China talks of mending fractured relations but says it won’t tolerate Canadian criticism of its human-rights record
China talks of mending fractured relations but says it won’t tolerate Canadian criticism of its human-rights record
Joly tells Chinese foreign minister in Beijing meeting that Canada will continue to ‘defend our democracy and the values it has always stood for, including human rights’
China’s chief diplomat told Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly Friday that Beijing wants to “inject momentum into the restoration of normal relations,” but said the Asian power will brook no criticism of human-rights abuses or its menacing threats to the island democracy of Taiwan.
Foreign Minster Wang Yi sat down with Ms. Joly in Beijing to discuss what he called the “difficulties and twists and turns” in Sino-Canadian relations that have been strained for nearly six years. The trip to China by Ms. Joly was an attempt to reopen channels of dialogue.
Relations fractured after China imprisoned Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in late 2018 in retaliation for Ottawa’s detention of a senior Huawei executive on a U.S. extradition warrant. China was also angered by revelations of its extensive influence operations in Canadian domestic affairs that led to a public inquiry into foreign interference.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why do all stories have random bolded sections now?
It should be up to the readers to pick out important parts of an article.
…. Or you know, the authors choice to bold what they find important, y’know because they’re the ones writing the story and you can and should be looking at multiple sources for a bigger picture
The authors aren't bolding these sections, though.
Author of the article, author of the post, etc
You don’t put restrictions on citizens, you highlight the dangers and let them decide for themselves. The authors choice to put a bolded section here is and should always be interpreted as their own and people should read the article themselves.
Everything that I said before still stands in this case
Bolding sections may or may not be carryover from the original article and can be confusing. People should read the article and reach their own conclusions of what's important without influence, which you keep agreeing with me about. Altering an article is editorializing it, and last I checked this is a news community that should be posting unaltered articles.
My first post was a simple question and statement. I'm not sure what crawled up your ass this morning but there was nothing said that gave license for you to be a dick in your responses. Good day.
Nothing crawled up my ass, I’m being pretty civil here. Not sure how you’re reading it in your own head cannon, but I promise it was just conversational. Sorry if any of what I said led you to think otherwise.
The original source is still posted, bolding sections is probably the absolute least amount of “editorial” as you can get.
Just pointing out that the use of bold font in summarizing an article is pretty harmless. That’s all.