This article exemplifies everything wrong with the nytimes and journalism today.
1. It's asking me a question. Don't ask me a question.
2. It doesn't add anything new or informative. Pretty much a rehash of everything that's been stated repeatedly for the past 8 years.
3. Boring standard propaganda. It's interesting how the BRI is covered by pro-china, anti-china and "neutral" ( if possible ) propaganda organizations.
4. Written like an annoying travel diary than an article.
5. Article by Ben Mauk who obviously has insights to khazakstan or china right? In a world that "is more connected than ever before", the nytimes couldn't find anyone other than some guy from europe to report on this? Does the nytimes hire an indonesian journalist to cover brexit?
6. Nothing gained from reading the article. Are we any closer to answering the question? Did we learn anything new? Other than Abaiuly is a handsome liaison to opinion makers and potential investors?
You'd find more insight and "truth" watching youtube vlogs/reports/etc from the locals/travels or even finding these people on gaming chats and talking to them directly.
It is correct that the silk road isn't an actual route but a bunch of routes that changed throughout history. Historically, it was more of an idea of a connection and trade between the civilizations of china, india and the middle east. But the idea that it wasn't controlled or administered by anyone is simply not true. Whatever empires that controlled the region ( most famously the mongol empire ) controlled and administered these routes.
We ( and the british before us ) have shown that naval power and naval trade routes define global economic and political strength. Rather than china's overland silk road ambitions, I'd be more focused on their naval trade route ambitions. Especially if global warming opens up the northwest passage or the arctic siberian passage.
You're criticizing this article as though it was intended to be groundbreaking and authoritative, and then expand your criticisms to the entire New York Times and an entire profession.
That may or may not be a fair assessment, but I'm not really convinced. This is a New York Times Magazine article with flashy pictures. It's entertainment for people who are interested in geopolitics. It's not Ben Mauk's fault that he's an American and his piece shot to the front page of Hacker News.
What I think you're looking for is a really good Wikipedia article or research study on BRI.
Unless you can expand on why this piece is "propaganda" or what exactly the article got wrong, why not enjoy the piece (or not) as a travel diary with the BRI as a broad geopolitical context?
>Unless you can expand on why this piece is "propaganda" or what exactly the article got wrong, why not enjoy the piece (or not) as a travel diary with the BRI as a broad geopolitical context?
Because it does not market itself as such. It makes some bold claim to answer a question that's probably interesting to a lot of people follwing BRI-developments. Instead it's 'I've visited the Kazakhstan-China border and talked to a few people', but I guess that headline doesn't attract as many clicks.
EDIT: Not the GP and I don't want to claim that this is propaganda.
I might agree that it isn't marketing itself as such if it wasn't written in the style of a first-person narrative, have "New York Times Magazine" banner across the top, and didn't have panoramic pictures every few paragraphs.
> It's entertainment for people who are interested in geopolitics.
And that's the crux of the problem. This entertainment geopolitics is no longer confined to just places like the NYTimes magazine. It has basically blended in with all "journalism" today because it's great for engagement. In the best case scenario, the hallmarks of good journalism like informing the reader with facts and being impartial are mere afterthoughts.
Is the issue the content itself, or an expectation that any given human writing any given article should be considered an absolute source of truth?
Again, I think it would be really valuable to point out the facts or "spin" that the author got wrong here. Please do this if you have an issue with the article not being impartial or getting facts wrong.
The NY Times Magazine does not publish news articles. It publishes long-form works that are intended to educate readers about a topic. These works are not intended to be exhaustive, or neutral. They are intended to be engaging.
As all of your critiques are premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the work at issue, I would respectfully suggest that you reassess your critique in light of this (new?) information.
hmm there were some new pieces of information to me, I guess I'm not spending enough time in game chats talking with rural kazakhs.
Interesting theory that only people of a certain race should cover that race. I guess this has been wrong with journalism for many centuries. I wouldn't even have realized that an Indonesian covering Brexit would be wrong, I'd be more interested in their relevant experience, knowledge, and sources to be honest.
It's a good point that this material has been covered before. Shame to see more than one article ever on a topic.
Also a great point that China's naval ambitions are also a story worth covering. I agree that it is journalistical malpractice to cover the massive continent spanning belt and road initiative at all when naval power is more important according to your extensive analysis.
Rhetorical questions are definitely just always wrong, thanks for pointing that out and then using 5 of them yourself.
Also, where is the map showing the location of this "Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility"? I used to love the old nytimes that had a little map for almost every story. It really was useful for putting events into a world view for me.
1. It's asking me a question. Don't ask me a question.
2. It doesn't add anything new or informative. Pretty much a rehash of everything that's been stated repeatedly for the past 8 years.
3. Boring standard propaganda. It's interesting how the BRI is covered by pro-china, anti-china and "neutral" ( if possible ) propaganda organizations.
4. Written like an annoying travel diary than an article.
5. Article by Ben Mauk who obviously has insights to khazakstan or china right? In a world that "is more connected than ever before", the nytimes couldn't find anyone other than some guy from europe to report on this? Does the nytimes hire an indonesian journalist to cover brexit?
6. Nothing gained from reading the article. Are we any closer to answering the question? Did we learn anything new? Other than Abaiuly is a handsome liaison to opinion makers and potential investors?
You'd find more insight and "truth" watching youtube vlogs/reports/etc from the locals/travels or even finding these people on gaming chats and talking to them directly.
It is correct that the silk road isn't an actual route but a bunch of routes that changed throughout history. Historically, it was more of an idea of a connection and trade between the civilizations of china, india and the middle east. But the idea that it wasn't controlled or administered by anyone is simply not true. Whatever empires that controlled the region ( most famously the mongol empire ) controlled and administered these routes.
We ( and the british before us ) have shown that naval power and naval trade routes define global economic and political strength. Rather than china's overland silk road ambitions, I'd be more focused on their naval trade route ambitions. Especially if global warming opens up the northwest passage or the arctic siberian passage.