[kwizzt]

I appreciate your level-headed response.

To address your first point: are most people genuinely outraged? That I do not know tbh. I can only represent my own opinion. However, I have Chinese friends that have voices their discontent with the NBA and Hong Kong situation. That's all I can tell. For me personally, I'm against Hong Kong protest, but again, it's my own opinion.

About the news reports in China, ofc they are biased. Most if not all media are biased imo. But that doesn't mean you can't get information out of it. By getting your news from multiple sources and cross checking, you can be more confident in your judgement. By multiple sources I don't mean from CNN, Fox, etc., I mean sources from China, US, Europe and all other places. This again brings me to the language barrier point. It's hard for you to access the Chinese media without it being translated and presented to you, that I don't know how you can solve.

For the media being controlled by the government point, I'd like to agree on the Chinese part. The US media tho, while they seem to be saying what they want to say, sometimes it's not true. Case in point: https://youtu.be/yUGPIeE9kMc

About censoring, I'm not denying Chinese social media is heavily censored. However, I find the situation in western forums and social media are rather interesting. Whenever people post anything neutral/good about China, they get bashed and down voted to oblivion. People call them wumao/50 cents to ignore their opinions. Just my observations. Maybe there's a name for it, but I think it's a different form of censorship, but I could be wrong.

Again, I appreciate your response. I don't know why I'm getting down voted. Just because I hold a different view or something else?

[atr_gz]

But people in China can't really cross check things with sources that aren't controlled by their government. I've been in China for the entire duration of the Hong Kong protests, and unfortunately I often have to watch CCTV news at night.

They didn't even cover the protests for something like two weeks. They waited until they had some negative things to cover and their talking points all sorted out, then started hammering away about how violent the protestors were and how they were all that way because of foreign influence. It was truly absurd.

The Overton [1] window in China and amongst Chinese people is therefore very far from the truth. Combine that with social pressure, and poor reporting by Western sources, even overseas Chinese people have trouble understanding other opinions on the matter.

I don't agree about your different form of censorship idea. It's completely different to have the majority of people disagree with or ignore your opinion than to have top-down censorship of different ideas. I can easily find Chinese opinions on social media and educate myself about your beliefs. Not so easy in China. To me it just shows weakness - if the government of China can't trust their people to make up their own mind, what does that say about their arguments?

I haven't tried to bring up the Hong Kong protests with many friends here in China, just because I'm afraid of losing their friendships. How must it feel for Chinese people who have sympathy for them?

As far as the NBA, some friends have actually broached the topic with me. They tend to be upper-middle class, educated types, and while they might disagree with what that one guy said (and apologized for), they aren't angry at the NBA, and they feel the government response is ridiculous and counter-productive.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[kelnos]

Definitely agreed that you can get a lot more information about something by comparing what different news agencies, especially in different parts of the world, are saying. It's sometimes difficult, since there are so many options, but it can be done.

But the problem is that, internally, Chinese people don't have access to all that. They pretty much -- as you well know -- just have access to what the government allows. If the government tells everyone that the protesters in HK are doing terrible things, they have nothing to compare it to to check those "facts".

Regarding the video you linked, I got a good chuckle out of it, but I don't think it really suggests what the speaker thinks it does. He asks:

"Is it laziness that causes reporters to copy each other?"

In some cases, yes. Many (most?) news reports are based on one of several feeds. Often the end publications who write up pieces about it will use a lot of the same language. And in any case, journalists talk to each other, probably a lot, in the course of getting their work done.

"Is someone coordinating the message?"

Maybe? But the implied conspiracy angle here requires extraordinary evidence, and a bunch of news outlets all using the word "bracing" to describe how HK feels about the coming weekend is, well, circumstantial at best.

"Are these reports all just coincidences?"

Probably not, but that doesn't have to indicate that something nefarious is going on.

He goes on to state: "Freedom of speech means you can finally feel free to trust the media."

Wellll... kinda, but not really. Freedom of speech means that you, personally, can express your opinions without government interference. That also means the media can do the same. It means that you can feel free to trust that the media is saying what it says without the government pulling the strings. But, as you point out, everyone has their own biases, so you can't trust what the media says to be the hard truth, or at least to not be heavily slanted or spun in order to promote a particular narrative. Again, as you pointed out, reading from difference sources, from different places, can give you a better idea of what's really going on.

The news compilation at the end was also pretty funny, but not all that surprising. Remember that most television news in the US is owned by... maybe five(?) parent corporations. I'm not particularly happy with that, but the reality of the situation is that, for the most part, individual stations have a ton of freedom to report on whatever they want to report on. Sometimes -- as in this particular case -- the parent company will require that they run a segment on a particular topic, and I guess even provide suggested wording (which I figure most will probably just take as-is, if they don't find anything too disagreeable about it). And yes, this can be used for sketchy purposes. In this particular case -- talking about how spreading lies and incorrect information as truthful news is harmful to democracy -- well, that's true, and I don't really mind them passing along this message. But we have to be vigilant to spot an evil required message if and when one comes through.

Regarding "a different form of censorship", I don't really agree with that. It's very different for a government to not allow you to say something on the threat of jail, versus you saying something and your peers telling you you're wrong and you should shut up. I wish people wouldn't be so shitty about that, and try to engage in a more productive discussion, but... well, humanity isn't really all that great sometimes, I guess... to put it mildly.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted either. I hope it's not just because people disagree with you, but unfortunately that does happen sometimes on HN. I really appreciate that you've taken the time to have a conversation with me here!

[pjlegato]

This analysis is whataboutism[1]. It is an attempt to create a false moral equivalency by drawing vague, factually inaccurate parallels between two radically different information dissemination structures, as a nationalistic apologetic for the PRC.

Any means of propagating information is directly and heavily censored by the government itself in China, as you yourself readily acknowledge. There are well known, open, severe criminal penalties for failure to comply. This applies not only to media outlets, but even to ordinary people posting personal opinions on the internet. None of this is hidden or controversial.

Categorically, nothing remotely similar to that use of "widespread coercive criminal penalties to control the spread of information, as a government sponsored social control apparatus" exists in the west. (This does not imply anything about the status of biases existing or not existing in western media. That is a logically unrelated issue.)

It is not a question of different degrees or forms of what's basically the same thing; it is two totally different structures: one system uses the state's monopoly on the use of violence to directly and openly enforce and restrict the spread of information. The other system explicitly prohibits this.

What the moral goodness of each structure may be is a seperate question. What is objectively clear, though, is that their respective moral analyses must necessarily be wholly differently conducted, since they are structurally different at the most basic level. There is no possible moral equivalency.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism