What does the phrase " China interferes in Chinese-language media here." mean here?
What is the nature of this interference?
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)
NZ Politics
565 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Have a look at that article, which goes into it a little. But China's influence in New Zealand is extensive, especially amongst the NZ Chinese community. It is far worse than most kiwis realise. They operate a network of Chinese "police stations" and undertake all kinds of intelligence, influence and intimidation activities. They attempt to interfere in almost anything related to China here, including local Chinese-language media.
It's not a topic that can be easily summarised in a Lemmy comment. But if you're really interested in learning more about it, I recommend RNZ's Red Line podcast from a couple of years ago. It's eye opening.
I did read the article and frankly it smacks of weasel word filled propaganda speech exactly like they are accusing the chinese of doing. Lots of vague accusations filled with statements like "In May 2019, the Chinese Herald produced an article on Huawei’s limited access to New Zealand’s 5G networks framing the restrictions in emotive and dramatic terms," as if this some great evil which only the chinese language media engages in.
In fact it goes further in asking for state intervention is stifling the media with statements like
Chinese-language publications have the right to report or carry content as their editors see fit, within the broad provisions of New Zealand’s media regulations. However, in light of the trends identified in this analysis, it is an open question whether or not these outlet should, as a matter of ethics, be platforming certain perspectives through what seems to be a singular, and ultimately narrow, lens.
I bet the authors are not calling for restrictions and control of other biased media like the NZ Herald which routinely carries water for the National Party.
It should come as no surprise to anybody that the Chinese community would boost and prefer chinese candidates and would have a more favourable view of China. Same thing could be said for the Indian community, Muslim community, Maori community, or any other community in this country.
Finally the article makes no mention of how the government of China is "interfering" with these news agencies let alone why such an interference is any different than the interference our own government makes on english speaking media.
As for the so called police stations the article says nothing about them.
Frankly I for one am sick and tired of the yellow menace scare mongering and the beating of the war drums. I don't want to make China our enemies, I don't want to go to war with them, I don't want to cut off trade or relationships with them.
Finally I am more afraid of the United States influence in our media and government than the Chinese. It wasn't China that ordered an armed raid on Dotcom, it wasn't China that sent the police to the media outlets and threatened to arrest them if they published a transcription of the teapot tapes.
As I said, if you're interested in learning about it, listen to the podcast. It's a good introduction to what's going on. The article only details recent bias in some publications.
The comparisons you make to our government, The Herald, the US, etc. show me that you really don't know how extreme and extensive China's activities are here. If you want to know, try listening to that podcast and evaluate the evidence for yourself. Of course, you're welcome to remain ignorant if you want. But that won't change the reality of what's going on with China.
The comparisons you make to our government, The Herald, the US, etc. show me that you really don’t know how extreme and extensive China’s activities are here.
How extreme are they? For example did the chinese government send the police to the Herald and RNZ and threaten to arrest them if they published a transcript of a recording they obtained?
If you want to know, try listening to that podcast and evaluate the evidence for yourself.
I have and I don't really see much evidence at all. All I see is accusations and weasel worded framing of things like in the article you linked to.
Of course, you’re welcome to remain ignorant if you want. But that won’t change the reality of what’s going on with China.
See? You deem anybody who disagrees with you as being ignorant. This is what I am talking about. You present no evidence and when somebody says they don't believe you then you attack them for being ignorant or stupid.
Just because you chose to reject the evidence I presented; doesn’t mean I didn’t present it. And I'm sorry if you see being called ignorant about something as an attack. It's not intended to be. I will gladly admit I'm ignorant of many things. If a person thinks they're ignorant of nothing they have no space to learn or grow. The fact is, someone who doesn't know about something is ignorant about it. And that was the case with you about China. I certainly didn't call you stupid (please stop with the straw men - you've done it several times on Lemmy and it's a bad faith way of arguing which only devalues your opinion).
If you actually listened through all four episodes of that podcast and all you heard was accusations and weasel words, I don't know what to tell you. In my experience talking to you on here, you seem reasonably intelligent, but it really feels as though you choose not to learn about and/or understand things that challenge your beliefs. That means there’s no point discussing things with you that you’re not already knowledgeable about. It’s why I initially stopped engaging with you on here. I thought I’d give you another try, but I won’t be doing that again soon. Have fun out there. Mānawatia a Matariki!
Just because you chose to reject the evidence I presented; doesn’t mean I didn’t present it.
One of the greatest failings of our education system is the inability to teach the difference between a claim and an evidence. You have provided no evidence. You haven't even provided a clear and distinct claim. Your claim is basically "china is doing something" without even saying what exactly they are doing let alone providing evidence of their actions.
The fact is, someone who doesn’t know about something is ignorant about it. And that was the case with you about China.
Just because I don't accept your vague innuendos as facts doesn't mean I am ignorant.
If you actually listened through all four episodes of that podcast and all you heard was accusations and weasel words
No I am not going to listen to hours and hours of some biased people repeating the same accusations over and over again.
Make a specific accusation such as "the chinese government is ordering the chinese language press to say positive things about china". Then present some evidence. And then tell me why I should be alarmed at such an event and not be alarmed about any other country doing the same thing including my own.
Also go ahead and make a specific claim about what chinese citizens are spying for china and present your evidence for it. That's a pretty fucking serious accusation and the government should start criminal investigations if it's true.
I am not going to be convinced by weasel worded innuendos. If you want me to support your efforts to undermine our relationship with China you are going to have to bring much more to the table.