Comments on: Latest propagandic episode from start to (just about) finish

By: stuart

stuart — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:58:32 +0000

Great summary of recent events, Chris. I’ll be redirecting both readers of my blog to this site.

By: BOB

BOB — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:53:57 +0000

They’re still fanning the flames:

http://voanews.com/english/2008-04-24-voa21.cfm

By: Chris O'Brien

Chris O'Brien — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:24:33 +0000

Thanks to those who brought up the Doug Saunders saga. Danwei has linked to Saunders’s full article here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080419.wreckoning0419/BNStory/International/?cid=al_gam_mostdiscuss. It’s a good read.

Here’s another link a friend emailed me: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/19/content_8011960.htm. It’s not a good read. But it does call for a cheap shot at the All China Journalists Association.

An ACJA official said, when asking CNN to apologise for Jack Cafferty’s remarks: “CNN had violated the principle of objective reporting,” and “this is not what responsible media should do.”

Presumably, this official wouldn’t dare argue the Chinese state media is objective. So is he admitting it is irresponsible?

By: BOB

BOB — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:12:38 +0000

I was watching Chinese language CCTV last night. It doesn’t sound like the spring is being unwound. In fact, it sounded like the spring is being wound up further. They may not entirely have control over it.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:51:55 +0000

Nice summary. I wonder how many people predicted things would turn out the way they have. We are still 100 days to the Olympics, but China seems to be doing a good job of keeping out the bad apples. It only takes one person though to slip through the system.

By: Zhang Ze-zi

Zhang Ze-zi — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:40:42 +0000

Don’t be too Xinhua ?

By: Jonas

Jonas — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:44:39 +0000

As Mick notes, the Xinhua reporting of Doug Saunders’s story is completely fabricated. See his column last weekend (behind a paywall):
“Reports of my heroic service to China have been exaggerated”

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:09:01 +0000

The Canadian journalist Doug Saunders quoted by Xinhua has said his report bears no relation to how Xinhua/China Daily reported it:

“I went back to look at what I’d written, and it had very little to do with what China Daily’s “Doug Saunders” said. The Brussels conference in question, which was a regular event for Tibet-rights groups, was not attended by the State Department or any government, and it was not organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, which in turn is not owned or controlled by the German government.” (Globe and Mail 19 April)

If you look hard enough for a conspiracy and really want to believe there is one … Xinhua will find one for you.

By: Extremely Concerned

Extremely Concerned — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:39:54 +0000

I wonder what the reaction in Britain would have been if protestors had targeted a “weak” disabled girl.

As a journalist in Britain I’ve received dozens of tickings off from charities for writing the term ‘disabled people’; apparently it should be ‘people with disabilities’. Such is the determination of these groups to get people with disabilities to be recognised as normal. And quite right too. Therefore I wonder if there were people watching this who were privately delighted that the protestor overlooked Jin Jing’s disabilities, and treated her as a normal person.

Surely Jin Jing’s actions proved she was anything but “weak”. The fact that she’s able to fence at Olympic level shows she’s more able-bodied than a lot of people with two legs.

Shame on the Chinese media for exploiting someone’s physical condition to attract sympathy for its cause.

By: zhwj

zhwj — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:12:40 +0000

Sure it did, Charles Liu. The Xinhua-run paper International Herald Leader ran a report similar to the one you linked.

Interestingly, in its presentation of the Strategic Plan, it translated the action point “Highlight the issue of Tibet when the official Olympic torch visits cities” as “当官方的奥运接力活动在世界各大城市展开时，通过各种方式凸显西藏问题,” and then continued “埋有诸多伏笔，“各种方式”更是为他们提供了广阔的发挥空间.” But 各种方式 was added during translation, so the analysis is a little misleading link