There is p-Hacking, file drawer data, and confirmation bias. Then there is ASPI's 'So what?' data.

The entire point of this report and (very limited) data analysis from ASPI seems to be that the CPC and its various state and other media outlets are responding to the BBC's attempt to defame and discredit the CPC by, (cue ominous music): rejecting and debunking Western spin and disinformation?

Gods! Say it isn't so!

In fact, arguably when the CPC counters the kind of Zenzian fundamentalist fervour that the ASPI and the BBC are famous for: what they’re really largely doing is undoing the hype, FUD, sensationalism, and spin of Western propagandists.

So – it is just one group of propagandists trying to out-spin the other – right? Not if this ‘Trigger-warning’ paper is any indication.

So far I am willing to agree that the ‘report’ demonstrates that there has been serious and relatively co-ordinated effort to discredit the BBC's allegations against the CPC regarding Xinjiang.

That being said, this seems to be very much a case of a 'think' tank with too much military-industrial money from arms technology manufacturer patrons, and not very much meaningful to do with it.

The hard fact is that only really sensible and rational response to the bright red and very serious looking piece of Zenzian agitprop and spin is:

So -What?

So, what? Are the CPC and its allies not allowed to respond to misinformation and disinformation campaigns just because the BBC and ASPI are doing them?

So, what? It is okay for the entire Western memetic-narratological propaganda apparatus (recall the BBC is a both state and corporate owned entity) to spread sensationalising red-flag-trigger-warning nonsense, but the BBC is automatically beyond criticism and beyond reproach?

The only thing these ASPI ‘researchers’ will have triggered is academic and intellectual giggling.

Keep in mind, since we are reminding ourselves that attacking the biases and premises of media outlets and researchers is not only perfectly valid, but a necessary part of keeping everyone honest, that ASPI, like the BBC, has some very dubious backing from the perspective of preserving impartiality and objectivity.

It is far from inaccurate or unfair to highlight the military-industrial backing of ASPI. Believing there is no conflict of interest involved would be sheer gullibility. If anyone can claim to be untainted in their overarching ideological and political commitments on the basis of what is essentially a glaring conflict of interest: it certainly is not ASPI.

This matters. Critical commentators are supposed to say so. That is what critical freethinking and analysis is all about.

"Stop attacking the premises, biases, and conflicts of interest of the ASPI and BBC", say the ASPI and BBC. "Get used to it" chimes - well - pretty much everyone that understands that attacking such biased and interest-conflicted stuff is exactly what one is supposed to do.

Additionally ASPI researchers seem to regularly forget that just snazzy spin-bites and questionable, not very unbiased, suggestive data samples that are clearly plagued with confounder variables, do not conclusive findings make. Especially when they are about behaviour that is more than reasonable on the part of the CPC. The world is not just going to swallow the memetic narrative spin that you are selling, CPC-bashers. I am not going to just accept your arguments and handwaving at biased data bites with confounded variables and questionable sampling practices.

In this case, ASPI seem to have also forgotten that stating the very obvious, interpreted through a discursive filter of transparently biased premises, doesn't even make for good narrative spin (if there is any such thing.) Perhaps they really believe they are not involved in biased narrative spin-doctoring, and if they package interest-conflicted, badly-sampled bilge in professional looking agitproppy rhetorical packaging, with professional-sounding phraseology – then they must surely be some god’s chosen arbiters of righteousness?

Or at least that they will be somehow beyond reproach. Of course: all the CPC has, according to the ‘researchers’, is “increasingly agile propaganda and disinformation apparatus”.

The British (or those among them capable of some measure of objectivity) might say, in response to such inferences: “That’s a bit rich, Old Bean”.

Well – evidently the CPC’s ability to debunk actual ASPI and Zenzian-style delusional disinformation, and narrative MIC-shill-spin, is proving to be increasingly agile, anyway.

The ASPI 'researchers' responsible would benefit from some training in critical thinking and argumentation. Premises and hypotheses must be grounded coherently and soundly in larger contexts that matter. People tend to notice conflicts of interest and glaring aporia related to religio-cultural bigotries. People who are more able than the researchers in question to develop actual, meaningful, non-trivial, non-spin, research output, that is. There is not much point doing a study or data survey of bigrams in social media streams if one's own premises and statements are transparently biased and misleading. Take the first line of the 'report':

"As international media and researchers expose human rights abuses in China, including allegations of systematic sexual assault in Xinjiang’s internment camps, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is hitting back with a coordinated information campaign and propaganda targeting the UK public broadcaster, the BBC."

International media and researchers have not exposed anything but their own propensity to load the meaning of concepts and terms - like 'Genocide' - in favour of their sensationalising interpretations, which interpretations are clearly subservient to biased political and ideological agendas, including those involving deep-seated religious and cultural bigotries.

Beyond that, all they seem to have exposed is that Islamic megacultists tend to really dislike infidel (their word) of all kinds on a deeply doctrinal and doxastic basis. Who knew? Nearly all of the evidence both the BBC and ASPI cite is from alleged eyewitness sources, who are nearly comprehensively identifiable as themselves either anti-CPC, racist and anti-Han, or - more importantly - fundamentalist Islamic megacultists who are doctrinally anti-infidel. Yes: the CPC are infidel according to the tenets of the Islamic megacult.

Could be significant. Just FYI.

In the same introductory paragraph there is this gem of preciousness:

"Chinese state media, pro-CCP influencers and patriotic trolls on Silicon Valley’s social media networks are spreading messages and narratives that seek to undermine critical reporting by international media, research institutes and NGOs with accusations of bias and disinformation."

Spreading messages and narratives? Shock! Horror! Who would do such a thing?

Don’t look at the BBC, or ASPI, or Adrian Zenz – or Zenz's entire pathologically delusional (try arguing that it isn’t and see where that gets you) Christian megacult, for that matter. Zenz is clearly not a well person, given his belief that he has a personal relationship with some kind of omniscient, omnipotent god being who variously guides him. Such delusions are absolutely going to affect Zenz’ ability to deploy epistemic rationality and stable judgement in data gathering and analysis, and they’re certainly going to cause problems for any allegedly scientific hypotheses and working premises.

Don't let that get in the way of some good old atheist-Han-bashing. ASPI won't.

Apparently, it is only critical analysis, reporting, and research if ASPI and the BBC (and CNN) do it for Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and friends? That kind of clearly biased premise and non-sequitur is what philosophers like to call 'very stupid'.

(By the way – when you’re reading pp155-8 of the ASPI funding breakdown sources , keep in mind that many of the more generic looking defence portfolio bodies listed are likely already buoyed by joint funding from private military firms in many cases. Not to mention the fact that Australian and US defence are not exactly pro-China or pro CPC. Yes, that is appropriate sarcastic understatement.)

It is almost as if the ASPI and CPC simply cannot bear being outmanoeuvred, called out for obvious conflict of interest and associated bias, and failing to provide sound, properly sampled, heterogeneous data, and just do not like it.

Oh dear.

Again “Allegations of serious human rights abuses in, and beyond, Xinjiang” are just that: allegations (from biased religiously-aligned anti-CPC sources). That is not evidentiary exposure of anything, except perhaps of the broad doctrinal disdain that Islamic megacultists, clearly, generally have for infidel of any kind, including French teachers willing to say as much.

And, that Zhao Lijian has used cheeky epithet-acronyms to make the point that the BBC are every bit the biased spin-doctors, is irrelevant except that he evidently understands the absurdity of the position being postured in the report. Beyond that, again:

So – what?

Then, of course, there is “Narrative 1: The BBC spreads disinformation and is biased against China”. The myopia on display here is simply unprofessional, and ignorant. The ‘researchers’ show little regard for a 30 year history of Islamic terror in Xinjiang, or for espionage by the CIA and UK in mainland China and Hong Kong dating at least up to 2012. It is almost as if they have never heard of it.

The homogeneity and bias of the almost comprehensively heresay non-evidence of Uyghur megacultists, who clearly dislike Han people, is perpetually salient.

The CPC are allowed to counter misinformation and disinformation propagated by Western media and fundamentalist, megacult evangelists masquerading as researchers, and they should continue to do so. Religious megacults like those who have memeticaly programmed Adrian Zenz, in particular, have had many millennia of practice at memetic-narrative spin and misinformation. It is hardly surprising that - between mental illness and fundamentalist memetic megacult programming: Mr Zenz is not good at discerning what is real. ASPI's 'Trigger Warning' report points to and misrepresents what is real, but: So what?

---