- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
Its a very weakly sourced state sponsored media article reporting on their state enemy. You have to be willfully credulous to believe their claims without further proof.
It doesn’t mean that reports are false just because two states are enemies (which is an exaggeration).
“Just because the last 100 articles were bullshit doesn’t mean this one is too!”
No. It does.
Must be easy living with such a black and white world view.
It really is. Try it, next time you read a China Bad article, just decide that it’s bullshit first, then check into it and you’ll be proven right.
Come in with preconceived notions and never second guess yourself? Sure, whatever.
Doing research to prove your assumptions correct or incorrect is literally how science works.
A black and white world where objective measures of press freedoms are apparently inversely proportional to trustworthiness of said journalists.
Random blog with a Soviet flag? Impossible to be propaganda, because only capitalism can do a propaganda.
Some of the world’s oldest free media with a long history of investigating the British government? Literally nothing but propaganda.
Oh my god, are you seriously claiming you can objectively measure press freedoms while saying socialists live in a black and white world? Just want to give you a chance to walk back your statement
I am quite curious to know your methodology for measuring press freedom so we can compare and perhaps find something which can be considered locally objective.
You’re retreating into “locally” objective. In this topic you’re not going to get agreement on what constitutes press freedom, so it is pointless. My point is that the claim of objective press freedom existing is ridiculous. You walked it back, but to a position that still seems ridiculous to me.
For example, I dont believe there is such thing as a free press. Any org that can produce a press machine is going to influence that press, whether that is a government or private interests. Editorial freedom isn’t possible, editorial control just ranges from the subtle to the overt.
You are the only one making assumptions here. I want to find some common ground.
So let’s pull this thread. I agree that bias is inevitable, but do you believe this negates the value of even trying to protect press freedom? And if so, do you extend this to all forms of truth seeking?
That statement is illogical. You must have huge problems with the simplest logic to argue that. You can’t bent logic by twisting what I said. Stop clowning.
Just because all the other times this faulty logic was used doesn’t mean this one is illogical too!
I saw a piece about the shadow police in germany lately. I am sure that the chinese foreign police exists.
I have no doubt, every nation has secret police. I simply doubt they are doing what the article suggests theyre doing. It seems to me the article is interested in explaining why there aren’t many uyghur Muslims joining their narrative and why a lot of them are supportive of China and feel their culture is respected.