[23lk4jj4j2]

I would write off someone posting about any country if their entire statement could be boiled down to "X is reporting it wrong" without any evidence or examples...

It just so happens that this kind of statement is common in the Chinese people that I speak with.

You can make a very good case that Western media is terrible in its China reporting, but a blunt statement like that isn't going to be received well in a community like HN that likes to think of itself as critical.

As I said, I was trying to help them understand how their statement was likely to be received not "tritely dismissing the comment on technicalities." which is an interpretation entirely of your own that wasn't contained in my original post.

[colordrops]

Most posts on HN are statements or opinion not backed up by facts. Occasionally an academic type will provide footnotes to their post but it's not the norm. Typically if someone's post is not received well, people respond by asking for references or a challenge to back up their statement.

You take a comment that is not really qualitatively different from any other post on HN and give it special status because it's posted by a Chinese national.

[mercer]

I think the difference is that on many issues, people on HN agree on the basic assumptions and skip the 'sources plz' part. In part because many of us are from the same country or similar cultures.

That in itself is not necessarily a good thing; more than once I've seen it lead to fruitless discussion because it turns out those involved actually did not agree on those assumptions.

But on the other hand it's sometimes necessary. We can't have a discussion, practically speaking, where we define every term we use journal-article-style, or provide references for every single assumption.

My point is that it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that when 'we' are confronted with a perspective that is very different from our own, some more effort should be put into providing arguments (and/or definitions).

Not to mention that on the whole I'd say HN already demands elaboration even from those who have a relatively-similar perspective or background, and I think more of that wouldn't hurt.

I do understand how it can seem unfair, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

[pavlov]

The original comment contributed nothing of substance: "China's political environment is indeed bad, but most of the Western media coverage distorted the facts"

You're the one asking others to give this empty argument special status because it was posted by someone who claims to be Chinese.

[colordrops]

How is that insubstantial? Many do not realize that the west is also a purveyor of lots of propaganda and perhaps they should challenge what they hear from the western media about controversial China topics. That is a very valid point.

[23lk4jj4j2]

It would be substantial (that is, having substance) if the grandfather post perhaps included an example of how the western media screws up its China coverage. I have no doubt there are a lot to choose from.

"Oh the coverage is all wrong" is a pretty empty statement by itself.

[colordrops]

So ask for an example to back it up rather than write the person off. Like I said, most posts here on HN are not backed up by references until they are asked for.

[pavlov]

The President of the United States goes around saying CNN is "fake news", and you're trying to tell me that nobody challenges the Western news media.