66
Anti-China Rhetoric Is Off the Charts in Western Media
(thediplomat.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
66 points (98.5% liked)
World News
22057 readers
116 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Have you been following media recently or have you been living under a rock?
That’s not a defense. Opinion pieces can be fine, but if you’re claiming that something is off the charts you should probably have some charts (or any points of data) to prove the claim.
Then... Disprove it? If there's such distinct evidence that counters the article, might as well use it in your argument lol
That's not how the burden of proof goes. The article is making a claim. It's on the article's authors to prove it.
Again, if you have such a strong argument, why don't you use it?
The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong
Can you prove that China isn't an oppressive authoritarian capitalist state?
Do I need to? I haven't had a visceral reaction to the article.
For what it's worth, China's affirmative action policies for minority groups put the US to shame. Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them, given that these infrastructure projects (while very beneficial to the endpoints) are not profitable.
Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points
Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar.
My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc.
Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit!
Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that.
I have been following media intensively. I am not saying that news about China is unbiased in the western media. I am calling out the lack of any sources in this weak ‘article’
As far as news outlets go, The Diplomat is rather well-regarded
As an opinion piece, sources are usually implicit (since opinion pieces use the reader's own knowledge of current events as the context)
The article points to this article for more context: https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china
1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions. 2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim. 3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources.
Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right?
Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community.
I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources!
Again, 🤦♀️
The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it
Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim.
You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply.
Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply.
Everyone says they have data that disproves it
And nobody's provided any because they can't find it
No one here says they have data that disproves it though?
?
The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor's also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn't a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn't a valid source in an internet argument.
I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident:
Fox:
Guardian:
CNN:
Wikipedia:
Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR?
Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story.
I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort.