Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
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.
|
Dude, I don't have to say I acknowledge your points for them to be acknowledged. We're having a discussion, and we're discussing eachothers points. If you want me to say, yep, sure, you're right, without giving my opinion, then this convo would have been done ages ago.
I think it's obvious to me that we seem to have different meanings for lies and exagurations. To me, when a news reporter puts a picture of a Nepali police officer, and names it chinese, that's lying. If you want to call it exaguration for a good story, that's your choice.
You know, I'm not even arguing the fact that the west does have some huge anti-china thing going on, I'm arguing the fact that it's not impossible. Just because the size of the company/organisation (reuters) is huge, it doesn't mean that it can't have an agenda. What you don't seem to understand is that News is filtered out but a select few. So it really doesn't matter how many foreigners Reuters employes, it still goes up the chain, until the news is aproved. So, do you really think it's hard for Reuters to put thoughts into people's heads?
I'm not even gonna write an essay to explain to you that i'm not talking about a consipiracy theory. And where does paranoia come into this? You make it sound as if i'm one of those people that watch another form of media that suggested the news channel media is corrupt, hence me being paranoid and a hypocrit? I've seen plenty of lies from media all over the world. I'm simply talking about the west because that's where we're living.
Wow, that's kinda hypocritical yourself. You're thinking in the manner that there is a negative agenda by the chinese goverment from what you've seen on TV (which is a western conspiricy theory
), yet you're saying I'm hypocritical for believing the media has a negative agenda against china (which, I havn't actually said, If you were to ask my what is the western media's agenda, i'd simply say, money and ratings, if you wanted a simple answer).
Care to explain how Paul11 showed I don't understand how the media works?
You have a right to trust the media, if you didn't, then where would you get your info from. All i'm saying, is that you'd be surprised when looking at both sides of the story. Another story that I consider a "lie", was that one about the monks protesting. Western media, clearly said, that all the monks, tibetans were unhappy, hence the protests. Funny how they left out what the lama and head monks said... If you call that exaguration, then I think we agree on pretty much everything. simply semantics.
EDIT; concerning the competition channels taking advantage of the western medias' lies. You clearly havn't seen many non-western channels. There was an incident iin Algeria a couple years back. The french media went overboard with the exaguration, and the algerian tv channel, just ripped into them about how they lie etc.
The chinese media done the same thing about the protests in france and england against the olympics. So, when two parties complain about eachother, and say crap about eachother, how do you know which one to trust? I really don't think you realise how "different" the western media is compared to non-western. The only time they ever seem to agree is when it's not linked to them. ie, zimbabwe elections