| Revision as of 05:57, 28 July 2005 edit211.30.251.187 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:26, 28 July 2005 edit undo134.173.133.241 (talk) RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch TimesNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Wall Street Journal once ran an investigation on Epoch Times's tax records, and found that XU Kangang, a FLG speaker, is the chairman of the paper's board. | Wall Street Journal once ran an investigation on Epoch Times's tax records, and found that XU Kangang, a FLG speaker, is the chairman of the paper's board. | ||
| == RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times == | |||
| The Epoch Times from what I can tell is largely put together by Falun Gong practitioners at present, who as I understand were instrumental in its founding. However, contributions to the paper do not consist solely of practitioners' contributions, nor is it by any means intended to be that way. I don't think the large practitioner contribution is something that people who work on the paper generally deny when asked. It just isn't necessarily something that they shout to the rooftops because the paper is not intended to be judged by the spiritual inclinations of its writers; it is intended to be judged by its content. If you need my source, it is my own experience helping with the paper. | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 28 July 2005
Is there any truth in the allegations that The Epoch Times employs a disproportionate number of Falun Gong practitioners? That might warrant an mention, if true...
Wall Street Journal once ran an investigation on Epoch Times's tax records, and found that XU Kangang, a FLG speaker, is the chairman of the paper's board.
RE: allegations regarding Falun Gong and Epoch Times
The Epoch Times from what I can tell is largely put together by Falun Gong practitioners at present, who as I understand were instrumental in its founding. However, contributions to the paper do not consist solely of practitioners' contributions, nor is it by any means intended to be that way. I don't think the large practitioner contribution is something that people who work on the paper generally deny when asked. It just isn't necessarily something that they shout to the rooftops because the paper is not intended to be judged by the spiritual inclinations of its writers; it is intended to be judged by its content. If you need my source, it is my own experience helping with the paper.