“China is now Communist in name only after three decades of market reforms which along with breakneck growth have brought income disparities, widespread corruption and an ideological vacuum.” BEIJING (Reuters) May 17, 2007.
That paragraph stunned me the first time I read it, for the first time in the west I have seen a major news organization, Reuters, accurately say that China is Communist in name only, something I have been saying since my first visit here.
Where I take exception to the paragraph is the tone and the impression it gives. By saying things like, “breakneck growth have brought income disparities,” while not pointing out we have roughly the same disparity, “widespread corruption,” without point out corruption has been a huge problem in China since the beginning of time while giving the impression it is a new phenomenon all while ignoring that China is currently taking huge steps problem in China since the beginning of time while ---------------(more)
2007-06-09 02:58:33 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
(continued) giving the impression it is a new phenomenon all while ignoring that China is currently taking huge steps to fight it, and the final blanket statement, “ideological vacuum.” Pretty much meaning, no freedom of thought, press, politics, social welfare, and economy.
----------------------
I see more and more of this kind of editorializing of news.
Do you think it's wrong or right for this kind of reporting that is obviously used to inflame the people and opinions against a country?
2007-06-09 03:01:34 · update #1
Ditdit -- the problem, this kind of reporting belongs on the editorial page, not in hard news. Responsible journalism should be just that, responsible. What the reporter did in this instance is irresponsible.
I worked for a newspaper for 8 years and saw this kind of reporting constantly. It's more like supermarket tabloid journalism.
2007-06-09 04:00:11 · update #2
It got you to thinking so I don't think it is bad. Not everyone believes everything they read or hear. The purpose of all news is for us to filter it ourselves and pass it on to someone else. Just as you did.
2007-06-09 03:34:03 · answer #1 · answered by ditdit 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's fair to say that most reporting involves a certain degree of analysis. The reporter has to make conclusions based on facts and observations. Has the amount of analysis gone up in the past several decades? Probably. Heck, that's how major magazines make their living.
Every story is going to have a slight degree of editorializing. You can bring out plenty of facts, but the facts you choose can be revealing. That's part of the process too.
That said, my first reaction to the paragraph you cite is, I expect the reporter to back those comments up with facts in his story. The lead got my attention; now show me something.
Your remark about income disparities strikes me as being a little off-target. The story is about China, not other places. What happens elsewhere isn't the point. As for corruption, maybe everyone is hoping that the alteration in the system will cause the country to do better in that department, but it hasn't so far.
2007-06-09 17:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by wdx2bb 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Remember that the Bush family still has gigantic business ties with China, and no matter what the media people think, they take their cues from the administration.
While we had an embargo going against China, Prescott Bush III was selling them satellites and rocketry components.
2007-06-09 11:39:34 · answer #3 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Chinese are very good at controlling appearances. The media is also trying to stay in China so, they will be careful in what they report, right?
2007-06-09 20:09:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋