this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
136 points (87.8% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
3306 readers
9 users here now
#funny
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you think that's what journalistic neutrality looks like I really don't know what else to tell you here.
What part of the headline or article is not neutral? It doesn't disparage the existence of the station at all.
None of it is neutral, and the bias is incredibly obvious to anybody reading it objectively.
Which part specifically is biased, and what bias is that?
The bias in this article is pretty obvious once you start looking for it. For starters, the author frames the whole thing like "look at this ridiculous useless station in the middle of nowhere" and then buries the actual explanation at the end with a major side eye.
As I've already explained, the biggest tell is the phrase "so say Chongqing Rail Transit employees." By adding "so say" instead of just saying "Chongqing Rail Transit employees explained" or "according to" the author makes it sound like the workers are making excuses or spinning a story. It creates this vibe of "yeah that's what they want you to believe" without actually saying anything false. It's a classic subtle way to plant doubt.
Another one is "despite its seemingly outlandish location". The word "seemingly" does a lot of heavy lifting here. It lets the author call the location outlandish while technically covering themselves with the "seemingly" qualifier. But the reader walks away thinking how outlandish this all is.
And then there is "it's possible that it'll attract more people" which is a direct quote from the employee. The author chose to include the most hedged and uncertain phrasing possible. The employee probably said something more confident about the planned development, but the article picks the one sentence that sounds like a maybe and uses it as the closing argument. The employees look like they are grasping at straws.
The article also uses the phrase "a Chinese digital video production company" right after the Manner Video name. That seems neutral on its face but actually reminds the reader "this is a Chinese source so take it with a grain of salt". Compare that to how they describe the original complaint "a station worker recently told Chongqing Morning Post" which is presented as pure fact without any disclaimer whatsoever.
Meanwhile the description of the flyover uses "crazily dense tangle of roadways" which is pure editorial. That is not a factual description. That is the author telling you how to feel about it.
So yeah the article rather hamfistedly sets up a "can you believe this absurd station" tone, quotes the actual explanation as a weak maybe, and uses loaded framing like "so say" to make the reasonable answer sound like corporate puffery. The bias is in how they frame the whole thing.
Looking for it as in examining something critically, that's how you make objective analysis by actually paying attention to things.
I really don't think that's an objective reading, it seems more like you're hunting for justifications to call it biased because it isn't biased in favor of China.
I didn't get the vibe you're claiming at all. The vibe I got was "This station has been made famous for the bizarre surroundings, but it's actually part of an expansion plan". The author didn't create the "seemingly outlandish location" framing, they're responding to it, it already existed. I read the "seemingly" exactly opposite to you, that they're acknowledging how it looks but clarifying that there's more rationale than the existing social media framing would suggest.
Assuming that the employee they quoted was overall less hedged is speculation. I'm no expert on Chinese culture, but in my personal experience they tend to be more reserved and matter-of-fact. If you interpret hedging as grasping at straws, that seems like a you thing. To me, that feels more like the employee trying to stick to the facts.
Similarly, interpreting specifying that Manner Video is a Chinese production company feels more like an aside to clarify who that is for a western audience than calling their reliability into question. ____ Morning Post doesn't really need explanation, since that's a pretty familiar newspaper naming scheme.
The description of the flyover is not particularly editorial, it is crazily dense. I also don't see how that's a negative portrayal. To me, it reads more positive than anything. "Look at this complex interchange, it reinforces the focus Chongqing has put on comprehensive infrastructure".
It really seems like you're trying to impose a bias, and interpret fairly neutral reporting about a seemingly strange (again, referring to the existing framing on Chinese social media) infrastructure project as much more skeptical than the text suggests.
Again, there are plenty of actual examples of what you're trying to criticize. Highlighting this example makes you look like you're grasping at straws yourself. Reading the article objectively, I saw a relatively light-hearted and neutral justification for a station which was making the rounds on social media as a bizarre phenomenon. Why not just stick to examples that don't rely on subjective framing? There are surely plenty of those.
Seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. You are interpreting every word in the most charitable possible light for the author and calling that the default reading. Let me break down why I think your reading is the one that imposes an assumption.
Let's start with the seemingly outlandish location. You say the author is just responding to existing social media framing, but that is exactly my point. The author chooses to further reinforce that framing, and there is nothing objective about it. It's become normalized precisely by these kinds of articles. They could have written "the station looks strange but here is the straightforward reasoning" without the word "seemingly" at all. That word preserves the "isn't this weird" tone while technically covering their bases. It is a deliberate writing choice rather than some forced interpretation.
And you didn't really address the whole "so say Chongqing Rail Transit employees" bit. If the author wanted to present the explanation as credible they would have written "Chongqing Rail Transit employees explained" or "according to" which is what you'd see in any objective reporting. The phrase "so say" has a well understood rhetorical function which is to signal skepticism. It is the same construction used in phrases like "so say the conspiracy theorists".
Then we have the hedging in the quote. You say the employee might genuinely have been that uncertain. But the point is that the article chose to end with the weakest possible version of the rationale. If the explanation is credible, why lead with the complaint and end with a maybe? That is a structural choice that prioritizes the mystery over a plain answer. The article could have opened with the plan and then noted the current lack of development. But instead the joke comes first and the serious explanation comes last with weasel words around it.
For the Manner Video clarification, you say it is for a western audience. But you haven't explained why does "a Chinese digital video production company" need a qualifier at all? The article does not describe Chongqing Morning Post as "a Chinese state affiliated newspaper" for example. That would also be just as relevant for context. Yet, one gets a label and the other does not, and the asymmetry suggests the author wants to flag the source as being potentially less authoritative.
You read "crazily dense tangle of roadways" as positive because it shows infrastructure ambition, but the word tangle has negative connotations implying messiness and lack of order. Similarly, crazily implies irrational excess. Compare that to "complex interconnected network" or "ambitious multi level design" which would've been actual unbiased framings for this. The author chose words that evoke chaos not admiration instead.
You say I am imposing bias while I am showing specific word choices and structural decisions. You are saying those choices are neutral and my reading is subjective. But language is not math and words carry tone meant to shape opinion. The author chose these words out of many possible options and that precisely where the bias lives.
You ask why not stick to clearer examples, it's because this is how real bias works. Good propaganda is intentionally written in a sophisticated enough fashion so people like you can carry water for it. It lives in the "so says" and the "seeminglys" and the asymmetric labels. It's aimed at liberals who view themselves as being sophisticated and who gobble up sophistry.
You ignored quite a lot of what I said. Seems like you have an exact acceptable wording in your head, and you interpret any deviation from that wording as hostile. I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't think it's an accurate or productive framing of the world. Not sure what else I can say beyond that.
I literally addressed what you said point by point, and explained why the article is biased with specific examples of what neutral prose looks like. It's very telling that you ignored all that. Entire books have been written on how this type of language manipulation is done, you might want to read one sometime to understand the subject you're attempting to debate here. https://transition-news.org/IMG/pdf/inventing_reality_the_politics_of_the_mass_media_by_michael_parenti_z-lib.org_.pdf
Your standard for neutral prose is razor thin and highly paranoid. It is neither accurate, nor productive.
And you literally ignored most of what I said.
Even on the first skim I noticed you ignored the distinction I addressed between Manner Video (I had no idea what that was and the explanation was useful) and Chongqing Morning Post (everyone knows what [Cityname] Morning Post is, there are probably thousands of newspapers around the world with the same basic name, it doesn't need to be explained). The rest is just as bad.
Just read what I wrote, read what the author wrote. Don't ignore substance to bolster desperation. There are too many legitimate problems to get conspiratorial about this fluff piece. It cheapens the legitimacy of your platform.
It's pretty obvious that you're just going to keep doubling down here no matter what I say. There's no rational conversation possible here.
Oh and you noticed the distinction you made and I ignored it. Good catch. Let me address it head on.
You say Manner Video needed an explanation because you had no idea what it was. But that is exactly my point. The article explicitly labels it as "a Chinese digital video production company" while not labeling Chongqing Morning Post at all. The asymmetry is what I was highlighting, but evidently that was too complex for you to follow. You are proving my argument by saying the label was useful to you. It was useful because it reminded you this is a Chinese source and that subtly signals this may need a grain of salt. If the article added "a Chinese state affiliated newspaper" after Chongqing Morning Post you would probably also find that useful but also slightly loaded. The point is that selective labeling guides the reader's trust.
You say "everyone knows what Cityname Morning Post is." Do they really? Your average western reader has no idea if Chongqing Morning Post is a state mouthpiece or a tabloid or a respected local paper. But the article trusts the reader to fill that in. Meanwhile Manner Video gets a clear descriptive tag. That is the author deciding which source needs a credibility anchor and which one can stand on its own.
Also I love that you said "the rest is just as bad" without actually engaging with the specific words I quoted after accusing me of not engaging with your drivel. If my analysis was so off you could have just said "so say does not sound skeptical to me" or "seemingly is a perfectly neutral word". But instead you waved your hand at the whole thing.
So to summarize. You needed the label for Manner Video. The label exists. The other source does not get a label. That asymmetry is the bias. You confirming you needed it confirms my original point.
Just read what I wrote, read what the author wrote. Don’t ignore substance to make vapid comments. Get offline and go read a book, maybe you'll learn something.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you have a razor thin standard in your head. I did say both of those things, but because I didn't use the exact phrasing you imagine in your head, you can't recognize it. Kinda like how koalas can't recognize eucalyptus leaves sitting on a table.
You need to recognize that the world doesn't live inside your head. Strangers don't know the exact wording that will activate your neurons. When you learn to interact with slightly different perspectives and utilize context clues and critical thinking to parse the things other people say, you will become a much more persuasive and competing debater.
But right now, you come off like a koala that can't recognize eucalyptus leaves because they aren't on the branch.
Let me get this straight. You called me out for ignoring a distinction you made, and I quoted your exact words to show I did not ignore them, I just disagreed with your infantile framing of them. And now your response is that I have a "razor thin standard" and that I cannot recognize arguments unless they use exact phrasing. But you literally just complained that I did not address a specific point you made. So which is it? Do I need to address your exact words or do I need to read between the lines like a psychic?
Also the koala metaphor is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You are comparing me to an animal that cannot recognize food sitting right in front of it. But the entire conversation has been me pointing to specific words on the screen and you saying you are reading too much into it. If anyone is missing what is right in front of them, it is the person who thinks "so say" is neutral phrasing and "crazily dense tangle" is a compliment.
And competing debater? That is not a thing. The word is competent. Irony levels are off the charts here. 🤣
But please. Keep calling me a koala. It really sells the I have run out of actual arguments energy.
Exactly my point. It didn't seem so difficult when you were projecting bias onto the author of the article.
when you definitely understand what words projecting and bias mean
Unironically correct.
the fact that you genuinely think that is what makes the whole thing genuinely hilarious
The fact that you've done nothing but double down on bad takes is what validates your reputation outside your bubble. Inaccurate and unproductive projection.
I hope you mature one day. This attitude is why the left isn't taken seriously, and I'd prefer if that changed.
Have the day you deserve 👍
bye loser
🙄
I tried. Oh well.
Just to chime in as a third party who has studied journalism and spends a lot of my time reading the news from numerous global sources, the CNN article is full of biased language and Yσɠƚԋσʂ has explained it excellently.
aww it's so adorable when libs start projecting
I'm aware. Seemed like a potential middle-ground learning moment, but alas at least it may temper the lurkers. That's who it's always really for anyway.
As someone who frequently tries to discuss topics primarily for lurkers, you have to realize your audience. Upvotes/downvotes may not matter at all, but they do tell you how effective your argument is in the context it exists in. Very few people seem to be siding with you here, where you essentially argue that western framing of sound Chinese socioeconomic policy as alien and incomprehensible is "politically neutral." You have to adjust your argument for the audience, there are going to be more Marxists here and as a consequence we are going to be more aware of how tone and language is used in propaganda pieces to convey certain emotions and responses.
And for the record, I do agree with Yogthos here. I just want to point out that your goal largely backfired and legitimized Yogthos. You could, in theory, be 100% correct and still backfire in your aims due to how you present your argument and for which people. That's why I try to remain polite, bring reciepts, and generally make sure what I have to say meaningfully adds to the conversation topic, for example. Rhetoric does matter if your goal is to get more people to agree with you.
For the record, all you seem to be defending is this specific article, which I have to say seems to have little practical value outside of this specific convo. Is your point that language doesn't matter in general in the press? If not, then I fail to see what you actually would gain from this argument anyways. You have to make sure your arguments actually bring practical outcomes as well, and aren't fought over something relatively valueless.
Not gonna be a learning moment until you have some humility
The irony is astounding.