▲ 67 ▼ Anti-China Rhetoric Is Off the Charts in Western Media (thediplomat.com) submitted 2 years ago by zephyreks@lemmy.ml to c/news@beehaw.org 120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Have you been following media recently or have you been living under a rock? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 54 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s not a defense. Opinion pieces can be fine, but if you’re claiming that something is off the charts you should probably have some charts (or any points of data) to prove the claim. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then... Disprove it? If there's such distinct evidence that counters the article, might as well use it in your argument lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not how the burden of proof goes. The article is making a claim. It's on the article's authors to prove it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, if you have such a strong argument, why don't you use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SuperPillowFishRoe@beehaw.org 40 points 2 years ago The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong permalink fedilink source parent [+] Melpomene@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you prove that China isn't an oppressive authoritarian capitalist state? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do I need to? I haven't had a visceral reaction to the article. For what it's worth, China's affirmative action policies for minority groups put the US to shame. Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them, given that these infrastructure projects (while very beneficial to the endpoints) are not profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 30 points 2 years ago* Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 26 points 2 years ago Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar. My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc. Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit! permalink fedilink source parent [–] SugarApplePie@beehaw.org 1 point 2 years ago Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that. permalink fedilink source parent [+] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) I have been following media intensively. I am not saying that news about China is unbiased in the western media. I am calling out the lack of any sources in this weak ‘article’ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) As far as news outlets go, The Diplomat is rather well-regarded As an opinion piece, sources are usually implicit (since opinion pieces use the reader's own knowledge of current events as the context) The article points to this article for more context: https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 41 points 2 years ago (2 children) 1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions. 2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim. 3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 35 points 2 years ago I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources! permalink fedilink source parent [–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Again, 🤦♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. ? The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor's also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn't a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn't a valid source in an internet argument. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident: Chinese spy balloon gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites, despite U.S. efforts to block it Fox: Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it 'acted immediately' to counter a collection of sensitive information Guardian: China ‘spy balloon’ wakes up world to new era of war at edge of space CNN: Why the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War Wikipedia: U.S. president Biden ... however stated that it was "not a major breach", and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn't even aware of the balloon. ... On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon's sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, "those winds are very high.. the particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude." Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR? Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karzyn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 54 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s not a defense. Opinion pieces can be fine, but if you’re claiming that something is off the charts you should probably have some charts (or any points of data) to prove the claim. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then... Disprove it? If there's such distinct evidence that counters the article, might as well use it in your argument lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not how the burden of proof goes. The article is making a claim. It's on the article's authors to prove it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, if you have such a strong argument, why don't you use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SuperPillowFishRoe@beehaw.org 40 points 2 years ago The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong permalink fedilink source parent [+] Melpomene@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you prove that China isn't an oppressive authoritarian capitalist state? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do I need to? I haven't had a visceral reaction to the article. For what it's worth, China's affirmative action policies for minority groups put the US to shame. Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them, given that these infrastructure projects (while very beneficial to the endpoints) are not profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 30 points 2 years ago* Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 26 points 2 years ago Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar. My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc. Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit! permalink fedilink source parent [–] SugarApplePie@beehaw.org 1 point 2 years ago Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that. permalink fedilink source parent [+] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then... Disprove it? If there's such distinct evidence that counters the article, might as well use it in your argument lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not how the burden of proof goes. The article is making a claim. It's on the article's authors to prove it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, if you have such a strong argument, why don't you use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SuperPillowFishRoe@beehaw.org 40 points 2 years ago The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong permalink fedilink source parent [+] Melpomene@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you prove that China isn't an oppressive authoritarian capitalist state? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do I need to? I haven't had a visceral reaction to the article. For what it's worth, China's affirmative action policies for minority groups put the US to shame. Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them, given that these infrastructure projects (while very beneficial to the endpoints) are not profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 30 points 2 years ago* Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 26 points 2 years ago Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar. My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc. Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit! permalink fedilink source parent [–] SugarApplePie@beehaw.org 1 point 2 years ago Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that. permalink fedilink source parent [+] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not how the burden of proof goes. The article is making a claim. It's on the article's authors to prove it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, if you have such a strong argument, why don't you use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SuperPillowFishRoe@beehaw.org 40 points 2 years ago The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong permalink fedilink source parent [+] Melpomene@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, if you have such a strong argument, why don't you use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SuperPillowFishRoe@beehaw.org 40 points 2 years ago The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong permalink fedilink source parent [+] Melpomene@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SuperPillowFishRoe@beehaw.org 40 points 2 years ago The person is saying the article doesn't prove their claim at all; they're not necessarily saying the article is wrong permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you prove that China isn't an oppressive authoritarian capitalist state? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do I need to? I haven't had a visceral reaction to the article. For what it's worth, China's affirmative action policies for minority groups put the US to shame. Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them, given that these infrastructure projects (while very beneficial to the endpoints) are not profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 30 points 2 years ago* Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 26 points 2 years ago Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar. My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc. Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit! permalink fedilink source parent [–] SugarApplePie@beehaw.org 1 point 2 years ago Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Do I need to? I haven't had a visceral reaction to the article. For what it's worth, China's affirmative action policies for minority groups put the US to shame. Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them, given that these infrastructure projects (while very beneficial to the endpoints) are not profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 30 points 2 years ago* Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points permalink fedilink source parent [–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 26 points 2 years ago Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar. My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc. Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit! permalink fedilink source parent [–] SugarApplePie@beehaw.org 1 point 2 years ago Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 30 points 2 years ago* Nobody else has had a visceral reaction, we’ve just pointed out bad journalism 🙂 Using big negative words might make you feel better, but it doesn’t make them accurate. You’re using them to be dismissive of our points permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cnnrduncan@beehaw.org 26 points 2 years ago Treating minorities better than the USA isn't exactly a high bar. My country also treats minorities better than the USA, it's easy to get into uni, celebrates diversity, has an alright social welfare system and socialised healthcare, does the occasional infrastructure project etc. Thanks for teaching me that I'm actually living in a socialist paradise rather than a poor, neoliberal capitalist, physically isolated island where private corporations are free to wreck the environment for profit! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SugarApplePie@beehaw.org 1 point 2 years ago Significantly easier college admissions (despite using a standardized process), extremely generous business loans, proportional ethnic representation in government, vast infrastructure projects to bridge the salary gap, and celebrations of different cultures across the country. Not very capitalist of them Sorry OP but basically none of this has anything to do with not being capitalist. I don't even doubt that China is doing better in those departments than America, but that has more to do with how utterly shit America is at most things outside of building bombs than how communist China is. They should get some kudos for executing a couple billionaires, though, gotta at least give 'em that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) I have been following media intensively. I am not saying that news about China is unbiased in the western media. I am calling out the lack of any sources in this weak ‘article’ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) As far as news outlets go, The Diplomat is rather well-regarded As an opinion piece, sources are usually implicit (since opinion pieces use the reader's own knowledge of current events as the context) The article points to this article for more context: https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 41 points 2 years ago (2 children) 1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions. 2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim. 3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 35 points 2 years ago I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources! permalink fedilink source parent [–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Again, 🤦♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. ? The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor's also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn't a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn't a valid source in an internet argument. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident: Chinese spy balloon gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites, despite U.S. efforts to block it Fox: Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it 'acted immediately' to counter a collection of sensitive information Guardian: China ‘spy balloon’ wakes up world to new era of war at edge of space CNN: Why the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War Wikipedia: U.S. president Biden ... however stated that it was "not a major breach", and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn't even aware of the balloon. ... On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon's sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, "those winds are very high.. the particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude." Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR? Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karzyn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) As far as news outlets go, The Diplomat is rather well-regarded As an opinion piece, sources are usually implicit (since opinion pieces use the reader's own knowledge of current events as the context) The article points to this article for more context: https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 41 points 2 years ago (2 children) 1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions. 2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim. 3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 35 points 2 years ago I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources! permalink fedilink source parent [–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Again, 🤦♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. ? The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor's also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn't a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn't a valid source in an internet argument. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident: Chinese spy balloon gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites, despite U.S. efforts to block it Fox: Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it 'acted immediately' to counter a collection of sensitive information Guardian: China ‘spy balloon’ wakes up world to new era of war at edge of space CNN: Why the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War Wikipedia: U.S. president Biden ... however stated that it was "not a major breach", and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn't even aware of the balloon. ... On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon's sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, "those winds are very high.. the particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude." Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR? Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karzyn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 41 points 2 years ago (2 children) 1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions. 2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim. 3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 35 points 2 years ago I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources! permalink fedilink source parent [–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Again, 🤦♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. ? The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor's also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn't a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn't a valid source in an internet argument. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident: Chinese spy balloon gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites, despite U.S. efforts to block it Fox: Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it 'acted immediately' to counter a collection of sensitive information Guardian: China ‘spy balloon’ wakes up world to new era of war at edge of space CNN: Why the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War Wikipedia: U.S. president Biden ... however stated that it was "not a major breach", and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn't even aware of the balloon. ... On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon's sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, "those winds are very high.. the particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude." Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR? Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karzyn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 35 points 2 years ago I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources! permalink fedilink source parent [–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Again, 🤦♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DaDaDrood@feddit.nl 35 points 2 years ago I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 child) Again, 🤦♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 19 points 2 years ago (1 child) Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim. You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply. Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Everyone says they have data that disproves it And nobody's provided any because they can't find it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tombuben@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago No one here says they have data that disproves it though? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources. ? The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor's also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn't a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn't a valid source in an internet argument. Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right? I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident: Chinese spy balloon gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites, despite U.S. efforts to block it Fox: Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it 'acted immediately' to counter a collection of sensitive information Guardian: China ‘spy balloon’ wakes up world to new era of war at edge of space CNN: Why the Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War Wikipedia: U.S. president Biden ... however stated that it was "not a major breach", and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn't even aware of the balloon. ... On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn't transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon's sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, "those winds are very high.. the particular motor on that aircraft can't go against those winds at that altitude." Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR? Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karzyn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Karzyn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it's poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort. permalink fedilink source parent