Slashdot Mirror
China Announces Launch-Success Details — Before Launch
Ironsides writes "After faking the fireworks at the Olympics this year, one would have thought China had learned their lesson. Now, it appears they announced the success of their manned space mission before liftoff even occured, complete with dialogue."
They said it would be open, honest, and transparent so as to let everyone get a glimpse into this historic achievement as a gesture of kindness toward the world. I actually thought about watching it for a few seconds, because there is only so much I thought they could think they could get away with. I guess I needed another reminder.
Don't news agencies prepare stories before it happens so they can be published quickly? There was that article about Steve Jobs' demise which obviously did not happen.
If they're lying about their success (and yes, even if the mission turns out to be a success, they're still lying by announcing it early) then what else are they lying about?
For all we know dozens of taikonauts have died or been wounded in the making of China's space program.
They wouldn't tell us if it was the case.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This would be funny if it wasn't so disheartening that a government so glibly warps reality.
Yeah, but as others have pointed out, such scripted articles and speeches don't include supposed dialog from the future.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
the sad thing is, this deception was so unnecessary. i mean, obviously they didn't mean to post the article until after the launch. and in all likelihood the launch will probably be success, and even if the launch weren't people would eventually find out.
so why go through the trouble to write fake news about a space mission that you're planning on carrying out anyway? that defeats the purpose doesn't it?
Yes, and the obituary of every major public figure has already been written as well. Such prep pieces are responsible practice for newspapers that have to be ready on-the-spot.
This wasn't one of those pieces. This was an entire narrative complete with faked dialogue and details, such as being complete ahead of schedule. This wasn't preparation -- this was deception.
Unfortunately, lately we seem to have absolutely no room to talk, given the practices of our own "You-have-to-give-me-700-billion-dollars-right-now-no-questions-asked-or-there-will-be-disaster" government.
"You could just as easily be just as shocked at a Presidential candidate accidentally releasing both a victory speech and a concession speech before knowing the outcome of an election. It's not really news, it's just humorous that it was posted (way) too prematurely."
Only if it included the exact vote totals.
Yes, the dialogue inclusion is the particularly bad part about this. And it coming from a place that is known to censor things it does not like, lie about what it does, and generally be evil. IN isolation it would be seen as funny. In this case it is part of a pattern. That is what sets it apart from the occasional news gaffe of releasing the wrong story ("DEWEY WINS!").
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
It's always weird when people defend China, and point out problems and mistakes democratic nations have made to show how we are just as bad, even though the scope and scale are entirely different. It borders on the delusional.
World: You lied to me
China: It wasn't lies, it was just... bullshit
Where we the United States fall short in scale, it is only through lack of means, not lack of will. For a tip-of-the-iceberg set of examples: Abu Ghraib, the Phillipine-American war, our machinations in Latin America, our overthrow of the government of Iran (and we wonder why they hate us?), internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War...I could go on and on, but the point, I believe has been made. To what degree that the world has been affected by the actions of the United States vs. the actions of China, it is to our great credit that we could even consider asking the question of whether we have done more good than evil. As far as evildoers go, probably the only thing that cannot be ascribed to us is institutionalized genocide.
But hey, you didn't even refer to the United States in specific, I see. Add institutionalized genocide back on the list, and shut the fuck up about anything, but anything that non-Western world has done.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The same happened here. The "faked" dialogue was nothing more than dummy text.
The Chinese never heard of lorem ipsum??
Either way, these samples have all been independently tested to prove that they were not from the planet Earth. If they can fly rocks back, they sure as hell can fly back astronauts. Furthermore, every one of the conspiracy theorists theories have been thoroughly debunked. There is no smoking gun. The van allen radiation belts would not have had much impact since their trajectory mostly avoided them and they passed through them in a very short period of time. The shuttle has passed through them at least once with no ill effects. Not everything you read is true I'm afraid.
zosxavius photography
The story about the fireworks can be found here for those interested BTW.
Some consider China a threat. When ruled by ideology, group think, and the lowest common denominator, this is what you get.
May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
NBC commentators said during the scene: "Your looking at a cinematic device, employed by Zhang Yimou here. This is actually almost animation. "
What's part of that didn't you understand? Additionally, if that wasn't clear, it's hardly the fault of the Chinese that the commentators didn't make it clear for you.
I didn't actually watch the opening ceremonies. I'm not a big pageantry fan. If they made a comment that that's what was being done, then I don't see what the fuss was about, but all the articles I read in the news gave the impression that that wasn't mentioned.
However, if those were the words spoken, then that's not very clear at all. A "cinematic device" could mean practically anything -- from an admission of computer-edited broadcast to a description of "real, live" special effects on the ground like one would use in making a non-CGFX movie to a commentary on the way he was telling the story in the pageant, and "actually almost animation" makes it seems like it's not actually animation. Do you see how ambiguous those words are and why people might've been confused?
Numerous people have pointed out this is probably either filler dialog or scripted dialog that is expected to be said, a practice employed by media outlets around the world. Why do you feel the need to ignore this and jump to the conclusion of deception?
A) Because being "filler" or "scripted" dialog in no way makes this not deception -- in fact that makes it explicitly deception.
B) "All the cool kids do it too!" is no defense for any kind of wrongdoing.
C) Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that we don't *like* the practice of faking dialog and presenting it to the public as real, no matter the motivations behind it.
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)? Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
Doing a little prep-work for a final article is one thing. Putting the words into the mouths of real people connected with real historical events and passing them off as the truth is another.
Do we really live in such a cynical, post-truth world that this doesn't matter at all to you?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Chinese media writing the news before it happens can be compared with US media writing the news before it happens.
No it can't, because the state doesn't own the media in the US.
i happen to be ethnically Chinese (1.5th generation immigrant from Taiwan), and i can tell you that you're still missing the point--and making a complete ass of yourself.
the U.S. has nothing in common with China?
let's see, China has a market economy, and so does the U.S. ...
China has an army, navy, air force, police force and fire fighters, as does the U.S.
China has McDonalds--hrmm... i think the U.S. has that too.
China has hosted the Olympics, and what a coincidence, so has the U.S.
China exports tons of weapons, just as the U.S. does.
China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and so has--oh wait, nope, you're right about that one.
but neither China nor the U.S. recognize Taiwan as an independent country.*
China imports a shit ton of oil each year, so does the U.S.
Chinese government leaders are corrupt, so are U.S. leaders.
China has nationalists and dissidents, so does the U.S.
China has a privileged elite and a disenfranchised poor, so does the U.S.
China has membership in the IMF, just as the U.S. does.
China has a stock market, just as the U.S. does.
and you're accusing other people of being deluded?
*-being Taiwanese and my Dad being very pro-Taiwanese independence, i was raised to despise China. but even i wouldn't make such blatant hyperboles and blanket generalizations about China.
as i said, grow up. and learn to stop viewing the world in black & whites.
No, THEY didn't, your media outlet did.
How did you watch the games, by Chinese broadcast, or by your own country's broadcaster? I watched the intro on Australian, Canadian and American networks and got different views of the opening ceremonies.
One of those even bothered to point out that the footsteps were taped beforehand and given to the outlets as pre-made footage to be played.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The difference between dummy text and "deception" is that the dummy text is not supposed to end up published. It seems likely that this article was published by accident, which makes it likely that this is in fact dummy text. I did not read any part of the parent's post that defended the publishing of propaganda.
Your argument is known as "begging the question."
1) Dummy text and deception differ in that dummy text isn't intended to be published.
2) The article was accidentally published.
3) Therefore the text in the article was dummy text and can't be an attempt at deception.
That's nonsense. You presuppose that scripted events can't be accidentally released and that the accidental release of the article proves that it's not deliberate falsehood. Your logic is built on a foundation of sand.
Just because the article was published by accident doesn't mean that what's in the article isn't propaganda that was going to go out later if the accident hadn't occurred. The level of specific detail -- including conversations and comments on the timing of events -- suggest a finished story, reporting on facts that could not be determined until after the events actually happened. Frankly, the effort at scripting the story before it happened smacks of a disregard for what would come later.
If they'd published it after the launch, most people would not have known -- after all, the conversations between the craft and ground control are unlikely to be independently recorded by observers and double-checked. Fact is, there's little chance they would've gotten caught, so why not fake things? Only their slip in publishing let people know that it was going on.
Frankly, we have every reason to be suspicious of a state-run newspaper in an autocratic country reporting on events deeply tied up in national pride.
Perhaps you wrote your reply in advance, not reading what you replied to, and accidentally posted it.
Cute. Do they still give gold stars for cleverness at your grade level?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Why do you still use reason to argue with irrational people. This has never worked.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
"China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and so has--oh wait, nope, you're right about that one."
Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and adhering to the Kyoto Protocol are two very different things. No intelligent person can sit there and tell me that China is going to take the hit to their burgeoning industrial machine to fulfill what the Kyoto Protocol set out to accomplish.