I would pay to read a newspaper that (somewhat satirically) reported on the US the way we report on our adversaries. Complete with referring to police as "security forces", including wild speculations about the backstabbing behind-the-scenes of their top politics, etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/29/how-weste...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/...
"'Culturally, Americans are a curious lot,' said Andrew Darcy Morthington, an United Kingdom-based commentator who once embarked on a two-year mission trip to teach rural American children and therefore qualifies as an expert on U.S. affairs."
I do it at times.
There surely is wild propaganda mixed in, but also some very clear analysis of a certain cituation. More so, if for example russia is reporting on US-China crisis. Or vice versa.
The western press goes in to far more detail about how oppressive, brutal and unaccountable American police are than any other country. There is pretty much an unending stream of criticism of the police.
> including wild speculations about the backstabbing behind-the-scenes of their top politics, etc.
If you have never seen such speculation about American politicians, I assume you have never looked at a newspaper.
Is absolutely nothing compared to the mountains of analysis of how racist and brutal the US police are, likening them to slave patrols, citing statistics about how often unarmed black people are killed, criticizing the Supreme Court for qualified immunity, explaining the overpolicing of trivial crimes in poor neighborhood and underpolicing of serious crimes that harm this same neighborhoods, the school to prison pipeline etc. etc.
You’d be forgiven for thinking we live in an open society with a free press where people are unafraid to criticize the government and police.
And the police here are racist, brutal, and mostly above legal consequences. The media here generally stops short of examining the power structures that makes that the case. It's more oh dearism than actionable information.
And have you seen China's media? The allow and even encourage complaints about local government, including in mass media. What you've stated about "an open society with a free press" not some high bar of freedom, but generally used as a pressure release valve for malcontent that does nothing to address why it's like that in the first place. They, like the US, love a good story that let's them "fight corruption" in a way that doesn't change why the corruption was allowed to fester in the first place.
But not the communist party or it’s officials, eh?
You can’t seriously be claiming that China is a more open society which allows greater media analysis of it’s power structures.
I'm simply pointing out that the ability for media to complain about the local actions of security forces, .gov policy decisions, and the occasional high ranking official who serves as a focal point for malcontent does not make for a free and open society, using an example that we can both agree is neither free nor open.
Yes. I assert that this describes China, but not the US.
Are you claiming it also describes the US?
Which powerful individual or institutions do you think are protected from criticism?
1) There's plenty of criticism of the West from within its many nations borders
2) There's far more from outside its borders
3) Criticism of crushingly oppressive dictatorships is strictly forbidden from within
Hell, "propaganda" is the archetypal example. All communications with the primary purpose of advocacy were referred to as propaganda until the propaganda industry came up with the term "Public Relations."
It's a bit like the Anglo-Saxon/Latin split in English, where the Anglo-Saxon word means the cheap, commonplace version of whatever the Norman word is. English for the last century or so has had a sort of "communist register" that you're required to use about things that are officially disapproved of.
If you really want this, just start reading foreign news.
It is not quite the same - newspapers put out in english by foreign adversaries are usually targeting foreign audiences, so they are not written in quite the same fashion as how American outlets describe regimes in other countries.
The closest I've found is SCMP English in Beijing, which (at least for print) is apparently different (and more slanted) than the English version found in the US.