There are rare occasions when the use of expletives is justified in a debate, but I don’t think this discussion is one of them.

Mary

You say you’re not coming back, but I’ll write this just in case you do. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Xinhua and other media organizations in China work. Every story is checked by political editors who will pass/reject/change what is submitted to them by writers and copyeditors. The political editors are not superhuman and cannot catch every mistake, but repeated attempts by any member of staff to “sabotage” the news would be noticed and action would be taken.

Someone else on one of these threads suggested that foreigners were getting away with changing stories because the editors can’t understand what they are writing. This is both wrong and insulting. The political editors have decades of experience of working in English and are perfectly capable of understanding what they are reading and checking. They also have a solid grasp of the political situation and are perfectly capable of understanding whether a piece of news is politically acceptable or not. Again, they are only human, and might miss some things, but repeated offenses would be noticed.

If a serious error is made, either by the Chinese writer or the foreign copyeditor, and the political editor misses it, the political editor is fined. This is just one of the reasons that foreign copyeditors do not “sabotage” the news, not to mention the fact that it would be unprofessional to do so. No one wants their colleagues to suffer for something they have done. On one occasion at CRI, a foreigner did make a serious error (I repeat, it was an *error*, not sabotage) and the political editor was fined his entire month’s salary for missing it. Foreigners were not punished for that mistake, but they were horrified that someone else had been punished for what they had done. So they collected the money to replace his salary.

Although foreigners are not punished with fines, if they repeatedly fail to work properly within the system, their contracts are not renewed.

Whenever two different cultures meet both have an opportunity to learn from each other. But it is inevitable that disagreements will occur. At work, the final say on those disagreements is always in the hands of the chief editors and managers, as it is anywhere else.

Here in these discussions, it would be nice if we could keep our disagreements reasonably civilized without calling each other names.

The very premise and agenda of this blog (shared by most of the people here) are about “promoting media freedom” in China.

The only problem is that their definition of “media freedom” (read: the Anglo-American definition of freedom) is a complete fraud and a political lie–and the last media model that China should be adopting.

I repeatedly mention the Anglo-American media lies about WMDs; the USA-led phony War on Terror; or the “terrorist” attacks of 9/11 because these lies especially demonstrate the fundamental bankruptcy of this so-called Free Press that they would like to export globally–something which many people refuse to face.

American denial about 9-11 is a good example of this, and a faith-based ideology that Liberals and Conservatives, Pro-Bushites and Anti-Bushites, in the USA all share alike.

As I have stated in a previous thread, I believe that ALL media involves some degree of political control, spin, or manipulation.

However, my points relevant to this blog are:

1. The Anglo-American media in particular claims to be morally superior to the rest of the world because it claims to be “Free.”

Most state media like China’s do not claim to be “free” in this sense.

Given the unique moral claims of “freedom” made by the Anglo-American media, this so-called Free Press deserves to be fundamentally questioned and challenged.

2. The West led by America and England presume the right to export their model of “media freedom” and “democracy” in general around the world. One example is America’s “Greater Middle East Initiative” which purports to “spread democracy” throughout the entire Middle East.

The true nature of this American democracy, however, is evidenced by the crimes that the USA and UK have committed against Iraq–of which the Free Press has played a critical role in legitimizing through lies like WMDs, etc.

Like most developing nations, China does not make similar claims about “spreading democracy” around the world like the USA, UK, and their allies do.

3. The Western Free Press, led by the Anglo-American media, is the dominant media in the world in terms of global influence and setting the news agenda.

Most of the world’s news–sadly even to an increasing degree in China–reflect what the Anglo-American media *define as news in the first place.*

Examples include the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue and the entire USA-led War on Terror, both of which are massive lies on a grand scale.

This is another reason why this supposed “Free Press” deserves particular scrutiny.

Finally, of course people have a right to comment on what is going on in China.

However, my criticisms above involve the basic fact that I do not believe that the *Anglo-American media model* has anything to offer China, for reasons that I have mentioned here and elsewhere.

As I stated in another thread, something like the South American media outlet TELESUR is a better media model for China and other developing nations, and is something that it should be studying and even emulating.

http://www.telesurtv.net/

P.S. “Stop” using “quotations” around “words” when it isn’t “necessary”. It makes “you” look “snarky”.

@Mary Zhang (in response to the entire string of zealous commentary I’ve read from you throughout this blog)
Jesus Christ are you a condescending, fanatically religious c**t. Worst thing the west ever exported was evangelical Christianity. Allows people to pick and choose random sentences out of the bible in a pathetic attempt add more gravitas to their otherwise inane arguments. Might as well join in the game then: Mary remember this one? “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Take that log out of your own eye sister, before you talk about the splinters in the eyes of others.

Cat: You miss the point.

Ask this question: What moral and political right do Anglo-Americans like O’Brien or the various “polishers” here have to “change” China in the first place–whether it is their definition of “media freedom” in particular or promoting the USA and England’s murderous definition of democracy and freedom in general?

Changing China is only up to the Chinese people–not Western imperial neo-missionaries who are filled with self-importance and out to wage their own personal crusades for “democracy.”

More importantly, issues like the USA-UK war on Iraq–as well as the Anglo Free Press’ criminal role in propagandizing this war–are essential to bring up, as they reveal what England and America’s “liberal democracy” truly means in practice for THE PEOPLE THAT ANGLO-AMERICAN NATIONS AND THEIR ALLIES CLAIM TO BE SO BENEVOLENTLY CONCERNED ABOUT.

No doubt, raising these very issues challenges the deeply cherished (nationalist) religion of Anglo Liberal Democracy that people like O’Brien or other posters here uphold.

For the Anglos and their allies, they are dismissive of any political perspective that fundamentally questions the moral legitimacy of the USA, England, or the West as self-proclaimed exemplars of democratic values.

That is why most posters here can only in retort in kneejerk fashion with empty propaganda phrases about “ultra-nationalism”–even as they carefully overlook their own implicit Anglo chauvinist belief in the unique moral goodness of America or England, and the divine right of these nations to export their supposed liberal democratic values universally around the world.