Fables are nursed by the rabble
Either whispered or screamed
Where the trusted most often dabble
And the truth is only dreamed
To dazzle the crowd and make them see
Their ruin is in their favour
Disguised behind a fleur-de-lis
The truth hidden by the saver
With unparalleled generosity
From inexhaustible fund
Contradicted consequently
The truth finds no refund
Under influence of corrupt counsel
Necessary are believers
To spread this twisted espousal
The truth beholden to deceivers
More than rumours everybody owns
In relief made to survive
Once buried under a heap of stones
The truth was late to arrive
Inspired and paraphrased by Jonathan Swift’s ‘The art of political lying’
Below is a little experiment that I did with AI. I input the Guardian article “World must be more wary than ever of China’s growing economic power” and asked AI to give me ALL the sentences that can be considered facts in the article.
The output was interesting:
Here are all the sentences that can be considered facts in the article, stripped of opinions, speculation, and value judgments:
- “According to data provider Macrobond and Beijing-based consultancy Gavekal Dragonomics, exports to the US were down by about $15bn (£11bn) in May, but up by half that figure to other countries that trade with the US.”
- “Exports to African countries have also risen sharply.”
- “Chinese officials are poised to strike deals to deepen economic cooperation with countries ranging from Brazil and South Africa to Australia and the UK.”
- “The latest addition to China’s growing list of conquests occurred last week when its premier, Li Qiang, and Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, signed a slew of cooperation agreements, including ones covering artificial intelligence (AI) and aerospace.”
- “Beijing supplies Russia with much of what it needs in wartime in return for cheap oil.”
- “Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, [is] ahead of a trip to three Chinese cities this weekend for talks about trade and investment.”
- “The UK energy secretary, Ed Miliband, [is] considering injections of Chinese cash and knowhow to build new offshore windfarms.”
- “There has been a 10% depreciation in [China’s] currency against the dollar.”
- “China has cut-price digital infrastructure products.”
- “Government debts are escalating [globally].”
- “China is one of the few big investors outside the Middle East with significant financial firepower.”
- “Beijing sends tens of thousands of students to the UK.”
Key Exclusions (Opinions/Speculation):
Claims about China being a “malign actor,” “pariah,” or “undermining” others (subjective labels).
Predictions (e.g., “Trump’s cowardice makes war with Taiwan more likely”).
Moral judgments (e.g., “voracious appetite,” “stolen” IP).
Analogies (e.g., comparing China to Russia).
Prescriptive statements (e.g., “should block Chinese investment”).
Ambiguous Cases (Part Fact, Part Opinion):
“Digital information is harvested on a vast scale…” → Lacks specific sourcing.
“There are spies in every major university…” → Unverifiable generalisation.
I was curious about two of the twelve facts returned, too, and so asked a little more:
“Beijing supplies Russia with much of what it needs in wartime in return for cheap oil.” What can be inferred by “what it needs in wartime”?
Along with what CAN be inferred and what could PLAUSIBLY be inferred, I also got this:
What Cannot Be Inferred (Without Explicit Evidence):
Scale of Support (e.g., “decisive” vs. “marginal” impact on Russia’s war effort).
Specific Items (e.g., “weapons” or “ammunition” — unless the article cites sources).
China’s Intent (e.g., “China is pro-war” — this could be purely economic).
I also asked, What can be inferred from this sentence, “Beijing sends tens of thousands of students to the UK.”?
Again, along with some logical inferences, was this:
What Cannot Be Inferred (Without Further Evidence):
Motives (e.g., “China is spying” or “UK is dependent”).
Outcomes (e.g., “This weakens/strengthens ties”).
Student Intentions (e.g., “They will stay/return”).
This is a neutral observation; any further interpretation would require additional verified context.
And finally, I asked how many sentences there were in the article:
The original article you provided contains 35 sentences (based on standard punctuation, counting each clause ending with a period, question mark, or exclamation point as a separate sentence).
Breakdown:
Opinion/interpretation sentences (excluded): 23
Factual sentences (extracted): 12
OK, this is fair enough – it is an opinion piece. However, language and words have power and this is just one tiny speck of the consistent barrage of anti-China narratives in mainstream media. This is the real-life manufacturing consent for the forthcoming US-led war with China. That’s my opinion!
1994ever 