1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions.
2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim.
3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources.
Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right?
that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources.
?
The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor’s also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn’t a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn’t a valid source in an internet argument.
Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right?
I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident:
Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it ‘acted immediately’ to counter a collection of sensitive information
U.S. president Biden … however stated that it was “not a major breach”, and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn’t even aware of the balloon. … On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn’t transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon’s sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, “those winds are very high… the particular motor on that aircraft can’t go against those winds at that altitude.”
Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR?
Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story.
I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it’s poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
As far as news outlets go, The Diplomat is rather well-regarded
As an opinion piece, sources are usually implicit (since opinion pieces use the reader’s own knowledge of current events as the context)
The article points to this article for more context: https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china
1 I don’t know this outlet, nor am inclined to use perceived pedigree to determine the quality of news. I’d like to see sources, not news dresses as opinions. 2 Opinion pieces that try to be credible need sources or else I will disregard them as petty trolling. The title makes a bold claim, I want sources backing up that claim. 3 that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources.
Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right?
Again, have you been living under a rock for the past few years? You can even look at the top posts of this community.
Again, 🤦♀️
The evidence is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it
Then link the supposed data points backing up this claim.
You’ve refused to do so within this thread, only using “You don’t know!” as a reply.
Link the supposed data or GTFO. That’s what every person has stated and you’ve refused to comply.
Everyone says they have data that disproves it
And nobody’s provided any because they can’t find it
deleted by creator
No one here says they have data that disproves it though?
I’m not the one making bald claims. The onus is on the one with the claims. Just show me some sources!
?
The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor’s also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn’t a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn’t a valid source in an internet argument.
I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident:
Fox:
Guardian:
CNN:
Wikipedia:
Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR?
Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story.
I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it’s poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort.