China: New Superpower?

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by Acidreptile

History tells us that all empires eventually falls.And history is always repeating itself.So the most logical thing is that the United States will fall too.

"The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different." ~Aldous Huxley

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by noodle

That actually brings a question to mind. When people say that China has this "complete control", or lies in the media etc. How do you mean? Do you mean like back in the day, communist countries, or dictators or what exactly?

Now, I went to china for about a month last year. I generally found that most stereotypes about China were pretty inaccurate. But of course, this "complete control" isn't so obvious to see. The only thing I can say, is that many people were extremely educated about foreign affairs. In fact, I was pretty shocked to have a conversation with someone about Algeria, when most people I meet in England have never heard of Algeria. And when I tell them it's in Africa, they ask why arn't I black . So, for the media, education etc, I find the chinese pretty well informed.

So yeah, what's meant by you guys that say "complete control" etc?

EDIT; JoshA, don't worry, if China were to ever invade or start a world war, Australia would be treated really well. They have a pretty huge community in Australia, and I've never heard a bad word about Australia from the Chinese. Heck, they even admire your prime minister. They love the fact that he speaks Chinese really well.

Not sure how to answer that, because it comes from almost everything we learn about China. Every documentary I've ever seen and all the news I see. Of course things are changing there, but I still am not ready top believe anything the leaders in china say.

Isn't Algeria near Argentina? Were you in the foreign legion? I love algerian movies and beef jerky!

[Hontodayo]

Originally Posted by Paul11

....Fortunately, Germany, Italy politically moved a fraction to the right and some Euro countries are denying Euro-union.

´

What do you mean by that?

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by Hontodayo

´

What do you mean by that?

Both countries above recently forsook the incumbant liberal parties and elected someone more conservative and friendly to the U.S. Franch did so as well by electing Sarkozy.

The Irish people just shot down EU treaties and so did France a few years ago. Maybe this is only a blip in the general liberalization of Europe, but it could indicate that Europeans are not satisfied with the loss of national pride, borders and sovereignty. Possibly, after experimenting with so much socialism, they are finding it's better to have personal responsibility and do away with the nanny state.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I find it strange that the Western media is being accused of propaganda. I mean seriously when you look at how the media works in the West you'll find that this is a stretch at best. The Western media is very rarely state owned, and when it is, (the BBC for example) it is not answerable in terms of what it reports rather is run as a state owned enterprise. The only agenda the Western media has is to sell a story. And while I think it capable of exaggeration to sell a story I don't think it capable of fabricating lies. I mean do you really think that ALL the Western media outlets in competition with each other for our attention would have the will or the ability to collaborate with each other to report the SAME lies so that it appears so very real? Are they really ready to risk their integrity which would mean risk losing viewers/readers to the competition? (I mean you see what happens to Fox News. Outside the US it is not a respected media outlet. Heck even in the US it is not relied on by a good percentage of the population.)

Not to mention that the Chinese state owned and operated media are hardly angels. The difference between the two is that China's state media HAS not only a motive, but also the ability to fabricate lies. Do you remember the Olympic torch coverage? The Chinese population were not exposed to the disruptions all over the globe (From Britain to Japan) because the Chinese media did not report it. Instead they told the Chinese people that everything went smoothly. Also why did China BAN foriegn media from Tibet during the riots? What did they have to hide? If there is a serious case of misreporting, then perhaps it is China's fault for not allowing foriegn media in which lead them to rely on second hand information from the many tourists inside Tibet at the time. (Are all the tourists selling the same lie too?)

I'd just like to say something about that sentence I highlighted. I think it's pretty obvious you don't really know how the News world works. Didn't you know that MOST western News channels get their info from the same source? I'll get back to you with the specific name (My brother works for Al Jazeera, he'll be able to tell me the name).

As for the Chinese news channels not broadcasting anything about the protests etc. Did you actually watch any Chinese news channels? I think not. If you did, you'd see that they DID in fact show and talk about the riots, hence why the Chinese people boycotted Carrefour, a huge french supermarket chain. hmmm, I wonder. Did the western media lie about this too , obviously they did, or at least, mislead the west.

With regards to the Tibet issue and letting reporters in. To be honest with you, that is blown WELL out of proportion, and once again, you've just given the opinion of the western media. There could be a million reasons as to why they didn't let reporters in. Heck, I could think of a simple example right now. China didn't have the situation under control therefore didn't want to have the risk of getting foreigners killed which leads to even more trouble. Just a possible reason out of millions. Not allowing access or coverage of something doesn't automatically mean someone, somehwere is hiding something, unless of course it's the media. It's tasty news if the foreigner is evil, and the homeland is the angel It works like this for every countries media. Chinese, US, European etc. They're all doing the same thing, hence why I prefer to look at both sides of the story.

Originally Posted by Paul11

Not sure how to answer that, because it comes from almost everything we learn about China. Every documentary I've ever seen and all the news I see. Of course things are changing there, but I still am not ready top believe anything the leaders in china say.

Isn't Algeria near Argentina? Were you in the foreign legion? I love algerian movies and beef jerky!

lol, it's a shame. You should visit China for a while. You'll be pleasently surprised at how different it is to the western image of it.

haha, that's not as bad as some of the questions I get... and yeah, Algerian movies are great in fact, the first tarzan movie was shot in Algeria

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Paul11

Both countries above recently forsook the incumbant liberal parties and elected someone more conservative and friendly to the U.S. Franch did so as well by electing Sarkozy.

The Irish people just shot down EU treaties and so did France a few years ago. Maybe this is only a blip in the general liberalization of Europe, but it could indicate that Europeans are not satisfied with the loss of national pride, borders and sovereignty. Possibly, after experimenting with so much socialism, they are finding it's better to have personal responsibility and do away with the nanny state.

No disrespect, but I'm finding your ideological bias hard to swallow frankly. Because Europe isn't as capitalist as the United States doesn't make it "experimenting with socialism". Nor does a couple of right leaning governments being elected in Europe mean that they're "finding it better to have personal responsibility and do away with the nanny state".

I mean does the hypothetical election of Barack Obama as US president signify the "US dissatisfaction with it's social injustices" or that "they're finding it better to instill a sense of social responsibility and do away with the more libertarian values that it has long held dear"?

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

I'd just like to say something about that sentence I highlighted. I think it's pretty obvious you don't really know how the News world works. Didn't you know that MOST western News channels get their info from the same source? I'll get back to you with the specific name (My brother works for Al Jazeera, he'll be able to tell me the name).

As for the Chinese news channels not broadcasting anything about the protests etc. Did you actually watch any Chinese news channels? I think not. If you did, you'd see that they DID in fact show and talk about the riots, hence why the Chinese people boycotted Carrefour, a huge french supermarket chain. hmmm, I wonder. Did the western media lie about this too , obviously they did, or at least, mislead the west.

With regards to the Tibet issue and letting reporters in. To be honest with you, that is blown WELL out of proportion, and once again, you've just given the opinion of the western media. There could be a million reasons as to why they didn't let reporters in. Heck, I could think of a simple example right now. China didn't have the situation under control therefore didn't want to have the risk of getting foreigners killed which leads to even more trouble. Just a possible reason out of millions. Not allowing access or coverage of something doesn't automatically mean someone, somehwere is hiding something, unless of course it's the media. It's tasty news if the foreigner is evil, and the homeland is the angel It works like this for every countries media. Chinese, US, European etc. They're all doing the same thing, hence why I prefer to look at both sides of the story.

Are you talking about Reuters? Yes I'm aware of this "source". Though it's not really a "source" rather a network which reporters tend to work through. It has no single major shareholder. In fact you could say that it's owned by and employs so many people that there is no possible way that you could say it has any "Western agenda".

The sources in this story are the tourists and few reporters that were actually inside Tibet.

And no I didn't watch the Chinese news channels. But I did see the reports on the Chinese media's relative silence on those protests. According to those reports, Chinese people found out about this via the internet. A media source that the Chinese government simply cannot control. I'm sorry but you'll have to give me substantial evidence rather than just saying so. Of course it is quite likely that the Chinese media addressed it since the news broke eventually. If you can show me an actual report from the day it happened then I'll concede to you.

Yes there could be a million reasons why they didn't let reporters in. I was speculating on behalf of myself not "The West" when I questioned China's motive in banning the media. To claim that there could be a million reasons is dodging the question rather than giving me an answer which you obviously don't have.

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

No disrespect, but I'm finding your ideological bias hard to swallow frankly. Because Europe isn't as capitalist as the United States doesn't make it "experimenting with socialism". Nor does a couple of right leaning governments being elected in Europe mean that they're "finding it better to have personal responsibility and do away with the nanny state".

I mean does the hypothetical election of Barack Obama as US president signify the "US dissatisfaction with it's social injustices" or that "they're finding it better to instill a sense of social responsibility and do away with the more libertarian values that it has long held dear"?

Well, European countries are rather socialist in several ways. But you'll notice I used the words "could indicate" and "possibly." An exploration of trends. Barak is the most liberal of all senators and is a gaff a minute. His popularity is without a doubt the trend toward liberiziation and socialization of America.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Are you talking about Reuters? Yes I'm aware of this "source". Though it's not really a "source" rather a network which reporters tend to work through. It has no single major shareholder. In fact you could say that it's owned by and employs so many people that there is no possible way that you could say it has any "Western agenda".

The sources in this story are the tourists and few reporters that were actually inside Tibet.

And no I didn't watch the Chinese news channels. But I did see the reports on the Chinese media's relative silence on those protests. According to those reports, Chinese people found out about this via the internet. A media source that the Chinese government simply cannot control. I'm sorry but you'll have to give me substantial evidence rather than just saying so.

Yes there could be a million reasons why they didn't let reporters in. I was speculating on behalf of myself not "The West" when I questioned China's motive in banning the media. To claim that there could be a million reasons is dodging the question rather than giving me an answer which you obviously don't have.

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.

[Paul11]

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?

And how is it you suggest I prove this to you? I got an idea, 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 I 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.

Noodle, I don't have the energy to write much now. But, you have some good points and so does Ronin. My journalism degree and monitoring of american media tells me Ronin is correct. But what he doesn't realize is that the media is extremely liberal in the U.S. and mostly sympathetic to China, except for the Tibet issue. In Tibet the American journalists were ordered off the streets and into hotels. In China all western journalists are subject to clearing with the govmnt what they film in China.

And Al Jezeera? No disrespect to you, but I trust Al Jezeera as much as I trust an enemy in my back yard., a fox in the hen house AJ has shown its anti-american/violent leanings.