Home > media, Opinion, politics > Russia Today: “Hillary Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media”

Russia Today: “Hillary Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media”

The following report by Russia Today is about a year old, but is just as applicable today, or for that matter, for the years to come. We often hear in the Western press that the Internet democratizes information. I think that’s very true. But they often portray it, for example, in China’s case, as Chinese public rising up using the Internet to challenge the Chinese government. That was really the rage during the “dot com” boom period. Recently, since social media is hot, that narrative is recycled with a social media twist. Or when the Arab Spring was hot, the narrative was yet again recycled into a “Jasmine Revolution” for China. However, as this RT report suggests, there is also the bigger trend of narratives put forth on the global stage by countries like Russia and China. The West will increasingly dominate less. Perhaps “war” is too strong a word. I sincerely hope the different narratives serve to balance.

Categories: media, Opinion, politics Tags:
  1. Robert Thomas
    May 6th, 2012 at 14:16 | #1

    An interesting topic.

    ‘The West will increasingly dominate less.’

    Predictions about the future abound, but how often are there absolute certainties?

    ‘But they often portray it [the internet], for example, in China’s case, as Chinese public rising up using the Internet to challenge the Chinese government.’

    Is there any evidence of the public challenging government policy in China via the internet?

    ‘I sincerely hope the different narratives serve to balance.’

    If it could, how do you think Chinese statle controlled media agencies such as Xinhua, on a global scale, would ‘balance’ reporting on the Chen case ?

  2. May 6th, 2012 at 23:35 | #2

    Good food for thought yinyang.

    It is infinitely hard to predict what the weather will be like, but sometimes longer trends will be clearer than shorter fluctuations. This is perhaps such a case. We need not argue, only point out.

    But even while I agree with your assessment of trends, I don’t think the cause of the democratization of information (the telling of more pluralistic stories as you pointed out in your excellent previous post featuring Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie) will be the internet per se, but of changing power dynamics (as the rest of the world climb out of the ashes of being nearly destroyed by the West which had the privilege of industrializing first, the relative power of the West will be less, even if the West will remain just as capable…)…

    Just my two cents.

  3. Robert Thomas
    May 7th, 2012 at 02:03 | #3

    @Allen

    I WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO RACIST COMMENTS MADE IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:

    ‘US forget 「respecting Rule of Law」, full on 「Vigilante Human Rights」’

    Please see posts 16 and 20.

  4. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 05:23 | #4

    on bbs.chinadaily, based on Clinton’s speech – “Clinton declares information war on China”

  5. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 05:55 | #5

    @Robert Thomas

    Question: ‘But they often portray it [the internet], for example, in China’s case, as Chinese public rising up using the Internet to challenge the Chinese government.’

    Is there any evidence of the public challenging government policy in China via the internet?

    evidence? It is a fact and I am reading those “challenges” everyday even in State media and CCTV.

    “challenging government policy in China via the internet” does not equate with “Chinese public rising up using the Internet to challenge the Chinese government.”

    The Chinese govenment is far from being challenged for a long time to come. Why anyone would think so when the CPC continued to hold on to power during the famine period and Cultural Revolution without much challenge?

    But on particular policies, “challenges” can be very harsh and very fierce and very widespread. China’s policy on South China Sea is one area – the government is seemd to be weak and not defending sovereignty.

  6. Robert Thomas
    May 7th, 2012 at 06:10 | #6

    @MatthewTan
    Is there no evidence of people ‘rising up’ to challenge either the local or central government?

  7. May 7th, 2012 at 07:17 | #7

    @Robert Thomas
    Just do a search on “jasmine revolution” and “China”.

  8. silentchinese
    May 7th, 2012 at 07:56 | #8

    here is the problem with “conversations” with ” Robert Thomas ” or whatever his pseudoname happens to be today:

    what boils down is this:
    Chinese nationalists (i.e. people who has welfare of china in mind and( for most part)actually came from china) are, for most part, utilitarians. they believe whatever happens in china should has utility (the betterment of china as a whole) in mind. whatever the means.

    “Robert Thomas”s of the world are calcified Dogmatists at core, they hold things like “freedom” and “human rights” and “Free speech” as super principles. things that are holy and sacred, and should not be violated in all circumstances. those principles should be followed through hell and high waters and whatever falls out. their refrain, once their super principles are challenged by preponderance of evidence, is a circular argument like… “but human right and free speech!”.

    their dogma also tells them that , oh btw, things will magically be better (every one has enough food to eat and sing kubaya all day) once those principles are stuck to.

    never mind that in real life has demonstrated times and times again that the utilitarian and pragmatic course has action has in reality guided most of the successful ***evolutionary*** course of nation and people (Japan 60s, SK 70s, Singapore, Germany), and those who become dogmatic has fallen into ruins. (Western Europe and US today, Japan Today, Russia during its shock therapy)

    It is as ridiculous as during the dark ages where people stuck to their principles (prayer for cure of diseases and nasty short brutish life is a judgement) eventhough their principles got them nowhere.

    unfortunately that inthis day and age the dogmatists are as calcified as their predessessors during the dark ages… and worse because the Inquisition only killed selected few. while the current high church of political correctness has solidified their hold on millions and killed hundreds and thousands through failed policies.

    I am waiting for another reformation and enlightenment to follow, to break the hold of the dogmatists. It will be liberating.

    Freedom of speech is worthless if one does not have the freedom of the mind.

    p.s.
    The dogmatists are largely defeated in china, bitter experiences of political upheavel has ensured that . the people in charge are pragmatists. see that you and you understand china.

    unfortunately the people in the west has yet to shake off the shackles. what’s worse they are attempt to put the shackles of dogmatism back onto china. instead this time the dogma would not be soviet collective farms, but instead would be domineering moral absolutism couched in terms of “Universal Values”.

  9. Robert Thomas
    May 7th, 2012 at 08:50 | #9

    @silentchinese
    Thank you for your comments. I come here hoping to understand other viewpoints and it is interesting reading yours. I have been criticised several times for apparantly taking a ‘Western’ moral standpoint, though I have never stated my nationality. If you can find evidence of me adopting a dogmatic approach in my posts, please do so. I have tried to pose questions, not merely propogate my own views.

    Here is one such question, which nobody, as yet, has addressed in full:

    1. I state categorically that I of course view this case through my eyes and from my own moral stance. And by my standards, I find the way that Chen has been treated unjust.

    2. Media coverage and internet discussion concerning the Chen case has been censored.

    3. So, one could infer that whoever controls the media and the internet in mainland China believes that a number of Chinese people would also find the way that Chen has been treated as unjust. If not, why censor?

    4. Therefore, in this case, my moral stance does not appear to be far from that of a number of Chinese people as assumed by whoever controls the media.

    This is not an argument for ‘universal values,’ rather an argument against universally exclusive values. I believe that we, as human-beings, have more in common than some would have us believe.

    Thanks.

  10. Robert Thomas
    May 7th, 2012 at 10:09 | #10

    yinyang’s post notes the growing influence of ‘alternative’ media and the hope is that this will serve to ‘balance’ narratives on a global scale. One might hope that with a variety of different news agencies, people would follow several, analyse, reflect and arrive at a more balanced understanding of key issues.

    How many people do such a thing with newspapers? Do people buy a newspaper that will challenge their views, or simply re-enforce them?
    Does not the same apply to TV news? Do regular CNN viewers watch Fox news to get a ‘range of opinions?’ Or do CCTV viewers watch TVBS?
    Do you (be honest) do this with websites and forums?

    I’m sure a few people do. But on a large scale, sadly, I doubt it.

  11. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 12:22 | #11

    @Robert Thomas

    “the way that Chen has been treated unjust.

    2. Media coverage and internet discussion concerning the Chen case has been censored.”

    I suspend my judgement of “just” and “unjust”.

    Why censor is very easy to answer. The CPC does not want him, and anybody like him, to be made a martyr or moral hero such that his “market value” increases sharply in the eyes of Westerners who are funding him. This is regardless of his being “justly” or “unjustly” treated.

    Ai Weiwei are Liu Xiaobo both have very high “market value”. Liu received his funding – he actually boasted about it in the 1990s – while in prison. I believe Liu is still receiving, on top of the Nobel Prize.

  12. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 12:25 | #12

    @Robert Thomas

    “Do people buy a newspaper that will challenge their views, or simply re-enforce them?”

    You are right and I agree with you here. That means all the more the international media scene needs balancing. Success or failure in balance is besides the point.

  13. silentchinese
    May 7th, 2012 at 13:06 | #13

    MatthewTan :@Robert Thomas
    “Do people buy a newspaper that will challenge their views, or simply re-enforce them?”
    You are right and I agree with you here. That means all the more the international media scene needs balancing. Success or failure in balance is besides the point.

    If people buy a newspaper that will challenge their views, then why do you think Fox News is doing so well in America.

  14. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 13:45 | #14

    @silentchinese
    “If people buy a newspaper that will challenge their views, then why”

    No. A small fraction will buy a newspaper that challenge their views. But then, these people are most probably also the ones who can influence opinions by their writings. So, as their influence spreads, the rest may slowly get a more balanced offering of news/opinions.

  15. silentchinese
    May 7th, 2012 at 14:15 | #15

    MatthewTan :@silentchinese “If people buy a newspaper that will challenge their views, then why”
    No. A small fraction will buy a newspaper that challenge their views. But then, these people are most probably also the ones who can influence opinions by their writings. So, as their influence spreads, the rest may slowly get a more balanced offering of news/opinions.

    That is a naive and unsupported view.
    If the “market place of ideas” would operate such that people pay for what they like to consume. then why do you assume people will pay for things that they do not like?

    I find it very ironic that on the one hand people are assuming the general public is rational, when they consume news,
    while on the exact same media (think a newspaper story on a page talking about Syria, and right on bottom a advert for Fruit Loops Cereal), a multi-billion dollar advertising industry exists to influence and twsit those very exact rational people to act irratinally (i.e. pay premium for the same product) . If people are inherently rational then how do you tihink pretty graphics and catchy logos would make people pay more money for the same goods?

  16. Robert Thomas
    May 7th, 2012 at 16:06 | #16

    @MatthewTan
    Thank you for your comments. I do not think that you have addressed in full the question that I gave in post 9, but then nobaody else did when I posted it before.

    @silentchinese
    If you have time, any thoughts on post 9?

  17. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 16:42 | #17

    Internet democratizes information = Chinese public rising up using the Internet to challenge the Chinese government = “Jasmine Revolution” for China = DEMOCRACY

    This is the Western mind, reflected in Western Press.

  18. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 16:55 | #18

    @Robert Thomas
    “Is there no evidence of people ‘rising up’ to challenge either the local or central government?”

    “people” = small groups may challenge village-level governments, and they are in a way petitioning the central government to take action; this is usually settled by addressing the “people’s” concerns and removing the local officials from office.

  19. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 17:10 | #19

    @Robert Thomas

    Your questions answered:

    1. I state categorically that I of course view this case through my eyes and from my own moral stance. And by my standards, I find the way that Chen has been treated unjust.

    Answer: If what Chen and ChinaAid said are true, then Chen has been treated unjustly.
    However, I do not trust ChinaAid, and Chen himself also does not come across as trustworthy. This was discussed in the other thread “Chen Guangcheng escapes, waging PR campaign with Western press”

    2. Media coverage and internet discussion concerning the Chen case has been censored.
    Answer: Explained earlier. No “free advertisment” will be provided to Chen to increase his “market value” or expand his “market”.

    3. So, one could infer that whoever controls the media and the internet in mainland China believes that a number of Chinese people would also find the way that Chen has been treated as unjust. If not, why censor?
    Answer: same as 1 and 2.

    4. Therefore, in this case, my moral stance does not appear to be far from that of a number of Chinese people [as assumed by whoever controls the media.]

    Answer: same as 1.

    There is another reason why it is censored. China does not want more and more people to agitate over issue such as “one-child policy” and related policies like sterilization and abortion.

    If coverage is given to Chen, his “market” will expand and more people will agitate. His “market value” will shoot up, and the West will increase funding for him and others like him. Then pressure will increase to compel the government to change the policy.

  20. MatthewTan
    May 7th, 2012 at 17:12 | #20

    @silentchinese

    I don’t understand your point. But I stand by what I said.

  21. pug_ster
    May 7th, 2012 at 19:02 | #21

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/05/201257195136608563.html

    Talking about propaganda, looks like Al jazeera is closing down China bureau and Melissa Chan has to look for another place to get a job. Looks like they will have to write up their China bashing propaganda from somewhere else.

  22. Peeping Tom
    May 7th, 2012 at 20:00 | #22

    Looks like they take the same approach to you guys when it comes to “building bridges”

    I’m sure you will all approve. Wouldn’t it be real progress if China kicked out every journalist who wrote stories the CCP didnt agree with? What a wonderful world.

  23. May 7th, 2012 at 21:38 | #23

    Thx for the news, pug_ster.

    Aljazeera’s strategy is to demonize China in hopes of gaining more credibility in the West. What’s the difference between 10 bashers vs. 9 bashers? Not much.

    There was a mass exodus of reporters when that network refused to show armed rebels fighting the Syrian army. It was decidedly against the Syrian government and wanted to paint the rebels in a good light.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29726

    We live in a complex world.

  24. Hugh Wells
    May 7th, 2012 at 21:45 | #24

    yinyang, can I ask why you havent deleted the blatantly racist posts that Robert Thomas refers to in #3?

    What is your sites policy on this matter?

  25. May 7th, 2012 at 21:46 | #25

    @Allen
    Thx. Yeah, agreed, it is the change in relative power that’s allowing other narratives to come forth.

    One more thought – if powerful multinationals like Google dominate weak countries, it would actually undermine their voice. Imagine Africans always see what the West writes about them (since Google make those more prominent in the results) when they search about themselves!

  26. Wahaha
    May 7th, 2012 at 22:05 | #26

    Is there any evidence of the public challenging government policy in China via the internet?

    *************************
    Robert,

    I guess you are clueless about China.

    and you are clueless about the situation in America, as you don’t even know who are the most powerful group in USA.

    Again, give you a hint, from “Inside job”:

    “A major theme is the pressure from the financial industry on the political process to avoid regulation, and the ways that it is exerted. One conflict discussed is the prevalence of the revolving door, whereby financial regulators can be hired within the financial sector upon leaving government and make millions.”

    Two questions to you:

    One, Do you know that ?
    Two, why doesn’t the self-claimed “free” media talk about it ? like the way they follow Kim Kardashian’s butt.

    BTW, I heard a joke that men hold door for women because they want to see women’s butts.

  27. Wahaha
    May 7th, 2012 at 22:23 | #27

    3. So, one could infer that whoever controls the media and the internet in mainland China believes that a number of Chinese people would also find the way that Chen has been treated as unjust. If not, why censor?

    *********************

    #9,

    Robert, I think what you said is true about censorship, just like in America.

    Do you know who Anita Dunn is ?

    Do you know that Newsweek was sold for $1 while chinese were willing to invest millions ?

    I don’t understand : how can you point finger at CCP after the way your “free” media has reported OWS ? If chinese media had cover 1989 movement like this way, there would be no 6.4.

    BTW, voting wont solve the unjustice, because 99+% of misery is caused by poverty. You don’t feel that because West was already industrialized to such a extent that there are still enough wealth for most people AFTER the few rich take their share.

    Westerners talk about human right like a gold fish, who has spent her life in a fish tank, tries to teach other fishes how to live in a pond or a river.

  28. Wahaha
    May 7th, 2012 at 22:42 | #28

    Looks like they will have to write up their China bashing propaganda from somewhere else.

    *************************************

    “Free” media won’t hire journalists who have different opinions, that is common rule of self-claimed “free” media.

    What is funny is that they are “well respected” because they call each other “well respected”.

    “It is government’s fault”, did they ever say anything different? Most of them don’t even have sense of basic logic, let alone science.

    and a country that is not managed scientifically is destined to getting weaker and weaker.

  29. pug_ster
    May 7th, 2012 at 22:56 | #29

    @pug_ster

    Just to make it clear, Al Jazeera’s Arabic Bureau is still operating in China and the only person being kicked out is Melissa Chan. China did not close Al jazeera’s English Bureau but they closed on their own.

    http://blogs.aljazeera.net/profile/melissa-chan

    Actually, if you look at her reports, it is nothing but sub standard garbage propaganda trying to poke with local authorities as a contact sport in order to get some brownie points.

    Edit: I looked at her tweets and she said: “I’ll be a Knight Fellow at Stanford in the 2012-13 academic year to help reporters (try to) protect their computers against hackers.” on April 30. She probably quit and made it look like she got kicked out of China to do some more China bashing.

  30. zack
    May 7th, 2012 at 23:53 | #30

    @pug_ster
    yeah, melissa chan used to piss me off with her sinophobic reporting; guess all that cock she sucked at Al Jazeera finally paid off. good riddance, i say.

  31. aeiou
    May 8th, 2012 at 00:51 | #31

    There is still the BBC and CNN.

    http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/press-tv-banned-the-new-democracy/

    ps; it’s even funnier watching americans feign outrage when aljazeera can’t even get air time in the u.s.

  32. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 02:05 | #32

    @Wahaha
    ‘Robert, I think what you said is true about censorship, just like in America …… I don’t understand : how can you point finger at CCP after the way your 「free」 media has reported OWS ?’

    How many users assume that anyone posting here who is critical of the Chinese government must be an American? You are aware, aren’t you, that there are other regions out there besides the West and that there are other countries besides America?
    This over-simplified view smacks of nationalism, vilification and mass defamation. Do you really believe that there are no critical reports on China in the media outside of the West? The deliberately over-simplified approach of some users is no better than the China-bashers that are often criticised on this site.

    @MatthewTan

    No, you haven’t dealt with the point of my question . You do not even address it. You will not even consider its possibility.

  33. MatthewTan
    May 8th, 2012 at 03:50 | #33

    @Robert Thomas
    “No, you haven’t dealt with the point of my question . You do not even address it. You will not even consider its possibility”

    Are you referring to:
    4. Therefore, in this case, my moral stance does not appear to be far from that of a number of Chinese people [as assumed by whoever controls the media.]

    Answer: same as 1.

    Answer 1: If what Chen and ChinaAid said are true, then Chen has been treated unjustly.
    However, I do not trust ChinaAid, and Chen himself also does not come across as trustworthy. This was discussed in the other thread “Chen Guangcheng escapes, waging PR campaign with Western press”

    I think this answer your question – it is obvious by implication.

  34. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 04:24 | #34

    @MatthewTan
    Not meaning to be impertinent, but I still don’t think you have dealt with my question. And yes, I am referring to point number 4.

    ‘If what Chen and ChinaAid said are true, then Chen has been treated unjustly.’

    Is there, as yet, concrete proof that he has been treated justly or unjustly? No. However, if he was treated justly and was legally under house-arrest, why has he not been re-arrested? I find the way that he has been treated unjust. Do you find it just?

    I think it is possible that what Chen said in his original video release is true. Do you think it impossible?

    If what he claims in the video is all rubbish, and the government has the support it claims to, then surely nobody in the mainland would believe a word of it. So why censor? Because, even if it is all rubbish, the government thinks a large enough number of people would believe it and find it unjust. Why would people believe it? What would it say about their moral standpoint (and mine) if they find it unjust?

    4. Therefore, in this case, my moral stance does not appear to be far from that of a number of Chinese people [as assumed by whoever controls the media.]

    Thank you for your time in discussing this with me.

  35. Wahaha
    May 8th, 2012 at 05:50 | #35

    Robert
    You are aware that most of my oversimplified view are simple facts, aren’t you?
    And your failure of commenting it means that you can’t deny the democracy you talked about is democrap; and of course the freedom of speech you love so much is garbage in reality, though great on used tissue.
    cheers.

  36. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 05:58 | #36

    @Wahaha
    I must ask, did you read post 32? I ask, because you have not addressed any of the points raised, for instance, why do you assume I am an American?

    『Robert, I think what you said is true about censorship, just like in America …… I don’t understand : how can you point finger at CCP after the way your 「free」 media has reported OWS ?』

  37. Wahaha
    May 8th, 2012 at 06:02 | #37

    Robert,
    You are SKC, aren’t you?

    I assumed you were american because you claimed americans “know”

    My apology, you are a canadian.

  38. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 06:10 | #38

    @Wahaha
    Sorry, I’m not sure what SKC stands for.

    In the post where I state ‘Americans know’, I also state that I am not an American.

    Neither am I Canadian.

  39. MatthewTan
    May 8th, 2012 at 06:17 | #39

    “why has he not been re-arrested? ”

    Are you sure he is not still under house arrest – in hospital?

  40. Hugh Wells
    May 8th, 2012 at 06:34 | #40

    Matthew Tan, please stop making things up. It adds nothing to the debate and makes you look desperate.
    The Foreign Ministry has said he is free to travel to America- do you have evidence he under house arrest in the hospital?

    Didn’t think so…

  41. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 07:26 | #41

    @MatthewTan
    I find it rather dis-heartening that I have recieved a similar response yet again.

    You, like other users, have avoided the question that I stated in post 9. Why do I believe it important? Because, ‘I believe that we, as human-beings, have more in common than some would have us believe.’

    If you have a moment, please re-read post 9.

  42. pug_ster
    May 8th, 2012 at 07:59 | #42

    @zack

    Melissa Chan staged the fake story about the ‘black jails.’ Probably told a bunch of locals that this ‘missing’ person is in that site but by the time she barged in, nobody was there. And she report this on the day where the government said that they are doing away with black jails, what a coincidence.

    Not to deny there are existence of black jails, but if she couldn’t expose it, and then LIED about about it later, that’s slander. For that she should get her visa revoked.

    Al Jazeera’s reporting is getting more outrageous and less credible these days. There was an incident last month when a bunch of journalists from their Lebanon bureau quit over the fake reporting over Syria.

  43. hugh thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 08:18 | #43

    Matthew Tan, you did well with your answers.
    No need to respond to No 4; he’s making an ass-umption. Ass-umptions are best kept to the ass-umer himself!
    But the troll tag team looks desperate.
    Question is: can Robert Thomas be sure that CGC is not under house arrest – in hospital????
    Red herring – do you have evidence he is???
    Answer the question first, Robert Thomas. @Wahaha…he’s not Canadian. But I see little brown Eskimos over the horizon!!

  44. LOLZ
    May 8th, 2012 at 08:47 | #44

    I wonder if the frequent trolls who appear on this blog are part of the “stepping up of US propaganda efforts” to combat “alternative views to the US main stream (interests)”. Given the paranoia over the “50 Cent Party”, I would not be surprised if Western governments have spent far more astroturfing, especially on China related new blogs.

  45. Wahaha
    May 8th, 2012 at 09:06 | #45

    Robert,

    You talk exact like a guy here before who demanded the proof that sun is heavier than earth by weighing.

    Anyway, if you are human being on earth, not an alien, you can’t deny the FACTS I mentioned. So your understanding of democracy is democrap, your understanding of freedom of speech is “freedom for press”, not “freedom for people”.

    Now if you don’t understand the difference between “freedom of speech” and “freedom for press”, here is the explanation :

    Freedom of speech is meaningless unless your voice can be heard by public.

    Media and journalists can have their voices heard by public as long as they are not regulated by government.

    People have no direct way to let public hear their voice, unless media and journalists put it on TV and newspaper.

    But “free” media and journalists won’t put the voices of people on TV and Newspaper unless they like it, or, they present only part of facts they like to public, the so-called misleading or lying to public.

    Misleading and lying to public is not part of human right, just like you are not allowed to poop in front of other people’s house even though it is public place.

  46. Wahaha
    May 8th, 2012 at 09:12 | #46

    Robert,

    You talk exact like SKC who demanded proof of that sun is heavier than earth by weighing them.

    Your keeping silence on the FACTS I listed in my comments proves that the democracy you talked about is democrap; the freedom of speech you talked about is freedom for press, not freedom for people.

    If you don’t understand the difference between freedom for press and freedom for people, I can explain to you :

    Media and Journalists can let public hear their voices, or even shape public opinions; ordinary people don’t have such privilege, their voices will not be heard by public unless media and journalists put them on TV and newspapers.

    But media and journalists won’t report unless they like what they heard, or present part of facts they like to public, the masterful misleading and lying to public.

    Misleading and lying to public is not part of human right, just like you are not allowed to poop in front of other people’s houses even it is public place.

  47. pug_ster
    May 8th, 2012 at 09:29 | #47

    @Wahaha

    As much as I disagree with Robert, I have to disagree with you that Robert is not SKC. It never fail see SKC uses the word “CCP” when he makes usual rant about China, whereas Robert does not.

  48. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 09:59 | #48

    @Wahaha
    I am sorry, but I have raised several questions and you have answered none. I feel that you are avoiding my questions by simply asking multiple questions which are not relevant. For example:

    In post 9 I stated that censorship has occurred.

    Your response was to try and divert the discussion towards debating censorship in America. Interesting, but unrelated.

  49. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 10:02 | #49

    @pug_ster
    Where have I ‘ranted’ about China?
    What is it that I have said that you disagree with?
    Do you seriously base your whole opinion on whether or not I am this SKC on me not using one acronym (CCP)?

  50. pug_ster
    May 8th, 2012 at 10:53 | #50

    @Robert Thomas

    I didn’t say that it was you ranted about China, it was SKC.

  51. Robert Thomas
    May 8th, 2012 at 11:08 | #51

    @pug_ster
    Thank you for clarifying that.

You must be logged in to post a comment.