that ‘source’ is also an opinion peace without any sources.
?
The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor’s also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn’t a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn’t a valid source in an internet argument.
Just show me where mainstream media is deliberately bashing China. If it’s that rampant it can’t be that hard right?
I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident:
Spy balloon likely sent extensive intelligence to China, experts say. The Pentagon said Thursday it ‘acted immediately’ to counter a collection of sensitive information
U.S. president Biden … however stated that it was “not a major breach”, and that he also believed that the Chinese leadership wasn’t even aware of the balloon. … On September 17, 2023, in an interview with CBS news, General Mark Milley, the retiring 20th US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated “I would say it was a spy balloon that we know with high degree of certainty got no intelligence, and didn’t transmit any intelligence back to China." Technical experts had also found that the balloon’s sensors had never been activated while it was travelling over the Continental United States. The general also touched on a leading theory that the reason that it was flying over the United States, was probably because it was blown off-track, where the balloon had been heading towards Hawaii however winds at 60,000 feet simply came into the equation. Miley said, “those winds are very high… the particular motor on that aircraft can’t go against those winds at that altitude.”
Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR?
Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story.
I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it’s poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort.
?
The source of that article are the authors. One a professor at Oxford, the other a lecturer at MIT. The professor’s also written a book about China which is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Pretty weak argument to say that isn’t a valid source. A bit like an anti-vaxxer saying an article about vaccination written by a doctor isn’t a valid source in an internet argument.
I googled myself, because I was curious. Not necessarily bashing, but plenty of sensationalism. For example, NBC at the time of the balloon incident:
Fox:
Guardian:
CNN:
Wikipedia:
Media: the Chinese are spying on us. Are you ready for WAR?
Reality: the wind blew a balloon of course and by now most of us have already forgotten what turned out to be a nothing burger of a story.
I think that the concern was not that the articles like the ones you link to do not exist. Instead the complaint is that the posted piece did not itself link to them to back up the claim. These were likely quite easy for you to find and it’s poor journalism that the author did not put in the same effort.