I’m not sure which is worse, the China Post’s article or the science they’re reporting on. Essentially they have drawn the conclusion that violent video games make you stupid and cause poor grammar. While the doctor conducting the experiment makes the unsupported leap from video games in general to violent games, the China Post is now hinting that this is what makes people use “text-speak”.
This is not the first article from the China Post that is not worth the paper it’s printed on, such as the follow up article to the celebrity drug scandal. To paraphrase since I can’t find it online, they said that most people are not aware of the risks of marijuana. They then proceeded to not tell the reader what the risks were.
I am happy to say I don’t buy this paper, although I am obviously guilty of reading it. At least the writer has hidden his shame by being listed only as The China Post Staff.
[quote]Beggars can’t be choosers[/quote] Me’s got The Scotsman on the other window, The Independent in another and a half-dozen others in me bookmarks. I 'aint no beggar. Anything big occurs here, it’ll make the rags I read. The stuff they print here is just petty provincial blabbering.
Exactly my point. If we want to have a decent paper that we can buy in the local Con-Store, then we are SOL.
For solid news, analysis & opinion of course there is the internet versions of several dozen fine sources.
Yet call me an old toothless Geek, but I still like the feel of a paper, a coffee and a smoke after brekkie. Which is where the lack of fine choice soon becomes apparent.
And there’s nothing wrong with a little beggaring, it’s the choicing that is tiring.
when in hong kong i always loved to read THE SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST and when in europe i loved THE FINANCIAL TIMES, but in Taiwan you have got to read THE CHINA POST.
the news feeds from the various international news organizations are pretty good. And the POST’s own write ups are good for entertainment value .
I remember my teachers in TAS used to bring our attention to an article in THE CHINA POST for a discussion but after years of being on Taiwan and reading the same, decided they were really for entertainment value and not as credible as a more prestigious paper (read: they were a joke)
I was just disgusted by what I saw as a recnet string of poorly written and pointless articles, which is probably nothing new if I read closer. And given the competition for hard copy news, there aren’t many options. I’d say it’s on equal footing with the Taipei Times, and that other one, Taiwan News?, is even more of a joke. On the plus side, they have Dilbert and their movie reviews are decent, plus as beggars can’t be choosers I can read it for free at the office.
On a side note about Dilbert: I think Scott Adams needs to be locked back up in a cubicle for awhile to get some fresh material, he hasn’t been funny recently.
I’m curious: Those of you who are so damning of the local English rags, what would be your model for what the local papers SHOULD be like? NYT? The Guardian? The Australian? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare them to regional papers with a similar level of readership. Compared to the newspaper from my hometown in Oz, the nasty but entertaining Hobart Mercury, the local rags are probably doing OK.
I’m not convinced either that the international agencies have better Taiwan coverage than the terrible trio. Keith Bradshaw swings in on a junket to Taipei, talks to a couple of academics, writes whatever he wants about Chen Shui-bian, and then because it fills a hole in the NYT, it’s gospel. Ditto Mike Chimoy or any number of foreign journalists/wannabe stars. While this material may not carry the bias we have come to expect from the TT, TN and CP - though it certainly does carry its own set of agendas - it typically lacks indepth local knowledge.
the hobart mercury: the best fire starter in hobart town.
the TT is far better laid out than the scatter-brained Post. it may be anti KMT (and why not?) but its not too shy to throw stones at the DPP either. the post on the other hand is a good old boy kind of paper for business men with interests in china, and for lining bird cages. Dilbert notwithstanding. the TT has nonsequitur, for that matter. and i actually want a crossword that takes longer than ten minutes to complete.
still, the english alternatives here seem to be far far better than the chinese-language press… apple daily? liberty times? come on.
much better news online…
PS i’ve been meaning to congratulate you on your excellent choice in footwear, guangtou. nice blunnies, mate.
There are two types of people in the world: those who wear Blundstones, and those who aspire to…
Buttercup - could you tell me a bit about the BP? I’ve been told there’s some public money behind it - largely because the UN has most of its regional agencies in Thailand, and it has to cater to a somewhat (ahem!) more engaged readership. Is this true? What’s it look like? What does it cover? I know very little about it.
If HG was still around, he’d know the answer to these questions I’m sure. But I understand the scourge of Hong Kong, Dr Cool himself, has been banned from these fair pages.
Yes, it is subsidised. It’s also censored, but all media is in Thailand. It’s nicely designed and an interesting read. It’s also thick; it takes a while to read.
I guess what you said is important; there is a sizeable newspaper reading expat readership in Bangkok, enough to support a lot of staff.
On the educational side, it has a great English Learning section and also a Thai learning section. For example, they have a fair quality IELTS practise page. The Post is actually read by expats so they have Thai learning material; the papers here are for Taiwanese people, like ICRT, so they devote pages to terrifyingly poor quality English learning materials (Fair enough, apart from the ‘poor quality’). They also employ proofreaders/editors to make sure the English is more or less correct.