[dmix]

I wonder who asked the Tiananmen question to the minister from the audience in Singapore. That guy has some backbone, I like it. They should be challenged on the topic of their political repression more. And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda.

It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention it, if there was nothing really wrong with it?

It will forever be the giant elephant in the room, regardless of how big and successful China makes itself. Few westerners really understanding how completely thorough and effective it was. The near universal obedience seen among the population would seem very foreign to most people in the west. Which is in itself an interesting cultural question.

[cyphar]

> And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda. [...] The near universal obedience seen among the population would seem very foreign to most people in the west.

You say that, but mainstream western media is very rarely really critical of the government and especially the core policies of the government (which are the same regardless of whose government it happens to be). Yeah, mainstream media will take some potshots (which is an improvement over China) but very rarely will there be an actual critique of establishment politics.

Almost no mainstream media was critical of the Iraq war and the lie that Saddam had WMDs. No mainstream media is critical of the currently 5 illegal wars (not approved by Congress thus being illegal under the US constitution, nor an act of defense thus being illegal under the Nuremberg Convention) being waged by the US. No mainstream media was critical of the Syrian gas attack (used as justification to bomb Syria with America's "majestic" weapons) which may have been false, given the recent leak of an internal OPCW document detailing evidence that the gas canisters could not have been dropped from a helicopter and the attempts to cover it up[1] -- which was so ignored by mainstream media that I can't even find an article mentioning it. No mainstream media is critical of US interventionism nor modern US imperialism. No mainstream media is critical of the current narrative being pushed by the government about Venezuela or Iran. And that's just the war narrative!

[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemic...

[khuey]

I wouldn't take Robert Fisk at face value here without some detailed citations of primary sources after he signed onto the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" 9/11 conspiracy theory.

[cyphar]

As I mentioned above -- I don't like that the only article I could find of any repute which mentioned the leaked OPCW report was the Independent (the other option was InfoWars). And yes, about half of the article does appear to be at least slightly bullshit. But the leaked report was so ignored by mainstream media there isn't even a mention of it in an opinion piece in more reputable papers like the Guardian.

Aaron Mate did a piece on this[1], who is definitely a more reputable journalist (though not mainstream). I also just found that (of all people) Tucker Carlson mentioned this on his show[2]. Then again, I have many other issues with Tucker Carlson.

[1]: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/05/25/opcw-syria-gas-attack-sta... [2]: https://www.activistpost.com/2019/05/were-being-played-tucke...

[fragsworth]

The main reason Western media doesn't much criticize the actual policies is because it's "boring" and doesn't generate advertising revenue. It has nothing to do with whether they're allowed to or not.

Instead, they criticize the politicians themselves (particularly Trump, right now). This would never be allowed in China.

[cyphar]

> The main reason Western media doesn't much criticize the actual policies is because it's "boring" and doesn't generate advertising revenue. It has nothing to do with whether they're allowed to or not.

I disagree that it's because the public doesn't care, but you're close that it's related to revenue. The problem isn't government censorship. The problem is corporate bias. News networks are owned by giant conglomerates and it's bad for business to criticise your sponsors. I won't dive into a long tirade on the military industrial complex in the US, but suffice it to say that (just on the topic of war) all of the mainstream news outlets are funded by giant defense contractors. Speaking out against war would be bad for business.

The most scary part is that mainstream media has very significant control over the Overton window, meaning that even if the public distrusts the media the debate can still be framed by them. It's very difficult to discuss anti-establishment politics without sounding like a conspiracy theorist -- even though mainstream media ran a conspiracy theory for almost two years (RussiaGate).

> Instead, they criticize the politicians themselves (particularly Trump, right now).

Almost all of the criticisms of Trump resort to one of three things:

1. Personal criticisms such as sex scandals, how much he plays golf, etc. 2. Criticisms of being too soft on Russia (even though the exact opposite is true in terms of US policy -- with most US actions being significantly against Russian interests and more hawkish than the days of Obama and Bush). 3. Minor political disagreements or scuffles.

None of these are actually serious issues, and are just spending time getting the public outraged over nonsense. The newly-found discussions of impeachment are a valuable discussion to have, but the past two years have been completely disconnected from reality.

How long did news networks run stories that Trump vetoed a bill passed in Congress to end the US war in Yemen (a war that was already illegal)[1]? Less than a few days, and then it was full steam ahead on other less important topics. The US has been committing war-crimes for decades and I think it's insane to argue that the public wouldn't care about it if they were being told about it.

When the media does talk about policies, they have insanely corporate biases. Every discussion of medicare-for-all in the US is dominated by discussions of "how much will it cost" (it will be cheaper overall), "what about people who love their health insurance provider" (those people don't exist -- people love their doctors, not their health insurance), "it cannot work in the US" (even though it works in rest of the developed world, and the US already has medicare), and so on. No meaningful discussion and reporting of the massive problems with the current health insurance industry and how it must be reformed, or how the US's healthcare system is among the worst in the developed world.

[1]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/17/trumps-...

[Barrin92]

>I wonder who asked the Tiananmen question to the minister from the audience in Singapore. That guy has some backbone, I like it. They should be challenged on the topic of their political repression more. And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda.

In contrast to the man in the audience Singapore was one of the first countries to normalise relationships with China, and in his biography From third world to First, Lee Kuan Yew actually seems somewhat supportive of it because he contrasts China's handling of the situation with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And realistically a country like Singapore is always going to be best positioned by keeping its relationships to opposing forces like the USA and China ambiguous. Committing to one side will draw a reaction from the other, and for smaller countries that's devastating. The space for most freedom and autonomy for a country like Singapore is right in the middle, in a competition between two large nations, choosing sides is a bad move.

[eternalban]

The question and answer are likely planned.

CCP wanted that answer out. It will reach its intended audience: upcoming generation of party leadership; young and affluent non-CCP Chinese; nationalist Chinese; law and order Chinese.

I think that substantial and important subset will be satisfied with the answer. The rest are busy chasing virtual butterflies glued to their "smart assistant" (a feature, not a bug) just like their counterparts over here.

And the fact of its being discussed rather diminishes that propaganda card.

> It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention it, if there was nothing really wrong with it?

> elephant in the room

You mean like two modern skyscraper crumbling into dust in a handful of seconds which one must not mention in respectable society unless repeating the "party line"?

Like those two elephants?

Should we discuss the official fact finding efforts for additional black humor, and then revisit the "universal obedience" phenomena?

> The near universal obedience seen among the population would seem very foreign to most people in the west. Which is in itself an interesting cultural question.

Laughable and racist. (See "conspiracy theory" for disambiguation.)

[GhostVII]

> You mean like two modern skyscraper crumbling into dust in a handful of seconds which one must not mention in respectable society unless repeating the "party line"?

Are you suggesting that the US government suppresses discussion of 9/11, similar to China and Tiananmen? That's a strange opinion, I've heard lots of discussion about 9/11, there is even a museum about it.