BBC news double standard

[mr friendly guy]

I could have also posted why BBC sucks, but that might spark a response from butthurt fanboys of fake news.

Let me explain this latest example. Over here in good old land down under, we're now getting onto important business. Like suppressing free speech and democracy. That was hyperbole, but keep that phrase in mind, because its going to become important.

What I am talking about is section 44 of our constitution. In particular this part.

Section 44(i) of the nation's founding document disqualifies someone from office if that person:

…is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power…

Basically we want our politicians to be loyal to our country. Yeah I know what a novel concept.

This section is interpreted in a manner such that a dual citizen is ineligible to hold office. You need to give up the second citizenship. Now what would happen if a politician who is democratically elected, swore the oath of allegiance and then found out they were a dual citizen? Well you fall on your metaphorical sword.

This rule has already claimed the scalp of 2 democratically elected politicians with a third possibly also going. There is actually also a possibility of a fourth.

How did BBC report it? Pretty fair actually. Just to the point, no judgements, no claims about suppressing freedom of speech and democracy etc. Wait, what?

Well you see, if this of thing happens with our geopolitical rivals, where politicians aren't loyal to the country, how would BBC report it? Look no further.
last year

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is an 18th Century trumpet call for free speech, one often repeated by parliamentarians around the world… but never in China.

What an ominous start to the article. What freedom of speech did China suppress this time?

China has now spoken on the question of whether elected members of Hong Kong's legislature can use that public platform to campaign for ideas offensive to China and the answer is a resounding no. In a unanimous decision by a panel of the Communist Party-controlled national parliament, Hong Kong has been reminded that the freedoms it enjoys are ultimately at the whim of Beijing.

The two lawmakers, Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching, who used their swearing-in ceremony to insult China and talk of a "Hong Kong nation" should have known that a Chinese government so sensitive to questions of national pride and dignity would feel it had no choice but to act.
It was no surprise when China's parliament said their words and actions had "posed a grave threat to national sovereignty and security", with Li Fei adding: "The central government's attitude is absolute. There will be no leniency."

In the end, Hong Kong's courts agreed with the Chinese interpretation and those democratically elected politicians were disallowed to take their seats. Those Chinese nationalists who cheered this decision need to grow a thicker skin. I mean its not like these democratically elected politicians REFUSED to an oath of allegiance, you know the same thing several western democratic nations also get their politicians to swear to. Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what happen.

Hang in minute MFG, I read that BBC article. No where did it gave an indication of this. The best it said was this

For example, does reciting the oath in slow motion or using eccentric intonation contravene the interpretation's insistence on "genuine" sincerity and solemnity? Who will decide? And if Beijing doesn't like the decision of a Hong Kong court, what will it do next? For that matter, where does Beijing's intervention leave the ongoing review of the oath taking question in Hong Kong's courts?

Yes, if you want the truth you won't get it from that article. But we do know that these elected politicians refuse to swear an equivalent oath. How do we know this? Well aside from the youtube surfacing of this, it was also reported by..... you guessed it... the BBC the previous month

The new lawmakers are required to recite a short oath before they can officially take their seats, which includes the words "Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China" multiple times.

But Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching began their oath by swearing allegiance to a "Hong Kong nation".
They used profanities and pronounced China as "Shina", a now derogatory pronunciation used when the Japanese occupied the territory.

I am no expert on legalese bullshit, but I figured when you swear loyalty to <insert REAL country here> and you instead swear loyalty of <insert FICTIONAL country> here with racist bullshit, you most probably shouldn't take your seat. But, hey you wouldn't know that from BBC. In fact months later BBC are still spinning this narrative of suppressing democracy.

"I found it quite horrifying when the legislators were disqualified - because they were democratically elected. It seems like Hong Kong citizens don't have a choice after all."

Yeah, those legislators were totally disqualified because they were democratically elected, which was why most of the other 70 politicians who swore their oath got to take their seats.

Lets recap this. Australia disallows democratically elected politicians who have already sworn an oath of loyalty due to a law which targets them for possibly being disloyal (by being loyal to a foreign power) and its just reported by BBC. China disallows democratically elected politicians who refuse to swear an oath of loyalty and we know aren't loyal by their actions = suppressing free speech and democracy.

I mean which countries whether democratic or not, is going to tolerate politicians who aren't loyal? Westeros? China isn't a western style democracy, but what BBC did is propaganda which would give Putin tv a run for its money. Just when I think BBC can't sink any lower, then I remember the Jimmy Saville scandal.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sorry. I'm finding it hard to get past the first line of your post, which basically reads like a Trump tweet.

[mr friendly guy]

Sorry. I'm finding it hard to get past the first line of your post, which basically reads like a Trump tweet.

And that people, is why fake news needs to be debunked when it appears. They've already brainwashed trained people to ignore evidence pointing to their inaccuracies.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sorry. I'm finding it hard to get past the first line of your post, which basically reads like a Trump tweet.

And that people, is why fake news needs to be debunked when it appears. They've already brainwashed trained people to ignore evidence pointing to their inaccuracies.

I am not saying that evidence of actual inaccuracies should be disregarded, or that the BBC or anyone else is always right (though I am not terribly surprised that you would slander mischaracterize my position in that manner).

But I am objecting to the sweeping characterization of mainstream media outlets, in their entirety, as "fake news", because that term, and characterization, are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign by Trump and the Alt. Right to delegitimize and undermine the free press in order to advance their agenda. A campaign you are, by using this rhetoric, embracing and allying with.

If you cannot (or choose not to) see the distinction between "I am a brainwashed drone who believes everything I am told" and "I have a problem with sweeping partisan attacks on the entire mainstream media", then I can't help you.

[aerius]

Was it deliberate? I don't know and there's no way to prove it either way. But that's not important.

The key takeaway is the importance of narratives and how they're used to frame a story or event. Two similar events, reported with a different frame and it fucking changes everything. And unless you know what you're looking for AND you're watching out for it, you'll never notice anything wrong and yet all the while your feelings & perceptions are being shaped in a certain way. And you don't even know it.

[mr friendly guy]

Indeed. If you read one of the BBC articles I linked to (by Carrie Gracie), you would no fucking clue that elected HK politicians were not allowed to take their seat for not speaking the oath. You would leave with the impression they weren't allowed to take their seats because they insulted China. They actually did both, but its very selective in how BBC frames the narrative.

I swear, we should use these examples to educate high school kids to be aware of the media.

On another note, Aerius use of the term "feelings and perceptions" just brought back memories to English class in the 1990s, where we taught about media bias and how journalists can shape emotions. I don't know how high education works in Canada or the US (since TRR has dual citizenship), but over here in Australia, my high school English teacher actually cared about this stuff and didn't jerk off to "free media."

[Soontir C'boath]

I certainly loved it when all the Hillarybots pointed out how violent Bernie supporters were in the Nevada convention when no actual chair was thrown. Or ate the shit with Bernie Bros which was basically the same sexist accusing garbage Hillary was pulling on Obama back in '08. Or with the current heap of dung with Russia now. Or all the times the MSM point out a black/minority's person's history to justify them getting shot by a cop or getting thrown off a plane. Or hell something as simple as continuing to post articles maligning millennials on how they are killing whatever's the next industry that is dying.

So at what percentage of false narratives are people suppose to finally get fed up with the MSM and be able to call it fake news?

The thing about a great lie is that it includes a good nugget of truth to it to sell it and Trump is taking advantage of this sentiment that has been around long before he became President.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. If you read one of the BBC articles I linked to (by Carrie Gracie), you would no fucking clue that elected HK politicians were not allowed to take their seat for not speaking the oath. You would leave with the impression they weren't allowed to take their seats because they insulted China. They actually did both, but its very selective in how BBC frames the narrative.

I swear, we should use these examples to educate high school kids to be aware of the media.

On another note, Aerius use of the term "feelings and perceptions" just brought back memories to English class in the 1990s, where we taught about media bias and how journalists can shape emotions. I don't know how high education works in Canada or the US (since TRR has dual citizenship), but over here in Australia, my high school English teacher actually cared about this stuff and didn't jerk off to "free media."

Clarification: are you suggesting that the press should not be free, because then they might shape peoples' emotions in ways you don't approve of?

I certainly loved it when all the Hillarybots pointed out how violent Bernie supporters were in the Nevada convention when no actual chair was thrown. Or ate the shit with Bernie Bros which was basically the same sexist accusing garbage Hillary was pulling on Obama back in '08. Or with the current heap of dung with Russia now. Or all the times the MSM point out a black/minority's person's history to justify them getting shot by a cop or getting thrown off a plane. Or hell something as simple as continuing to post articles maligning millennials on how they are killing whatever's the next industry that is dying.

So at what percentage of false narratives are people suppose to finally get fed up with the MSM and be able to call it fake news?

The thing about a great lie is that it includes a good nugget of truth to it to sell it and Trump is taking advantage of this sentiment that has been around long before he became President.

Taking a nugget of truth and exaggerating it into a broad generalization to attack your opponents is still a lie, despite that nugget of truth. And if you adopt that rhetoric, you are responsible for helping to propagate that lie, and support the agenda it serves.

[Soontir C'boath]

Taking a nugget of truth and exaggerating it into a broad generalization to attack your opponents is still a lie, despite that nugget of truth. And if you adopt that rhetoric, you are responsible for helping to propagate that lie, and support the agenda it serves.

People have been running away from the MSM and grasping onto alternative sources long before Trump showed up. Don't you get it? It's not the people that is the problem. It's the msm themselves and Trump co-opting that doesn't all of a sudden put the people at fault. Especially when Fox News has been around for more than 20 damn years.

[The Romulan Republic]

Taking a nugget of truth and exaggerating it into a broad generalization to attack your opponents is still a lie, despite that nugget of truth. And if you adopt that rhetoric, you are responsible for helping to propagate that lie, and support the agenda it serves.

People have been running away from the MSM and grasping onto alternative sources long before Trump showed up. Don't you get it? It's not the people that is the problem. It's the msm themselves and Trump co-opting that doesn't all of a sudden put the people at fault. Especially when Fox News has been around for more than 20 damn years.

I'm not saying Trump created it, but he is certainly using it to advance a, frankly, despotic agenda. And no, that's not the media's fault. Trump and the like aren't going after them for being dishonest- they've got no problem with dishonest, even flagrantly deceitful, bigoted, and propagandistic media- see Breitbart and, as you noted, Fox. They're doing it because said media is (rightfully, for the most part) critical of them and their agenda, and because fascistic politicians and movements need scapegoats to whip up the mob against.

Being frustrated with errors by mainstream news outlets is fine. I've had plenty of unkind words for CNN, for example, over the years- particularly their Democratic primary coverage and the lazy, tabloid-like obsession with celebrity gossip.

But dismissing them all, in their entirety, as "fake news" and pushing an overtly anti-free press narrative is not. That is not honest or justified criticism, its a partisan witch hunt, and when people who should be smart enough to know better buy into it, yes I will hold them at fault for that.

[Soontir C'boath]

I'm not saying Trump created it, but he is certainly using it to advance a, frankly, despotic agenda. And no, that's not the media's fault. Trump and the like aren't going after them for being dishonest- they've got no problem with dishonest, even flagrantly deceitful, bigoted, and propagandistic media- see Breitbart and, as you noted, Fox. They're doing it because said media is (rightfully, for the most part) critical of them and their agenda, and because fascistic politicians and movements need scapegoats to whip up the mob against.

Er, yes, Trump is using the media's propensity to whip up bullshit to his own advantage by calling criticism on him bullshit.

Was that hard to understand?

Being frustrated with errors by mainstream news outlets is fine. I've had plenty of unkind words for CNN, for example, over the years- particularly their Democratic primary coverage and the lazy, tabloid-like obsession with celebrity gossip.

But dismissing them all, in their entirety, as "fake news" and pushing an overtly anti-free press narrative is not. That is not honest or justified criticism, its a partisan witch hunt, and when people who should be smart enough to know better buy into it, yes I will hold them at fault for that.

Ok, sure. I'll remember it just being an "error" and unjustified criticism when the next black person gets killed by a cop and gets his whole criminal record used to justify him getting murdered. And the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the nex... It's a partisan witch hunt is all it is.

I'll certainly be critical of the media when it comes to celebrity gossip though. That's important justified criticism.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying Trump created it, but he is certainly using it to advance a, frankly, despotic agenda. And no, that's not the media's fault. Trump and the like aren't going after them for being dishonest- they've got no problem with dishonest, even flagrantly deceitful, bigoted, and propagandistic media- see Breitbart and, as you noted, Fox. They're doing it because said media is (rightfully, for the most part) critical of them and their agenda, and because fascistic politicians and movements need scapegoats to whip up the mob against.

Er, yes, Trump is using the media's propensity to whip up bullshit to his own advantage by calling criticism on them bullshit.

Was that hard to understand?

Not at all.

But if you agree with me, then why are you going out of your way to be antagonistic? And if you recognize the manner in which Trump is using these complaints, and exacerbating them, why should I give you or anyone else a pass on willfully and knowingly playing into that narrative?

Ok, sure. I'll remember it just being an "error" and unjustified criticism when the next black person gets killed by a cop and gets his whole criminal record used to justify him getting murdered. And the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and the nex... It's a partisan witch hunt is all it is.

I did not claim that all criticism of the media is a partisan witch hunt. I said that the "fake news" narrative being used to discredit all mainstream media is.

Are you too stupid to understand this distinction, or just being disingenuous?

As to the coverage of police shootings, I'd imagine that the tone of the coverage varies somewhat from station to station. A network that tries to frame murders of unarmed black people as justified is certainly deplorable. I never denied that.

I'll certainly be critical of the media when it comes to celebrity gossip though. That's important justified criticism.

Its one of many complaints.

But yeah, I get it. You're trying to frame this as "TRR doesn't care about black people".

[aerius]

On another note, Aerius use of the term "feelings and perceptions" just brought back memories to English class in the 1990s, where we taught about media bias and how journalists can shape emotions. I don't know how high education works in Canada or the US (since TRR has dual citizenship), but over here in Australia, my high school English teacher actually cared about this stuff and didn't jerk off to "free media."

High school English class here in Canada was Shakespeare, Shakespeare, and more fucking Shakespeare with some JD Salinger thrown in, it was next to useless once I figured out how to write the arguments the teacher was looking for.

The interesting case was my History class, I was in high school during the Bosnian war and our history teacher would regularly present various news articles about the war which tied in to other things we were learning in class. Depending on which news outlet they came from, they'd present the same event in quite different ways, and even when the facts were the same the way they were presented would skew the perceptions. My teacher showed us that all these things exist, and that pretty much all media outlets do it to some extent.

[Soontir C'boath]

But if you agree with me, then why are you going out of your way to be antagonistic? And if you recognize the manner in which Trump is using these complaints, and exacerbating them, why should I give you or anyone else a pass on willfully and knowingly playing into that narrative?

Because it is a narrative in which the MSM needs to address with the way they report news that turn people away in general without Trump's help.

I did not claim that all criticism of the media is a partisan witch hunt. I said that the "fake news" narrative being used to discredit all mainstream media is.

Are you too stupid to understand this distinction, or just being disingenuous?

You do not seem to grasp how people take in news these days, Democrat or Republican or Independent. There is no distinction to be made, because again people are not going to read or watch the MSM again or more just because Trump is now trying to stomp them when people continually read articles that do not go with the reality of the situation whether its MSNBC or Fox News or WAPO and the NYT and Breitbart and the Drudge Report.

Basically, I am stating your point that people calling MSM "fake news" is wrong is garbage. Or are you too stupid to realize that?

As to the coverage of police shootings, I'd imagine that the tone of the coverage varies somewhat from station to station. A network that tries to frame murders of unarmed black people as justified is certainly deplorable. I never denied that. But yeah, I get it. You're trying to frame this as "TRR doesn't care about black people".

Yet, you would disagree with people who would turn away from the MSM for valid reasons as assholes who are only helping Trump, no? That has been your whole fucking point.

[mr friendly guy]

Clarification: are you suggesting that the press should not be free, because then they might shape peoples' emotions in ways you don't approve of?

No. I am saying that the press can be inaccurate regardless of whether its "free" or the mouthpiece of an autocratic state like RT or Xinhua for example. The converse is also true, that sometimes they can be accurate. The problem is, I have seen lots of people dismiss criticism from state run news against free press on the grounds that the critics aren't free, and don't even look at the evidence provided. Since I am not the mouthpiece of an autocratic state I guess people have to find other ways to ignore my evidence provided.

[Jub]

On another note, Aerius use of the term "feelings and perceptions" just brought back memories to English class in the 1990s, where we taught about media bias and how journalists can shape emotions. I don't know how high education works in Canada or the US (since TRR has dual citizenship), but over here in Australia, my high school English teacher actually cared about this stuff and didn't jerk off to "free media."

High school English class here in Canada was Shakespeare, Shakespeare, and more fucking Shakespeare with some JD Salinger thrown in, it was next to useless once I figured out how to write the arguments the teacher was looking for.

The interesting case was my History class, I was in high school during the Bosnian war and our history teacher would regularly present various news articles about the war which tied in to other things we were learning in class. Depending on which news outlet they came from, they'd present the same event in quite different ways, and even when the facts were the same the way they were presented would skew the perceptions. My teacher showed us that all these things exist, and that pretty much all media outlets do it to some extent.

I'm Canadian, took honors level courses in grades 11 and 12, and am an '06 grad from a decently well off school, so take what I'm saying in that light.

In Grade 11 we read East of Eden, had formal debates on the death penalty, and had lessons on how to interpret the news. There was fluff too, but most of the class was spent in discussion rather than on just reading the material. We were trusted to read on our own and test and quizzes were far more common than daily worksheets.

In Grade 12 we read two short stories, one that was objectively shit yet which emotional manipulated the reader using easy grammar and soothing words. The other, far less vapid story, used dense prose, complex words, and was a slog to read. Most people liked he first far better until all the subtle insults to the reader were pointed out. The teacher was hard as fuck but fair and I wish he hadn't fallen ill halfway through as his replacement was easier in terms of grades but a lot less informative.

We also offered Holocaust studies (I didn't take this one) and War and Society (I took this one) both were college level courses taught very differently from regular classes. I'm happy that I lucked out and managed to snag some great teachers who taught critical thinking and who were tough in their standards while being very good at explaining the material.

[Simon_Jester]

People have been running away from the MSM and grasping onto alternative sources long before Trump showed up. Don't you get it? It's not the people that is the problem. It's the msm themselves and Trump co-opting that doesn't all of a sudden put the people at fault. Especially when Fox News has been around for more than 20 damn years.

Soontir? People have been craving sources of "alternative facts" that reinforced their worldview for longer than the mainstream media has existed.

Media as we know it evolved specifically out of the idea that a free class of 'reporters' who go around specifically investigating and examining what is happening in their countries, and 'reporting' it to the public, was a good thing. These reporters initially had to deal with some serious obstacles, such as government officials being able to punish them for "libel" if they printed true statements that represented those officials in a bad light.

The existence of mechanisms for spreading "alternative news" predates what we think of as the news itself. It is as old as gossip, as old as the rumor mill. New technology and a generation of media magnates ruthless enough to openly declare their willingness to lie to their audience in "news programs" that are officially classes as entertainment may have helped to spread "alternative news" far and wide and give it greater power, but it's not a new thing.

And while weakness of the mainstream media may help explain why "alternative news" has become so popular, it did not create "alternative news."

[Soontir C'boath]

Soontir? People have been craving sources of "alternative facts" that reinforced their worldview for longer than the mainstream media has existed.

Yes, and? Given at a time we had something coined yellow journalism, I am well aware of that.

Media as we know it evolved specifically out of the idea that a free class of 'reporters' who go around specifically investigating and examining what is happening in their countries, and 'reporting' it to the public, was a good thing. These reporters initially had to deal with some serious obstacles, such as government officials being able to punish them for "libel" if they printed true statements that represented those officials in a bad light.

Given the joke that is the White House Press Corp and the news owned by corporations in general, "had" should be "still". Of course they wouldn't go as far as libel as it is having "access" these days. Or plain simple conflict of interests, for example WAPO not disclosing it is owned by the same person who owns Amazon and gleefully espouse positive news about the latter.

The existence of mechanisms for spreading "alternative news" predates what we think of as the news itself. It is as old as gossip, as old as the rumor mill. New technology and a generation of media magnates ruthless enough to openly declare their willingness to lie to their audience in "news programs" that are officially classes as entertainment may have helped to spread "alternative news" far and wide and give it greater power, but it's not a new thing.

I never said it wasn't a new thing. My point has always been that the difference between an average person back then restricted to the few different papers at the newstand or the same six or so channels on television to the age of the Internet where there is a plethora of websites and YouTube channels to choose from is gigantic. Access is what is key and people have it in spades today.

And while weakness of the mainstream media may help explain why "alternative news" has become so popular, it did not create "alternative news."

So you agree with me then. Sheesh.

[mr friendly guy]

What's the difference between a riot and unrest?

When it occurs it the UK, BBC reports it as a riot.

BBC even goes so far as to accuse the person they are interviewing of being a rioter live on television, before forced to issue an embarrassing apology.

When it occurs in Tibet, BBC reports it as demonstrators, or unrest. Demonstrators who burnt down a building killing 5 people it. Whatever. At least BBC didn't stoop as low as the Guardian did, and called these fuckers protesters when China meted out justice.

And people wonder why I demand high evidence from a lot of Western media sources when they report on geopolitical rivals. Its like they aren't even trying to cover up their propaganda anymore. And why would they need to? We have people who refuse to even look at the evidence just because I call certain media outlets a bad word.

[Flagg]

Wait, in what warped world view are people resisting brutal foreign occupation getting "justice" when the occupying authorities execute them? Were you in favor of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib or is it only wrong when the US does it?

[mr friendly guy]

Wait, in what warped world view are people resisting brutal foreign occupation getting "justice" when the occupying authorities execute them? Were you in favor of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib or is it only wrong when the US does it?

Once again Flagg proves he doesn't fucking read before circle jerking. What a shocker. They weren't executed for resisting Chinese rule dumbass, or else every rioter, er I mean protester would have been executed. They were executed because they set fire to a building while 5 young women (4 Han, 1 Tibetan) were inside, killing them. I am sure that Tibetan woman in a clothing store was a collaborator, so totally deserved it.

The fact that murderers are being spun as "protesters" is the deceptive part about fake news. Hey I guess we can write an article saying US kills Osama Bin Laden freedom fighter, and that would be ok by you? It's totally not deceptive.

But since you want to bring up the foreign occupation part, let me make it easy for you buddy. According to the Tibetan Government in exile's own survey, less than a third Tibetans actually want independence. But hey who cares what the Tibetans want right, Flagg, as long as its fuck China.

[mr friendly guy]

Hey, now I know why Flagg thought they were executed for protesting. Or he at least has an excuse. He was bamboozled by fake news.

I just realised the Guardian article not once mentioned that they murdered people, only stating they committed arson.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2009/10/ ... CCEWbdG.97

This article at least mentions that they killed people with their arson. And yes, the names of the executed people in this article and the Guardian match and they were both published a few days apart. But one source conveniently did not mention the executed men actually killed people with their arson.

Edit - I am sure Flagg is going to talk about budget cutbacks, lack of funding for why the Guardian couldn't possibly mention the fact these men murdered people even though they both were apparently looking at the same announcement from the Chinese government's mouthpiece on the ruling.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I got my facts wrong. But at least I don't declare everything critical of your beloved China "fake news". You literally sound like a shit eating Trumpist douche. So have fun with that.

[Flagg]

Edit - I am sure Flagg is going to talk about budget cutbacks, lack of funding for why the Guardian couldn't possibly mention the fact these men murdered people even though they both were apparently looking at the same announcement from the Chinese government's mouthpiece on the ruling.

Nope, you assume incredibly wrong, I guess because I call you on your shit so you just attribute it to dishonesty. If a news organization cannot afford to report the news accurately they should find a source of funding that in no way makes them report blatant, known falsehoods (like Fox "News" reporting, in collusion with the Trump mafia, the false story about a dead Clinton staffer releasing emails that were released by other sources damning Trump and his Russian puppet masters) or go out of business.

And frankly, I don't care if 2/3 of Tibetans claim they want to live under Chinese occupation (I for one, think that given the brutality of the Chinese occupiers and the slightly less-worse feudal Tibetan Bhuddist theorcrats who controlled the country previously, most Tibetans would flat out lie for fear of retribution. PS I'm no fan of the Dahli Llama) I see no real difference between resistance fighters in Tibet than when resistance fighters fought the Nazis when they occupied most of Europe.

[mr friendly guy]

Yeah, I got my facts wrong. But at least I don't declare everything critical of your beloved China "fake news". You literally sound like a shit eating Trumpist douche. So have fun with that.

I guess opiod dependence has finally crushed what semblance of sense your microcephalic brain actually possessed, as you grasp at straws to build your strawman. I will make it easy for you dipshit, back up your claim that I "declare everything critical of China as fake news."

I put forward evidence why I think BBC is fake news, I will repeat it for you since you're a little slow on the uptake. BBC erroneously describes China refusing to let politicians take their seat as a suppression of democracy and free speech, and ignores the fact these politicians refused to swear an oath of allegiance, an oath sworn in democratic countries as well. I backed my case up with a video showing the oath swearing process and the refusal of a politician to do so, and also an earlier article by the BBC describing this (before they decided to go with the suppressing democracy narrative). I also point out how BBC reports a similar event in Australia, in a markedly different and less sensational manner.

I will also put up evidence that the Guardian report was ridiculous propaganda. It ignored the fact that the executed men murdered people. It didn't describe them as murderers, only protesters, and it skipped out on the part where they killed people. This gives an false impression to readers on what's been happening, hence why its fake news.

There is a big difference between punishment for murder and receiving the same punishment for setting fires where no one was killed. The former is a bigger crime hence the punishment is more severe.

I backed up my claim with links describing the original crime (before the court case verdict) and links talking about the verdict to this crime. The names of the executed men for the crime were the same as the ones listed in the Guardian. Therefore the Guardian was talking about the same men as the other article, but just ignored the fact that these men were also convicted of murder.

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that I called it fake news, not because of its numerous errors and how they leave out facts to change the narrative, but because it just so happen to be critical of China. I await your justification, but I must admit, I don't hold out much hope that you will actually come up with a reply that isn't an evasion. But I do look forward to you getting triggered by the term fake news.

Nope, you assume incredibly wrong, I guess because I call you on your shit so you just attribute it to dishonesty.

Which "shit" did you call me out on? The same shit where in the next post you admitted you got your facts on it wrong. You totally showed me up mate.