CNN’s signal in China appeared to be censored halfway through CNN’s Will Ripley reporting on the ousting and replacement of China’s foreign minister Qin Gang after a long absence from the public view.
“China is censoring CNN!” CNN isn’t available in China in most areas in the first place due to their history of lying about China ([Ex.] [Disproof]); [Ex.] [Disproof]; ([Ex.] [Disproof]); ([Ex.] [Disproof 1] (China DID deny the authenticity of the documents) & [Disproof 2])—this isn’t all but I think I’ve made my point. There are even lies in the brief clip CNN posted: claim: Xi gave Qin Gang the position of foreign minister (this isn’t true; the National People’s Congress elects the foreign minister, with Qin’s removal occurring due to majority decision by the Standing Committee of the NPC, which is elected by the NPC); they claimed that Xi Jinping “puts people in place” that he can control, despite no examples, with the further notion that “the whole system revolves around him”, despite no explanation. CNN’s select broadcasts in China have frequent interruptions not only due to censorship, although spreading misinformation might be the reason in this case. Some commenters have even had the braindead revelation that this confirms the report, since if it was false they would let everyone be misled?? This idea obviously doesn’t make sense, but it’s anti-China so it doesn’t matter.
There’s also the frequent tendency to see censorship very simplistically, with it usually only being viewed as a retroactive affair (as seen in the concept of book banning). It’s an offshoot of the notion of the abolition of history, with the present conditions seen as a reflection of blind rationality, and so the status and scope of CNN (owned by the Warner Media corporation of course, as Fox News is owned by Fox Corp., The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, and so on, all with no introspection whatsoever on the part of their readers) is merely “how it is”, with any restrictions placed on this fact only then seen as an exertion of “censorship” on the blind natural law of the press.
You’re calling 1984 anti-semitic because of Emmanuel Goldstein, aren’t you? Way to totally miss the point of why Orwell chose that name for that “character.”
So weird that you’re speculating on why I said that as if I didn’t embed a link in the sentence which clarifies this (see section: George Orwell’s Very British Anti-Semitism). And no, it has nothing to do with Goldstein (Trotsky stand-in who never actually appears and may not be real, yes I’ve read the book). What’s weirder than your comment is the fact that five people liked it, which to me indicates that people disliked my comment not because it was incorrect but because it was correct and clashed with their views, ushering in minute pedantic criticisms which aren’t even correct, that people then blindly like in the belief that this somehow discredits my comment and removes it from consideration.
Edit: No way is this comment already in the negative upvotes lmao; the person I’m responding to was incorrect and misrepresented my position purely because they didn’t go through the effort of clicking the link on my comment before responding. There is no argument that can possibly be made for them being correct. How is this level of cognitive dissonance even possible?
Me when I can’t understand the most basic nuances. How do you read everything I said and still come out with the same child-brained understanding of censorship and “information” as a force of nature. And no, it doesn’t censor everything and everyone. Get off Reddit, take off your Swastika band, and read a book.
Given that your very first piece of evidence of how CNN lies about China is them saying tiananmen square happened, and your “disproof” is just a link to a random website entirely devoted to denying the massacre happened, it’s pretty clear why you’re not exactly getting a positive response
Edit: The second disproof is literally just the Chinese government saying it isn’t true, which isn’t exactly thorough evidence
If you exclusively take the statements of a government as unquestionable truth, you’re going to be wrong a lot, regardless of which government you choose
Great reply except that the Website is just a collection of sources, meaning it doesn’t matter that the website is “random” because it isn’t the source, it’s a collective of multiple sources. Don’t deflect, explain the classified cable showing US knew there was no firing in the square; explain Hou Dejian (one of the protest leaders’) admissions. The 6-4 massacre is just a specific example of the Western atrocity narrative not specific to CNN (which is why I mentioned other Western sources), and it shows how CNN is a part of this disinformation drive. Can I get a single response honestly addressing anything I said or what?
The leading rumour is that he was keeping a mistress who was compromised by US/UK intelligence. He was a favoured political protege of Xi, so it’d take something like that to get him disappeared.
Add comment