Nasywa Amaliya for The New York Times
For the past two days of NZMUN 2022, China has been shaking in fear at the sight of The Daily Mail. The Daily Mail had been targeting many delegates, but especially China said that The Daily Mail “twists” her words.
For instance, during the Question of Journalist Safety and Protection, China stood against Amendment 1, proposing to amend clause 3a, by changing ‘reducing’ to ‘eliminating’, leaving the subclause to read “eliminating the degree of state censorship on mass media, journalism and online platforms.”
This amendment subsequently failed.
China stated, “we are not against freedom of speech” which, in reality, sounds like the opposite of China’s true beliefs. China had been known for being aggressive against their journalists, and journalist safety and protection had never been a factor they value. For example, in the context of the Global Pandemic, or the Uyghur Concentration camps, journalists in China covering those topics had been treated unfairly, such as being imprisoned, juxtaposing their claim of not being against ‘freedom of speech’. Consequently, this would explain their stance against Amendment 1 as they do not wish to eliminate censorships in stories being covered.
The Daily Mail simply recognised that China had not been expressing the truth in the committee session debating on The Question of Journalist Safety and Protection, to which have seemed to offend China quite greatly, resulting in their loss of trust for The Daily Mail.
Accordingly, who is in the right here? Has The Daily Mail been too harsh against China, or has China been playing a victim to drive away attention from their malicious acts regarding journalists in their country?
(china stop gaslighting us xo we all know u don't care about ur journalists).