Author: expatter

Propaganda media piece from the UK against China. [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-2-28 20:17:16 |Display all floors

the peop

But what about the agenda?

If we look at the main news in the west it is about scandal, sex and murder. Neither can be subscribed to the government. They are facts of life.

But realistically when nations are at war, shouldn’t the news be more focused on that. After all, isn’t that a terrible thing and doesn’t that involve the government?

Do the stories relate to the terrible carnage and body bags, or even individual stories of returning soldiers with limbs missing.  No. The question would therefore be why not?

Certainly, in the case of Vietnam it was years before the press became involved and the nation was calling for an end to the war.  Public demand.

There is a certain logic that if you show negative things the public will be incited to voice opinion and call for change. This would go directly against what the current US government policy and it is and therefore not unreasonable for the press to avoid this. But what about their moral duty?

That cannot really exist, because any media which went against government policy would be sidelined and unable to get news from real sources that were in any way government related. The ‘Elite Theory’ shows that if you are outside of the inner workings then you cannot get the blessings of this group and therefore shunned.

The media may claim to be independent but it still relies on the institutions and its close followers.

To be continued……..

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-2-28 21:26:36 |Display all floors

the peop

If the media cannot focus on government policies and their outcomes that is one thing, but it is also another thing when the media deliberately directs the publics’ attention away from the potential dreadful stories they cannot print to send the focus off in another direction.

That is why I believe that any one incident in China is so widely reported. It takes the internal focus away and places it to an external source.  

It gives a clear enemy and something for the masses to focus their attention on.

If you factor into the picture that countries like the US actually sponsor groups in China who would cause problems then you have a cause and effect in an agenda which not only seeks to distract the public but whose long term goals are division and strife in China.  

Although democracies are killing in the name of freedom and HR, they create a mobocracy (mobile vulgis) through the media to vilify all that is Chinese.

That is what I believe the agenda of the free press and it is in line, or a mirror of government policy.

Cheers

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2010-2-28 22:24:26 |Display all floors
"We can assume that big business and government policy will play straight into the ‘old boys’ network.
A ‘nod and wink policy’ which ensures a mutual benefit within that specific social strata."

That's an incorrect assumption- in fact there's no need to assume, just look at newspapers.  Read the top British newspapers and you will find any number of articles and opinion pieces directly critical of either the governing party, the main opposition party, or both.  You will also find a huge number of reports on the wars, ranging from positive to highly critical.  When you say:

"Do the stories relate to the terrible carnage and body bags, or even individual stories of returning soldiers with limbs missing.  No. "

it sounds like you've never looked at a British newspaper.  In fact, wasn't it announced last year that the number two news story of the decade was the Iraq war (second to the rise of China)?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2010-2-28 22:32:27 |Display all floors
From the Times:
'Behind the bullying, Gordon Brown is a dangerous weirdo'
'British involvement in Iraq war blamed on Blair’s ‘sycophancy’'
From the Guardian:
'Why is our anti-war outrage muted at this Afghan folly?'
'War casualties put UK hospitals under strain – ahead of fresh Afghan offensive'

Any number of similar examples are available from all UK newspapers.  Your assumptions that these newspapers don't talk about the war and support the government are simply wrong.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2010-2-28 22:47:36 |Display all floors
Also, how would mutual benefits even exist?  As you say, the media makes money by reporting scandals- and scandals involving the government are generally the most interesting.  If the UK media was like the Chinese media- full of nothing but praise for the central government and all its policies- nobody would buy it.  Who would willingly pay for advertising?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2010-2-28 23:25:16 |Display all floors

the peop

Originally posted by thepeop at 2010-2-28 22:45
My posts are getting stuck- I'll try a quick version:

1. UK newspapers are full of news about the wars- including highly negative ones, from before they began.  Try looking at some of them.
2.  ...



Yes, this does seem to have come to a crawl.

First, maybe I should apologise for making you think these replies were solely about the U.K.

In using the expressions, 'western media' and 'war', I had assumed that you would also think of America, which plays the far larger part in the innuendo I have expressed.

1. Thank you for your advice here I will certainly try to do that. And I concur with what you say.
It is amazing in a democracy that so many people can have no say.

2. I cannot see that you proved anything in that you would have to take a wider picture and specifically including the U.S to make any assumption. It might be a good idea if you read some U.S papers. Try looking at some of them.

I expressed the idea that the media was in line with the 'Elite Theory' and I can see that you have not looked at this.

Basically, it expresses the idea that just to be a democratic candidate you need backing and money. If you have neither then you do not have a chance unless there is something out of the ordinary happening. In other words, if you don't fit the agenda of the money and are not compliant to it then you will not succeed.

I can see that you believe that western democratic leaders are pure and uninfluenced by the power around them.

Which again coincidentally is money.

You would note that the bureaucratic departments never change, just the parties in power whose policies are remarkably alike.

Do voters really need a choice when there is so little to choose from?

If you are looking for solid proof by the way.
I will be unable to prove it as unfortunately, any 'old boys network' would never be so silly as to provide it.

If you really believe that democracy functions free from the agenda of money and greed, then it would be irrational of me to try and convince you otherwise.

I am not a preacher, I just make observations and sometimes these consist of assumptions.

Curious.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2010-2-28 23:47:41 |Display all floors
You're both putting words into my mouth and changing the topic: I don't believe that western leaders are pure and uninfluenced- again, if you read some newspapers you'll see that that's an extremely uncommon (maybe nonexistent) opinion.  But we're not talking about leaders, we're talking about the media.

I assumed that when you said 'western media' you were talking about the media of 'the west' as a whole, instead of just the USA. I'll have a look at the USA, but I believe it won't be difficult to find direct criticisms of political leaders and policy.

"Basically, it expresses the idea that just to be a democratic candidate you need backing and money. If you have neither then you do not have a chance unless there is something out of the ordinary happening. In other words, if you don't fit the agenda of the money and are not compliant to it then you will not succeed."

This seems logical, although different types of 'money' will obviously have different agendas, but what does it mean for the media?  As I said, the fact that UK candidates need backing (although much less so than in the USA) doesn't mean that the newspapers are not free to attack them or their policies.  So what is your point?

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.