Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInTranslation
You certainly have the freedom to do so. Perhaps one day you can even claim credit for being the one who invented this, when and IF it garners enough consent from any serious news outlet such as the New York Times, the Guardian or Die Zeit.
|
I was hoping this would sound so foolish you could realize the idiocy behind such logic. Obviously, every single thing has to be explained to you. The CBC has called the Chinese police, the Communist Police. Yay, let's have faulty, constructed and misleading terms because mainstream media determines all that is right and wrong.
Quote:
|
First of all, have you ever seen me demanding explanation from the “western media” as a whole?
|
So you just pose your criticism for whatever western media is for no apparent reason.
Quote:
|
Secondly, IIRC, the great majority of the protests staged by Chinese were calling for explanations or apologies from specific media outlets or news commentators, e.g. CNN, BBC or Jack Cafferty. Your ill-constructed analogy simply doesn’t apply here.
|
No one on these forums project any of this what's so ever.
Quote:
|
I don’t know if it’s worth continuing our discussion here if you keep on making things up like that. This is directly quoted from my post numero uno on this forum:
|
You don't understand, just the term western media is misleading and factually wrong, like race, or oriental.
Quote:
You can find more evidences of my discretion in this very thread. For example, in my first response to your claim that “My whole point of saying I don't watch CNN was to show that there's no such thing as western media.” I said:
Perhaps you need to check the fact before you post next time?
What’s so wrong with lumping a bunch of media outlets in the west that made biased reports together and calling them “some western media” when we are discussing biased journalism? I can’t comprehend why you got so fired up that you had to use big red font to say “there’s no such thing as western media”. It’s really an eyesore. Furthermore, your numerous posts that lump all Chinese supporters here into some “creepy” Chinese nationalists or CCP apologists who “all say the exact same things, commit the exact same fallacies, have the exact same strategies to deviate from the main argument and are all incredible dismissive of criticism.” were among the worst of its kind (over-generalization, lumping, …)
|
Because this group IS nationalist and DO have the exact same arguments. Media within all the countries in the "west" vastly differ. I'm not out against all concepts of groups and solidarity, merely ones that don't make sense. I don't understand how you can't see that. You just watch a few American and British report, maybe sometimes French and generalize it to include pretty much any country (what the hell does western mean?)
Quote:
|
Please allow me to point out the logical flaw in your argument above. Yes, as of today, the majority (barely) of the people in China still live in the country side. According to the 2007 Urban Development Report of China, the urban population in China is ~594 million.However, what you failed to take into account is that the majority of Chinese internet users reside in urban areas.
|
I didn't fail to account it, that was my whole point.
Quote:
|
Even IF none of the country side residents have internet access at home, it still wouldn’t invalidate the statistical data I showed earlier that only ONE THIRD of Chinese netizens access the internet by visiting internet cafes. Therefore, your argument that “MOST people access the internet that way (in internet cafes) in China”, based on your limited experience in China, is WRONG according to the statistics. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you do make mistakes or uninformed conclusions from time to time?
|
I gave you the statistics.
Quote:
|
“35 million (broadband accesses)/1.3 billion (Chinese population)”. Does this number support your argument that “most Chinese people surf the internet in cybercafes”?
|
I'll concede that it doesn't, but I'll also make sure to remind you that the argument was where people were getting their information from; and the internet does not form a viable alternative to the monopoly of information that the CCP has.
Quote:
|
No, because you have conveniently chosen not to differentiate: (a) the number of broadband subscribers and the number of internet users; and (b) the population of China and the number of internet users in China (which was ~221 million as of last month). Factoring in the fact that each DSL or cable modem line is likely to be shared by multiple users, especially in China, where broadband access sharing is often not limited to family members, but sometimes also extended to neighbors; it doesn’t help with your argument at all.
|
See above.
Quote:
|
Now, for the Nth time, I would like to remind you that I was not arguing whether the majority get their information from one source, or whether the censorship in China limits the amount of information that people receive, but whether there are multiple sources. Yes, or no, simple question. Changing subjects to justify an erroneous claim is futile.
|
No, most still get it from the government, if not, by other medias censored by the government. Thank you very much.