Jump to content

They R Lying


Recommended Posts

Notice:anti-cnn.com has been attacked since 8th,April,2008. We have lost all the articles and discussion in the English forum. We will try our best to recover it.

This website is established to expose the lies and distortions in the western media. The site is maintained by volunteers, who are not associated with any government officials.

We are not against the western media, but against the lies and fabricated stories in the media.

We are not against the western people, but against the prejudice from the western society.

Visit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcomed to deliver new materials & images to us together with any suggestions , corrections and opinions. And you are also welcomed to distribute this PPT file freely to your friends, let them know the truth as well as this simple

email: anti-cnn@anti-cnn.com

http://www.anti-cnn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you for real??? :blink: Just a few days ago, you cried your eyes out that we are so "unfair" to involve you into political discussions -- although you didn't want to interfere politics with the Olympic Games. And now look what you're doing yourself! Once more: You criticised the so-called "hypocrisy of the Western democracies" -- but with your behaviour, you show an incredible amount of hypocrisy yourself.

And also, I'd like to puke when I read sentences like this:

"We are not against the western people, but against the prejudice from the western society."

This didn't prevent you, though, to insult us Western forum members as "grandsons of Western invaders". Look at your own prejudices first before you criticise other people's (alleged) prejudices! :angry: :angry: :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xu Wen-Ting,

when I read your first post in this thread I get the impression that you believe that their is one general western media, which is brainwashing us poor western people with its lies...

That is not true - we (the western people) live in totally different countries - with totally different medias - we have access to media of totally different political sides: conservative, social democratic, communist, etc. etc. ...

Therefore we are used to different point of views - and therewith we listen and watch first and then we decide on our own if we believe it or not...

Furthermore since our medias have totally different point of views occur a control mechanism, with which the media control each others and expose not well investigated articles/TV-shows of the others...

In China you have just one "official" opinion, which is ruled by the communist party - therefore it is by far much more difficult for you to discover faults of the Chinese Government or even to speak about the faults of the Chinese Government.

We are challenging our governments every day and we discuss politics whereever we like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xu Wen-Ting,

when I read your first post in this thread I get the impression that you believe that their is one general western media, which is brainwashing us poor western people with its lies...

That is not true - we (the western people) live in totally different countries - with totally different medias - we have access to media of totally different political sides: conservative, social democratic, communist, etc. etc. ...

Therefore we are used to different point of views - and therewith we listen and watch first and then we decide on our own if we believe it or not...

Furthermore since our medias have totally different point of views occur a control mechanism, with which the media control each others and expose not well investigated articles/TV-shows of the others...

In China you have just one "official" opinion, which is ruled by the communist party - therefore it is by far much more difficult for you to discover faults of the Chinese Government or even to speak about the faults of the Chinese Government.

We are challenging our governments every day and we discuss politics whereever we like...

I agree but at the same time here in America at least on TV where most people get there information it all bandwagon. For instance the Iraq War. Leading up to it, it was wall to wall Sadam had WMD's he's working with Al Quida if you don't support this war you don't support the troops even the New York Times (arguably one of the most liberal papers in America) was in on it. Then when some European countries had some reservations most Americans freaked out the boycott of France comes to mind. The majority of Americans were willing to trash one of our oldest alliances over this and our media was right there egging it on. While I can't speak for Europe our major media is very collective. It wasn't always this way and it isn't all the time for instance MSNBC and CNN now are more fairly covering Iraq (when they even mention it) and FOX News is always slanted for the administrations view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but at the same time here in America at least on TV where most people get there information it all bandwagon. For instance the Iraq War. Leading up to it, it was wall to wall Sadam had WMD's he's working with Al Quida if you don't support this war you don't support the troops even the New York Times (arguably one of the most liberal papers in America) was in on it. Then when some European countries had some reservations most Americans freaked out the boycott of France comes to mind. The majority of Americans were willing to trash one of our oldest alliances over this and our media was right there egging it on. While I can't speak for Europe our major media is very collective. It wasn't always this way and it isn't all the time for instance MSNBC and CNN now are more fairly covering Iraq (when they even mention it) and FOX News is always slanted for the administrations view.

Yes, I know, but in democracies we have the wonderful mechanism to correct ourselves - I don't want to discuss the Iraq war here in this thread - since we did it over and over again here in the forums in the last years, but I want to draw attention to the fact, that the US-media published the photos of the Abu Ghraib scandal (which of course hurted the US-public) - I have no doubt that the Chinese media will never publish photos of their military, which would be negative for it...

Therewith the US-media fulfill its job to control the US-administration - in PR China you would never find a media, which controls or even challenge the administration...

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know, but in democracies we have the wonderful mechanism to correct ourselves - I don't want to discuss the Iraq war here in this thread - since we did it over and over again here in the forums in the last years, but I want to draw attention to the fact, that the US-media published the Abu Ghraib scandal - I have no doubt that the Chinese media will never publish photos of their military, which would be negative for it...

Therewith the US-media fulfill its job to control the US-administration - in PR China you would never find a media, which controls or even challenge the administration...

Point Taken ;)

Are media can do what it wants right or wrong (usually its for the best) i need to work on my glass half full thinking...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im surpirsed that you can get on to this site, being in China. Especially since the debates that we have.

Im glad that you can tho cause you have the same right as everyone else to your opinion, i just with that you could understand that here in the west our media is so radomised, the media criticise the governments and praises them.

Although it is not your own fault that you only have access to one media type, but you n eed to be aware that your government does have its faults, and that Communism isnt a good political force in the 21st century, esp with regards to human rights and democracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reading some of the replies to Xu, I'd like to express a couple of points:

1. I don't think Xu deed question whether there are different points of view in the Western media. In fact, the given that Western media shoudl presumably share different points of view but when it comes to the issues of CHina they tend to share the same view is very interesting. While one should acknowledge that western media do have stands, depending of their political and geographical/ sub-geographical slants, history tells us when it comes to ideological differences, they tend to become unilateral. The cold war era as recent as in the 80's is a very succinct example. It's not about democractic vs. republican, rich and poor, caucasian vs minority, it's about West and East.

What Xu wanted to point out, I think, is in this instance, the major media in most of the western countires happen to exhibit, for 1 reason or the other, an extensive and systematic selective reporting (and in some cases, it's blatant fabrication as in the case of reporting the Nepal police as Chinese police, not in 1, but media in several different countries). Sure the intelligent people like those in this forum presumably would have teh judgement and analytic ability to sip throught the info and make their own judgement. But a judgement is only as good as the quality and completeness of the information that the judgement is based. Well for all, unless you're scholar on Chinese/ Tibetan history, most of the info used in the judgemetn process come from the media, but well if the media systematically report selectively, you might call your judgement sound based onthe info you had, but if te info you have have flaws in the first place, what good is the judgement itself. This sort of unconcience influence would into effect to all people, intelligent or not.

2. Well, another form selective reporting is to glorify a person that might not deserve it. In the west, Dala Lama has been portratyed as close to saint. Thanks to a very great PR program in the last 20 years or so (sure everyone knows where the funding comes from). He always carried this lovely smile and talks about peace, love and sharing.

Well how many people know back the sort of religion and society Tibet really was? Back in the 50's (when Dala was inreign and before he exiled to india, well with the support of CIA and UK intelligence of course), the Tibetan society still used a feudal and class system where the monks are at the very top, and there slaves at the bottom of the layers - SLAVES for the religon's sake. (if you're interested, pls go to www.ireport.com and search using "real tibet" and see it yourself. warning thought, some are pretty graphic).

Do you know the way Tibetans practice religons? I bet not, cause you, intelligent or not, probably won't have a chance to see it in your media. It's the sort of practices that do not promote production and to some extent physical sacrifices. If placed in a modern developed society, it would have been protoptyed as an extremist religon, like some of those religons in the middle east and some southern US states that the western media prototyped.

Again, I am not endorsng on the suppression of religon. All I am saying is, people in the western coutnries, intelligent or not, should not take things for granted for what they see and hear. Just as in any product markeitng, perception can be changed, consciously and sub-consciously, through good PR. I have all the due respect for those people who buy in and fall into Dala's love and peace messages. But they probably have seen 1 side of the whole thing, and there is another ugly side of policitics and ideological tuck of war that ordinary people would have never see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both you and Xu have entirely missed the point. It appears to be all very well for you to be drip-fed state-controlled media, but when the free Western media dares to criticise the Chinese regime, it's anti-Eastern prejudice.

Do you honestly think that Western journalists make up the stories they write? Do you? Do you believe that the story I read today of how a woman was forced to spend 18 months in a labour camp because of her beliefs, before fleeing to this country out of fear of being detained again, was a fake? Because I don't and I don't think many others will.

The details of what does and does not go on in China almost do not matter. The broad brush strokes of oppression are there for anyone to see and accusing critics of prejudice or anything else will not change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few of us here at GamesBids who work in the media. Myself, while I work in the technical media now, I've had almost three decades experience in major mainstream news organisations. I know a thing or two about how it works. People love throwing accusations of media bias when they don't like what they're hearing. Sometimes there is substance to such claims. More often, it's not as simple as that.

Others, quite rightly, have pointed out the plurality of media in the West. We do have a wide range of different outlets for different opinions and viewpoints. Most media consumers here know how to filter and judge varying news outlets. When you are watching an outlet like Fox news, for example, most of us know it is taking a particular stance and will be able to balance it out with views from other, more liberal outlets. But even organisations that usually have traditional leanings can surprise. Take my employer, News Ltd (Murdoch). Traditionally we are seen as conservative. On the Beijing issue, at least in Australia, it hasn't followed such a clear line. Our coverage has tended to be anti-boycott and pro-games. Indeed, one of our leading tabloids, usually the voice of petty nationalism and conservatism (Sydney's Daily Telegraph) ridiculed Dawn Fraser last week for her announcement she will be boycotting Beijing to protest over rights. If anything, the stance has been firm not to politicise the games or the relay, but at the same time support our right to protest and disagree.

As Arwebb said, to think journalists will make up events of world significance out of thin air is ridiculous. One, in my experience, journos tend to be an ornery lot who don't take kindly to anyone telling them what to do or write, be it their boss or their readers or, especially, their government. Two, in this era of the internet, so many sources are available that any inadvertent or even deliberate mis-reporting is quickly found out and exposed. Plus, the open and widespread nature of the internet increases the diversity and plurality of news sources available to western readers and media consumers. It really is a golden era of citizen journalism and of consumers being able to piece together events from a multiplicity of sources.

As to the anti-CNN postings specifically. Looking through them, it seems a vast majority seem to be picking at the fact that photographs from outside China were used to illustrate stories about events within China. Granted, some may have been captioned better to make this clear (indeed, some are actually so captioned). As someone who has access to the wire news and photo sources, and took particular interest in them in light of the recent events, these were in many cases the only images available to illustrate. Footage and photographs from within Tibet itself was scarce and hard to come by at the height of the violence there, especially after foreign journalists and tourists were quickly "told" to leave when events broke out. But news coverage, print and electronic, requires images to sell ts stories. If events in China produce few such images, but those same events also spark protests in neighbouring countries for which images ARE available, it is legitimate to run with those pictures _ provided, of course, those images are properly explained and captioned. The fact that a picture of a riot in Nepal is used to illustrate a story about riots in China does not mean that the riots in China were made up. It illustrates the act that events in China can also spark actions outside its borders.

Again, many news outlets in the west have also tried to look at the bigger picture. The anti-CNN site has chosen to highlight a handful of the most senstational and unbalanced reports. This no doubt has happened. But it ignores, however, the vast amount of other articles that appeared that took a wider view, that did indeed mention the fact that Tibetan activists sparked events off by attacking Han Chinese businesses and individuals, that did mention the fact that many of those involved were acting outside the policies and wishes of the official Tibetan leadership in exile. There has been much quality analysis and writing in fact to the notion that younger Tibetans have appeared to be frustrated with the cautious and conciliatory stance of the Dalai Lama and his senior lieutenants and have chosen to act. And many outlets concede that much of the Tibetan actions have been planned and implemented to achieve the results they have. This does not negate, however, or make untrue the way China has reacted to it. Or negate the act that some Tibetan activists felt they had no alternative but to pursue such a course at a time when they knew they could gain maximum publicity for their cause. And, like or not, this whole issue is one that is of tremendous interest, sparking attention beyond the normal narrow readership of people who are just interested in the Olympics, or just interested in international politics. It's a big mainstream story and is getting big coverage.

Basically, the western media thrives on opposing viewpoints and most western consumers have learned how to use and balance them. Opposing an critical viewpoints, however, does not seem to be something that is encouraged by media in other, more closed societies, and such societies seem to find it hard to weigh up such opposing reports.

Edited by Sir Roltel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both you and Xu have entirely missed the point. It appears to be all very well for you to be drip-fed state-controlled media, but when the free Western media dares to criticise the Chinese regime, it's anti-Eastern prejudice.

Do you honestly think that Western journalists make up the stories they write? Do you? Do you believe that the story I read today of how a woman was forced to spend 18 months in a labour camp because of her beliefs, before fleeing to this country out of fear of being detained again, was a fake? Because I don't and I don't think many others will.

The details of what does and does not go on in China almost do not matter. The broad brush strokes of oppression are there for anyone to see and accusing critics of prejudice or anything else will not change that.

Geez. A criticism that the free Western media should not be criticised for its "anti-Eastern prejudice", yet labelling the opposing news outlet as "drip-fed state-controlled"? Where is the mutual respect for opposing views?

I come from a country often criticised for its "over-regulated" media, and they are probably right. I cannot discount the fact that the local news coverage is anywhere near to being politically nuetral, but the govenment's stand on the "pitfalls" of a completely free media scene does have some merits, for one just needs to review its history of racial riots fueled by a free-wheeling press. The link between sensationalisation and profits do not need much elaboration. Even reporting of truth can lead to sensationalism, for people often form opinions based on isolated cases to apply them at any level they so wish.

I am in no way suggesting that the said misfortunes suffered by that woman was isolated, nor do I deny the human rights abuses suffered by the Tibetans in Chinese hands. I am, however, debucking this believe that a "liberal press" automatically gives its readers a balanced view on the subject at hand. I deplore, for one, the lack of reports on the good things the Chinese may have done to help ordinary Tibetans rise from absolute poverty, especially when they habitially give tacit mention of this with a prefix "The Chinese government says....".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez. A criticism that the free Western media should not be criticised for its "anti-Eastern prejudice", yet labelling the opposing news outlet as "drip-fed state-controlled"? Where is the mutual respect for opposing views?

I come from a country often criticised for its "over-regulated" media, and they are probably right. I cannot discount the fact that the local news coverage is anywhere near to being politically nuetral, but the govenment's stand on the "pitfalls" of a completely free media scene does have some merits, for one just needs to review its history of racial riots fueled by a free-wheeling press. The link between sensationalisation and profits do not need much elaboration. Even reporting of truth can lead to sensationalism, for people often form opinions based on isolated cases to apply them at any level they so wish.

I am in no way suggesting that the said misfortunes suffered by that woman was isolated, nor do I deny the human rights abuses suffered by the Tibetans in Chinese hands. I am, however, debucking this believe that a "liberal press" automatically gives its readers a balanced view on the subject at hand. I deplore, for one, the lack of reports on the good things the Chinese may have done to help ordinary Tibetans rise from absolute poverty, especially when they habitially give tacit mention of this with a prefix "The Chinese government says....".

And once again: Even if they are certain biassed or sensationalist reports in the Western media -- there are tons of other reports which help us, its consumers, to get the complete picture. I feel absolutely not ill-informed about the situation in Tibet because I have all the liberties to access hundreds of different media in my home country alone and then thousands media more in the foreign countries.

But already our main TV channels ARD and ZDF here in Germany do, in my opinion, a very good job in reporting the true situation in Tibet and China. They always point out if information have to be taken with a grain of salt, they didn't pretend that the pictures of the pro-Tibetan protests in Kathmandu came from China, and they also didn't glorify the violent protests at the torch relay. So what those crappy, propagandistic websites like anti-cnn.com present, is only a tiny extract from the vast variety of different media in our Western societies. Of course, such websites ignore all the reports of Western media which are made properly and without falsifications.

Yes, there's always the danger that lazy people here in the West rely on only one newspaper (especially that abysmal Bild-Zeitung) or one news channel and don't cross-check with other news sources. But who is truly interested in the situation in China, has always full access to every news source in the world. Our governments never ever prevent us from accessing BBC or Wikipedia, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...