Your journalist sources are from the Global Times, "part of a broader set of Chinese state media outlets that constitute the Chinese government's propaganda apparatus." [1]

> The Palestinian, Pakistani, and Syrian ambassadors to China have commented on camera about what they observed in Xinjiang: https://youtu.be/ebeGipO6-gU?t=490

There is every indication that these are sanitized media tours. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Times

[2] https://wokeglobaltimes.com/aac16063149c4e37a8e3ee58066c4837...

> Your journalist sources are from the Global Times, "part of a broader set of Chinese state media outlets that constitute the Chinese government's propaganda apparatus."

Right, and the Western claims all stem from people or organizations connected to the US state department or intelligence apparatus. These claims are propagated by the same bastions of journalistic truth which stoked popular fervor in the run-up to the Iraq War and every other unjustified US foreign coup or war (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony).

I don't know what you're trying to do here as you appear to believe Wikipedia (and its citations) is trustworthy enough to source for your own arguments but not for mine.

Global Times is an organ under the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the CCP. There is no controversy of its origins or whose authority it acts. Given that no newspaper can be wholly privately-owned in China, conflicts of interest are unavoidable.

Did I dispute that? Of course it’s going to present the Chinese perspective. My point is there’s just as much conflict of interest with US corporate media. As a matter of historical record, there is no hard separation between the US corporate elite and the elite of the US state and intelligence apparatus.

I don’t think Wikipedia is objective in any way on geopolitics. I don’t think that’s possible. My point was simply that some geopolitical facts are so indisputable that even Wikipedia admits them (of course this only tends to happen once the US has gotten what it wants). You have to decide whether you’re going to reckon with those facts or just talk more about sources. At the end of the day that’s a cover for not having any hard evidence.

So in summary your argumentation rests on the case that Western media is corrupted by American interests. At the same time you admit that the CCP manipulates their own media to use as propaganda but you prefer to believe those vehicles, from a single nation rather than a collective of media across multiple cultures because all of them are under the fold of American influence.

It sounds like a major conspiracy.

or, worse, someone who is a fellow at the "victims of communism memorial foundation", like it's not a completely bogus entity. literally any article on the topic this week (and plenty before) has him as the only source.