Western media is diverse because they are not all controlled by the same government. For example, the China Daily US Edition is based in the NYC and therefore can be considered "Western media", but being owned by the CCP it obviously publishes pro-PRC propaganda.

Obviously if you define "Western media" as newspapers providing a certain viewpoint then by definition your argument would be correct. But that isn't an interesting argument.

Moreover, using the Internet people in the US can read diverse points of view, including e.g. those of pro-China websites. This is not possible in China, except for a small minority who have access to VPN and similar technology.

> Western media is diverse because they are not all controlled by the same government.

The majority of American News can be traced back to 6 billionaires

http://www.tiragraffi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/thebig6....

> The majority of American News can be traced back to 6 billionaires

6 is more than one. A majority is not a totality. And not all Western media is American.

In 20 years it will probably be 3

Well, in Britain the majority of newspapers are owned or were bought by Murdoch, total media control seems to be part of his ultimate goal.

Personally I'm biased in favour of rights. If HK ruled over China I'd be in favour of Chinese independence.

I want Beijing to have universal suffrage just as much as I want the Cantonese to.

Most protesters don't want HK independence, they simply want universal suffrage which was guaranteed by the CCP in the 1997 joint declaration. But the CCP has failed their promise and almost half of the seats in the HK legislature are chosen by "functional constituencies" that do not represent the people. Of course the CCP has labeled these people as "separatists" to attract domestic hatred towards the protesters, and spreads propaganda in China that falsely represents their demands.

At least SCMP still gives a truthful view: https://yp.scmp.com/hongkongprotests5demands

I am not sure you are telling the full story. It seems to me different sides have different interpretations w.r.t the 'universal suffrage' as in the joint declaration.