[mistermann]

You don't know what their only goal is.

At least, they're one of very few sources that report on China negatively from a strategic, big picture perspective. To listen to you, one might think everything they say is a lie, speaking of fake news. I guess that's why you dodged my question.

[letslightafire]

You're right, I probably don't know what their only goal is. However, you can easily extrapolate from their parent company's goals and backgrounds and take your answer from there.

"The station was founded in 2001 by Falun Gong practitioners as a Chinese-language broadcaster"[1]

They produce Shen Yun, which has a strong Falun Gong backing and definitely has an agenda, what with the final act being a giant tsunami that comes in and kills all those in the mainland[2]

They are partnered with the Epoch Times which is considered one of the biggest mouthpieces of the Falun Gong[3]

The Epoch Times, New Tang Media, and China Uncensored are all clearly biased in one direction. I really don't know how you can say they aren't, but they don't even try to hide the fact sometimes. You have to realize that when you listen to them as you have to see their biases.

>At least, they're one of very few sources that report on China negatively from a strategic, big picture perspective.

Are you really sure about that? China uncensored doesn't go into high journalism and most of the time just dips their foot into news articles with clickbaity headlines and overly sarcastic monologues. I would much prefer something done by the FT, Economist, or NYT.

As to why I consider them fake news. I really don't trust news at face value from China Uncensored the same way I don't trust articles from places like Breitbart. They have a way of over-exaggerating the news and twisting it into an anti-China stance. I always go find extra sources and never dwell on their one single source.

[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108190438992282143

[2]https://www.denverpost.com/2008/01/09/chinese-new-year-embra...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_Times

[mistermann]

> However, you can easily extrapolate from their parent company's goals and backgrounds and take your answer from there.

Yes, you can, but if your goal is reaching correct conclusions, that's not a great strategy (although it's an extremely popular one nowadays, even on HN).

> The Epoch Times, New Tang Media, and China Uncensored are all clearly biased in one direction. I really don't know how you can say they aren't

Neither can I, but I'm not sure why we're discussing this because I have said no such thing. What I did say is that I disagree with your broad classification of them as "fake news", and I offered you the opportunity to cite some specific examples of things they've said that aren't true, which you've now passed on twice. To me that is interesting, because I am increasingly curious about how the human mind works. Is it interesting to you?

> Are you really sure about that? China uncensored doesn't go into high journalism and most of the time just dips their foot into news articles with clickbaity headlines and overly sarcastic monologues. I would much prefer something done by the FT, Economist, or NYT.

No, not overly sure. I've never encountered anything very negative on China elsewhere, but then I haven't really been looking for it. If you could point me to any particular China-critical articles from any of those publications I'd certainly read them.

> As to why I consider them fake news. I really don't trust news at face value from China Uncensored the same way I don't trust articles from places like Breitbart. They have a way of over-exaggerating the news and twisting it into an anti-China stance. I always go find extra sources and never dwell on their one single source.

In that sense I would agree that they're "fake news" (with quotes); I reserve the term fake news without quotes for actual lies rather than bias, or bias while claiming impartiality, like mainstream news in most Western nations.

[letslightafire]

Compare these two different aspects of journalism

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/world/asia/china-africa-b...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN9wFtiJtBM

China Uncensored's video barely scratches the surface except for some things that China does in Africa. The other is an actual journalism piece which goes indepth on what people in Africa think of the situation while also going forlaying into China's involvement with Africa.

https://www.economist.com/news/china/21737283-it-has-problem...

This article too goes into actual journalism with an indepth review on China's relations with race and how they see race as well.

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21737558-clear-think...

From the economist and another "China-critical" piece. I'm going to be honest though, most articles regarding China from the economist or Financial Times are going to be "China-critical", just varying degrees on what you consider critical to be. Most aren't going to be overly pessimistic about any small thing China does (as China Uncensored does for everything) and most are going to err on the side of mild concern.

China Uncensored likes to over-exaggerate a lot of things. Problems come from their clickbaity headlines and lack of acting like an actual news provider.