[krageon]

> what's amplified and not amplified

Euphemistically this is generally called spin, and is practised by every large company and every large paper with any kind of state involvement (in a very real sense they all do, even in the west). Criticising a Chinese publication for containing propaganda while being mired in it constantly ourselves is just another example of picking "what's amplified and not amplified", because it's part of a broad push to demonise China (the big scary Other).

[hawkice]

I think political bias at FOX can diminish their reporting substantially. But government propaganda truly is a different thing. It's as if you are comparing a natural disaster to a genocide - yes, the issue with both is that people die, and humans dying is with us no matter what we do. But even a serial killer acting as maliciously as possible isn't the same as a government dedicated to killing. There exists a meaningful ethical distinction and it's strange to hear people pretend it doesn't matter.

[krageon]

What I was implying is that the aggregate effect of corporate spin and government pressure is not materially different (in theory or in practice) from what might be happening in China. They're both very very bad and we should talk about how to fix that, what we shouldn't be doing is pointing fingers and pretending one is bad (while neglecting to mention the other).

[ChefboyOG]

I am no defender of Western media, but this is a textbook false equivalency. There is massive material and theoretical difference between corporate spin and government propaganda. Corporate dishonesty is possible in the US precisely because we protect the press's freedom. China, on the other hand, jails jails more journalists than any other nation. Sure, they're both "bad," but fundamentally different.

[hawkice]

Yes, it turns out we disagree.