BBC World News Barred From Airing in China (reuters.com) 156
British television channel BBC World News has been barred from airing in China, the National Radio and Television Administration said, a week after Britain's media regulator revoked Chinese state television's broadcast licence. From a report: In a statement issued on the stroke of the Lunar New Year, the administration said an investigation found BBC World News' China-related reports had "seriously violated" regulations, including that news should be "truthful and fair," had harmed China's national interests and undermined national unity.
and will apple force remove the app from i phones (Score:2)
and will apple force remove the app from i phones there?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
If the BBC is reporting truthfully and fairly, then it will harm China's national interests and undermine national unity. Reporting on the genocide of Uygurs, the systemic abuse of human rights, control of the media, and of course not being able to talk about the massacre in Tiananmen Square is the truth.
Re: You can't have it both ways (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if the Chinese news agencies want to spread lies or publish misleading or even outright false news? Ultimately lies cannot stand up to reality and spouting them only damages the credibility of those who spread them. Thinking you can somehow create an apparatus that will only suppress lies is foolhardy at best, but only creates a powerful tool which can also be turned against the truth just as easily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right wish I had mod points for you. I have been saying this since 2016 when we started getting the "OMG Russian Internet trolls" narrative.
If a free society is so endangered by some people spewing nonsense; the answer can't be stop the nonsense because than you don't have a free society any more. Maybe a better question to be asking is why don't we have stronger sense of shared values and cultural identity that some challenging ideas from outsiders don't send us into convulsions.
Re: (Score:2)
The only danger I see to this, and this is playing out in the US, that news devolves into sides and teams. So you get very few sources even trying to maintain neutrality. Neutrality is impossible, but it should be attempted.
CNN is a prime example. It used to be a pretty stable news reporting service, one I'd listen to while travelling for American news. That is, until Trump called them dummies and they decided to go full partisan. Then it became another shill.
Ironically, the BBC ( which admitedly does have
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:4, Informative)
What's that narrative to you? Because we have in evidence: Troll farms and meme factories exist. They produce exploits for unpatchable psychological vulnerabilities; lies that do stand up to reality. Do you think the ex-KGBs in charge of Russia aren't taking advantage of the fact that they can publish in American (social) media? That they can distribute propaganda directly to Americans while they're in line at the grocery store, or taking a shit? They could only dream of that kind of power during Cold War I.
The investment needed is minuscule, the risks for them are 0, and once you seed this stuff in the wild, the "useful idiots" will finish the distribution for you. By the time Grandma reads it on Facebook, it has her sister's or her pastor's name next to it. Instant grassroots legitimacy.
Re: (Score:2)
You can hop on YouTube and watch former KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov describe what they had been doing. It is profoundly disturbing to hear him talk about KGB agitprop that is toda
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people influenced by Russian propaganda aren't sitting there scratching their heads, thinking critically, to find the truth. They're looking for someone saying thing things they want to believe or even giving them something to believe without having to do the work.
> stronger sense of shared values and cultural identity
People have been at work pumping our society full of little memes, factoids, and sayings to manipulate our culture and attitudes. Furthermore they've taken our base values, knowing t
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a better question to be asking is why don't we have stronger sense of shared values and cultural identity that some challenging ideas from outsiders don't send us into convulsions.
If we are talking about the US then they only way to get that shared value and identity is to break the country up into smaller countries. To pick an obvious example, culturally California does not have much in common with Alabama.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a better question to be asking is why don't we have stronger sense of shared values and cultural identity that some challenging ideas from outsiders don't send us into convulsions.
If we are talking about the US then they only way to get that shared value and identity is to break the country up into smaller countries. To pick an obvious example, culturally California does not have much in common with Alabama.
Sure it does, both states full of Americans, families, mother , father sons, daughters neighbors. People drive cars , they watch TV, they enjoy time with frineds and family. MUCH more in common than different.
The problem with the misinformation is that it often times appears to come from a position of authority, or in some cases unfortunately it actually does come from a position of authority.
But the biggest problem of all? 60% of the American population has an IQ of under 110. Critical thinking begins to
Re: You can't have it both ways (Score:2)
If a free society is so endangered by some people spewing nonsense; the answer can't be stop the nonsense because than you don't have a free society any more.
We've seen this movie before, we know how it ends.
The year is 1920, and some people with the National Socialist German Worker's Party are spewing nonsense, where do you draw the line?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
If that's what a free society looks like when good people do nothing. They weren't wrong because they lost the war, they were just wrong, and we should have had the guts to tell them that.
Re: (Score:2)
The way forward: Positive white nationalism.
Well I am not quite on board with the 'white' part of that but they guy that barfs that up over and over isn't entirely wrong. I question the motives of the people who have tried to make nationalism a dirty word. Maybe it was other places in different times when nation was strictly tied to race but I am not sure a shared love of our country and desire to see our own citizens (you know your Friends and neighbors quite independent of their race, or creed) put first in the wold by our own leaders is such a te
Re: (Score:2)
You're way off on Canada there though. I don't know of any other more friendly to immigration nation.
Re: You can't have it both ways (Score:2)
Escalation , Olympics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the British Government has just pulled that rug from under them. Almost half the population of Hong Kong are Overseas British Nationals, now eligible to relocate to the UK should they wish. The CCP are livid.
If HM Govt wants to twist the knife a bit, they could open the offer to depe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the British Government has just pulled that rug from under them. Almost half the population of Hong Kong are Overseas British Nationals, now eligible to relocate to the UK should they wish. The CCP are livid.
What's to prevent the CCP from unilaterally changing the laws and slamming the door shut on the "Overseas British Nationals" and not allowing them to leave? What's HM's government going to do; go to war with China? China would take GREAT DELIGHT in turning GB into a smoking pile of radioactive ruin.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the British Government has just pulled that rug from under them. Almost half the population of Hong Kong are Overseas British Nationals, now eligible to relocate to the UK should they wish. The CCP are livid.
What's to prevent the CCP from unilaterally changing the laws and slamming the door shut on the "Overseas British Nationals" and not allowing them to leave? What's HM's government going to do; go to war with China? China would take GREAT DELIGHT in turning GB into a smoking pile of radioactive ruin.
The GB has ICBMs and Hydrogen weapons. So the answer to your question is MAD. Where have you been the last 75 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately lies cannot stand up to reality and spouting them only damages the credibility of those who spread them.
That only works when people are interested in reality. Take a look around, there doesn't seem to be much interest in reality these days.
Re: (Score:3)
>Who cares if the Chinese news agencies want to spread lies or publish misleading or even outright false news? Ultimately lies cannot stand up to reality and spouting them only damages the credibility of those who spread them
Fox news/facebook didn't work out that way in the US and if this was true then people inside of China wouldn't be full of CCP propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the case of the Chinese news channel in the UK it wasn't the content that was the issue, it was the ownership. TV channels have to clearly state who owns them to broadcast in the UK, and the Chinese news channel didn't do that.
We allow all kinds of bullshit on TV here. We have Russia Today, for example. There are theoretically standards for truthfulness but they are apparently so easily avoided that RT is free to broadcast all sorts of rubbish.
Legalistic stupidity; predictable response (Score:2)
Banning the Chinese from the UK on some legal technicality was idiocy of the highest order. Everybody knows that everything Chinese is connected to the Communist Party, regardless of what they put on the form.
But we gave them a perfect excuse to ban BBC in China. That is far, far important. A fairly reliable source of truth in China. Gone!
Re: (Score:3)
> Who cares if the Chinese news agencies want to spread lies or publish misleading or even outright false news?
Because it makes a mockery of Journalism. THE guiding principle of Ethical Journalism is to tell the truth without bias. Obviously that is an ideal but it is one we should never stop pursuing it. The moment were we decide Truth isn't important because we are more interested in controlling the narrative, money, etc. then what the fuck is the point of even reporting it if you are just going to
Re: (Score:2)
You see in the UK, television programs *MUST* be balanced and truthful. If you are not you will get into trouble, and repeated offences will see you loose your license.
So for example you will never have the likes of Fox news spouting lies about voter fraud when there is no evidence in the UK. You also will not get the likes of US style talk radio in the UK either as the same rules apply.
It would be nice if the same rules applied to the newspapers too frankly.
Re: You can't have it both ways (Score:2)
> Ultimately lies cannot stand up to reality
This is demonstrably false.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can.
Just look up the words in your commie to English dictionary, and it all makes perfect sense.
You just need to brush up on your newspeak . . .
hawk
Re: You can't have it both ways (Score:2)
Re: You can't have it both ways (Score:2)
News agency banned in China (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider this the news-organization equivalent of receiving a Purple Heart.
"had harmed China's national interests and undermined national unity" probably means they told an uncomfortable truth and made the party look bad. Literally anything the party doesn't like "undermines national unity". "truthful and fair" means Truth As Told By The Party.
They're not fooling anyone but nationalistic zealots.
Re: (Score:2)
Fooling - no but successful depriving people of the information they need to make their own intelligent informed decisions - probably.
Its one thing to know you can't trust the propaganda you are being fed; but that knowledge is only useful if you have access to multiple alternative sources of information so you can perhaps sort out what fact, what is outright fiction, and what is spin.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's only 50% of the population, that's still 1.5 BILLION people.
In other news... (Score:3)
truth banned in China. When will the Chinese learn? The soviets did, they killed millions of people by throwing them into prisons under the guise of it helping 'the state'. They actually had quotas to throw people in prison and they would straight up throw in innocent people. I'd imagine China isn't that bad right now, but it's going to hurt them when people can't even throw objections or criticism at their own imperfect government. They already had issues with government and problems, the coronavirus got out of control because no one dared to tell the government that there was a virus of fear of looking bad.
What is the point if the only free person in China right now is the president?
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen China news: The government is always correct and there is never a dissenting opinion. The faults and crimes of the Chinese government are never admitted and all the people on television are near-white. It's a very clear demonstration of controlling thought and ethnicity.
All governments decide the 'truth', many are better at 'enforcing' it than the US. That's a positive when there's a judgemental and free (from harassment and oppression) press, a negative otherwise.
Re: In other news... (Score:2)
But that's all bollocks.
Back to shortwave radio! (Score:3)
Shortwave radio is not like the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
BBC Fair and Truthful? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't necessarily say that, as least compared with other news source. They have their agenda, however Listening to BBC about news that is Happening In America is much more refreshing.
They are not tied to Democrats vs Republican and their ideology based on each others big supporters, which often will not really align well with the actual proposed ideology.
Much like how American News is treating Brexit, we are emotionally separated from it, so we are not going crazy putting words into peoples thought.
UK Voted to Exit the EU.
Exiting the EU was a big deal, as they are decades worth of trade, military, cross country projects, that need to be negotiated. So it was delayed a few time, and negotiation with the EU was difficult because the EU didn't want the UK to leave, and UK wanted to leave because it wanted to have full control.
For the most part our view on Prime Minister Johnson is fairly neutral, except for the fact that he is very much like Trump, which our own political biases, may automatically like or dislike him for that connection.
The BBC news breaks down American News in a similar way, Trump said this or that, without the twist of making sound like he is being completely evil, as well covering the rival argument without making them seem so out of touch. They may have a bias, but it is less emotional, so they are able to do the journalism much more fairly, because it doesn't concern them as much.
Also BBC tends to give news that will affect the UK more, where this stuff is often not shown on US channels, unless it is a really big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
I think my favorite comment that I heard from the BBC regarding Trump happened shortly after the Capitol riots when an anchor said, "President Trump, who has access to launch nuclear weapons, has been banned from Facebook for posting irresponsibly."
Really though, calling Trump evil is an insult to evil.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot have unbiased news. Just the fact that a news station decides to report on something but not something else, is a bias.
You know when Grandpa or your Dad is who is a big Fox News watcher, seems to pull out the Pop Quiz on you on all the News stories that they decided to make a big deal, where a blink and you missed it on an other site. Granted you can do the same with the news from your Liberal Sites too, but the Fox News Fans for some reason think they are getting the top secrete information t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Easy solution (Score:2)
Yeah, but "no one" but westerners give a shit about the BBC in China. The BBC is a joke to Chinese people and is largely totally ignored. They don't consider it worth having in the first place. Well, I mean the news, of course. The drama and nature documentaries are top notch but the news is mostly considered worthless, in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I had a shortwave as a kid, and thought it was the most amazing thing to be getting all these broadcasts from around the world.
Had a real sense of discovery.
I was going to say this would be a step too far for a news network to get involved in, but there's some plausable deniability built right in as it's not necessarily a targetted broadcast.
No catch like that Catch-22! (Score:2)
So if they tell the truth, it's illegal because they're undermining national unity. But if they repeat the Party line, that's neither truthful nor fair. Sounds like a set of rules designed to be invoked at the convenience of the rulers, not something that can actually be obeyed.
Re: No catch like that Catch-22! (Score:2)
No, if they tell the truth, then that's fine. How is that difficult to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
You're seriously claiming the Chinese Communist Party doesn't suppress true information it finds inconvenient, often with imprisonment or worse? What rock did you just crawl out from under?
Shocking surprise! (Score:2)
No one is more reliably left-wing than the BBC. Last week BBC commentators compared the UK and Chinese governments, and they favored China. I don't understand what has happened to cause them to be banned. Maybe someone made a joke about Xi?
Re: Shocking surprise! (Score:2)
> Last week BBC commentators compared the UK and Chinese governments, and they favored China.
What was that about, specifically, as a matter of interest?
Anyone remember the Falsified Reporting the BBC.. (Score:2)
.. did on the Staged Syrian Chemical Weapons attacks that they were later caught out on?
We're pretty much screwed for 'Truth in News' in any and all of the big players in media.
Let he who is without lies cast the first stone? (Score:3)
I might be joking. The BBC doesn't seem to have been politically subjugated yet. On that theory, the Chinese dictatorship is most offended by the way that the BBC is telling the truth.
From a more general perspective, I'm reminded of the old "Spy vs Spy" gags in Mad Magazine except that now it's "Lie vs Lie" and everyone gets to pick their favorite lie. Thanks to the Internet, each person can then find an effectively infinite amount of evidence "proving" that favorite lie is true.
But from a technical perspec
Re:Let he who is without lies cast the first stone (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, except the black spy was always on the side of truth, justice, and moral right and was just plain smarter. If you think the white spy had any redeeming qualities, you're completely delusional. I can show you about half of those cartoons that prove my point.
Re: Let he who is without lies cast the first ston (Score:2)
I'd call a 50/50 on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your replies got me to look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and yet I still don't know what y'all mean.
However there was more coverage of the story on the evening news. Sounds like it's a rather narrow tit-for-tat game. The Chinese are quite good at playing such games. In most cases there is no game clock, so there are strong tactics for winning by simply controlling the timing of your turns.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to take you up on that; I think it would be a fascinating case study.
Personally, I always considered them both to be evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly more inclined to believe the BBC than anything Xi says, but my "jovial" focus was supposed to be on the other end, the side where people believe what they want to believe. But I suppose you can argue it's the classical approach to science? Forming the hypothesis first and then testing it. In that form, the problem is that you can find "evidence" for any hypothesis now. Thanks, Internet!
It might be an interesting test to ask people when was the last time they changed their minds about anything
Re: C'mon BBC! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who don't know, the BBC is very liberal, that is, Leftist )of some sort).
BBC is establishment. When the establishment feels that pandering to the Left is to its advantage you get contemporary BBC behavior, which you dutifully perceive as Leftist.
Re:Funny to Watch when (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
liberal, leftist, progressive, Democrat, socialist... Distinctions that exist only in the minds of leftists.
Yes, it's so difficult to keep track of all of these different ideologies that the party disagrees with. It would be doubleplusgood if we could simplify it all, with some sort of new way to speak...
Re:Funny to Watch when (Score:5, Insightful)
very liberal, that is, Leftist )of some sort).
Right. If you're a fascist, everyone else looks like a stinkin' commie to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. The Right famously doesn't give a crap about other human rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Fascism is just another brand of leftism
Mussolini, who invented the notion of fascism, famously contrasted it with leftism, calling leftism the way of the 19th century and fascism the rightist alternative for the 20th century. In other words, I don't know what you're smoking but I want some, too -- it must be really strong.
Re:Funny to Watch when (Score:5, Informative)
No that is not correct. And you are incorrectly twisting anything that you may have an issue with, being the property of party you don't belong too.
Both Left and Right ideologies can allow for some really bad human right violations.
The Leftist ideology likes the idea that everyone needs to work together, those who don't play by the rules should be removed by any means.
The Rightist ideology like the idea that everyone should work for themselves, those who get in the way of your success, you should be allowed to remove them by any means.
Far Right Government (what ever they are called) will often allow for many human right violations. Think many of the Middle Eastern Countries, They are very Right Leaning, strong religion discipline required. If someone who doesn't belong and isn't part of your group of allies, is probably in a lot of danger. Many of these countries have weak governments, so power is localized to small groups of people, who tend to be able to get away with doing a lot of harm to other groups that they see as rivals.
So while a Communist Country which is Leftist is also performing its own form of Human Rights violations, it isn't because of their Political Stance, but from a a cruel unit of who is in power. Just as in the Right Leaning Countries, there is a cruel unit of people in power hurting others.
Many of the safest countries to be in are left leaning socialist governments (Socialism is not communism!), their success is not from being Left of center, but from an active effort to protect human rights as part of their government structure. A right leaning government can be safe too, if it were to take human rights seriously, and make sure the smaller focuses of power too are keeping human rights under control.
Post US Civil War, Many of the Rules around Race have been moved from a State Law to being under the control of the Federal Government. This was due to the fact that each US State had an inconsistent approach towards laws dealing with Race. So the federal government had to take over to make sure Human Rights of people of different races were being cared for. Now the quality of such laws is questionable, but on the whole it is much better than having each state control it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. You're thinking of authoritarianism as having a disdain for human rights. Fascism is how the extreme right gets there, and communism is the path of the extreme left.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism is just another brand of leftism. Socialism, fascism, communism, etc. all share the same disdain for human rights. The view of human rights is the fundamental property of political distinction.
Fascism is another brand of leftism? Can I have some of your drugs -- I like hallucinating. Historically fascism has been on the far right of the political spectrum.
Personally I would argue that the spectrum is more like a horse shoe: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], and that far right fascism and far left authoritarianism are closer to each other than the left is to the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Funny to Watch when (Score:5, Interesting)
The BBC isn't Leftist, at least your Crazy Fox News version of it.
BBC and extension the UK have a diverse political stance, if you are going to pick and choose you can say they are a Leftest government, or a Far Right government because you can nitpick and pull out elements of the culture that can fit well into both cultures, Their Left Leaning groups, often may have elements that we could connect to American Right Parties, and the Right leaning UK groups may have elements that we think only the Far Left would support.
That said the UK, being about the size of one State in the United States, and containing a Major Metropolis (London). I would say the UK is about as Left as the entirety of New York State Combined with New Jersey. Being close to Urban Centers they tend to need more Tighter controlled governments in general to keep them operating, while having good portions of the land, being rural needing more conservative approach.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK is about a fifth of the US, or about the size of 10 average states combined.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go far enough to either end of the political spectrum, acknowledging fact becomes an act of subversion. The political spectrum isn't linear, it's circular; people on the far right and far left resemble each other more than they do people in the center.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Social shunning is a voluntary and nonviolent way to discourage antisocial behavior--this is the SJWs. Open violence as a response to lawful actions we disagree with is worse--this is the Trumpists. State speech edicts are compulsory and backed by the power of the state to do violence--this is what is happening in China and what Trumpists want in America.
Wouldn't you prefer that Chinese citizens be allowed to ignore and boycott the BBC?
Re: (Score:2)
Except social shunning devolves into job loss and vaguely Mcarthyist actions. So instead of a punch in the face, you lose your ability to support yourself, and must beg the state to help you- which it will only if you toe the party line.
Re:Copy and paste (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the fundamental tenants of democracy is the right of the individual to political association and having political views. They should be able to do that without fear of repercussions, punishments and penalties.
The current "deplatforming" as practised by the twitter mobs is based on violating this right. People have a choice of being compliant or losing their source of income and/or becoming social pariahs.
While I can sort-a understand this being applied to PROHIBITED political entities and TERRORIST organizations, it being applied to PERMITTED views is gang raping Democracy at a fundamental level.
The fact that it is done by the twitter mob instead of the Communist party does not constitute a material difference - the end result and the underlying idea is the same as the lovely Chinese "Social Credits".
Re: (Score:2)
The Right criticizes the Left for being too zealous about the company they keep, meanwhile the Right is inviting arsonists over to help cook dinner. In the US, the political left's respect for civic norms was exploited and abused and this, combined with the structural advantage conservatives have in government has pushed many far enough exercise whatever soft powers they have whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I agree that this is sub-optimal. But the sanest political organ of American conservatism i
Re: (Score:2)
You've put a lot of yourself into these questions, so I'll handle them gently. In short though, you've drawn the worst, dumbest inference at each turn.
So your saying the use social shunning on all of the LGBTQNPB persons like was done during the fifties, sixties and a good part of the seventies was good, because denying them platforms for speech and keeping them from being hired for jobs they were qualified for is okay if you believe their behavior to be antisocial.
The letters in the above that I understand refer to fixed qualities that are benign and involuntary. So the social shunning was both pointless and wrong, but still better than violence or the depriving of civil liberties--both of which also happened and would continue to this day if just one more social conservative was on the US Supreme Court.
You also apparently believe the open violence of the BLM movement, that occurred for a full year before the open violence you're blaming on the Trumpists, was okay because? 1. Violence for or by POC is justified no matter what. 2. That violence from people that believe what you believe is okay. 3. That it was peaceful protests that caused 500 million in damages during the first two weeks in Minneapolis alone.
I condemned o
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaking copying with reciprocal response.
Our media in any form is permitted THERE (there being China, Russia, Iran, etc) only as long as we permit theirs HERE.
Violating this long standing policy was started by Theresa May. In fact, it is now government policy that their media is denied accreditation. It has gone further to the point where it is now censored and prohibited with several countries shutting down most of their channels as well as requesting limiting
Re:tit for tat (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like the UK government does not allow foreign governments to own TV stations.
CGTN had asked for its license to be transferred to an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation, but “crucial information” was missing from the application, and the new owner would be disqualified from holding a license as it would be controlled by a body ultimately directed by the Chinese Communist Party, Ofcom said.
I'm generally suspicious of nationalist restrictions on ownership, but giving OTA spectrum to a foreign powers seems like a reasonable restriction. If China is more open in this regard, please correct me.
But I know I'll have to double check your sources, since you are lying about the Uighur. I never thought I'd see someone spewing Chinese propaganda while defending Japan's conduct in WW2. Careful, or you might get reeducated!
Re: tit for tat (Score:2)
> since you are lying about the Uighur.
What makes you so sure?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting there's no political oppression in China? I take it you're employed by the Chinese government to say that or just aren't able to see any news sources that report it due to the prevalent Chinese censorship
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he can see that post...
Re: (Score:3)
The Tienanmen Square Massacre never happened I guess. /sarcasm
Flag as Inappropriate
That could very well be the case [telegraph.co.uk] [*]. And most importantly, the US government, who knew about this fact, chose to never inform us. If not for wikileak, we would be continuously misled by the western media.
Thank you for bringing up an example to prove my point.
[*] One could claim that there were death on the roads leading to the Square. That's very different than killing protesters sitting on the ground. Even if true, it simply mean the term "Tiananmen Square Massacre" is misleading at best and was created as propaganda phrase to demonize China. And if the deaths happening on the roads, it was likely a few people trying to block the army. You could try blocking the police and military in the USA [wikipedia.org] and elsewhere [hrw.org] to see what would happen to you.
What a load of baloney you do speak.
How much are they paying you?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another interesting cable from wikileaks saying "minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000" : UK Cable Tiananmen Square Massacre [wikisource.org]
Quoted from the cable:
1. He has passing on information given him by a close friend who is currently a member of the state council. This source has previously proved reliable and was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumour.
2. Fact. The army that has committed the atrocities in beijing is 27 army who are troops from shanxi province (?), are 60 percent illiterate and are called primitives. The commander of 27 army was yang zhenhua, son of yang baiding brother of yang shangkun. They were kept without news for ten days and told they were to take part in an exercise. A tv film would be made of the exercise which pleased them. They were informed of martial law on may 20. For the first 4 days after arrival they were driven around beijing city to familiarise them with the area. 27 army are at full strength with their own tanks and apcs and a full outfit of ammunition, tear gas and flamethrowers. Other armies are only at 1 division strength. The leadership keeps 27 army on the move so that it can attack from a different direction each time.
3. Fact. On the night of 3/4 june 27 army was to attack from the west with other units from shenyang mr. The plan was that the first wave (smr) would attack with no weapons. The second wave (smr) would attack with weapons but no ammunition. The third wave (smr) would attack as for second wave but officers would have loaded side arms to frighten the crowd. The fourth wave would be 27 army with full equipment and ammunition. The first attacks occurred at mucidi and shilipu. The first three waves were held by the demonstrators and smr troops tried to push back the crowds to let 27 army through. They failed and 27 army apcs opened fire on the crowd (both civilians and soldiers) before running over them in their apcs.
4. Fact. The enraged masses followed ignoring m/g fire to next battle at liubukou. Apcs ran over troops and civilians at 65kph in same manner. One apc crashed and driver (a captain) got out and was taken by crowd to hospital. He is not deranged and demands death for his atrocities.
5. Fact. On arrival at tiananmen troops from smr had separated students and residents. Students understood they were given one hour to leave square but after five minutes apcs attacked. Students linked arms but were mown down including soldiers. Apcs then ran over bodies time and time again to make quote pie unquote and remains collected by bulldozer. Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains.
6. 27 army ordered to spare noone and shot wounded smr soldiers. 4 wounded girl students begged for their lives but were bayoneted. A 3 year old girl was injured but her mother was shot as she went to her aid as were six others who tried. 1000 survivors were told they could escape via zhengyi lu but were then mown down by specially prepared m/g positions. Army ambulances who attempted to give aid were shot up as was a sino-japanese hospital ambulance. With medical crew dead wounded driver attempted to ram attackers but was blown to pieces by anti tank weapon. In further attack apcs caught up with smr straggler trucks, rammed and overturned them and ran over troops. During attack 27 army officer shot dead by own troops apparently because he faltered. Troops explained they would be shot if they hadn't shot officer.
7. Speculation. 27 army used because most reliable and obedient. Some considered other armies would attack 27 army but they had no ammunition. Zhongzhai was protected by 2 rings of tanks/apcs one inside the wall, one without.
8. Rumour. Some smr had returned to home bases for ammunition. Armies from shandong, jiangsi and xinjiang had left bases without orders from beijing to destroy 27 army. The mr commanders from guanzhou, beijing and shenyang has refused to attend a recent meeting of mr commanders called by yang shangkun.
9. Fact. Beijing mr commander had refused to supply outside armies with food, water or barracks. Source said many barracks in beijing but note tv pictures of tents. 27 army were using dum-dum bullets. 27 army snipers shot many civilians on balconies, streetsweepers etc for target practice. Beijing hospitals had been ordered to accept only security force casulties. So far 6 foreign students and 23 foreign journalists had been killed in the fighting (note: we have no evidence of this).
10. Fact. The first phase of the operation was to secure tiananmen. The next phase would be to control major roads and intersections and move outwards from centre. This would start within 2 days.
11. Fact. Yang shangkun and deng xiaoping were very close friends. Some members of the state council that civil war is imminent. Qin jiwei was forced unwillingly to appear in background in tv programme on 20 may to give aura of unity. Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, your link shows "Wikisource does not have a text with this exact name". Try a real source next time and stop spreading rumors.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an extraneous period at the end of the URL rendering it useless to people unfamiliar with the internet. Here is the correct link: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... [wikisource.org]
Get a real job and stop spreading lies.
Re: (Score:2)
because one side is the BBC and the other is....China. don't think I really need to say more than that.
Re: Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Yes, you do. Absolutely you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we assume that China is the one being untruthful?
Why must suffer this false dichotomy? Truth isn't something intelligent people expect from either the BBC or Chinese media. Both are political mouthpieces pushing establishment narratives and only members of the establishment and the leftists they pander to practice the necessary mental gymnastics to convince themselves otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Lol. Trustworthy by what measure...just an opinion. Perhaps you should look more at Chinese news...it is largely truthful, and can only be considered lies due to omission or spin. Ie, they just don't report bad news. The press has a completely different function in China to the west. In the west, it is primarily there to criticise government and essentially cause trouble, irrespective of any concept of truth, and full of bias. In China, it is just information. It is changing somewhat though, ironically with
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we assume that China is the one being untruthful?
Because we're used to it?
Re: Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
That's just another way of saying you're biased.
Re: (Score:2)
You're throwing around bias as if it were a bad thing. This isn't racism, or sexism, or some other judgment of an individual based on a group identity.
The CCP has a track record. It would be unwise to ignore their past when assessing their current statements.
Re: Is this really news at this point? (Score:2)
What has this got to do with "America"???
Re: Protection rackets by corporations BBC (Score:2)
No need to worry. The population is slowly but surely moving away from the "broadcast TV" model. I've not bothered with a licence for several years, when I realised all the shows I wanted to watch were scheduled later than I wanted to stay up for, so I was always watching catch-up, which didn't need a licence... they altered the rules for the BBC iPlayer, but it wasn't too difficult to not use that. News and Sports are probably the few things that need to be watched "live", but are they worth the fee? I dec