Lets the great foreign media bias post wars begin……

March 29, 2008 @ 11:34 am | Comment

Lets begin the post wars then….

Bias here….
bias there…..
who tells the truth anyway?
and interesting read again!

http://tinyurl.com/36ra5c

March 29, 2008 @ 11:39 am | Comment

I think the difference between the bias of Chinese media and Western ones is that whereas the former have not much credibility and won’t have a significant impact on Chinese let alone others out of China, the latter do have the power to make things much worse than they should have be.

All the misleading and biased reporting by Western media over the last fortnight has done is stoking the fire, demonizing China and Chinese that will not do any good to either side.

Chinese are pariahs to Western media and their readers when it comes to Tibet.

But why do we care? As if that’s not how we have been treated even before 1950s?

So shout aloud and be biased as you like, Tibet is and will always be part of China no matter what it was before (and no matter how many times you say “Tibet was not, is not and will never be …”), and no matter what happens now or tomorrow, in China or Europe.

CCP has made a big mistake handling this event and restarting talks with DL now will only be an even bigger one.

March 29, 2008 @ 11:53 am | Comment

Well, Bing, when you think about this, its really difficult for the media of the free world to put a positive spin on the Tibet thing isn’t it? It boils down to us seeing the occupation of Tibet as being morally unjustifiable. There used to exist the argument that the Chinese occupation was justified because it has been making the lives of Tibetans materially better (which is true, of course). But that point has been rendered moot to us by fact, made apparent by the riots and continued protests, that the Tibetans don’t want to be occupied by the PRC. We generally believe that material benefitis should not be forced on people; rather, the people should have the freedom to accept or reject them. That’s why we’re the free world, you see.

Our ideas about nations have now evolved to have a lot more to do with the partnerships between willing parties than with the inalienability of indifferent land masses. I understand that this is not how the Mainlander Chinese people see it. You believe that the occupation of Tibet is morally justified for reasons that most of us freeworlders don’t really get, but it wouldn’t matter if we did. We wouldn’t share your version of morality, and we still wouldn’t like it.

So its not so much about ‘demonising’ the PRC, or making it a pariah. We just have different ideas about right and wrong. Here’s an analogy. We are all live in a village, right? One guy in the village disciplines his wife with willow switch on a regular basis. He thinks that this is perfectly acceptable and necessary to keep his household in order. A bunch of us in the village think that beating your wife is bad; morally unjustifable. We aren’t brave or idealistic enough to do anything about it (yet), but when we tell each other about how we heard the man’s wife sobbing in the night, we can’t help but put a rather negative spin on it.

So bottom line is that the Mainland Chinese and the Freeworlders have, by and large, divergent ideas about right and wrong, and it’s next to impossible to avoid expressing these biases when reporting the events in question. So, when and if we read each other’s media, we just have to be prepared to swallow the cultural differences that make up the foundation of what we write.

March 29, 2008 @ 1:24 pm | Comment

Thinking about it, the obvious bias of my analogy undermines my point, so let’s provide you with another one. Say the man, instead of beating his wife, is living with his gay lover (in a perfectly non-violent relationship) and a bunch of us in the village are evangelical Christians.

March 29, 2008 @ 1:27 pm | Comment

CNN is coming out to defend itself. Interesting!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/28/tibet.statement/

Jeremiah, in your write-up, you certainly missed an important point. A lot of backlash against western media is done by oversea young chinese. Those people probably does not like CCP that much. But western media certainly force them to side with CCP.

March 29, 2008 @ 2:18 pm | Comment

Can’t be bothered to sign in to the Telegraph to post there, so TPD gets this.
http://tinyurl.com/2c2pf7
Richard Spencer asks what are all those angry Chinese people angry about? A couple of genuine picture errors, and perhaps a genuine issue of timing that CCT points out under Richard’s post.
But I want to suggest something that might seem a bit offensive: perhaps Chinese people just aren’t very good at reading the media.
Chinese media present things in black and white. The good guys, the bad guys, 爱憎分明. The western media often doesn’t; in fact, “balance” is pursued like a holy grail sometimes. In the case of the Tibet riots, it looks like a classic black/white story. Tibetans rioted, killed innocent people, the Chinese security forces acted with a lot of restraint. The western media did not paint the Tibetans as the bad guys, and so to someone used to the black/white approach, the western media *must be* saying that China is the bad guy. I don’t think they did, but then I only read a small selection of very sensible papers, so I could be wrong.

And for people like Bing - it’s cool that you come and comment and try to explain your views here. But you need to understand how far apart we are on this subject. I have no idea what you’re talking about, and here’s why: if Northern Ireland wanted to secede (I’m British, English), I’d be cool with that. There was a whole terrorist campaign and occupation, because some Northern Irish people did. The majority in NI didn’t, so Britain felt a duty to retain NI and to protect its citizens. Most British people basically support the course they took. But we also understand where the IRA were coming from, originally. And a lot of people feel, like me, that if a majority in NI wanted to go and join Ireland, we should let them.
So my question to you is: why are you so insistent on keeping hold of Tibet? Why is it a big issue?

March 29, 2008 @ 3:31 pm | Comment

@Bing
“CCP has made a big mistake handling this event and restarting talks with DL now will only be an even bigger one.”

Au contraire, even if “real” conversations with DL in the end failed complitely. Nothing could send a greater sign of maturity and responsibility of China to the rest of the world than that.

But I fear, there is still a long way for China to go. Odd for a +3000 culture and still so much to learn…
You must learn to leave your emotional nationalism behind you, and stop seen enemies, conspiracies and racism behind each corner.
In the end, the emotional responses of China and some Chinese are undermining the moderate image their government wants to show.

March 29, 2008 @ 3:43 pm | Comment

I found Richard Spencer’s article to be extremely interesting. I think we are seeing a lot of projection in all the complaints of Western media bias toward the Tibet issue. There’s a lot of straw-man-type suggestions that foreign reporters are portraying the Tibetans as peaceful demonstrators and the Chinese as cruel oppressors, but the coverage I’ve seen in the mass media has been as fair as can be expected, considering they aren’t allowed to report from Tibet. All the major media made it clear the Tibetans were rioting and attacking Chinese. Spencer successfully debunks the now famous “anti-cnn” site (which is very slick).

If you really want to talk about media bias, then tell your government to stop suppressing media coverage and let the story be told with transparency.

The one point on which I have seen expat and Chinese bloggers agree is the outrageous stupidity and obtuseness of the CCP in the way they have (mis)handled this entire affair. The same old tired response, the same sloganeering and the same BS scapegoating. They are only adding fuel to the growing call to boycott the Olympic Games. Why don’t they do something enlighgtened and clever and really smart, like call everyone’s bluff and meet with the DL for serious talks about autonomy? Or announce there will be free and open government elections in six months and invite people to announce their candidacy? (They’d win anyway, since there’s no other party that could possibly stand up to them.) No, instead it’s the same old prickly response, blaming foreigners for not understanding China and making the DL responsible for everything. Now, I’ve seen stories about how the Chinese perhaps did at first try to exercise restraint, and maybe there is more to the story than we are hearing in the media. But by clamping down with an iron fist China leaves the rest of the world with a very bad impression, no matter how ecstatic many mainlanders seem to be about this brave show of strength and determination. It’s not brave and it’s totally self-defeating.

March 29, 2008 @ 4:42 pm | Comment

“Thinking about it, the obvious bias of my analogy undermines my point, so let’s provide you with another one. Say the man, instead of beating his wife, is living with his gay lover (in a perfectly non-violent relationship) and a bunch of us in the village are evangelical Christians.”

Good example. Because they can live peacefully with each other until some start to convert or publicly denounce or incite/encourage violence against the others from a hypocritical moral high ground.

March 29, 2008 @ 4:57 pm | Comment

“So my question to you is: why are you so insistent on keeping hold of Tibet? Why is it a big issue?”

It’s cool that you come and comment and try to explain your views here on Chinese issues. But you need to understand how far apart we are on this subject. I have no idea what you’re talking about, and here’s why:

Well I think too many others have said too too much (right or wrong) in answering your why. I just want to add one thing: it’s none of your business. Just like NI is none of our business and President Hu wouldn’t phone Gordon about NI no matter how many English or Scots have been moved there to make a majority vote for NI to remain in the UK.

Or maybe next time a bomb explodes in Belfast we should call the perpetrators peaceful protesters and support their justified cause for independence and see how your indifferent English who’d love to see NI decide their own fate react.

March 29, 2008 @ 5:18 pm | Comment

As soon as anyone starts equating Buddhist monks with members of the IRA who murdered literally hundreds, I lose all interest in reading further comments. This individual is so stuck up in his own narrow world that he cannot understand how offensive his equation is. For thirty years the mainland suffered terrorism (without having to resort to censoring news or blocking websites) while I’m sure more Tibetans have died this past fortnight than Chinese. I met a man in Belfast about ten years ago back when I was involved in cross-border relations who had been released from the Maze after having cut cut off a man’s penis and shoved it into his mouth while his wife and daughter looked on. I presume this poster has never been either to Ireland, north or south, or even in Tibet which he cares so pasionately about.

March 29, 2008 @ 5:54 pm | Comment

“As soon as anyone starts equating Buddhist monks with members of the IRA who murdered literally hundreds, I lose all interest in reading further comments.”

Yeah, equating monks who burnt down Chinese shops and led violent mobs wielding long knives and pelting stones at Chinese with members of the IRA is really offensive to you. But sorry that’s not to me or the families of those burnt to death and sorry you are so easily offended by this equation just like the Chinese netizens by those “petty and unitended” mistakes,

I presume this poster has never been either to Ireland, north or south, or even in Tibet which he cares so pasionately about.

No I haven’t. And one more thing I couldn’t care less about the Tibet in your mind. I care about China including TAR.

March 29, 2008 @ 6:15 pm | Comment

I’m sure more Tibetans have died this past fortnight than Chinese.

Yeah you are sure by what?

Suppose you were right, then what? And do you know how many of those supposed dead Tibetans are innocent civilians?

And what do you expect police to do to rioting mobs? Take their blows, stones, boiling water and whatever then smile back?

Try driving a car passing an American checkpoint ignoring warnings. Or try brandishing a knife at a Police officer in broad daylight in the UK and see what happens, bearing in mind that people do get shot for carrying a table leg there.

March 29, 2008 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

The western standpoint on the Tibet issue is simple:

The occupation is wrong, so whatever happens afterwards cannot be right either. It is a matter of original sin of the Chinese.

Right or wrong is a matter of value standard. It is subjective. It is a bit pointless to argue over it as different people may have different views based on their different values.

Media bias, on the other hand, is reasonably easier to measure. Look at what have been reported and what have been known so far and what is the average view of the people (all the people).

March 29, 2008 @ 7:03 pm | Comment

Steve,

You raise a very good point. I don’t think the fenqing are so angry because they automatically or naturally support the CCP, but rather the educational and information environment in China, which is in no small part a factor of CCP policies, does create one of the conditions for the emergence of this sort of nationalism.

As for the reaction of those who consider themselves ethnic Chinese but were either born, predominantly raised, or educated in countries other than the PRC, well that’s a whole other set of issues, outside the intended scope of my inquiry, but certainly well worth exploring.

Most (all?) of our more nationalist commenters here at TPD fall into this latter category, so perhaps they can share their insights.

March 29, 2008 @ 7:14 pm | Comment

“Au contraire, even if “real” conversations with DL in the end failed complitely. Nothing could send a greater sign of maturity and responsibility of China to the rest of the world than that.”

With this logic, both Israelis and Palestinians are truly mature and responsible in handling their grievances.

“But I fear, there is still a long way for China to go. Odd for a +3000 culture and still so much to learn…”

Talk about teaching old dog new tricks.

“You must learn to leave your emotional nationalism behind you, and stop seen enemies, conspiracies and racism behind each corner.”

Seeing or not depends on how you define enemies, conspiracies and racism and on which side you are with.

And we would have happily forgotten all about them if only they hadn’t done any harm to us.

In addition it’s no longer just an issue of nationalism but also of Chinese as individuals who have been insulted by the unfair treatment of the self-righteous West as a whole.

March 29, 2008 @ 8:07 pm | Comment

China might have more success integrating Tibet if it was honest enough to acknowledge the fact that China’s relationship with Tibet is an imperial one. Empires generally only required their subjects to pay tribute, acknowledge the emperor and not rebel. They didn’t try to force their subjects to pretend that they are all members of a single harmonious nation-state. The Qing emperor probably didn’t care whether Tibetans thought of themselves as Chinese or not. Nor would his administrators have bothered with “patriotic education”.

Now that the CCP have inherited what is left of the Qing empire, perhaps they would have more success if they acknowledged that that is what China is? Rather than trying to force Tibetans and everyone else into a single Han Chinese cultural mould, with nationalism / socialism the official state religion and all others either controlled or suppressed, why not let regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang practise their beliefs or culture in whatever way they want, providing they render unto Caesar? At least there would be one fewer cause for unrest.

March 29, 2008 @ 8:28 pm | Comment

“With this logic, both Israelis and Palestinians are truly mature and responsible in handling their grievances.”

Well. I do no t see your logic here. Both sides has been able to talk, even though the differences and violence. And some even advances have been made.
And by the way. We are talking about China, try not to deflect the issue. Besides both issues are hard to compare.
I propose a deal. We send old tibetans+DL to Gaza and then send all Gazans+Hamas to Tibet. What do you think?
“Talk about teaching old dog new tricks”
Even old dogs must learn new tricks from time to time. Have china not being doing that lately…

“And we would have happily forgotten all about them if only they hadn’t done any harm to us.”
No one asking you to forget old grievances, but brooding constantly on them is not good for anyones psychological health. And allow the evil of the past to cast a shadow in the present and even control your decisions for the future is not a good policy.
Have you ever heard of the Sicilian families who continue killing each other for a grievance that happened hundred years ago and no one remember exactly what happened?

“Chinese as individuals who have been insulted by the unfair treatment of the self-righteous West as a whole.”
Could you specify those insults?

March 29, 2008 @ 8:36 pm | Comment

“Chinese as individuals who have been insulted by the unfair treatment of the self-righteous West as a whole.”

Let me see. So far we have been called:
biased, hypocrites, racist, self righteous, arrogant, paranoid, insulters, etc.

And no one so far, has seethed against you, rather encourage you to express your own opinions.

Do not take insult so easily or take refuge behind old grievances. Try to bridge the differences in our views. That is the meaning of this posts.

March 29, 2008 @ 8:49 pm | Comment

Could you specify those insults?

Every piece of reporting on the riots that exaggerates, hearsays or even makes up the Tibetan hellish treatment from China while ignoring, downplaying or distorting the sufferings of Chinese, is an insult to us. The following is what I posted but got rejected by BBC editor Jon Williams’ blog:

Responding to: The BBC has no agenda - our job is to report all sides of the story. Which is precisely why we want to be allowed into Tibet.

While BBC and other western media are certainly much better than their Chinese counterparts in reporting, you are no different when it comes to manipulation and provocation, for your own course.

What you report matters, so does what you don’t.

Why not show the picture of Tibetan mob wielding long knives charging at a Chinese lying on the ground?

What about reporting the five young girls including a Tibetan who died when their shop was set on fire?

You are reporting this event as a justified peaceful uprising met with a violent crackdown, while we think it a violent rioting spree being tackled by the government with maximum restraint (Which I’m not happy about).

No one is absolutely objective and you don’t even have to be objective at all, just don’t pretend you are when you aren’t.

March 29, 2008 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

“What about reporting the five young girls including a Tibetan who died when their shop was set on fire?”

http://tinyurl.com/36ra5c

It is in the the second post. Thought you read it already.

March 29, 2008 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

@Bing
So shout aloud and be biased as you like, Tibet is and will always be part of China no matter what it was before (and no matter how many times you say “Tibet was not, is not and will never be …”), and no matter what happens now or tomorrow, in China or Europe.

CCP has made a big mistake handling this event and restarting talks with DL now will only be an even bigger one.

The CCP would do good if they use Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s principle of “Five Races Under One Union” towards Tibet. Let the Tibetans run their own place, have their own internal democracy and practice their own beliefs or even fly their own flag. Just retain foreign policy and national defence under the central government. I pretty much agreed about Richard’s point that the CCP just doesn’t learn. It was not creative and use the same old blunt tricks which only worsened the matter in Tibet.

March 29, 2008 @ 9:21 pm | Comment

“It is in the the second post. Thought you read it already.”

So it got some coverage on 28th. But it doesn’t really matter now in that people have already started talking about biased western media.

What is telling is the fact that those deaths have been known since the beginning and by no means have less credibility than the claimed Tibetan deaths by Tibetan exiles and they were just completely ignored.

I was also addressing specifically the journalism of BBC which is far from their claimed “report all sides of the story”, as always when it comes to China.

March 29, 2008 @ 9:35 pm | Comment

@sp
“It was not creative and use the same old blunt tricks which only worsened the matter in Tibet.”

Still… they were not as blunt as they could be. Rather than simply sending T65 tanks they are sending riot police and light armored vehicles. All in all China is more open today than before, and crisis management has improved.

On the Government side. It will be interesting to know what is going on in government high levels. Surely there are some interesting discussions right now.

From my point of view. I think that for China a window of opportunity is still open to find a better handling of this problem.
If they just could handle it properly it would do wonders to Chinas image (and business..).
But maybe I am just naive… who knows.

March 29, 2008 @ 9:40 pm | Comment

A few comments:

* If you want more refined, and less Communist vestigial propaganda type of media covering the Chinese viewpoints, you will have to try from places such as online news outlets and Phoenix Television. The Chinese media can’t possibly be unbiased — China has a dog in this fight. This brings up a side question: why Al Jazeera English can never, despite many tries, to gain a foothold in mainstream cable/satellite providers in the US? The simple answer is when a nation’s core interest is at risk, damn the free press.

Interestingly probably the most accurate and unbiased coverage on the Tibet issue is from Al Jazeera. Quality-wise, they put mainstream Western news coverage to shame.

* If I was the authority, I would not want journalists, foreign or domestic, to go to Lhasa until I had full control of the streets.

* In my younger days, I spent a lot of time in American inner city because of a girl I dated. There were many angry young black men there. Other than they weren’t jamming online forums, I can’t tell any meaningful difference between them and fenqing. There are quite some fenqing among those post-1st generation Chinese immigrants who based on your theory are not lacking variety of information sources. In the Internet age with the sophisticated methods of accessing otherwise forbidden information, I think fenqing are angry not because they don’t get to see your points among various others’, they are angry because they feel disenfranchised.

March 29, 2008 @ 9:53 pm | Comment

Hello folks,

I have asked the following question in the other post. So far, I haven’t received any response. I would like to hear people’s view on it, particularly people who are pro-TI, so as to verify the claim. Thank you.

“The DL has been using the following statement for a good while to gain international support, i.e. he does not seek Tibet independence but autonomy, real autonomy, which he terms “the middel way”. On the basis of the above, the Chinese government has been widely critisized for not talking to the DL.

A piece of information from XinHua after interviewing an “Tibetan issue expert” from the Chinese Social Science Academy.

The expert made the following comment about the DL’s “middle way”, which he basically classifies as seeking Tibet independence of every bit but name. Here is what he said about the conditions set up by the DL in his “middle way”.

1. The DL insists that Tibet (not TAR, the DL apparently has his own interpretation of what his “Tibet” means, see No.4 below), historically and culturally, has been an independent nation, has never been part of China.
2. The DL insists that all Chinese military and military facilities be removed from Tibet. The status of Tibet is to be discussed by a international conference. Tibet becomes a “peaceful region” and a “buffer zone”.
3. The DL insists that Tibet can establish diplomatic relations with other nations and international organisations.
4. The DL insists that the autonomous Tibet include TAR and ethnic Tibetan areas from four other Chinese provinces, the Greater Tibet with an approximately 240km2 territory. In other words, the administrative structures of those parts of the four provinces will be reorganised by the DL. The DL will be in charge of the Greater Tibet affairs.
5. The DL insists that any non-Tibetan inhabitants within the Greater Tibet region be removed.

Does the above reflect the key points of the DL’s “middle way” in its current setting? “

March 29, 2008 @ 9:59 pm | Comment

“* If I was the authority, I would not want journalists, foreign or domestic, to go to Lhasa until I had full control of the streets”
Maybe you are right. But… embedding journalist with the anti-riot units, maybe even using mixed journalist teams chinese+foreign could have been a very smart move to appease critics.

“why Al Jazeera English can never, despite many tries, to gain a foothold in mainstream cable/satellite providers in the US?”
I have Al Jazeera English at home Use to view them, specially on middle east critical issues.
They have improved a lot during the last years. Their journalism today is quite good. Beats CNN some times hands down.

Any Al Jazeera English equivalent from China planed in the future? Could be a great idea.
Wonder why they did not used O.G to launch such a project.
I have DW (Deutsche Welle) BBCnews, CNN, Al Jaazera (English) on Sat. But cannot find any Chinese (english) sat channel here. Curious, the voice of +1.6 people (aprox..) is missing!!

March 29, 2008 @ 10:17 pm | Comment

Have even Foxnews here…. yuk!

March 29, 2008 @ 10:21 pm | Comment

Thanks Bing, but again, I don’t know what you mean.

“it’s none of your business.”

News organisations cover the news everywhere. Do you think that CNN should not be allowed to cover what happens in China? Similarly, do you think Xinhua should not be allowed to cover what goes on in Northern Ireland? Again, I can’t relate how you feel to what I would feel if Xinhua published a slanted report on NI. I wouldn’t be bothered. I might be interested; I might hope that other news sources would provide balance. But basically, I wouldn’t be fussed.

And as for random chat in the pub - which is basically what blogs are - I wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. Tibet is nothing to do with me (I’ve never been, don’t have much interest in the place; the same is true of NI), but if I occasionally make some (ill-informed) comments, what does it matter? As Keir said, I bet Tibet isn’t much to do with you, either.

So I can’t get what you’re proposing. News blackouts? (You seem to have support in high places on that one!) Censorship of anyone who’s never been to Tibet, so they’re not even allowed to say the word? Neither of these are a) possible or b) desirable.

On to a couple of cases that are genuine interference: I read that the US government sent over a “Tibet policy” in 2003. Now that is hubris, and deserves whatever smackdown China chooses to give. And the Dalai Lama’s proposals were also pretty radical - demanding complete demilitarization as a starting point is a toughie. It should be noted that this was 20 years ago. He has since indicated great willingness to talk about a gradual reduction in militarization.

March 29, 2008 @ 10:55 pm | Comment

@Phil

“It’s none of your business”, an answer to why China holds on to Tibet.

March 29, 2008 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

Bing, I know you’re a smart guy, but you sound like a parrot of CCP talking points on this topic.

I do agree with you that there is bias among most westerners when it comes to Tibet. They often see things in black and white, more specifically, “Dalai Lama good, China bad.” There is little understanding of what Tibet was and is. Then again, the bias among the Chinese is as bad or worse, manifesting itself in perpetual amazement over the lack of appreciation of the “liberation” of the Tibetans and the improvement of infrastructure, the end of serfdom, etc.

However, I am generally impressed with the way the foreign correspondents here have covered it, and I see relatively little media bias among them - most of them have lived and worked here for some time, and they do not describe Tibet as a Lost Horizon Shangrila, nor did they understate or cover up the awful violence perpetrated against the Han Chinese on March 14. So I have one favor: Be specific and let us know what is the media bias you are referring to? Where is it? (I’ve seen some of it myself, almost exclusively in self-righteous opinion pieces by Westerners who have never been to China and betray an embarrassing ignorance; I haven’t seen it from the foreign press corps reporting from within China.)

Another example of Western bias when it comes to Tibet that I do acknowledge is the obsession with Tibet compared with other regions/peoples in China oppressed over the decades by the CCP. These places don’t have a charismatic and semi-mystical spokesperson pleading their cause from India to Western audiences, nor do they have Richard Gere generating funds for them. The tentacles of China’s tyranny extend further than Tibet, yet it is Tibet that has captured the Western imagination, thanks in large part to ignorance. and a sophisticated awareness campaign. And again, the counterpart is the ignorance here in China when it comes to just how many Tibetans resent their liberation and why and how deep this resentment goes.

cc, no one is responding to your question because it is too long-winded and it seems you are trying to set a trap. We aren’t talking here about whether the Dalia Lama is good or bad, right or wrong. We’re talking about perceived media bias on the issue of Tibet.

March 29, 2008 @ 11:21 pm | Comment

@Bing

Every piece of reporting on the riots that exaggerates, hearsays or even makes up the Tibetan hellish treatment from China while ignoring, downplaying or distorting the sufferings of Chinese, is an insult to us.

I have no intention to argue with you about anything back and forth, because we stand too far apart on this. But if you cannot make a difference between criticism directed against your country and criticism directed against you as a person, then there is something wrong with you and it will not strengthen your cause.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:15 am | Comment

Amban

But if you cannot make a difference between criticism directed against your country and criticism directed against you as a person, then there is something wrong with you and it will not strengthen your cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Amban

i know you are a smart guy, but you don’t know the situation of chinese who live overseas, most westerners are not so familiar with the situation in china or know nothing about chinese history.

i live in UK now, at least i know many many chinese here feel very stressful, we face lots of interrogation and insult every day in person, maybe not so harsh, but absolutely not friendly, they keep criticise not only chinese government, but also chinese and everything from china, its annoying and stressful. and not fair for us living here, affect our way of living, even might lose job opportunity, although you can not deny most chinese work and study hard, not so cold with people.

i am not sure if you guys live in china have any of these kinds of problems when something like human right abuse happened to your country, like Guantanamo Bay detention camp human right abuse, are there many chinese critise and interrogate or mixed up with personal attack to you??

its lot of stress.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:26 am | Comment

Richard,

If this is the way you see it, so be it.

I am simply confirming a few points, key points in my opinion, in relation to what the DL demands for its version of autonomy (because I don’t think a lot of people who participate in the discussion of the Tibet issue have actually known them).

Well, if people (including you) who are so eager to argue over a lot of subjective issues over and over again (definitely no conclusion/agreement could be made) but have no interest in discussing a few fundamental issues regarding TI that, again in my opinion, have profound impact on searching for a solution to the problem, then again, so be it. You are interested in arguing per se. I understand.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:46 am | Comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmuYTSubAY

check this personal attack in public

March 30, 2008 @ 12:47 am | Comment

@ukchinese

Umm. I know quite a few Chinese who live abroad and they do not get insulted on a day-to-day basis. But I guess the experience may vary from place to place.

I just wanted to ask you, do you have any idea what it is like to be stared at wherever you go, 24/7? Do you know what it is like to enter a store or a train station and immediately become the topic of conversation of the people around you? Do you what it is like to have people yelling halooooo at the top of their voices as they pass by? Or do you have any idea what it is like to live in a country, where you sometime have to declare your nationality (or lie about it) to complete strangers at a daily basis, because that country happens to have some issue with some other country. Well, that is pretty much what every foreigner in China have to put up with.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:52 am | Comment

@richard

Be specific and let us know what is the media bias you are referring to? Where is it?

In one of my previous posts concerning BBC coverage of Tibet events, you could see what sort of the biased reporting I’m referring to here.

I wish I could list all the articles/blogs that I have read in the last two weeks from various sources (BBC, Guardian, CNN, and many others from Canada, USA and European countries) and that fell into this category. But I’m afraid I can’t. I check western media on Google news and read everything I’m interested in and quickly forget where I read it or who wrote it. I’m not a professional writer/journalist or a student with plenty of time, nor am I paid to do what I’m doing now so please bear with me on that.

A few more balanced views may have started to emerge now but that can’t negate the damage already done to China and Chinese in whatever forms.

I don’t have much recollection from what exactly I have read , heard and watched from those media. But I’m aware that until very recently there had not been reporting of the five girls’ deaths in mainstream media like BBC, and pictures like mobs wielding long knives were basically inundated by dodged ones with misleading captions or misplaced contexts.

Bias (is it really just bias?) like that may look trivial compared to what is being done by Chinese government controlled media. But as I mentioned earlier, western media have the power to make things much worse and with their history of anti-Chinese propaganda (right or wrong) on various issues such as Taiwan (almost solved now), Xinjiang, Sudan, CO2 emission, Chinese imports, immigration…, the bias represented by those “seemingly trivial” omissions, misleadings, false allegations, exaggeration, hearsays, is stoking a fire that has already been rampaging for years.

And the impact and thus resulting damage of this bias, however trivial, is also in fact being greatly magnified by their generous coverage.

Anyway, I’m not even sure what you are trying to disagree with me on this bias anymore. Are you trying to say that there is no bias in Western media, or that Media bias and manipulation always exists and surely such bias is not just directed on China?

I’m not really angry with the bias itself which many Chinese have learned to get used to. It’s once again the damage it has done over the years and especially this time to China and Chinese in general.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:54 am | Comment

@cc

I think it’s a moot point to debate on what DL really wants, at least to me as a Chinese.

It’s non-debatable.

Tibet is part of China and even if DL had only claimed 1/1000 of Tibet for the kind of autonomy he is asking for, there would be no deal.

It’s really not important of what DL or Tibetan exiles, or whoever else want or claim.

March 30, 2008 @ 1:11 am | Comment

@uk

“check this personal attack in public”

Well. That was rude. But that is to expected on any kind of conflict here. Maybe that is still unusual in China. You could find similar protest almost about anything, animal protection, pelts, pollution, etc.

Do not take it just as anything personal against China or Chinese.
If it comfort you, these TB protester may have done more harm to themselves in this case than to anyone else.

I was attended once Mrs Merkel (German Chancellor) election meeting once, because I wanted to hear her, but was impossible with all the groups who were there protesting against some of her policies or her past as researcher because she used guinea pigs in the laboratory.
And that was far more rude than what I have seen in you video.

Maybe some Chinese find it hard to get used to some of the “crazyness” we are used to here.

March 30, 2008 @ 1:38 am | Comment

Any Al Jazeera English equivalent from China planed in the future? Could be a great idea.
Wonder why they did not used O.G to launch such a project.
I have DW (Deutsche Welle) BBCnews, CNN, Al Jaazera (English) on Sat. But cannot find any Chinese (english) sat channel here. Curious, the voice of +1.6 people (aprox..) is missing!!

If by “they” you meant the Chinese government, I just don’t think they are cosmopolitan enough to pull that off, at least not the current generation. It surely sounds like an interesting project… For what is worth, there is an English CCTV channel. But its news production quality is subpar, to say the least. This will have to wait until that 23-yo owner of anti-cnn.com grows richer and more mature to pull that off. Kidding aside, the best one to start such a project isn’t government officials, but rather a Chinese Rupert Murdoch.

The other way to look at it, as much as English is the de facto international language, Chinese is the most popular language in the world. So the Chinese Rupert Murdoch will be less inclined to invest the resources in an English outfit than a middle eastern media tycoon. The voice isn’t missing per se, but rather can’t be heard by those who can’t speak Chinese.

March 30, 2008 @ 1:54 am | Comment

@cc

Ok. I will give it a try. But I am not an expert in this issue.

1) As far as I know the DL is not asking for independence. What he said 20 years ago I do not know.
2)My information here is that he wants “real” autonomy within China. Foreign and Defense issues are Beijing responsibility
3)As said. Foreign policy remains Beijing responsibility. Maybe he refers to not be controlled permanently by Beijing with his personal/religious relationships. In case of conflict should not be hard to discuss any problem beforehand
4) Anyone with a inch of intelligence would see that any regional change would be impossible. Would be very much surprised if DL want to do this
5) Find it hard to believe that also. I considerer more accurate that Tibetans want to have at least say over immigration to prevent to be overflowed by Han Chinese or have major economy activities dominated by them. Far from an “ethnic cleasing”

Could you provide the sources where you got these list of DL request? I would like very much to know.

Or better. Why not ask directly these question direclty Just send a delegation and find out in what you agree or not.
Maybe there are less disagreements than you think.

March 30, 2008 @ 1:55 am | Comment

@bing

“It’s really not important of what DL or Tibetan exiles, or whoever else want or claim.”
Regrettably I must said, that with this kind of “emotional nationalism” China would be shooting herself on the foot.

Much more could be gain with a more thoughtful curse of action. Nothing about China integrity would be lost. And image of China could be very much improved. You may be not aware of the benefits that you would miss.

March 30, 2008 @ 2:01 am | Comment

@jxie
“The other way to look at it, as much as English is the de facto international language, Chinese is the most popular language in the world.”

Well, that is the point. Although Chinese is quite popular it is not an international language outside China or Chinese communities.
Outside a Chinese environment very few people do speak it, read, or write it… fluently enough.

For example Arabic is quite popular, spoken by more than 450 million people and nevertheless the have Al Jazzera in English.

Here in Europe there are from time to time also discussions about the best intercommunication language to be used. I remember the Germans said that we should use German…. I can assure you that no one is going to learn German instead of English as “lingua franca”….
I guarantee you that if the Turkey (70 million) finally enters the EU no one is going to use Turkish as lingua franca.
There even was in Europe a proposition even to use Latin…. no way!!

Given the entrepreneurship of Chinese businessmen I would be surprised if no one is toying with this idea already.

Get some acquiescence from the government, maybe set up a joint venture with some big media outside China, and presto!!
It could do wonders to raise awareness of China brand names among general public here, and also give access to China firms to other markets, instead of being mere cheap producers or other firms products.
And last but not least promoting Chinese views, culture and showing the fast changes in its society.
Good also to promote some cosmopolitanism to some officials in the government too…..

March 30, 2008 @ 2:24 am | Comment

I just wanted to ask you, do you have any idea what it is like to be stared at wherever you go, 24/7? Do you know what it is like to enter a store or a train station and immediately become the topic of conversation of the people around you?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

to Amban

show me any evidence that you had been attacked and treated like the chinese girl just doing a commerical job in germany on youtube, evidence evidence evidence like the video on youtube? or anyone can provide this kind of evidence, that chinese people treat you peronally so aggressive!

March 30, 2008 @ 2:51 am | Comment

@ukchinese

show me any evidence that you had been attacked and treated like the chinese girl just doing a commerical job in germany

Well it was a stupid job on that video, let’s agree on that. But if you put yourself in the position of representing your country on a stage, these kind of things can happen.

I don’t want to get involved in a youtube pasting war, but you ask any foreigner about the behaviors I mentioned above and many of them would tell you that they have similar experiences.

But if you want “evidence”, take a look at this, I have experienced worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH5kVkSYlmc

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qkTLBsHgU0

March 30, 2008 @ 3:50 am | Comment

Or what about this. Proudly pasted by a soccer fan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgo8m1OV1M

…and this happens in the country that will organize the Olympics.

March 30, 2008 @ 4:11 am | Comment

@Raj

ukchinese is quoting me, and I finished my comment:

Well, that is pretty much what every foreigner in China have to put up with.

March 30, 2008 @ 4:41 am | Comment

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

March 30, 2008 @ 7:05 am | Comment

@ Richard

So if there is bias among most westerners when it comes to Tibet, what is the source of this bias? I bet it’s not from the Chinese propaganda. How did the people who wrote those self-righteous opinion pieces/letters get their information on Tibet? A fair media is not likely to generate a misinformed public.

Both WSJ and NYT did not have reporters in Lasha when the riot broke out. However, WSJ had at least tried to provide a fair coverage from both sides, While NYT basically provided rumors and parroted Tibet exile government. China’s attempt to block foreign media access is despicable, but that’s not an excuse to lower journalistic standard.

March 30, 2008 @ 7:35 am | Comment

A fair media is not likely to generate a misinformed public.

That’s a ludicrous statement! The media in Europe and North America can’t stop people being stupid and/or naive because it is not a unified body. It takes one publication to report something inaccurate to misinform people.

As has been said, if China wanted accurate reporting it should have let journalists in. That it kept them out meant they had to rely on expat Tibetan groups, e-mails, etc. The media won’t be silenced just because a government tries to cut off first-hand reporting.

March 30, 2008 @ 8:03 am | Comment

@CC

“I just want to add one thing: it’s none of your business.”

You know what? I say it’s none of your business.

See how easy that was, to just declare that something none of your business?

Leave Tibet alone.

March 30, 2008 @ 8:18 am | Comment

Whoops, sorry — my last post was @ bing

my next post is going to be at @ cc

March 30, 2008 @ 8:22 am | Comment

There is no media bias in this pic:

w.strategypage.com/militaryforums/69-30601.aspx

March 30, 2008 @ 8:47 am | Comment

@CC

I don’t think that those points accurately reflect the Dalai Lama’s positions. They do bear a vague resemblance, but they seem to have been to have been subtlely altered or misinterpreted. Moreover, it’s clear that the Dalai Lama’s suggestions are intended to be the starting point of a negotiation. The purpose of a negotiation is for the parties to reach a point somewhere in between their initial proposals.

Some information about the “middle way” proposal directly from the TGIE can be found here: http://www.tibet.net/en/diir/sino/std/imwa.html. I will quote in full the section titled “Important Components of the Middle-Way Approach”:

1. Without seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three traditional provinces of Tibet;
2. Such an entity should enjoy a status of genuine national regional autonomy;
3. This autonomy should be governed by the popularly-elected legislature and executive through a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system;
4. As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within, the Peopleïž’s Republic of China;
5. Until the time Tibet is transformed into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection;
6. The Central Government of the Peopleïž’s Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibetïž’s international relations and defence, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture, education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection;
7. The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas;
8. To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.

Now, let’s see how this compares to the description given by Xinhua’s Tibet issue expert:

1. The DL insists that Tibet (not TAR, the DL apparently has his own interpretation of what his “Tibet” means, see No.4 below), historically and culturally, has been an independent nation, has never been part of China.

This is a correct description of the Dalai Lama’s position, but it is a historical issue — I don’t understand why that should make negotiations about the future impossible.

2. The DL insists that all Chinese military and military facilities be removed from Tibet. The status of Tibet is to be discussed by a international conference. Tibet becomes a “peaceful region” and a “buffer zone”.

This is a quite a bit different than what the Dalai Lama proposes, at least regarding the short term. The TGIE website clearly says that some Chinese troops will remain in Tibet until Tibet actually becomes peaceful and non-violent at some timein the future.

3. The DL insists that Tibet can establish diplomatic relations with other nations and international organisations.

This is false. The TGIE website says that “the Central Government of the Peopleïž’s Republic of China has the responsibility for the political aspects of Tibetïž’s international relations and defence”.

4. The DL insists that the autonomous Tibet include TAR and ethnic Tibetan areas from four other Chinese provinces, the Greater Tibet with an approximately 240km2 territory. In other words, the administrative structures of those parts of the four provinces will be reorganised by the DL. The DL will be in charge of the Greater Tibet affairs.

This is true, except that the Dalai Lama proposes a democratic government, rather than a government in which the Dalai Lama is in charge (also, I’m not sure what the exact figure for square kilometers is). “The three traditional provinces of Tibet” means Ãœ-Tsang, Kham, and Amdo. The eastern half of Kham is in Sichuan province and most of Amdo is in Qinghai province. Please note that the PRC government has already designated the traditional Tibetan areas outside of the TAR as autonomous prefectures or counties, and most of these areas apparently still have primarily Tibetan populations. So, this idea of a broader definition of Tibet matches the reality on the ground pretty well. Nevertheless, it is a dramatic political demand.

5. The DL insists that any non-Tibetan inhabitants within the Greater Tibet region be removed.

I doubt very much that this is accurate. The TGIE’s statement does say that they want to stop “the transfer of Chinese population into Tibetan areas”, but this is referring to additional movement of people into Tibet, not to people who are already there.

You may wish to consider the question of why someone would want to obscure the truth about what the Dalai Lama and his side are suggesting.

March 30, 2008 @ 8:48 am | Comment

@ ecodelta

Although it might seem odd, the Dalai Lama has consistently advocated a definition of “Tibet” which includes a great deal more than just the TAR. Patrick French and others have argued that he is under a lot of pressure from some of his advisors and the exile community not to compromise on this issue. Nevertheless, it makes negotiations immensely more difficult, and I don’t see how anything will ever be agreed on that includes significant changes to the TAR’s borders.

March 30, 2008 @ 8:54 am | Comment

Otto Kerner,

Thanks for collecting the information. The source I quoted is not a primary one. It was written by a journalist from Xinhua in a news report, who, preassumably, interviewed a Tibet expert (a Tibetan himself) in the Chinese Social Science Academy.

March 30, 2008 @ 9:30 am | Comment

It takes one publication to report something inaccurate to misinform people.

Well I am so glad the whole world hasn’t been totally misled by the China Daily yet. And obviously all the misinformation about Iraq had WMD came from Fox News.

March 30, 2008 @ 9:58 am | Comment

CLC you are being way too simplistic. The Western media may have been fooled at first about the Iraq WMDs, but do you know the NYT did a front-page mea culpa about it, explaining why they got the story wrong and apologizing for it? The Western media often sucks (although the phrase itself is rather meaningless, since there are so many components to “Western media”). Fox News stands apart because it is not a news channel, it is a Republican Party channel and everyone knows it. They truly are the equivalent of China Daily, at least in terms of its allegiance.

You asked how the West got its perceptions of Tibet. It is not from the foreign correspondents in Beijing. (And that’s where most of them are in China.) It’s from the PR campaigns of Free Tibet, a number of movies and the excellent communications efforts of the Dalai Lama. I have asked repeatedly for examples of the foreign correspondents’ bias and misrepresentations and have been greeted with radio silence.

Thanks Otto. cc is a clever guy and you did a fine job fisking him.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:07 pm | Comment

@Richard

Here is a recent report from WSJ

The government has acknowledged detaining hundreds of people since protests began, and police have also acknowledged shooting protesters in the unrest, which has since spread throughout heavily Tibetan settlements across western China. The areas are now filled with armed police to quell further demonstrations.

Casualty figures, meanwhile, remain in dispute — the Chinese government has reported that 22 died in the protests, but Tibetan exiles have counted 140 deaths.

I think most common readers would interpret this as Chinese government shot death at least 22 protesters, may be 140. However, the real Chinese side story is that most of those 22 were killed by rioters/protesters.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:16 pm | Comment

Can you give me the link please? And I totally disagree - I would not assume the 22 were shot to death by the Chinese. Not at all. Is that truly the very best example you can find? If so, your argument has very weak legs. And the link is important so we can see the context, and determine whether anything was said before or after that clarifies the numbers.

Out to lunch, back later…

March 30, 2008 @ 12:23 pm | Comment

Here is the link

That’s not the best example I can find. As I said, WSJ has actually a relative balanced coverage on this. I cited this example simple because that is just published on WSJ (online).

March 30, 2008 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

Yes, not all people would assume the 22 were shot to death by the Chinese. However, the point is the Chinese number and the Tibetan number meant totally different things. And it was pretty slick to mix those two together without any clarification before or after. And please let me know if I missed anything after you read the whole article.

March 30, 2008 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

The Western media may have been fooled at first about the Iraq WMDs, but do you know the NYT did a front-page mea culpa about it, explaining why they got the story wrong and apologizing for it?

Yes, NYT did a Mea Culpa, but the story apparently did not end there. Three years after, in 2006, 50% Americans believed Iraq had WMD, up from previous year’s 36%.

March 30, 2008 @ 1:00 pm | Comment

How about a caption contest?

http://i29.tinypic.com/etdys7.jpg

March 30, 2008 @ 1:11 pm | Comment

“Is that truly the very best example you can find? If so, your argument has very weak legs. And the link is important so we can see the context, and determine whether anything was said before or after that clarifies the numbers.”

Richard, in public opinion, perception is everything. Bottom line is that, most chinese think western media is biased. This perception is supported by a couple evidence shown at anti-ccn.com website. That is enough.

Look, lots of oversea chinese who do not particularly like CCP share the same view. The western media certainly pushed a lot of Chinese to CCP side. Don’t you think western media should reflect on that a little bit?

Without sympathy from Chinese, what can Dalai achieve? Can NATO bomb China like Serbia?

March 30, 2008 @ 2:04 pm | Comment

Here is a parade in Canada protesting western media bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B7YgNYuGzw&eurl

The last time so many oversea chinese had this big parade is 19 years ago protesting CCP. In a sense, CCP owes western media a big thanks!

March 30, 2008 @ 2:24 pm | Comment

Actually steve, the few people from China with whom I have spoken about this subject think anti-cnn.com is a joke (not in the literal, but in the figurative sense). A sign of the sad state of emotionalized blindness not only within China, but also the broader overseas community. I also know a few people who sadly would take it at face value. Nevertheless, unlike in China, where politically incorrect websites are blocked, we all have access to it here. Which of course, makes the premises of the website itself a complete and utter joke: “oh westerners deceived by the evil CNN, come and be enlightened about the Tibet situation by a bunch of people who get their news from the Propaganda Department!” My cable TV includes both CNN and CCTV4, something unimaginable in China, and personally, in my opinion, giving far too much leeway and credence to the liars at CCTV.

March 30, 2008 @ 3:22 pm | Comment

“Actually steve, the few people from China with whom I have spoken about this subject think anti-cnn.com is a joke (not in the literal, but in the figurative sense). A sign of the sad state of emotionalized blindness not only within China, but also the broader overseas community.”

Kevin, you are digressing here. Your psyco analysis, at best, is just your speculation. The key point is that mistakes in western media report were made. Their reporting style is sloppy at best. Deflecting issue by blaming others’ emotional problem is kind of lame.

The path forward for western media is to change their behavior and regain chinese trust. Well, you may say, Western media is for domestic consumption and probably will not give a damn about Chinese protest. CCP will certainly be happy to see that. That comes back to my whole point, CCP owes western media a big thanks!

March 30, 2008 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

@steve

“…CCP owes western media a big thanks!”

Well, CCP also helped a little blocking news reports, expelling reporters and tourist, taking out digital material, blocking news websites and also with their own blantant declarations against DL and free TBtans supporters.

On the other hand. TB issue, like TW and JAP are very sensitive in CH, and can easily touch a sensible nerve of CH nationalism. This is a problem for western media, most countries have leave behind this kind of “overemotional nationalism” Is a thing of the past for most of us.
I think it is therefore quite easy to trigger, unknowingly a CH nationalism flare up. Same news treatment for a similar crisis in most western countries would rarely awake such strong emotions. To us some of Chinese reactions seem a little paranoid.

This is something that reporters should be take into account in future news reporting.

I also think the OG played a role here. All in all I believe many Chinese (includind those critical to CCP policies) see it as “their country final presentation in society”, no wonder they may be fussier than usual.

March 30, 2008 @ 4:00 pm | Comment

Steve, I haven’t seen similar outbursts in response to the frequent “mistakes” (or, shall I say, lies) in the Chinese media. I’m not digressing here: the protests and the anti-CNN website are manifestations of a fundamental immaturity.
Furthermore, I don’t think that Chinese paranoia and hypocrisy is something that the Western media should take into account in future reporting. When you have information, you report it, rather than trying to cover it up and sugarcoat it to please the tired old farts in zhongnanhai. That’s a substantial difference, and one that should not be obliterated by delusions.

March 30, 2008 @ 4:18 pm | Comment

@steve
“he key point is that mistakes in western media report were made.”

There are good and bad reporting news reporting. The main issue is that news reports for us are not the “revealed truth”.

No matter how good the journalist or news media can be. There is not substitute for ones own critical thinking to build ones self opinion.

My impression if that some Chinese people takes some western news reports as the “twisted revealed truth” of an enemy against them. Specially the more critic/blatant ones. They may not be aware that we take all reports with a critical view, and that our opinions do not depend just only on them.
A side effect of controlled media/thinking environment in China?

March 30, 2008 @ 4:19 pm | Comment

I equate the Chinese anti-Western media people with the kind of people who put stickers that say “support our troops” with big flags on their cars and blindly embrace the latest spin on the Iraq War. An “anti-bias” protest is nothing more than a pro-imperialism march, and as I have said many times before, such an approach would have left us in Vietnam until the present day.

March 30, 2008 @ 4:24 pm | Comment

@kevin
“I don’t think that Chinese paranoia and hypocrisy is something that the Western media should take into account in future reporting.”

Agreed that there should be no limits to news reporting, no matter how sensitive an issue could be for somebody.

But due Chinese complexities, it seems advisable that the information should be more detailed analyzed before publishing, instead of quick jumping at the first incident report.
China is changing fast, therefore some of our perceptions of the country become obsolete very fast. (and that is 100% Chinas fault!… A reporter “automatic reaction” to a given incident may not take into account the current state of affairs in China neither todays Chinese minds.
The probability of a misunderstanding is therefore quite high.

Regrettably the CCP, with its media/internet contorls, is not given a helping hand for this task……

March 30, 2008 @ 4:34 pm | Comment

More than a helping hand, I would say.
My problem is that no more sensitivity should go into a report about China than about, say, France. Remember Freedom Fries? I think the French played it off pretty cool, because many probably knew that the official French stance was more reasonable than the stance propagated at the time in the US (”dey’z gotz missilez- let’s getem!”). The exact opposite is true in the China-tibet affair: defenders of Chinese policy are in the wrong; thus, much like Nanjing Massacre deniers, the people at anti-CNN will pick apart minute details as a way of distracting attention from broader truths, and no one should play along with their game.
Facts should be checked, and I don’t like mistakes… but do these mistakes change the nature of the situation in Tibet, which the Party media is distorting? Despite the inability of certain “patriotic” sectors of the broader Chinese public to discuss the utter falsity of the Chinese media while foaming at the mouth about CNN, reports about China in the Western media should be held to the exact same standard as those about other countries.

March 30, 2008 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

A view from the Spanish media.
ABC.es newspaper.
Translated through Google. Far from perfect …, but (almost) understandable.

http://tinyurl.com/ywozqq

For those who know the spanish language ….. the original link

http://tinyurl.com/268pyl

March 30, 2008 @ 5:12 pm | Comment

Another view from Spanish media
Elpais.es. Newspaper.
Both newspaper are on opposite side of political spectrum.
ABC (center right, conservative)
Elpais (center left, social democracy)

Translation by Google courtesy (have a look at the last paragraph for interesting remark)
http://tinyurl.com/2m2pzq

Original in Spanish
http://tinyurl.com/35pgug

March 30, 2008 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

And last view from Publico.es newspaper.

More to the Left(social democracy+socialist) than Elpais

http://tinyurl.com/2jxo7b

Original as usual in Spanish…
http://tinyurl.com/348rod

March 30, 2008 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

@ steve
“The path forward for western media is to change their behavior and regain chinese trust.”

Another comedian.

The path forward is for everyone to accept that true objectivity is an unattainable ideal, but that the Chinese media lags so far behind the west on the spectrum of balanced reporting that the current maelstrom can only be viewed as a product of China’s own lamentable track record.

March 30, 2008 @ 7:14 pm | Comment

(CNN) — CNN has been singled out for criticism for our coverage of events
in Tibet through an anti-CNN.com Web site and elsewhere. We have provided
comprehensive coverage of all sides of this story, but two specific
allegations relate to pro-Tibetan bias. We would like to take this chance to
respond to them:

Allegation 1: CNN intentionally cropped an image in order to remove Tibetan
protesters throwing stones at Chinese trucks.

CNN refutes all allegations by bloggers that it distorts its coverage of the
events in Tibet to portray either side in a more favorable light. We have
consistently and repeatedly shown all sides of this story. The one image in
question was used wholly appropriately in the specific editorial context and
there could be no confusion regarding what it was showing, not least
because it was captioned: “Tibetans throw stones at army vehicles on a
street in the capital Lhasa.” The picture gallery included in Tibet
storiesincludes the image. (See the gallery)

We have also published images showing violence by Tibetans against the
Chinese. A March 18 story shows Tibetan youths attacking a Chinese man. (
Read the story)

Additi