Those are the only two examples I could think of. And the caption, whilst not appropriate to the picture, was at least relevant to the story - there was indeed a heavy military presence in Lhasa by that stage. Given the large output of the BBC two errors is not exceptional (people have picked up BBC errors in plenty of other stories, eg about the Middle East, and I'm reasonably sure other news agencies have a similar error rate).

So are the people posting "BBC liars" basing that on just two errors??

__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts

I hardly see why this happening in Canada should be given as much significance and urgency as the Chinese situation or even be mentioned (the soft-wood lumber industry in Canada is dying anyways). Everytime I bring up anything that is wrong with China, you bring up something that is wrong with the "west" but to much lesser extent as to alleviate the problem in China. In Canada, virtually every restaurant uses reusable chopsticks, the only ones that don't are some few restaurants who don't normally have chopsticks but have a few spares on hand just in case. So when I say the disposable chopstick industry is exacerbating desertification in China, I see little reason to bring it up about other countries. It's a problem in China, not in Canada.
Put yourself in my shoes. I can't say a single thing to criticize the CCP without a bunch of "but that country did this blah blah blah" from you nationalists/apologists.

How about you just ban its production, or at least put quotas? Cut the problem at its roots. But a central government is far too inefficient to do this in a timely manner. If the government was decentralized then local elections in those regions most affected by deforestation would immediately advocate measures to reduce wood exports. I don't blame Japanese restaurants for not giving a shit, seems like the government and restaurants in China don't give a shit either. Why help China if China doesn't help itself? China is the most affected by it, China ought to lead the way against it. It's really simple, let the people make their decisions about their communities and the problem will go away so fast, raising the price of wood and letting more productive countries into the market.

I haven't been throughout all of China, but in Dongbei where I lived, it was like that all over, even small restaurants. The only exceptions were the relatively very rare high class restaurants and Korean restaurants (as it is well known, in Korea, they use steel chopstick -- seems like they learned their lesson a long time ago and Korea is yet to be a desert). I know it can be done. I'm Vietnamese and Vietnamese people always use reusable plastic chopsticks,


You're not really helping by being an apologist to the said system.

We were talking about China in a political context. There's little in China politically speaking outside the CCP.


I don't care who started it, it'll stop now. Do I really have to talk like that?

It's wrong to say that the collection of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 are primary numbers because some of these numbers are primary numbers.
This is exactly what you're doing with you labels.

You'd be surprise at how much the internet is censored in China. Wikipedia was censored last time I went there. The NY Times is censored sometimes, other times it's not. I have never seen anyone above the age of 25-30 in an internet cafe (or internet bars as they are called down there). In an aging population, that is pretty alarming.
Plus children under 18 or so aren't allowed to go to internet cafes. Considering most people access the internet that way in China from what I gather, it's a pretty small demography, already influenced by the intellectual monopoly of the CCP throughout school.


Then it's entirely meaningless how many sources you have if they can't oppose the centralized source.

It came up before I asked and your arguments contain similar fallacies, although to a much more intellectual way than what Cole posts.

We won't know that soon, will we? Do you know any mainlander who has heard both sides of the debate?

That's why your posts were often of high quality, isn't it? Some people still live in the 80s.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

It's probably better to ask that question to the protestors. I wouldn't know, as I didn't go to any of these rallies. I think my time would be better spent here communicating.

You can probably get a better understanding if you watch the video I posted, depicting why these people were protesting against these "deliberate" errors. Most errors in journalism were unintentionally made, but this "won't show" thing wasn't one of them. Worse yet, it was repeated many times AFTER it became obvious that it was wrong, based on the wrong presumptions.

As you have said before, national TV draws in millions of viewers, while Mr. Williams' blog may only have thousands of readers. It just doesn't look like a sincere attempt to apologize to me, does it?

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Geez, man. Who said anything happening in Canada should be given as much significance and urgency? I never mentioned anything about Canada until you said:

To which I responded that “the single-use chopsticks Japan imported from China contributes to the deforestation in China. Not in Japan, certainly not in Canada!” Is there anything wrong with my statement? You were the one who dragged Canada into our discussion in the first place!

What about other countries? Did you finish reading the Washington Post article I posted? I quote:

15 billion pairs exported from China and 25 billion pairs consumed in Japan annually are hardly something insignificant. Considering Japan’s population is less than 10% of that of China, while consuming over 55% of disposable chopsticks as China does, I see every reason to bring it up, don’t you?

I don’t understand why you have to see my comment as an attempt to alleviate the problem in China. I said very clear that “China needs to do its part, but other countries can help as well.” I am sorry you felt frustrated about your experience here. I can’t speak for other people. But in our very discussion here, you are the one who chose to give my comments a negative spin, even when I AGREED WITH YOU! I quote:

Let me put it this way: if one is looking for an enemy, he usually ends up finding one. I don’t see why our discussion here needs to be confrontational.

Did I deny the problem existing in China? Did I defend China’s political system? All I said was:

I emailed the washington post article to many of my friends in China asking them to help bring this issue up when they visit restaurants again in the future, or at least do their part to stay away from the single-use chopsticks. This is what I CAN do. Changing China's political system is something beyond my capability. Does this make me an apologist to the said system?

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

No, you don't. You can talk in whatever way you prefer. Meanwhile, I will keep on using "western media" to refer to a collection of media in the west. You might have to get used to it, unfortunately.

No, it isn't what I'm doing with my labels. I will call the collection of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... natural numbers, and that of 2, 3, 5… “some natural numbers” or “primary numbers”. Just as I will call the collection of west-based media “western media”, and refer to those who made biased reports “some western media”.

The reason you have never seen anyone above the age of 25-30 in an internet cafe is because many of them have internet access at home. Children under 18 aren’t allowed to go there, but they go anyway, don’t they? I know my parents, uncles and aunts all have internet access at home, and one of my cousins spent at least a couple of hours online nearly everyday (at home) after she finishes her schoolwork when she was still in junior high school.

On a separate note, China just tied the United States for the country with the most internet users. Your statement in bold is also incorrect. It was reported that only one-third of Chinese internet users surf through cybercafes. Furthermore, China’s online population grows by 18% annually, and it was projected that by the year 2012, China’s online population would be larger than the entire U.S. population. Here is the link:

China reports it's tied US for most Internet users - Yahoo! News

I wouldn’t be surprised at how much the internet is censored in China, because I know it is under heavy censorship. I have lived there for many years, and continue making regular trips back home. I also know how to view censored websites from within mainland China. I never said the internet is not censored in China. Now you argued that:

I view this as an attempt to change subjects in our discussion. Yes, these alternate sources may not be able to oppose the dominant centralized source, but that’s not what we have been discussing, which is whether there are more than one sources. You made a wrong statement. I don’t think it’s a big deal. Everyone says something that is incorrect sometimes in his lifetime. Admit it, and move on.

If you can quote my arguments that contain similar fallacies, I would be happy to admit and move on.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Been a little while and have not been checking all the posts regarding the "bad PRC".
If we are going to discuss chop stick issues, allow me to add some good news from the plastic bags front. ==> As from June 1st this small new rule will be law, unfortunately not in the HK SAR.

China bans free plastic bags - CNN.com

Well you're the one not wanting to limit this to China for absolutely no reason. Canada is just the example I can use on the issue outside of China.

To which I responded: why would Japan give a shit about deforestation in China when it's a bit obvious that the CCP and the Chinese restaurant owners don't give a shit? China is responsible for its deforestation, not Japan or anyone "outside of China".

Again, Japan is not responsible for the Chinese state. If China doesn't help itself, no one else will do it for her. I don't know what you are expecting when bringing up Japan.

You agree with me on the problem, but not on the solution. It's in the CCP's jurisdiction, so it's all within China's responsibility. There's no bringing elements outside of China. I thought from talking to the likes of you the CCP knew best?

We still disagree on a major issue regarding the subject.
You're denying part of the responsibility and in turn undermining the solution. You can't rely on the virtue of the Japanese state or Japanese restaurant.


No, diminishing claims against China by using outside examples and calling for the functionality of an authoritarian "Chinese style" government makes you one.
Advocating change is at least a first step. I appreciate your effort, but at a fundamental level, you're ignoring the roots of the problem.

And I'll lump together a bunch of unrelated countries in East Asia, take the worst of their media, and call it East Asian media. Deal?
Then whenever there's criticism, I'll demand explanation from China nationalists concerning what is seen in the news in Japan or North Korea. It would be much better for your cause not to generalized the opposition.

But you don't do that, you always say western media. Further you're still not responding to the futility of lumping all these into this contingency of a classification.

And I'm guessing you live in a Chinese city, in a well to do or at least better off environment. I lived in the Chinese country side, where the majority of the people in China live and where I can't even phantom the idea of the majority having internet access.

NationMaster - Chinese Internet statistics

35 million/ 1.3 billion? That's a horrible figure. Considering very few people have LAN phone lines to have dial up internet

As expected, immediate impressions of China are failing compared to the actual figures.

Again, the user number vis-a vis the general population is pretty low.
Which collaborates to my argument that the majority get their information from one source.

But the censorship in China does limit the amount of information that people receive, which was the main point of the issue.

I can't tell the difference between sources if they're not allowed to deviate from the "main" source.