On the CDT, Media, and Propaganda

latenlazy · Jul 26, 2011

nameless said:
But that was your accusation on peoples perception of CDT.

I wasn't accusing anything about anyone's perceptions about the CDT. I was merely providing my own point of view on what the CDT does and does not do, and what kind of media source it is. Disagreement does not automatically translate to opposition. I have not said anything about anyone else's source of news, criticism or praise.

nameless said:
NED does not have diverse views or interest, the core interest is to further American interests. NED does not support CDT for "open and free media" but rather due to its anti PRC propaganda value. An anti American "open and free media" would not be supported by NED.

You're missing the point. I'm merely saying that it doesn't sponsor groups that always align with their views 100%. Just because the NED might be anti PRC, does not mean that all the groups it endorses must be. Does CDT have an "ideological bent"? Yes (and technically all media sources do). Does it have the same ideological bent as the NED? Not necessarily. They intersect on a notion of promoting free media in a country where media is controlled. That does not mean they have the same reasons for that intersection.

nameless said:
No, there are tons of non propaganda information in the media besides politics. What CDT presents is propaganda, if you care about the distinction so much,

Similarly, the CDT also has news that is not political, but that's dodging the point of contention. Neither sources are purely about politics, and therefore neither are purely propagandistic. And let's be honest. What the People's Daily or China Daily reports is just as much
"propaganda" as the China Southern Daily, or the Epoch Times, or the CDT. There is no such thing as objective news. In China's case the news itself is particularly polarized. That the CDT has an ideological bent is not surprising, but that does not set it apart from any other news source, and it does not mean it does not present valuable information.

If you've ever followed the CDT, you would note that it doesn't write articles, but rather presents sources from everywhere, including Chinese state media. Does it emphasize non state sources? Of course. But again, the CDT is only a collection point.

Of course, you're free to disagree with me. I was presenting my understanding and observations about the CDT. It does not have to agree with yours.

I don't know why there's a thumbs down icon on the thread name.

latenlazy · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

nameless said:
They do have the same ideology as NED, notice how much Hilliary Clinton is quoted, how South China sea issue is blamed on China, how China's presence in Africa is blamed, support of Tibetan independence, etc.

Maybe because these are the stories and views not covered by the state media? Just because they offer certain views does not mean that the example is representative of the collective, nor does it mean that they must have the same ideology as the views they represent. The CDT is sponsored by the NED, but that does not mean it is an arm of the NED. (It's not like the CDT has no neutral or positive things to say about China either).

Again, using that logic, China providing support to NK would mean that it is against SK or Japan. That is an oversimplification, and an over-generalization.

What sovereignty to begin with?

UK Recognises China’s Direct Rule Over Tibet
In a blow to Tibetan sovereignty, the UK’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that Britain regards Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. From The Telegraph:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Okay? I didn't say there wasn't an ideological bent, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good source of information or doesn't offer a valuable insight. There is no such thing as objective media.

You also have to consider the make up of the CDT. The tag lines are not very surprising when you consider that these articles are collected by volunteers from every angle of the Chinese political spectrum, including HK, Taiwan, and Mainland students. That does not mean that the paper as a whole agrees with every one of those tag lines. If that was how news papers operated, then we could accuse the New York Times of supporting the Tea Party simply because of an editorial supporting the Tea Party.

If you're looking for a media that agrees with your views all the time, then obviously CDT is not for you, but my point was that just because CDT presents a certain view does not mean the information isn't there. Again, it's about teasing the information from the sentiment.

I opened up a topic for us to continue our discussion. If you don't mind, we can continue this discussion in another thread.

latenlazy · Jul 26, 2011

nameless said:
They do have the same ideology as NED, notice how much Hilliary Clinton is quoted, how South China sea issue is blamed on China, how China's presence in Africa is blamed, support of Tibetan independence, etc.

Maybe because these are the stories and views not covered by the state media? Just because they offer certain views does not mean that the example is representative of the collective, nor does it mean that they must have the same ideology as the views they represent. The CDT is sponsored by the NED, but that does not mean it is an arm of the NED. (It's not like the CDT has no neutral or positive things to say about China either).

Again, using that logic, China providing support to NK would mean that it is against SK or Japan. That is an oversimplification, and an over-generalization.

What sovereignty to begin with?

UK Recognises China’s Direct Rule Over Tibet
In a blow to Tibetan sovereignty, the UK’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that Britain regards Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. From The Telegraph:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Okay? I didn't say there wasn't an ideological bent, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good source of information or doesn't offer a valuable insight. There is no such thing as objective media.

You also have to consider the make up of the CDT. The tag lines are not very surprising when you consider that these articles are collected by volunteers from every angle of the Chinese political spectrum, including HK, Taiwan, and Mainland students. That does not mean that the paper as a whole agrees with every one of those tag lines. If that was how news papers operated, then we could accuse the New York Times of supporting the Tea Party simply because of an editorial supporting the Tea Party.

If you're looking for a media that agrees with your views all the time, then obviously CDT is not for you, but my point was that just because CDT presents a certain view does not mean the information isn't there. Again, it's about teasing the information from the sentiment.

nameless · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

latenlazy said:
Maybe because these are the stories and views not covered by the state media? Just because they offer certain views does not mean that the example is representative of the collective, nor does it mean that they must have the same ideology as the views they represent. The CDT is sponsored by the NED, but that does not mean it is an arm of the NED. (It's not like the CDT has no neutral or positive things to say about China either).

Who says they arent covered? Anti PRC views from the west is not news in China. Again CDT is very much a part of the NED propaganda machine, they further the geopolitical views of the US. CDT has little if anything positive to say about China.

Again, using that logic, China providing support to NK would mean that it is against SK or Japan. That is an oversimplification, and an over-generalization.

China's support is mostly due to the US. Dont try to turn this into China vs SK and Japan argument.

Okay? I didn't say there wasn't an ideological bent, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good source of information or doesn't offer a valuable insight. There is no such thing as objective media.

You are welcome to believe in propaganda, I dont trust information that has an blatant political agenda.

You also have to consider the make up of the CDT. The tag lines are not very surprising when you consider that these articles are collected by volunteers from every angle of the Chinese political spectrum, including HK, Taiwan, and Mainland students. That does not mean that the paper as a whole agrees with every one of those tag lines. If that was how news papers operated, then we could accuse the New York Times of supporting the Tea Party simply because of an editorial supporting the Tea Party.

No far from it, they collect articles that fit a specific range of agendas. For example the support for Tibet independence and Dalai Lama isnt simply one or few articles.

If you're looking for a media that agrees with your views all the time, then obviously CDT is not for you, but my point was that just because CDT presents a certain view does not mean the information isn't there. Again, it's about teasing the information from the sentiment.

So now I am looking for media that agrees with me all the time? Now you are accusing me of doing that? If you want to be a hypocritical about government sponsored propaganda like CDT then go ahead.

Mr T · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

nameless said:
CDT has little if anything positive to say about China.

CDT mainly posts unreported or under-reported news about China. Given that good news never gets censored in China - and indeed it can be pushed by the propaganda department - why would it be unreported or under-reported, such that CDT would circulate it?

But let's get back on topic. This isn't about CDT, it's about the (reported) media directive on the train accident.

You are welcome to believe in propaganda, I dont trust information that has an blatant political agenda.

So what exactly is the problem with this?

1. The story about the media directive comes from CDT, therefore it's false; or
2. That you don't believe the Chinese authorities issue media directives; or
3. That you believe the Chinese authorities issue media directives but not in this case; or
4. That you don't believe these are the actual directives that would have been issued?

latenlazy · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

nameless said:
Who says they arent covered? Anti PRC views from the west is not news in China. Again CDT is very much a part of the NED propaganda machine, they further the geopolitical views of the US. CDT has little if anything positive to say about China.

Okay? It's an NED propoganda machine because it presents some views that align with views of the NED? Does that make the NYT a conservative propoganda machine because there are conservative columnists? The world is not so black and white.

China's support is mostly due to the US. Dont try to turn this into China vs SK and Japan argument.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the failure of the logic being used. How did you break that logic? By providing an alternative reason. Are you really saying that there can't possibly be alternate reasons for why a media source would present the views they do?

You are welcome to believe in propaganda, I dont trust information that has an blatant political agenda.

Again, all media is propaganda of a sorts. If you don't trust information that has a blatant political agenda I hope you don't read the China Daily and People's Daily either, or any other newspaper for that matter. Every publication is a proponent of some form of interest or another.

No far from it, they collect articles that fit a specific range of agendas. For example the support for Tibet independence and Dalai Lama isnt simply one or few articles.

So if a newspaper reports on Tibet it must be supporting Tibetan independence? You are free to interpret the articles which ever way you want. However, that does not mean those articles explicitly support a certain view. When the NYT says that Obama is going to meet the Dalai Lama, I personally do not think that poses as either an endorsement or a repudiation of Tibetan Independence, but that is my personal view. Free press isn't about "objective press", it's about having enough information to come to your own interpretation and understanding.

So now I am looking for media that agrees with me all the time? Now you are accusing me of doing that? If you want to be a hypocritical about government sponsored propaganda like CDT then go ahead.

Well, you seem to be implying that case, since you've clearly missed my point entirely. I did not say the CDT has no ideological bent, nor did I say I agreed with their views. I said that all media sources have an ideological bent of one form or another, but that does not make them uninformative. You can talk about the CDT being "government sponsored propaganda" all you want, but all news media is sponsored by someone, and if that's "hypocritical", then anyone who reads a single news source expecting objectivity without adopting a range of other sources is a "hypocrite".

Honestly, I have no interest in arguing that the CDT isn't "ideological", nor have I said otherwise. I don't see why you feel the need to respond so strongly and attack my opinions when I simply give my view on how the CDT operates and how it can still offer valuable insight. You are free to disagree. I was giving my point of view in hopes of offering another perspective, not trying to convince people to agree with me.

nameless · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

Mr T said:
CDT mainly posts unreported or under-reported news about China. Given that good news never gets censored in China - and indeed it can be pushed by the propaganda department - why would it be unreported or under-reported, such that CDT would circulate it?

Thats not the case at all, a lot of it is quotes and opinions from people like Clinton and others, I do not consider that to be news. In fact most of it is opinions not news.

But let's get back on topic. This isn't about CDT, it's about the (reported) media directive on the train accident.

It based on the creditability of media directive and CDT and the poster.

So what exactly is the problem with this?

Because it contradicts with the actual media reporting of the story.

latenlazy · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

nameless said:
Thats not the case at all, a lot of it is quotes and opinions from people like Clinton and others, I do not consider that to be news. In fact most of it is opinions not news.

On the contrary, what Clinton says or doesn't say is news. What she says or does not say is indicative of US foreign policy. Even if it's "opinion" there is real consequence and weight to those words.

It based on the creditability of media directive and CDT and the poster.

There is no such thing as 100% credible media.

Because it contradicts with the actual media reporting of the story.

Oh? And who's to say which media must absolutely be right or wrong? There's a reason why we have multiple sources for news.

nameless · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

latenlazy said:
Okay? It's an NED propoganda machine because it presents some views that align with views of the NED? Does that make the NYT a conservative propoganda machine because there are conservative columnists? The world is not so black and white.

Most if not all of the views are that of NED. This has nothing to do with NYT, it doesnt support your point by making straw man arguments.

I'm not. I'm pointing out the failure of the logic being used. How did you break that logic? By providing an alternative reason. Are you really saying that there can't possibly be alternate reasons for why a media source would present the views they do?

I never said China + NK vs SK + Japan, it was all you. Again its a straw man argument.

Again, all media is propaganda of a sorts. If you don't trust information that has a blatant political agenda I hope you don't read the China Daily and People's Daily either, or any other newspaper for that matter. Every publication is a proponent of some form of interest or another.

Dont put words in my mouth, I did not say sources but information. If you think if newspaper like CD is mostly blatant political agenda then you are delusional.

So if a newspaper reports on Tibet it must be supporting Tibetan independence? You are free to interpret the articles which ever way you want. However, that does not mean those articles explicitly support a certain view. When the NYT says that Obama is going to meet the Dalai Lama, I personally do not think that poses as either an endorsement or a repudiation of Tibetan Independence, but that is my personal view.

Again its not just one or a few articles.

Well, you seem to be implying that case, since you've clearly missed my point entirely. I did not say the CDT has no ideological bent, nor did I say I agreed with their views. I said that all media sources have an ideological bent of one form or another, but that does not make them uninformative. You can talk about the CDT being "government sponsored propaganda" all you want, but all news media is sponsored by someone, and if that's "hypocritical", then anyone who reads a single news source expecting objectivity without adopting a range of other sources is a "hypocrite".

It is hypocritical if you are read propaganda and actually believe it to be "open and free".

latenlazy · Jul 26, 2011

Re: All is not what it seems within China's High Speed Rail development.

nameless said:
Most if not all of the views are that of NED. This has nothing to do with NYT, it doesnt support your point by making straw man arguments.

I wasn't making a strawman argument. I was using an example. The NYT also publishes things that agree with the NED. Does that also make them the arm of the NED? If it does not, then your argument that simply because the CDT presents some views that agree with the NED that it is also an arm of it is an over-generalization.

I never said China + NK vs SK + Japan, it was all you. Again its a straw man argument.

You misunderstand my point. I was pointing out how the logic of association was flawed, which is essentially what you were arguing. Because the CDT is funded the NED, they must have the exact same views. If that logic were true, then China and NK would share the exact same view. Just like you can't say with certainty that the PRC has the same ideology as NK based on the fact that one funds the other, the same logic is true for the NED and any of the groups it funds.

Dont put words in my mouth, I did not say sources but information. If you think if newspaper like CD is mostly blatant political agenda then you are delusional.

I did not put words in your mouth. I said I hope you don't read the CD and PD if you think political agendas disqualify a newspaper from being a source. Simply put, if I were following your logic that the CDT was untenable simply because it was "propagandistic" I would equally suspect the CD and CDT of having political agendas, because they both present certain views and angles which favour their ideologies.

If you were so focused on information alone, then I do not know why you bother addressing me as if I agree with the CDT's views, when I clearly stated that I thought of it as a valuable source of information, and not a source of my views.

Again its not just one or a few articles.

And just because they have a political bent does not mean they do not offer valuable information. If I disqualified papers based on political bent, I would not be reading China Daily either.

It is hypocritical if you are read propaganda and actually believe it to be "open and free".

I've said already that "open and free" is not about finding sources that aren't propagandistic. Those simply don't exist. All media propagates some kind of interest, whether it be commercial or political. Free media is about having access to and considering multiple different sources and coming to your own interpretation and understanding. In that sense, even if CDT has an ideology, so long as it presents news not presented by official state media, it is promoting free media.

On the CDT, Media, and Propaganda

latenlazy

Brigadier

latenlazy

Brigadier

latenlazy

Brigadier

nameless

Junior Member

Mr T

Senior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

nameless

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

nameless

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier