It's very clearly labelled as an official response from the Chinese government. So it's what the people they're accusing have to say, and that's why they published it.
Whether or not to believe them is left to the reader.
It still breathes legitimacy into this propaganda by hosting it as such without any qualification. People might be inclined to believe the PRC, after all it is in the LA times, how untrue might it even be, they might think. Editors ought to be aware of the power of their platform. The chinese ultimately wanted to put this story in the LA times and they were allowed to do so.
Comments
Here is the piece in question: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-09/chinese-off...
It's very clearly labelled as an official response from the Chinese government. So it's what the people they're accusing have to say, and that's why they published it.
Whether or not to believe them is left to the reader.
It still breathes legitimacy into this propaganda by hosting it as such without any qualification. People might be inclined to believe the PRC, after all it is in the LA times, how untrue might it even be, they might think. Editors ought to be aware of the power of their platform. The chinese ultimately wanted to put this story in the LA times and they were allowed to do so.
The right of reply is widely considered part of journalistic ethics.
If you accuse someone of something in print, you should at least give them the opportunity to refute it.