1,500 is not thousands of. There was a variety of organizations reporting it when it happened. LATimes, Huffington Post, Reuters... A simple google news search provides it, and now the news is about Chinese lawyers suing CNN for 1.5 billion. http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-...irefox-a&tab=wn&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1151307847 The question is...if the Chinese people, thousands of them, started protesting the Chinese government in China, would there be news coverage of it? Would others brand them as traitors or heroes? Likely traitors because protesting before the Olympics means you're under the influence of the CIA.
I never said the number was 1,500. It is hard to give an accurate figure on a protest like this. The AP report I quoted in this threads said police estimated 2,000-5,000. Is my using "thousands of" way too off? I never said there was no report at all. I was just wondering why those TV did not show it while they could spend a good hour live coverage of police chasing a stolen car. The rest you wrote is is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not about PRC,CIA. It is about US media coverage.
I guess that means US media coverage is held to a higher standard than Chinese media coverage. Maybe CNN did show it, but you happened to miss it. Again, this incident is still getting coverage with the lawsuit hanging over CNN's heads. Combined with protests elsewhere, there's media attention on "angry Chinese". This is far from buried.
Be careful what you say. US media coverage is held to a higher standard than Chinese media coverage by default. At least that is what the western media want us to beleive.
If you think the Chinese media can be held to a higher standard, then the Western media shouldn't be an excuse against it. I'm not sure how Cafferty or Ted Turner is oppressing the Chinese masses. Then again, I don't practice voodoo.
Uh... As another poster noted there were not thousands of protestors and if it deserves TV coverage that isn't a fact but an opinion. Yes that's a fact and its a fact that I'm having wonton noodle soup for lunch none of that is in disagreement. Considering the statement was that "the leaders" logically it would follow that a counter protest would be seen as support of the leaders since those were who Cafferty insulted. HOw is it irrelevant? We agree on the facts. The protests was reported and the people were protesting Cafferty's remarks. Are you saying those are irrelevant? You're mistaking opinion for facts.
You are correct that the report estimates it between 2,000 and 5,000 so yes there were thousands of protestors. That said it is still a fact it was reported and nothing you have posted counters that. You're still arguing your opinion that it should've gotten more coverage and not a fact that it wasn't.
No, I do not hold higher standard for Chinese media. I was just saying the western media are not as objective as they claim they are. Slightly off topic, I think Chinese media are getting more and more objective while Western media are getting more and more skillful at fooling around.
I don't think that's a big surprise to people on here. We get stories of the Pentagon influencing the media, counterclaims that the NYTimes is a liberal anti-US publication, etc... For whatever reasons, many Americans don't openly trust the media as you might think.
Since you take it back in the next reply, we are good here. No argument here. Now, that is opinion. Let me break it down for you: Cafferty said the insult was directed to the "leaders" is a fact. protesters beleive it was directed to all Chinese is a fact. protesters protested on what they beleive is a fact. the protest is to support "the leaders" is an opinion. Are you with me? "irrevelant" was specificly replied to how you think you are not insulted with regard to Cafferty's words. It is irrelevant to the thread which is about the media coverage of protest(fact). I am sorry, who were mistaking opinion for facts?
As usual, you are clearly misinformed when you say anyone who criticizes the government is thrown in jail. It's such an outdated opinion that is not even worth debate. bigguandonggg? LOL ... what the heck is that? I was not from that part of China. You are wrong again. The sad thing is that most Americans, including you, don't realize they have been indoctrinated by the conglomerate-controlled Main Stream Media all these years, and continue to bury their heads in the sand. Paradoxically and funnily, years of Commie indoctrination had actually left many Chinese with quite strong delusion that US and the West have much higher ethical standard in journalism and all that. Fortunately, it doesn't take long for overseas Chinese to understand it's just a delusion.
I know a person with a PhD in computer science who worked for chinese .gov and their sole job was to find the source and eliminate any anti .gov propaganda. This included the main gateway and the monitoring of peer to peer networks. The awesome part was, certain USA agencies often collaborated to learn the techniques used.
LOL ... it must suck to be you, to feel threatened everyday by the rise of China. I shall probably clarify that "cheep goods are for cheap people" was mostly said in jest. Really it's quite a human nature to get the best of deal possible in cheapest way. Often you get yours in discount stores like Walmart. What gets the blame is none other than unfettered capitalism, originated in the West and brought into China. Can't beat 'em join 'em, no? How 'bout changin' your handle from CommieWin to CapitalismWin? This argument of yours has been beaten to death many times already. Posters of Chinese origin criticize the government of their native country a lot more than you could imagine, though it doesn't appear so on this board. On the other hand, by engaging in debates on various issues in their adopted countries (for instance, U.S.), they are taking sides with fairly big cohorts, many times the majority. Such solidarity and passion for their adopted countries and people couldn't be mistaken. But, how my opinions form on U.S. one way or another ought to have no bearing whatsoever on your bigotry and hatred against China and Chinese, which you take no pain to differentiate from. It's understandable (though still regrettable) you would hate China, but from my observation you have never displayed any attitude that is not hateful towards Chinese throughout your posting history on this board.
I don't have that information. The information I have is that they kept people from saying things not liked by the government and that they found out who was saying it. I guess the people they gave that information to took care of the rest.
Your right. Clearly it never happens. These people don't really exist and have all been invented by the Western media to sully the rise of the great China. It's really all envy of how great China is. [rquoter] China jails Hu Jia, human rights dissident The most prominent civil liberties activist in China, a young father who has spent much of the past 12 months under house arrest, has been jailed for three and a half years for subversion in a verdict that is likely to draw international criticism before the Olympic Games. Hu Jia, 34, was convicted of inciting the subversion of state power. The charges against him cited comments that he made during two interviews with foreign media and five articles he wrote that appeared on the internet. The US Embassy voiced dismay at the verdict and the EU called for Hu’s immediate release. Human rights activists said that the sentencing called into question China’s promises to the International Olympic Committee to improve its human rights record before the Games open in Beijing on August 8. Li Fangping, one of the defence lawyers, said that the sentence was far too long. “It’s the defence position that citizens have the right to free speech,” he said. “The law on inciting subversion of state power doesn’t have a clear boundary, but the Constitution guarantees citizens’ freedom of speech.” Hu was described as calm and poised as the sentence was read out at the Beijing No 1 People’s Intermediate Court and was prepared for the verdict. China routinely uses the nebulous charge of subversion to imprison dissidents for years. Hu is a long-term environmental activist and advocate of rights for Aids victims, as well as a supporter of self-determination for Tibet. Last month another dissident, Yang Chunlin, who called for human rights to take precedence over the Olympic Games, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the same crime. Hu was confined to his apartment in a complex called “Freedom City” in Beijing for more than 200 days before he was taken away by security agents on December 27. The verdict held that he had spread “malicious rumours and committed libel” in two articles on the internet, one of which was entitled One Country Doesn’t Need Two Systems. Hu’s wife, Zeng Jinyan, 24, who gave birth four months ago to their first child and is also a prominent rights activist, wept as she left the courtroom and said that the verdict was the culmination of four years of harassment by the authorities. “He’s been put under surveillance, kidnapped. He’s been put under house arrest and now they have sentenced him to three and a half years. This is irrational and unfair.” She, too, has in effect been living under house arrest and activists have described their baby as the world’s youngest political prisoner. She told The Times: “I can’t accept such a sentence for writing a few articles. China said it would protect human rights, but this verdict goes completely against that.” In one article he wrote with Teng Biao, a fellow activist, that was published by Human Rights Watch, Hu told visitors coming to Beijing for the Olympics that they would see “only the tip of an iceberg” and “not the whole truth” about China. [/rquoter]
The keywords are "any" and "never." Political dissident is a loaded term. Timothy Mcveigh, Ted kaczynski, and Eric Rudolph were political dissidents too, look where they ended up. OK, they were violent offenders. But what about Warren Jeffs? Did he commit any violence? Nope. Absolutely not. But he is thrown in prison for being a non-conformist anyhow.
