[el_magnifico]

What is this "replying to" business? When an occupying power dumps leaflets from an airplane flying over your town and you pick one up to read it, do you then attempt to engage the airplane in serious debate?

No. I join the crowd with pitches and forks and we all throw stones at the sky for hours.

Seriously though, I believe in the inner strength and cultural enrichment that comes from free thinking, deep analysis, and reasoned debate. I don't believe in the holiness of any side here. As I said in other thread, this is a political stance. I don't expect everyone to agree with it. I DO expect people to respect it (especially in a forum, which is a place for debates).

I'll reply to SpardaSon21 in the next post.

[SpardaSon21]

I'mma let you finish but...

Seriously, you're asking us to engage in reasoned debate with a propaganda mouthpiece for an authoritarian government with massive information controls.  Think about what you're saying for a second.  Do you honestly think we'll get any cultural enrichment from a source like that?

I really, really dislike moral relativists like you.  If you think everyone is a source of cultural enrichment, please, go and try to engage in reasonable debate with the Westboro Baptist Church and let me know what you come away with.

* SpardaSon21 probably just Godwinn'd the thread. 

[el_magnifico]

El_magnifico, you're not getting this.  China has no free press.  The newspapers all say what the Chinese government wants them to say, and that's including the "independent" ones.  China Daily can go and say whatever it wants because nobody in China is going call them on anything, not unless that editor wants to go to a Chinese prison, or perhaps just shot if the government decides he's not worth incarcerating.

So actually yes, "bad guys" does factor into this because the Chinese government doesn't really allow dissenting viewpoints in its populace.

SpardaSon21, you're not getting this. The free press concept is a lie. It's a tag supposedly free countries go around imposing on others. It's the reason why I dropped out of journalism in high school, because the first thing I was told was to shove that idealism up my ass and align myself behind one of the media companies regardless of their economical interests, their political connections and their businesses.
Free press changes from country to country. Free press depends on who you ask. The "free press" can engage in practices that are every bit as repugnant as state controled press. The "free press" defends solely their interests (mostly economic), and when they eventually become a monopoly or oligopoly, you get screwed. The difference is not between "free press" and "state-controled press". The difference is in who has the power. The difference is in who censors the population. There is not much difference in the nature of the power, just in who applies it.

Finally, your last argument is very, very poor. But since you're asking, no, I wouldn't engage in debate with the Westboro Baptist Church because I've no interest to do it. But I won't try to dissuade people from doing it either. Just in the same way as I'm not going to dissuade people from debating with the US government while Guantanamo is still open. See? Works both ways if you want it to (which I don't).

This discussion has already deviated. I've no interest in participating in a discussion if I'm not allowed to discuss. I'm out of this thread.

[Apollo]

Knowing how authoritarian China's government is I find it very likely that China Daily is a bunch of propaganda... but that doesn't mean analyzing it is a bad thing. Saying "nobody likes them don't listen blah blah blah" may lead to a correct conclusion in this case, but it will make you very close-minded and unwilling to listen to outside opinions.

Free thought is not bad, and I fail to see why it bothers you.

SpardaSon21, you're not getting this. The free press concept is a lie. It's a tag supposedly free countries go around imposing on others. It's the reason why I dropped out of journalism in high school, because the first thing I was told was to shove that idealism up my ass and align myself behind one of the media companies regardless of their economical interests, their political connections and their businesses.
Free press changes from country to country. Free press depends on who you ask. The "free press" can engage in practices that are every bit as repugnant as state controled press. The "free press" defends solely their interests (mostly economic), and when they eventually become a monopoly or oligopoly, you get screwed. The difference is not between "free press" and "state-controled press". The difference is in who has the power. The difference is in who censors the population. There is not much difference in the nature of the power, just in who applies it.

Exactly. Just look at Fox News and MSNBC - privately owned stations that are basically just cheerleaders for their respective political parties.

[el_magnifico]

Before I get out, thank you Apollo.

[karajorma]

I actually posted the piece mainly cause I was interested in people's opinions on the second half of it. Official mouthpiece or not, I happen to think that the Chinese are right about how the US does the same thing but complains vigorously when it's done to them.

Look up examples of ECHELON being used for industrial espionage if you don't agree. 

[Beskargam]

our government is extremely hypocritical. especially when it comes to china I believe. iirc we complained about china manipulating its currency a year or two ago? yet we do the same thing. (I'd have to look up the specifics, and I am way to tired for that)

[karajorma]

I always find it incredibly hilarious when America tells China how to run its economy. China is $2 trillion in the black and has experienced over 5% growth for the last 10-15 years. Why would they ever listen to America except if America was saying "What we did, not so good an idea"

[BlueFlames]

There's a difference between describing a source as not credible (or having a conflict of interest) and describing them as "the bad guys".

Then tell me, by whose standards is the China Daily not credible? The principle is the same: stigmatizing a source instead of replying to it.

It's not a matter of stigmatization.  If a source is not credible, then information from that source should not be taken at face-value, unless it can be corroborated by another source, without the same credibility issues.

To the question of whether or not China Daily is credible, I'm not actually taking a stand on that, at this moment.  I simply feel that you were too quick to brush aside criticisms of the paper for having a potential conflict of interest.  You've used the phrase "presumption of innocence" to describe how you are treating China Daily's credibility, but when the point was raised that that presumption may be unwarranted, you refused to make a skeptical examination of China Daily's credibility.
Just so that my involvement in this thread isn't entirely limited to the tangent on the necessary role of skepticism in research:

Yes, the United States' rhetoric has been pretty consistantly hypocritical, with regards to cyberwarfare.  At various points, the current and previous Presidents have threatened that cyberwarfare is justification for retaliatory conventional warfare, which I think is utter madness.  Not the least of my reasons for taking that position is the very issue I've defended in the last two foreign policy threads into which I've waded:  the fact that the United States has been actively engaged in cyberwarfare against Iran for the express purpose of preventing or delaying another conventional war in the Middle East.

Cyberwarfare is a form of espionage, and like older forms of espionage, it has justifiable uses.  Also like older forms of espionage, when caught in the act, the victim is justified in attempting to make the perpetrating entity face a consequence.

Whether or not China's digital espionage against the United States has been justified or unjustified and what consequences might be appropriate, now that their hands have been caught in the metaphorical cookie jar, I will leave unaddressed, for now, because it's 5:00am, and that's not a good hour for me to get (further) mired in foreign policy debate.

[MP-Ryan]

I actually posted the piece mainly cause I was interested in people's opinions on the second half of it. Official mouthpiece or not, I happen to think that the Chinese are right about how the US does the same thing but complains vigorously when it's done to them.

Look up examples of ECHELON being used for industrial espionage if you don't agree.

There's no question that NATO countries are up to similar shenanigans - that said, compromising critical infrastructure can be considered an act of war and US policy actually treats cyberwarfare attacks the same as conventional warfare.  That's terrifying.

While I expect espionage and warfare to continue to evolve in these realms, the Chinese have been caught in the act and should cease and desist immediately lest more serious consequences follow.  There is a big difference between gathering industrial espionage and compromising controls on critical infrastructure.

To put it in perspective, at least 3 countries (we can all guess who) were involved with Stuxnet and Flame attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.  That's critical infrastructure, and if anyone took Iran seriously and they actually had the capacity to respond, they could legitimately treat that as hostile military action.  Now, by virtue of the fact that nobody in their right mind wants a nuclear Iran it is unlikely that anyone else would actually care, but the same does not hold true of critical attacks on North American infrastructure.

Allow me to indulge in painting an ugly picture for a moment.  China is not dependent on oil from the Americas.  If the Chinese successfully conclude their oil negotiations with Iran and other Middle Eastern states, a cyberwarfare attack on critical pipeline infrastructure in North America (which they gained access to) couple cripple the economies of virtually all the NATO countries in one fell swoop and leave their own economy in relative bliss.

The stakes on this sort of cyberwarfare are a lot higher than mere industrial espionage.

[headdie]

between Stuxnet and this recent incident with China we are getting to the point where a high profile treaty regarding this sort of activity needs to be negotiated or at least modifications to existing espionage articles put into place

[SypheDMar]

I always find it incredibly hilarious when America tells China how to run its economy.

Me too. I don't like China much, but the Washington Consensus is an utter failure and only made other countries worse off.