<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Translation: China’s Global Times Responds to News of U.S. Arm Sales to Taiwan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chinalawandpolicy.com/2009/12/13/translation-china%e2%80%99s-global-times-responds-to-news-of-u-s-arm-sales-to-taiwan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chinalawandpolicy.com/2009/12/13/translation-china%e2%80%99s-global-times-responds-to-news-of-u-s-arm-sales-to-taiwan/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 15:22:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth M. Lynch</title>
		<link>http://chinalawandpolicy.com/2009/12/13/translation-china%e2%80%99s-global-times-responds-to-news-of-u-s-arm-sales-to-taiwan/comment-page-1/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth M. Lynch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinalawandpolicy.com/?p=922#comment-224</guid>
		<description>Thanks so much for your comment and yes, I think your nuanced explanation  the Global Times vis-a-vis the Party&#039;s message is likely right.  I&#039;ve been using Shirk&#039;s book as a cite and she doesn&#039;t go as far as you, but in reading GT&#039;s stuff, it does seem to go a bit further in terms of propoganda.  Do you know of anyone else or their writings that have done research on GT?  Maybe a seperate posting on the different media actors and their role in the Party&#039;s message could be interesting.

And thanks for thoughts on the phonetic spellings. I do that because a lot of the readership of CL&amp;P are not China people or Chinese speakers - they are sort of new to the field.  And that&#039;s my goal - making these issues more accessible.  At some point, someone recommended making the Chinese name easier to pronounce to Chinese names, because let&#039;s face it, pinyin at times is rough (an &quot;X&quot; in a name just confuses my mom).  But it is something to consider.  And I do appreciate your &quot;smarmy&quot; comment.  ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks so much for your comment and yes, I think your nuanced explanation  the Global Times vis-a-vis the Party&#8217;s message is likely right.  I&#8217;ve been using Shirk&#8217;s book as a cite and she doesn&#8217;t go as far as you, but in reading GT&#8217;s stuff, it does seem to go a bit further in terms of propoganda.  Do you know of anyone else or their writings that have done research on GT?  Maybe a seperate posting on the different media actors and their role in the Party&#8217;s message could be interesting.</p>
<p>And thanks for thoughts on the phonetic spellings. I do that because a lot of the readership of CL&amp;P are not China people or Chinese speakers &#8211; they are sort of new to the field.  And that&#8217;s my goal &#8211; making these issues more accessible.  At some point, someone recommended making the Chinese name easier to pronounce to Chinese names, because let&#8217;s face it, pinyin at times is rough (an &#8220;X&#8221; in a name just confuses my mom).  But it is something to consider.  And I do appreciate your &#8220;smarmy&#8221; comment.  <img src='http://chinalawandpolicy.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FOARP</title>
		<link>http://chinalawandpolicy.com/2009/12/13/translation-china%e2%80%99s-global-times-responds-to-news-of-u-s-arm-sales-to-taiwan/comment-page-1/#comment-223</link>
		<dc:creator>FOARP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chinalawandpolicy.com/?p=922#comment-223</guid>
		<description>Dude, this is going to sound smarmy, but the &#039;phonetic&#039; spellings (&quot;Geeang You&quot;) are totally unnecessary, and only even remotely correct if you speak English with a particular (probably American) accent (&quot;Dye Sue&quot;?!?). 

As for the arms sales angle, they&#039;ve been saying the same thing for ages, going right back to the eighties, and this is fairly boilerplate stuff. On top of that, Global Times is less of a mouthpiece (China Daily or Xinhua are more often used that way) and more of a propaganda operation, often going further than the official stand point. As an example, it is not the official viewpoint of the Chinese government that the US &quot;knows the inside story on the Russian military, it controls the European and Japanese militaries, looks down upon the Indian military&quot; not least because the Russia is seen as a relatively friendly nation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dude, this is going to sound smarmy, but the &#8216;phonetic&#8217; spellings (&#8220;Geeang You&#8221;) are totally unnecessary, and only even remotely correct if you speak English with a particular (probably American) accent (&#8220;Dye Sue&#8221;?!?). </p>
<p>As for the arms sales angle, they&#8217;ve been saying the same thing for ages, going right back to the eighties, and this is fairly boilerplate stuff. On top of that, Global Times is less of a mouthpiece (China Daily or Xinhua are more often used that way) and more of a propaganda operation, often going further than the official stand point. As an example, it is not the official viewpoint of the Chinese government that the US &#8220;knows the inside story on the Russian military, it controls the European and Japanese militaries, looks down upon the Indian military&#8221; not least because the Russia is seen as a relatively friendly nation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

