Uncritical reading

I have commented on how uncritical reading could sway you previously. (btw, certain apple daily columnist continues to defend the-rapist, even till today, apparently idiots are everywhere in our corwded city)

There is another example today, via Chinasmack

1) from a comment in this post (perhaps also represents some 'widely held' misunderstanding among western media and uncritical readers)
  • Domestically, Jiang was well known for his incapability since he handled miserably in diplomatic affairs (Yinhe Incident in 1993, Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996 and NATO bombing of the PRC embassy in 1999). He failed to defend China’s interests. The two Prime Ministers in his cabinet were targets by sides from both inside and outside the party. The first PM, Li Peng, earned his bad name by ordering crackdown on Tiananmen Square and the second PM, hardliner Zhu Rongji was hated by many for his tough administrative style (tempest reform on state-owned enterprises which resulted in soared unemployment, and brash rectification on banking system).
Wait a minute, who was Zhu hated by? many??? corruptor Chen Xitong or those princelings benefited from Jiang/Li era corruption who are now abroad and got a hand on influencing the western media?

The danger of taking a very small sample when you do your reporting.

2) I was going to say people never linked Jiang and Zhu together, but then Chinasmack promptly put up a follow up post (bravo chinasmack!!!), about netizens lamenting on Zhu's jaded silver hair vs Jiang's dyed brown head. You only need to take a couple sample (well, it is a 100% one-sided opinion from netizen up to this minute) to see comments like this
  • "NND, why does National Day still need to give Jiang so many shots??? It should give our ex-Premier Zhu more shots instead, as everyone misses the old man more!"
  • 哎!说什么好呢!只是朱总理在位的时候搭错了班子。但人民永远怀念您!
If something you heard does not feel right, just go to the forum and check the comments. Democracy works pretty well in the internet.

p.s. here is an exercise, blogger yang hengkun said, "60年前,美国政府对是否要打朝鲜战争举棋不定,这时,美国著名的智库兰德公司搞出了一个“可行性报告”,但他们不给美国政府看,要一大笔钱才肯出卖。可美国政府又舍不得花钱,就拒绝". This doesn't seem right. The US government wouldn't pay for a RAND report? unlikely but i could take this, but such a report could change a government decision? give me a break! the exercise is easy to do, try google for RAND and Korean War, see if you could verify Yang's story at all.

No comments: