DISCLAIMER: Please read every word of this post carefully before commenting. Also, be aware that the post may be edited to address criticisms posed in the comments. Our hope is that this post will serve as our default explanation for any further questions on the topic, and as such, want to address any criticisms you might have.
Every time we post something critical of a story in the Western media — which, for the record, isn’t that often, about 20 posts of our total 197 — this question gets asked. Yesterday it was commenter Hemulen, who phrased it thusly:
I don’t understand why you spend so much time criticizing Western media for not getting everything exactly right and being 100 per cent accurate.
It’s a valid question, or at least, one to which the answer might not be readily apparent. After all, the Chinese media routinely commits graver ethical sins as a matter of policy. Shouldn’t we be going after them, instead?
Why not attack the Chinese media?
I believe we don’t need to. First of all, the Chinese media “bias” is generally the result of institutional (government mandated or suggested) restrictions. Thus, criticizing Chinese journalists doesn’t serve a lot of purpose. Their mistakes, inaccuracies, etc. are often unavoidable because of the political system they work within. It’s no coincidence that many of us get our Chinese-language China news from blogs rather than the mainstream Chinese media; bloggers are capable of operating outside that system.
That brings us to the second reason why criticizing the Chinese domestic media is pointless: everyone already knows the Chinese media is biased in favor of China. Most people — even Western laypeople — know why, too, so pointing out errors in Xinhua reports is, we feel, a waste of our time. It’s sort of like seeing a horse then writing a blog post about how horses have four legs. True, yes, undeniably true, but does anyone care? No, because everyone already knows that.
Do Western media mistakes on China really matter?
Of course, none of that fully explains why we should care about the mistakes the so-called “Western media” (a ridiculous term that we‘re using here only for the sake of convenience) makes when they’re reporting on China. Does it really matter whether or not the Guardian, for example, tacks a misleading headline onto what looks like a fairly poorly-researched story?
We believe it does, assuming that you agree with the idea that mutual understanding between the West and China is good for the world and is something both countries should be actively pursuing. We hold that lazy, sensationalist, or just plain bad journalism in the West serves to further alienate both sides.
First, it negatively affects Western readers who aren’t inclined to dig deeper into Chinese issues than reading the occasional headline in the daily paper or online. At best, it leads them to infer things that are incorrect, at worst, it presents lies to them as fact. Taking the Guardian article as an example, most people who read that headline are going to picture Chinese secret police bursting into a monastery and shooting four monks. That image is partially a result of stereotypes, and partially a result of the Guardian’s poor choice of wording. They can’t be blamed for the stereotypes, but they could certainly have worded their headline more accurately. The New York Times’ headline for their story on the same piece of news was far more nuanced and, as a result, isn’t likely to deepen people’s convictions that China is an evil country.
But these misleading articles, headlines, captions, etc., harm international relations and understanding in another way. They provide fuel for CCP propagandists, fenqing, and anyone with a patriotic streak and a modem to argue that the West is a monolithic entity with a vested interest in seeing China fail. These stories are used as evidence that Western freedom of speech doesn’t lead to more capable reporting. That isn’t true, of course, but if you’re a Chinese person who doesn’t read English and you see new posts on Anti-CNN every day that are full of reports of the Western media lying about China, what conclusion are you going to come to?
Regardless of your political bent, mutual alienation is unproductive. Most foreign critics of the Chinese government are, at this point, aware that things in China probably aren’t going to change until Chinese people want them to change, no matter how many protests foreigners hold on foreign soil. Many Chinese people are annoyed enough by the things they see on Anti-CNN or reported in the mainstream Chinese media to ignore any criticism that comes from the West, even those that have legitimate factual basis (and such criticisms are many). Thus, Western media mistakes on China hurt the credibility of Western critics and journalists generally. It may not be fair that that’s the way things are, but make no mistake — that is the effect it has. Isn’t that an effect we, as Westerners with a vested interest in mutual understanding, want to prevent?
It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf. If we write stories implying the Chinese government has executed innocent protesters, and don’t even include the Chinese perspective (i.e., that the people executed were rioters, and possibly murders themselves), then, in the future, if the government actually does execute innocent protesters — and who’s to say they won’t — foreign media reports of the incident will be ridiculed as biased lies and ignored. What’s more, past reports of government malfeasance are also undermined. A Chinese reader who sees the Western media lying about the Tibetan riots in 2008 isn’t going to be very likely to believe Western reports about Tiananmen in 1989, despite the fact that those reports are, by and large, wholly accurate.
Aren’t there much bigger problems?
Some might argue that it is Chinese people’s attitudes that need to change; they should forgive the occasional journalistic error, especially given that foreigners are often given even less access that their Chinese colleagues. Others would argue that the elephant in the room — the Chinese government — is the ultimate cause of all of these problems and that their past mistakes are often the original source of Western biases and inaccuracies. Those things are true, but they aren’t things that we in the West can control. We give them plenty of coverage on this blog, but every now and then, we like to criticize Western mistakes too.
Seriously, you need to drop this and admit that you overreacted to the Guardian headline. As a matter of fact, it is you who are crying wolf right now. Next time you want to criticize bias in Western media, people might not listen anymore.
And given the huge asymmetries of power and access to information involved, Tibet is not the right issue to pick fault with Western media. Yes, some media reports on Tibet may have been biased, gruesome footage of Chinese brutality towards Tibetans has done more to shape Western public opinion on this issue than all the Richard Geres in the world.
And then there is this comment:
“Those things are true, but they aren’t things that we in the West can control.”
Unbelievable comment. So we in the West can control what is printed in media about China? Perhaps you need a holiday. Accept the fact that different Western newspapers will cover different stories in different ways, and fenqings will always find fault with Western coverage of China.
gruesome footage of Chinese brutality towards Tibetans has done more to shape Western public
You mean the gruesome footage of Nepali brutality towards Tibetans or fake footage created by Westerners?
Stop being such a pathetic liar. You can find hundreds of videos of American police tasing old women, bodyslamming the mentally retarded, or beating people after they’re handcuffed.
First of all, the reason why the Chinese don’t seem to believe Chinese media is because of the amount of censorship, and rather the not being forthtelling to its citizens rather than misinforming.
Second, even the nytimes is not totally honest. First of all, they did mention the people getting death penalty for the riots a few months back.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-04/08/content_7659607.htm
Although it did suggest that the executions are the result of the lhasa riots, it also have a bunch of half baked stuff quoted from a government funded organizations “Congressional-Executive Commission on China” and the “Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy” While it is not as worse as the guardian article, it is still half-baked.
In the collective sense, yes, we as Westerners have more control over what’s printed in our media than we do over, say, China’s Tibet policies. We are their target market, and the stories and wording they choose are inevitably based in part on their understanding of their market. Are you really suggesting Westerners don’t have more control over our own media outlets than we do over the Chinese government?
Of course Western papers will cover different stories in different ways, but there’s a difference between “different ways” and presenting something that isn’t fact as though it were, period.
Call it overreaction if you want, but the fact is, that Guardian headline presents “China executes Tibetan protesters” as fact, when it isn’t (by that I mean it isn’t confirmed yet). That’s misleading and it contributes to misunderstanding and mutual suspicion, period. Yes, it’s a small thing on its own, but you know as well as I this sort of stuff happens a lot, and this post is meant to address the general trend, not just that one article.
Additionally, please keep your comments far, far away from suggestions about my personal life. You don’t know me or anything about my life, and insultingly pedantic bullshit like “perhaps you need a holiday” has no place here. You feel I’m overreacting to the headline; I feel you’re overreacting to my criticism of it. Be very, very careful about trying to bring my personal life into this discussion if you hope to continue commenting here in the future.
@ s: “fake footage created by Westerners”? Paranoid much? Trust me, no one cares enough to produce fake footage of police abuses in China. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such footage exists?
I think you’re right here, but it is a matter of political expediency, rather than because the Guardian headline is actually interesting for us to talk and think about.
When discussing foreign country X you speak from a much stronger position if you show that you can balance criticism of country X with criticism for your own country, and demonstrate to the citizens of country X that you do not believe crude stereotypes about it.
“Country X” could be anywhere, not just China.
As a rule I always make sure to tell Chinese people that I don’t like the “Western media” before saying anything critical about China–but not because I think it’s interesting to do so.
Trust me, no one cares enough to produce fake footage of police abuses in China. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such footage exists?
Of TIBET you mean? Yes, almost every picture of supposedly Han on Tibetan brutality is fake.
You can tell because the faces of the victims do not match the phenotype of the Tibetan areas they’re supposed to be from. This is why it’s bad that Westerners can’t tell anyone with black hair apart from the next.
We can debate the Guardian headline back and forth, but as someone else put it in the last thread, it all boils down to where you stand. There is a reason why people assume the worst when it comes to the Tibet policies of the PRC. And that reason is the fact that the PRC has an awful human rights record in China in general and Tibet in particular. Remember the Nangpa-la shootings the other year? It is footage such as these that have shaped Western public opinion on Tibet. I can still vividly remember when I was a teenager and saw footage of PAP soldiers beating up protesters in Lhasa in the late 80s. The Chinese government has done very little to clean up its act in Tibet and there are numerous signs that things have turned to the worse. And I daresay that this is the context in which the reading public in the West look at the deadly riots in Lhasa last year, especially in Europe which has been haunted by its own colonial dramas for decades.
And I think you read way too much into my remarks.
@ s: There is a big difference between mislabeling photos that already exist and fabricating video footage. I know the Western media has, intentionally or not, mislabeled a lot of photos (i.e. all the ones with Nepalese police last year), but I’ve never seen video footage (you can’t call photos “footage”) that was manufactured in the West to smear China.
@ Hemulen: Pray tell, where did I read too much into your remarks?
“…pointing out errors in Xinhua reports is, we feel, a waste of our time.”
Let’s hope not everyone is so casual about freedom of speech.
“most people who read that headline are going to picture Chinese secret police bursting into a monastery and shooting four monks. That image is partially a result of stereotypes…”
It’s also a reflection, in part, of China’s conduct in Tibet during the last half century.
“First of all, the reason why the Chinese don’t seem to believe Chinese media is because of the amount of censorship”
Not true. Although people are acutely aware (as Custer points out) of the level of censorship and propaganda in China, the Chinese often fail to realise how much their attitudes are still shaped by it. If that wasn’t the case they wouldn’t buy so readily into the ‘western bias’ spin campaign.
@Stuart
“First of all, the reason why the Chinese don’t seem to believe Chinese media is because of the amount of censorship”
Not true. Although people are acutely aware (as Custer points out) of the level of censorship and propaganda in China, the Chinese often fail to realise how much their attitudes are still shaped by it. If that wasn’t the case they wouldn’t buy so readily into the ‘western bias’ spin campaign.
Unfortunately, censorship is some kind of propaganda. And guess what, as you can see from the guardian and nytimes article about Tibet, there’s propaganda against China in Western Media also.
I’d like to point out that there’s a difference between ‘poor wording’ and ‘flargrant misrepresentation’.
You have yet to explain exactly what ‘flagrant misrepresentation’ has occurred – and this is indeed a serious accusation – poor wording (I don’t even particularly agree that it’s this) is just a subjective thing, but ‘flagrant misrepresentation’ is something else entirely.
Isn’t it time you either justify that or at least admit to being a bit over the top?
No-one here is saying we shouldn’t criticise the western media. We should criticise all media; but we shouldn’t do so blindly.
“It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf. If we write stories implying the Chinese government has executed innocent protesters, and don’t even include the Chinese perspective (i.e., that the people executed were rioters, and possibly murders themselves)”
If the article says that they were ‘innocent’, then fine. If not, what the hell are you inserting words for?
The article states they were arrested for arson, but also says that legal norms may not have been observed – both attriubted to sources, one Chinese (Xinhua – that’s the Chinese perspective included for you), one Western. Where is this implication of innocence?
If anything, I would suggest that in these posts you are flagrantly misrepresenting the Guardian.
Let’s try to keep discussion specific to that article on that post. My response is there. This is an article about criticizing the Western media in general.
I’ve posted comments as “Ben” before, but I noticed someone else has that name too.
I think this was a worthwhile post. From a reader’s point of view, this is a point that you revisit fairly frequently, so I think your smart to have one post you can link to in the future that explains your rationale.
That said, I do think that you spend too much time on the issue. A paragraph or two when it’s a particularly egregious or involved incident would be enough. I do agree with you, though, that there’s no sense in criticizing the Chinese news media because they’re so blatantly biased and that sloppy journalism is the greatest gift the Western media can give to those in China who would discredit them.
Also, I think that it’s worth mentioning that many, though not all, Western news outlets do have a particular, predictable bias in their reporting: the profit bias. For-profit news outlets have the strong tendency to look for ways they can sensationalize stories, gloss over details to make a story more accessible, and fit the story to narratives that the audience already has. It doesn’t excuse what they do, but a lot of the issues these news outlets have in all areas, not just related to China, can be accounted for by keeping this in mind. It’s been getting worse, however, particularly on US cable news. What’s been your experience with subsidized but independent news sources, like NPR, PBS, and the BBC?
Also, I’d recommend using the comments system that high profile bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and James Fallows use. People send them e-mails, and then they publish the ones that are particularly interesting/insightful/in touch with reality. I understand you want to let everyone have a voice, but if other people are like me, they’re discouraged from posting by people with pre-made, ideologically based views using your comments section to get up on their soap box. Responding to them also drags you down into absurd arguments. If someone is going to claim, like above, that all the footage was faked without citing any evidence, then there’s no way to counter their claim that will move the conversation forward.
PS: When we post comments, can you see our e-mail addresses?
I should explain why I think you’re focusing on it too much.
At 20/197, that means that more than one in every ten posts is about this issue, making it a significant theme of your blog. If it was a matter your blog had influence on, that’d be fine, but there really aren’t any Western China focused blogs that really set the tone of the debate. You retread a lot of the same points in each post on the issue, which is why I think having one post to summarize the common points is good, and I’d recommend in the future just pointing out the times when a particular piece of misinformation is egregious or dangerously widespread. Mentioning a particular complaint too often, even a valid one, will lead to people taking the complaint less seriously and being suspect of other points you’d like to make.
@ Lewis Fox: The 20/198 figure is actually just all the posts tagged as “China from the West”. If you look through and count the ones that are actually criticizing Western media blunders, it’s more like 11 or 12.
When you comment, I can see your email addresses (if I want to). I don’t often look, though.
The reason I don’t use a comments system like James Fallows is simply that I don’t have time to moderate them that actively.
Pardon my off-topic question, but what comment system does James Fallows have? I’ve always thought that feedback on his blog posts had to be sent by email. If there’s an active comments section, could someone please point me to it? Thanks.
There are thausand of “Western” medias, of course their will always been some with not fair coverage. So, Chinese people will be happy to continue focusing on the few problems to blame all the western media.
We live in the real world, guys, no perfect media, but the western media are generally speaking much better than chinese propaganda media.
So:
- Either chinese continue to stupidly attack every time western media, and will finish by believe the chinese media are better or the same.
- Either you start to understand that people have different point of view, that not everything is fair (usually people think what is not their point of view is not fair).
Foreign media nearly no speak about the fact that ethnic minority from Xinjiang often can not get their passport to be able to travel or study aboard. these people could blame foreign media for beeing not fair not speaking about the problem they have because of the unfair policy of the chinese gov…. but if foreign media speak about that…. chinese unstead of thinking this unfair policy from chinese gov against chinese citizen should stop will most probably accuse foreign media of supporting riots and killings.
PS: If you love that much your country, you should work to improve it, either on focusing on face problem when foreigner report problem in your country.
@ joel: that’s the “comment system” he was talking about. It’s not really a system at all, I suppose.
@Custer
It is interesting that you focus on possible innuendos in my comments, rather than on the main thrust of my argument: your failure to deal with oppression in Tibet. That is the elephant in this room, as far as I am concerned. If you were an outspoken critic of PRC policies of Tibet, I think many people like me would be willing to cut you some slack when you criticize Western media bias on Tibet. But you have a very obvious bias yourself. The fact is that most times you have been writing about Tibet, it has been to criticize the “Free Tibet crowd”, exile Tibetans and so on, and to defend the benefits of PRC rule.
I see the liberal free-xxx crowd at working here. First the Palestian terrorists, then the tibertan rioters, then the uyguhr murderers. Pity that nothing is going to change on their whim. Liberals are losers – all whining but no substance.
@ Hemulen: As previously explained, I’m not an “outspoken critic” (well, not the kind that you want) of PRC policies in Tibet because I think that approach to the problem serves absolutely no purpose (except of course, to push the CCP to dig in further and increase restrictions on reporting and travel in Tibet for foreigners).
Simple,
Chinese can tell if government tells the truth or not while Westerners cant.
If you were an outspoken critic of PRC policies of Tibet, I think many people like me would be willing to cut you some slack when you criticize Western media bias on Tibet.
___________________________________________
Hemulen :
If you were an outspoken critic against the violence in 3.14 and 7.5, I think many people like me would be willing to cut you some slack when you criticize chinese government.
@Bamabuda 20,
The problem with Western Media’s bias toward China is that the Media’s lack of objectivity in its reports, like the 2 news reports. The experts who are interviewed are from Western Government funded organizations making outlandish claims yet to be proven. This is what propaganda is about. And if anybody defends China, you’ll see lots of name-calling like a troll, fenqing, or some kind of communist sympathizer like when Custer questioned if the guardian article’s fairness. These kind of people are the ones who think that US or their country is so great and China sucks. That’s unfortunate, because having a discussion with them is already a non-starter.
“Chinese can tell if government tells the truth or not …”
And yet, if I may quote myself:
“Although people are acutely aware (as Custer points out) of the level of censorship and propaganda in China, the Chinese often fail to realise how much their attitudes are still shaped by it.”
You fail to appreciate that knowledge of the disease isn’t in itself enough to prevent infection.
@Custer
Your standpoint is called defeatism.
@ Hemulen: Just because my approach differs from yours doesn’t mean I don’t have an approach. Don’t presume to know things you don’t.
I just hope everyone here, when you guys appeal mercy for Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, ask youself, do you know any of the names below
杨冬梅 Yang dongmei
次仁卓嘎 Ciren zhuoge
陈佳 Chen jia
刘燕 Liu yan
何欣欣He xinxin
梁智伟Liang zhiwei
吴红霞Wu hongxia
梁超凡Liang chaofan
张勇涛Zhang yongtao
茹金亮Ru jinliang
刘娟Liu juan
左仁村Zuo rencun
何建书He jianshu
拉巴次仁 Laba ciren
旺堆达杰Wangdui dajie
高某Gao
@ A Chinese
“…ask youself, do you know any of the names below”
That’s a rather easier list to compile than the countless number of Tibetan victims under Chinese rule. One outrage doesn’t excuse the other, of course, but it does go a long way to explaining why Tibetans resorted to violence last year. It also explains why it’s easy to question the legitimacy of the trials and sentencing – the last 50 years have demonstrated all too clearly that Tibetan lives are considered of little value to the Chinese government.
It’s a shame a lot of the discussion has descended into a number of small arguments when the original article, in my opinion, made such a good point. It’s so important for us to criticise faults in “Western” media and do our best to improve/maintain it (and if I could write italics here I would) because we can.
Woody,
HTML codes allow you to write in italics using angle brackets: >< Just turn them the other way so the mouths are facing each other and place something in between them (with no spaces.)
Doing so, you can write in all different styles
Between the angle brackets, for italics, you need i, for bold, use b, and for underline, use u. Just put a / to end the code. So, a sample would be (i)italics(/i) but with angle brackets instead of parentheses.
/HTML lesson
I appreciate this post. I always believed Americans would naturally understand the importance of our media’s responsibility to report fairly on China. Clearly I was wrong. I published an article 2 years ago that matched “Western Media” stereotypes of China to actual statistics, events and legislation. I don’t think the article was as convincing as I wanted it to be – partially because our citizens STILL don’t think it’s important.
Well, it’s time to take a step back – and your post is a great start!
I would also note that Western media bias is pretty pervasive through even the reputable sources. I was reading blogs via Global Voices when the Tibet riots began. What started as a clearly anti-Han offensive, with the Dalai Lama pleading with his followers for peace completely flipped when NPR and the BBC got their hands on it, creating an inaccurate and controversial story with legs of its own lasting well past the Olympics. What’s more is that the Dalai Lama cleverly shifted responsibility for the unrest to the PRC, and most of the world STILL believes this is the truth. Even after a person is told that the situation was ignited by Tibetans, they justify that action as a revolt based on other stories heard about the PRC.
But however justified you might have felt the Tibetans were for rioting, there is absolutetly no excuse for this kind of perpetual bias. Those of you telling the poster to quit addressing it should know that this kind of reporting may become EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL to the United States and its people.
That’s a rather easier list to compile than the countless number of Tibetan victims under Chinese rule.
There are hardly any, most of them were “victimized” by Tibetan Red Guards. Sad but still true.
the last 50 years have demonstrated all too clearly that Tibetan lives are considered of little value to the Chinese government.
China treats Tibetans far, far better than the West treats minorities. This is an undeniable fact.
I guess only as long as you say so, s. I mean, that just wins the argument right there.
Yeah, s has turned me right around with those compelling ‘facts’.
@ Timjames
“But however justified you might have felt the Tibetans were for rioting, there is absolutetly no excuse for this kind of perpetual bias.”
I don’t see anyone justifying any such thing; but you can’t so easily divorce the riots from what came before them. Tibetans didn’t wake up one morning and think to themselves ‘nice day to go Han bashing’.
Perpetual bias? I think you need to read more widely.
“Those of you telling the poster to quit addressing it should know that this kind of reporting may become EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL to the United States and its people.”
That’s the kind of thinly-veiled warning that is very reminiscent of CCP rhetoric, which raises the question of your agenda here.
You fail to appreciate that knowledge of the disease isn’t in itself enough to prevent infection.
____________________________________________________
you fail to appreciate the power of 300 million people using internet.
Please remember :
Though the media in China doesnt have much credibility among Chinese, neither does West media.
“you fail to appreciate the power of 300 million people using internet.”
Which, you may or may not be aware, is also heavily censored. Even my own harmless discussion platform is blocked.
“Though the media in China doesnt have much credibility among Chinese, neither does West media.”
However, in the case of Chinese media it’s because of the reporting itself; for western media it has a lot to do with the way foreign reporting is rerported.
“I don’t see anyone justifying any such thing; but you can’t so easily divorce the riots from what came before them. Tibetans didn’t wake up one morning and think to themselves ‘nice day to go Han bashing’.”
Your right, they don’t. They need a (’spiritual’) leader to plan the event through his underlings, and then insiders to inflame the crowd. You’ll be surprised how blind and hotheaded some people are. This is mob mentality
Murderers and robbers don’t decide wake up one morning to kill and rob. But they do what they did anyway. Can they say that poverty and discrimination forced them to do it?
‘Tibetans’ didn’t riot. Unemployed, young male Tibetans with links to American organizations did. Same with Urumqi (note: Urumqi is a Han city founded in the Tang Dynasty)
for western media it has a lot to do with the way foreign reporting is rerported.
Rather it’s because foreign reporters love lies and sensationalism. Even Chinese raised in “free” societies despise the Western media.
Yeah, s has turned me right around with those compelling ‘facts’.
Yes because your CIA lies are so convincingly sourced.
@s, bahahahaaaaahahaha
Xinjiang is a Uighur “province”,
Chinese raised in “free” societies aren’t necessarily “free” in the cultural sense implied by the difference in the styles of reporting,
AND
the CIA lies seem to be much more convincingly sourced than, say, CCP lies.
@ s: Let’s tune down the crazy a little bit, k?
Which, you may or may not be aware, is also heavily censored. Even my own harmless discussion platform is blocked.
____________________________________________________
Maybe you should learn Chinese before you made the above comments so you can read and post on Chinese forum.
Even Anti-CNN has lot of anti-government posts.
“Maybe you should learn Chinese before you made the above comments”
No need. I have no difficulties understanding or posting on Chinese language forums if I so choose.
Hemulen,
Please avoid speaking on behalf of “the people”.
What has Custer said that suggests that he doesn’t accept the fact that different Western newspapers will cover different stories in different ways? Next, what is the value of a statement like “fenqings will always find fault with Western coverage of China.” That’s an empty statement to me, right up there with “foreigners will always find fault with China”. It does little to contribute to the discussion other than to insult Custer as a fenqing or apologist for fenqing by association.
Yes, as far as you are concerned. Please start a blog and write to your heart’s content about the elephant in your room, about the oppression in Tibet. Please remember that a person doesn’t have to be an outspoken critic of something in order to be a critic of that thing. Demanding that Custer be an outspoken critic of PRC policies in Tibet before you, and people like you, are willing to cut him some slack when he criticizes Western media bias on Tibet sounds, to me, more like a demand for edification of your subjective interests and opinions. Why conflate the two when there is legitimacy in the criticisms of both?
Demanding that Custer be an outspoken critic of one thing before you’re willing to listen to another thing speaks more about narrow-minded self-interest than a reasonable person genuinely interested in any discussion of merit.
stuart,
How is this statement any more significant than the statement, “Westerners often fail to realize how much their attitudes are still shaped by the level of propaganda and bias in the Western media. If that wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t buy so readily into the ‘China evil’ spin campaign”?
What are you trying to do with this? That the Chinese should “realize” it? That Westerners should “realize” that about the Chinese? How is this different from Custer’s statements trying to help Westerners “realize” that which they themselves don’t realize?
Indeed. I don’t think the ability to throw out these nifty metaphors is enough to prevent infection either.
A lot of these debates would be far more productive if we stop being intellectually lazy and try dismissing each other’s arguments and points as a product of their “agenda” and “brainwashing”. Focus more on the facts and reasoning. If you want the other side to acknowledge a good point you make, start by acknowledging the good points they make. Find the common ground and work from there. I believe this is good advice for all of us.
“How is this statement any more significant than the statement…”
Because it intuitively makes more sense in the context of a state controlled media.
A question of degree, I suppose.
@ Kai your comment sees a bit over the top…
Hemulen used a “might” and it seems that here everyone is speaking on behalf of the people, be it Chinese, western or else (if any).
Xinjiang is a Uighur “province”,
Learn some history, [no personal attacks! Learn to play nice, or you can't play at all. You've been warned about this before. -ed.]. The Uighur didn’t even exist until around 500 AD. The Han already dominated Eastern Xinjiang (which was empty) by 60 BC… get a clue.
oh I forgot
BAJAHAHAHHAAAAAHAAA
that makes my argument so much more convincing right? How much does the CIA pay you per post?
@Kai
I’m aghast, I didn’t think you were capable of this. “Narrow-minded self-interest”, “insult”… And where did I demand anything?
kailing,
Granted. I’ll give him Hemulen the benefit of the doubt on that one, though I still think his pseudo-threat was unwise. Anything else about my comment seem a bit over the top to you?
s,
Do you like it when people accuse Chinese people of part of the wu mao dang? Focus less on presumed agenda. It’s much wiser to tackle and argue the actual points.
No need. I have no difficulties understanding or posting on Chinese language forums if I so choose.
___________________________________________________
then you should know how those chinese advocates of free speech are intolerate of different opinions.
@Kai
Pseudo-threat? What on earth are you talking about?! You are reading my remarks way out of context. I think that Custer is overreacting to a headline by making it representative of what he calls “flagrant misrepresentation”. I don’t think Western media misrepresentation is the biggest problem in China (or Tibet for that matter) and focusing on it detracts from more important debates. I think I have a right to say that without being accused of threatening or insulting someone.
@ Hemulen: No one said Western media misrepresentation was the biggest problem in China or Tibet. Like I said in the article, posts about that account for less than 10% of our total posts, that hardly seems like focusing on it to me.
Because it intuitively makes more sense in the context of a state controlled media.
_____________________________
Iraq war.
@Custer
I haven’t done the numbers, but I guess that more than 50 percent of your posts of Tibet have been devoted to criticizing DL and debunking the ideas of the “Free Tibet” crowd. Perhaps we see thing completely different and this is your blog, but I don’t think that now is not the right moment to go tough on the Tibetans, it’s unbecoming to say the least, given increasing repression in Tibet the past two years. But that’s the world we live in these days. Tibet is regarded as a nuisance by most of the China crowd…
@ Hemulen: As far as I know, I’ve never written a post criticizing the Dalai Lama. I’ve certainly written a few critical of the Free Tibet crowd (or at least part of it, not the Tibetan part though). Then, of course, there’s the pieces like this that I’ve translated, or this sharply sarcastic piece I did criticizing the CCP’s “serf liberation day”.
Somehow, those posts never come up in these conversations though. Huh…
The truth is, I’m not some Tibetan hating monster, nor do I consider Tibet a nuisance. I just genuinely disagree with you on the best way of resolving the situation there. Not sure why that’s so hard to stomach…
@Custer
I missed that Woeser post, we need more of that! The Freed Tibet crowd or Western media can be annoying, but they are mostly harmless. Belated happy one year birthday, BTW.
You’re not late yet, our one-year birthday will be in January. Not sure of the exact date but you can be sure there will be a post about it.
Another article exhibiting typical Western racism and bias:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/22/china-executes-tibet-protesters
China executes Tibetan protesters
It identified three of the executed Tibetans as two men – Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak – and a woman named Penkyi. The fourth victim was not named.
Muslim-German-Russian protesters executed.
Recently Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were found dead, murdered by US agents. A fourth victim remains unidentified.
@ S: you realize that the whole REASON this post exists is because of that exact article, right?
Hemulen,
You said to Custer…
…before telling him what the consequences are:
I interpreted that as a pseudo-threat. I understand your frustration, but I don’t think my interpretation is “way out of context”. Maybe I’m taking your words far more seriously than you are and, like I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Which is a perfectly fine opinion for you to have. Like I said, go start a blog and write up a storm about what you think are the “more important debates.” Custer obviously feels Western media bias is an important issue, who are you to tell him otherwise, much less demand that he write otherwise? What is important to you is not necessarily important or as important to others.
I don’t think an honest consideration of Western media bias detracts from any other debate at all. I can hold more than one thought in my head. Why do you feel it detracts from other debates? Can’t we humbly recognize the facts wherever they are? Why must mentioning one fact be denounced as detracting from another fact?
You do have a right to say THAT. In fact, you have the right to say what I objected to earlier (and quoted at the top of this comment). I just don’t see THAT and the earlier quote as the same thing. The earlier quote is you telling Custer to either drop what he cares to write about or risk losing an audience. The latter is you simply expressing your own personal priorities, not imposing them on Custer. Do you see the difference?
We’re all liable to get ahead of ourselves when we talk, myself included. I just felt your earlier statement was overstepping. I have no qualms with you having different priorities, but I don’t think it is easy to argue that others should abide, edify, or reinforce your priorities. I feel you’re doing much of the latter.
[...] to be for the upcoming week or two. Whenever I’ve had a free moment, I squandered it away defending ChinaGeeks‘ privilege to write about western media bias and entertaining thought experiments meant to prove unprovable kinky Chinese internet tales on [...]
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/11/editors-note-uncommon-courage.html
Even National Geographic got into the act of posting propaganda. It noted of some brave woman who took a cell phone picture of 2 ‘protesters’ before they got by the Chinese police. It even have a colorful story like this:
Writer Matthew Teague photographed these Uygur men, advancing upon Chinese forces, moments before they were shot.
Many people carry cameras these days. Some have uncommon courage. On page 36 of this issue, in the story “The Other Tibet,” there is a photograph taken with a cell phone. The photographer was not a professional. She was a Uygur woman who documented the shooting of a Uygur man by Chinese security forces on a street in Urumqi, capital of China’s Xinjiang region. She later gave the picture to National Geographic’s photographer Carolyn Drake.
Like their Tibetan neighbors, the Uygurs have a history of struggle, but when Carolyn began covering them more than a year ago, she had no idea that the conflict would explode into one of China’s most deadly uprisings since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. By June of this year, she thought her coverage was finished; she returned home to Istanbul. Then hints of unrest began to filter back to her. “At first I didn’t realize the severity of it. I started sending emails to my translator and friends in Kashgar, Hotan, and Urumqi, but no one responded.” She anxiously searched news sources, but the picture of what was going on seemed incomplete and unclear. There was only one way to fi nd out: return to China. She did so in July.
Carolyn, writer Matthew Teague, and a Uygur woman with a cell phone camera all took great risks to bring us the story of a struggle for human rights. Many people carry cameras these days. Sometimes they help us find the truth.
But if you look at the picture and the circumstances of why almost 200 people died at around that time, you may not think it is a ‘human rights’ issue.
[...] do you think? Valid point or are we just tilting at windmills again? GD Star Ratingloading… Things to do with this [...]