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.
SCMP 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.
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-post
SCMP 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.