Maybe it should act less bashable.
You can say that for probably all countires.
The South China Morning Post is a propaganda medium under the Chinese Communist Party’s direct censorship regime. This is not a credible source.
No source is credible. When you know something about the biases of a particular source you can generally still get good information out of it.
Do you have any reason to doubt that the reported changes happened to those movies?
Do you doubt that China pushed for those changes?
I think that the one and only goal of the South China Morning Post is normalize authoritarian, anti-democratic propaganda.
Why does that matter?
A standard part of HS education is to take a bunch of sources; good, bad, and even adversarial, and aggregate that into a holistic understanding.
Did we just forget how to do that?
No one needs this crap for a ‘holistic understanding’. What you are doing is justifying extremist and violent propaganda.
What in that article is propaganda?
I think that the one and only goal of the South China Morning Post is to normalize authoritarian, anti-democratic propaganda. Such ‘sources’ should be banned, as they are no reliable media by definition. We shouldn’t accept ‘media’ published by some Nazi party either (I hope we agree in this point). So that’s basically the same thing.
I strongly disagree with that. I sought out and watched Triumph des Willens precisely because it was on of the most famous examples of propaganda in history.
It’s really hard to understand things without knowing about them.
This comment has a lot of strong claims about China and the SCMP. Since you hate propaganda so much, I assume you have strong, objective evidence backing up those claims.
Every source is biased, but biased and spreading disinformation are not the same. The latter is deliberately spreading objectively incorrect information to manipulate readers in the intended direction. RT has done the latter, repeatedly, the accusation above is that the CMP has done so too. Bias is something different.
Bias is one of the main tools of propaganda. There are others too; misrepresentation, selective reporting, and even outright lies.
Those same tools are also used for other reasons; mostly greed and incompetence, but the underlying motivation doesn’t really matter. You can still read it critically and extract information from it.
Go check the owners of just about any media source and you’ll see that they have just as much incentive to misinform as China does. A discriminating reader can still filter the actual information from it.
This particular article seems to be fairly clean though. Are there any false or misleading statements in there?
Implying that there are not grave differences in credibility between media outlets (ie, how much straight up lies abf deliberate misrepresentation etc is used) is disinformation in itself. It is a corner stone of Russian propaganda for example.
For heavy disinformation outlets, the main information one can extract is merely what the sponsor wants readers to believe.
An honest analysis would eschew implications in favor of measurements that are as objective as possible.
There are several organizations with fairly well documented analysis and ranking methodologies. Ground News summarizes several of the major ones:
https://ground.news/interest/south-china-morning-postSCMP certainly doesn’t show up as an exemplary news source but it’s generally considered unbiased and not complete bullshit. If you have evidence of grave differences between them and mainstream media, I’d love to see it.
Biased and credible are two distinct things, and not synonymous.
This is propaganda crap.
I know that this specific news is true. I am from India.
Would you accept RT, Xinhua, or some Nazi medium as a source here just because there is a report that is ‘true’? Should we normalize authoritarian propaganda because there is an article once in a while that is true?
Are you stupid? Would you just claim any news media that you don’t like/ you can’t comprehend having freedom as propaganda? btw, RT is a more reliable source than NYT or Wapo.
Xi thinks; Xi vassal says.