[ailun]

Then you aren't reading the right "China-watchers". Some names from a quick review of my Twitter feed to check out if you're actually interested: Kevin Tellier, Peter Hessler, Xifan Yang, Michael Pettis, Manya Koetse, Sabina Knight, Amy Qin, Keith Bradsher, Yuen Yuen Ang, Chaoyang Trap (podcast), Matthew Casey, Jonathan Cheng, Yiling Liu, US-China Perception Monitor, Paper Republic, China Media Project.

There are tons more that I'm leaving out because I don't feel like searching for them. Enjoy. Or just continue to dismiss all Western journalism because you'd rather do that than look for quality.

[FooBarWidget]

I am in fact following a couple of the people you mentioned. The critique isn't that no good China watchers exist. It's that most of them are like Gordon Chang instead of Kevin Tellier.

I don't see the need for you to resort to confrontational hyperbolic strawmans. The fact that good China watchers are a small minority, is very bad for western understanding of China, and thus very bad for rational policy making that actually addresses issues rather than stirring up emotions or manufacturing consent for a war. This isn't just my own opinion; Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat, ex-UN security council head, has spoken extensively about this problem.

[ailun]

Sure, the quality of mainstream news is always, and has always been, a problem. More education and improvement in understanding is always a good thing. But you're not making any interesting points there, and you have no way to quantify that "most of them are like Gordon Chang". And the problem I see is that people have a tendency to find poor sources of information and use them to dismiss entire categories of information and positions.

By the way, your statement was about "Western China watchers," not some or even most. You may not have meant it that way, but that's how you said it.

[FooBarWidget]

Okay fine. Although I did mention MSM.