For advertisement

Sample

8/24/2012

Quote from Professor Christopher Balding




‘Everyone the world over, the Chinese included, acknowledge that the Chinese media is blatantly manipulated and censored. Chinese technocrats quietly admit they don’t trust their own economic data believing it to be rigged for political purposes.’ Christopher Balding

How many people believe that their country’s media, or any media, is not blatantly manipulated and censored?

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I said before and I am going to say it again and again. The PAP government had for decades rigged the system against the citizens.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Governments should force their people at gunpoint to believe the media, and renounce all doubt.

Amen.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

This is the cleverest thing you have said today, and for a long time: )

Anonymous said...

For a long time I have stopped subscribing to the main media. My news now come from social media and redbean media. And of course, Christopher Balding website.

Anonymous said...

I only believe the govt as much as I believe that Christoper Balding is balding because his name say so.



Anonymous said...

I also believe he is a professor because his name say so. But who actually bother to check ?

Anonymous said...

I believe in the Poke

Anonymous said...

at the rate that Redbean is exposing the establishment, very soon
Redbean has a new name =>

Redbean Balding ... and I mean real balding ...LOL

Anonymous said...

LOL, the PRCs themselves 100% distrust any statistics, data, news and products from their own country. Once PRC colleague mentioned that in the last earthquake and the last train accident, the number of deaths reported by their govt are not accurate. To estimate the truth, just add a zero to the numbers reported.

Anonymous said...

You don't start with the content, you start with the people working for the media. The content is determined by a handful of people.

It is the people in control of the information that is questionable.

Anonymous said...

No difference in Sin.

Anonymous said...

Q: How many Straits Times journalists does it take to change a light bulb?

A#1: "We just report the facts, we don't change them."

A#2: Three.
One to report it as a subsidized government program to bring light to the people;
One to write about how the playing field is now level because the rich is now deprived of darkness and;
One to win a Pulitzer prize for reporting that the police has captured the light bulb assassin who broke the bulb in the first place.

Anonymous said...


Many people are switching to new media all over the world,the MSM are also trying to switch for survival,but to survive in new media,MSM all over the world must conform to the new media's laws,number one is no king or queen allowed.So no Keith Rupert Murdoch of new media will ever emerge.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

New media is saying it as it is and hearing it as it is, raw and real, except for the paid insurgents trying to discredit the new media and the bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Believe it, it is as real as your chow chee byes

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

I will keep this post of anon 10:29 here as evidence. Hope it is just an individual and not link to anyone or organisation. It can be very embarrassing if any organisation is link to this joker.

The truth will be out one day.

Matilah_Singapura said...

alamak redbean, relac lah brudder.

In every market, there is going to be competition. MSM and independent, net-based info and opinion will always compete for attention. For the MSM, it is for ad revenue, for net-based services it could be monetary profit too, but there're other motivations: like personal satisfaction, which by itself is multi-faceted and complex.

Naturally, there will be instances when the old and new media will clash and attempt to discredit each other. From the CONSUMER'S perspective however, it has never been so good.

Most of us nowadays get our news and opinion from A VARIETY of sources: MSM, electronic MSM and alternative sources purely net-based. Plus there is also social media too.

No particular sector can have a monopoly these days. If the TV sucks, you have the choices of independent internet sources (aggregators like Google News and Google Reader where you can CUSTOMISE your sources or topics by keywords) or the newspapers and magazines. If they suck, you have choice. On the internet, you have so much choice, you're only limited by your own TIME.

No lah. Relac. It's much better now than it has ever been.