Views: 15471|Replies: 182

A question to seneca   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-7-9 19:41:44 |Display all floors
This post was edited by ztoa789 at 2014-7-9 19:43

A question to you :

If there is freedom of speech in China, according to your definition, will the voices disliked by media ever get public attention?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-7-9 19:42:09 |Display all floors
This post was edited by ztoa789 at 2014-7-9 20:01

I dont expect  an answer from you. Your refusal to answer is what I expect and will prove my point:

The freedom of speech you advocate doesn't have single ounce of freedom in it. "free" media try to sell it because it will let it  control public information and public opinions,
the common interest of all various media. Therefore, even the democracy "free" media advocates (because "free" media are the judges in the room) has caused so much problem, "free" media will mislead people to blame every problem on government; even China has developed 30 years and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, China is like hell to almost all the media, as "free" media can't control public opinions under such system.

"free" media can't tolerate any different opinions that may threaten its control of public opinions, even it means the lives of thousands of people. Like in US, when a priest tried to burn Koran which would put the lives of hundreds of thousand American soldiers in danger, none of "free" media called government to stop it, because if government is given such power, such power may be a threat to media's power.

"free" media doesn't give a damn about the welfare of billions of people. Anyone with common sense know that the #1 reason for misery in this world is poverty. While the democracy "free" media advocates have done little in lifting people out of poverty, the system in China has done a great job. "free" media suppress the opinions that may make public beware of the merits of the system, and hide the problems of western democracy that doesn't deliver.

You know what? "free" media has done a great favor for China. China would have no chance competing with west had western people been willing to sacrifice some of their individual interest for the common good of their countries, thanks to the "me, me, me" "free" media promote, Because of the democracy and human right you advocate, India has no chance against China, as you idealism is simply incompatible with scientific management, now the virus starts working in Vietnam. Because of the individualism  "free" media promote, US doesn't have well-educated future generation to compete with China.

In a word, "free" media is like AIDS, which weaken a person from inside, and eventually destroy the person.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-7-9 19:59:09 |Display all floors
This post was edited by ztoa789 at 2014-7-9 20:05

Also "free" media is a great protection to the super rich in a country.

Consider yourself as a billionaire owning a newspaper. Will you allow your newspaper exposing the dirty secrets of other super rich?

No, you won't. Because if you do so,  other super rich can buy newspaper or TV station to expose your dirty secrets.

So, on surface, you have various sources to choose, but none of sources will harm the interest of super rich and media. In other word, no matter what happens, the super rich will always get the share of wealth they demand, and ordinary people are driven by media to blame every problem on government.



See the DOW JONES hit 17,000?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-7-10 19:54:56 |Display all floors
This post was edited by ztoa789 at 2014-7-10 20:06

Seneca,

I am not a scholar on politics, so I won't give a definition on freedom of speech. I believe that
if there is freedom of speech, the voices against the top 0.1% should be aware by public (which is not the case in "free" world), and if this is case, any wrong doing by other layers in a society will be aware by public too.

You have  your understanding of what freedom of speech is, I just expose that your understanding is flawed, because  the voices disliked by "free" media never get public attentions, the voices against top 0.1% in "free" world is well suppressed and controlled by the media owned by the super rich in "free" world.

You don't have to worry about if my posts are counter productive or not, I never try to convince you, they are for other readers.

(1) When you reply to my email, please remember I never claim China has free speech or democracy. I said 'China has more freedom of speech than "free" world does.' (I am sure your English is good enough to understand the difference), because in China, the voices against top 0.1% are well aware by public.

(2) My previous threads consisted of personal attack, as moderator claimed, though I hadve no idea what they were.

(3) No, you didn't answer the question. You ask "whose media?"

I didn't say "whose media", I said free media (defined by western media). Are you going to ask me what "free media" is?

OK, let me rephrase the question :

If there is freedom of speech in China, according to your definition, will the voices disliked by what west media defines as free media ever get public attention?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-7-10 19:55:53 |Display all floors
Here are  examples how badly the minds of Westerners are controlled by "free" media in US.

(1) During president campaign in 2012, what was the most urgent issue at that time? Fiscal cliff. You can visit blogs and comments during that period, you can hardly find any Americans talked about it, actually, the issue was not even raised in president debates. But right on the election day, every one started talking about it when media brought it to public attention.

(2) Last year in Oct, US government closed for two weeks. All the media talked about it, and American people talked about it. Two month later, Congress passed a budget of cutting 1 trillion dollar. Media eerily kept silence about it. No Americans talk about it, or even aware of it.

(3) The scandal in France, on the corruption by ex-president Sarkozy, no French care who bribed Sarkozy.

These examples clearly demonstrate that MEDIA SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS PART OF PUBLIC, it is an entity that has huge power over what public will think and what public will believe. It is clear that vast majority westerners care only what "free" media wants them to care, almost completely unaware of any issues that "free" media hides from them.

BTW, Passing a budget of cutting 1 trillion without public awareness, is it behind-door operation? like "free" media has long accused Chinese government?   

Seneca,  what do you think?  Is it true that the transparency western media has talked about is actually transparency for media, not transparency for public?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2014-7-10 20:07:50 |Display all floors
ztoa789 Post time: 2014-7-9 19:42
I dont expect  an answer from you. Your refusal to answer is what I expect and will prove my point: ...
Like in US, when a priest tried to burn Koran which would put the lives of hundreds of thousand American soldiers in danger, none of "free" media called government to stop it, because if government is given such power, such power may be a threat to media's power.


Has nothing to do with the media's power and everything to do with not letting government infringe on personal liberties.  Every american would die to protect that nutter's freedom of speech because when that goes - there is no freedom for any of us.  The way we dealt with the nutty preacher is to use our freedom of speech to ridicule and condemn him.  That is all that is needed.  The government stepping in is not acceptable.
  
Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out.

                          -  James Bryant Conant

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-7-10 20:09:48 |Display all floors
This post was edited by ztoa789 at 2014-7-10 20:13
JFenix Post time: 2014-7-10 20:07
Every american would die to protect that nutter's freedom of speech because when that goes - there is no freedom for any of us. ..

What is the difference between free speech and free press?

I have been saying that the freedom speech you die to protect is NOT freedom of speech, it is free press.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.