SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Chinese state media has urged authorities to take a "tougher line" against protesters in Hong Kong who vandalised state-run Xinhua news agency and other buildings at the weekend, saying the violence damaged the city's rule of law.
[...] In an editorial, state-backed China Daily newspaper criticised the "wanton" attacks by "naive" demonstrators, adding, "They are doomed to fail simply because their violence will encounter the full weight of the law."
Police fired tear gas at black-clad protesters on Saturday and Sunday in some of the worst violence in the Asian financial hub in weeks, with metro stations set ablaze and buildings vandalised.
Violence also erupted on Sunday after a man with a knife attacked several people and bit off part of the ear of a pro-democracy politician. Two of the victims are reportedly in critical condition, according to reports.
The past five months of anti-government protests in the former British colony represent the biggest popular challenge to President Xi Jinping's government since he took over China's leadership in late 2012.
Protesters are angry at China's perceived meddling with Hong Kong's freedoms, including its legal system, since the Asian financial hub returned to Chinese rule in 1997. China denies the accusation.
The widely-read Global Times tabloid on Sunday condemned the protesters' actions targeting Xinhua and called for action by Hong Kong's enforcement agencies.
"Due to the symbolic image of Xinhua, the vandalizing of its branch is not only a provocation to the rule of law in Hong Kong, but also to the central government and the Chinese mainland, which is the rioters' main purpose," it said.
On Friday, after a meeting of China's top leadership, a senior Chinese official said it would not tolerate separatism or threats to national security in Hong Kong and would "perfect" the way it appointed the city's leader.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @03:48PM (21 children)
Before hitting on the bill/protests, I think it's relevant to share something. I had an unpleasant epiphany on the coverage of Hong Kong recently when I was trying to find video of the protester shootings. It seemed odd to me that in the era of a protest of a million smartphones, that full in-context video was not being shared ubiquitously on every single article about the shooting. I mean these sites love multimedia, but instead used only isolated stills? Eventually I did find it. Here are two videos of the exact same shooting incident (video is not especially graphic, and all parties involved lived):
This [reuters.com] is the US mainstream media report.
This [youtube.com] is a video report from Channel News Asia showing extensive footage of the exact same incident.
Please watch at least the US version before reading below due to 'spoilers.'
It feels overly "edgy" to use such a phrase, but I find it difficult to describe the US media version as anything short of propaganda. It not only actively misinforms the user in video and in text, but also provides maliciously edited footage to further aid in the deception. In particular when the protesters scatter and the body of the officer they were beating, potentially to death, is shown - it immediately cuts out to a new frame. And both the text as well as the cherry picked cut of the police response are made to strongly imply that the officer who shot the protester was the one who's life was in danger. Quoting the article:
There is no other term for reporting like this. It is, literally, propaganda. Incidentally this discovery sent me pretty far in the opposite direction even if only out of repulsion.
----
In any case because of this, I do not think it's wise to trust US media reporting on Hong Kong. Consequently I've begun to rely more on first party sources such as in-context videos, original documents, etc. So onto the bill itself. This [wikipedia.org] is your "unjust" bill the the protests began over. The bill was in response to an event described on the Wiki page:
I find it difficult to describe this bill as "unjust." Just about every country in the world shares extradition treaties with their allies, let alone internal territories. And furthermore, these policies were not being passed by China (in the sense that you're referring to the mainland) but by Hong Kong's government. Carrie Lam has a favorable stance towards the mainland, but as the polls I presented show - so do nearly all of Hong Kongers so it's hardly unrepresentative. I don't think the bill was unjust or really had much to do with the protests. Rather, I think the protesters were looking for any plausible act to protest against that could be viably spun as unjust. Indeed the 'opposition' proposal was quite absurd. They proposed that the extradition bill be passed only for Taiwan and then immediately rescinded after the extradition of Chan Tong-kai. I do not think that was a good faith discussion on the downsides of the topic. Indeed, other interests had proposed various amendments to the bill to help prevent abuse, but these were sidestepped for suggestions the protesters-in-waiting surely knew would never, ever, be accepted.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:25PM (20 children)
That doesn't excuse tyranny. What's going on here wouldn't have happened in the first place, if these governments we're accountable to the people.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @05:00PM (19 children)
I think the point of my post is clear. I am not talking about this incident as condemning the protests, but to emphasize that our media coverage is literally less than worthless - it is actively misinforming us. I say this as a pattern because this was obviously not an accident. And I think it's equally obvious our media didn't decide 'ok we'll engage in a little bit of overt propaganda - but just one time!' This is undoubtedly an ongoing trend.
Would you generally believe China's state media take on the protests? I'd hope and assume not. Yet now it is completely clear you equally cannot rely on our media. So how do you aim to form an opinion on Hong Kong protests? Hong Kong citizens who speak fluent English sharing their perspective on western social media? That's certainly not going to be biased, especially not after Twitter and Facebook chose to delete hundreds of thousands of accounts engaged in "inauthentic activity" regarding discussion of Hong Kong. I'm certain they've made sure there's only "authentic activity" now, such as our Reuters' reporting. Wouldn't want any fake news after all.
And so I'm looking to find your "tyranny." What, exactly is it?
When we were going through our multiple red scares in the past, did people ever stop to think... are we in a red scare? Or was it just so normalized that people never even stopped to question themselves? An extradition bill is tyranny, but (just checking the front page) a horrific copyright act bill, government mandated biometric ID tracking, and much more.. are what? Because we live in a democracy they are somehow something different? I mean if that extradition bill is tyranny, I'd take that tyranny a million times over the acts we continue to pass year by year in our government that is "accountable to the people."
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:10PM (9 children)
I read an interesting piece online a few months ago (which I can't find now) which made the point that the US does not have a state-run media, then posed the question that if they did, how would it look any different from what you have now?
Not that I am claiming my country is any different. One of our major media outlets have just begun campaigning for a particular individual to become the leader of the opposition. They will then campaign for him during the General Election next year.
They have done it before.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:05AM (8 children)
Funny how people who ask that sort of question answer it with bullshit (particularly, since they allow that they can figure out somehow that the US doesn't have a state-run media). First, you wouldn't have the huge attacks on Trump and other politicians. You wouldn't have a vast sea of unsanctioned news and opinion sources. You wouldn't have "fake news".
"One". One major media outlet is not "state-run media".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:09PM
I think your interpretation of state media is based on stereotypes instead of reality.
For instance the BBC is state media. Does it simply parrot Boris Johnson's interests? Radio Free Europe [rferl.org]/Asia [rfa.org]/etc are entirely state funded US media outlets built for propaganda. Quite literally, Radio Free Europe was funded by the CIA and used to broadcast propaganda into the USSR. Again, do they simply parrot Trump? Various other organizations, such as NPR, also receive substantial state funding.
State media isn't some well honed propaganda device. It's just another awkward agency of the state filled with contrasts, contradictions and, most of all, incompetence. And no, I don't really think there'd be much difference between what much of our media has turned into, and state media. They already serve as little more than puppets when it comes time for things like our military invasions. Remember Iraq? The evidence is Irrefutable [washingtonpost.com]. The NYTimes chose to take it a step further, Irrefutable and Undeniable [nytimes.com]. Using such strong language in light of evidence that was not only questionable but in fact almost entirely fake is a pretty good indicator of the sort of ineptitude and you get with state media. Ineptitude? The writers of those articles undoubtedly knew that there was a very good chance that the whole WMD thing was bullshit, and the world would discover that soon enough. They could have beat their war drums while still leaving themselves some outs. They didn't, because they're inept and myopic.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:14PM (6 children)
The particular media outlet I am thinking of is in fact owned by the state.
Does it not strike you as odd that a media organisation is campaigning for particular politicians?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:27AM (5 children)
So it's not an example of private media acting as state-run media. Funny how you didn't mention that in your cool story.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 08 2019, @02:25AM (4 children)
It is in fact both, as life outside your weird little bubble is slightly more complex than you might think.
The particular institution is known as a State-owned enterprise. [wikipedia.org]
So yes, they act like a private profit driven company and they pay a dividend to the shareholder who happens to be the taxpayers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:18AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 08 2019, @08:41PM (2 children)
No, it is State owned. It has a board just like any business.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:29AM (1 child)
A lot of government organizations have such things.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday November 10 2019, @06:50PM
Yes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:59AM (8 children)
Even if we were to believe you, we still have the problem that you've mentioned no better source. Once we rule out things like news and polls (as a previous AC suggested), then what's left? The lies of the governments?
At some point, you have to recognize that there's a lot of people protesting (whether violent or not) over things that shouldn't even be an issue. Extradition, for example, is a solved problem throughout the democratic world. What happened in Hong Kong was that the governments of China and Hong Kong tried to create an extradition process for matters that aren't crimes in Hong Kong and shouldn't be crimes in China. That violates a core principle of extradition, that the act is a crime in both countries. Another violation in the democratic world, of course, is that the defendant being extradited should be expected to receive a fair trial in the destination country. Since China doesn't have those, well, they shouldn't expect anyone to be extradited to China at all, even from Hong Kong.
Let's start with your question "Would you generally believe China's state media take on the protests?" Is it not tyranny to lie to the public about people exercising a just right to protest? And most people are pretty much in agreement that China is just looking for an excuse to crack down on these protests. They just haven't found the right secret sauce yet.
The mistake of the scares was not attributing a great deal of malice to players like the USSR or Communist China. Those were for real. Instead, it was blaming innocent people for collaborating with those tyrannies. While there's a bit of that happening today in the US, China is not an innocent party in this.
Because if the US does it, it must be ok? Just because other cultures are imperfect doesn't mean we should ignore the big problems!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:12AM (7 children)
Again, don't you see your own inconsistency? China does something, be it trying to pass unjust laws or lie about protesters or whatever else, it's tyranny? We do something such as pass unjust laws or lie about the protesters and it's something else? People yell tyranny, quite all of its quite powerful connotations, without ever bother to think about why they're using some words for certain actors and different words for other actors, to describe what in many cases are the exact same actions. As for sources on news, we have the best source for information that ever existed - raw unedited footage. As I showed with the shooting you can find such things if you search hard enough, and it doesn't lie - at least as long as you ensure there is sufficient context given to the events you're watching. If you hear about some major travesty, find raw footage of it. The more difficult the footage is to find, the more likely that you're being told, at best, a half-truth.
You've also quite reversed what's happening in Hong Kong. The protesters have been violent, destructive, and engaged in a countless litany of crimes. China has all the justification they could ever want or need. But they've learned from us. Their treatment of the Tiananmen Square protests was similar to our treatment of the civil rights protests. In both cases there was a severe backlash following a hardline approach. They're now snuffing out the Hong Kong protests using the exact same playbook we used to snuff out the Occupy Wallstreet protests. Simply let public opinion turn, make life difficult for the protesters without any disproportionate force, infiltrate the protesters, instigate infighting, push for actions likely to further isolate them from society, so forth and so on.
It's the protesters that want to provoke a violent response. The video of the shooting is clear evidence of this. Somehow the protesters knew there was an isolated police officer and so they stalked him and began to beat him, potentially to death. And they not only continued this after a slew of armed officers arrived but then even began to attack the armed officers as well. They likely believe that if they can provoke a hardline crackdown, that they'll gain international support. And so it's an increasingly typical situation where the government wants to act with restraint while the protesters want the government to turn to overt violence. Even in our own history, do you think we didn't provoke the Boston Massacre? Of course we did. But that doesn't change the fact that the violent response led to a sharp galvanization of public support for the 'Americans' and against the British.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:29PM (6 children)
First, that is tyranny.
Who is "we"? I personally am not a government or media source. I don't pass unjust laws or lie about protesters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:39PM (5 children)
We would be the "west" in general, and the United States in particular. I put "west" in quotes as I would also consider nations such as South Korea or Japan part of the "west" in this reference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:33PM (4 children)
Why can't you just be against tyranny in general, whether the US government or the Chinese government does it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:09PM (3 children)
Because I don't agree that these actions are tyrannical in any way, shape, or form. And I think most people would generally agree except when the vile perpetrator of acts like pushing for extradition agreements happens to come from an 'unfriendly' nation. It invariably comes down to declaring things that we regularly engage in, but would never call tyrannical, are now required to be tyrannical. The most basic way to refute poor logic is to assume something is true and show it leads to a contradiction. Our overly enthusiastic use of words like tyranny is a perfect example of this.
I feel like in a way we're gradually turning into a Monthy Python skit. [youtube.com] However, it's somehow real life.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:17AM (2 children)
We know that China has set up an enormous apparatus to filter and eliminate speech and knowledge it finds inconvenient. That has long been tyranny. Here, Hong Kong is proposing extradition to China, famed for its lack of justice, for all kinds of dubious charges like political speech. That's long been tyranny as well. There is a remarkable hypocrisy here - lies excused, human freedom violated, and attempts in Hong Kong to break law on an institutional scale for their Chinese tyrants. And yet somehow the hypocrisy of the US completely justifies that evil.
Obviously, you have never considered the logical consequences of your hypocrisy. After all, if the US is similarly given a free pass on its stuff because China does it too, then we'll see a quick race to the bottom of human decency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 08 2019, @04:56AM (1 child)
China is famed for injustice and targeting people for all kinds of dubious charges? How in the world is that they have 1/5th our incarceration rate then? It's interesting how often the rhetoric and the facts don't really line up, isn't it?
On the firewall not long ago I'd have agreed with you, but I've gradually come to see that social media is probably even more damaging to a society than many of the things we do strictly control, such as gambling or various drugs. The one and only reason I would never support such a thing in the US is because I do not think our politicians tend to prioritize individual > party > nation. The communist party of China is of course also very motivated by its own interest but I get the perception that the general ordering there is nation > party > individual. I think is a big part of the reason that China has been going into overdrive while much of the rest of the world continues to stagnate. Changes such as filtering in the US would be driven with national interests a distant concern to party interests.
So for instance the CPC does control what can be broadcast on television but instead of requiring just political rants or indoctrination, they require a certain chunk of general educational broadcasting. Imagine if our reality TV or clickbait news occasionally got interrupted for an episode of NOVA? It's possible I'm seeing things with rose colored glasses, but to me this not only seems like a very good idea but one that may ultimately end up being a necessary idea. Or even on recruitment to the CPC. Instead of valuing just blind loyalty, or charisma, or whatever other tertiary skill - they are now primarily focusing on technical skills and knowledge. China has quite a lot of problems, but again is also doing quite a lot of things very right.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:31AM
Why are you asking this question?
Based on whose evidence?
Indeed.
Yet another place where you've bought into the propaganda. Your assertion is ridiculous, not that I think that gambling or "various drugs" are significantly damaging to a society.