Not long ago, the Australian broadcaster ABC posted a long article (see photo below) accusing the Chinese of self-media, alarmist, and using fake news to discredit Australia.
Behind this article, there seems to be a "killer".
The article restates the old story, first out of last year`s "Australia is a nuclear test base, but the secret has been covered up for a long time" official article. At the end of last year, at one point, Time line, couldn`t read the article, and there was a debate about it, until social app announced that it was a rumor and deleted it.
ABC`s other public account article is even more outrageous.
This article, published in an official account, claims that the country of Iqlan will launch a terrorist attack on Australia, and even lists several popular locations where it will be attacked, advising the Chinese to refrain from going to these places.
However, ABC`s article says: "what the Chinese self-media says is actually a propaganda version of the terrorist group ISIS!"
This is a screenshot of a Chinese official account by ABC article. And think here the content, actually for the terrorist organization ISIS propaganda draft.
Here`s the problem:
The main Australian media (in English) were first informed by the police that it was ISIS`s propaganda (propaganda).
Australian media were told by police at the time that this was ISpropagandabut no comments from police were included in Australian Red Scarf'sarticle, which was sourced from Chinese news media.
However, the Chinese self-media article, but not a single mention of the police this reminder.
Perhaps: the mainstream society does not know much about the Chinese media? Especially don`t know the self-media, so no one notifies?
So, Chinese self-media, will the terrorist advertisement, the original version of the?
To inform the Chinese as news?
Propaganda campaigns such as terrorist can cause public panic, even if initially achieved.
If so, as ABC says, Iqlan has basically achieved its strategic deployment, at least through the Chinese self-media, and at least among Chinese Australians.
This well-known rumour article, also shot by the ABC article, provides English readers with a detailed account of the Australian rumor and how it is spread among the Chinese community.
This article by the Australian National Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) confirms the criticism of some Chinese professionals: that is, some official accounts often exaggerate the news of "world technological breakthroughs". ABC, for example, named a Chinese official account that claimed that Australia had completely conquered cancer.
A Chinese doctor in our social app group jumped on his feet and said it was exaggerating. I can`t wait for the onlookers to read it anyway.
But what ABC is more concerned about is some Chinese self-media strong Nationalism-- "nationalism" or "nationalist" mood. Specifically, not here.
According to statistics, in Australia, there are 3 million social app users!
Really: don`t say I don`t know, say a surprise.
According to a study by the University of Adelaide, most Chinese students don`t go to the English-language media, and most of them rely on "making fun of social app," according to a study by the University of Adelaide.
This is the case with foreign students, not to mention other Chinese.
"Based on research we conducted a few years ago, mostChinese students don't read English language news, but browsing WeChat is amust-do activity every day," said Jiang Ying, a senior media lecturer atthe University of Adelaide.
So a lot of fake Australian news on the, social app official account, and even articles that provoke ethnic rivalry, make it understandable that the mainstream in Australia is a bit unsettled.
In fact, provoking ethnic antagonism is also dangerous for the Chinese as a whole living or working in Australia.
Federal Information minister Mitch Fifield vowed to address the impact of online media on fairness and competition.
A state council official of Chinese descent complained to Ma that,
"Some Chinese from the media have exaggerated some things. In fact, in the government, there is no such extreme anti-China sentiment (he said so - Ma said); so many aspects (the Australian government decision to consider), Chinese self-media only grasps one aspect to exaggerate;
And-and that`s your lawyer`s specialty-how can a media say who is a liar and who is what before the court decides?!
Third, the Australian government has also begun to notice these problems in the Chinese-language self-media, and has also begun to consider how to solve them. "
In February, Federal Information minister McGee Fischer (CommunicationsMinister Mitch Fifield), ordered the Competition and Consumer Council, ACCC, to start working on ways to address the "online media" mess.
Some experts have even called on Australia`s government to introduce laws specifically for social app news numbers. The Australian Press and Publishing Agency, TheAustralian Press Council, is doing the same.
Australian actor Rebel Wilson and the media reputation infringement case, once a record high compensation of 4.5 million Australian dollars. The state appellate court finally awarded six hundred thousand Australian dollars in compensation. The reason is that a magazine claims that her age is false.
Dr Jiang said she thought it was time to look at providingrelevant regulations for WeChat news accounts.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Communications MinisterMitch Fifield said the Government had commissioned an ACCC inquiry into theimpact of online platforms on the provision of news.
The Australian Press Council said in a statement it had forsome time been concerned about the impact of technological and other changesfaced by the media industry in Australia on journalism, and continues tocarefully monitor these changes.
But, as the state councilman accused, some Chinese media accounts seem to have lost their feet, and even joined the warring parties and rushed to the front line.
"Ma said > often for some public accounts pinch sweat, do you think it is too reckless?"
The Horse said to understand the vengeance of cynicism. Also admire those who dare to light the sword to evil media.
"Ma said" the ideal of the hour, but also the three swords, the world is evil. To this end, I also practiced Sanda, poked the foot, and shaped the six-in-one.
But it is a pity: we light the object of the sword, one knife down, how to cut the wrong way?
That is why the law has a presumption of innocence: no one can be convicted unless there is sufficient evidence; and-more importantly-it is important to ensure that the other party has the opportunity to defend himself or her!
The media should have the same restrictions. Public utensils shall not be used for private use.
Because no matter what the media, once there are one hundred thousand / two hundred thousand subscribers, there is a strong social force. Be a big stick thicker than an arm. This big stick, can become a pillar of society, can be made into a guard fence. Similarly, it can be used as a weapon to attack evil.
Therefore, if not restricted, free use, it may hurt society. Or bully the individual.
Because this society, often is not "black and white" so simple.
Melbourne Mayor Robert sexual harassment, there is one detail, I was deeply educated.
Mayor Robert, with the woman who accused him, was originally a good friend. As a result, there was a fog in the public mind: Robert`s salty hands forced onlookers to believe. But also wondering: is it because of the opposite of the situation ah?
Former Melbourne Mayor Robert and the female congresswoman who reported him were close political partners. In the dispute, the plot was reversed and the mayor finally resigned.
I`m skeptical, too. Later, Robert hired a public relations firm, found that 10 years ago, the female congressman registered the name of the company, even Robert`s last name!
The plot is reversed!
You two have a little bit of a relationship, aren`t you?
There`s no sexual harassment, right?
The congressman was also silent.
As a former prosecutor / lawyer, I put aside my heart and felt that there must be some confusion between the female councillors and the mayor. If not, why did you register a company with their surname 10 years ago when you first met someone else?.
I believe this is what everyone knows. The public can press this and set the tone for the case!
But, let me drop glasses is: a month later, the woman congressman finally stood up, said a word!
She is said to have just eased out of social pressure-hum pointing to the public brain and saying:
"I registered with Robert`s last name?! Nonsense, because my mother`s middlename (the Westerners are used to having a middle name) is exactly the same as Robert`s last name! "
So, from being a prosecutor to an economy-related criminal lawyer, dealing with hundreds of cases, similar scenarios, and countless experiences, I have often warned new lawyers:
Don`t believe what you hear!
I can`t even believe what you see! (like Robert`s last name registered company, in black and white, in the ASIC file)
Because, these may not be the truth, just happen to be like the truth, a little like it!
You have to dig hard until you can`t dig.
Do not believe the other party`s words, not even believe their own client`s words!
You can only draw conclusions based on the evidence you have done your best to find!
Without proof, all conclusions are unreliable!
Social tools like this, onlookers, you should also pay attention to change`s own reading habits-learn the "positivism" thinking:
When you say who is the "Top Ten entrepreneurs," you don`t just look at the title, you start to worship; the correct reading method, but also depends on this "Top Ten", which organization reviews? To judge the amount of gold, determine the extent of your bend.
Similarly, when someone says "terrorist is coming to Melbourne"! Let`s not start peeing our pants as soon as we look at the headline. Wait a minute (and then pee) to see who said that. If "information sources" have always been unreliable, then see what others say;
When someone says, "who is the great good man" or "who is the big liar!", you can not only look at the title, but also see: is there evidence? Does the evidence have anything to do with the conclusion?
With all this in mind, bystanders will soon be able to escalate into sunrise with bright eyes.
That`s too much. Stop it.
