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