If Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed finds herself on an extended holiday, she would be advised to strike China off her list of refuge spots.
Sneed wrote in the Chicago newspaper on Tuesday that the Virginia Tech gunman was Chinese. On Tuesday evening, Virginia State Police identified the killer as South Korean. During the twelve hours between Sneed’s column hitting the shelves and the official statement, China was quivering. A host of international websites carried the story “Chinese student suspected of Virginia massacre”. The main international news agencies wisely chose to wait for the official statement much to the relief of Xinhua. Alarm bells were ringing on the eighth floor, which is home to the international news department, and there was a flurry of activity to work out how to report the nationality of the gunman.
In the end, we will never know how they planned to approach it but suffice to say the senior editors were delighted when “South Korea” was read out at the press conference. Back-slapping and congratulations ensued - one editor said that it would have been a inconceivable loss of face if the gunman had been Chinese. Xinhua can now go forth and write about the incident all they want but there is no doubt that if the gunman had been Chinese the reporting would have been understated to say the least. Galling really. To think a potential loss of face dwarfed a sense of responsibility to report such a tragic world news event.
A CCTV 9 news bulletin around 10pm on Tuesday did not lead with the story. It showed no footage from Virginia, choosing to settle with the Foreign Ministry statement expressing China’s condolences. It could be pure cynicism on my part but I wonder if the decision to report it this way was made on the assumption that the gunman was Chinese. I welcome slap downs from CCTV 9ers on this point. But on the subject of CCTV 9, their midnight bulletin, although following standard practice, inspired a hefty rant. The main news item was the Pakistani Prime Minister’s visit to China including a three-minute interview. It was followed by Wen Jiabao meeting the top Greek legislator, who promised to raise the strategic partnership … Then came China and Tunisia relations before finally a report - with footage - of the Virginia police naming South Korean student Cho Seung-Hui.
doug | 18-Apr-07 at 2:45 am | Permalink
Michael Sneed is a woman.
cat | 18-Apr-07 at 3:57 am | Permalink
No slap-down from me. We work under the much same constraints from the men upstairs, though the restraints on TV are often greater than for print news.
There are various factors in this - one of them, like at Xinhua, being the nationality of the killer. But it’s not the only one. I was too busy to be able to look through earlier scripts in English and Chinese, so there’s a lot I don’t know. But it appears that some decisions were taken independently by different channels.
Joel at Danwei has translated some of the reactions to the killings - online and on TV. One is from a Chinese-language blog by a CCTV reporter (I don’t know which channel). From what she writes, their story was killed at midday. At CCTV-9, I’m told we did run the report in the midday news. I won’t know till tomorrow where it was placed in the bulletin and what was included. But I do know it was cut from later broadcasts.
Someone went upstairs to talk to the managers about this, and how bad it looked. The managers said they understood and would see what they could do. This doesn’t give us any indication of whose decision it was to cut the reports. Were they told to do this by the propaganda department, or did they make that decision (later than Chinese-language channels) on their own out of fear of criticism from the propaganda chiefs? I don’t know.
The 10pm piece you saw was virtually a repeat of what went out at 7pm. No pictures. Just a short statement about China condemning the attack and sending condolences. But there is a clear difference that should be kept in mind - the 10pm news is China Today, which is news about China. For that reason, I don’t think it was wrong to limit the story to China’s official reaction. It’s placing in the line-up, however, was inappropriate. It should have been the first item.
The 7pm broadcast was a very different matter. It’s called World Wide Watch. It’s supposed to be about the world. There was no excuse for limiting coverage to a simple statement half way through. (And I agree with you about the midnight news.)
Whoever made the ill-advised decision to stop the reports provided yet more evidence of how counterproductive so much of the media-as-crude-propaganda model is. By doing this, they managed to make us a part of the story - something that should avoided at all costs. And by cutting the story, they seriously undermined the Foreign Ministry’s expressions of condolence. Why would any American watching CCTV-9 take Li Zhaoxing’s letter remotely seriously, when it seemed clear that CCTV was far more concerned with China’s own image than the victims of the killings? And it’s not only Americans who are offended by this kind of insensitivity. The consequences of that should be crystal clear to everyone, but apparently it isn’t.
That’s my view so far on that aspect of the decision making. But TV in China has other restrictions. TV reporting everywhere is usually very shallow, but images are powerful. Because of that power, reports are sometimes censored or cut altogether when they have been widely covered in the print news. Sometimes that stems from political concerns; sometimes it’s fear of copycats.
A dramatic example of the latter was the start of the Beslan crisis. When I got to work that day, writers had already prepared the story and were editing the pictures. Then the order came down that there was to be no coverage of it whatsoever. Meanwhile, the day before there had been some other armed action in Russia and a telephone interview had already been arranged with someone in Moscow to discuss it. I can’t remember what that incident was - it paled in comparison to a school full of children held hostage by terrorists.
But we had been ordered to make no mention at all of the Beslan siege. The interview went ahead - and the Russian on the other end of the line was left in utter confusion at the series of questions about an incident that no one cared about anymore at a time when the lives of hundreds of children were hanging in the balance. The order was lifted the next day, but for a while Beslan did not exist on CCTV.
There was a reason for this news blackout. It was the first day of the new school year in Russia. It was also the beginning of school in China. The leaders were clearly terrified that someone here might copy the idea and seek his own revenge and fame by attacking a school. In fact, around that time a lunatic did indeed attack children with a knife at a school in Beijing. A similar incident happened elsewhere. In this respect, to some extent, the motives behind the censorship were valid. A small, but dangerous minority of people get ideas from TV about ways they can vent their anger at society. And if mass murder brings national fame with wall-to-wall news coverage, it can encourage some to seek that recognition themselves.
I have no idea if this consideration was at play on Tuesday. Quite possibly not. But there is a great deal of potential for violence on Chinese campuses. I’ve never collected data to compare them with universities in other countries, but the number of suicides and murders was enough for an NPC delegate to express serious concern several years ago. At the time he did that, I’d already been struck by the number of deaths in one year at just one college in the suburbs of Beijing. Unlike the United States, guns are not so easy to get hold of, so the number of victims is smaller.
That’s a possible secondary reason for limited coverage of Monday’s killings. I have no idea if it was part of the decision-making process or not. But there is a very clear need for a serious rethink of policy. If the killer had been Chinese, China’s censorship of the story would have turned a crime committed by one disturbed individual into an international story about China. The propaganda bosses would have produced the very thing they were trying to avoid. Do they understand this at all?
Transpacific Triangle » A Shame Scare as VT Shooter Thought to be Chinese by Graham Webster | 18-Apr-07 at 6:08 am | Permalink
[...] UPDATE: James Fallows writes on the same issue, with examples of reports quoting the Sun-Times columnist who apparently triggered many stories about the Chinese suspect. So does China Newspeak. [...]
CHINABLÄTTER » Blog Archive » Ill-informed Chicago columnist scares the hell out of China | 18-Apr-07 at 6:51 am | Permalink
[...] newspaper [Chicago Sun-Times] on Tuesday that the Virginia Tech gunman was Chinese …”. Quelle: Beijing Newspeak [...]
Rupprecht Mayer | 18-Apr-07 at 7:04 am | Permalink
There was a short entry on the English Xinhua website, saying that the gunmen might be a Chinese student. I did a link on the blog http://www.chinabablaetter.info around 2 or 3 pm yesterday, but deleted it later.
R.Mayer
Rupprecht Mayer | 18-Apr-07 at 7:06 am | Permalink
read “chinablaetter” instead of “chinabablaetter”.
RM
zhwj | 18-Apr-07 at 7:44 am | Permalink
Nice post, and excellent comments, cat.
The CCTV reporter I mentioned works on “360″, the news channel’s nightly hour-long broadcast, so cat’s criticisms apply there as well, particularly because the reporter also mentions that the program had done reports on American school violence not long ago.
The Hao Hao Report | 18-Apr-07 at 8:52 am | Permalink
Virginia Tech Shooting: Chicago columnist scares the hell out of China…
If Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed finds himself on an extended holiday, he would be advised to strike China off his list of refuge spots.
Sneed wrote in the Chicago newspaper on Tuesday that the Virginia Tech gunman was Chinese. On Tuesday …
John Macdonald | 18-Apr-07 at 9:16 am | Permalink
Cat, I don’t think it’s a question of whether they “understand” the problems they’re causing, so much as whether they actually care what the rest of the world thinks.
It wouldn’t be the first time that China’s “propaganda bosses” have undermined their own Foreign Ministry officials.
Think back to October 12 last year. At the exact same time that Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao was assuring foreign media that the authorities would investigate the alleged shootings of two Tibetans attempting to cross into Nepal, the state media were publishing a very questionable version of events. In the official version a large group of “illegal stowaways” attacked border patrol guards. One person died, but no shooting was mentioned. However, that contrasted with the eyewitness accounts of two British policeman and the video footage shot by a Romanian TV cameraman.
Needless to say, the foreign media had a field day reporting the “different accounts” in official statements.
You would think that a competent propaganda machine would have everyone reading from the same script. This apparently doesn’t happen.
However, this should be no surprise. If they can’t communicate the news properly to the general public, why should they be able to communicate among themselves?
The Foreign Ministry constantly tries to say what might be considered acceptable to the international community, only to be tripped up by China’s own media. The result isn’t that the truth gets out, only that every official utterance seems unbelievable.
You would think the Foreign Ministry would be highly annoyed at this state of affairs, but it appears they just don’t care.
Feng37 | 18-Apr-07 at 10:04 am | Permalink
Great post. Just found this, thought it worth putting here: http://www.bullog.cn/blogs/wenyunchao/archives/47328.aspx
cindy | 18-Apr-07 at 10:34 am | Permalink
That point that is REALLY missing is: why is it so important that news has to be out SO QUICKLY, these days, whether facts have been checked and re-checked? Consider the nature of the news: a killer that is already dead. First it is not that important. Secondly, the killer is not going to run away …
Where is quality of media these days?
Charlie | 18-Apr-07 at 10:59 am | Permalink
Just to complete the State media wrap: to the best of my understanding China Daily was going to cover - and if nothing bigger happened elsewhere lead - with the shootings, no matter whether killer was Chinese of otherwise.
I’m not involved in news pages now so that’s not definitive, and I’m sure if the killer was confirmed to be a Chinese national that would have changed the reporting considerably, but I didn’t feel there was the same fear and censorship at work in the CD newsroom last night as yourself and Cat reported.
Then again, the paper isn’t on quite as tight a leash Xinhua and CCTV-9.
In response to Cat’s comments on not reporting certain international issues, the CD plays that game too - but it’s not in a bid to avoid copycat attacks…it’s in fear of angry letters from embassies (they only people read the paper).
So, what this means is that there are limits to what can be reported on countries like Iran, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and others from China’s motley collection of “friends”…
I find this very arrogant - no one in these countries is going to be reading CD and getting personally offended by it, and the embassies must know full-well that Xinhua, and not CD, is the official voice of China - so CD seems to be giving itself a tremendously excessive self-importance to put itself above reporting on, say, the decline of the Zimbabwe economy.
In an encouraging development, on Monday our boss (!) Cai Wu met Tony Blair, so this could well herald a new era of sophisticated spin in place of today’s failing propaganda.
In Bloom Michael Sneed, shameless woman « | 18-Apr-07 at 11:41 am | Permalink
[...] news of the shooting were blocked to limit subsequent details from reaching China. As reported in this blog from Beijing, parts of CCTV and the other official news outlets downplayed all announcements about [...]
Chris O'Brien | 18-Apr-07 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Excellent comments Cat - I hear cries for a new CCTV-9 blog …
As John points out, it is yet another example of China’s propaganda bods showing a total lack of disregard for the Foreign Ministry. I expect some members of the FM are incredibly irked by this but there is very little they can do. In such a mechanical process in which each department follows its job description to the letter, there seems little room for pausing to take stock of the overall situation. The propaganda department believes it has performed its role - to control news that might harm China’s image. The Foreign Ministry believes it has performed its role in releasing a statement expressing China’s condolences. The two actions, as in the Tibet shooting incident, are completely unrelated. We are left to wonder what the higher beings who have authority over both departments are actually doing.
Of course, having said that, CCTV and Xinhua might have being indulging in that most cowardly of practices, self-censorship. Indeed, the first reaction of many Xinhua editors was one of embarrassment. Apparently one cited an incident around ten years ago (which I am not familiar with) in which a Chinese gunman killed American students, saying that for something like this to have happened again would be devastating. This mindset blocks any chances of improvement in the reporting of these kinds of events. State media organs need to be putting pressure on their superiors, not encouraging them.
I do feel sorry for Michael Sneed. Not only did she (to be polite..) make a boo boo she was labelled a man by an ignorant blogger. That is my admission. Maybe news sources like the Times would, in future, follow suit in acknowledging mistakes. In a search on Google News last night for the Virginia story, a Times headline talked of a Chinese gunman. But when I clicked on the headline, the gunman was South Korean with no mention of any previous incorrect reports.
By the way, in addition to Feng’s link, here is a summary of a few links to other blogs on this issue:
http://www.danwei.org/media_regulation/xinhua_cctv_and_the_virgina_te.php
http://www.danwei.org/breaking_news/school_shooting.php
http://jamesfallows.com/test/2007/04/17/virginia-tech-shooting-one-american-woman-terrifies-china/#more-205
http://www.shanghaiist.com/archives/2007/04/18/and_so_the_kill.php
http://gwbstr.com/b
http://josieliu.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-massacre-let-chinese.html
Journalism and the World | 18-Apr-07 at 11:57 am | Permalink
Chinese media reaction to Virginia Tech gunman story…
For a little while yesterday, there was a rumor that the gunman may have been a Chinese student who got……
davesgonechina | 18-Apr-07 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
@Cat:
I’m with all the way, except for one thing: CCTV (in Chinese) apparently did report on Beslan on September 1st, approx 4:30 pm.
http://www.cctv.com/news/world/20040901/101898.shtml
Withholding the story from CCTV-9 to prevent Chinese parents from worrying doesn’t make any sense. They don’t watch it.
The Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Sorrow over a horrible tragedy (but relief that the killer wasn’t Chinese) | 18-Apr-07 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
[...] Beijing Newspeak, a blog written by a foreign copy editor working at Xinhua, has a post here on the mood in his state newsroom as it was revealed that the gunman was Korean-American, not [...]
Letters from China | 18-Apr-07 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
新華社公信第一…
大量事實證明，新華社始終代表我國傳媒先進生產力，黨指揮媒體有必要性。…
AsiaPundit » Blog Archive » links for 2007-04-18 | 18-Apr-07 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
[...] CHINA - Ill-informed Chicago columnist scares the hell out of China “In the end, we will never know how they planned to approach it but suffice to say the senior editors were delighted when “South Korea” was read out at the press conference. Back-slapping and congratulations ensued - one editor said that it would have [...]
Tony’s Blog » Blog Archive » Shooting at Virginia Tech | 18-Apr-07 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
[...] news of the shooting were blocked to limit subsequent details from reaching China. As reported in this blog from Beijing, parts of CCTV and the other official news outlets downplayed all announcements about [...]
China Law Blog | 18-Apr-07 at 11:28 pm | Permalink
Early on during this horrible incident, I received a comment saying the shooter was Chinese (from Guangdong) and was shooting people out of anger that his Chinese girlfriend had left him for a caucasion. The comment was meant to show Chinese hate caucasions. I did not run the comment (for among other reasons) because even if true, I did not see it as a “Chinese thing,” but a “crazy evil person thing.” Nobody should attribute the actions of one person to a country of 1.3 billion.
Now, what I am finding more troubling is how quick the Korean press was to stick it to the US on this, BEFORE they learned the shooter was Korean. I am not going to blame Korea in the least for the shooter, but it does deserve blame for its smugness.
fridayinlove | 18-Apr-07 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
“The main international news agencies wisely chose to wait for the official statement much to the relief of Xinhua”, what you said is not true. As far as I know, Fox, Bloomberg all put the unconfirmed info in their titles, and a lot others, ex. CNN etc cited in their articles. While you are poking your finger to Xinhua or CCTV you might not have realized the tremendous yet well disguised propaganda power your trustful “main international news agencies” have.
SimpLife | 19-Apr-07 at 1:16 am | Permalink
校园枪击:中媒失职，美媒无过？…
美国时间本周1发生在弗吉尼亚理工大学的校园枪击案，造成了32人死亡，包括凶手本人共33人丧生，是美国有史以来校园枪击死亡人数最多的一次。引起了全球性的关注，布什亲自发表全国讲….
MARY ZHANG | 19-Apr-07 at 3:24 am | Permalink
I AM NOT KOREAN. GIVE ME A GUN, SOMEONE. I WANT TO DO SOME SHOOTING MYSELF — AIMING AT MICHAEL. SHE/HE SURELY DESERVES IT! WHAT A MUTT. (”SHOOTER IS CHINESE” INDEED…)
bingster | 19-Apr-07 at 3:32 am | Permalink
Fox News had “experts” and “consultants” talking about “Chinese killer” and “spies” all day before the shooter was finally identified as a Korean.
ABC Evening News and NBC Evening News all reported the shooter was Chinese, citing “Chicago Sun-Times”. The only major network didn’t follow suit is CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.
Major internally news outlets from BBC UK to Australia (smh, “The Australian”), all reported the suspect was Chinese.
On the other hand, credit to NYT/Washington Post etc, they didn’t rush into judgment.
But overall, I couldn’t say “main international news agencies wisely chose to wait for the official statement” like you characterized.
cat | 19-Apr-07 at 3:42 am | Permalink
Dave — You’re absolutely right, but that was one of the few early reports before the blackout was imposed. Incidentally, HBO and the BBC produced an excellent but heartbreaking documentary about the Beslan siege, told only by the children who were there. No adults are included and there’s no voiced narration - just the children describing their horrific experience and the effect it had on their lives.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/childrenbeslan/index.html
SS | 19-Apr-07 at 5:13 am | Permalink
LOL, let’s face it:
It’s not the disinformed or mistaken report, but political motivated report - every single Chinese knows it, some guys just want to make points from THAT THING, from the bood of victims.
And Chinese know it from the viey first minute of the news. It’s widely discussed and analyzed on Chinese internet forums. They perfectly konw why and how it comes out - no mistake.
What the news achieved is that it successfully distracts Chinese attention from mourning the dead into a propaganda lesson - and they do learn something, a job well done.
Chris O'Brien | 19-Apr-07 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Maybe “main international news agencies” was far too loose a term to describe AP, Reuters and AFP (the agencies I was referring to in my mind). Spending a day at Xinhua without the delights of Internet Explorer on my computer seems to have narrowed my scope to the big three. But Fox News, CNN, ABC Evening News, NBC Evening News etc do not enjoy “international news agency” status in my book.
It was indeed widely reported in Britain, Australia and further afield, something the Chinese Foreign Ministry seems to have chosen to ignore in their criticisms of U.S. media.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/18/content_5993865.htm
And on a lighter note, thanks Charlie for the Tony snippet. I am eagerly awaiting his debut “Hotpot” column when he has a bit more spare time.
聞.見.思.錄 » 槍擊．Faux Pas | 19-Apr-07 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
[...] woman Transpacific Triangle, A Shame Scare as VT Shooter Thought to be Chinese Beijing Newspeak, Ill-informed Chicago columnist scares the hell out of China 海市蜃樓：Bloodbath in Virginia 血洗弗吉尼亚 徘徊在玻璃之城：Virginia [...]
swb | 19-Apr-07 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
I love the moral hypocrisy oozing from Chris O’Brien and this post in general.
In effect, he turns the issue of how the American media “misreported” the nationality of the Virginia shooting into a self-righteous diatribe about Chinese media and censorship.
Like most of the Western “free press,” America’s media coverage of this shooting is not exactly anything to boast about. Similar to its coverage of other past school shootings, the US media has engaged in round-the-clock national hysteria and handwringing about V-Tech in order to whip up public fear about this issue and to cover up America’s underlying social pathologies that this and other school/workplace massacres reflect.
O’Brien also ignores the reality that this (mis)reporting of the Virginia shooter’s nationality simply reflects how the American media will often use the race/ethnicity of a criminal suspect in order to tacitly demonize that person’s race, ethnicity, or country of origin in general.
This is seen by how the US media frames issues like so-called “Black crime,” Latino “illegal” immigration, or, most importantly, the War on Terrorism and the American demonization of Muslims/Arabs.
The US media has also played up the fact that Cho Seung-Hui is an immigrant from South Korea (i.e., not a “true American”), even though he emigrated to the USA in 1992 when he was only 7 or 8 years old and was raised as “an American” in everything but name.
And on the issue of media spin and censorship, it is very amusing when some American or Westerner rants about press freedom in China, but they deny or downplay the grand lies peddled by the Western and American free press that have been used to justify America’s wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan.
This Western controlled media–which is globally dominant–has pushed every half-truth and whole lie about “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the phony War on Terrorism, and 9-11 terrorist attacks, yet Western citizens boast about how their nations and media represent freedom itself. Anglo-Americans of course are the most arrogant of them all.
Perhaps, there’s a much greater need for a blog entitled AmericanNewspeak or AngloNewspeak?
http://www.countercurrents.org/walsh190407.htm
MARY ZHANG | 20-Apr-07 at 4:31 am | Permalink
THANK YOU, SWB! WELL SAID. TRUER OBSERVATIONS THAN YOURS, WERE NEVER MADE: THE W. MEDIA SPIN OF EVERY “STORY” INTO TIRELESS ANTI-CHINA DIATRIBE!
Truth | 20-Apr-07 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Well said, SWB! You really hit the nail on the head. Too bad all the Chris O’Briens of the world can’t wake up Chinese one day.
SinaSource | 20-Apr-07 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
How anyone can take CCTV 9 or China Daily seriously eludes me. They are propaganda arms, not in any way, shape or form, news worthy.
Too many foreigners who cannot read Chinese think that they are reliable and indicative. They are neither. Their sole purpose is to provide a happy face to foreigners. And many here have clearly bought into that.
Nina | 20-Apr-07 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
SWB, Mary and Truth – I think you may have missed the point of BEIJING newspeak which seemingly charts observations and sadly, the all-too-frequent short comings of news reporting and censorship in CHINA, by CHINESE media organisations.
“O’Brien also ignores the reality that this (mis) reporting of the Virginia shooter’s nationality simply reflects how the American media will often use the race/ethnicity of a criminal suspect in order to tacitly demonize that person’s race, ethnicity, or country of origin in general”
Personally I don’t feel this point was ignored by O’Brien and although a valid and depressing observation on your part, again irrelevant to the way in which CHINA handled the affair. I think we all appreciate that the Western media is not whiter than white but as you so observed, perhaps your comments and slap down would be better reserved for AmericanNewspeak or AngloNewspeak.
Eyes East » Blog Archive » Virginia Tech and China: Nationalizing a tragedy | 20-Apr-07 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
[...] Part of the blame for this uproar can be laid at the desk of Michael Sneed, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who first reported the Chinese connection. State media gets a finger wag, too, for doing exactly what one might expect a government-controlled press in a country with identity issues to do. (Excellent post on Beijing Newspeak.) [...]
Everlasting | 20-Apr-07 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
Wow, this thread certainly degraded into mindless “you Western Imnperialists do it too!” mudslinging with the last 3 pointless threads.
SWB, your message essential skipped the entire point of the discussion, and the reason why the VirginiaTech story was mentioned in the first place. That is, it shed some insight into how certain controversial news is reported in China. Your retort was really just a “your worse you Imperialist” rant. Short on substance, heavy in reactionary nationalism.
The comments on the way in which the Chinese media interpreted and chose to go about reporting such news was very interesting, and highly relevant to a blog devoted to (ahem … drum ring) Chinese news media. That within the first 24 hours some American news media were itching to find an angle on the tragedy misreported the identity and ethnicity of the gunman can be chalked up to irresponsible journalistic oversight. That heavy criticism of the manner of that reporting ensued, can be chalked up to the same open society you seem to deride, and whose fruits of labor your seem to enjoy but disparage. That the Chinese reaction to this has been allegations of racism and national humiliation is nothing less than insightful.
I found ESWN’s entry related to this topic to be very insightful.
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20070418_1.htm
mkb | 20-Apr-07 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
Nice one, swb!
多维博客 » 一个美国女人吓坏了中国 | 20-Apr-07 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
[...] news of the shooting were blocked to limit subsequent details from reaching China. As reported in this blog from Beijing, parts of CCTV and the other official news outlets downplayed all announcements about [...]
Mark Binnersley | 20-Apr-07 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
@swb
What planet are you on?
Would you rather the US media was subject to a news blackout everytime something potentially embarrassing or problematic for the government happened? The fact that the media was able to freely report or misreport this event is something to be cherished.
Obviously, it is every journalist’s duty to report events accurately, but mistakes do happen. The thing is my friend, these mistakes are soon exposed in a pluralistic society with a free press. Had one element of the Chinese media made a similar mistake, do you think others would have been able to expose it? I doubt it. They’d have been told not to discuss it.
Besides, the whole point of Chris’s comment is about the Chinese reaction. He doesn’t pretend that the US media is perfect. In fact he’s not even defending it any way. Let’s examine his first three sentences to make the point: “If Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed finds herself on an extended holiday, she would be advised to strike China off her list of refuge spots. Sneed wrote in the Chicago newspaper on Tuesday that the Virginia Tech gunman was Chinese. On Tuesday evening, Virginia State Police identified the killer as South Korean.” Hardly complimentary. To me it suggests Sneed’s a bit incompetent.
Anyway, your strategy of defending something by criticising its opposite number is a primitive way of arguing a point.
Your claim that the Western press peddles lies, however, is true to a certain extent but there is enough plurality among its ranks to ensure these untruths are exposed, the Iraq war being a classic example. Here the UK and US media both carried the government lies in the run up to the war, but the objective journalistic instincts among members of the free press exposed them within a fairly short space of time.
As for the race issue. Well, maybe you have a point on that, too. I don’t know the US media well enough in this area to comment. But I do think that it is relevant to report the ethnicity of person in a story as big as this. Every aspect of this incident has to be examined, to help people come to terms with it, if nothing else. And surely it is legitimate to want to know what is so repulsive about a society that would make a foreigner want to take up arms against it.
The Western media isn’t perfect and there are issues surrounding the accountability of the people who own it, but this is surely better than a system which keeps an entire nation in the dark about important issues of public interest to protect the power of a few.
cat | 21-Apr-07 at 12:23 am | Permalink
swb, I’m sure there are many things we would agree on, eg the way British and American media have fairly consistently acted to mold public opinion in favour of military action and the expansion of geopolitical control. In the case of Iraq, many government lies have now been widely exposed in the media, but it’s a bit too late - the damage has already been done.
However, I think your criticisms are little misplaced here. Chris briefly described his own experience on Tuesday - at work and then watching two TV news bulletins here in China. It seems a little unfair to attack him because he didn’t also provide an analysis of the coverage of CNN, Fox, NBC etc and tie all that in to the invasion of Iraq, the “war on terrorism” and race-relations in America.
The misreporting of the killer’s identity is only one small aspect of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. But it did suddenly put the spotlight on two extremes: sensationalism and rumour-reported-as-fact in America, and total shut-down in China.
One thing that surprises me is that anyone really believed the “reports” in the first place. They started from a tabloid newspaper’s gossip column in Chicago that opened with the words “Sneed hears…”. Michael Sneed then went on to say that according to an unnamed source, police were “investigating whether the gunman… was a Chinese national who arrived in the United States last year on a student visa.” She did not say this student was the killer. And not only did she not name her source, she didn’t even give an indication of that source’s credentials - was it a police officer, a student, a post on a blog? Why would officials in Virginia break the story to a gossip columnist in Illinois?
So no one should have been treating this as anything other than one unconfirmed rumour among many - something to be checked with real, confirmed sources.
Some news organizations did hold back. Others didn’t, choosing instead to “report” it as fact, turning Sneed’s “police are investigating whether…” into “the identity of the killer has been confirmed”. This latter group included Chinanews. com which then spread like wildfire here in China. Why?
Those media outlets in the US, Britain, Australia and China that chose to jump the gun should have done some basic fact-checking first. But the instinctive reaction by some to stop any mention of Virginia Tech whatsoever was equally ridiculous. Somewhere along the wide spectrum between wild rumour and total blackout is responsible reporting. This shouldn’t be an issue of “West is good, East is bad”, or vice-versa.
As well as deep sadness, there seems to be a great deal of anger in the US right now with so many people blaming each other. That’s a shame, but I suppose it’s understandable. One of the objects of that anger is now sensationalism in the media. But I’d like to repeat what I said earlier - if the killer really had been Chinese, the media shutdown here might have redirected part of that anger to China. It would have produced the very thing the media chiefs wanted to avoid.
This is all very depressing, so I’ll end with a link to Jon Stewart’s interview with former Iraqi minister Ali Allawi on the Daily Show the other night. At the end, Stewart links the situation in Iraq with the Virginia Tech murders in a way that promotes sympathy and understanding, rather than division:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/19/former-iraq-minister-ali-allawi-on-the-daily-show/
The Consequences of Lazy Journalism | ¡Para Justicia y Libertad! | 21-Apr-07 at 2:25 am | Permalink
[...] the story with such headlines “Chinese student suspected of Virginia massacre” and it actually caused a near panic in China. When the report turned out to be incorrect, Sneed’s article was removed and updated, however, [...]
swb | 21-Apr-07 at 3:51 am | Permalink
Based upon the defensive reactions of posters such as “Nina,” “Everlasting,” and “Mark Binnersley,” it looks like I have touched a political raw nerve.
Beneath their strident rhetoric about media censorship and freedom, these people are basically upset that I questioned their faith-based belief in Anglo-American “freedom” in general and their own vaunted Free Press in particular.
Perhaps one could describe this as a thinly disguised example of Anglo-American imperial nationalism at its most arrogant.
Their arguments essentially involve narrowing down the terms of debate strictly to the issue of the Chinese media not dutifully reporting that the VA Tech shooter was Chinese–an allegation itself produced by the American media that proved to be a lie … sorry, an understandable mistake.
It’s revealing that so many posters from Chris O’Brien on down have gleefully seized upon this issue in order to frame it as a question of media censorship in China, yet carefully minimize the significance of the original false allegation that’s the precipitating cause of this entire tempest in a teapot!
Basically, these posters here are in a self-righteous froth that the Chinese media did not immediately and faithfully regurgitate a false accusation created and promoted by the American media.
This must be their idea of how a true free press should work: dutifully repeat the disinformation of the Anglo-American/capitalist media.
swb | 21-Apr-07 at 4:03 am | Permalink
cat: I agree with much of what you say, but as I said before, the (mis)reporting of the shooter’s identity is not just an isolated example of American media fallibility to be rationalized away, as O’Brien et al. insist.
It reflects how the Anglo-American media in particular–not to mention the global capitalist (i.e., Western-controlled) media in general–will instinctively use the race, ethnicity, or national origin of a criminal in order to implicitly demonize that individual’s broader race, ethnicity, or country.
This type of demonization–both tacit and direct–is predominantly targeted against people of color, non-Westerners, non-Christians (like Muslims)–in short, anybody that is considered “Other” to the White, Western world. Certain other people here may downplay it, but there are many massive examples of this Anglo-American tradition that I mentioned involving Blacks, Latinos, and Arabs/Muslims in the USA’s phony “War on Terror.” Asians are not immune, and that’s the broader political context of this specific American media “mistake.”
As such, the political intent behind the American media’s misrepresentation of the VA Tech shooter as a Chinese student should at least be critically questioned.
For example, Michael Sneed’s employer, the _Chicago Sun-Times_, is part of Hollinger International Inc. and was previously owned by the infamous Conrad Black, currently on trial for money laundering, racketeering, mail and tax fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Hollinger Inc. also owns newspapers like England’s _Daily Telegraph_, Canada’s _National Post_, and Israel’s _Jerusalem Post_. Like these other papers, the Sun-Times has a distinguished history of Right Wing disinformation–the Anglo-American propaganda about Iraqi “Weapons of Mass Destruction” being only one recent criminal example.
As you mention, it is strange that the “respectable” American media would pick up on this story in the first place, given that it was broken by Sneed who is a *gossip* columnist.
Even some posters on the James Fallows article linked by O’Brien himself in message 14 above have raised the possibility that both Sneed’s original allegation–and the broader American media dissemination of it–were meant to serve, shall we say, certain political agendas.
Like Arabs/Islam, China is increasingly depicted as a “bogeyman” by the political Right Wing in particular, and America and its allies in general.
It wouldn’t be shocking if certain political elements of the USA were disappointed that the shooter turned out to be from South Korea, an American ally, rather than China. But to even broach these ideas is “conspiracy theory,” some here will no doubt insist.
A related example of this kind of media tactic is how the Anglo-American press has consistently emphasized that Cho Seung-hui is immigrant from South Korea, as if they want to portray the VA Tech shooter as foreign, Other, and not a real red-blooded American.
Cho himself came to the USA in 1992, when he was an 8-year-old boy. He was educated in American schools. He was socialized as an American. And he killed as an American.
Korean Americans (and other minorities) have noted how the American media have played up his ethnic Korean immigrant background–most likely for the political reasons that I mentioned.
Even the NYT mentions that UCLA Prof. Kyeyoung Park has “said she was troubled that Mr. Cho’s ethnicity had quickly become central to the narrative of his crime.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19korea.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fV%2fVirginia%20Polytechnic%20Institute%20and%20State%20University&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Earl Ofari Hutchinson notes that the “Korean [government] officials feared that many Americans might see the murderous assault as something more than the act of a lone deranged, individual. This was not a totally false fear. Cho was South Korean, and though he lived in the U.S. since he was a boy, he was called ‘a resident alien.’ That could easily stir anti-Asian and anti-immigrant hatreds among some.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/an-asian-man_b_46129.html
Everlasting | 21-Apr-07 at 8:48 am | Permalink
SWB, I see once again your post addresses ZERO of the substance of the original blog post regarding the process by which China’s press initially chose to report this tragedy.
You try to reframe the intent of the original post by introducing well known flaws in the American press (criticism of which is frequently found and voiced within the American media and blogsphere itself), then ignoring the subject of this blog, and the topic itself. The mistaken reporting of the gunman’s identity was but a minor issue in an otherwise problematic series of reports. Rather than see that such mistakes happen in the media all the time, regardless of country, you tellingly dwell on the issue of ethnicity and derive from that a sense of ethnic outrage.
One reporter, within the first few hours when almost no information was available misreported the gunman’s ethnicity. A minority of news media then cited this report. Yet within hours the reporter was proven wrong by the same media you so deride. Can you somehow point to even a shred of racial malice or questionable intent?
This blog then chose to report on how the Chinese press came to practice self-censorship due to the issue of ethnicity AND because it involved a large scale violent crime. The discussion did not simply dwell upon ethnicity. Its analysis is independent of whether the gunman was misidentified as Chinese, and had nothing to do with “faithfully regurgitating” a false accusation.
Funny how you can so warp a discussion because all you can see is racial outrage, which speaks much of your own personal bias.
As for me, I’m Chinese and find your moral waxing nothing less than entertaining.
mike | 21-Apr-07 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
What amazes me is how anyone takes serious the opinions of a couple of folk - cat and chris - working as ten a penny polishers at chinese news organisations (although you could say they take themselves serious enough for all of us).
Both are just observing what they see from their positions outside of the loop. they add to this their own knowledge and learning (which is great and interesting to read) but when it come to Xinhua dn CCTV9, neither has any insight beyond what they see. In the scheme of things they have about as much influence and insider knowledge as the janitor had at Enron, and I say this as someone who has known quite a number of folk wh have worked at both “news” organisations.
why people take it all so seriously and get into such heated discussions about the ins and outs of the news policy of Xinhua and CCTV is beyond me. head over to positive solutions blog for a bit of light relief in the polisher’s blogsphere. At least charlie realises his position in the big picture, rather than cat and chris who wish to (and for some odd reason believe they can) change china by adding an adjective here or deleting a comma there. Unbelievable.
Coree T. | 21-Apr-07 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
Mike writes: “cat and chris - working as ten a penny polishers at chinese news organisationsh… have about as much… insider knowledge as the janitor had at Enron…”
This seems a bit unfair. Wouldn’t the janitors at Enron have had access to waste bins full of incriminating evidence?
Mark Binnersley | 21-Apr-07 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
@swb
Go on then, just say it: you believe a state- controlled media is better than a free one. Then tell me why, please.
swb | 21-Apr-07 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Everlasting: Your angry comments show that I did strike a raw nerve by questioning your religious belief in the Western “Free Press” and freedom in general.
Like O’Brien’s original post, you’d rather dismiss any of the broader issues or political context impacting this topic that I mentioned–in favor of your narrow, and it appears hypocritical, concern for media censorship in China.
O’Brien’s post itself is hardly substantive, as it consists of 3 whole paragraphs heavy on sneering self-righteousness. Or maybe, 4 paragraphs if you include the one-liner that comprises the first sentence-long paragraph.
O’Brien asserts that Xinhua senior editors were “delighted” that the shooter was found to be from South Korea and includes a paraphrased quote from one editor about the potential loss of face. He also notes that the CCTV news coverage did not lead or emphasize the VA Tech shooting enough over other topics. The rest of his post is mostly his own speculation and what he believes is clever cynicism.
While Mr. O’Brien may be filled with moral outrage, he himself uncritically glosses over several broader questions about the “uninformed” article by Michael Sneed or the Anglo-American media in general–all of which I have addressed above and which you and others would rather duck.
In fact, if you read O’Brien’s post, he doesn’t even use the words “mistake” or “misidentify” (let alone more damaging adjectives that I would use) to describe Sneed’s fallacious article. He simply writes that Sneed wrote this article identifying the shooter as Chinese and then later the shooter was discovered to be of South Korean descent.
This is technically true, but somewhat disingenuous, as O’Brien carefully minimizes the bogus nature of the original allegation that started this whole nonsense. Instead, he prefers to emphasize in his gloating manner how “China was quivering” during this period.
Ultimately, like other posters, your very idea of press freedom in China in effect means the uncritical and yes faithful regurgitation of what the Anglo-American or global capitalist media *define as news* in the first place. That is what implicitly underlies your specific criticisms and overarching perspective.
In this case, however, the piece of American “news” about the identity of the VA Tech shooter turned out to be a fraud. I suppose that is an embarrassing and inconvenient truth for true believers in the Anglo-American free press.
Finally, if you believe that race, ethnicity, national origin, or even geopolitics have no pertinence in the VA Tech shooting or the Anglo-American media’s coverage of it, you–with all due respect–are either very ignorant about America or not exactly honest.
The South Korean government, for instance, has specifically expressed concerns about a possible racial backlash against Korean Americans in the USA, and President Roh even had an emergency cabinet meeting about the VA Tech shooting no less!
Some Korean-Americans have expressed fear about being harassed or targeted in response to this shooting, not unlike how Arabs and Muslims were attacked and even murdered by Americans after 9/11.
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/print_articles.asp?aid=366437&sid=WOR
And as I documented above, Korean Americans and people like Earl Ofari Hutchinson have specifically questioned why the Anglo-American media continually emphasizes that Cho Seung-hui is a South Korean/Asian immigrant or resident alien, even though he was brought up and raised in America since age 8.
To borrow a line from Mr. Binnersley above, what planet are you living on?
swb | 21-Apr-07 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
Binnersley: The State-controlled and so-called “Free Press” are not that different in effect. Your distinction itself is false. They both have their “flaws.” I wouldn’t choose either per se. However, I criticize the so-called Free Press because it is the dominant form of media on the planet and sets the news agenda globally.
By the way, where are you from? Why don’t you explain why you believe that your Free Press is “free”?
Because it is not state-controlled? Media does not need to be state-controlled to be manipulated and used as a propaganda mouthpiece. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s works like _Manufacturing Consent_ have analyzed how this supposed “free” media system really works.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html
What people here euphemistically call a “free press” is in fact a national capitalist-controlled press. It represents the interests of and is structurally controlled by your own national bourgeoisie, one could say.
It is curious why so many people here who pose as crusaders for media freedom and honesty in China are so politically defensive when I question the Anglo-American and capitalist media, which are dominant globally in influence and reach. This contradiction is why I doubt the sincerity of some people’s professed (and highly selective) concern for media freedom.
These people have an almost fundamentalist faith in the lie of the Western or capitalist free press as a system. I don’t.
This so-called free press has demonstrated that it is the greatest propaganda machine in the world, bar none. Media outlets like Xinhua or CCTV are clumsy and ineffectual amateurs compared to this Western propaganda machine, which is much more subtle, sophisticated, and ultimately effective in promoting lies and disinformation.
Most dangerous of all, this Western or capitalist media is able to gain legitimacy by disguising itself as “free” or “independent,” when it is anything but. With the “state-controlled media,” the issue of control is more openly admitted or obvious, one might say.
I know these assertions will be considered outrageous to many true believers, but one only has to look at some of the examples I alluded to such as:
1. The media lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction manipulated by the USA, UK, Australia, and allies to justify not only their aggression against Iraq in 2003 but also the genocidal economic sanctions, periodic bombings, and UN weapons inspectors charade imposed on Iraq throughout the 1990s.
2. The fraudulent nature of the Anglo-American-led War on Terror in general, including the invasion of Afghanistan. This war is not about fighting terrorism, but about expanding Anglo-American global domination, including geostrategic control of oil in the Middle East.
3. As documented by the 9/11 truth movement, the supposed “terrorist” attacks of 9/11 probably were perpetrated by the American government itself.
The evidence includes the belated air defense response by NORAD on Sept. 11th; the physical evidence about the collapse of the twin towers and surrounding buildings that suggests a possible controlled demolition; the links between Anglo-American spy organizations and Usama Bin Laden as well as Al-Queda, such as during the Balkans War in the 1990s where the USA covertly supported Al-Queda connected Islamicists against Serbia
In each of these 3 fundamental examples, the so-called Free Press, particularly the Anglo-American media, has led the way in promoting the lies, disinformation, and propaganda of the USA and its allies. Since the Anglophone media effectively sets the news agenda globally, the rest of the world follows in lockstep.
Mark Binnersley | 21-Apr-07 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
@swb
Noam Chomsky is a fallible human. Let’s not get into the realms of quoting great thinkers/political activists to support arguments. Idolatry gets us nowhere as history has shown many times.
You seem to have completely overlooked what I said in my first post about how the media peddled the Weapons of Mass Destruction myth. I agree with you that these lies, which orginated chiefly from the British and American governments, were spread by the free press. However, here comes the good bit. It was also the free press that exposed those lies. I deliberately made this paragraph a bit repetitive in the hope that it sinks in.
Do you think that if the Chinese government had peddled a lie through the media in order to further its interests it would have been exposed by that same media at a later date?
How about that missile test not so long ago. You know the one. The one when the Chinese blew up a satellite. Yes, it was one week before the test was reported officially in China. The entire Western world was making serious representations to the Chinese government and just about every country knew exactly what was being said apart from guess who, yep, the ordinary Chinese man on the street. His own government treating him like a second class citizen, not intelligent enough to be told what a significant number of the world’s leaders were saying about his country.
You’re quite right the free press has its faults. As I said earlier there are issues surrounding the accountability of its owners. I have never suggested it was perfect, nor have I defended it in these posts with “strident rhetoric” as you say. But the free press in the West is significantly freer than the state-controlled models in the likes of China and Cuba. As a British journalist with experience of working for both systems I know which one gives the public a more accurate, unbiased reflection of what is going on in society.
You say you wouldn’t chose a free press over a state-controlled press, what would you choose, then? Whatever it is there will always be issues of ownership and bias. You will never be able to get away from that, it’s called human nature.
Finally, how can you criticise the Western media for being dishonest and avoiding the truth when you won’t even put your true identity to your posts? You anonymously make claims about Kosovo and 911, but at least if I read about these things in a Western newspaper I would know who was saying it. Seems like you’re a bit of a hypocrite, as the accountability you so demand does not seem to apply to you. As a defender of free speech I have no such problem telling people my full name.
cat | 21-Apr-07 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
Mike, “adding an adjective here or deleting a comma there” is one reason the English-language media here often fails to reach the standard of its Chinese-language counterparts.
As for changing China, only a fool would believe that. How China changes (or doesn’t) is a matter for Chinese people to decide - it’s their country and they’re more than capable of choosing their own path. They’ve been doing it quite successfully for a few thousand years. A bit of communication doesn’t hurt though.
Mao Zedong gave some useful advice on this in an interview in Yan’an:
“We welcome these foreigners who come to help us. But the trouble with so many foreigners is that they soon want to dictate. They must remember that this is China, and that while their advice is eagerly received, we are the ones to decide if and how it will be used.”
JustpMitch | 22-Apr-07 at 10:01 am | Permalink
SWB: You wrote: “Some Korean-Americans have expressed fear about being harassed or targeted in response to this shooting, not unlike how Arabs and Muslims were attacked and even murdered by Americans after 9/11.”
This based on a one-off report from what appeared to be a college or weekly paper looking for a quick fix.
My son is a Korean-American on a campus of a well-known college in Iowa, a whitebread guns and Bible zone if there ever was one. He was interviewed by two local affiliates as to whether he or any other KA’s (and Asians) he knows felt threatened or worried. Nope. Nada. Nor did any of his Korean frirends and relatives in Colorado, California or Georgia.
Blow this out your sphincter, por favor.
stupid-chinaman | 22-Apr-07 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
After reading this blog, I only have to say “wow”.
My first impression is “swb”, you’re a dumb f__k. Now why did I say that? Usually I’m just self-loathing, yet I find myself intensely hating you. Why?
Because you’re freaking bleeding arrogance like blood spilled at freaking Virginia Tech! I feel like I’m wasting calories wasted on you, but here we go:
How can you be so high and mighty against the so-called “free media” when the historically glorious middle kingdom cuts off its own balls for “the good of the nation”? While you admit that the people of the west are fear-mongering greedy bastards (and rather proud of it, or I am. bwahahaha) not once did you admit that is was not a crime against humanity, if not a crime against china (more important, nor its government humane, maybe even certain people) NOT to report this, not even to warn people of anti-chinaism from US (meaning United States of America, or only me). Does china have too many men and needs to treat them like women, lest they form the next government? (no regime change necessary, historically china has a cyclical pattern) Thus the first part of my username to describe you.
To be on the record, my name is Albert Z. I am an American. One of my friends has noticed my overall physical resemblance to the Virginia Tech killer, only needing to remove my glasses and shave my hair a bit. My a__hole friend already asked me:
-if I owned any guns? (wished I did)
-when do I plan to shoot up the college? (not fully unreasonable)
-who do I plan to kill? (he just made the list)
-can I call you Virginia Tech instead of Prince Albert? (look the second one up)
So in a tiny part I already received a tiny part of the perceived backlash. But the similarities go even deeper. We talk the same, have the same amount of real friends, heck, even the same general line of thought (us vs. World). I would be totally unsurprised if deemed mentally ill, it not insane. We are exactly the same except… wait the second… (drumroll)
I’M FRICKING CHINESE
Not the a__hole would care. Oh the irony as I read this blog. God bless America!
http://monroecc.facebook.com/profile.php?id=70607903
(hint, the a__hole friend is the lastest post)
mike | 22-Apr-07 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
cat:then keep deleting and adding, but maybe go a bit lighter on the intellectualising (I refer you to chris’s earlier post on whether his polishing is futile or actually makes a difference).
It’s great that you take your job seriously, but come on, how seriously can you take it without looking like you are full of yourself?
MARY ZHANG | 23-Apr-07 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
GOD BLESS THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY — SAVIOUR OF THEIR NATION. (In other words, Western definitions of “Freedom of the Press” & “Democracy” are not the end-all and be-all of Existence — anymore than Opium was…)
Mark Binnersley | 23-Apr-07 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
GOD BLESS THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY… Isn’t the CCP atheist?
MARY ZHANG | 24-Apr-07 at 12:39 pm | Permalink
PRECISELY: CCP is indeed “atheist” - whatever “atheist” means. But Christ said: WHATEVER YOU DO FOR THE LEAST AMONG YOU, HE DOES IT FOR ME. ERGO: CCP saving their nation & people, accomplished
Christ’s work. GOT THAT?
Mark Binnersley | 24-Apr-07 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
But the CCP doesn’t believe Christ, so how can they do his work?
MARY ZHANG | 24-Apr-07 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
1. Judge men by their DEEDS, as Christ would. (”By their deeds shall ye know them”). CPP Govt. delivers a LOT MORE GOOD to citizens, than some “democracies” that I COULD mention.
2. If you must judge men by their words (& false words from W.media has led many mutts into places they seem to regret later) then at least recognize: IS ANYBODY LIES LEADING ME INTO HARMS WAY? e.g. presidents & prime ministers?
3. CCP would perhaps be sooner recognized by Christ as being among his followers, for being a constructive force in the world.
4. Christ DID say: NOT EVERYONE CALLS ME MASTER, IS MY FOLLOWER. (This type is not rare: W.media types should just look more frequently into their mirrors!).
Mark Binnersley | 24-Apr-07 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
Would that be the same “constructive” government not “leading you into harm’s way” that has just agreed for Zimbabwe to supply you with hundreds of thousands of tons of tobacco over the next few years? Yep, really got the health of the nation at heart there. Wish my government protected me like that.
The Consequences of Lazy Journalism « Scholars and Rogues | 25-Apr-07 at 12:22 am | Permalink
[...] with such headlines “Chinese student suspected of Virginia massacre,” which actually caused a near panic in China. When the report turned out to be incorrect, Sneed’s article was removed and updated, however, [...]
MARY ZHANG | 25-Apr-07 at 5:04 am | Permalink
THANKFULLY ZIMBABWE SELLS TOBACCO & NOT OPIUM!!
1. Zimbabwe has not demanded 40% currency revaluation.
2. Zimbabwe does not squeeze unfortunate suppliers to profit margin of 2% (simultaneously preaching “human rights”. Guess economic rights aren’t human).
3. Zimbabwe tobacco farmer has not demanded: CURRENCY REVALUATION IMMEDIATELY — OR ELSE TRADE SANCTIONS.
5. Obviously, many reasons for THINKING PEOPLE to support PRC Government!
Mark Binnersley | 25-Apr-07 at 8:20 am | Permalink
Zimbabwe has 1700 percent inflation, its people are starving and opponents of the government are phyiscally beaten for expressing an opinion. By the way, who sells opium, Mary?
swb | 25-Apr-07 at 8:27 am | Permalink
Albert Z.: You may or may not be of Chinese descent, but you are an American in everything but name.
I am mean that as an insult. You are almost a pathetic parody of the standard gun-toting, God Bless America bigot that appears to be a defining attribute of Americanism as an ideology.
Wave your flag and support your stormtroopers if that makes you feel better.
swb | 25-Apr-07 at 8:36 am | Permalink
Mr. Binnersley:
“You seem to have completely overlooked what I said in my first post about how the media peddled the Weapons of Mass Destruction myth. I agree with you that these lies, which orginated chiefly from the British and American governments, were spread by the free press. However, here comes the good bit. It was also the free press that exposed those lies. I deliberately made this paragraph a bit repetitive in the hope that it sinks in.”
No, I did not overlook your assertion in your first post. If you read my message 49, I specifically said that the WMD Lies *go beyond* the specific lies peddled by the USA and England in the RUN-UP to the war, as you assert, and involve the lies pushed throughout the 1990s.
The lies about WMDs peddled and instigated by the USA and England are not ONLY about “Niger Uranium” or Tony Bliar’s “Dodgy Dossiers.” The WMD issue has been manipulated by the USA and England *as a general concept* throughout the 1990s against Iraq as a political cover ultimately to effect the USA-UK’s real agenda: REGIME CHANGE.
Moreover, the USA and England are manipulating this WMD pretext against other countries like Iran and North Korea.
The same Anglo-American “Free Press” that you hail as exposing the WMD lies in the run-up to the war, HAVE NOT QUESTIONED THE FRAUDULENT NATURE OF THE WMD ISSUE AS A GENERAL PRETEXT, with regards to Iran and North Korea for instance.
Indeed, most of the revelations about the Anglo-American WMD lies about Iraq have been *limited revelations* at best.
The so-called Free Press only will admit the tip of the iceberg.
This is exactly how the Free Press Propaganda Model works, as documented by Chomsky and Herman.
swb | 25-Apr-07 at 8:47 am | Permalink
JustpMitch: You confuse your son’s particular experience as representative of the fears and concerns of the Korean American community as a whole.
I even provided links (from the Free Press no less) that demonstrate that Korean Americans and EVEN the South Korean government were/are concerned about a racial backlash.
You might consider taking your own advice about sphincters.
MARY ZHANG | 25-Apr-07 at 11:31 am | Permalink
Am I misinformed historically, or was there an OPIUM WAR, won by opium-sellers? (This is in answer to the disingenous query: WHO SELLS OPIUM?) Just because it happened yesterday, doesn’t make everything forgotten or forgettable. (Mankind was gifted with something called MEMORY.)
swb | 25-Apr-07 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
Mr. Binnersley: To restate my other points, I don’t support either the state-controlled media or the (Anglo-American) “Free Press” per se. You are arguing against a strawman when you continually rail about state media. (BTW, since you are British, do you consider the BBC an example of state-controlled media propaganda?)
I do focus my criticism primarily on the Anglo Free Press because:
1. The Anglo-American/capitalist media is the dominant media in the world. This media defines the political agenda as to how news is interpreted globally AND it functions as the normative model for press freedom as a principle.
It’s thus comical when people like Chris O’Brien “critique” the Chinese media, but ignore the greatest propaganda media on the planet–their own Anglo Free Press–that is the *implicit political/ideological model and norm* upon which they base their criticisms in the first place.
It’s obvious that his, yours, and most other people’s tacit definition of press freedom itself is: Media Freedom=Anglo-American Media.
I reject this equation.
2. This Anglo-American media is the leading disinformation machine in the world, first as a result of its aforementioned global influence and second because of its actual lies– like those I listed above including not only the issue of WMDs but also:
-The entire “War on Terrorism” instigated and led by the USA and United Kingdom. The Anglo-American media has promoted its usual lies to justify the wars of aggression that the USA, England, and their allies have committed against Afghanistan and Iraq in this terror war–and to disguise the Anglo-American geopolitical agendas driving them. Indeed, these Anglo-American crimes are often carefully minimized by the same crusaders (like O’Brien) who often posture as human rights advocates in China and other nations.
-The issue of the 9-11 “terrorist” attacks as perpetrated by the American government and the historical connections between the USA-UK and Islamicist terrorism. You can look into the 9/11 Truth Movement if you have doubts about these assertions. Despite the international nature of this 9/11 Truth Movement, the Anglo-American and capitalist media barely acknowledge its existence.
There have been similar questions raised about the strange 7/7 terror bombings in London–particularly given the history of British connections to Islamicist terror–as suggested by former MI-5 agent David Shayler.
Led by the US-UK media, the free press has downplayed, if not censored, all these issues of critical political and global importance.
3. Unlike the state media, which is relatively open about the issue of political control, the Free Press disguises its own political agendas behind a mask of media freedom and independence. This political mask is more effective in promoting disinformation, as people believe they are receiving “unbiased news,” when this creature does not exist. All news is filtered through a political perspective of some type.
This is not a problem of individual correctable flaws, as you suggest, but is intrinsic to the Free Press itself. See Herman and Chomsky:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html
4. In terms of what kind of media I would support, there’s no such thing as an ideal media, but something like TELESUR in South America is a media model that China and other developing nations should be studying for inspiration.
While it is not perfect, TELESUR offers a needed counter to the views promoted by Western/capitalist media that dominates the world, and it provides a voice for those perspectives that the Free Press doesn’t represent. In fact, the Western free press should be rejected as a model to emulate:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1388
Mark Binnersley | 25-Apr-07 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
@swb, still haven’t revealed your ID or nationality. Obviously have a problem with free speech.
“Moreover, the USA and England are manipulating this WMD pretext against other countries like Iran and North Korea.” Have you read the Guardian or Independent?
The BBC is certainly not a propaganda machine for the British government. Maybe it’s views are tinged with a shade of the liberal left, but it’s no one’s mouthpiece.
Just checked out your TELESUR. So, it’s going to represent Latin American integration. Interesting. It seems all those against integration will be denied a voice. There’s also no mention about how it will hold governments to account. Can’t wait to tune into TeleChavez.
Have you lived in the UK? Do you have knowledge, I mean a proper knowledge, of the content of our media, the variety of opinions and angles? I don’t think you grasp this. The British media doesn’t speak with one voice.
stupid-chinaman | 28-Apr-07 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
@swb
my my my, how you disappoint me. I put all the effort into engineering a George-Bush response and you hardly responded. From your previous responses, I was reading that you were setting up a rhetorical trap, baiting for a very American response, from which I decided to give you wholeheartedly. I expected this to be a relief for you, to give you reason to fully express your anti-Americanism like I expressed my Chinese-stupidity; responses akin to the Three Gorges Dam busting. Shame. But you did call me an idiot. “strike a raw nerve”? hypocrite. And quite expected from you.
Last time I tried to exploit a weakness in your posts. I guess I have no chose but to debate you for every argument.
First post:
Not once did you mention the core topic of this blog. Not once did you mention the flaws of the Chinese media, while you rant against the western media. You may be boarding the discussion, bringing in a new view point, even pointing out flaws in our arguments, but you very strongly imply the Chinese media is superior and everyone else are barbarians by not once mentioning the Chinese media at all while criticizing the western media. We may have “conveniently” misreported Virginia Tech, but you conveniently left out your feelings about the Chinese media.
Second post:
This is the first time you have mention that you “have touched a raw political nerve.” Oh god. You speak about American arrogance and self-rightness (with strong support and evidence), yet nothing strikes a “raw nerve” by you saying you “have touched a raw political nerve.” I have said it before and I will say it again. You *bleed* arrogance and self-rightness.
Based on your second sentence, you notice how people rant about media censorship and freedom. What you forget that censorship and freedom are the “case-zero” of this entire blog. The very foundation of this debate. The western media far, far from perfect, and we Americans are often their harshest and most frequent critic, if only by virtue to being it’s most frequent audience. China has plenty of censorship and a lack of freedom. This debate may not even happen in china; the blog censored if the topic shifts to Tiananmen Square. Have can you improve, how can you take a step forward if there is no freedom of press.
Next I will chide you and your use of the word “imperial” in your third sentence. Ignoring several counter-facts, such as how it’s the most common word used by anti-americanists, how meaningless it is, how between the US and USSR the European colonial empires that imperialism defines were dramatically dismantled, and while being the world hyperpower, America has not established colonies, against the definition of imperialism, China is not immune to the label imperialism. China has conquered Tibet (and I will leave it to that), and forever eyes Taiwan. Nuff said.
I also remembered that you called me a nationalist pig. You also used that in your third sentence. Remind me, what does the PRC govt. run on? Can’t be communism. Can’t be capitalism. Oh yes, nationalism. Fueled by demonizing the Japanese, who have forever ruined the Chinese honor. Also fueled by every international incident seen as an affront to China. And you criticized Western media, again “misreporting though omission” how china is different. In fact, the PRC encourages this nationalism, to boost their legitimacy.
Fourth post:
This is simple. You imply a top-down conspiracy. Things don’t work this way in the free world, in the most arrogant and self-righteous way. The media doesn’t have agenda. It only has greed. Greed will make honest mistakes. Greed will twist stories for maximum profit. But greed will admit mistakes. Would you like unemotional human motive control the media, or a human who seeks dominance over you to control what you hear?
Fifth post:
You “strike a raw nerve” again, criticized free press and freedom, tried to redirect criticism against you, renarrowing the discussion to the western media, and called other people as hypocrites. Oh, and you tired to blame the western media and have a “black out” about China. Again, nothing on how China is superior? I rather be a stupid-chinaman (oh, I’m sorry, an American-chinaman) than hypocrite (Chinese Bastardized form of American-chinaman).
Sixth post:
Look like it took you 12 hours to report any failings of the Chinese media. I guess you missed the 7:00 news, so you have to report your apologies on the 10:00 news. I’m sure it means a lot to you. Typical. We all Chinese think alike, don’t we?
You’re an even bigger fool than I thought if you believe the western media is a propaganda machine. How many western government have been embarrassed by it? How many leaders humiliated and forced to resign? How many famous people disgraced? Not to mention have the war in iraq is being decimated by the media alone. What has your Chinese media done?
Maybe you should ask why the western media is more trusted through out the world? Maybe it is the best, rather than trying to fit reality to your beliefs?
I’m not going to even argue about you three supposed examples. They only show the shallowness of your reasoning and even your intelligence, inadequately hiding your deep hatred for America and the west in general.
The rest of your responses are repeats of your previous posts. You are a Chinese Bastardized form of American-chinaman.
swb | 28-Apr-07 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
Binnersly: I thought it was clear that I am an American, or as I think of myself, an American dissident.
As for my name, call me paranoid, but I would rather not post it online. I doubt this has anything to do with free speech, as many posters here do not post their real names.
But nice try anyways.
As for the rest of your message, you really don’t address any of the issues I mentioned in message 68.
The BBC has been one of the primary conduits for British propaganda, such as on the issue of the Anglo aggression against Iraq. So much so, that the BBC has earned the nickname “British Bullsh*t Corporation” among not a few people in the antiwar movement, for example.
I have not lived in England, but I am reasonably familiar with the British media. In fact, I will give the British media a compliment in that it is better than the American media–though this is damning with faint praise.
You say that the British media does not speak with one voice, but if you refer to the Propaganda Model as delineated by Chomsky/Herman, you would understand that misses the point.
The British media will offer the *image* of media pluralism and diversity of views–PROVIDED that the underlying political terms of debate, framework, and logic are not challenged.
I cited the example of Weapons of Mass Destruction above, that you ignored.
The Anglo-American media has belatedly admitted to a degree the *specific* lies about WMDs that the Bush and Bliar regimes used in the RUN-UP to the invasion of Iraq, BUT they will not question the fact that the USA and UK have manipulated the WMD issue as a GENERAL CONCEPT/PRETEXT for over a decade against Iraq and against other nations like Iran and North Korea.
Is this the behavior of a so-called Free Press?
The Anglo-American Free Press ain’t so free.
swb | 28-Apr-07 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
“Albert Z”:
The more you open your mouth, the more you show yourself as a flag-waving American bigot, who is afraid to question the ideology of “freedom,” which your vaunted America and its Free Press use to legitimize themselves.
It is even questionable that you are of Chinese descent, as your nickname (”stupid-chinaman”) and repeated rhetoric (”American Chinaman”) are racist to the core.
In fact, your choice of nickname and recurring rants about “Chinaman” reveal what you stand for. Whatever your ethnic background, you revel in racist anti-Asian rhetoric just like any KKK skinhead or White Supremacist, and you deserve to be treated with similar contempt. Congrats, you are now a true patriotic God fearing America-loving nationalist. You must be real proud of yourself.
As for your comments, the very fact that you believe that the American media has been a principled critic of the American aggression against Iraq (among other wars) just shows how indoctrinated you are in the Anglo-American ideology of freedom.
The international antiwar movement has documented the many lies that the American media in particular has promoted about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to justify the American genocide against Iraq in the form of economic sanctions during the 1990s and now in the form of the USA-led invasion.
Go to any significant antiwar website, and you can discover these massive American media lies … if you got the guts.
Even the so-called “criticisms” that the American media offers now are *belated* at best and based upon cynical tactical concerns about the American handling of this war–NOT THE CRIMINAL NATURE of this most recent imperial American aggression.
So much for the free press.
swb | 28-Apr-07 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
You also deny the example of how the American Free Press has propagandized for America’s bogus “War On Terrorism” in general. This USA-led war is not about fighting terrorism, but about expanding the American Empire, (or “hyperpower” as you term it) and creating the USA’s twisted vision of a “New World Order,” as George Bush Sr. once proclaimed.
The American colonial conquest of Afghanistan is just as criminal as the American colonial conquest of Iraq–and based upon USA media lies just as outrageous.
Then there is the issue of the supposed “terrorist” attacks of 9-11, which, based upon the forensic and circumstantial evidence mentioned above, WAS PROBABLY AN AMERICAN TERRORIST ATTACK ON ITS OWN PEOPLE.
The same questions could be raised about England’s 7/7 “terror” bombings in London that I mentioned to Mark Binnersley, and which he also ignored.
Your response to these world historical issues, or the American media role in propagandizing about them, is to cry about “conspiracies,” which is a favored catchphrase used by American (media) apologists.
You best ask yourself this: What kind of self-proclaimed “Land of the Free” like America murders its own people in a contrived “terrorist” attack all in order to launch its global “War on Terror”?
And what kind of American Free Press helps to cover up these massive atrocities by dutifully promoting the official American version of these events in the first place?
As for my other points about the original post by O’Brien or the issue of the Chinese media, I have already addressed them in my messages above. Too bad your reading comprehension skills are not up to snuff.
The bottom line is this: You can cling to America’s lies all you want. But actual reality will shred this USA propaganda to pieces.
Disguised behind its faux “War on Terror,” America is effectively creating a global USA-led police state such as evidenced by the Homeland Security Department; the Patriot Act; the USA’s global system of CIA secret prisons; the American gulag prison at Guantanamo Bay; Abu-Ghraib-style torture; America’s serial wars of aggression; not to mention the domestic destruction of the supposed civil liberties that America purports to champion.
In short, America is reverting back towards fascism. All the pro-Americanism in the world cannot hide this fact. Even a few honest US soldiers, of all people, see this as clear as day:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Amer_Fascism_On_Rise.html
And based on your comments above, I’d say that you’d make an excellent potential Brownshirt in this America.
stupid-chinaman | 29-Apr-07 at 5:13 am | Permalink
@swb
I am greatly pleased with the newfound length of your responses, but quite disappointed with their shallowness. You have added nothing except calling me a bigot and a fascist. Both points are weak and untrue. I have stated my bit and arguments, yet you offer little new substance, akin to the monkey-Texan in the White House. I have said what I wanted to say and you disappoint me. Therefore I see no point continuing this, and I will not come back to this blog after answering your charges of bigotry and fascism.
I am not a bigot. Many Americans engage in self-criticism and in America it is a cultural norm to make racist remarks about your own race. When you criticize your own race, you are in fact criticizing your self, therefore not racist. As you can tell I milked this for all it’s worth. I do not hate Chinese people. I love them. The church I attend, the Rochester Chinese Christian Church, is almost all Chinese. I still have many relatives in China. I only hate stupidity and weakness, which is what you and the PRC have in common.
I am not a fascist. For purposes in my attempt to debate, I shifted my political views to the right in order to provoke intelligent responses from you. You have greatly disappointed me. On many things we see eye-to-eye, yet you never adequately defended your view points. You are weak and you ruin the good name of liberals and the anti-war movement if you resorted to calling me a fascist.
awaken.Deep.Blue@gmail.com
Mark Binnersley | 29-Apr-07 at 8:41 am | Permalink
@swb Where did you read about Shayler’s claims?
swb | 01-May-07 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
Albert Z: Your very nickname and your repeated uses of the racist slur “Chinaman” gave me every reason to question who you are and what you stand for. Internet debate is not the same as face-to-face discussion, where you can see whom you are talking to. On the internet, it’s not a great idea to make racist remarks (for whatever motivation) and then believe that people won’t take them at face value and make judgments accordingly.
And I am not a Liberal. To me, Liberals are not much different than Conservatives. Much of the dominant wing of the antiwar movement in the USA has been politically domesticated and neutered thanks to Liberals. As for my arguments, I fully stand behind what I have said above.
Mr. Binnersley: There are numerous “alternative” media outlets that have reported on David Shayler’s claims about the USA-UK connections to Islamicist terrorism and issues like 9/11 and 7/7. Shayler himself had a website, Shayler.com, which has now been taken down.
pligg.com | 23-Jun-07 at 3:42 am | Permalink
Ill-informed Chicago columnist scares the hell out of China…
A good piece of on-the-spot reporting by Beijing Newspeak. This post attracted 74 comments and was recommended by nearly every China-related blog….
The China Blog Awards: Third To None! | A China Blog on Suzhou Expat Life | The Humanaught | 08-Oct-07 at 10:28 am | Permalink
[...] Best Political Post: Ill-informed Chicago columnist scares the hell out of China [...]