.
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Say what you like about censors, but at least they are upfront about what they are doing instead of trying to sell a twisted version of events as the unvarnished truth.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Propaganda is only good when you don't know it's propaganda.
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
This is event is a non-story in the West. Like bladerunner said, it's equivalent to other random little ethnic conflicts. People in English speaking countries see the word "Xinjiang" and think "what in the hell is that?" No one even knows what a Uyghur is. Including reporters. So when reporters write these stories, they do what they're trained to do in their crappy journalism schools: summarize what happened, tell it from both sides of the story. So they'll say what the Chinese government said happened, and then they'll go and see what the World Uyghur Congress says about it, and present them as equivalent, because they don't have any background knowledge and don't want to spend the time to write a story that gets at the objective truth. For a small, non-important story, he said-she said is good enough, even if it doesn't tell the whole truth.

Journalists usually try to pigeonhole stories into narratives that are easy for the audience to relate to and understand. Stories have to have a good guy and a bad guy. In this case its hard for Western journalists to choose who the good guy and the bad guy should be, both for factual reasons and for political ones. But it's always pretty easy to have the bad guy be the security forces of an authoritarian government (especially when the audience probably knows nothing about the situation in Xinjiang or the separatists), so that narrative ends up coming through in these articles.
 
N

nosh

Junior Member
Finn McCool said:
This is event is a non-story in the West. Like bladerunner said, it's equivalent to other random little ethnic conflicts. People in English speaking countries see the word "Xinjiang" and think "what in the hell is that?" No one even knows what a Uyghur is. Including reporters. So when reporters write these stories, they do what they're trained to do in their crappy journalism schools: summarize what happened, tell it from both sides of the story. So they'll say what the Chinese government said happened, and then they'll go and see what the World Uyghur Congress says about it, and present them as equivalent, because they don't have any background knowledge and don't want to spend the time to write a story that gets at the objective truth. For a small, non-important story, he said-she said is good enough, even if it doesn't tell the whole truth.

Journalists usually try to pigeonhole stories into narratives that are easy for the audience to relate to and understand. Stories have to have a good guy and a bad guy. In this case its hard for Western journalists to choose who the good guy and the bad guy should be, both for factual reasons and for political ones. But it's always pretty easy to have the bad guy be the security forces of an authoritarian government, so that narrative ends up coming through in these articles.
Click to expand...

I will not buy your "it is just a random ethnic conflict" and "No one even knows what a Uyghur is. Including reporters." explanation.

For all the recent events involving China, we have seen that BBC and other western news outlets always sit on the side opposite to PRC. It will be the most amazing coincident if they are just sloppy journalism.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Finn McCool said:
This is event is a non-story in the West. Like bladerunner said, it's equivalent to other random little ethnic conflicts. People in English speaking countries see the word "Xinjiang" and think "what in the hell is that?" No one even knows what a Uyghur is. Including reporters. So when reporters write these stories, they do what they're trained to do in their crappy journalism schools: summarize what happened, tell it from both sides of the story. So they'll say what the Chinese government said happened, and then they'll go and see what the World Uyghur Congress says about it, and present them as equivalent, because they don't have any background knowledge and don't want to spend the time to write a story that gets at the objective truth. For a small, non-important story, he said-she said is good enough, even if it doesn't tell the whole truth.

Journalists usually try to pigeonhole stories into narratives that are easy for the audience to relate to and understand. Stories have to have a good guy and a bad guy. In this case its hard for Western journalists to choose who the good guy and the bad guy should be, both for factual reasons and for political ones. But it's always pretty easy to have the bad guy be the security forces of an authoritarian government (especially when the audience probably knows nothing about the situation in Xinjiang or the separatists), so that narrative ends up coming through in these articles.
Click to expand...

A very good explanation, however I don't think anyone here has taken issue with the way this particular story has been reported because by all accounts it is a surprisingly unbiased piece by the western media's normal standards. But the fact that it being a balanced piece is worthy of special note is a sad reminder of the norm.

What I took issue with was how this story seems to be deliberately being buried because it was not possible to twist the facts enough to paint China in a bad enough light. And the placement is very deliberate and the speed from which this story has dropped from headline to near obscurity is unusually swift, especially when compared to many utterly non-issue stories that just happened to paint China in an unfavorable light.

I would probably not have even noticed if I haven't been looking to follow up on this story.
 
C

challenge

Banned Idiot
the next time, you read it may terror bombing in beijing or shanghai. they copy same tactics like the IRA or radical islamic group in caucasus,carry there war to urban or mtropolitan area
l. there is report that Chinese delegation visited israel,trying to learn about border control and electronic system.for year Israel invest heavely on border crossing to thwarf explosive material.report that China is setting some sort of electronic "fence" near the sino afgfan border.few years ago, one arab jihadist and 2 chinese security goard were killed in the fire fight.
 
N

nosh

Junior Member
challenge said:
the next time, you read it may terror bombing in beijing or shanghai. they copy same tactics like the IRA or radical islamic group in caucasus,carry there war to urban or mtropolitan area
Click to expand...

If you are waiting for this to happen I would suggest you give up. Unlike in many other places of the world, Caucasian (which Islamic terrorists are) are very recognizable in China heartland.
 
R

Red___Sword

Junior Member
Nosh, although Challenge's point is not very valid (the way he put it), I agree the main issue that Beijing and Shanghai kind of heartland is not an exception for nut jobs.

First, there were successful terrorist attacks (on buses and other public places) at Beijing, at early 1990's, it's just CPC did it too well to censor it, I doubt the west can catch the wind of such things soon after the 1989 total shut down, either.

Second, the Caucasian world may trying to stir up ordinary people's fear that "terrorist may be at your door steps" suggesting white people (no bashing here) could be Jihadists as well - that Chinese ethnic people at these countries may have fault senses of "identify the threat"... Hell, Chinese Jihadists are Chinese nationals, OK? Don't be fooled by some basher trying to paint "certain ethnic people are terrorists" - Jihadists in China, do not give you distinctive facial distinctions (or something "unique") either.

Third, solid proof - Security measures of 2008 Beijing Olympic games and things alike in heartland cities across the nation, didn't do it for fun! Plus non-political "vengeance crimes" which is FREAKING COMMON in China, nuts can simply targeting foreign citizens who somewhat residents at China and "ignorant" about anything (of course as well as Chinese citizens), to make a point.


The most important thing, if a bomb blast (and things alike) killed "too few" people in somewhat "awared community" - is that it would be "party time" for anyone, who trying stir up racial hatreds among Han Chinese and any other ethnic Chinese. And let me make this blunt: Some internatioanl governmental entities would be happy to see China burns. They will, if not initiated it, join the "party", one way or another.

That's how f*cked up the world we are facing!
 
A

airsuperiority

Captain
Red___Sword said:
Nosh, although Challenge's point is not very valid (the way he put it), I agree the main issue that Beijing and Shanghai kind of heartland is not an exception for nut jobs.

First, there were successful terrorist attacks (on buses and other public places) at Beijing, at early 1990's, it's just CPC did it too well to censor it, I doubt the west can catch the wind of such things soon after the 1989 total shut down, either.

Second, the Caucasian world may trying to stir up ordinary people's fear that "terrorist may be at your door steps" suggesting white people (no bashing here) could be Jihadists as well - that Chinese ethnic people at these countries may have fault senses of "identify the threat"... Hell, Chinese Jihadists are Chinese nationals, OK? Don't be fooled by some basher trying to paint "certain ethnic people are terrorists" - Jihadists in China, do not give you distinctive facial distinctions (or something "unique") either.

Third, solid proof - Security measures of 2008 Beijing Olympic games and things alike in heartland cities across the nation, didn't do it for fun! Plus non-political "vengeance crimes" which is FREAKING COMMON in China, nuts can simply targeting foreign citizens who somewhat residents at China and "ignorant" about anything (of course as well as Chinese citizens), to make a point.


The most important thing, if a bomb blast (and things alike) killed "too few" people in somewhat "awared community" - is that it would be "party time" for anyone, who trying stir up racial hatreds among Han Chinese and any other ethnic Chinese. And let me make this blunt: Some internatioanl governmental entities would be happy to see China burns. They will, if not initiated it, join the "party", one way or another.

That's how f*cked up the world we are facing!
Click to expand...

your sentences are very hard to read, no offense, to the point i dont know what you're talking about sometimes..but i think i get what you're trying to say.

honestly, for some reason i don't know why terrorism doesn't work in china...there just have to be something different china that makes it less "immune" LOL. which is it? is it too many people? values are a bit different? terrorism against china is very small in comparison to terrorism against the west? people care about other social problems more? or perhaps the censorshp?(i always have this feeling that media censorship reduces the effects of terrorism, since the point of terrorism is to catch people's attention, and if whatever you do, no one else is gonna know, then blowing up yourself means nothing?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top