• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Western Media's Manipulation of Tibet Riots Exposed

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
When the government in China use an excuse like "They pose a threat to the order and stability of China" what kind of reasoning is that you might ask? Anything that threatens their Communist Totalitarian Regime, including freedom of the press and freedom of speech is a threat to China. They rounded up people practicing FulongDong which is a kind of deep breathing exercise and Yoga combined. This is ludicrous. These people did not threaten China in any way. These are the actions of a bully threatening you because they dont like you.
 

Vonkhan

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
8,199
0
71
If the Chinese can slaughter it's own youth like in tiananmen square, I can't imagine how many tibetians are being slaughtered right now

spew your bs elsewhere
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Proof? How about pulling your head out?

Rathergate

leaked classified intel

faked photos

staged photos

fake soldiers

real soldiers making up fake stories

Your failure to acknowledge the proof that's out there doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. It merely means you refuse to acknowledge it's there because doing so would severely erode your position.

Notice in this thread that nearly every naysayer refuses to discuss the actual photos and videos. Instead we get accusations of "the Chinese government is behind this website," as if truth is immediately invalidated if a government is behind something. Erm, even IF the Chinese government were behind this website it still doesn't explain why those photos and images were manipulated by the western media outlets, which thy clearly were, and why.

Anyone care to address that issue? Anybody at all?
That doesn't prove it's a liberal bias. All that proves is that the media likes to report on shock value. When Clinton's scandal broke, it was covered in much the same way by the "liberal biased" media. You haven't proven anything and that's why everyone calls you out on it.

Also, if you just took one step back and look at what I posted in regards to Harvey, you'd notice that I support your second point. I just don't believe that there's any particular "liberal bias" in the media. If anything it's shock bias.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
If the Chinese can slaughter it's own youth like in tiananmen square, I can't imagine how many tibetians are being slaughtered right now

spew your bs elsewhere
Oh come one, what kind of argument is this? I might as well claim that since the US has committed genocide once, they must be doing it now. Since the US is willing to fire on students at Kent State they must be doing that at UCLA now! Governments obviously evolve and change as times change. I'm not saying that the Chinese government is good in its current form but it's progressing with what it can. You're basically expecting a country that was dominated by imperialist Europe and then crushed by imperialist Japan to pull itself up and become a modern first world country, with all of the restrictions that comes with it, without the same latitude that the US was given during its economic growth period.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,079
3
81
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm, one side wants organs for medial treatment. The other side murders prisoners and then harvests the organs to be sold on the organ market. Why yes, sick people are to blame for wanting to get better.
They have a choice of getting their organs from Chinese sources and from other sources less controversial. If this has been going on for a while, then the buyer obviously has an idea of where the source of the organs was from.

Do you blame the crack addict or the dealer for the lucrative drug trade?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,514
21,506
136
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Proof? How about pulling your head out?

Rathergate

leaked classified intel

faked photos

staged photos

fake soldiers

real soldiers making up fake stories

Your failure to acknowledge the proof that's out there doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. It merely means you refuse to acknowledge it's there because doing so would severely erode your position.

Notice in this thread that nearly every naysayer refuses to discuss the actual photos and videos. Instead we get accusations of "the Chinese government is behind this website," as if truth is immediately invalidated if a government is behind something. Erm, even IF the Chinese government were behind this website it still doesn't explain why those photos and images were manipulated by the western media outlets, which thy clearly were, and why.

Anyone care to address that issue? Anybody at all?
That doesn't prove it's a liberal bias. All that proves is that the media likes to report on shock value. When Clinton's scandal broke, it was covered in much the same way by the "liberal biased" media. You haven't proven anything and that's why everyone calls you out on it.

Also, if you just took one step back and look at what I posted in regards to Harvey, you'd notice that I support your second point. I just don't believe that there's any particular "liberal bias" in the media. If anything it's shock bias.
Exactly.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If I don't watch it, how the hell can I support it? I don't care about Fox one way or the other. I pay it no mind. Nor did I state that the media is "completely" biased left. WTF is wrong with those certain people in here that feel they must misrepresent what their ideological opposition is saying?

The majority of the MSM leans left, yet the lefties don't want to acknowledge that fact. Yet if a single one leans to the right, like Fox, you guys get your collective panties in a twist in here. You know what that attitude demonstrates? It demonstrates the overwhelming left tilt to P&N.

Thanks for yet another demonstration.

Nor did I need to state anything about Fox because you chimed in anyway. I had no doubt someone would raise that flag. So thanks for being predictable too.
All I asked was some proof of the MSM leaning left. You've provided nothing other than an example of your ability to put up a useless rant.
Proof? How about pulling your head out?

Rathergate

leaked classified intel

faked photos

staged photos

fake soldiers

real soldiers making up fake stories

Your failure to acknowledge the proof that's out there doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. It merely means you refuse to acknowledge it's there because doing so would severely erode your position.
Just so you know, the 'proof' you just offered in no way proves the statement you made before. There's no point in arguing this with you though, you can't fight religion with science. The media being liberal is part of your religion of persecution.
Keep telling yourself that.

Close your eyes and click your heels together three times while you're repeating it over and over too.
your realize thats what you're doing right?
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,079
3
81
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
If the Chinese can slaughter it's own youth like in tiananmen square, I can't imagine how many tibetians are being slaughtered right now

spew your bs elsewhere
Yes i'm sure they're running everyone over with tanks, killing people in their houses, raping all the women and children, and going on shooting sprees right now. :roll:.

If the Americans can torture people in Abu Ghraib, I can't imagine how many Iraqi's are being treated the same right now.... see the failure in you're argument??
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
Originally posted by: sunzt
They have a choice of getting their organs from Chinese sources and from other sources less controversial. If this has been going on for a while, then the buyer obviously has an idea of where the source of the organs was from.

Do you blame the crack addict or the dealer for the lucrative drug trade?
You blame the drug dealer. But in this case, its a life and death situation.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,909
2
76
Originally posted by: sunzt
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm, one side wants organs for medial treatment. The other side murders prisoners and then harvests the organs to be sold on the organ market. Why yes, sick people are to blame for wanting to get better.
They have a choice of getting their organs from Chinese sources and from other sources less controversial. If this has been going on for a while, then the buyer obviously has an idea of where the source of the organs was from.

Do you blame the crack addict or the dealer for the lucrative drug trade?
the dealer of course. If there was no dealer in crack there would be no crack. without crack you don't have crack addicts.

Anyway i have never liked that China supplies organs using prisoners. To take one life in order to prolong another's is horrible. These people who are sick and take in organs from prisoners are bad. But to enable the process and to make it into a business like China does is horrid.

there is also the question of do some people rush these executions in order to make a buck?
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,079
3
81
Originally posted by: ss284
Originally posted by: sunzt
They have a choice of getting their organs from Chinese sources and from other sources less controversial. If this has been going on for a while, then the buyer obviously has an idea of where the source of the organs was from.

Do you blame the crack addict or the dealer for the lucrative drug trade?
You blame the drug dealer. But in this case, its a life and death situation.
A life and death situation of the buyer makes him disparate and is more likely of him to accept an organ regardless of source.

If you were in that situation, would you care if your organ was from a Chinese prisoner? Would you care that they may have killed an unwilling prisoner as long as it saved your life?
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
Originally posted by: sunzt

If you were in that situation, would you care if your organ was from a Chinese prisoner? Would you care that they may have killed an unwilling prisoner as long as it saved your life?
I think just about everyone here most certainly would care. Your opinion seems to differ though.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: sunzt
Originally posted by: ss284
Originally posted by: sunzt
They have a choice of getting their organs from Chinese sources and from other sources less controversial. If this has been going on for a while, then the buyer obviously has an idea of where the source of the organs was from.

Do you blame the crack addict or the dealer for the lucrative drug trade?
You blame the drug dealer. But in this case, its a life and death situation.
A life and death situation of the buyer makes him disparate and is more likely of him to accept an organ regardless of source.

If you were in that situation, would you care if your organ was from a Chinese prisoner? Would you care that they may have killed an unwilling prisoner as long as it saved your life?
Sunzt, you're just digging yourself into a hole with this analogy. I'd look for other ways of debating this topic than to use the supply / demand debate of organ trafficking.
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
Originally posted by: sunzt
A life and death situation of the buyer makes him disparate and is more likely of him to accept an organ regardless of source.

If you were in that situation, would you care if your organ was from a Chinese prisoner? Would you care that they may have killed an unwilling prisoner as long as it saved your life?
Lets assume the least likely (and most favorable to your argument's) case, that the seller informs the buyer of the organ that he will kill a prisoner for it. I would think every buyer would try to look for an alternative. Again, assuming there is no other alternative, and an organ is needed immediately, the buyer knowingly pays for the organ to save his or her life, and the seller kills someone.

In the end, the buyer has lost money, and has effectively murdered someone, but has saved their own life. The seller on the other hand, has murdered someone, but has gained some money.

In overly simplified terms, the buyer murdered to save a life, the seller murdered for money. Both might be wrong, but its pretty easy to see where the majority of the blame lies. Again, realize that this situation is one most favorable to your position, and also the least likely.
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
Also, the seller has the choice to try other alternative ways to make money; maybe not as easily and quickly, but possible. The buyer on the other hand, has no other choice.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Proof? How about pulling your head out?

Rathergate

leaked classified intel

faked photos

staged photos

fake soldiers

real soldiers making up fake stories

Your failure to acknowledge the proof that's out there doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. It merely means you refuse to acknowledge it's there because doing so would severely erode your position.

Notice in this thread that nearly every naysayer refuses to discuss the actual photos and videos. Instead we get accusations of "the Chinese government is behind this website," as if truth is immediately invalidated if a government is behind something. Erm, even IF the Chinese government were behind this website it still doesn't explain why those photos and images were manipulated by the western media outlets, which thy clearly were, and why.

Anyone care to address that issue? Anybody at all?
That doesn't prove it's a liberal bias. All that proves is that the media likes to report on shock value. When Clinton's scandal broke, it was covered in much the same way by the "liberal biased" media. You haven't proven anything and that's why everyone calls you out on it.

Also, if you just took one step back and look at what I posted in regards to Harvey, you'd notice that I support your second point. I just don't believe that there's any particular "liberal bias" in the media. If anything it's shock bias.
Speaking of the Clinton scandal, you do know that Newsweek initially had the story and decided not to make it public, right? Instead it was broken by Drudge, who I'm sure the liberals in here wouldn't hesitate to put a conservative bias label on, while they'd likely view newsweek as non-biased.

And no doubt all that "shock value" just happens to have a liberal slant to them? How convenient. No doubt it was purely coincidence.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If I don't watch it, how the hell can I support it? I don't care about Fox one way or the other. I pay it no mind. Nor did I state that the media is "completely" biased left. WTF is wrong with those certain people in here that feel they must misrepresent what their ideological opposition is saying?

The majority of the MSM leans left, yet the lefties don't want to acknowledge that fact. Yet if a single one leans to the right, like Fox, you guys get your collective panties in a twist in here. You know what that attitude demonstrates? It demonstrates the overwhelming left tilt to P&N.

Thanks for yet another demonstration.

Nor did I need to state anything about Fox because you chimed in anyway. I had no doubt someone would raise that flag. So thanks for being predictable too.
All I asked was some proof of the MSM leaning left. You've provided nothing other than an example of your ability to put up a useless rant.
Proof? How about pulling your head out?

Rathergate

leaked classified intel

faked photos

staged photos

fake soldiers

real soldiers making up fake stories

Your failure to acknowledge the proof that's out there doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. It merely means you refuse to acknowledge it's there because doing so would severely erode your position.
Just so you know, the 'proof' you just offered in no way proves the statement you made before. There's no point in arguing this with you though, you can't fight religion with science. The media being liberal is part of your religion of persecution.
Keep telling yourself that.

Close your eyes and click your heels together three times while you're repeating it over and over too.
your realize thats what you're doing right?
I don't expect a bunch of lefties to actually recognize that the media has a liberal tilt. Seemingly they can only recognize a conservative tilt. Even if they did notice a liberal bias, they wouldn't admit it anyway. Just about all the guys in jail claim they're innocent too.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,514
21,506
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I don't expect a bunch of lefties to actually recognize that the media has a liberal tilt. Seemingly they can only recognize a conservative tilt. Even if they did notice a liberal bias, they wouldn't admit it anyway. Just about all the guys in jail claim they're innocent too.
You realize how retarded this line of reasoning is right?
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Proof? How about pulling your head out?

Rathergate

leaked classified intel

faked photos

staged photos

fake soldiers

real soldiers making up fake stories

Your failure to acknowledge the proof that's out there doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. It merely means you refuse to acknowledge it's there because doing so would severely erode your position.

Notice in this thread that nearly every naysayer refuses to discuss the actual photos and videos. Instead we get accusations of "the Chinese government is behind this website," as if truth is immediately invalidated if a government is behind something. Erm, even IF the Chinese government were behind this website it still doesn't explain why those photos and images were manipulated by the western media outlets, which thy clearly were, and why.

Anyone care to address that issue? Anybody at all?
That doesn't prove it's a liberal bias. All that proves is that the media likes to report on shock value. When Clinton's scandal broke, it was covered in much the same way by the "liberal biased" media. You haven't proven anything and that's why everyone calls you out on it.

Also, if you just took one step back and look at what I posted in regards to Harvey, you'd notice that I support your second point. I just don't believe that there's any particular "liberal bias" in the media. If anything it's shock bias.
Speaking of the Clinton scandal, you do know that Newsweek initially had the story and decided not to make it public, right? Instead it was broken by Drudge, who I'm sure the liberals in here wouldn't hesitate to put a conservative bias label on, while they'd likely view newsweek as non-biased.

And no doubt all that "shock value" just happens to have a liberal slant to them? How convenient. No doubt it was purely coincidence.
Just take a look at the current media frenzy. It's all about Clinton versus Obama and shock stories to hurt the two of them. I guess that makes them leftie liberal nonsense too right? You basically have no proof, you go off on these mindless rants about how people can't discern liberal based media and to top it off, you place yourself on a faulty pedestal of enlightened senses for the MSM. Hop off your soapbox, no one is buying it.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,197
2,046
126
Originally posted by: sunzt

If the Americans can torture people in Abu Ghraib, I can't imagine how many Iraqi's are being treated the same right now.... see the failure in you're argument??
Odd...I thought we were talking about China. Perhaps you could stay on topic?

 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: Exterous
Originally posted by: sunzt

If the Americans can torture people in Abu Ghraib, I can't imagine how many Iraqi's are being treated the same right now.... see the failure in you're argument??
Odd...I thought we were talking about China. Perhaps you could stay on topic?
You can't call out someone who's responding to another poster who went off-topic. Plus, the basic premise of this entire topic is that there's hypocrisy in the portrayal of China by the MSM. Whether you agree with his message or not, you pointing out only his quote when he was in fact referring to another person's post does not reflect strongly in your favor.
 

LongCoolMother

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2001
5,677
0
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Harvey

Your source is a Chinese government mouthpiece. :thumbsdown:

anti-cnn.com

Jim Rao
Tsinghua University
Beijing, CN 100084
+86.1085148520
lastromance@163.com

Creation Date: 2008-03-18
Registration Date: 2008-03-18
Expiry Date: 2009-03-18

Thanks, but I choose to believe the word of the Dali Lama, a man with a long, verifiable and far greater reputation for credibility and integrity over some flakey, amateur three day old site conveniently started by the Chinese government.
Ding ding ding, QFT.
so the domain is registered to a student from Tsinghua University... Ok. So what? Does this somehow make it a government mouthpiece?
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,197
2,046
126
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: Exterous
Originally posted by: sunzt

If the Americans can torture people in Abu Ghraib, I can't imagine how many Iraqi's are being treated the same right now.... see the failure in you're argument??
Odd...I thought we were talking about China. Perhaps you could stay on topic?
You can't call out someone who's responding to another poster who went off-topic. Plus, the basic premise of this entire topic is that there's hypocrisy in the portrayal of China by the MSM. Whether you agree with his message or not, you pointing out only his quote when he was in fact referring to another person's post does not reflect strongly in your favor.
Really? Because the post in question involved treatment of Tibetan protesters. I don't think that is far off topic. I think this thread is about the protests in tibet right? Here, let me bold it for you.

Originally posted by: sunzt
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
If the Chinese can slaughter it's own youth like in tiananmen square, I can't imagine how many tibetians are being slaughtered right now

spew your bs elsewhere
Yes i'm sure they're running everyone over with tanks, killing people in their houses, raping all the women and children, and going on shooting sprees right now. :roll:.

If the Americans can torture people in Abu Ghraib, I can't imagine how many Iraqi's are being treated the same right now.... see the failure in you're argument??
suntz's response is to refer to an entirely different situation? Abu Ghraib =/ Tibet. That needs to be called out.

I think the argument could safely be made that Iraq has nothing to do with Tibetan protesters while a post regarding the treatment of Tibetan protesters has something to do with Tibetan protesters. I would also argue that no case has been made about hypocrisy (since you are the first to mention it) rather that a bias is involved.

Although if you can point out anywhere that the post he was responding to had ANY mention of iraq I will retract my statement
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Just take a look at the current media frenzy. It's all about Clinton versus Obama and shock stories to hurt the two of them. I guess that makes them leftie liberal nonsense too right? You basically have no proof, you go off on these mindless rants about how people can't discern liberal based media and to top it off, you place yourself on a faulty pedestal of enlightened senses for the MSM. Hop off your soapbox, no one is buying it.
Actually it makes my point, if you take the time to look closely enough.

Which members of the MSM like to focus on Clinton and which like to focus on Obama? Unsurprisingly, the ones that support Clinton like to focus on Obama while giving Clinton a pass whenever possible, and vice versa. It's selective reporting based on political preference and bias. In this case it's primarily liberals whacking other liberals over the head with their own bias. They're so much about divisiveness it's nearly tearing their own party apart in the process.

Apparently Bush IS a uniter. He gave/gives liberals a common cause to rally against. But let there be divisiveness within their own ranks and they don't hestitate to eat their own. Just go to D-KOS or DU for firm evidence of that. It all seems to arise from the fact that liberals, for some unknown reason, are so damn self-righteous, pig-headed, and wrapped up in their own opinions that they won't even bother to see contemplate the opinion of the other guy. Go figger.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,514
21,506
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Just take a look at the current media frenzy. It's all about Clinton versus Obama and shock stories to hurt the two of them. I guess that makes them leftie liberal nonsense too right? You basically have no proof, you go off on these mindless rants about how people can't discern liberal based media and to top it off, you place yourself on a faulty pedestal of enlightened senses for the MSM. Hop off your soapbox, no one is buying it.
Actually it makes my point, if you take the time to look closely enough.

Which members of the MSM like to focus on Clinton and which like to focus on Obama? Unsurprisingly, the ones that support Clinton like to focus on Obama while giving Clinton a pass whenever possible, and vice versa. It's selective reporting based on political preference and bias. In this case it's primarily liberals whacking other liberals over the head with their own bias. They're so much about divisiveness it's nearly tearing their own party apart in the process.

Apparently Bush IS a uniter. He gave/gives liberals a common cause to rally against. But let there be divisiveness within their own ranks and they don't hestitate to eat their own. Just go to D-KOS or DU for firm evidence of that. It all seems to arise from the fact that liberals, for some unknown reason, are so damn self-righteous, pig-headed, and wrapped up in their own opinions that they won't even bother to see contemplate the opinion of the other guy. Go figger.
Yet another of your "I just know it's biased. I JUST KNOW." arguments.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY