China do get PR: All Hail Anonymous Nanjing Resident
With stunning deftness, the Chinese Government has managed to completely change the topic from, why so much of the world is so upse
t with the the country’s official policies, to…Jack Cafferty and CNN. In the process the government has incited enough nationalism to make a Frenchman blush. How did the topic move from human rights, Darfur and riots in Tibet to Jack Caffery (Jack Caffery!)? Well, basically, China’s leadership proved Cup of Cha to be a little bit wrong. On the domestic front anyway.
China (this means the government, folks. Don’t want any Cafferty-esque hate mail. Jack Cafferty!) once again proved that it understands its own country and culture in a way that the West can not even begin to. How riled up are Chinese people about this “national insult”? Well, according to the most reliable source in news, also known as the Chinese media, an anonymous man in Nanjing has purchased an ad in a local paper decrying T1betan independence and advocating protecting the Olympic flame. A modern day Lei Feng!
How do I know he is a common man? Well, he anonymously says so!
我。 一个普通的南京市民，我自己愿自费刊登广告
Roughly: “Me. One common Nanjing resident, on my own wanted to take out and pay for this advertisement”
The saddest part is that I actually half believe this is a genuine organic move based on the genuine feelings of nationalism that have emerged. In other words, I almost don’t believe the Chinese Government printed this “ad” to create a story. Of course the guy with the opposite view of the protests, um, decided, not to buy an ad expressing his viewpoint.
What else does the ad say?
Hope/Long for the Olympics
Protect and support the flame
Oppose [an independent] T1bet
(”His” colors, not mine)
If you’re scoring at home, the Chinese Government has successfully turned an international embarrassment, followed by a second international embarrassment (the T1bet crackdown followed by the torch disruptions) into a domestic PR triumph. All I can say is, bravo government, bravo. (But remember, you have two different audiences, and no one in the West will be impressed that your response to Jack Cafferty was to entirely shut down CNN’s website in China. [Update: Turns out Danwei botched that story. Here's the real version.])
Share This
Dan responds:
Posted: April 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm →
I actually think it was a DDOS against cnn.com. Although it appears that they jumped the gun.
long link
Xi responds:
Posted: April 19th, 2008 at 6:43 am →
It’s not “Oppose a free Tibet”.
It’s “Oppose Tibet separatism”. An intendedly made mistake?
Josh responds:
Posted: April 19th, 2008 at 8:18 am →
@Xi:
Thanks for pointing that out. It was a bone-headed error.
Lu responds:
Posted: April 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm →
I’d translate 藏獨 as ‘T1betan 1ndependence’ (西藏獨立), much like 台獨 is ‘Ta1wanese 1ndependence’. Separatism is a different word, I believe (分裂?).
Rhys responds:
Posted: April 20th, 2008 at 5:24 pm →
You’re right - it was “stunning deftness.”
Which leads me to think…. What if western commentators have got the motives of the Chinese Gov for holding a successful Olympics all wrong? What if it was never its intention to curry favor with international public opinion? What if all its strange actions and hysterical rhetoric since those Tibetans went on a rampage was a calculated plan merely to shore up DOMESTIC support?
Think about it. Does the Chinese gov really want an increasingly outward-looking population? Isn’t it in its best interests to create suspicion of anything foreign commentators say? Heaven forbid, Chinese people might actually start asking questions of their own government then.
Maybe, just maybe, we all underestimated the Gov. Maybe they were three steps ahead of us the whole way…..
That’s my Sunday afternoon conspiracy theory anyway.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm →
Please give us factual proof and/or sound reasoning that the ad was not placed by a private Nanjing citizen
rynsa responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am →
@Windswing
Erm… I’m sorry. Did I go looking for “Cup of Cha” and end up on a peer-reviewed, academic journal or something?! Oh, foolish me! I’m so, so embarrassed.
Seriously, Windswing, dude… have you ever heard of a closed-media, totalitarian state? Have you heard of the blogosphere? Do you really think they can be judged by the same standards? Really?!
As far as I know, Cup of Cha isn’t in the business of “giving” proof to its readership, whatever that would mean, and it certainly isn’t pivotal to the establishment of public policy in China (or any other country, for that matter). It’s just a damn blog… and a good one at that.
@Josh
Please give us factual proof and/or sound reasoning that Windswing has a stick up his/her backside. Oh, wait… I don’t think I need that proof after all.
Josh responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 10:03 am →
@rynsa
Please try to avoid personal attacks.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pm →
Josh,
Thanks for reminding rynsa of how to speak. Please respond to my query if you care for a casual but serious discussion over a cup of cha…
Rynsa,
Dude, I also came for a cup of cha and ended up with a lot of sugarcoated media and politics cookies. I’m so sorry I shouldn’t be curious in asking what these cookies are made of, or indeed any question on how they are made.
And seriously, I have heard of “a closed-media, totalitarian state”, but have never heard of the “blogosphere”. I do not even know where we are right now…
Josh responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm →
@Windswing,
I find your metaphors confusing. Something about cookies and tea.
Anyway, I wrote “I almost don’t believe the Chinese Government printed this “ad” to create a story”
This implies the government may have had a hand, but it hardly implies I have anything more than my intuition to go by.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm →
Josh,
Thanks for the reply. Never mind the metaphors.
Sorry if I am wrong, but my reading on “I almost don’t believe…” is “I believe…”, and it’s the reasoning behind that belief that I am questioning.
Moreover, my reading on that sentence is that it implies nothing, in other words, it is a direct accusation rather than an indirect implication. By definition, accusations needs to be backed up by concrete evidence and/or sound reasoning…
Of course, it is a completely different matter if you are voicing your opinion just for the sake of it.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm →
I mean, voicing your intuition…
Josh responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm →
believe does not equal accuse
rynsa responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 5:31 pm →
@Josh
Upon further consideration, I am fairly certain I did not lodge a “personal attack” against anyone in this thread. My closing question was an ironic re-positioning of the jeering implications in Windswing’s ridiculous desire for “proof.” It was also an attempt at light-hearted humor–though obviously not a successful one. I really do feel people should chill out a bit.
None the less, I would like to apologize to you and others for any harm that may have occurred by my words. It was not my intention. Of course, the road to hell, etc., etc…
@Windswing
My ultimate criticism of your initial request for “proof and/or sound reasoning” stems from what I believe is a highly disingenuous insinuation on your part, namely that the reasoning in this post was somehow ill-conceived. Asking for “sound reasoning” implies that you feel Josh has not yet provided it (as was later proved true in your subsequent comments). To which I must ask, what proof do you have (beyond some woefully incomplete linguistic deconstruction)?
All of this suggests not that Josh has made an intellectual mistake but that you are not particularly knowledgeable about news media, public relations, and the Chinese government’s perennial habit of manipulating them for political gain. Or, even worse, perhaps you are knowledgeable about those issues but prefer instead to subtly deride independent bloggers simply to avoid dealing with the really pertinent matters of the day. Whatever the case, it is the very definition of ridiculous.
It seems to me that burden of responsibility for procuring “proof” does not fall on Josh’s shoulders, a mere citizen, as you seem to be suggesting, but on the state’s. Why should Cup of Cha do what mainstream, well-funded, state-sponsored propaganda bureaus like China Daily have never done?! Equivocating one Western blogger’s motives in this way with that of the Chinese government is, as I stated earlier, entirely disingenuous. You are not authentically seeking the truth surrounding a given advertisement in Nanjing, China, you are attempting to belittle the “intuitions” of one man with a website.
We do not live in a vacuum, Windswing. Cup of Cha does NOT have to play by the arbitrary rules of the establishment. I encourage you to differentiate a little more.
I’m afraid your commentary is based on an insincere argument; an argument, by they way, steeped in the tragically poor logic of uncritical nationalism, Chinese or otherwise. I saw this kind of thing in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq–die hard Americans wrapping themselves in the flag and targeting anyone, no matter how articulate and informed they may be, who dares to question the legitimacy of the state. It was ridiculous then, and it’s ridiculous now.
As to this comment : “And seriously, I have heard of ‘a closed-media, totalitarian state’, but have never heard of the ‘blogosphere.’” I do not even know where we are right now…” I can only assume you are being facetious (oh, lordy, I hope so). Fair enough, I get it, but be ye warned…Cup of Cha apparently frowns on that kind of thing ’round here.
Josh responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 7:37 pm →
I looked at it again and the “insult” was pretty benign. Just wanted to keep a civil tone but probably should have kept my mouth shut.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 9:36 pm →
rynsa,
I am thankful but surprised to see such a lengthy response to my simple request for clarification and my subsequent comment on the lack of factual proof and/or sound reasoning.
Quite frankly, I find your long-winded remarks hard to follow for its poor logic and over-stretched imaginations.
First of all, I made no attempt whatsoever to hide my feeling that Josh didn’t PROVIDE factual proof and/or sound reasoning in the original text. However, I didn’t make the assumption that Josh didn’t HAVE such proof and reasoning, hence my initial unequivocal request for clarification. Therefore, your “highly disingenuous insinuation” charge is totally groundless and unnecessary.
As for your “subtly deride”, “belittle”, or “uncritical nationalism” charges, I can only say with disbelief that they are probably all fruits of your astonishing paranoia, the source of which is clueless to me. Since when, I beg to ask, did a simple question about the basis of an opinion become an act of sabotage or uncritical nationalism?
From what I can read from your illogical utterance, there is one thing that truly separates us - for me, any serious opinion from any source needs to be substantiated with proof and reasoning; whereas for you, there is no such need as long as that opinion or intuition is against the “closed-media, totalitarian state”.
That said, I’d like to reiterate that it is fine with me if one wants to voice one’s opinion or intuition just for the sake of it, but I for one will certainly pay much less attention to such opinion or intuition. And this is NOT an act of sabotage, believe it or not.
And Josh,
I trust I have amply made my point. Final question to ask is, does Cup of Cha “apparently frowns on” my poor “attempt at light-hearted humor” as rynsa warned?
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: April 21st, 2008 at 11:56 pm →
Even if a common person wrote the ad, the official state media newspaper probably didn’t charge him for the ad space.
Support Tibetan, E. Turkestan, Shanghai, southern Mongolian and HK independence!
Zhang Ying Jia responds:
Posted: April 22nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm →
Oh how we love to torment China. Whichever way it turns, whatever it does, there’s always something wrong about its motives. So up your egos you can’t spell T!bet properly as a sort of pseudo badge of courage you’re writing something secret, naughty, and that you’re some kind of James Bond character bringing us coded news the “Government” won’t notice. Oh how brave you are!
It’s bulltibetshit. I suspect a lot of people here when children used to like pulling the wings off flies. Why shouldn’t a little man in Nanjing pay for an ad in a local paper? Why do you find that so astonishing? Why are you soooo suspicious? The Central Government is not going to be playing media games by placing anonymous ads in small provincial newspapers. China is a nuclear power. It doesn’t do stupidity like pretending to be a local resident in a small circulation Nanjing local daily. You’re out of your minds and losing the plot if you think so.
Josh responds:
Posted: April 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm →
@Zhang Ying Jia
1. Writing this blog is hardly courageous
2. I don’t actually think the government paid for it (but it did end up on every newspaper’s front page)
3. If you don’t understand why I’ve sometimes used alternate spellings of sensitive words, it is not because I think that I’d be in any danger, or that the PSB cares specifically about what I write. But I’ve explained what happens when certain filters get put in place:
http://cupofcha.com/2008/03/18/dont-cup-block-me.html
See links in the comments on that page for a more technical explanation.
Lindel responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 4:30 am →
I understand Karl Rove is looking for a new position.
Zhang Ying Jia responds:
Posted: April 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm →
Josh they wouldn’t block you if you weren’t so anti-China and biased all the time. Your site isn’t exactly fair and balanced towards China. You should rename it “Cup Of Bitter Tsai”. Fact is you are allowed to write Tibet in China. It is not a crime.