I Read it in the Paper So it Must Be True-Part Two.

Believing is easy, thinking is tough. Are you willing to go to the effort?

photo by Pixaby

Here’s reports from two real newspapers, about the same thing. Which one is right?:

Newspaper no. 1:

HONG KONG (AP) — A landmark national security trial opened Monday in Hong Kong for prominent activist and publisher Jimmy Lai, who faces a possible life sentence if convicted under a law imposed by Beijing to crush dissidents.

Lai, 76, was arrested in August 2020 during a crackdown on the city’s pro-democracy movement under the sweeping national security law enacted following huge protests four years ago. He was charged with colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security and conspiring with others to put out seditious publications.

The closely watched case — tied to the now-shuttered pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily that Lai founded — is widely seen as a trial of press freedom and a test for judicial independence in the Asian financial hub.

China promised that the former British colony could retain its Western-style civil liberties for 50 years after returning to Chinese rule in 1997. But in recent years, the Hong Kong government has severely limited free speech and assembly and virtually eliminated political opposition under the rubric of maintaining national security. Many leading activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile.

Newspaper no. 2:

“The Commissioner's Office of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Wednesday refuted Western politicians' smears against the SAR's handling of Jimmy Lai's national security case, saying the trial is law-based and impartial.

Recently, some European Parliament members, British politicians and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China have baselessly criticized the trial of Lai. They also slandered the central government's policies toward the SAR and the National Security Law for Hong Kong, and called for sanctions against the central government and SAR officials.

A spokesperson for the commissioner's office said that Lai is the mastermind and participant of a series of anti-China activities in the SAR. He is also an agent and pawn of foreign anti-China forces who shamelessly colluded with them to undermine China's national security.

The spokesperson said the SAR upholds the rule of law and ensures strict law enforcement. The judiciary in Hong Kong conducts impartial trials based on the principles of justice and legality, garnering widespread support and appreciation from the local community.

Anti-China politicians and organizations are distorting facts, spreading misinformation and exploiting Lai's case to attack and tarnish Hong Kong people's human rights and society's rule of law. These actions, the spokesperson said, revealed their political motives and hypocritical nature.”

---

Do you see any bias here in these two stories? Of course you do. Note that there are no factual misstatements in either of these pieces, yet they are both designed to push a point of view. They are, in fact, both propaganda.   Do you think it’s different in American news?  It should be a basic discipline of research: Consider the bias of the creators and publishers of everything you read, see, or hear. Do us all a favor, and presume that everything you see, read or hear is propganda.  That includes entertainment.  No, it’s not always the case, but you should always be aware.

Question—How much of what you consider to be true have you derived independently of propganda like the examples above?

Note: Newspaper no. 1 is AP.  https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-jimmy-lai-trial-opens-dfeabcb9baa8d31852321cf95a871800

      Newspaper no. 2 is China Daily.  https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202401/04/WS65960f6ea3105f21a507a827.html

---

---

Comments?

Quiz question #1 What media source do you consider most unbiased?

#2 What media source do you consider least biased?

#3 Compare your answers in 1&2 and convincingly demonstrate that you are correct.