Submitted by Pierri (not verified) on Sat, 29/03/2008 - 14:05.
"You have to take into account that they don't have access to anything that contradicts this stuff," - as if everyone else has it.
I live in Brazil and ALL I see in the media coverage, TV, newspapers and internet, here and elsewhere, is "Communist China bad (always with emphasis on "communist"), Tibetans, good."
It is a lie to say that having access leads to a more valid opinion, because we do NOT spend our days searching the sources for something that contradicts what the TV set is showing. That´s the logical fallacy the defenders of "freedom of speech" (of the media corporations - what other exist?) always commit, and those corporations benefit from.
That´s what allow CNN to write it´s headlines in a way to direct the reader to condemn China, as well as to crop images to support them.
What leads to a more solid opinion on anything is having those media outlets show all the opinions about it, and not letting them display what they want, the way they want, and let the viewer look for the other sides somewhere else.
Few westerners can honestly say who is right and who is wrong re: Tibet riots, because we have only seen one side of the issue, and every mention of the other side is presented as an official apology from the Chinese government - which has always been portrayed as not trustworthy and whose accounts are to be taken with a ton of salt.
Private censorship exist too
Submitted by Pierri (not verified) on Sat, 29/03/2008 - 14:05."You have to take into account that they don't have access to anything that contradicts this stuff," - as if everyone else has it.
I live in Brazil and ALL I see in the media coverage, TV, newspapers and internet, here and elsewhere, is "Communist China bad (always with emphasis on "communist"), Tibetans, good."
It is a lie to say that having access leads to a more valid opinion, because we do NOT spend our days searching the sources for something that contradicts what the TV set is showing. That´s the logical fallacy the defenders of "freedom of speech" (of the media corporations - what other exist?) always commit, and those corporations benefit from.
That´s what allow CNN to write it´s headlines in a way to direct the reader to condemn China, as well as to crop images to support them.
What leads to a more solid opinion on anything is having those media outlets show all the opinions about it, and not letting them display what they want, the way they want, and let the viewer look for the other sides somewhere else.
Few westerners can honestly say who is right and who is wrong re: Tibet riots, because we have only seen one side of the issue, and every mention of the other side is presented as an official apology from the Chinese government - which has always been portrayed as not trustworthy and whose accounts are to be taken with a ton of salt.
Unregistered user