|
On September 18 2012 19:17 Necrophantasia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 19:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:04 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:03 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 18:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 18:51 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 18:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 18:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 18:27 czylu wrote:On September 18 2012 18:25 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
It's not apology that the people want, it's actually a sense of justice and moral standing, an apology is just a format. The Chinese are vastly more upset that there are denials of said actions as well as active actions taken such as visiting the shrines and revising history than the fact that there aren't apologies. no, it's that, and it's monetary. the majority of chinese want japan to pay, very much in the same sense that israel MADE germany pay. Where is this majority coming from? What sources are you using? A monetary compensation is just a format, a public apology is just a format. What they are supposed to mean is that Japan has made reparations for a crime which is committed. Denying that a crime was committed when there is solid evidence to the contrary is also a crime. Even though Mao rejected the war reparations, he still accepted low-interest loans and money from Japan to the amount of 3 trillion yen, which were war reparations in everything but in name, so stop speaking as if Japan hasn't paid. China refused war reparations from Japan in the 1972 Joint Communiqué, Japan gave ODA (official development assistance), amounting to 3 trillion yen (30 billion USD, 90% of which are low interest loans). In Japan, this was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression. According to estimates, Japan accounts for more than 60 percent of China's ODA received. About 25 percent of the funding for all of China's infrastructure projects between 1994 and 1998 — including roads, railways, telecom systems and harbours — came from Japan.
Japanese aid to China was rarely formally publicized to the Chinese people by the Chinese government, until Japan announced that aid was to be phased out. It was finally publicly acknowledged by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao during his April 2007 trip to Japan. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China#Post-War_issues I don't know who you are directing your comment to, this argument is turning into "If Japan has apologized and paid compensations to China they are justified in revising history and denying the events occurred"? In what universe is that okay? It's like paying off the person you just beat up not to cry then denying it happened in the first place, ridiculous. This is ridiculous. You accept the money, but then come back and say, "Thank you for the money, but it doesn't solve any problems?" I was addressing your quote, as well as czylu that you are speaking from ignorance about the facts (you didn't even know Japan paid--funnily enough something the Chinese government doesn't want you to know). Sure the money alone doesn't mean anything, but Japan has already apologized as well as paid "war reparations", so what more do you want? Just keep repeating the terrible stuff Japan did to China forever just to get the moral high ground and keep yourself angry? What? Didn't you read that Shintaro Ishihara is denying that these events happened RIGHT NOW WHILE HE'S IN OFFICE? Didn't you read that There are several attempts at textbook revision that's still ongoing to remove mentions of said events? Didn't you read that there's still denial or lies about the "Comfort women" as being "voluntary" sex slaves? Stop redirecting the topic to monetary reparation, that's just a format. Denial of the events and revising history is also something that people get angry about. . Do you have to bring those things up every time a dispute over islands is involved? Tell me how the textbook revision is related to the current island dispute please. It's ironic you are telling me I am redirecting the topic when you are bringing unrelated stuff to this thread. edit: Btw, the only reason I pointed out that Japan did pay war reparations is that you and czylu were spreading misinformation saying they didn't pay--they did, it was just called a different name. Because these issues are the root of the anger against Japan in China and the islands are just the straw that broke the camel's back, the islands are the catalyst to these riots. I would agree if the straw can break the camel's back over and over. This isn't the first time protests of this size have occurred nor will it be the last. In my own recent memory, this is at least the third. This isn't some spontaneous thing. This is the Chinese government pressing the Japan=evil button over and over. Not that Japan hasn't done terrible things, but devolving into a riot and violence is not acceptable no matter what your cause is, especially when the true victims of the protests are the Chinese people themselves.
Agreed. The rioters behavior is no different from, say, Pakistanis who bomb and burn down entire villages and towns in protest for something that a western country has done to wrong Islam or their pride as a nation, or whatever shallow reason. It's irrational, hurting your own people and destroying your own homes and property. It's unwarranted, and reflects a level of ignorance and lack of education. Like Libya; Christopher Stevens, may he rest in peace, was an American who was trying to help them, but the extremist Libyans (who are by far the minority) ruin everything for the majority. This particular story is depressing.
On September 18 2012 18:03 tokicheese wrote:
Stephen Harper apologized to the Native Americans who were put into residential schools from the 1800s up until the 1970s recently and it was the most pointless stupid thing government could possibly be doing. He apologized for what happened over 100 years ago that he had not even the slightest powed over... Do people think these apologies actually change anything? Does it make Unit 731 go away? What about Nanking does it go away? Or how about the comfort women? Japan has apologized for what it has done asking them to complete a list of demands is just childish.
If you really want to go into terrible things humanity has done look at the stuff that was done by colonialists in Africa. The Belgians in Congo is praticularily horrible why don't they have a list of demands....? Or what about he Genghis Khan? he built a mountain of fucking skulls and threw so many books in Baghdad into the euphrates it was black. Why isn't Mongolia apologizing to the middle east? Or the italians to the British? You have to let the past be done with at some point...
IIRC the whole text book thing was less than 1% of the school systems text books (2 private schools or something) that failed anyways.
I think it's hilarious that xpace is from the US and calling people out on warcrimes. My Lai, Agent Orange, the obliteration of German population centers, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, killing of Japanese PoWs, Japanese trophies, the unrestricted navel warfare (that Donitz was convicted of at Nuremburg btw), the drone strikes in the middle east killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians. Where is that list at? Victors justice...
Excellent paragraph dedicated at an ad hominem attack. Are we talking about America's past? Is there widespread hatred for America in Vietnam? Are they burning American flags and destroying American-labeled or branded property? If there is, then we'll get to that discussion. Or is this justification stemming from the notion that if America can get away with it, Japan should follow suit? Enough with the deflections.
As for the portion I bolded in your post, it's blatantly obvious that you're oblivious to what's happening. It's quite sad, really, seeing as there are so many other posters with TL IDs from Japan similar to you that are giving more logical, and more importantly factual information. Here, some reading material for you:
+ Show Spoiler +1. In August 15, 1995, Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama made the first clear and official apology upon the war crimes, but Iris Chang, author of The Rape of Nanking, regarded Murayama's refusal to offer the written apology as equivocal and insincere. I had forgotten that in the years preceding, Japanese politicians had stopped writing. 2. In October 2006, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made another apology but on the same day it was followed by a group of 80 Japanese lawmakers' visit to the Yasukuni Shrine which enshrined more than 1000 convicted war criminals. Two years after the apology, Shinzo Abe also denied that the military had forced comfort women into sexual slavery during World War II . "I am sorry. Now we go to honor the heroes who comitted the crimes!" (2 years later) "What crimes?" 3. Washington Coalition for Comfort Women Issues also rebuffed the use of a word Owabi, not Shazai, in those Japanese apologies. The coalition said, "the expression owabi in Japanese in most cases means a sense of apology slightly weightier than an excuse me." They also criticized the Japanese government for denying any legal responsibility over such crimes as forced comfort women and refusing to compensate the survivors directly. Japanese government and Prime Ministers have used the expression "kokoro kara no owabi" that means "most sincere apologies" about this issues.[7] Oh, excuse me, we raped your women, some of whom are still alive today. 4. Some in Japan asserted in 1990's that what else is being demanded is that the Japanese Prime Minister or the Emperor perform dogeza, in which an individual kneels and bows his head to the ground—a high form of apology in East Asian societies, that is too humiliating for the Prime Minister or the Emperor.This is exactly what I previously wrote. 5. Emperor Hirohito let it be known to SCAP that he was prepared to apologize formally to General MacArthur for Japan's actions during World War II—including an apology for the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. So the Emperor was willing apologize for Pearl Harbor personally. Something that wasn't even a war crime. But for the massacre of millions he can't put his fucking head to the floor? 6 June 22, 1965. Minister of Foreign Affairs Shiina Etsusaburo. "In our two countries' long history there have been unfortunate times, it is truly regrettable and we are deeply remorseful" (Signing of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea). This is the most emphatic apology in this list. Its the only time they say regret and remorse for their own actions. This is what I am supporting. But this happened in 1965, every "apology" attempt afterwards were just half-assed. And take note of the circumstances when the apology was being given - during a treaty signing! In other times they say "regret the vexation we cause", "heartfelt sorrow for what occurred in war", "keenly conscious of the responsibility". They all have no mention of the atrocities. No one is saying "we raped women and children in Nanking". They don't admit the genocidal nature of the killings. They're saying sorry... but for what exactly? There is a vast contrast though in how they apologize to the British and US POWs. The people they hurt the least, they give the most effluent apologies.
On September 18 2012 18:48 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:21 Xpace wrote:
A lot of people are asking what Japan should do. Well, here's a short, incomplete list that acts as a starter:
- The Emperor of Japan, the Prime Minister of Japan, and all members of the Japanese Diet must sign a hand-written, sincere apology letter to all countries whom Japan had killed citizens of, attacked, invaded and occupied. These include the non-Asian countries of Canada, the United States, France, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) and the United Kingdom who sent troops to various South East Asian countries for support and were considered belligerents in the war. This will also include formal apologies to countries whose later involvement in the Pacific theater must be commended and acknowledged by the relevant Axis power (Japan): Greece, Norway, Belgium, Brazil, the current states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia), Ukraine, Poland, South Africa, and any other country listed in the Charter of the United Nations under the United Nations Conference on International Organization held between April and July of 1945.
- The Chrysanthemum Throne must send a full envoy with Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda that accompanies Emperor Akihito to Nanjing (Nanking), where he and the Prime Minister must get on their knees and bow with his forehead all the way to the floor (their knees and forehead must be exactly at sea level, facing a natural elevated slope such as the foot of a mountain, in complete humility and submission), for the same amount of time, if not more, that West German Chancellor Willy Brandt knelt in Warsaw. They must also give a speech, directly aimed at all the peoples of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Macau (SAR), Hong Kong (SAR), the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Indonesia (former Dutch East-Indies), the [constitution of] Malaysia, and the Kingdom of Thailand, that may be aired repeatedly on state channels on the wishes of said governments and given freely to any privately owned corporate broadcasting station, showing complete remorse for the actions of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Pacific theater during World War II. NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai, the national channel in Japan) must air this at relevant prime time slots for a minimum of four weeks, and all other relevant terrestrial broadcast stations are expected to air footage at similar, non-intrusive time slots at prime time. All foreign non-Asian nations willing to air the contents this particular address are allowed to do so at their expense.
- Japan must build and donate statues and/or shrines commemorating the victims and the casualties of the Pacific War. Every country affected by Japanese aggression, or suffered Japanese occupation, decides what to do with the memorials. They must rival the grandeur and size of the memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan must actively seek and work with the aforementioned countries for the exact details of the memorials, including, but not limited to, listing the names of all known and recorded casualties and the appropriate symbolism(s) that will be used in each individual, unique memorial which will emphasize regret, apology, a willingness to work for future friendship, and that the events will never be forgotten.
- Japan must acknowledge, in full, the atrocities it had committed during World War II. Sources cited by the Allied powers (particularly Canadian presence in Hong Kong, French and British presence in both Korea and China, Dutch presence in the Philippines and Indonesia, and the overall presence of the former Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States Army, Navy and Air Force in the entire Pacific region from the years 1939 to 1945), as well as sources cited by China and all the relevant participants within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), even when contradicting Japanese history, must be written and published, mentioned and taught, learned and accepted by all relevant historical academia and governing bodies of education in Japan. All forms of curriculum must include these contents, after appropriation and review by the relevant historians of the United States of America, China, and the Republic of Korea (all three of whom previously led the attempts to convince Japan to not omit these facts in their history for half a century), by latest 2015, marking the 70-year anniversary of the unconditional surrender of the Imperial Japanese Army and the Empire of the Rising Sun to the Allied powers of the West and the East, and the official end of World War II.
Germany has the respect of Poland, the rest of the European Union, and the whole world, and they did more or less everything mentioned. It appears to me that you are stating the above as someone with a certain predisposition to the Japanese and thus not particularly objective in your assessment of what is happening. Having grown up in an Asian country I can safely say that this will never happen simply since it aims to humiliate Japan (much like Germany in ww1) rather than get any real apology. And speaking as a Singaporean whose grandparents lived during the war (we had massacres too) I would like to point out that it's not impossible for countries just to live and let live. Despite being steamrolled durning ww2 by the Japanese, most of us in SEA are fine with Japan. And no. We don't want the Hiroshima peace park in Singapore. It's crowded enough. Comic from a country that has seen Japan at its worst, I think that there are many ways to get over the past. Both countries can come to the realization that it is all in the pass and let bygones be bygones. A little know fact is that Singapore seems to hosts a lot of Japanese school excursions where we take them to local ww2 sites where people were tortured and killed. Governments should just be normal and let peoples heal on their own. Or we can all just insist on getting an apology from people with no real connection to the people who committed the atroscities being apologized for. Personally I find that china is being disenguous by playing the victim card simply since everyone in Asia was a victim but we don't loot Japanese stores and burn cars. Yes Japan needs to apologize sincerely, but if Japan is going to move on so does china. For better or worse recovering from the war involves both parties. SEA has tried its best to do it so it's no impossible.
It's "impossible" (or so you'd believe!) because no East Asian nation has ever gone out of its way, with utmost regret and sincerity, to correct their mistakes. That was history that spanned hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Japan and China in 2012 are in a situation where their actions can truly make a difference. In reality, it's not blind optimism to see things this way. It's progression.
"It won't make a difference" - that's such a defeatist attitude. You and I, as younger generations who have relatives who experienced the horror of the Japanese invasion, some of whom are still living today, we don't feel what they felt. We don't remember what they remember. But it would be nice if we can go up to them and tell them that while their remaining time on this Earth is short, may they die knowing that the children of those responsible for committing dehumanizing acts on them, their families and friends, are AWARE of the past, that they KNOW the FACTS and the unequivocal TRUTH, that it was despicable and horrendous, and that they will teach their children, and their children's children, not to repeat the mistakes of the past generations, so something like this can be avoided by future generations. Is it happening right now? Definitely, but the apologists' voices are drowned by people like Ishihara and other right-wing fanatics. It falls to the Japanese people, who have the power to elect their officials and their representatives, to ensure that more progress happens. That it's not going to result in half-assed apologies, but rather sincerity. That's how progress works. You start with a small step. You work towards the future.
|
On September 18 2012 19:50 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 19:41 Robinsa wrote:On September 18 2012 19:25 czylu wrote:On September 18 2012 19:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:04 czylu wrote:On September 18 2012 18:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 18:51 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 18:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 18:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 18:27 czylu wrote:
[quote]
no, it's that, and it's monetary. the majority of chinese want japan to pay, very much in the same sense that israel MADE germany pay. Where is this majority coming from? What sources are you using? A monetary compensation is just a format, a public apology is just a format. What they are supposed to mean is that Japan has made reparations for a crime which is committed. Denying that a crime was committed when there is solid evidence to the contrary is also a crime. Even though Mao rejected the war reparations, he still accepted low-interest loans and money from Japan to the amount of 3 trillion yen, which were war reparations in everything but in name, so stop speaking as if Japan hasn't paid. China refused war reparations from Japan in the 1972 Joint Communiqué, Japan gave ODA (official development assistance), amounting to 3 trillion yen (30 billion USD, 90% of which are low interest loans). In Japan, this was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression. According to estimates, Japan accounts for more than 60 percent of China's ODA received. About 25 percent of the funding for all of China's infrastructure projects between 1994 and 1998 — including roads, railways, telecom systems and harbours — came from Japan.
Japanese aid to China was rarely formally publicized to the Chinese people by the Chinese government, until Japan announced that aid was to be phased out. It was finally publicly acknowledged by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao during his April 2007 trip to Japan. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China#Post-War_issues I don't know who you are directing your comment to, this argument is turning into "If Japan has apologized and paid compensations to China they are justified in revising history and denying the events occurred"? In what universe is that okay? It's like paying off the person you just beat up not to cry then denying it happened in the first place, ridiculous. This is ridiculous. You accept the money, but then come back and say, "Thank you for the money, but it doesn't solve any problems?" I was addressing your quote, as well as czylu that you are speaking from ignorance about the facts (you didn't even know Japan paid--funnily enough something the Chinese government doesn't want you to know). Sure the money alone doesn't mean anything, but Japan has already apologized as well, so what more do you want? Just keep repeating the terrible stuff Japan did to China forever as an excuse just to get the moral high ground and keep yourself angry? source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China#Post-War_issueshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan First off, using this as an example of reparations is ludicrous. All this treaty did was return assets WHICH ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THE CHINESE. Beyond this, being that one of the affected parties were not even at the negotiating table, how could the chinese even consider this a fair deal? Japan hasn't apologized or paid for squat. You're just being ignorant to the details. "China refused war reparations from Japan in the 1972 Joint Communiqué, Japan gave ODA (official development assistance), amounting to 3 trillion yen (30 billion USD, 90% of which are low interest loans). In Japan, this was perceived as a way of making amends to China for past military aggression. According to estimates, Japan accounts for more than 60 percent of China's ODA received. About 25 percent of the funding for all of China's infrastructure projects between 1994 and 1998 — including roads, railways, telecom systems and harbours — came from Japan. Japanese aid to China was rarely formally publicized to the Chinese people by the Chinese government, until Japan announced that aid was to be phased out. It was finally publicly acknowledged by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao during his April 2007 trip to Japan." How are low-interest loans a return of assets? I'm curious to know. Those are de facto war reparations, which Japan gave with the intent of paying war reparations, which if Japan had called war reparations Mao wouldn't accept. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China#Post-War_issues First off, I'd take anything about china coming from the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs with a grain of salt.It's gonna be as biased as anything coming from the CCP Regards to: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.htmlSecond, those "low interest bonds" are not reparation payments, read carefully at the source materials, and you'll see they're just investments from japan after-the-fact for construction projects in China. ODA's are in no way shape or form a kind of reparation payment. Reparation payments GO TO THE VICTIMS, NOT the GOVERNMENT. These payments actually began AFTER the meeting in question in 1972, and had no bearing with the treaty you mentioned previously. They're also INVESTMENTS designed for one purpose, to integrate the japanese and chinese economies. This is nothing but political and economic interdependence, the same of which the US has also provided China. It is designed to reduce hostilities and make war between the two nations an impossibility(which it has become). Calling this a war apology is very much BS, as japan has as much to gain from spawning a new trading partner(with 1 billion consumers, more then any other society in the world) as china did. regards to: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FB12Ad07.htmlLastly, maybe you should learn that wikipedia can be very biased. I still see no reparations. Youre right. They began AFTER because china WOULDNT ACCEPT it before that point. They had no political relations what so ever before 72. If anything blame the communist party for not accepting it in the first place, and when accepting it taking the money for themselves. First off, Taiwan didn't accept reparations either. So it would be wrong to just blame the communists cuz the capitalists did the exact same thing. Second, maybe one of the KEY reasons why both china's did not accept reparations was because THEY WERE NOT THERE AT THE NEGOTIATION TABLE. Only a chump accepts a deal in which they were handed to third parties. Whether it be pride or whatever, the deal presented to the Chinese was not acceptable by principle alone. Per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco#People.27s_Republic_of_China_Objections_to_the_TreatyLastly, I bolded that part just for emphasis :D
Don't worry, South Korea and Japan made a deal in 1965 regardless, so China not accepting the Treaty of San Francisco is irrelevant. As much as I disagree, your previous argument was fine, though. You know, Mr. Mao was smart. Maybe he had foreseeen this and intentinoally refused to accept the war reperations to leave the possibility of claiming it later on. gg wp. Japan was not careful enough.
|
On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:29 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:21 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:17 Necrophantasia wrote:On September 18 2012 19:08 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
Because these issues are the root of the anger against Japan in China and the islands are just the straw that broke the camel's back, the islands are the catalyst to these riots. I would agree if the straw can break the camel's back over and over. This isn't the first time protests of this size have occurred. In my own recent memory, this is at least the third. This isn't some spontaneous thing. This is the Chinese government pressing the Japan=evil button over and over. In recent memory? Citation needed. There's been alot of protests and riots against China's own government if that's what you are thinking of. Also, these riots are not organized, the inciting events were not China's government propaganda but actions of Japan. If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree. The Chinese government isn't retarded to do something blatant like that. Japanese and the international media pays attention to the Chinese state media, and if they noticed something obvious like that, obviously it gives them a chip on the bargaining table because it looks bad for China. What they are doing is running the same story every single day on CCTV about the Diaoyu Islands that no one would normally give a shit about--they're uninhabited islands, for Christ's sake--and subtly portraying the Japanese as the bad guys and bringing up historical events from WW2. People won't spontaneously riot about something that only got a tiny section in the newspaper and very little coverage in the news, so you can't say the government doesn't have anything to do with the riots. I did not once defend the actions of the rioters, and I'm accusing the individuals who do not represent the will of the Japanese people. I'm portraying the majority of the Chinese and Japanese populous as educated individuals capable of scrutinizing and criticizing a minority with in them who are fucking shit up who they do not agree with. You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views.
I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies.
Let me just expand on this: You can hardly find anyone in China who isn't hugely skeptical of government announcements or state run media news where any political or party related interest exists, we understand the implication of a censoring media system and the immoral goals of the political cast ruling our society. People who control media systems will do so in their interest regardless of rather the people happen to be members of government or independent entrepreneurs.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:29 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:21 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:17 Necrophantasia wrote:
[quote]
I would agree if the straw can break the camel's back over and over.
This isn't the first time protests of this size have occurred. In my own recent memory, this is at least the third. This isn't some spontaneous thing. This is the Chinese government pressing the Japan=evil button over and over.
In recent memory? Citation needed. There's been alot of protests and riots against China's own government if that's what you are thinking of. Also, these riots are not organized, the inciting events were not China's government propaganda but actions of Japan. If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree. The Chinese government isn't retarded to do something blatant like that. Japanese and the international media pays attention to the Chinese state media, and if they noticed something obvious like that, obviously it gives them a chip on the bargaining table because it looks bad for China. What they are doing is running the same story every single day on CCTV about the Diaoyu Islands that no one would normally give a shit about--they're uninhabited islands, for Christ's sake--and subtly portraying the Japanese as the bad guys and bringing up historical events from WW2. People won't spontaneously riot about something that only got a tiny section in the newspaper and very little coverage in the news, so you can't say the government doesn't have anything to do with the riots. I did not once defend the actions of the rioters, and I'm accusing the individuals who do not represent the will of the Japanese people. I'm portraying the majority of the Chinese and Japanese populous as educated individuals capable of scrutinizing and criticizing a minority with in them who are fucking shit up who they do not agree with. You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies.
Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better, because state-run media will never have credibility due to this conflict of interest.
The analogy with controlled economic policies vs. free economic policies is completely inane, because type of news media and economic policies are too different for the analogy to serve any purpose or provide any enlightenment.
|
On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:29 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:21 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
In recent memory? Citation needed. There's been alot of protests and riots against China's own government if that's what you are thinking of. Also, these riots are not organized, the inciting events were not China's government propaganda but actions of Japan. If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree. The Chinese government isn't retarded to do something blatant like that. Japanese and the international media pays attention to the Chinese state media, and if they noticed something obvious like that, obviously it gives them a chip on the bargaining table because it looks bad for China. What they are doing is running the same story every single day on CCTV about the Diaoyu Islands that no one would normally give a shit about--they're uninhabited islands, for Christ's sake--and subtly portraying the Japanese as the bad guys and bringing up historical events from WW2. People won't spontaneously riot about something that only got a tiny section in the newspaper and very little coverage in the news, so you can't say the government doesn't have anything to do with the riots. I did not once defend the actions of the rioters, and I'm accusing the individuals who do not represent the will of the Japanese people. I'm portraying the majority of the Chinese and Japanese populous as educated individuals capable of scrutinizing and criticizing a minority with in them who are fucking shit up who they do not agree with. You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better.
I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between.
|
While I'm not that well-read on the issue, I would argue that rioting and destroying property like this isn't the optimal course of action in order to provoke a response from Japan. Especially not if the ones that will have to pay for it are the Chinese themselves whose property and the like are destroyed in the riots.
There HAS to be a more peaceful way of getting a formal apology from Japan.
|
Excellent paragraph dedicated at an ad hominem attack. Are we talking about America's past? Is there widespread hatred for America in Vietnam? Are they burning American flags and destroying American-labeled or branded property? If there is, then we'll get to that discussion. Or is this justification stemming from the notion that if America can get away with it, Japan should follow suit? Enough with the deflections.
He has a point though. Most of the most "flammatory" stuff comes from ppl out of the US, which isn't better than japan. It looks hypocrite (spelled right?), i mentioned that before.
Edit: "flammatory" is not the right word, but i can't find the right one now. Not in the sense of "flaming", but like "passionate to "bash" japan for all their mistakes".
|
On September 18 2012 20:10 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +Excellent paragraph dedicated at an ad hominem attack. Are we talking about America's past? Is there widespread hatred for America in Vietnam? Are they burning American flags and destroying American-labeled or branded property? If there is, then we'll get to that discussion. Or is this justification stemming from the notion that if America can get away with it, Japan should follow suit? Enough with the deflections. He has a point though. Most of the most "flammatory" stuff comes from ppl out of the US, which isn't better than japan. It looks hypocrite (spelled right?), i mentioned that before.
Almost, it's hypocritical. A hypocrite refers to the person, while hypocritical describes the action/person, and hypocrisy is the base form of the word. And I agree with you, by the way. The US is far from innocent when it comes to war crimes.
|
On September 18 2012 20:10 Zvenn3n wrote:
While I'm not that well-read on the issue, I would argue that rioting and destroying property like this isn't the optimal course of action in order to provoke a response from Japan. Especially not if the ones that will have to pay for it are the Chinese themselves whose property and the like are destroyed in the riots.
There HAS to be a more peaceful way of getting a formal apology from Japan.
The vast majority of people condemn the riots, why would anyone want people rioting in their own neighborhood threatening their own livelihood for no apparent gain or purpose where the message is lost in transition? I'm just explaining the rationality (be they misconstrued) and background for why there is so much hatred for Japan in China.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:29 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:24 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
The Chinese government isn't retarded to do something blatant like that. Japanese and the international media pays attention to the Chinese state media, and if they noticed something obvious like that, obviously it gives them a chip on the bargaining table because it looks bad for China. What they are doing is running the same story every single day on CCTV about the Diaoyu Islands that no one would normally give a shit about--they're uninhabited islands, for Christ's sake--and subtly portraying the Japanese as the bad guys and bringing up historical events from WW2. People won't spontaneously riot about something that only got a tiny section in the newspaper and very little coverage in the news, so you can't say the government doesn't have anything to do with the riots. I did not once defend the actions of the rioters, and I'm accusing the individuals who do not represent the will of the Japanese people. I'm portraying the majority of the Chinese and Japanese populous as educated individuals capable of scrutinizing and criticizing a minority with in them who are fucking shit up who they do not agree with. You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between.
Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted.
Think about it: When does the state need to control the media? When they can't let reporters report the truth, because it may harm the CCP's ability to remain in power.
|
On September 18 2012 20:10 Zvenn3n wrote:
While I'm not that well-read on the issue, I would argue that rioting and destroying property like this isn't the optimal course of action in order to provoke a response from Japan. Especially not if the ones that will have to pay for it are the Chinese themselves whose property and the like are destroyed in the riots.
There HAS to be a more peaceful way of getting a formal apology from Japan.
Japan "Thank you for buying another Japanese car in replacement for your broken one  "
China "oops"
Joke aside, I think all of us have already agreed that violent riots are not acceptable no matter which position you take.
|
On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:29 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
I did not once defend the actions of the rioters, and I'm accusing the individuals who do not represent the will of the Japanese people. I'm portraying the majority of the Chinese and Japanese populous as educated individuals capable of scrutinizing and criticizing a minority with in them who are fucking shit up who they do not agree with. You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted.
False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system.
I don't have delusions about the factual truthfulness of ANY media source be it independent or state run, which is why I referred to both Chinese state run and Japanese independent major news source NHK as well as independent reporting sources AP and Amnesty in my link before.
|
On September 18 2012 20:13 Zvenn3n wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:10 m4inbrain wrote:Excellent paragraph dedicated at an ad hominem attack. Are we talking about America's past? Is there widespread hatred for America in Vietnam? Are they burning American flags and destroying American-labeled or branded property? If there is, then we'll get to that discussion. Or is this justification stemming from the notion that if America can get away with it, Japan should follow suit? Enough with the deflections. He has a point though. Most of the most "flammatory" stuff comes from ppl out of the US, which isn't better than japan. It looks hypocrite (spelled right?), i mentioned that before. Almost, it's hypocritical. A hypocrite refers to the person, while hypocritical describes the action/person, and hypocrisy is the base form of the word. And I agree with you, by the way. The US is far from innocent when it comes to war crimes.
Thank you, but i guess i will never get that right. 
Also, the "argument" that america isn't really hated by vietnamese people has alot to do with the fact that they won. That does not change the fact that the US commited alot of crimes, yet instead of wanting the US to apologize, you guys (not the guy i quote here) just throw weird and at some points even absurd suggestions for how another country should or need to apologize.
Don't know the correct wording, but "him who is without sin, should throw the first stone" or something like that - you will know what i mean. Its okay to have an opinion, but to demand stuff while completely neglecting the fact that you could and should "touch your own nose" (phrase in germany, don't know if it works in english).. Well, yeah.
|
On September 18 2012 20:17 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted. False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system. I don't have delusions about the factual truthfulness of ANY media source be it independent or state run, which is why I referred to both Chinese state run and Japanese independent major news source NHK as well as independent reporting sources AP and Amnesty in my link before.
NHK, BBC etc are statefunded, but are not staterun. Theres a pretty big difference between the two.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 18 2012 20:17 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:31 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
You said "If these riots started after a wave of Chinese propaganda that was recieved as a message to riot against Japan I would agree", but there has indeed been a wave of propaganda as I outlined in my previous post. I agree with you that it's a minority who is fucking shit up. This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted. False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system.
Easy. If there was a government that represented the interests of the people, then there would be no need for state-run media in the first place. Have you ever questioned why there is only state-run media in China and not any free, independent media? Have you never been suspicious of the need for a state-run media in China? Whose needs does such a media serve first and foremost?
Hint: It can't be for the needs of the common people of China, because for them a free media would do too =)
|
On September 18 2012 20:26 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:17 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:[quote] This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted. False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system. I don't have delusions about the factual truthfulness of ANY media source be it independent or state run, which is why I referred to both Chinese state run and Japanese independent major news source NHK as well as independent reporting sources AP and Amnesty in my link before. NHK, BBC etc are statefunded, but its not staterun. Theres a pretty big difference between the two.
That's what I said... independent major news source... To compare and contrast the factual evidence in both news reports. They are identical.
|
On September 18 2012 08:39 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:19 EtherealBlade wrote:On September 18 2012 07:57 RavenLoud wrote:On September 18 2012 03:01 CandyHunterz wrote:
this is typical of a growing china. 50 years ago china wouldn't dare to even make any claims towards any land but today china is strong and powerful and suddenly they just start to have conflicts with EVERY single one of its neighbours.
This is historically false. Do you not remember Tibet and Taiwan? Or the border incident against India? The skirmish against Russia? Even the battle in 1974 where Chinese ships took some still disputed islands from the soon to be gone South Vietnamese government? You are strawmanning an inexistant Chinese expansionism as well. The common denominator from these incidents is that China only fight for what she considers hers historically. From example, although they could have went much further against India, they stopped where they considered to be the border and returned all the captured equipment to the Indians. This may have been the case back then, but not since they're becoming a superpower. Look at their ridiculous sea claims. Hardly ridiculous. Hardly inconceivable either. To provide an example would be something like the United States sending military ships to "protect" (from god knows what) newly discovered Brazilian oil reserves. Needless to say, Brazil didn't take kind to such matters and the US literally had 0 ground to stand on short of the Monroe Doctrine. Yet, they did it anyways. Now look at the situation here where there are historical basis (even if complex) for Chinese claims to those islands, how exactly are these claims ridiculous? Just glossing over this thread leads me to believe that the vast majority of posters have no clue about Chinese history or culture for that matter. Like someone said earlier, perspective. As for the times be changing cause China is a superpower now, welcome to mainstream thinking....in the (late) 1980s...where they predicted conflicts should China grow....like it did in the 90s and 00s...but no conflict (even over something as contentious as Taiwan)....then the main proponent of that line of thinking admitted to basing his claims off of European models...good one.
To be clear, I did not mean the islands that they are rioting over currently but the South China Sea claims:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/South_China_Sea_claims.jpg)
|
On September 18 2012 20:28 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:17 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:35 Caihead wrote:[quote] This "wave of propaganda" you are referring to would not even qualify as sensationalist news reporting in the privatized western media system. What is opinion is labeled as opinion, and public statements were dry run of the mill statements you would hear from any head of state or political department. Again I invite you to go to the state run media site http://news.cntv.cn/special/diaoyudao/shouye/index.shtml You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted. False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system. Easy. If there was a government that represented the interests of the people, then there would be no need for state-run media in the first place. Have you ever questioned why there is only state-run media in China and not any free, independent media? Have you never been suspicious of the need for a state-run media in China? Whose needs does such a media serve first and foremost?
Facepalm. Are you saying that the thousands of newspapers, local and municipal news radio stations, magazine and book sources, as well as international news stations don't exist in China? Are you sure you lived in China? I get more international news channels in a Chinese >3 star hotel than I do in an American one. Like I said, you can hardly find a single person in China who isn't extremely skeptical of government announcements and state media news when there is any political or party related interest in the news story, because we know the bias.
Here's just one tiny example from the TV cable providers that we use in Shenzhen.
http://www.topway.com.cn/szds/szds6.html
This idea that free enterprising media sources as well as providers don't exist in China is ridiculous. They exist in conjunction with the state media system. The state media system (CCTV) has 17 channels and 5 sub channels, there are literally thousands of channels in China which are in Chinese and hundreds of imported channels depending on where you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese-language_television_channels
|
On September 18 2012 20:32 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:28 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:17 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:46 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
You must not have watched the parts where they get a narrator to tell the "history" of what happened in WW2 in a really matter-of-fact voice. On the link you gave me, the reporter also talks about the technological fittings of ships being sent there in detail as if they are about to fight the Japanese. These and other subtle ways of war-mongering. :/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted. False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system. Easy. If there was a government that represented the interests of the people, then there would be no need for state-run media in the first place. Have you ever questioned why there is only state-run media in China and not any free, independent media? Have you never been suspicious of the need for a state-run media in China? Whose needs does such a media serve first and foremost? Facepalm. Are you saying that the thousands of newspapers, local and municipal news radio stations, magazine and book sources, as well as international news stations don't exist in China? Are you sure you lived in China? I get more international news channels in a Chinese >3 star hotel than I do in an American one. Like I said, you can hardly find a single person in China who isn't extremely skeptical of government announcements and state media news when there is any political or party related interest in the news story, because we know the bias.
I can hardly take any of your anecdotal evidence as a fact of the reality.
|
On September 18 2012 20:44 reDicE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 20:32 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:28 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:17 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:13 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:08 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 20:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 20:02 Caihead wrote:On September 18 2012 19:55 CountChocula wrote:On September 18 2012 19:52 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
:/ So the narrator should have told the history with an emotional sentimentalist spin? Jesus Christ, America runs around proclaiming the destination of their aircraft carrier fleets every other month. I don't want to derail this any further. All I can say is compare this with Western sensationalist media coverage. The difference is in the Western news, it's not dictated by the government what news to run (unless an important person is making a statement). In China, the news is state-run meaning it's another card the government can play in diplomacy (when you can cause riots by putting on news about Japan being the villains in something 24/7 and try to pass it off as the spontaneous uprisings of Chinese people). The difference is free, independent media vs. state-controlled media. I will agree with you that stuff like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's media empire is pretty sensationalist and he uses it to push his right-wing views. I'm saying that you can't even distinguish one from the other, if anything the Chinese news coverage regarding this is reserved and not inciting. Literally zero pro-riot voices are heard on state news stations or individual news stations, it's unilaterally condemned. I'm sick and tired of the comparison of a "Free" media with a "controlled media" as if there is an inherent moral superiority, what matters is the results and implications. If the free media performs even poorer than the controlled media then arguments can be made, similar with making an argument for controlled economic policies vs free economic policies. Are you seriously contesting the view that a free, independent media is straight up better than a state-controlled media? In a state-controlled media, you can run whatever propaganda you want and no one can shutdown your channel. Do you think CCP has this ability, but chooses not to use it? Sounds to me like when your #1 goal is to stay in power, this is a pretty awesome ability to have. This is why a free, independent media is better. I'm contesting that there is an inherent moral superiority for a free media system over a controlled media system. A truly free media system means that any opinion can be voiced regardless of factual evidence or legitimacy for any purpose. And a truly controlled media system is completely incidental to the views of the controller. This is true regardless of whether you have a state run media system or a media mongrel run media system. The best system lies somewhere in between. Sure, I agree with you that with independent media there can be cases like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, which tends to lie and not tell the truth, but state-media will NEVER have any credibility. Free, independent media at least has the chance to keep their mission statement as trying their best to remain unbiased. State-controlled media does not even have the chance due to the conflict of interest I highlighted. False, if the government represent the interests of the people then a state run media would represent the views and interests of the people since they are in coincidence. What the state run media system in China lacks is the process of democratic critique and adjustment based on the views of the people, you can also apply the same thing to any media system. Easy. If there was a government that represented the interests of the people, then there would be no need for state-run media in the first place. Have you ever questioned why there is only state-run media in China and not any free, independent media? Have you never been suspicious of the need for a state-run media in China? Whose needs does such a media serve first and foremost? Facepalm. Are you saying that the thousands of newspapers, local and municipal news radio stations, magazine and book sources, as well as international news stations don't exist in China? Are you sure you lived in China? I get more international news channels in a Chinese >3 star hotel than I do in an American one. Like I said, you can hardly find a single person in China who isn't extremely skeptical of government announcements and state media news when there is any political or party related interest in the news story, because we know the bias. I can hardly take any of your anecdotal evidence as a fact of the reality.
It's quite true though. Any non-retard has access to foreign media, some watch phoenix tv but most source it from random parts from the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
