news/propaganda/China & the Interview

[The Great Quail]

Doug writes,

>Having lived in China for an extended period of time, as a fluent speaker
>of Chinese (the Mandarin dialect),

What? You speak Chinese! Why, none of us knew that, Doug! You've been 
so humble and modest. Why, I bet you even speak French, too!

>and being present in Beijing with the
>CCP outlawed Falun Gong and unleashed a massive propaganda blitz to
>demonize that peaceful neo-Buddhist sect, I say with confidence that the
>only propaganda blitz that compares since that time is the one the US
>government unleashed on September 11 with the willing (craven) cooperation
>of the US corporate media.

Perhaps on the surface I could agree with you, though I think the 
Gulf War topped this one in sheer *value* of the propaganda. I think 
it beat this hands down for quality if not quantity -- after all, I 
think most reasonable people would agree that we have been attacked, 
and we are fighting to eliminate those attackers, as opposed to, say, 
"liberate" Kuwa--oops, I mean Afghanistan.

But it should be kept in mind that the government of China has a wee 
bit more control over the media outlets of the country than the US. 
So "not all propaganda is created equal" in my opinion.

>While you're on that world propaganda tour,

Hm? That was actually a world tour of creepy government mother 
fuckers that use violence or physical threats to carry out their 
propaganda. To quote Barbara (again):

>>The US Gov't are the creepiest
>>mother-fuckers alive!  They're Brock Vond with a pistol to your head, on
>>your knees, instructing you in the art of submission.

>Le monde, the
>Guardian, the Independent -- they make the US corporate media, including
>the revered NY Times and Washington Post, look very lame in comparison.

Uh.... what does this have to do with either Barbara's ludicrous 
post, or my response? Was it because I picked on France? Hell, I pick 
on France all the time. And I believe I mentioned once before that I 
rather value the British media for being more balanced in their 
coverage of this war. Or did I just trigger your Automatic Barbara 
Defense system?

>The US media have also failed to
>consistently report civilian casualties (although they went in depth into
>trying to understand how "friendly fire" could kill some US soldiers),

I agree with you. But again, you seem to be responding to something 
totally irrelevant to my reply to Barbara. If you read my post, or if 
you have been reading any of my posts, I have not once stated that 
the traditional US media is unbiased in their coverage, or that the 
government is not indulging in propaganda. But of course, if you 
allowed me that, you wouldn't be able to really have fun attacking 
the opinions you place in my mouth, would you?

--Quail