BBC (Western Media) bias against China

[SampanViking]

A little while ago I was discussing with some other members about how I was beginning to percieve a distinct media bias against China, with a corresponding more positive approach to reporting news from India. I stated at the time that I believed this was part of a deliberate policy, to support Democratic India as the leader of the developing world, rather than Authoritarian PRC.

Well today I think I have some evidence.

A couple of days ago in North Eastern India, the local populace were demonstrating against a proposed new Steel Mill. The police reacted violently, opened fire with live ammunition and killed at least six protesters (wounding presumably many others). In many respects it is very difficult to differentiate between this incident and the recent Guangdong Village shooting, which occured over a proposed new Power Plant.

The difference of course is that the Chinese Incident was widely broadcast on Terrestial TV, whilst the Indian Incident languishes in the low sub links of the BBC South Asian section of its Website.

Not wishing to make any particular point about India's Internal security situation, but ongoing scecurity problems plus periodic bouts of Inter communal violence do mar Indian Society. Never though do you hear speculation of India's political system collapsing or disintergrating.

I think the difference in reposrting is marked, and I will continue to monitor this unfortunate and unbalanced tendancy.

[Gollevainen]

well the situation is more fustraiting here in finland, i mean there is hardly any 'positive' news of any of these 'rogue' states like china, DPRK, Iran, Cuba...the so called 'free wrold' myth would work much better if the stances who controlls the media would least show some sort of effort to conceal the agendas. But when you brainwash kids from elementary school how the media is independent and not controlled anybody and we have freedom of speech and so on...no wonder that people buy all the stuff gets to their head and doesent questionize anything that is getting feeded to them...and if you claim anything controversial theres that big bad USSR goblin stamp to but onto you...
so forgive me some of the fustration but thats just the way it is, there is no unbiased truth, or any such concept of neutral stance to anything...all its filtred by the tellers own ideas of good and bad...and its not helping when all finnish media is practically owned by single person...
the western system needs its bad guy, and when they have burned their fingers with islamist fundamentals they turn back into good old communists and this case towards china, thougth the next 'cold war' has nothing to do whit 'struggle of classes' but pure capitalist power strugle of the economical/powerprojection hegemony that is the key to world domination these days...makes me sick! thats why i have lost most of my intrest to make the world better place anymore...its so hopeless, thats why im considerd to worlds of my own....

[FreeAsia2000]

Possibly Gollvainen your're approaching the problem from too marxist a viewpoint. Individuals make up society, if you are good to individuals then hopefully the individuals will become better people and that will reflect on society as a whole.

to quote a wise man ' Your rulers are from amongst you'

of course perfecting humans is impossible but it's a good ideal :)

[foudeladefense]

there has been recently military exercices lead by indians and americans and there is a nuclear cooperation between them . USA want ally to india to have a support in the region to be able to resist against china ' s influence

[crazyinsane105]

BBC bias against China? Well, I am not surprised. BBC has a bias against Pakistan as well. Even many Indians don't like BBC.

[adeptitus]

How "biased" a BBC news article may appear, is dependent on the reporter who wrote it. You might find BBC news to discriminate against the PRC, but many American right-wing "neocons" find the BBC to be a nest of left-wing liberal bias. These views are backed by only selecting few articles as examples that confirms to your own opinions.

My experience with BBC news has been excellent. Your opinion may vary. Please see the large selection of "local language" editions avail, and compare the Chinese edition:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/languages/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/simp/hi/default.stm

I suppose a pro-TI activist would claim that BBC news is biased because "it merges HK and Taiwan to a single news section, suggesting that Taiwan should be treated as a SAR like HK".

[Gollevainen]

Possibly Gollvainen your're approaching the problem from too marxist a viewpoint. Individuals make up society, if you are good to individuals then hopefully the individuals will become better people and that will reflect on society as a whole.

perhaps i have bit of that bitter, wartorn marxist wiev point but its not the issue so im not going to lead this topic to wrong tracs, but the situation in finland is so bad, and i think its important factor, who owns the media. BBC (to gettin to back to the topic) is state owned am i rigth? And so big organisation as BBC must have its own foreing journals instead of relying solely on news agencyes...
Then the question returns to wheter any goverment, despite how much they are on 'freedom's side' can truly field unbiased journalism? Its differnt thing to be unbiased and independent truely, than to claim to be one. The general public doesent have media-reading skills enough to determ wheter they are beeing fooled or not. I think it should be teached in schools, to descover more sharply whats lies and whats twisting of words and expecially how comon it is on western media todays..

and also this goes to clubroom as it has no military aspects...

[JZXT]

It seems that Western Media always focused on the bad news, while China, NK would focused on the good news.

And as the democratic myth, the never ending claim of democratic societies are much better than that of Communists, others, (even Capitalis US is better than Socialis European countries, etc...).

Bad mouthing the other guy and praise your own system would be good way to do it.

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
Alexander Tyler


The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Absolute powers corrupts absolutely. W/out some others to check it.

[Roger604]

"Democracy" is a flexible concept. The day will come when India is rich enough to threaten America's dominance and then America will brow-beat it too with claims of liberating the oppressed lower-castes.

I think America is grasping at straws when it tries to set India up as a counter-weight to China. Fundamentally, both China and India has had the experience of foreign imperialism and colonialism. India is too proud to play second fiddle to what it must surely see as an English-speaking foreign power.

India will happily take whatever carrots the US offers it like arms sales. And it must surely be happy to have more security vis-a-vis China. But don't expect India to be a toedy.

America's best allies are and will always be those who want a world-wide Anglo-American culture and universal system of values. Even the French don't want an Anglo world and neither does India. Some countries are actually proud of their non-Anglo culture.

[Ender Wiggin]

I tend to read a little of BBC, CNN, People's Daily and I see no difference, though I see a rather neutral view of the US in the People's Daily, sometimes criticle sometimes praising, its confusing sometimes.

[FreeAsia2000]

This is actually quite interesting.

I find it fascinating how the 'Fox' media of Rupert Murdoch conducts
this campaign of accusing it's competitors of being pro-liberal as a way of destroying their credibility.

Recently we've seen Sky News doing the same thing and accusing the BBC of 'political correctness'. Maybe this is all a strategy plotted by Rupert Murdoch

[Kampfwagen]

It hink one quote sums it up quite well.

"Those who arent with us, are against us."

Alot of these news stations are still 'recovering' from the Cold War as well as 9/11. Thanks to the Bush administrations 'War On Terror', we now see any 'rouge' state (in otherwords, independent from NATO) as someone to fear and hate.

And being an american, I notice that the popular media and the popular ideas are that states such as China, India and Iran are backwards witchdoctor savages. Most americans would probably be shocked to learn that China has a working space-program, as well as a rapidly modernizing military.

This isint to say that we should not be wary of these states, but to assume the agression would be solely on the shoulders of the united states is a bit baias in of it's self. Whilst alot of the fear is in fact bias, some states such as the DPRK, which is under the rule of a dictator, gratuate of Stalanist-Communisim 101 out of Despot Ruler-U is very worrisome.

Of course, to say that it is inevetable that we or they will start a conflict is a bit silly. It dosent guarntee this much. China, however is nothing like the DPRK, and despite a few old men still wrapped up in the Cold War, from what I have seen China would rather be left alone by the western world.

And as far as FOX News, it's made by the same people who promote "When Animals Attack" and "The OC." I hate to start a political debate here, but FOX news is one of the most Baias news stations on the popular channels, Uber-Conservative Bush Worshipers. Please dont start a whole debate on this, I would hate to drag us all into an off-topic quagmire.

People remember Tinnamen Square, and beleve that it is still like that. However, that was only one incident. And every country has had a situation where deadly force was used on peaceful protesters. There is at least thre instances where Riot Police in America shot and killed protestors who were unarmed. Remember that Texas Universty where the protesters were all shot? The only thing about Tinnamen Square was that, while a horrible event and a loss of life unequaled in such matters, is part of a China that no longer exists. But because of the Cold War Ideologies of news networks, many people refuse to let go.

Every time I talk about how China has improved, people still fall back to Tinnamen Square. It really is unfortunate, but that is how the american people think.

Forgive me, it's hard to term when your a bit rushed. I might revise my statement a bit later.

[Schumacher]

Yeah, some of the news commentators/analysts are quite clueless. Look at this piece abt India from a finance page. Especially point #4 which is the guy's view on India vs China. I guess he's never heard abt the plight of the Muslim & Sikh minorities in India or the abuses in Kashmir just to name a few.

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/economist/2074?p=1

My favourite one is the democracy in India thing. :) Dont't they know India has been a democracy since independence but that never stopped US from siding with Pakistan until recently. India was under a US nuclear embargo until I think last year.
The point is it's US's right to choose who it wants to be strategic partner but it's too funny when one reads that it's due to democracy etc in India when the simple truth is that US now sees China challenging its top dog status & needs help to stay on top.

[FreeAsia2000]

There's a good book called "Washington, Babylon" by Alexander Cockburn
and Ken Silverstein which documents the links between the media and the powers that be and how the media is 'managed' even in 'democracies'

The problem with controlling the media though is what happens when a country is on the verge of disaster and nobody wants to or is allowed to say it ?

Thus history is full of tyrants who believed their own lies because it was repeated back to them by fearful peasants until disaster overtook them

[Kampfwagen]

Yeah, some of the news commentators/analysts are quite clueless. Look at this piece abt India from a finance page. Especially point #4 which is the guy's view on India vs China. I guess he's never heard abt the plight of the Muslim & Sikh minorities in India or the abuses in Kashmir just to name a few.

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/economist/2074?p=1

My favourite one is the democracy in India thing. :) Dont't they know India has been a democracy since independence but that never stopped US from siding with Pakistan until recently. India was under a US nuclear embargo until I think last year.
The point is it's US's right to choose who it wants to be strategic partner but it's too funny when one reads that it's due to democracy etc in India when the simple truth is that US now sees China challenging its top dog status & needs help to stay on top.


You wanna know something even crazier? This morning, I heard some people say that they still thought India was under the controll of Britian. :roll:

The Majority of americans are woefuly ignorant.

[SampanViking]

Interesting

This Charlie Wheelan is not just another US NeoCon. He is a Brit and former Spin Doctor for Gordon Brown - UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and soon likely to be Labour Party Leader and UK Prime Minister, once Tony blair stands down.

Coming from such a source, I think we hear echoed here, views which are probably HM Govt's position.

Well Well Well. Expect more BS than from a Cattle stampede after eating in Sprout Prune and Senapod field!!

[MIGleader]

mr. wheelan and his report reminds me of nothing more than some elementary school students trying to write a persuasive essay. his sentence structure is terrible, his format is more than predictable, his imput is highly childlike, and he;s clearly not researched his paper adequately.

[Maork]

BBC's perspective on China:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1287798.stm

Update today.


:off

[PiSigma]

considering that the BBC believes USA have a larger territory than China already shows its biased view. it's pretty much common knowledge in the world the biggest nations in order are russia, canada, china, then usa.

[walter]

considering that the BBC believes USA have a larger territory than China already shows its biased view. it's pretty much common knowledge in the world the biggest nations in order are russia, canada, china, then usa.

hmmm... maybe it depends on your source?

from CIA factbook (I know, they surely make US bigger than it really is);)

China:

Area:

total: 9,596,960 sq km
land: 9,326,410 sq km
water: 270,550 sq km
Area - comparative:

slightly smaller than the US


USA:

Area:

total: 9,631,418 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 469,495 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia
Area - comparative:

about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; almost two and a half times the size of the European Union

it is interesting to note that China, as measured by land only, is slightly larger than the US, but when bodies of water are included the US is larger.

from national geographic:


China: Area 9,596,960 sq km (3,705,405 sq mi)
USA: Area 9,826,630 sq km (3,794,083 sq mi)

I am assuming they included Peurto Rico and maybe some other Islands belonging to the US?

Anyway, it seems the US can be defined as just Continental US, all 50 states plus DC, or all states and all territories--you come up with a different answer for each scenario.

I didn't bother looking at any other sources, what do Chinese sources say?

[PiSigma]

why would anyone include bodies of water in terroritry??? since there are many land locked nations, and different nations measure their ocean terrortories differently. for example the EEZ difference between china and japan.

[walter]

why would anyone include bodies of water in terroritry??? since there are many land locked nations, and different nations measure their ocean terrortories differently. for example the EEZ difference between china and japan.

I thought the bodies of water they referred to would be landlocked bodies of water, like lakes? Otherwise, it would be odd to include parts of the ocean, but if that is the international standard?

[sumdud]

It still bothers me. Isn't Alaska a big enough to make the US larger than China? I am guessing the difference in Longitude left an error on the map.....

I think the international standard for water boundaries is 12 nm in open oceans?

[FuManChu]

considering that the BBC believes USA have a larger territory than China already shows its biased view.

I don't think that shows bias, it's an issue of sources. Why not e-mail the BBC and ask for them to check their info?

Every media group has some sort of bias. But most people I've ever talked to say that the BBC remains generally neutral, especially given the attitude of its competitors. The BBC recently had a discussion with Chinese bloggers on media censorship within China and gave as much time to people that said it "wasn't a problem" as those that did.

[DPRKPTboat]

Have you notced how the media always tells us that western miltary technology is stae of the art and supoerior to everyone elses? Since you are saying that there is a media bias, how do we know that's true in all cases? We know that troops in Iraq are porrly equipped in some cases. And you have you also noticed how we always comment on Chinese or Russian technology as being junk? Well, you'll find that the other side sees it opposite. I went to Russia recently, school trip. We were at the Cosmonaut museum, and one of the guys commented on how U.S. space technology is ahead of Russian technology. Then museum guide notced. She gave him a stern look and a burst of Russian. Our english-speaking guide translated it as "actually, Russian technology is 20 to 30 years ahead of American technology." Thats what the Soviet media had been tellign her, and thats probably what CCTV says about Chinese technology. How do we know our media isn't saying the sme thing? It could be telling us our politics and technology are better than it actually is. For all we know, the truth could be that the U.S. is justa s bad as China or Russia in trerms of technology or Politics.

[Roger604]

Have you notced how the media always tells us that western miltary technology is stae of the art and supoerior to everyone elses? Since you are saying that there is a media bias, how do we know that's true in all cases? We know that troops in Iraq are porrly equipped in some cases. And you have you also noticed how we always comment on Chinese or Russian technology as being junk? Well, you'll find that the other side sees it opposite. I went to Russia recently, school trip. We were at the Cosmonaut museum, and one of the guys commented on how U.S. space technology is ahead of Russian technology. Then museum guide notced. She gave him a stern look and a burst of Russian. Our english-speaking guide translated it as "actually, Russian technology is 20 to 30 years ahead of American technology." Thats what the Soviet media had been tellign her, and thats probably what CCTV says about Chinese technology. How do we know our media isn't saying the sme thing? It could be telling us our politics and technology are better than it actually is. For all we know, the truth could be that the U.S. is justa s bad as China or Russia in trerms of technology or Politics.

The way I see it, western countries have a preconceived notion that they are the superior civilization to everyone in the world. They NEED to feel superior.

And they view facts in a way that supports this need for superiority. Facts that make other societies look less advanced are exaggerated. Facts that make other societies look more advanced are ignored.

This is why western countries are the most brainwashed of all! What other countries have this deep seated need to feel superior to everybody else?

[FuManChu]

The way I see it, western countries have a preconceived notion that they are the superior civilization to everyone in the world. They NEED to feel superior.

That is far too generalised. Most of us couldn't give two hoots about such things. Just because some Americans feel that way doesn't mean people in other countries do.

[bd popeye]

The Majority of americans are woefuly ignorant.


With the exception of me of course.

You are right if you mean matters of simple geography, history, politics outside of the US. Most Americans are clueless in these matters. I found this so true once I moved from the multi-cutural state of California to the near mono culture of Iowa. These peope here have little clue about what goes on outside of Iowa. They are not dumb..just ignorant. Lacking education. I think that's why I spend so much time on the internet.

You fellows in this forum are some of the brightest people I know. I mean that sincerly.

[PiSigma]

not just americans are ignorant, all nations are ignorant. if you go to china, people from different provinces will not know much about other provinces, especially in poor rural areas. the cities are a lot better. europe is probably the least ignorant place in the world since they have so many advanced nations all packed together in a small area. but when comes to politics, many of them are still ignorant to the point they can only view things from their one perspective (i'm only talking about the government here).

[Roger604]

It's not the ignorance that creates a systemic bias. Everybody is ignorant of something.

But rather it's the feeling of superiority that distorts facts... facts become distorted to fit this preconceived notion. There is always an underlying fear of challenges to the preconceived notion.

This feeling of superiority is most noticable in western countries, especially English-speaking countries. The way this is manifested is that western media portrays the west as the single enlightened and advanced civilization on earth. It portrays western countries as the "good guys" and everybody else as the "bad guys." This, I think, is a very dangerous and aggressive frame of mind.

[Baibar of Jalat]

Not aimed at no one particulary

Does everyone understand propaganda is used by all sides. When people hear about propaganda they usually visual propaganda in nazi germany as true biased, which is not entirely correct. However the best propaganda has an element truth for example i read a news report a week ago stating americans 34% see Iran as their biggest threat also another more global stating Iran as having the most negative influence in the world. This shows that in the past couple of years Iran has been in the media constantly recieveing negative news or Bad publictiy

Hence i am trying to say is that the western or any media esp European media which is wrongly (debatable) seen as more open and trustworthy. Can easily portray nations as negative and a threat because there is certain truth to label a nation as a threat(stated above) if certain sections of society wanted to label China as a global threat they could easily do it because China is rising politically, military and economically.

In other words the western media could not call E.g Benin(In Africa) a imminent global threat, because most people have not heard of it.

( I will try to find source for Iran survey but if you heard similiar statements please do not hesitate to validate my source).

[DPRKPTboat]

Not aimed at no one particulary

Does everyone understand propaganda is used by all sides. When people hear about propaganda they usually visual propaganda in nazi germany as true biased, which is not entirely correct. However the best propaganda has an element truth for example i read a news report a week ago stating americans 34% see Iran as their biggest threat also another more global stating Iran as having the most negative influence in the world. This shows that in the past couple of years Iran has been in the media constantly recieveing negative news or Bad publictiy

Hence i am trying to say is that the western or any media esp European media which is wrongly (debatable) seen as more open and trustworthy. Can easily portray nations as negative and a threat because there is certain truth to label a nation as a threat(stated above) if certain sections of society wanted to label China as a global threat they could easily do it because China is rising politically, military and economically.

In other words the western media could not call E.g Benin(In Africa) a imminent global threat, because most people have not heard of it.

( I will try to find source for Iran survey but if you heard similiar statements please do not hesitate to validate my source).

That is why I find it so hard to trust the media. We're not trying to say thet one side uses less propaganda than the other, but that we should be wary of our news sources, and scan things with our own radars, and not just midlessly believe what we are spoonfed on the radio and telivision every day, like most people do.

[FuManChu]

This feeling of superiority is most noticable in western countries, especially English-speaking countries. The way this is manifested is that western media portrays the west as the single enlightened and advanced civilization on earth....

Isn't there a certain East Asian nation that harps on about the fact it has "5,000 years" of history? And people from there talk about how it will dominate the 21st century, out-perform all other countries, etc?

Again, I'd have to say that such a statement as yours is BS. "The West" doesn't exist. You may be talking about America, but that does not include Europe. And in Europe there is a great deal of introspection, more than you can find in China, Korea, Japan, etc.

It's funny when I think of stereotyping because there's no bigger stereotype than lumping everyone from the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, the rest of Europe, Australia, etc all together and calling them "Westerners", saying they're all the same, etc. We think very differently and often have disagreements. But of course it's easier just to say that we're all against country X because we're from THE WEST and have a stick up our arses.......

:nono:

[FuManChu]

also another more global stating Iran as having the most negative influence in the world.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll06-3.html

[FuManChu]

We're not trying to say thet one side uses less propaganda than the other, but that we should be wary of our news sources, and scan things with our own radars and not just midlessly believe what we are spoonfed on the radio and telivision every day, like most people do.

Which is a fair enough statement. But at the same time, you can't be a complete sceptic. The media in Europe, for example, is some of the freest in the world - Reporters without Borders is a useful example of that. Not to say that it is unbiased. Everyone in the world is biased in some way. But at least there is the wide spectrum of discussion to choose from. That way you can compare and contrast "news" a lot more easily than in many other countries.

However I'd suggest you not take a cheap shot at people that you don't personally know :china:

[vincelee]

I hope you're not equating freedom of intellectual excercise to unbiasness. Just because a person perceives himself to be free doesn't mean his brain is the most pristine shit ever. On the contrary, when you look at the US media, most of the morons have no fucking clue about what they're talking about. Lou Dobb rings a bell? His entire understanding of economics is based on extremist interpretations of supply side economics that fly in the face of classical economics, which he professes to be an ardent supporter of. Then there is Bill Gertz. A man with a high school diploma, yet writes for the Washington Post and is one of the more widely quoted "experts" on the Chinese military, although he doesn't read or speak one word of Chinese and probably doesn't even understand modern warfare. Let's not even get started with NewsMax and, say, the Psycho Bitch Ann Coulter.

To put it shortly, freedom does not mean a lack of agenda, and the presence of an agenda is to throw unbiasness out the window in favor of some influence, and because most people in America are so clueless, in regards to economics or military or even history, they fall prey to such tactics, yet because they are clueless, they PERCEIVE themselves to be under unbiased guidance and such.

Democracy is sweet because the process of decay is almost invisible to the general public, which, in all cases, is an uneducated mob.

[Baibar of Jalat]

Thanks FuManChu for Link.


http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll06-3.html

Origionally from DPRKPboat
That is why I find it so hard to trust the media. We're not trying to say thet one side uses less propaganda than the other, but that we should be wary of our news sources, and scan things with our own radars, and not just midlessly believe what we are spoonfed on the radio and telivision every day, like most people do.

Most people usually watch one main news programme a day because they are working, education or just lifestyle. thus it restricts them so it is impossible to analyse more then one source, which historians always have to do everyime when researching.

You are right to scepitical but most information in the news is true but the way it is present can cause problems.

I leave u with this. Sir Winston Churchill once humourously quiped " History is gonna be kind to me because i intend to write it"

[FuManChu]

I hope you're not equating freedom of intellectual excercise to unbiasness.

Well if you'd bothered to read my post you would have seen that I wasn't :p

"The media in Europe, for example, is some of the freest in the world - Reporters without Borders is a useful example of that. Not to say that it is unbiased. Everyone in the world is biased in some way."

On the contrary, when you look at the US media...

Uhuh, and what about the non-US media? Because there are other democratic countries with a half-decent media, you know.

Democracy is sweet because the process of decay is almost invisible to the general public, which, in all cases, is an uneducated mob.

Ah, so I suppose that's why there tends to be so much discussion of a nation's problems in democratic countries, whereas in autocratic or dictatorial ones such discussion can be prohibited or restricted.....

[vincelee]

why is discussion carried by a mob even needed when action is a much more suitable course of action?

I didn't realize that you were talking about European media, of which I have little experience outside of BBC, which I favor, so excuse me.

Mind you, I realize that the Chinese system has major flaws, but I do not see democracy as the ultimate goal of social progress, and I get fed up once in a while when people would use democracy as an almost religious criteria.

[FuManChu]

why is discussion carried by a mob even needed when action is a much more suitable course of action?

Ok, I realise what you mean now. Democracy does not mean the people are consulted on every issue. But it ensures that they can have a say over how their country progresses.

I didn't realize that you were talking about European media, of which I have little experience outside of BBC, which I favor, so excuse me.

No problem.

I realize that the Chinese system has major flaws, but I do not see democracy as the ultimate goal of social progress, and I get fed up once in a while when people would use democracy as an almost religious criteria.

But what else is there? "Benevolant dictatorship/autocracy" is even worse. It's ridiculous for people to present democracy as some perfect system. But as Churchill said it's the least worst. Until human beings can figure out how to be less selfish then we can't do much better. Democracy should be seen as a goal to reach, rather than something you can just declare overnight.

And I'm not saying you do, but I get fed up when people try to attack democracy in order to make a crummy system in another country seem less worse.

[Eurofighter]

well the situation is more fustraiting here in finland, i mean there is hardly any 'positive' news of any of these 'rogue' states like china, DPRK, Iran, Cuba...the so called 'free wrold' myth would work much better if the stances who controlls the media would least show some sort of effort to conceal the agendas. But when you brainwash kids from elementary school how the media is independent and not controlled anybody and we have freedom of speech and so on...no wonder that people buy all the stuff gets to their head and doesent questionize anything that is getting feeded to them...and if you claim anything controversial theres that big bad USSR goblin stamp to but onto you...

I think Gollevainen has addressed a very good point here. This really is the paradox of freedom of speech, or more specific, of democracy, isn't it?
People believing in the media, because they are so convinced that their media won't fool them because they are living in a democratic world where the freedom of speech is celebrated. However, this attitude towards the view of truth would make people's conceptualization of objectivity very vulnerable. And indeed, once the media does try to cloud the truth, there would be no way anybody would protest.....this implicit contradiction within our system kind gives me the creeps, isn't it the perfect way for the governments to indoctrinate their citizens? This really scares me, since the implications would indicate that the world of democarcy, human rights and the freedom of speech etcetera, as we Europeans or Americans would like to perceive them as something tangibe, rael and something worth fighting for, suddenly changed in to just sets of illussions and lies...where would we be then?

[sumdud]

Well, I define politics by three words, bad words, and the media fits right into one of the three slots. Yes, it's scary. Law-abiding citizens are good, but they are vunlerable to lies like these all the time......

I was invited (well, I didn't want to go, but the whole wanted me to since I was in fact one of the most informed people about the world in my school) to the World Affairs Challenge. It was a (regional?) contest concerning the students' history knowledge. The prices were really nothing, so the $40 was a real bargain for the host.
When the teacher told us to watch only the news from CNN, the Washington Post, and BBC, i totally quit. I first asked my teacher why these networks was chosen for knowledge of the current world, and she told me it was because it was more align with the government.........
Well, I quit, I am not going to be brainwashed like that. America was already being listed as a topic we were not to discuss on, so why does the Feds have to come in on that? It smelled really funky.....
I am not trying to discourage people from watching Western news, no. I am just saying, you need to know which news is a rumor and which is true. I watch MSNBC BTW. :)

[vincelee]

.......aren't there just two words instead of three?

[Roger604]

The society that is biased is the one that derives a feeling of superiority over others through a conviction that their political system is inherently superior.

When you have a deeply embedded need to feel superior, then you start ignoring or distorting facts. Your own faults are downplayed while the faults of others are exaggerated.

Isn't there a certain East Asian nation that harps on about the fact it has "5,000 years" of history? And people from there talk about how it will dominate the 21st century, out-perform all other countries, etc?

But the Chinese do not believe their political system is the only legitimate one in the world. Therefore, they are not vulnerable to this bias in regards to political systems. Maybe in regards to China's historical importance this is true. Maybe this is exaggerated in the Chinese collective psyche.

Again, I'd have to say that such a statement as yours is BS. "The West" doesn't exist. You may be talking about America, but that does not include Europe. And in Europe there is a great deal of introspection, more than you can find in China, Korea, Japan, etc.

It's funny when I think of stereotyping because there's no bigger stereotype than lumping everyone from the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, the rest of Europe, Australia, etc all together and calling them "Westerners", saying they're all the same, etc. We think very differently and often have disagreements. But of course it's easier just to say that we're all against country X because we're from THE WEST and have a stick up our arses.......

:nono:

I think most people in English-speaking countries simply want to think their political system is superior. It makes them feel like they are simply better than other countries that have a different system.


But what else is there? "Benevolant dictatorship/autocracy" is even worse. It's ridiculous for people to present democracy as some perfect system. But as Churchill said it's the least worst. Until human beings can figure out how to be less selfish then we can't do much better. Democracy should be seen as a goal to reach, rather than something you can just declare overnight.

And I'm not saying you do, but I get fed up when people try to attack democracy in order to make a crummy system in another country seem less worse.

I'm glad you regard don't regard democracy as a flawless system. In fact, democracy is such a vague concept. But formally speaking, the definition of it is not important.

Bias is likely to exist whenever a society derives a feeling of superiority over others based on the alleged superiority of its political system. In that situation, the society is likely to distort facts about its own political system and that of others to support the national ego.

Democracy is sweet because the process of decay is almost invisible to the general public, which, in all cases, is an uneducated mob.

So true, that is one of the major unavoidable flaws of democracy. The average person is stupid.

Mind you, I realize that the Chinese system has major flaws, but I do not see democracy as the ultimate goal of social progress, and I get fed up once in a while when people would use democracy as an almost religious criteria.

You hit the nail on the head again. Democracy / non-democracy is used by people to incite conflict and demonize others in the same way religious differences were used 1000 years ago.

But many people today think anybody who doesn't believe religiously in the superiority of democracy is just evil incarnate.

[Roger604]

This is a prime example of a GROTESQUELY biased article from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4743274.stm

China's censored media answers back
By Tim Luard


The media scene in China has come a long way since the days when revolutionary slogans blared from loudspeakers in paddy-fields.
But today's Communist Party bosses are as determined as ever to maintain control over every word published or broadcast in the world's most populous country.

A media clampdown - the latest of many over the years - has seen a string of journalists disciplined, dismissed or even jailed for violating official guidelines.

Some of the campaign's targets, however, are refusing to be silenced.

And they have found plenty of supporters - some in unlikely quarters - willing to speak up on their behalf.

"There is now an unstoppable wave of demands for more freedom of expression and resistance to the old propaganda policies," said Jiao Guobiao, who was forced to resign his post as a journalism professor last year after accusing the government of handling the press in a manner worthy of Nazi Germany.

The row over the extent of people's right to know shows that the Communist Party's authority is ebbing away, he said.

But without censorship, the party could not maintain its rule for a day, he added.

Climbdown

The international storm over the self-censorship of Google and other internet companies in China has probably caused little more than a ripple of amusement in the corridors of Beijing's propaganda department.

Far more embarrassing, not to say ominous, has been the chorus of domestic protest over the closure in late January of Bing Dian (Freezing Point), a weekly publication noted for its cutting-edge reporting on sensitive topics.

In an apparent climbdown, it was later announced that the magazine would reopen on 1 March, but without its two chief editors.

Unlike most journalists punished in the past, the two editors loudly disputed the move to censor them.

In comments widely aired on the internet, they called it an "illegal abuse of power" aimed at preventing the growth of a civil society.

The reopened magazine would be an empty shell of its previous self, they said, and had been ordered to print a full rebuttal of the article on historical censorship which triggered the closure.

Among those who have rallied behind the editors are a group of former senior party and media officials, including Mao Zedong's secretary and a former editor-in-chief of the People's Daily. The Taiwanese-born columnist Lung Ying-tai, whose controversial articles for Bing Dian may have been the real reason for the closure, has sent an open letter of protest to President Hu Jintao.

"Among 10,000 horses, there was only one left - and now its throat has been cut", she wrote.

She believes the move against the influential magazine was a calculated one made by the president himself. His power base lies in the Communist Party Youth League, whose newspaper, China Youth Daily, publishes Bing Dian as a weekly supplement.

The decision to reopen the supplement was an attempt to ease the anger about the closure, she told the BBC.

"Freezing out the two prominent and courageous editors", she added, was designed to "warn all other journalists to behave".

Force for change

Propaganda officials have also faced other public challenges to their authority, including a rare strike by reporters in support of three editors dismissed from a leading daily, the Beijing News, late last year.

But what really worries them is that those now pushing for a lifting of censorship include not just journalists and activists, but also people in business, government and law who believe media reform is a necessary part of China's modernisation.

"It is not good for the Communist Party to keep to its old ways", said Jiang He, who runs a hi-tech company in the western city of Chongqing.

China's rapid economic growth is proving a strong force for change, he said, pointing out that the media was already far more open in many ways than in the past.

"It's such an information age. There's no way anyone can block everything," he said.

China's 11,000 newspapers and periodicals, along with its 600-plus radio and TV stations, are more intent these days on satisfying the demands of the market than the state censor, who no longer pays their bills.

"People are not interested in reading politically-correct communiques in their newspapers," according to John Kennedy, a Canadian journalism graduate based in the southern province of Guangdong.

"The media have seized upon pushing harder and digging deeper, writing about corruption and Communist Party scandals as ways to sell more papers," he said.

China's leaders are faced with a dilemma. They need the media to help keep a rein on local officials, whose abuses of power are already causing unrest.

But they worry that too much exposure may cause still more unrest.

It's grotesquely biased because it assumes that Chinese people are so stupid that they would enthusiastically support a government that does bad things to them.

Give me a break: if the Chinese government is as bad as many western sources them out to be, they wouldn't enjoy the overwhelming popularity that they do! Otherwise, you would need to believe Chinese people are just stupid.

But this sort of rhetoric is often used by anti-China people precisely because they DO believe Chinese people are stupid. Or to be more exactly, they want to feel superior to Chinese people.... therefore, they willingly accept assumptions that confirm their egotistical bias!!!

[FreeAsia2000]

I hope you're not equating freedom of intellectual excercise to unbiasness. Just because a person perceives himself to be free doesn't mean his brain is the most pristine shit ever. On the contrary, when you look at the US media, most of the morons have no fucking clue about what they're talking about. Lou Dobb rings a bell? His entire understanding of economics is based on extremist interpretations of supply side economics that fly in the face of classical economics, which he professes to be an ardent supporter of. Then there is Bill Gertz. A man with a high school diploma, yet writes for the Washington Post and is one of the more widely quoted "experts" on the Chinese military, although he doesn't read or speak one word of Chinese and probably doesn't even understand modern warfare. Let's not even get started with NewsMax and, say, the Psycho Bitch Ann Coulter.

To put it shortly, freedom does not mean a lack of agenda, and the presence of an agenda is to throw unbiasness out the window in favor of some influence, and because most people in America are so clueless, in regards to economics or military or even history, they fall prey to such tactics, yet because they are clueless, they PERCEIVE themselves to be under unbiased guidance and such.

Democracy is sweet because the process of decay is almost invisible to the general public, which, in all cases, is an uneducated mob.


Can I just go on the record to say...the above should be ENGRAVED on a plaque. totally true

Please put it on the frontpage.

[Red not Dead]

Well where to begin this from? Hum People huge scoop. Society is made up by individuals interacting with eachother...thus not being these completely free individuals...thus not always haveing those beautiful llibarl ideals in mind but acting more as a group...even hardcore individuals try to act like a group because when grouped you're always stronger.

Scoop number two. The "west" is declining as a "group" (as freeAsia is ill disposed from anything related to "classes" i'd have to use the term "group") and tending more to isolated individuals.

On the other hand the rest of the world is rather uniting it's effort on the nation level or above (think about the real community of feeling muslims seem to share). Why? Easy because "free" westerners have kept saying their system will bring joy and hapiness to the world completely forgetting how they got up here. They have reached the top of the world by being ruthless against their own sparking two major world conflicts, killing millions. That's the sad truth. So yes they feel china's warm breath on their neck and try to put all their cultural/political/economical and soon military power to keep on top.

Bias are very understandable, so are the new sense they're trying to give at the world competition wich now mean social civil war in the west. See Classes have not disapperaed they're just way too deep-rooted to be seen at first glance.

[FreeAsia2000]

Well where to begin this from? Hum People huge scoop. Society is made up by individuals interacting with eachother...thus not being these completely free individuals...thus not always haveing those beautiful llibarl ideals in mind but acting more as a group...even hardcore individuals try to act like a group because when grouped you're always stronger.

Scoop number two. The "west" is declining as a "group" (as freeAsia is ill disposed from anything related to "classes" i'd have to use the term "group") and tending more to isolated individuals.

On the other hand the rest of the world is rather uniting it's effort on the nation level or above (think about the real community of feeling muslims seem to share). Why? Easy because "free" westerners have kept saying their system will bring joy and hapiness to the world completely forgetting how they got up here. They have reached the top of the world by being ruthless against their own sparking two major world conflicts, killing millions. That's the sad truth. So yes they feel china's warm breath on their neck and try to put all their cultural/political/economical and soon military power to keep on top.

Bias are very understandable, so are the new sense they're trying to give at the world competition wich now mean social civil war in the west. See Classes have not disapperaed they're just way too deep-rooted to be seen at first glance.

:D

I'm perfectly happy with the term classes...however I prefer the term 'interest
groups'. Have you read Ibn Khuldun's book on Muqadimah ?

I agree with some of your analysis that the means of production as well as what i would term 'Voice of History' ( i don't agree with Hegel's 'spirit of history' ) is shifting from the west to the east.

The return of network groups which had gone into a decline (apart from jews) in the 16th century due to the technological superiority of the west (as well as access to gold from the america's and industrialised slavery) means that eastern capitalists will now begin to challenge western capitalist on a more even footing. See for instance the spectacular rise in islamic financial markets

Over the last few years there has been a dramatic growth in the use of Islamic finance techniques in raising capital that complies with the requirements of Shari'a law. According to recent reports assets invested in an Islamic, Shari'a compliant, manner are now estimated to exceed US$250 billion with the pool of money held by Muslim investors estimated at US$1.5 trillion (and growing rapidly with high oil prices). The growth of the Sukuk market, which only opened in 2002 with the Malaysian government US$600 million Sukuk issue, is a prime indicator of this trend. By 2004, US$6.7 billion of capital was raised through the issue of Sukuks and in the first six months of 2005 the total raised reached US$6.2 billion.

http://property.practicallaw.com/5-201-1985

see also Another possibility bandied about is the switch of petrodollars to petroeuros. This specter has been recently raised by the upcoming launch of the Iranian oil bourse. However, futures markets depend upon transparent legal systems (especially enforceable property rights), institutional trust, minimal state intervention, and a level playing field between long and short players – and the IOB fails on all counts. Furthermore, exchanges do not dictate trading terms; a euro-based oil futures contract will only succeed when the underlying trade switches its pricing mechanism.

A third and radical possibility is the emergence of a unified Islamic financial movement that could possibly center on the gold dinar. When Jude Wanniski wrote about this potential in November 2004, he cited the dinar's flawed promotion and the IMF ban on gold-backed currencies in debtor countries as two impediments to success.

But several things have changed in the last year and a half.

First, the IMF is losing its relevancy as a U.S. policy tool. As the world gets richer, it is starting to reject dollar-based loans. Argentina, Brazil, and Russia have decided to pay off their IMF loans, and Turkey – which suffered economic collapse in 2001 – has asserted it will no longer need IMF assistance by 2008. Also, the dramatic oil price increase has made most Islamic countries much wealthier in a short time span. What's more, the global easing of interest rates has made access to capital in domestic currency far easier and, at the same time, fiat currencies are quickly depreciating against gold.

Most importantly, the U.S. is becoming increasingly protectionist. By saying "no" to foreign investment, especially on an idiosyncratic basis, it is throwing down the gauntlet to foreigners, daring them to jettison their dollar-based investments. Therefore, several conditions – both financial and political – are in place to cause a shift in global finance.

Significantly, the fastest growing global money field is Islamic financing. Islamic bonds, or sukuks – unlike most U.S. bonds, which pay interest – are securities that pay out revenue streams from rents and leases in accordance with Shariah law. In its infancy, the field claims about a half trillion dollars. If the Islamic nations were to adopt a gold standard as their underlying currency basis, it could have multinational appeal.

Moreover, since Islamic financing includes the mainstream retail products of mortgages, small business loans, and consumer credit, its potential consumer market is staggering. (A mortgage, for example, is structured as a "rent to buy" arrangement.) Because its guidelines are religious tenets, its scope would be transnational.

Imagine the power of an Islamic financial supermarket, rivaling the sophistication of the U.S. market (itself only 30 years old), to channel dollar holdings into dinars for a billion-plus people! The embrace of a pan-Islamic, gold-backed system would create an unquantifiable financial upheaval.

Ironically, this could be the financial free market flip-side to the totalitarian Spain to Indonesia "caliphate" so vilified by the administration.

As U.S. lawmakers blithely vote to raise the debt ceiling to $9 trillion while angling for political points over the DP World scuffle, Dubai, coincidently, is sponsoring a four-day International Islamic Finance Forum for the week of March 19. It promises to feature the basics of converting conventional debt into Islamic financing, the techniques of Islamic securitization, and the training of Shariah scholars. Chuck, Norm, and Bill would do well to attend.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=8627

Thus in the world of the future capitalists will need to pay attention to the group belief's and traditions if they want to be successful. The countries which will find this easiest to learn as a lesson will be those which have no superiority complex. Of course if you insult the people who fund you then your share price will take a steep decline as they boycott your markets.

For a long time the existing ideologies in Europe have reinforced and been reinforced by their economic success (base and superstructure remember) however the bbc maybe in some cases consciously and others subconsciously because of the threat they perceive from other economies which clearly don't subscribe to their ideologies is looking to boost morale with it's reporting.

The future belongs to transnational groups and not governments and the more internationally diverse and accomodating a group is the more succesful it will be...

[walter]

This is a prime example of a GROTESQUELY biased article from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4743274.stm



It's grotesquely biased because it assumes that Chinese people are so stupid that they would enthusiastically support a government that does bad things to them.

Give me a break: if the Chinese government is as bad as many western sources them out to be, they wouldn't enjoy the overwhelming popularity that they do! Otherwise, you would need to believe Chinese people are just stupid.

But this sort of rhetoric is often used by anti-China people precisely because they DO believe Chinese people are stupid. Or to be more exactly, they want to feel superior to Chinese people.... therefore, they willingly accept assumptions that confirm their egotistical bias!!!

hmmm? I'm afraid I can't see how you arrived at your conclusion that underlying this article is the assumption that the Chinese people are stupid. Obviously it doesn't expilicitly say anything of the sort, but after looking for some between-the-lines implication that Chinese are stupid, I came up empty. Where is it?

[FuManChu]

It's grotesquely biased because it assumes that Chinese people are so stupid that they would enthusiastically support a government that does bad things to them.

Give me a break: if the Chinese government is as bad as many western sources them out to be, they wouldn't enjoy the overwhelming popularity that they do! Otherwise, you would need to believe Chinese people are just stupid.

But this sort of rhetoric is often used by anti-China people precisely because they DO believe Chinese people are stupid. Or to be more exactly, they want to feel superior to Chinese people.... therefore, they willingly accept assumptions that confirm their egotistical bias!!!

Oh stop whining. It never said any of that. Anyone who knows anything about China knows that the government maintains control primarily by manipulating the information people receive. On mainland forums that I've been to typing in the names of the President or PM automatically gets replaced with "^^". As it is Chinese people know more than what the government tells them, but there is much they don't know about. The entire point of that quotation was to show that if they knew the whole truth the CCP's rule would be near-impossible.

And how could you possibly know the CCP is "overwhelmingly" popular? The government doesn't allow the media to do polls of its popularity.

That quotation was made by a Chinese ex-professor, so I suggest you make your complaint to him before you deal with whatever chip you have on your shoulder about the non-Chinese media.

[Gollevainen]

Ok before before we go any futher on that road I close this thread. It was orginally on the edge but this far you have shown remarkable maturity to discuss with the thing but it seems like now we are heading towards ill direction. This is members club room, place for MEANINGLESS BS and relaxation, not for anything that couses emotional stirs