Wikipedia Editors Attack China Critical News Outlet ‘Epoch Times’ After NBC Hit Piece

[SoldierOfTheKing]

On the other hand, it is refreshing to see conservative Christians defending the propaganda arm of a non Christian Chinese religious cult.

Most Conservative Christians don't spurn the Washington Times just because of its affiliation with the Unification Church. The question is whether it's a good newspaper. As for the Epoch Times, its affiliation with Falun Dafa may give it a unique insider's perspective on China that other publications don't have. One can understand that without having any time for Falun Dafa's religious teachings.

 

[Triumvirate]

The Epoch Times presents a unique challenge for many folks in the "fact checker" vocation, as well as left-wing pundits looking to critique right-wing pundits, as The Epoch Times, while still clearly having a right wing bias, doesn't demonstrate many of the glaring flaws (with regards to spin and accuracy) that some other right wing outlets are known for... like a OAN or Newsmax or Breitbart.

Debatable.

ET is an interesting one. I can understand Falun Gong types being very single-minded in their criticism of China given some of the treatment they claim to have suffered. Equally, that doesn't mean the solution is propping up someone like Trump.

They are hardly the only game in town when it comes to criticising China anyway, so perhaps the problem isn't their China criticism specifically....

I love the concept of having fact checkers and people who make it a mission to keep the media honest...however, I do feel that particular realm is lacking neutral participants...as there is a clear bias within that realm.

Basically, it ends up being...

"if a conservative publication lies, call it out as a lie; if a conservative publication reports valid information, full quotes, and accurate statistics...but what they're saying hurts someone's feelings or isn't something the far-left can easily provide a rebuttal for, then claim it's missing context, or call the publication into question for selective reporting for not going out of their way to write articles that puts the other side's position in a favorable light"

How is refusing to add necessary context not its own bias?

You say this like it's a bad thing, but facts on their own are not the full story. What can also matter is what narrative you are placing those facts in - or what information you refuse to contextualise those facts in.

This isn't exactly new, though it seems to be for some people, who spin it as bias, even though it is actually how you correct for existing bias.

 

[Tanj]

As for the Epoch Times, its affiliation with Falun Dafa may give it a unique insider's perspective on China that other publications don't have. One can understand that without having any time for Falun Dafa's religious teachings.

Except none of the articles from this propaganda outlet posted on this board ever have anything to do with China.

So the actual question is what is the unique perspective on USA politics provided by this non Christian Chinese cult propaganda outlet that is so appealing to conservative US Christians?

 

[Triumvirate]

Except none of the articles from this propaganda outlet posted on this board ever have anything to do with China.

So the actual question is what is the unique perspective on USA politics provided by this non Christian Chinese cult propaganda outlet that is so appealing to conservative US Christians?

"All Hail God Emperor Trump", I think.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Debatable.

ET is an interesting one. I can understand Falun Gong types being very single-minded in their criticism of China given some of the treatment they claim to have suffered. Equally, that doesn't mean the solution is propping up someone like Trump.

They are hardly the only game in town when it comes to criticising China anyway, so perhaps the problem isn't their China criticism specifically....

How is refusing to add necessary context not its own bias?

You say this like it's a bad thing, but facts on their own are not the full story. What can also matter is what narrative you are placing those facts in - or what information you refuse to contextualise those facts in.

This isn't exactly new, though it seems to be for some people, who spin it as bias, even though it is actually how you correct for existing bias.

Well, first and foremost, Bias and Accuracy shouldn't be conflated. Having a bias is natural, we all have them. However, that's a separate attribute from accuracy.

It's fine to rate something as "missing context", however, that standard would need to be applied consistently. I don't think someone like a Daniel Dale is going out of their way to seek out context when the opposing side makes a mistake, it's just given a "false" rating in most cases.

If the "give them the benefit of the doubt, and consider the full context" approach isn't applied for both sides, then it is a form of bias.

Or another way to put it, if the "missing context" is used more often as a defense rather than an objective critique, then it's not much better than the person who left out the context in the first place, as they're both pursuing the same objective "Make my side look right/smart, and make the other side look wrong/dumb"