What the Heck?! Thread (Closed)

[PanAsian]

Both kwaigonegin and Plawolf are making good points. If you let the government crackdown on "fake news" then the government has a monopoly on "the truth". But if you give all news and information out there equal weight then you end up dumbing down and confusing large number of people about important issue's. There are no good choice's, its always the lesser evil.

In the case of the Iraq War the media in the run up to the war has taken the US governments position not only on the WMD but also on the links to terrorism and that post war Iraq will be a beacon of freedom and prosperity lock stock and barrel. Iraqi claims about them not having WMD was never given equal weight in the discussions. It was never taken seriously. The media never questioned the flimsy evidence for all these claims made by the US government. Journalists covering the war later admitted that they wanted the Americans to win and that they where actively rooting for the American side during the invasion. That hardly qualifies for journalistic independence that's sooo crucial to their trade.

Journalism is like politics or law there is the theory of how it should work and then there is the reality of how it does work. And the difference can be glaring.

The problem is that too much of the reporting is driven by narrative and ideology. And that has put blinders on their eyes for a lot of things happening around them.

That's why to resist that and look for the truth comes down to each individual's choice and effort, especially for those who are already knowledgeable and those who have the means to become more knowledgeable.

 

[solarz]

My entire point is to highlight the fact that total unchecked freedom is just the opposite end of the spectrum to NK style total oppression. Both are arguably equally bad in their own, opposite ways.

The counter to NK style total oppression is not to go off the deep end at the opposite end of the spectrum and have nonsense like 'post-truth' become mainstream.

Traditionally the "checks and balances" in a free media environment are the opposing view points. Where this obviously fails is when all major media outlets support the same view on certain issues, i.e. China.

However, more recently, we have seen a polarization of political views in the US (and to a lesser extend, Canada), where people are just listening to the media outlet of their "allegiance" and dismissing anything the other side says as "liberal propaganda" or "faux news". This gravely threatens the public's ability to make well-informed decisions.

To further muddle the water, the rise of social network giants such as Facebook and Twitter means almost anyone can disseminate information. Where traditional media outlets can be sued for libel or defamation if they publish false reports, anonymous social network users cannot. FB or Twitter are often reluctant to crack down on such accounts, for fear of being accused of censorship.

It should be clear then, that the traditional wisdom of a "free media environment" that fosters the emergence of truths in current events, is no longer applicable.

 

[Equation]

To further muddle the water, the rise of social network giants such as Facebook and Twitter means almost anyone can disseminate information. Where traditional media outlets can be sued for libel or defamation if they publish false reports, anonymous social network users cannot. FB or Twitter are often reluctant to crack down on such accounts, for fear of being accused of censorship.
.

Not really, FB and Twitter had been guilty of taking down sites that they deem racist or controversial to their values. Take for example the Alternative Right Wing groups whose site and/or membership has been taken down lately or blocked. If one can't say anything freely (whether it's racist or not) online than it's censor in some form or another.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Iraq WMD wasn't a lie? Also, isn't the core justification for a 'free' media that they are supposed to critically challenge what the government says instead of just mindlessly parroting their party lines? Can't have it both ways. Either you take the responsibilities of being a free media seriously, or you can accept regulatory oversight to make sure you are going your job.

Also, they reported the truth afterwards is a piss poor excuse for their failure in the first place, and while it might go some way towards redemption, it alone cannot fully mitigate the screw up in the first place. For example, if I turned myself into the police after I killed someone through gross negligence, that might help give me a lighter sentence, but admitting the error will not be enough by a long shot towards settling my debt to society.



You can only make up your mind based on the information you are given. When you are asked to choose between two lies, it's almost impossible you will get the right answer.

If I gave you two cups of poison and asked you to choose which one to drink from while telling you they are both wine, is it your fault for choosing to drink a cup of poison or mine for misleading you?

What part of we need balance between freedom and rules that promote responsibility is so hard to get?

My entire point is to highlight the fact that total unchecked freedom is just the opposite end of the spectrum to NK style total oppression. Both are arguably equally bad in their own, opposite ways.

The counter to NK style total oppression is not to go off the deep end at the opposite end of the spectrum and have nonsense like 'post-truth' become mainstream.

Which goes against your very pro China stance when it comes to press freedoms and examples of your poison cups.

You cannot say what you just said and yet be such an advocate for Chinese government and their tightly controlled media.

Are you really sayin that there is balance news in China? If you do and it appears that you are, then there is really nothing more to discuss and we have to just agree to disagree and move on to other less controversial topics.

 

[solarz]

Not really, FB and Twitter had been guilty of taking down sites that they deem racist or controversial to their values. Take for example the Alternative Right Wing groups whose site and/or membership has been taken down lately or blocked. If one can't say anything freely (whether it's racist or not) online than it's censor in some form or another.

The problem is, even closing or banning accounts is ineffective, as these users can simply create a new account and keep disseminating their unsubstantiated reports.

 

[plawolf]

Which goes against your very pro China stance when it comes to press freedoms and examples of your poison cups.

Being pro-China does not mean agreeing with absolutely everything China does. I have been critical of Chinese government policy when I believe it to be wrong, and freely admit that there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of the role of government and how important decisions should be made. A position, btw, which is also shared by the Chinese government itself, who often stresses the importance of the Party aka government, being able to constantly adapt and improve.

Interestingly, it's hard to find anyone from the west who would take such a stance when it comes to the Holy Trinity or Democracy, freedoms, and capitalism.

It is also worthwhile to note that censorship is entirely different from deliberate lies and misinformation.

It is actually pretty hard to find examples where the Chinese central state media has outright lied. You may disagree with the conclusions they reached, but in terms of factual or reports accuracy, I would take Chinese state media over the likes of the BBC or CNN any day.

Are you really sayin that there is balance news in China? If you do and it appears that you are, then there is really nothing more to discuss and we have to just agree to disagree and move on to other less controversial topics.

There is a world of different from editorial bias, where commentators choose to interpret stories and facts in a certain way, and flat out lying about the basic facts themselves.

If you report the facts and then interpret it as you wish, at least the general public has the choice and chance to make up their own minds on their own views and feelings about the facts of the story.

OTOH, if the basic facts of the story is wrong or even pure made up BS, then the public doesn't even get to make up their own minds.

For example, if reporters found a bunch of bullet ridden bodies in a part of Aleppo that had recently been captured by Asssad's forces. Reporting that bullet ridden bodies had been found, and then presenting an argument on how you think they were civilians and not fighters, and why you think Assad's forces executed them is how that story should be been run if you have an anti-Assad bent but still care about professionalism and ethics.

OTOH, claiming that a large number of civilians were executed by Assad's forces, and then focusing the commentary on discussing how the west could intervene is going to fundamentally change what conclusions the vast majority of viewers might take away from that piece of news.

Also, its a pretty ridiculous and arrogant to make such a sweeping argument as there is no balanced reporting in China.

The censors only gets involved in sensitive topics. For the vast majority of stories without any political implications (which is the majority of stories), the censors don't care and Chinese reporters are free to report as they like.

Indeed, most negative stories the western media report on China actually are first reported by Chinese domestic reporters.

The Chinese censors were happy to let them report on those negative stories until the western media picked the stories up and started to use them as propaganda against China to further their own agendas.

A major reason why a lot of Chinese people don't want to talk to western reporters is because the Chinese people are not stupid. They know that western reporters in China couldn't care less about their plight and trying to help them resolve the grievance they have, and only want to exploit them to write another piece about how bad the Chinese government is.

Surprise surprise, that the people who's situations get exploited so are far less likely to see their grievence addressed, as Chinese government officials who might have looked sympathetically on their plight based on the bare facts are going to interpret them in an entirely different light with western reporters using the story to bad mouth China and challenge the legitimacy of a he Chinese government itself.

 

[delft]

And now for something entirely different:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks operative, said he personally received Clinton campaign emails from “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,” the Daily Mail is reporting. Murray said he was coming out with this stunning revelation because of the information being circulated that hackers working with Moscow helped Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and now a close associate of Julian Assange, revealed that he flew to Washington, D.C., and collected leaked emails from whistle blowers inside the Democratic Party. According to him, they were disgusted with the wholesale corruption in the Clinton camp and the DNC for sabotaging Bernie Sander’s presidential ambition.

Murray, a contentious figure, was removed from his post as British ambassador over allegations of misconduct. The 58-year-old was an unrepentant critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while he served as ambassador between 2002 and 2004. His unflinching stance put him on a collision course with the U.K. foreign office, which led to his subsequent removal.

WikiLeaks made the DNC messages public in July and the incriminating emails from Podesta were published in October. The messages predominantly showed that DNC officials were bent on sabotaging the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton. Murray insisted that the information was leaked and not hacked by Russia.

“Neither of the leaks came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks…leakers were motivated by disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

The 58-year-old confirmed that he retrieved the package from a source in a wooded area close to the American University in northwest D.C. Craig Murray, who was once the Rector of the University of Dundee, said the person who obtained the information was not the same person who met with him.

Murray’s claims cannot be proven, but it directly contradicts the version being peddled that thousands of Democratic emails published by WikiLeaks were orchestrated by the Kremlin. The alleged rationale behind this was that Putin preferred a Mr. Trump in the White House to a Hillary Clinton.

This revelation is coming on the heels of U.S. intelligence officials confirming that they have proof that Russian hackers accessed sensitive information linked to both top Clinton aide John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee. The CIA allegedly told members of Congress during intelligence briefings that the Russians used WikiLeaks as a smokescreen to swing the November 8 elections in favor of the Manhattan billionaire.

The WikiLeaks operative has refused to reveal his sources and how they accessed the information. However, he has suggested that intelligence services take a closer look at Podesta’s emails because he was communicating with foreign nations and Saudi Arabia lobbyists. According to him, it might be “of legitimate interest to the security services.”

Julian Assange is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London facing rape allegations. The 45-year-old has always insisted that Russia had no apart in the whistle blowing. According to Reuters, the Australian, in a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, accused Clinton campaigners of suffering from “neo-McCarthyist hysteria” where they blamed Russia for everything.

During the campaign, Hillary Clinton stated multiple times that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had confirmed that Russia was the source of the publications. The CIA had strongly supported this claim saying individuals in cahoots with Moscow provided WikiLeaks with an enormous number of hacked emails.

However, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, has not welcomed this assessment from the CIA. The ODNI, which was formed after the September 11 attacks, revealed that the CIA was quick in its assessment, especially when FBI standards require proof that can hold up in court. It added that they would struggle to convince others with circumstantial evidence.

The Obama administration has asked for an investigation into the Kremlin’s role in the November elections before he leaves office in January.

 

[plawolf]

And now for something entirely different:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's like Iraqi WMDs all over again.

The political leadership wanted 'intelligence' to support a narrative they preferred, and the spooks provided it.

It will be very interesting to see if analysts were again pressed to come up with the desired conclusions rather than what their best judgement said.

 

[delft]

It's like Iraqi WMDs all over again.

The political leadership wanted 'intelligence' to support a narrative they preferred, and the spooks provided it.

It will be very interesting to see if analysts were again pressed to come up with the desired conclusions rather than what their best judgement said.

In the mean time Putin says: Show the evidence.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Being pro-China does not mean agreeing with absolutely everything China does. I have been critical of Chinese government policy when I believe it to be wrong, and freely admit that there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of the role of government and how important decisions should be made. A position, btw, which is also shared by the Chinese government itself, who often stresses the importance of the Party aka government, being able to constantly adapt and improve.

Interestingly, it's hard to find anyone from the west who would take such a stance when it comes to the Holy Trinity or Democracy, freedoms, and capitalism.

It is also worthwhile to note that censorship is entirely different from deliberate lies and misinformation.

It is actually pretty hard to find examples where the Chinese central state media has outright lied. You may disagree with the conclusions they reached, but in terms of factual or reports accuracy, I would take Chinese state media over the likes of the BBC or CNN any day.



There is a world of different from editorial bias, where commentators choose to interpret stories and facts in a certain way, and flat out lying about the basic facts themselves.

If you report the facts and then interpret it as you wish, at least the general public has the choice and chance to make up their own minds on their own views and feelings about the facts of the story.

OTOH, if the basic facts of the story is wrong or even pure made up BS, then the public doesn't even get to make up their own minds.

For example, if reporters found a bunch of bullet ridden bodies in a part of Aleppo that had recently been captured by Asssad's forces. Reporting that bullet ridden bodies had been found, and then presenting an argument on how you think they were civilians and not fighters, and why you think Assad's forces executed them is how that story should be been run if you have an anti-Assad bent but still care about professionalism and ethics.

OTOH, claiming that a large number of civilians were executed by Assad's forces, and then focusing the commentary on discussing how the west could intervene is going to fundamentally change what conclusions the vast majority of viewers might take away from that piece of news.

Also, its a pretty ridiculous and arrogant to make such a sweeping argument as there is no balanced reporting in China.

The censors only gets involved in sensitive topics. For the vast majority of stories without any political implications (which is the majority of stories), the censors don't care and Chinese reporters are free to report as they like.

Indeed, most negative stories the western media report on China actually are first reported by Chinese domestic reporters.

The Chinese censors were happy to let them report on those negative stories until the western media picked the stories up and started to use them as propaganda against China to further their own agendas.

A major reason why a lot of Chinese people don't want to talk to western reporters is because the Chinese people are not stupid. They know that western reporters in China couldn't care less about their plight and trying to help them resolve the grievance they have, and only want to exploit them to write another piece about how bad the Chinese government is.

Surprise surprise, that the people who's situations get exploited so are far less likely to see their grievence addressed, as Chinese government officials who might have looked sympathetically on their plight based on the bare facts are going to interpret them in an entirely different light with western reporters using the story to bad mouth China and challenge the legitimacy of a he Chinese government itself.

I think the usage of local news stories by foreign presses to be used as some sort of propaganda against that specific country has merit and I certainly do not disagree with you on that point however that is certainly not just 'western' presses. It's everyone who has some axe to grind on someone else. In many ways it reflects human nature because to a certain extent we all do it on an individual level as well. Gossiping would be a small subset of that on the macro scale.