Was there one junk journalism tactic not employed in tonights Dispatches from Tibet?
Sending a member of Free Tibet "undercover" into Tibet to try and find wrongdoings by the fiendish Chinese blows any credibility and objectivity straight out of the window and simply paints the Producing company as the official Propaganda Unit for Dharamasala.
Out of context footage, sinister angles, unsubstantiated allegations from other activists and hushed voices, General Innuendo etc
C,mon give us a break!! you could make Tunbridge Wells look like Stalins Gulag with cheap docusoap stunts like that!!
Just watching the preview tells you all you need to know about the level of journalism for this program. I don’t think the general public are fooled by it however. Tibetan campaigners have pretty much shot themselves in the foot when they passionately attack the Chinese government for using force to restore order but are near silence when they are asked about the violence committed by Tibetans on the Chinese and Muslim minorities. This double standard hasn’t escaped the British public and the more we they try and highjack the Olympics to make their point, the more people will start to said “Yes, you’ve made your point. Can we now move on?”
"A Year in Tibet" seemed to give a more rounded picture and was far more interesting. I really hate the way China is portrayed, it has many good points that are consistently overlooked. I doubt their new airport terminal is the shambles that is T5.
And the opening of Hong Kong's £12bn airport at Chek Lap Kok the same year was also dogged by disaster. Computer problems delayed flights and baggage systems and left departures and arrivals in disarray.
The cargo handling system also broke down, causing severe disruption to local businesses reliant on the import and export of goods.
Originally posted by Optimus Maximus: Well Sampan, there's a simple solution to this.
Allow free and open reporting.
Unless of course there's something to hide
It doesn't necessarily follow that a country has something to hide, it's just common sense that they know most the "reporting" will come out is very negative and bias.
Originally posted by joshgin: It doesn't necessarily follow that a country has something to hide, it's just common sense that they know most the "reporting" will come out is very negative and bias.
So you don't think the people of Tibet have any right to tell the world about what's happening to them?
And the opening of Hong Kong's £12bn airport at Chek Lap Kok the same year was also dogged by disaster. Computer problems delayed flights and baggage systems and left departures and arrivals in disarray.
The cargo handling system also broke down, causing severe disruption to local businesses reliant on the import and export of goods.
Originally posted by joshgin: Which opened in 1998 so hardly a Chinese project
I see. So the airport is in China, on an island where 95% of the population are Chinese or of Chinese descent, but it's not Chinese. Interesting logic.
Still doesn't matter. Well run airport terminals come very far down my list of must haves.
Originally posted by joshgin: It doesn't necessarily follow that a country has something to hide, it's just common sense that they know most the "reporting" will come out is very negative and bias.
So you don't think the people of Tibet have any right to tell the world about what's happening to them?
On a smaller scale here we frequently see how the newspaper hounds nad twists stories on a personal level, eg. parents of missing children. Unfortunately it is a trait in our media. So I can understand why they are cautious to our style of reporting.
We've heard an awful lot about Tibet over the last month - their voice has been heard. I would like to see Tibet as an independant country but that doesn't mean that China is all bad.
Originally posted by joshgin: On a smaller scale here we frequently see how the newspaper hounds nad twists stories on a personal level, eg. parents of missing children. Unfortunately it is a trait in our media. So I can understand why they are cautious to our style of reporting.
We've heard an awful lot about Tibet over the last month - their voice has been heard. I would like to see Tibet as an independant country but that doesn't mean that China is all bad.
I have never said China is all bad. Indeed there is a great deal to be admired about it. That doesn't excuse its treatment of the Tibetans though (and of others for that matter).
There are many things I could criticise Britain for and I very much want to see them reported but it doesn't mean Britain is all bad either.
Would you be happy if Gordon Brown announced tomorrow that from now only government-approved news could be distributed?
Collegues from Spain and Turkey have told me of programmes they have seen about the UK and been appalled that here a couple of children are killed each week by their parents or carers, it's true but makes us look bad (and was a view re-inforced by the McCann situation).
The Turkish person saw a prog about our treatmenat of old people, we leave them to rot in old peoples homes, we neglect them. That doesn't happen in Turkey generations live together and look after their old-folk.
Originally posted by Optimus Maximus: Would you be happy if Gordon Brown announced tomorrow that from now only government-approved news could be distributed?
No, but in some circumstances we might get a more accurate reporting. Only last week we saw dramatic pictures of an ice-shelf melting. It was on this forum that I was told about volcanic activity inthe antartic .... that wasn't mentioned on the BBC. I thinks it's a fallacy to think we get more accurate information here, we hear what the major media corporations want us to hear ... not necessarily any bette than what a govt wants us to hear.
I'm sad to say that it sounds to me like your colleagues saw fairly accurate reporting of those issues. We may not like the truth but I certainly don't want it covered up. Problems which are covered up are rarely addressed.
If reporting is completely free and open you will likely see lots of different viewpoints and opinions. It's up to you to assess them as best you can and come to your own conclusion.
If one side in a disagreement demands that only its view is presented then how can you possible assess the validity of their case? When the side doing that is the one accused of the crime, and which already has a fairly appalling human rights record, I simply can't see any reason to just trust them.
Originally posted by joshgin: No, but in some circumstances we might get a more accurate reporting. Only last week we saw dramatic pictures of an ice-shelf melting. It was on this forum that I was told about volcanic activity inthe antartic .... that wasn't mentioned on the BBC. I thinks it's a fallacy to think we get more accurate information here, we hear what the major media corporations want us to hear ... not necessarily any bette than what a govt wants us to hear.
"In some circumstances"? But which and how would we tell?
If you give complete power of information to one party then that party will simply tell you all the things that make them look good and hide the things which make them look bad.
And you'll have no alternative information sources to check the truth of what they say.
Originally posted by Sampanviking: Was there one junk journalism tactic not employed in tonights Dispatches from Tibet?
Sending a member of Free Tibet "undercover" into Tibet to try and find wrongdoings by the fiendish Chinese blows any credibility and objectivity straight out of the window and simply paints the Producing company as the official Propaganda Unit for Dharamasala.
Out of context footage, sinister angles, unsubstantiated allegations from other activists and hushed voices, General Innuendo etc
C,mon give us a break!! you could make Tunbridge Wells look like Stalins Gulag with cheap docusoap stunts like that!!
My wife and I have not laughed so much in years.
your love of China and your wife is blinding you to the reality.
Laughing at what China does to Tibetans and to Tibet shows you in a terrible light
I don't beleive china is like that, I see a huge amount of reporting, some of it very balanced and reasonable. 15 pages recently in err New Scientist or the Economist. But the dispatches programme was cr!p, sensationalist poor reporting.
China doesn't have our employment laws, our human rights, our health and safety laws ... that doesn't make it a bad which was the message of the dispatches film and many other reports on China.
Optimus - You do seem to miss the point. Why are you so upset that only Tibetans are not allowed to express themselves freely when all of China doesn't have a free press. Why is Tibet so special? Why should they alone have preferential treatment? The Olympic governing body knew China doesn’t have a free press or a spotless human rights records when they decided to award it the games ten years ago so why didn’t anybody bothered to say anything then instead of waiting until now to start protesting? Political point scoring by any chance?
Dispatches has once again taken objective journalism into the sewer.Did they not check out the claims made for example in 1950 there were 5 million Tibetans when in fact there were 1.2 million Tibetans.Far from prove that the population has remained roughly the same they proved there are 80% more Tibetans than in 1950.That just about sums up the whole programme crammed with innuendo assumptions and downright misrepresentation of fact.I found the bleating nauseating,moaning that schoolchildren cannot voice dissent in school,well before 1959 there were no schoolchildren because there were no schools.How about addressing facts rather than fairy stories.
There were people in the 20s and 30s who had the same view of the USSR, the great country that was so alien and far removed it had to be good. Only saw the collective farms and the steel mills, didn't allow themselves to think about the gulags and disappearances.
Originally posted by joshgin: I don't beleive china is like that, I see a huge amount of reporting, some of it very balanced and reasonable. 15 pages recently in err New Scientist or the Economist. But the dispatches programme was cr!p, sensationalist poor reporting.
China doesn't have our employment laws, our human rights, our health and safety laws ... that doesn't make it a bad which was the message of the dispatches film and many other reports on China.
Right, so not having any human right protections, safe conditions for workers or protections against abuse by employers is "good"?
Originally posted by lividoflondon: Optimus - You do seem to miss the point. Why are you so upset that only Tibetans are not allowed to express themselves freely when all of China doesn't have a free press. Why is Tibet so special? Why should they alone have preferential treatment? The Olympic governing body knew China doesn’t have a free press or a spotless human rights records when they decided to award it the games ten years ago so why didn’t anybody bothered to say anything then instead of waiting until now to start protesting? Political point scoring by any chance?
If you read my posts you would see that I have mentioned the rights of ordinary Chinese several times.
Tibet is different though inasmuch as they're not Chinese.
I suppose you could make a comparison with the Soviet era occupation of Eastern Europe
Was it wrong that Poland etc were occupied by the USSR? Yes.
Were ordinary Russians themselves also oppressed? Yes.
Was it still reasonable to criticise the occupation of Eastern Europe? Yes.
And, btw, people have never stopped protesting about the Tibetan situation.
Originally posted by Optimus Maximus: "In some circumstances"? But which and how would we tell?
And you'll have no alternative information sources to check the truth of what they say.
We often can't tell until after the fact, just as us, pretty much 50% taken in by govt lies about Iraq WMD. China is not a completely closed country, they have tourists and business connections they do have some sources to check the truth. I think some of these countries that we view as oppressive want to protect their citizens from unsavoury influences, there are many things I wish I could make disappear about our society.
Originally posted by joshgin: We often can't tell until after the fact, just as us, pretty much 50% taken in by govt lies about Iraq WMD.
Well I wasn't. Maybe I was paying attention to more sources of information. Or more likely it was my complete cynicism about anything we're told by government.
And as bad as our government is they very rarely restrict our access to information and are usually ineffectual when they do.
quote:
China is not a completely closed country, they have tourists and business connections they do have some sources to check the truth. I think some of these countries that we view as oppressive want to protect their citizens from unsavoury influences, there are many things I wish I could make disappear about our society.
Then I repeat: Do you think the people of Tibet have no right to tell the world what is happening to them?
