Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
Yes, it is Reuters.  No western agenda? I think you'll find that it's mainly Western News Channels that use it. So, how can it not have a western agenda? Why is it you see channels promoting their ideas of "a different angle"? They're simply saying that they don't get ALL their news from Reuters, hence, not a lot of western agenda.
And how is it you suggest I prove this to you?
I got an idea (maybe), next time there is another issue with foreign affairs and china (which there definately will be with all this racist attitude towards the Chinese from many westerners and western media), go watch CCTV 1-12 (CCTV 9 is in english, if you wish to understand exactly what they're saying).
Obviously, I can't prove to you that they did show the protests etc, unless they're on Youtube or something, but you can't prove that this info has be aquired through the internet either. Which brings me to the point, do you think chinese people are stupid? If they aquired this information from the net, and they learnt the truth from the net, yet they saw their media lie, do you really believe that the chinese would be stupid enough to not figure out that the media is lying, or that they are stupid enough to let the media channels go on with their lies?
I find it hard to believe that chinese people would find the truth from the net to the point where they boycott french products, and yet not protest against their news channels that would obviously be "lying" to them 
 I'm not claiming I DO know the answer. I'm just simply saying that it's not good to say that the chinese are hiding something simply because they're not letting reporters in. Hence me saying, there "could" be other reasons, not only the reason that the media puts on page one. So as you can see, I'm not dodging anything, because I havn't claimed to know the truth. I'm giving my opinion based on the exagurations of media, history of tibet and Chinese people I know and have spoken to. |
It's becoming hard to carry on this discussion with you. You haven't acknowledged any of the points I've made by either accepting or rebutting them. I'll say it again. Reuters is too big and to vast to orchestrate any sort of propaganda on behalf of a Western agenda. It works like this. Reuters makes the reports, the networks present them (though of course many of the larger networks have their own reporters too.). You and ivionk3y's only argument is some paranoid, conspiracy theory type hypocritical rant in which because Western agencies use Reuters a lot (never mind the fact that Reuters actually employs many non-Western journalists as well as Western journalists) Reuters not only has a Western agenda but can orchestrate and execute a peice of propaganda which all the parties to the story are in on from the networks who present the reports to the reporters who report it to the editors. Not the fact that all the COMPETING networks and agencies (who would otherwise be quick to exploit such unprofessional journalism as to convert more viewers/readers) would have to be somewhat complicit in such a huge conspiracy.
It's hypocritical because you're telling me that I shouldn't (reasonably in my opinion) be suspicious of anything based on China's unwillingness to let the media in yet you adhere to some massive conspiracy plot involving the Western media, but based on what? You clearly don't understand how the media works as Paul11 has pointed out.
To Ivionk3y. Yes you are correct that News networks exaggerate the news because at the end of the day they have to sell a story. But for them to outright lie or fabricate events is unlikely for the fact that their reports are almost always reported by other competing networks. With regard to the China-Tibet situation, I'm open to the idea that their could be exaggerations in the way the media reported it, not to mention that there could possibly be much in the way of misreporting (after all most of the sources as I said before where accounts from tourists in the area because of China's unwillingness to let the media in.)
But regardless of what the media says, my criticism of China regarding Tibet as I stated before is due to my (and the UN's) belief that nations should have the right to self-determination. Of course self-determination doesn't necessarily mean independence but clearly the Tibetans are unhappy about something. And since I consider media reports reliable they were large scale and of a nationalist nature suggesting their right of self-determination is not being met.