“Propaganda” is essentially spreading information (true or false) with the intention of steering views for political ends. China does admit to doing so, but this does not mean they aren’t more factual in their propaganda than the US Empire is.
How do you believe facts are verified? Through vetting, testing, and documenting evidence. Flimsy evidence like anecdotes or “eyewitness reports” are secondary to more hard evidence. An easy example is reporting on the Beijing Riots in 1989, where the west reported that 10,000 people were killed on the square itself, official Chinese sources reported that the square was evacuated peacefully but that clashes between the PLA and rioters around Beijing resulted in hundreds of deaths (largely the rioters but with dozens of PLA members lynched or firebombed), and now the official Chinese story is confirmed and is now largely reflected on Wikipedia.
So verified by the people who put out the propaganda in the first place. Your source “confirming” the story literally came from Beijing, and all the wikipedia page (Hardly an arbiter of objective truth in the first place) states is that the number is and has been in dispute. The source cited for that section of the Wikipedia article is also a Western source titled “Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement” published in 1998 by the Stanford University Press. Something tells me they weren’t pushing the CCP line.
So basically your “Easy example” just proves my point: While you chuckle about westerners just believing what western governments said, you’re just wholeheartedly endorsing the version of events published by the Chinese government. The west aren’t the only ones lying to you, bud, they’re just the only ones who will admit it years after the fact.
“Propaganda” is essentially spreading information (true or false) with the intention of steering views for political ends. China does admit to doing so, but this does not mean they aren’t more factual in their propaganda than the US Empire is.
More factual according to who?
How do you believe facts are verified? Through vetting, testing, and documenting evidence. Flimsy evidence like anecdotes or “eyewitness reports” are secondary to more hard evidence. An easy example is reporting on the Beijing Riots in 1989, where the west reported that 10,000 people were killed on the square itself, official Chinese sources reported that the square was evacuated peacefully but that clashes between the PLA and rioters around Beijing resulted in hundreds of deaths (largely the rioters but with dozens of PLA members lynched or firebombed), and now the official Chinese story is confirmed and is now largely reflected on Wikipedia.
So verified by the people who put out the propaganda in the first place. Your source “confirming” the story literally came from Beijing, and all the wikipedia page (Hardly an arbiter of objective truth in the first place) states is that the number is and has been in dispute. The source cited for that section of the Wikipedia article is also a Western source titled “Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement” published in 1998 by the Stanford University Press. Something tells me they weren’t pushing the CCP line.
So basically your “Easy example” just proves my point: While you chuckle about westerners just believing what western governments said, you’re just wholeheartedly endorsing the version of events published by the Chinese government. The west aren’t the only ones lying to you, bud, they’re just the only ones who will admit it years after the fact.