Contrast this language with the HK protestors 5 demands. NYT looks even worse.

- a full withdrawal of a proposed bill that would allow Hong Kong people to be extradited to mainland China - a retraction of any characterization of the movement as a “riot” - a retraction of charges against anti-extradition protesters - an independent committee to investigate the Hong Kong police’s use of force - universal suffrage in elections for the city’s chief executive officer and legislature by 2020

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/09/hong-kong-international-airp...

If only the protestors would "recognize the CCPs concerns" and let themselves be completely subjected, and any hope for democracy crushed.

Why can't they just be reasonable?

After all that's what we are really talking about here, and the only thing the CCP will accept long term, period.

There is no "recognizing differences and agreeing to disagree" here, here is a head on collision between fundamentally opposing values.

The idea that readers of the New York Times would need some kind of paternalist guideline on which side to choose in this conflict is quite hilarious. The NY Times is reporting on the issue, and there are two sides to it, the line of the Chinese government and the line of the protesters.

I really don't think there is any doubt among NY Times readers as to which of the two value systems they support, and if there was, it wouldn't be the job of the NY Times to tell them.

Editorials will reflect individual journalist's stance towards the conflict, though. That's why I personally find them boring and rarely read them.

I agree with this comment.

What's strange is Fox News seems to not be reporting at all on the HK protests?

I guess Fox doesn't want to annoy its favourite audience member.

It is up to the reader to form an opinion given the evidence presented to them. The media should try to present both sides as neutrally as possible. If Beijing's side has been watered down so much as to be comically neutral, the reader should be able to pick up on this and understand the lack of positive traits attributable to Beijing's position.

The recent inversion of the norm of the neutrality of the media is bad. You talk as if it is good. Look at an AP or Reuters report directly from their website if you want to read the news with minimal spin. They keep to the facts, and they don't pitch each story as part of a grand moral battle. Any moral stance the media takes should be seen as a demerit, even if it is one you agree with. The exception being the editorials, or their equivalent.

EDIT: I feel like I've done a disservice to my position. I need to mention that neutrality in media is connoted with sticking to the facts. If you want to do a good job as a reporter, fill your articles with accurate, unembellished facts. Make the dang article 90%+ factual information without hystrionics or fluff. I've seen plenty of yellow journalism lately, but the accusation that excessive neutrality is just fluff is silly when you look at this article or at the corpus of NYTimes's articles.

Excel_Wizard, you are conflating neutrality with objective reporting. There is no objectivity. Every line and word written has a bias. Equating two sides when they are starkly different is not neutral and reporting the facts.

< If Beijing's side has been watered down so much as to be comically neutral, the reader should be able to pick up on this and understand the lack of positive traits attributable to Beijing's position.

If you truly believe this is the case, please get outside of whatever bubble you are living in and see how other people think.

I know that bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be minimized. That is the perogative.

Let's say you run a newspaper that has to report on 50 different stories every day. A large fraction of these stories involve the moral plights of two or more aggrieved parties. Any moral stance you take inevitably skews the perception of the story, when the reader has the responsibility for forming an opinion without it being tilted by anything other than the facts. Sticking to the facts of the story is paramount. Taking a moral stance is a shortcut- an easy way to excite your crowd and get them addicted to more high-adrenaline reporting.

>Equating two sides when they are starkly different is not neutral and reporting the facts.

Sticking to the facts is not the same as equating the two sides. Neutrality in reporting is connoted with sticking to the facts.

>If you truly believe this is the case, please get outside of whatever bubble you are living in and see how other people think.

The practices I am recommending are (part of) an antidote to the failure modes of how people think. Yellow journalism is on an uptick because of social media- the most emotional news stories are the most viral ones. There's a reason that they teach best practices for media objectivity in grade school. To hopefully constrain our emotions enough to make good judgements and decisions about the events we read about.

People that make fun of NYTimes's neutrality seem to prefer a world where the Huffington Post, a slew of shared facebook news reports, and the Drudge Report dominate the news outlets. Is this the world you want?

Let's go back into the story to discuss:

>The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s concerns.

The GGP highlighted this quote as being ridiculously neutral. I imagine you would call this "equating the two sides". When I read it in the context of violent protest, I took it to mean that they are not communicating through any other means than violence, i.e. there are not currently productive talks between the two sides.

Contrast this with the pinnacle of right-centrism, The Economist, which despite reporting on PRC's perspective too, repeatedly leans pro-HK, e.g. from the latest issue

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/08/chinese-troops-...

Note that your link is to one of the leaders, which always explicitly give the opinion of the Economist akin to The Editorial Board in the NY Times.

> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism.

They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."

In some situations there is an underlying truth, and opposing sides (who have both public and private agendas) will gladly lie and spin in order to get their way.

For example, perhaps Ukraine says they've been invaded by Russian troops without insignias; and Russia says it isn't them.

Some would say the ideal in journalism would be not only to report the conflicting statements, but also to determine and report what the underlying truth is.

What underlying truth have they missed here? The only thing I see here is that people are shitting on the NYT for not picking a side.

"It seemed that the mass shooter and the nightclub patrons could no longer recognize each other's concerns."

This is just so apples-to-oranges it's not even appropriate.

China has a legitimate claim to Hong Kong, Hong Kong (arguably) has a right to self-determination.

They're a newspaper. Present both sides, let me make a decision. Don't tell me what to think.

The PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship that suppresses free speech.

The New York Times is a newspaper built on free speech.

There really aren't to sides to be report about.

NYT could have saved lots of words.

"China is bad. Hong Kong should be free."

Removing nuance is fun.

Yeah, the difference is the nightclub shooter killed about 50 million less people.

Thats is the essence of the false equivalency: the idea that if two people disagree with equal passion they must be equally correct. Journalists are supposed to be fact checkers and critical thinkers. Their job isnt to parrot beijings claims that the sky is green, its to stick their heads out the damn window and see for themselves.

> Journalists are supposed to be fact checkers and critical thinkers. Their job isnt to parrot beijings claims that the sky is green

What wrong claim have they made? China has a legitimate claim to the territory, Hong Kong has a legitimate right to self-determination (in my opinion).

Claiming they're wrong or otherwise conveying false information because they haven't picked a side is just wholly wrong.

If you want propaganda that only reports on your side, there are subreddits for that. This is a newspaper.

Do you truly believe that the NYT is post ideology?

They’re not even accurately reporting on what either side wants, though. Even on what they claim to want. It’s like they pulled it out of their ass.

> They’re not even accurately reporting on what either side wants, though. Even on what they claim to want. It’s like they pulled it out of their ass.

Well that's an actual, great complaint!

What important details are they leaving out or, perhaps better, what's a more accurate reporting?

As William Seward said there is a higher law.

I don't understand your objection. Are you claiming there's a hidden third side to the dispute? Or that the controversy is fabricated and there is, in fact, only one side?

It seems clear to me that there are indeed exactly "two sides." It is also clear that their relationship is now more contentious, and less symbiotic. What exactly is your disagreement with those propositions?

The wording is clearly implying there are two valid sides, when there is not. The protestors are the valid side and they do not need to give a shit about the opinion of the CCP about full integration.

Be careful when you assume you know what someone else's words "clearly imply[]."

It seems to be the way for many outlets these days.

If someone says it is bright & sunny, and someone else says there is a huge dark angry thunder storm in the same location, the BBC will present both view points instead of looking out of the window to check if one seems more accurate than the other.

NYT is a propaganda tool, like most mainstream media outlets. Expecting them to have "courage" is a non-sequitur.

I agree. Just see how other commercial enterprises cave when it comes to China. The NYT is just the same.

The title calls one side Communists (as it should). That word has an effect on the reader.

Unfortunately, the effect is not what it should be for many readers in the modern West.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Communism isn't a dirty word for millennials like it was for people growing up in the atmosphere of the Cold War.

It's quite ironic you say that, because all across the formerly "democratic" world, a kind of facade or sham self-governance is washing over societies and governments everywhere, which constantly and consistently infringes upon and chips away at actual self-governance and actual democracy as leftist authoritarians impose their will and trying to corral and suppress and contain freedom and liberty and self-governance.

I am not even certain though that most cases they actually realize what they are doing if their paternalistic language ... of imposing their will on others for our/my/your own good ... can be taken as an honest indication. It's very much the same kind of authoritarians/abusive mindset and action that is common among western "liberals"/leftists and the CCP. Ironically too is that as most here are left leaning, if not largely leftists (whether they realize it or not), they also don't realize that this situation with HK is only a petri dish of what is to come due to leftist/liberal/globalist delusions of world wide kumbaya and hand holding amidst global world peace and tranquility. On the contrary actually, the liberal/leftist/globalist actions and values are a black swan that struts around right before us, but none are permitted to see, and even the supposed smartest people around dismiss off hand out of idle narcissism.

When Chine sends military to solve this “concern”, surely NYT will call both sides to “stop the circle of violence”.