[tourist_]

The difference between authoritarian and democratic states is that CPJ wouldn't exist in authoritarian states. The very existence of a report which documents the actions against journalists wouldn't exist in authoritarian states. How hard is it to understand this ?

[cambalache]

Even the most authoritarians of the states have inside groups who oppose them (from the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina, to Saddam in Iraq, to Putin in Russia, to Trump in America), the groups can be more or less tolerated in function on how dangerous they are perceived. See the treatment of the black panther movement and the communist party in America.

The narrative is created by powerful people usually with input of the state. Can you in all sincerity claim that the treatment of the Palestinians from the Israelis is not in the same league or even worst? And yet you dont hear anyone here talking about a genocide there and any criticism of Israel is swiftly called anti-Semitic.

Manufacturing consent, good old Chomsky was right, as usual.

[tourist_]

Yes, an attempt is always made by powerful forces to create a narrative. But with CCP (or any successful authoritarian governments) there is no "alternative" view point at all. They are always right, and make no mistakes. I haven't and won't claim that Israelis are any better, but CCP does it against their own citizens time and again (Tibet) and CCP apologists, shills come out with "Everyone does it. There is no free press!" arguments. Yes, the state attempts to create a narrative, but authoritarian governments can hold on to a given narrative indefinitely, while democracies can potentially change policies over a period of time.