I don’t think I described the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang to be a “genocide” (if I have used that word then please do correct me). Some people do use that term of course.
If someone showed me a case of those two outlets lying and not correcting themselves when challenged, then maybe I’d believe that The New York Times and the BBC are not reliable. In my experience though they’re accurate with facts, even if I might not always agree with how their journalists might spin a story.
I’d be more than happy to air the dirty laundry of those two gossip rags. But before I do, I object to your framing of the issue. Hearsay is hearsay, and the chain of proof is only as strong as it’s weakest link. If the NYT says Adrian Zenz says something, then I’ll readily accept that he said it, but not that what he said has any credibility since he’s a crackpot. Under no circumstances should any source be treated as dogma no matter how reliable it is (not that the NYT or BBC are at all reliable). Fact checking isn’t about finding somebody who “seems trustworthy” who said it, it’s about actually examining the physical evidence - otherwise what you’re doing is not really any different than someone believing something because their aunt said it on Facebook.
Examples of biased or inaccurate reporting from the New York Crimes include:
The “Hamas mass rape” story, still up on their website with no corrections (except a minor detail about someone’s age), much less an apology. This story was discredited by an expose by The Intercept, and has been reported as such by several other sources including Al Jazeera
Peddling transphobic drivel. An open letter signed by 1,200 NYT contributors accuses the paper of “biased” and psuedoscientific" reporting. Erin In The Morning documents a series of articles with transphobic bias.
Examples of biased/inaccurate reporting from the BBC include:
Peddling transphobic drivel. The BBC published an article originally titled, “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women” in which they platformed Lily Cade, a porn star who has credible allegations of having committed sexual abuse (which the author was aware of), and who called for trans people to be “lynched” to just… give her opinion on whether trans people should be allowed to exist. It also pushed an online poll with only 80 respondents as a credible source, and failed to note that “Get The L Out,” the transphobic group that had conducted the poll and which claimed to represent lesbians, actually has ties to the Heritage Foundation. In response to backlash, they changed the title slightly and cut out the part with Lily Cade, but the article is still up and you can read it for yourself, it’s absolute garbage unworthy of a tabloid, it presents zero evidence of anything and just platforms a bunch of transphobes to push their narratives. Any and all editorial standards fly out the window whenever trans people are brought up. This video goes into more detail about it.
I don’t consider either source at all reliable, especially not when it comes to China. Even if they were, it wouldn’t matter - any claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Now, having said all that - you said you didn’t use the term “genocide.” That makes your argument much stronger, because you’re not necessarily relying on the more extreme and unfounded claims that have been pushed by those garbage sources. There are somewhat more credible sources that make more grounded criticism alleging human rights abuses, and we can have a conversation on those terms if you like.
However, I do have to question why it is so important for me to be invested in that situation at all. As an American, I can’t really do anything about it, and there are all kinds of human rights abuses occurring at home that are more pressing. Why look at the splinter in their eye rather than the board in my own? I don’t uphold China as some shining beacon that everyone else should emulate, I just push back against exaggerated claims about it. And I’ve caught bans before around here for “genocide denial” just for asking for evidence regarding it and saying that Zenz isn’t a credible source, so forgive me if my attitude regarding the subject is somewhat defensive.
I don’t think I described the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang to be a “genocide” (if I have used that word then please do correct me). Some people do use that term of course.
I think that rape and arbitrary detention of Uyghurs has probably happened though, because sources like The New York Times and the BBC have reported on it.
If someone showed me a case of those two outlets lying and not correcting themselves when challenged, then maybe I’d believe that The New York Times and the BBC are not reliable. In my experience though they’re accurate with facts, even if I might not always agree with how their journalists might spin a story.
I’d be more than happy to air the dirty laundry of those two gossip rags. But before I do, I object to your framing of the issue. Hearsay is hearsay, and the chain of proof is only as strong as it’s weakest link. If the NYT says Adrian Zenz says something, then I’ll readily accept that he said it, but not that what he said has any credibility since he’s a crackpot. Under no circumstances should any source be treated as dogma no matter how reliable it is (not that the NYT or BBC are at all reliable). Fact checking isn’t about finding somebody who “seems trustworthy” who said it, it’s about actually examining the physical evidence - otherwise what you’re doing is not really any different than someone believing something because their aunt said it on Facebook.
Examples of biased or inaccurate reporting from the New York Crimes include:
The “Hamas mass rape” story, still up on their website with no corrections (except a minor detail about someone’s age), much less an apology. This story was discredited by an expose by The Intercept, and has been reported as such by several other sources including Al Jazeera
Peddling transphobic drivel. An open letter signed by 1,200 NYT contributors accuses the paper of “biased” and psuedoscientific" reporting. Erin In The Morning documents a series of articles with transphobic bias.
Examples of biased/inaccurate reporting from the BBC include:
The “social credit system” story. This story has been widely debunked by sources like Foreign Policy saying that it’s, “not real.”
Peddling transphobic drivel. The BBC published an article originally titled, “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women” in which they platformed Lily Cade, a porn star who has credible allegations of having committed sexual abuse (which the author was aware of), and who called for trans people to be “lynched” to just… give her opinion on whether trans people should be allowed to exist. It also pushed an online poll with only 80 respondents as a credible source, and failed to note that “Get The L Out,” the transphobic group that had conducted the poll and which claimed to represent lesbians, actually has ties to the Heritage Foundation. In response to backlash, they changed the title slightly and cut out the part with Lily Cade, but the article is still up and you can read it for yourself, it’s absolute garbage unworthy of a tabloid, it presents zero evidence of anything and just platforms a bunch of transphobes to push their narratives. Any and all editorial standards fly out the window whenever trans people are brought up. This video goes into more detail about it.
I don’t consider either source at all reliable, especially not when it comes to China. Even if they were, it wouldn’t matter - any claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Now, having said all that - you said you didn’t use the term “genocide.” That makes your argument much stronger, because you’re not necessarily relying on the more extreme and unfounded claims that have been pushed by those garbage sources. There are somewhat more credible sources that make more grounded criticism alleging human rights abuses, and we can have a conversation on those terms if you like.
However, I do have to question why it is so important for me to be invested in that situation at all. As an American, I can’t really do anything about it, and there are all kinds of human rights abuses occurring at home that are more pressing. Why look at the splinter in their eye rather than the board in my own? I don’t uphold China as some shining beacon that everyone else should emulate, I just push back against exaggerated claims about it. And I’ve caught bans before around here for “genocide denial” just for asking for evidence regarding it and saying that Zenz isn’t a credible source, so forgive me if my attitude regarding the subject is somewhat defensive.