Talk:South China Morning Post

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:SCMP Group)

Untitled[edit]

Where did some of the readership stats in this article come from??? I would like to see an audit trail.

novacatz 10:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I somehow doubt the statistic of a vast majority of readers being in senior management positions. It seems as if students now account for a majority of SCMP readers due to school subscription programmes and such. However, these young readers may as well be undocumented, so it might be hard to come up with an exact figure. --Lapin rossignol 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see the author noted that the statistics provided were valid as of 2003. Well then, I hope someone comes up with more recent data. Most secondary-school students I know are regular readers of SCMP (and they're local school students, not ESF/int'l). --Lapin rossignol 14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the HKU students working on the Hong Kong related articles, can any of you help with the following questions:

  • Who reads this paper?
  • Who owns it?
  • Is there something unusual in the topics it tends to cover?
  • What it its editorial tone?

--Robert Merkel 07:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To anyone, As we are doing a project on the newspaper industry in the digital era, please kindly fill in the questionnaire for me please Thank you very much. The website is http://www.my3q.com/home2/18/flora84/47337.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flora606250 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 July 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning of employees?[edit]

Referring to the editorial team, the article says it's a "seasoned team of professionals" that frequently breaks news. Can it be more specific as to how many employees there are? What is the percentage of locals versus Westerners? Also, the article may consider including a few awards that the newspaper has recently won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortechina (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Chinese in this article[edit]

South China Morning Post an English language publication. The depiction of Chinese, pinyin, IPA, and Jyutping is unnecessary and clutter. Chinese is often helpful for terms derived from Chinese, or China-centric topics often rendered exclusively in Chinese. However, in this case, the Chinese is a translation of the English, so its inclusion here is unwarranted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_other_languages_sparingly. Readers interested in the Chinese characters should click on the Chinese version of this article. --Jiang 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Lauren Stuchbery-- If the "Editorial" section is taken directly from a press release or blurb, it should be credited accordingly.

This Chinese name appears at the home page of its PC-version Hong Kong edition official website, so we know it does have an official Chinese name even if it is an English publication. Obonggi (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

love the government, but never marry it[edit]

User:Zeyfah added a quote from Jack Ma which I removed from the article. I feel that the quote is non-specific to this situation, and its relevance therefore is questionable until a reliable source brings this quote into play. On a second point, if we agree to keep this quote, it should be from a reliable source that makes the connection to this acquisition/ownership. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this aged poorly, huh? 2604:3D08:778A:2400:20C4:779E:C1A4:88E6 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political Alignment[edit]

The claim for SCMP's political alignment and the sources cited for it are ludicrous. Anyone who has casually perused the paper would know that it's hardly pro-China. Many of its articles are highly critical of China to the point of mockery. The claim of it being "anti-western/pro-China" is based exclusively on op-eds of western media, making it extremely biased and unsuitable for Wikipedia. In fact, why have an item of political alignment at all? I didn't see such an entry for several of the major American newspapers such as WSJ or NYT, so why here? Wikipedia is really not neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.237.1.39 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future predictions in 2015 on "pro-China" should not be taken as reference for current political alignment. If there is any evidence proving it is a "pro-China" newspaper, cite a report from this newspaper, cite a research on this newspaper. Same logic goes to Anti-Western. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 06:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in 2022: yes, SCMP is most definitely "pro-China" now. 2604:3D08:778A:2400:20C4:779E:C1A4:88E6 (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2604:3D08:778A:2400:20C4:779E:C1A4:88E6 Indeed - to be frank the simple fact that SCMP didn't cover the Sitong Bridge incident is telling enough. Quite surprised that there isn't a dedicated section in this article about the recent self censorship of the SCMP or alignement with traditional themes pushed by the usual state newspapers (traditional chinese medecine, space program, even their people & culture section is becoming more and more about useless Weibo trending topics). The quality of the newspaper has downgraded significantly since the NSL and is now just regurgitating themes defended in communist party's mouthpieces... 203.160.86.51 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirlanz: Please explain how the sources do not support the claim that the stance of the newspaper is not anti-Western/pro-China when the comments which are documented in those very sources to have been made by the executive vice-chairman of the company that has purchased the newspaper reflect exactly that stance. Please also clarify what you mean when you wrote "watch this space" in you summary. Wingwraith (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising your concern on Talk. Your request for clarification contains a double-negative; please clarify whether this was intended by you before I respond. Thanks. sirlanz 23:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz:When I wrote "the claim" I meant the claim that you seem to be making so yes I wrote what I intended to write. Wingwraith (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In confirming your double-negative, your question is not for me as my position is clearly that the sources do not support the claim that the paper is (not is not) anti-Western/pro-China. Let me assist further by stripping out the double-negative revealing your question in a simpler form: "Please explain how the sources support the claim that the stance of the newspaper is anti-Western/pro-China ..." That is for you (if you oppose, as you clearly do, the removal of the claim) or some other like-minded editor, not me.
Assuming, on the other hand, that your double-negative was not intended (notwithstanding your clarification above), then I answer the opposite question: all of the sources were written at the time of the Alibaba takeover. Any statements made at the time have no bearing on how the paper actually performs in reporting events. The fact of the statements is not a fact about the paper's reporting performance. To establish the claim, reports/studies showing such bias in the newspaper itself are necessary. sirlanz 00:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz:Which is why my explanation request (issued from my perspective) was clearly directed to you as I obviously disagreed with your position; to be clear there was nothing in my OP to you which I was asserting on objective grounds. I also don't fully understand some of the arguments that you made for which I would like further clarification: what do you mean by reports/studies that show the bias that SCMP has? Did you mean assert? In any case that's a high threshold to meet so what reports/studies do you have in mind? Also there's already some content in the article about the reported effects that the political stance of some members of the newspaper's editorial board have directly had on its publication output; would these not be sufficient to establish the claim that the newspaper has a bias? At the very least I think that there hasn't been enough content in this article that is devoted to explaining (the concerns over) its political alignment, particularly after the Alibaba takeover, so I propose the creation of a sub-section section to address those concerns; do you have any comments on that? Wingwraith (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impeccable idea. Do it, with impeccable sources. sirlanz 05:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirlanz:Are you being serious or are you just patronizing me? Because I'm asking you some serious questions...Wingwraith (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we're getting personal now, perhaps I should assist you with a disclosure of interest of a sort. I cancelled my paid subscription to the SCMP some time before the Alibaba takeover on the ground that it was a poorly-disguised CCP rag with obvious pro-CCP bias and for continuing to publish rabidly anti-Western opeds by racist Alex Lo and reports and editorials by then rising star pea-brained card-carrying Tammy Tam. So you don't have to sell me on its bias. But that's just personal. The allegation cannot be published if it is not properly supported in an encyclopaedic manner. I have already explained why the sources are completely useless in achieving that aim. sirlanz 07:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on South China Morning Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Multiple users (@Wefk423: and myself) have objected to the removal of the logo by User:MarchOrDie. It isn't redundant as it isn't even the same as the masthead. Citobun (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the logo should be used in the infobox, especially since it does not appear in the masthead of the newspaper in the image. Kdm852 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two. But you need an actual reason to keep it. Do you have one? This isn't difficult. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling me a "wanker" on my talk page, very mature. I have provided a reason. The logo is graphically distinct from the masthead. Citobun (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; that was absolutely a wanker's move and a very poor show. Please don't do it again. It being "graphically distinct from the masthead" is not a reason for including it. Do you have one? I presume you do, as you have reverted twice to restore it. What is the reason we cannot live without it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the policy at Wikipedia:Civility and stop name-calling. You've said the logo is "redundant" and should therefore be removed. I am saying it isn't redundant. The logo and the masthead are graphically distinct from one another. They are composed of different graphical elements. Citobun (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you a name, I criticized your behavior which I stand by. What you did was a wanker's move. If you prefer not to be called out for making wanker's moves, the remedy is not to make them. It is redundant as the two logos are largely identical and there is no support in policy or practice to carry multiple versions of a company's branding. We are not here to advertise them, and one version of their logo is enough. Again, why would we need two? Or, by your logic, why stop at two? If I can find other versions, ought they to also be included? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three people disagree with you on this. Give it up. Citobun (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? How interesting. If they are unable to give a reason for their disagreement, their opinions are worthless as we do not operate on headcounts, but require intelligent argument. Any going? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Citobun, for opening this discussion here. As I pointed out in MarchOrDie's talk page, I also agree that the logo and the masthead are actually different. MarchOrDie, you mentioned multiple times why a logo of a newspaper should be included. I believe newspaper companies are also companies, and that we should not treat it differently with other articles. Even if the scanned newspaper includes a logo, there's no reason to not include a different company logo file to the infobox. If according to your suggestion, then Microsoft also has an image of the building with the logo on it, should we also remove the Microsoft logo as well? This is also about consistency – if we had to remove logos because they are "redundant" and "not useful", there is going to be a lot of work (other newspaper articles has the same situation, and you simply removed the logo from one article The New York Times) and it will be a mess in the future. –Wefk423 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Chinese names[edit]

https://www.hkcnews.com/article/34027/褚簡寧-michael_chugani-34027/ states:

  • Alex Lo: 盧綱
  • Yonden Hlatoo has a romanized form (雲丹・拉圖), so he doesn't have a Chinese name

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an Op-ed from the New York Times to label South China Morning Post as "Propaganda"[edit]

Please indulge me why the New York Times is not a biased source, considering every media company in the world reflects certain political views. The BBC,CNN, even WSJ are all politically aligned with the Anglo Saxon world and are Pro-Western media. Any media outlet that holds different point of views is labeled "propaganda," and warned not to be trusted yet no one seems to notice or care about the blatant double standards. Allegations are not proof, yet you people want to add weight to that claim by placing it in the lead section. When I read it, it makes me think SCMP is propaganda outlet, which it isn't but you made it look that way. If I wanted to know more about the Palestine-Israel conflict I could pay attention to Israel media outlets, but then I would be fed pro-Israel side of things. Vice versa, if I pay attention to Palestinian media, I would be fed pro-Palestinian side of things. You don't understand that the New York Times is not invulnerable to biases too, especially when China is a threat to American military and economic supremacy? The sinophobia is clear as day.

″Since the change of ownership in 2016, it has been alleged to be on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad.[9] According to critics, it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of "propaganda".[9]″ EndRacismNow2021 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EndRacismNow2021, the passage that you are blanking doesn't "label" SCMP as propaganda. It mentions allegations that the paper is used to promote China's soft power abroad. This is supported by numerous references in the body of the article, including several pieces in The New York Times, which is considered a reliable source acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are citations which are not "op-eds", such as this one. Citobun (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can make up "allegations", but to give it that much weight by putting it in the lead section would undoubtedly cause serious REPUTATIONAL damage to the newspaper if that's your intended goal. Second, why are you cherry picking which sources are reliable and which are unreliable? Why is all Chinese media considered unreliable? If they cover a story talking about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, is it a lie because Chinese media covered it? Do you think politics bleeds into the media? Are all Israeli media outlets unreliable, because they are pro-Israeli? Do you trust the Saudi Arabian media when they say they have the best women's rights?EndRacismNow2021 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EndRacismNow2021: Much of the article is about SCMP's recent reputation and political stance. There are many references on this subject, so it's not undue weight to include it in the lede. You seem to be Wikipedia:Casting aspersions against me in the rest of your comment – I don't know why. I also don't see how Jeffrey Epstein, Israel, etc. are related to this discussion. Citobun (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to avoid my question? I used those examples to try to understand your thinking. Upon inspecting your page, I see you like to share Anti-government media outlets in Hong Kong. Now I know where you politically align yourself, you're exposed. The CEO of SCMP is a Chinese American, how does that support the China propaganda narrative that you're trying to spread? EndRacismNow2021 (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors.PrisonerB (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_China_Morning_Post&oldid=1194052746"