> How can I belive you when you say "they haven't anticipated obvious questions", have you bothered to search the rest of the BBC or are we still judging the entire organisation from one show?
Well, I *am* talking specifically about this show since it's the most recently obvious example, but it is just one data point since I have watched plenty of BBC shows. I've not seen any shows about British atrocities that I can recall. Perhaps it's just my memory - or perhaps they've done them at times when I don't have access to their shows - I'm rarely in the UK these days. Perhaps I should restrict my judgement to just Panorama, but I notice other comments on the BBC news in general where they just don't seem to ask the obvious questions.
> they drove tanks into the crowd
Well, that's the first I've heard of *that* - certainly no video. The BBC reporters were talking of the army opening fire on the crown - it was Kate Adie (sp?), IIRC. I would certainly be interesting in hearing more about that. I'll search for some of that, of course, but if you have any recommendations, don't be shy.
Reading the comments, it seems I am not alone in seeing the bias in it, and the lack of *conclusive* investigation.
Actually, it seemed to me that they did investigate how the Chinese trucks and aircraft ended up there and that they were sold and delivered prior to the arms embargo, so that's to their credit. However, they still concluded that China were somehow to blame for all the atrocities rather than the Sudanese - just look at the title of the film "China's secret war.".
They also clearly (to me at least) stated that they went in to only look for Chinese arms - not to look to see who is supplying arms, so, like I said, I have to wonder who is supplying the rest of them.
If they had just gone in to see where the Sudanese were getting their arms, then I might come to the same conclusion as you - ie that they are simply biased against arms trade - but that isn't the case with this particular show. Perhaps it is some subset of the BBC that is biased in this way - I guess that's the natue of some shows such as panorama since they're just trying to shock people.
Your point on transparency has some merit, I guess. Though there's no reason why they should let reporters into the region since said reporters have a history of reporting in a biased manner. This is what has become obvious to me since I left China. They just apply their own interpretation to what they see and don't bother to entertain the idea that there might be some history that might explain what is happening or that it might be just a little more complicated than they think.
They also didn't let media around in SiChuan during the earthquake. The fact is, it causes problems. There are many reasons, some of them are even good reasons. Sure, it's reason to be suspicious, but I wouldn't necessarily draw any solid conclusion.
I would be interested in a series by the BBC about the atrocities perpetrated by the British, and all the problems their (our, since I'm British) empire-building has caused - which is part of the history of the Tibet problem too, btw, though much more complicated than just that.
I agree that what you call 'critical thinking' is a skill, and it's actually quite interesting. I can't help but come to the conclusion that we can never come to a conclusion about anything. The closest I can come to being certain is being there myself when whatever happens happens, but even then it is easy to misinterpret.
I had been brought up in the west with the opinion that the Tian'anmen Square events were some sort of 'massacre', and yet, when I try to find evidence of mass shootings, all I can find is evidence to the contrary. Even the film clips I found were more about violence by the demonstrators rather than the 'armed' forces (eg the BBC clips showing demonstrators burning soldiers alive). Other reports were of the army laying down their weapons and demonstrators taking them. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see that it could be either side that opens fire first and so start a gun fight - which wouldn't be the same as the order coming down 'from on high' to massacre them all, or whatever. This has made me less sure of what I've been told. It seems another example of the media and 'the west' in general jumping to conclusions simply because the country has a communist government.
Yes, I don't trust the Chinese governemnt either, especially at the local level where the corruption is closer to home - though I don't really have any experience of anything there, so perhaps that is *my* anti-Chinese gov. bias in play....but I now seriously question anything that the media, including (esp) the BBC, tell me. I'm not sure I did question them so obviously before - I think it's me that has changed, but I'm not sure about that; perhaps the BBC has changed (for the w
I think I did. It is for money and/or some desire to point the finger; evidence of bias within the bbc.
I mean, I could understand trying to find out where the sudanese get their arms from, but they explicitly went in with the objective of finding evidence to blame the chinese. They found very little evidence of anything, and yet still found that conclusive. It seemed clearly biased to me. I mean, almost everything is made in china these days, even trucks/lorries. Where do the rest of their weapons come from?
Well, yes, but I have to wonder why the RIAA's search has to end at the ISP? It's common practice to do this, so their search for the culprit should continue.
For a free year long commitment, they will send you a free wifi router that will run a second wifi network 'on the side' for other subscribers to use when they're away from home. There's a google map of coverage somewhere on their site, but I can't find it right away...
> in China, the media is controlled to protect the CCP and maintain control of the populous through mis-information
That's not my experience. It's more like they know to avoid certain topics. I was told that it's very different to how it used to be too - it's now all kind of unwritten, unlike a decade or so ago when it was a much more direct level of control.
...but, yes, media should be questioned and distrusted at all times, IMO - they just don't put the effort in to find the real history behind what they find. They're just lazy now - want quite results.
I recall a recent BBC story where they were searching for Chinese arms in Dafur. I mean, they weren't looking for arms from anywhere else. Eventually, after much effort, they found a couple of lorries (trucks), and they called that a success. Pathetic.
To be fair, they did 'discover' that the Chinese had sold them fighter jets before the embargo, which they said was understandable, but that the Chinese were still training them.
I find myself with many questions: 1) is that all? 2) did they 'sell' the training with the jets and so it's also prior to the embargo, 3) what about all the other weapons that the Sudanese were using?
I am not the most well educated person, especially when it comes to politics and such like, but if *I'm* coming up with these questions, surely they must too; but they weren't addressed, so I ended up writing the report off as biased.
I find it happens a lot these days. They come to a 'conclusion' before all the (obvious) questions are answered.
1) the event wasn't near the olympic stadium....it was from Beijing city up to the great wall. 2) the people who were claimed to 'live' where the stadia were built were most likely migrants that were squatting there illegally - it is very common in BJ. 3) there *are* locals living right near the main stadium - there are blocks of flats right next to the village occupied by locals. The flats are very similar to the one I lived in until a couple of months ago. 4) Do you *really* believe what you're shown/told on the news? If living in China has taught me one thing, it's to question what you're told. I thought that I knew this before I went there...but now I am back in 'the west', I find the amount of (apparent) BS on the news (particularly the BBC) quite disgusting - it seems they go knowing what to look for and if they find it, they don't look for reasonable (or even unreasonable, but culturally different) explanations...they just go 'ooh, look at the aweful Chinese; aren't they bad'. It's pathetic, sometimes (seems to be getting better now the games are actually running though).
All, my opinion though...and I seem to be in a minority in this respect on/., so I guess I'll be moderated troll or flamebait, because that's how people will respond....which isn't my fault.
I've seen more tv programmes (inc news) about Chinese culture in the last week (controversial and not) than most of my life. This has to have a positive effect on the west understanding China generally.
I watched it on tv too, and wasn't surprised that, on some parts of the course, there were no people there - I've been there, and it's quite a difficult place to get to even when the roads are open...of course, the roads would be closed for the races.
What are you mods thinking?? Just because someone thinks differently to Americans. It *is* possible for Americans to be wrong you know; even the majority of them.
In the UK, we go with 'lapland', which I always thought of as Finland, but it seems the area 'lapland' has parts in each of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia(?).
> Aha! There is your problem. It's: call center == help desk, otherwise your test will always return true; a self fulfilling test, if you will.
In what language?
IINM, 'call center = help desk' would 'return' the value of whatever 'help desk' is. If 'help desk' is zero, then it'll be 'the same as' false, in some languages, at least.
Furthermore, in my experience, most help desks *do* equal zero.
> No one I know thinks he comes from Lapland. In Denmark we all believe he lives in Greenland.
Now that *is* interesting...:) This prompted me to take a look in wikipedia to see if it says where the different countries around the (western) world think he's from; but my cursory search didn't turn up anything:|
> Meh. They're perfect bed fellows and we all know it. They both excel at exploiting an ignorant public.
No, we don't all know it.
In fact, a large proportion of China consider that it is people in western countries that are the ignorant ones. Justifiably, IMO.
How people can just accept what they read and are shown on TV news as 'fact' is quite amazing? I think people in the west have lost the ability to question the truth of what they're shown. I'm even embarrassed by my own parents, particularly about the Tibet thing - they don't seem to be aware of the history the English (my family is English) have in that region and the history in general. All they see is people dressed as monks (some of whom are, to Chinese people, clearly *not* Tibetan) being all 'peaceful'. They don't realize that the monks were the ruling class (cast?) there (they were given local authority by the Beijing gov.), had developed their own fighting army, and would treat the peasants as slaves and generally really poorly. If I were the Chinese gov. I'd want to cancel the authority I'd given them too since it'd clearly been abused (like in other places).
I know everyone isn't as unquestioning, but it's pretty much true that people are brought up in a world where 'communism' is automatically bad (no matter what form it takes). People didn't used to just blindly trust what they saw on TV news, but it seems like people don't question what they're told these days - what's changed?
The fact is, there's a *lot* of history in what has happened there, and so it is a lot more complicated than can be shown on a few news broadcasts.
Well, that's my opinion anyway. Take it or leave it. I suspect you'll do the latter.
> I wonder if MediaSentry is aware of the Chinese government's track record?
Like the excellent 'rescue' of the people hit by the recent SiChuan earthquake? That efficiency and scale of that effort puts many countries efforts in similar situations to shame IMO.
It's not all bad - which is something I have trouble saying about the RIAA, though the comparison in poor taste, IMO.
> more important than St. Nick is 'an area thought to contain one-fifth of the world's undiscovered and recoverable oil and gas resources,
Eh? "More important"?? You have some balls to say that. It's not *that* far from Christmas you know. I think you'll be on the 'naughty' list this year.
In any case, how come people in the US think he comes from the North Pole. Everyone else I've spoken to thinks he comes from Lapland. Perhaps it's a symptom of the US population traveling so little and, well, Lapland *is* pretty close to the North Pole.
Slashdot Mirror
> How can I belive you when you say "they haven't anticipated obvious questions", have you bothered to search the rest of the BBC or are we still judging the entire organisation from one show?
Well, I *am* talking specifically about this show since it's the most recently obvious example, but it is just one data point since I have watched plenty of BBC shows. I've not seen any shows about British atrocities that I can recall. Perhaps it's just my memory - or perhaps they've done them at times when I don't have access to their shows - I'm rarely in the UK these days. Perhaps I should restrict my judgement to just Panorama, but I notice other comments on the BBC news in general where they just don't seem to ask the obvious questions.
> they drove tanks into the crowd
Well, that's the first I've heard of *that* - certainly no video. The BBC reporters were talking of the army opening fire on the crown - it was Kate Adie (sp?), IIRC. I would certainly be interesting in hearing more about that. I'll search for some of that, of course, but if you have any recommendations, don't be shy.
> Since you haven't provided a link
I'm pretty sure it was this one : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7493934.stm
Reading the comments, it seems I am not alone in seeing the bias in it, and the lack of *conclusive* investigation.
Actually, it seemed to me that they did investigate how the Chinese trucks and aircraft ended up there and that they were sold and delivered prior to the arms embargo, so that's to their credit. However, they still concluded that China were somehow to blame for all the atrocities rather than the Sudanese - just look at the title of the film "China's secret war.".
They also clearly (to me at least) stated that they went in to only look for Chinese arms - not to look to see who is supplying arms, so, like I said, I have to wonder who is supplying the rest of them.
If they had just gone in to see where the Sudanese were getting their arms, then I might come to the same conclusion as you - ie that they are simply biased against arms trade - but that isn't the case with this particular show. Perhaps it is some subset of the BBC that is biased in this way - I guess that's the natue of some shows such as panorama since they're just trying to shock people.
Your point on transparency has some merit, I guess. Though there's no reason why they should let reporters into the region since said reporters have a history of reporting in a biased manner. This is what has become obvious to me since I left China. They just apply their own interpretation to what they see and don't bother to entertain the idea that there might be some history that might explain what is happening or that it might be just a little more complicated than they think.
They also didn't let media around in SiChuan during the earthquake. The fact is, it causes problems. There are many reasons, some of them are even good reasons. Sure, it's reason to be suspicious, but I wouldn't necessarily draw any solid conclusion.
I would be interested in a series by the BBC about the atrocities perpetrated by the British, and all the problems their (our, since I'm British) empire-building has caused - which is part of the history of the Tibet problem too, btw, though much more complicated than just that.
I agree that what you call 'critical thinking' is a skill, and it's actually quite interesting. I can't help but come to the conclusion that we can never come to a conclusion about anything. The closest I can come to being certain is being there myself when whatever happens happens, but even then it is easy to misinterpret.
I had been brought up in the west with the opinion that the Tian'anmen Square events were some sort of 'massacre', and yet, when I try to find evidence of mass shootings, all I can find is evidence to the contrary. Even the film clips I found were more about violence by the demonstrators rather than the 'armed' forces (eg the BBC clips showing demonstrators burning soldiers alive). Other reports were of the army laying down their weapons and demonstrators taking them. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see that it could be either side that opens fire first and so start a gun fight - which wouldn't be the same as the order coming down 'from on high' to massacre them all, or whatever. This has made me less sure of what I've been told. It seems another example of the media and 'the west' in general jumping to conclusions simply because the country has a communist government.
Yes, I don't trust the Chinese governemnt either, especially at the local level where the corruption is closer to home - though I don't really have any experience of anything there, so perhaps that is *my* anti-Chinese gov. bias in play. ...but I now seriously question anything that the media, including (esp) the BBC, tell me. I'm not sure I did question them so obviously before - I think it's me that has changed, but I'm not sure about that; perhaps the BBC has changed (for the w
> and not being able to download music
I assume they didn't mean iTunes or any of the other *obviously* legal download services.
I think I did. It is for money and/or some desire to point the finger; evidence of bias within the bbc.
I mean, I could understand trying to find out where the sudanese get their arms from, but they explicitly went in with the objective of finding evidence to blame the chinese. They found very little evidence of anything, and yet still found that conclusive. It seemed clearly biased to me. I mean, almost everything is made in china these days, even trucks/lorries. Where do the rest of their weapons come from?
Dunno...it seems to be flash which wants to open another window, which I don't want it to; and can't be bothered to find another link.
However, their top level flash image seems to suggest the router costs money. Wippies doesn't cost anything, IINM.
Well, yes, but I have to wonder why the RIAA's search has to end at the ISP? It's common practice to do this, so their search for the culprit should continue.
However, that's no defense for the legal costs.
How did you find out what they were downloading?
> but there's nothing altruistic about this subscribers-only network
Really?
It's free to join...you just have to share yours too.
Clearly it's not the same as an open network, but it's still quite altruistic, IMO.
I do.
There's even an organisation around where I live/work that promotes it. It's called wippies :
http://www.wippies.com/www.phtml
For a free year long commitment, they will send you a free wifi router that will run a second wifi network 'on the side' for other subscribers to use when they're away from home. There's a google map of coverage somewhere on their site, but I can't find it right away...
> in China, the media is controlled to protect the CCP and maintain control of the populous through mis-information
That's not my experience. It's more like they know to avoid certain topics. I was told that it's very different to how it used to be too - it's now all kind of unwritten, unlike a decade or so ago when it was a much more direct level of control.
I recall a recent BBC story where they were searching for Chinese arms in Dafur. I mean, they weren't looking for arms from anywhere else. Eventually, after much effort, they found a couple of lorries (trucks), and they called that a success. Pathetic.
To be fair, they did 'discover' that the Chinese had sold them fighter jets before the embargo, which they said was understandable, but that the Chinese were still training them.
I find myself with many questions: 1) is that all? 2) did they 'sell' the training with the jets and so it's also prior to the embargo, 3) what about all the other weapons that the Sudanese were using?
I am not the most well educated person, especially when it comes to politics and such like, but if *I'm* coming up with these questions, surely they must too; but they weren't addressed, so I ended up writing the report off as biased.
I find it happens a lot these days. They come to a 'conclusion' before all the (obvious) questions are answered.
1) the event wasn't near the olympic stadium....it was from Beijing city up to the great wall.
2) the people who were claimed to 'live' where the stadia were built were most likely migrants that were squatting there illegally - it is very common in BJ.
3) there *are* locals living right near the main stadium - there are blocks of flats right next to the village occupied by locals. The flats are very similar to the one I lived in until a couple of months ago.
4) Do you *really* believe what you're shown/told on the news? If living in China has taught me one thing, it's to question what you're told. I thought that I knew this before I went there...but now I am back in 'the west', I find the amount of (apparent) BS on the news (particularly the BBC) quite disgusting - it seems they go knowing what to look for and if they find it, they don't look for reasonable (or even unreasonable, but culturally different) explanations...they just go 'ooh, look at the aweful Chinese; aren't they bad'. It's pathetic, sometimes (seems to be getting better now the games are actually running though).
All, my opinion though...and I seem to be in a minority in this respect on /., so I guess I'll be moderated troll or flamebait, because that's how people will respond....which isn't my fault.
I think it's more than that in this case.
I've seen more tv programmes (inc news) about Chinese culture in the last week (controversial and not) than most of my life. This has to have a positive effect on the west understanding China generally.
I watched it on tv too, and wasn't surprised that, on some parts of the course, there were no people there - I've been there, and it's quite a difficult place to get to even when the roads are open...of course, the roads would be closed for the races.
I wonder what the locals do....
I think the answer might be a bit closer to home - ref Tokyo/Hiroshima/Nagaski/Vietnam, and I'm sure plenty of other places.
Of course, other countries did similar things too, not least the British against Nazi Germany (and vice versa).
Oh, right - those countries aren't communist, so it must be ok.
oh, right. sorry.
> You set up the question just so you could answer, didn't you?
Funny?
What's wrong with you moderators? You're all sick.
Troll??
What are you mods thinking?? Just because someone thinks differently to Americans. It *is* possible for Americans to be wrong you know; even the majority of them.
Sigh.
Flamebait???
Wow, some people (Americans, particularly) can't take an opposite point of view.
Interesting...I must have read 'over' that part.
In the UK, we go with 'lapland', which I always thought of as Finland, but it seems the area 'lapland' has parts in each of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia(?).
> Aha! There is your problem. It's: call center == help desk, otherwise your test will always return true; a self fulfilling test, if you will.
In what language?
IINM, 'call center = help desk' would 'return' the value of whatever 'help desk' is. If 'help desk' is zero, then it'll be 'the same as' false, in some languages, at least.
Furthermore, in my experience, most help desks *do* equal zero.
> No one I know thinks he comes from Lapland. In Denmark we all believe he lives in Greenland.
Now that *is* interesting... :) This prompted me to take a look in wikipedia to see if it says where the different countries around the (western) world think he's from; but my cursory search didn't turn up anything :|
> That is, if we believe in him at all.
Gasp.
Wash your mouth out - there are children present.
> Meh. They're perfect bed fellows and we all know it. They both excel at exploiting an ignorant public.
No, we don't all know it.
In fact, a large proportion of China consider that it is people in western countries that are the ignorant ones. Justifiably, IMO.
How people can just accept what they read and are shown on TV news as 'fact' is quite amazing? I think people in the west have lost the ability to question the truth of what they're shown. I'm even embarrassed by my own parents, particularly about the Tibet thing - they don't seem to be aware of the history the English (my family is English) have in that region and the history in general. All they see is people dressed as monks (some of whom are, to Chinese people, clearly *not* Tibetan) being all 'peaceful'. They don't realize that the monks were the ruling class (cast?) there (they were given local authority by the Beijing gov.), had developed their own fighting army, and would treat the peasants as slaves and generally really poorly. If I were the Chinese gov. I'd want to cancel the authority I'd given them too since it'd clearly been abused (like in other places).
I know everyone isn't as unquestioning, but it's pretty much true that people are brought up in a world where 'communism' is automatically bad (no matter what form it takes). People didn't used to just blindly trust what they saw on TV news, but it seems like people don't question what they're told these days - what's changed?
The fact is, there's a *lot* of history in what has happened there, and so it is a lot more complicated than can be shown on a few news broadcasts.
Well, that's my opinion anyway. Take it or leave it. I suspect you'll do the latter.
> I wonder if MediaSentry is aware of the Chinese government's track record?
Like the excellent 'rescue' of the people hit by the recent SiChuan earthquake? That efficiency and scale of that effort puts many countries efforts in similar situations to shame IMO.
It's not all bad - which is something I have trouble saying about the RIAA, though the comparison in poor taste, IMO.
> Funny, that.
In what way, is this 'funny'? I'd call it entirely predictable and consistent with, well, pretty much all countries.
> more important than St. Nick is 'an area thought to contain one-fifth of the world's undiscovered and recoverable oil and gas resources,
Eh? "More important"?? You have some balls to say that. It's not *that* far from Christmas you know. I think you'll be on the 'naughty' list this year.
In any case, how come people in the US think he comes from the North Pole. Everyone else I've spoken to thinks he comes from Lapland. Perhaps it's a symptom of the US population traveling so little and, well, Lapland *is* pretty close to the North Pole.