On the CDT, Media, and Propaganda

latenlazy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Her opinion certainly isn't the only thing that matters, but where is China's opinions on SCS or Africa? For a source that focuses on China there is little information from China's perspective on such issues. It sounds more like an American mouthpiece.

There is no such thing as 100% credible media.

Click to expand...

There is such a thing as less biased sources.

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.

Click to expand...

I never said it.

nameless said:

Her opinion certainly isn't the only thing that matters, but where is China's opinions on SCS or Africa? For a source that focuses on China there is little information from China's perspective on such issues. It sounds more like an American mouthpiece.

Click to expand...

Like I said, read multiple papers. I'm not saying the CDT is perfect, but that doesn't invalidate as a good source of information. If you think it sounds like an American mouthpiece, that's hardly different from state media, which sounds like a Chinese mouthpiece, but that's no reason to disqualify it as a source of media. Furthermore, just because it can sound like an American mouthpiece doesn't mean it is. I'm not going to accuse the China Southern Daily of being a mouthpiece of the Chinese government just because it agrees with state media.

Anyways, here's one where they link to an article that quotes China's foreign ministry.

There is such a thing as less biased sources.

Click to expand...

How much insight a news ssouce can give you is not about how much or how little bias there is.

I never said it.

Click to expand...

But you implied it by saying "it contradicts with actual media reporting". What is an actual media reporting. The CDT is merely a collection of articles from other sources.

CDT is the propaganda arm of NED that sponsor and finance their operation They have selected amnesia. They culled and select article that fit their agenda and completely ignored anything that is positive toward China. They like nothing more than regime change in China but unfortunately or fortunately it never happened. I would not call them impartial or balance

Hendrik_2000 said:

CDT is the propaganda arm of NED that sponsor and finance their operation They have selected amnesia. They culled and select article that fit their agenda and completely ignored anything that is positive toward China. They like nothing more than regime change in China but unfortunately or fortunately it never happened. I would not call them impartial or balance

Click to expand...

I don't think there's such a thing as impartial or balanced.

And honestly, not everything on CDT is about subverting the government. Whether you agree with its politics or not, there's no denying that it does cover stories and subjects that would otherwise get no attention in the state media.

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.

Click to expand...

AFAIK NYT isnt on NED's payroll so no they are not. Again CDT is sponsored by NED to support its agenda and its not just some views.

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.

Click to expand...

And they dont share the same views? China's role in the SCS? Africa? Tibet?

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.

Click to expand...

I said information with political agenda is not reliable and hurts the credibility of the source. What is CD's political agenda? News, IPOs, stocks down, are all because of their political agenda?

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.

Click to expand...

Well you obviously do support their views since you prefer "open and free" over the truth.

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.

Click to expand...

Not just a political bent but a political agenda. If you feel that propaganda offers some valuable information that is your choice.

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.

Click to expand...

Thats is only true if the media doesn't do the thinking for you. The reason why brainwashing in the media works is because its does the thinking before you read it so you dont have to think, its not news. I would not called it freedom rather it is a form of slavery. Only those who attempt to be objective can truly be called free.

Like I said, read multiple papers. I'm not saying the CDT is perfect, but that doesn't invalidate as a good source of information. If you think it sounds like an American mouthpiece, that's hardly different from state media, which sounds like a Chinese mouthpiece, but that's no reason to disqualify it as a source of media. Furthermore, just because it can sound like an American mouthpiece doesn't mean it is. I'm not going to accuse the China Southern Daily of being a mouthpiece of the Chinese government just because it agrees with state media.

Click to expand...

I could care less what you read, but what does it have to do with CSD, its focus isnt on America.

How much insight a news ssouce can give you is not about how much or how little bias there is.

Click to expand...

If you choose biased sources its your choice.

But you implied it by saying "it contradicts with actual media reporting". What is an actual media reporting. The CDT is merely a collection of articles from other sources.

Click to expand...

They are responsible for its contents whether they wrote it or not, its childish to say otherwise.

nameless said:

AFAIK NYT isnt on NED's payroll so no they are not. Again CDT is sponsored by NED to support its agenda and its not just some views.

Click to expand...

The NYT is one of sources that CDT presents.

And they dont share the same views? China's role in the SCS? Africa? Tibet?

Click to expand...

And what views are those? The ones from the "Western", HK, and Taiwan media (because that's what you're reading in the end)? Sure, you can go ahead and indict the entire Western Media, but I somehow doubt you can get a complete picture with the remaining sources. The Chinese media is not purely objective in its coverage either.

I said information with political agenda is not reliable and hurts the credibility of the source. What is CD's political agenda? News, IPOs, stocks down, are all because of their political agenda?

Click to expand...

No, CD's agenda is to maintain political stability, and maintain the CCP's legitimacy. I've said it before, not all aspects of CD's coverage is "propagandistic", but then that is also true of CDT. I'm merely pointing out that if you consider the CDT propaganda, then you can't really exempt CD either. If we discounted sources of information solely because they had a "political agenda" then neither of them would pass that test.

You'll note that CDT doesn't even publish its own pieces. It's a collection of articles from other sources. If you're saying the information from CDT is political propaganda, you're directly inculcating other sources as political propaganda, like the NYT or Bloomberg News.

Well you obviously do support their views since you prefer "open and free" over the truth.

Click to expand...

And who determines truth? Certainly not any one news source, and certainly not just whom ever you say does so. Claiming what is or isn't true just based on "sources" is both illogical and presumptuous.

Not just a political bent but a political agenda. If you feel that propaganda offers some valuable information that is your choice.

Click to expand...

Same difference. The point is that they're not unbiased. And yes, it is my choice, because what you call political agenda, I call a collection of NYT, Bloomberg, and Southern China Daily articles and opinion pieces that I would not be getting from Chinese state media.

Thats is only true if the media doesn't do the thinking for you. The reason why brainwashing in the media works is because its does the thinking before you read it so you dont have to think, its not news. I would not called it freedom rather it is a form of slavery. Only those who attempt to be objective can truly be called free.

Click to expand...

And who's to say that I have to accept the media's thinking? I can agree with a person's facts and not their arguments. The truth is anything within the news, whether intentionally propagandistic or not, is prone to be mislead unless we can think for ourselves about them. Nothing is stopping you from disagreeing with the CDT, despite how it presents itself, because you have the ability to think independently. You yourself are making a convincing case for how ineffective "media brainwashing" is if you can think independently and take in different news mediums through your protest.

nameless said:

I could care less what you read, but what does it have to do with CSD, its focus isnt on America.

Click to expand...

I'm not telling you what I read. I'm reiterating my point that there is no one reliable news source.

In regards to CSD, I'm merely making the point that if the CDT can be accused of being an American mouthpiece simply because the stories it presents are in line with a US perspective (if that's what you are accusing, which I am not entirely in agreement with), then the extension of that logic would be that the CSD must be a Chinese mouthpiece because it presents views that agree with China. Neither are true.

Just because they are in agreement with certain perspectives does not make them slaves to other organizations that share those perspectives.

If you choose biased sources its your choice.

Click to expand...

All sources are biased. You can't remove subjectivity from reporting.

They are responsible for its contents whether they wrote it or not, its childish to say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you seem to be implying that the content in CDT (which is really just a collection of content from other sources), is not "actual news". Does that mean Bloomberg and NYT are not "actual" news? What makes you say that?

latenlazy said:

I don't think there's such a thing as impartial or balanced.

And honestly, not everything on CDT is about subverting the government. Whether you agree with its politics or not, there's no denying that it does cover stories and subjects that would otherwise get no attention in the state media.

Click to expand...

Yes but CDT is blatantly one sided with no balance whatsoever. . But hey if you like it it is ok with me to each according to its own. Even if they didn't publish their own article by the fact of their selective amnesia should qualify them as "propaganda for the NED".

They give prominence to the most obscure dissident and China basher and completely ignore the real progress in lifting million out of property . If that is not qualify as propaganda I don't know what is

BTW CDT should change their name as "Bad news China"

Hendrik_2000 said:

Yes but CDT is blatantly one sided with no balance whatsoever. . But hey if you like it it is ok with me to each according to its own. Even if they didn't publish their own article by the fact of their selective amnesia should qualify them as "propaganda for the NED".

Click to expand...

CD isn't very balanced either (and all news sources will be deficient one way or another), but both are a part of how I get news from China. To be honest though, while it's unabashed about its dissident nature, I do think accusing it of being an arm of the NED is an overreach. Just because you get funded by an organization does not mean you are a slave to that organization's ideology.

They give prominence to the most obscure dissident and China basher and completely ignore the real progress in lifting million out of property . If that is not qualify as propaganda I don't know what is

Click to expand...

On the other hand, we have more than enough sources talking about how millions have been lifted out of poverty, and CD does that without noting some real problems that have arisen such as land use rights. You can accuse CDT of being propaganda, but you can't deny that it fills up a hole in the coverage of by state media. If you call one propaganda you have to call the other propaganda, because they're doing the same things, albeit in opposite directions. I personally find such accusations besides the point. Just because they are both meant to present a specific view or execute an agenda does not mean neither are valuable or have important information.

BTW CDT should change their name as "Bad news China"

Click to expand...

Eh. So CD should change their name to Good News China?

I'll suggest that to Mr. Xiao Qiang if I ever get to talk to him again.