It’s the Chinese Media, Stupid
The great Karl Rove strategy has always been going after your opponent’s strength, rather than his weakness. And that is what the Chinese Government has done. How dare the Chinese Government, which locks up reporters and silences critics, cast blame on the Western media? And how dare people in the West allow the topic to shift away from the true problem, which is of course, freedom of the press.
People in America have the right to say any dopey, stupid thing they want in front of an audience, and the best proof of this is George W. Bush. People should be able to say anything they want. Bill Maher called the Pope a former Nazi (technically he was only in the Hitler Youth). And you know what? When someone says something dopey, someone else is usually there to call them on it. Does anyone really believe that Ann Coulter helps the cause of the right when she opens her mouth? She usually gets publicly humiliated.
The freedom of the press is the most beautiful aspect of America, and it is an outrage that freedom of speech has been put on trial by a government that refuses to grant it. The right to speak one’s mind is what makes democracy possible, and progression possible. There are lots of bad journalists, but there are lots of good ones too. And there are even good ones who say or do dumb things, and usually they should not be fired. George Stephonopolous, whom Cup of Cha greatly admires as journalist, had a miserable performance in last week’s debate. But you know what? That’s okay. The media called him out on it again and again. And he even kept his job.
And this is why there is no room for equivocation on the issue of a free press. The right to say or write whatever you believe–no matter how ignorant or foolish it is–must be a fundamental pillar of a modern and transparent society. For the Chinese Government and its press to criticize an organization like CNN for the words of one of its commentators (read: person giving an opinion) is hypocrisy at its most cynical. It is outrageous that the state-controlled media, an apparatus that prevents Chinese citizens from expressing their opinions, would even consider condemning a system that it only pretends to emulate.
The tragedy of this entire situation is that the Chinese state has successfully attacked the greatest institution of the American system: its free press. If the Chinese people are so squarely behind the government, and are so uniformly in favor of the status quo in power, then what possible outcome does the leadership fear? If they are so comfortable in the views of the population, why do they seek to stifle the opinions that are supposedly aligned with those put forth by the government itself?
It is a tragedy that during this “incident” the topic was changed from the flaws of an opaque media system, to the flaws of one mediocre journalist. Karl Rove would be proud.
Share This
nichtich responds:
Posted: April 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm →
For chinese, the topic of this “incident” has never been on free press or media, even when they blame the cnn or bbc. When they attack a cnn anchor, it’s not the unprofessional or ignorance that makes them angry. It’s that they starts to realize the “western system” is just as ill-intended and evil as the CCP. When the CCP and the “free world” attack each other, both claims to be looking after the interests of chinese(or tibetan) people. While, the trueth is, that’s the last thing either of them considers.
Matthew Stinson responds:
Posted: April 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm →
Nice essay, Josh. It saddens me that the Chinese media has spun “freedom of the press” into “freedom to slander.” Thus, the discussion has moved away from the advantages and disadvantages of each system into a dumbed-down “Western media evil/Chinese evil but hey at least it’s pro-China” dichotomy among Chinese netizens.
One of the advantages of the free press is in fighting corruption: in China, the press knows who’s corrupt and who isn’t, but they’re not allowed to report this fact until the government decides to sack the individuals in question. For instance, most of us will remember the press piling on that the vice mayor of Beijing received after he was removed for corruption charges two years ago. There’s no way this wasn’t known among media elites, but they couldn’t touch him until the government brought the hammer down.
Conversely, in the West — perhaps with the glaring exception of Italy* — reporters are almost always ready to chase a scandal and will bring down a government if need to. Perhaps this possibility will shock the harmonious-minded (and perhaps they would have also put Woodward and Bernstein up against the wall), but the tendency of the media to chase secrets and wrongdoing has the benefit of increasing transparency, discouraging graft, and “cleaning” the political system. A free press provides short-term chaos but long-term harmony.
*Italy’s Berlusconi illustrates that it’s easy to be corrupt and get away with it if you own most of the media.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 12:06 am →
Some questions:
1. Chinese media is bad, does this then make CNN’s bad performance good?
2. Why are the majority of Chinese people, including those who’ve heavily criticized the government in the past, supportive of the government’s demand for apology? Are they all doped by the Chinese media or brain-washed by the government?
3. Why thousands of overseas Chinese, many of them American, Australian, British, Canadian citizens, also protested against the biased reporting of CNN? Are they all manipulated by the Chinese government?
4. Who gets to decide what the topic of the day should be? Are the Chinese people not entitled to choose a topic of their liking?
5. Since when the Chinese outrage at CNN’s biased reporting and cheap PR plot highlighted by Jack Cafferty has been reduced to an attack on a single journalist, or enlarged to an attack on free press at the same time?
6. If people in America have the right to say any dopey, stupid thing they want, why is it so ridiculous for the Chinese people, or the Chinese government for that matter, to exercise their equal freedom to ask for an apology?
7. Is freedom of expression truly unchecked freedom in the absolute sense of the word? If so, why Cup of Cha needs a moderator?
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 1:43 am →
1: The particular performance on CNN was bad. CNN is not a state controlled company though.
2: I feel the Chinese gov’t was not appropriate in demanding a commentator, not a news reporter, not a Chinese anlayist, just a loud mouthed stupid guy who merely expressed his loud mouthed, stupid personal biased opinion, an apologize to the entire country. It’s childish. I think it’s reasonable for the public to be outraged and show their outraged.
3: The oversea’s Chinese are outraged by the biased reports on CNN, and by racist comments from Jack Cafferty, period.
4: The Chinese media is state controlled, the programs have to be approved by state first, the producers in China don’t have a choice in choosing topics to criticize their gov’t or gov’t policies, or expose corruption. When they do, they have to disguise the theme by using historical content, by making period pieces on Ching Dynasty or whatever, can they make documentaries on state and local corruptions?
5: No argument on that.
6: The Chinese gov’t if demand CNN to apologize, then they have to stop arresting their own journalists for exposing the truth. If the Chinese gv’t continue to arrest their own citizens, journalists, for publishing negative opinions or truth, would then the gov’t are the embodiment of Cafferty’s words of “goons and thugs”? This whole incident I feel should have kept below the state level, the Chinese public has the right to express anger and frustration with some of the bias reports on China, but Chinese state gov’t getting involved in demanding a non state run, independent news network apologize to an entire country, because of one guy’s words, and he is not even a news anchor, just a stupid, loudmouthed commentator, to me, is childish. The Chinese journalists association has full right to denounce CNN biased reports, the public has full rights to be outraged and demand apology from CNN. But the state govt was childish to have gotten involved in this matter in the beginning. Because the world knows China state gov’t does arrest reporters, shut down free speech websites, does imprison their citizens for publishing opinions against the gov’t. The govt does behave as “thugs”, when they torture their citizens merely for expressing opinions the govt dislike.
7: The public in China and Chinese oversea are already doing the job of checking freedom of speech in regards to CNN and western media, but it shouldn’t be the state govt to decide if the speech is acceptable or not, use the court to deal with this.
ERIC responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 1:53 am →
George Stephonopolous did a good job moderating that debate.
you are letting your personal predilection for obama cloud your judgement on this particular case. then again, i might be letting my personal bias for clinton entering this judgement call.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 2:03 am →
If China wants to modernize in hardwares as well as, probably even more important, the softwares, meaning modernizing the spirits and attitudes, Chinese govt has to let the public exercise individual opinions freely, has to allow the media to privatize, in order to foster healthy society, have the public monitor the govt, their ethics and standards. That’s how a healthy, vibrant modern society is based on, not the other way around, not by having the govt set the standard for ethics and moral standards. China will never have democracy if the state continue to watch everybody’s opinions, torture and punish those with opinions they do not approve of.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 4:01 am →
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSPEK30866720080423
Chinese lawyers are taking CNN to court over this, I am not sure they have a strong case though, but this is going to take place in China, and the judges who take this on would face tremendous social pressure instead of keeping neutral, but this is a more rational way to resolve the differences than the way China state gov’t had been doing. The key is Jack Cafferty is not a politician, not a news reporter, not a spokesperson for the US govt or for CNN, just a guy who gets paid to blah his “strongly held” opinion, and he didn’t do this in China, he did it in another country’s soil. If this goes to court, the CNN side can easily pull out all the examples Chinese govt has done to its citizens, the imprisonment, the tortures and jailed of journalists, to back up Jack’s personal views on Chinese govt being “goons and thugs”.
DUN KNOW responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 4:09 am →
The most ridiculous thing to me is that Westerners accept the concept of democracy unquestionably.
Why the free speech is a beautiful thing? Just because it has a word “free” in it? Have you ever thought it before?
Democracy could also be a evil thing.
onCoC responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 6:40 am →
The difference is when some western media/person slanders/attack China/CHinese/non-western countries/entites on western media, these same media usually don’t give a fair or equal chance for the defenders to rebuttal them or argue back.
However, for Bush and Pope, they have tons of PR person to help them in western media circles and they are usually given equal on air time too.
onCoC
Josh responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 7:41 am →
@windswing #7
Cause I pay the bills. Cup of Cup doesn’t “need” a moderator, but it’s got one. Of course freedom of the press means you can start your own–unmoderated
@Dun Know
Freedom of speech is absolutely a good thing. It lets all voices be heard. And if democracy weren’t the best, if imperfect, system, then why does every country with full freedom of speech inevitably turn democratic?
Bobby responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am →
@Windswing
As to point #3: Remember when the whole US was discussing whether John Kerry was really a war hero for getting shot three times? Same thing.
As to point #4: Did the Chinese “People” really pick this topic? Only if you believe that the “P” in PRC refers to the masses and not the dictators at the top.
Papi responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am →
How ironic is this politico article that just went up:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9844.html
What did you say Rove’s tactics were?
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am →
Freedom of speech is a lovely thing, without the fear of imprisonment. People who live in Hong Kong are happier than mainland Chinese in that sense.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am →
You can’t run an open economy without transparency and responsibility in the system, and that’s what democracy is good for, let the press and public dictates instead of from top down. Every person has to take responsibility for their actions and words, and no one even govt has the right to shut up other people’s opinions.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 9:39 am →
Dun Know, can be read in Chinese as “use brain”, then use your brain, idiot, you are living the fruit of the China open policy, as we speak. You can have limited amount of freedom to comment on this blog to criticize the west, without Bush demanding an apology from you, is exactly that.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 9:42 am →
Dun Know, use your brain, that’s why the west has layers and layers of law to protect people’s freedom of speech, and punish those who abuse it.
Bobby responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am →
@Cathy
What’s thea deal with 4 consecutive comments? Why not make one?
Robert Vance responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 10:05 am →
The Chinese government simply gets its feelings hurt too easily. We are talking about the Communist Party here. Supposedly one of the roughest and toughest political machines in the world. So why do they get their ‘panties all up in a bunch’ when an American cable television network calls them names? They simply cannot handle criticism from their own people or the foreign media. They really need to grow up.
http://www.teachabroadchina.com/anti-cnn-website-attack/
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm →
I couldn’t get all I wanted to say in one because after I posted one I would immediately have something more to follow….
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm →
The Chinese govt(CCP)simply is not sophisticated enough in modern PR tactics to deal with the western media, they are using PR tactics from back in WW2. Now with the lawyers suing CNN, the public is learning quicker than the govt and I think going through court system is a more rational way, and if with enough evidence, is a much stronger case, but I don’t think this is a strong case, how could the 14 lawyers claim that they represent entire Chinese population? Have they gotten signatures of every citizen in China? Or of majority of Chinese citizens?
Mick responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm →
I’m really enjoying the unreal statements being made by Xinhua. This week they ask the American media to abide by the “Journalists Creed” from Missouri School of Journallism. The fifth principle is: “I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible. ”
There is no point even debating with Chinese any more. Just sit back and enjoy the absurdity.
Will Lewis responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm →
DUN KNOW,
Without freedom of the press a democracy cannot function. Freedom of the press is the freedom that keeps democracies from going bad. If the press is free to report, short of libel, then information from a variety of different sources and from different viewpoints is allowed to spread throughout the democratic society. This prevents one group from having a monopoly on the news and thereby entrenching themselves in the power hierarchy. If you want an example of where this is going wrong, look at Italy. Silvio Berlusconi passed laws and expanded his media empire during his first term as PM of Italy giving him a monopoly on news in Italy. Things weren’t going great under Romano Prodi, but Berlusconi is not Italy’s solution, despite what his news networks tell the people.
Josh’s point is a good one, when you say something stupid in a free press everyone is free to say how stupid you or your ideas are. But you still get to say it with impunity.
Rhys responds:
Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pm →
Mick
Yeah - that’s incredible. Every now and again, government figures still manage to take my breath away with the sheer force of their hypocrisy. The Chinese press lecturing western press on morals over this point is like a murderer lecturing a pickpocket on ethics.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 1:09 am →
The CCP needs to grow up, and shut up next time the next loud mouthed commentator in the western media comments on his/her own viewpoint of the CCP. Don’t they see how juvenile they came across in the world by demanding a free press an apology? the Chinese people need to start thinking on their own, instead of thinking of themselves as “children” and the govt is their “father”. I am so tired of this sheep mentality.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 1:23 am →
http://www.huliq.com/57804/china-hopes-cnn-will-take-protests-seriously
The CCP has to let the public deal with this, the more CCP talks about this more they prolong this silliness, let the case go to court, let the journalist association condemn CNN biased reports, let people write in newspapers, CCP needs to stay out of this. CCP don’t get the idea of freedom of personal viewpoints obviously.
Scott responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am →
Argh! I don’t think this has much to do about my favorite catchphrase “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people”. I think all this stuff is for one purpose: to focus attention to an external entitiy to rally nationalism. Okay, so there are a few other problems: protests, crackdowns, etc. But, what the CCP really wants is to rally people around a cause, so pick one outside. Forget your rising prices of pork and rice, forget the incredible retreat of the Shanghai stock market, and forget that even though there is a vast amount here in reserves, but still so much poverty. No, what the CCP wants is the people to vent their anger at ‘western media’. I think they are trying to keep the people occupied with ‘evil western entities’. Can’t afford meat? Think CNN. Can’t get medicine? Think CNN. Upcoming brownouts and power outages? Again, think CNN. Chinese media is about perceptions and mind control. I am not saying it is bad (some of it is useful), just recognize it for what it is.
Scott
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am →
Of course there have been biased reports from some western media, that is part of manipulating perception as well. I think in a few months this will all die down and then we get to the really interesting part, how would the Chinese look at the CCP when once the evil western media focused on something else? Would the Chinese demand more of the modernization, more freedom of press, would they become more harsh and less afraid to criticize their govt?
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am →
All these are good, there was no other time in human history when east and west could have dialogs and debates as now, in the blogging age. All the debates on the internet would I hope force Chinese to look into themselves and examine how to make their society more just and better for everyone to lead their own lives without fear of gov’t shoving down moral standards and ethics on them.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am →
Deep down, I think if China could eventually get this right, China could become much better than Japan, much more open, competitive, and vibrant.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am →
Dalai Lama gave an interview with SingTao newspaper American edition, which came out US time today, April 24th, 08. In it he was sincere in his words in wanting to work with CCP in solving the conflicts in Tibet. You can go google it. In it he mentioned that he is sadden by the fact that lots of mainland Chinese misunderstood him, he is not sadden by misunderstanding of the CCP, but by so many mainland Chinese.
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 12:00 pm →
My comment got a red flag, what’s up with that? Are my words going to harm the entire China?
cathy w responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm →
接受本報獨家專訪 籲漢藏民族和好 望分歧在內部解決
達賴首回應胡錦濤「三個停止」
( 本報記者 王寧 廖國文 科爾蓋科(Colgate)大學獨家專訪 )
達賴喇嘛4月23日早上在紐約上州科爾蓋特(Colgate)大學接受了本報記者王寧與廖國文的獨家專訪。這是自「3．14」西藏拉薩動亂後，達賴喇嘛首次接受中文媒體的獨家專訪。
在一個多小時的專訪中，達賴喇嘛首次正式回應了胡錦濤有關談判大門敞開的講話，首次公開談他與藏青會關係。達賴強烈呼籲漢藏民族攜手和好，共同解決面臨的問題。
達賴23日在為星島日報讀者留言時，並未停留在客套禮節上，而是執筆沉思，寫下一段他從未向任何媒體發表過的話。
他用藏文寫道：「對於所有漢族同胞表示問好。我們兄弟民族在緊緊保持兄弟情感下，任何問題以通過內部坦誠交談來解決，並經常保持相互密切的關係是很重要的。」
達賴辦公室人員指出：達賴為我們寫的這段話對他們來說也是極為重要的動態。他們不僅認真抄錄了這段話，還與我們認真逐字討論將這段藏文譯成中文和英文。並在事後向達賴本人求證，力求絲毫無誤地理解留言的真正含意。
在回答記者提出的問題前，達賴喇嘛首先表示：「首先我很高興會見一家主要的中文報紙，我認為這是非常重要的。我們西藏人面臨的問題，同時也是中國人面臨的問題。這個問題必須在中國兄弟姐妹及西藏人中間找到答案。當然，外人能夠幫助我們，但最後解決方法還是要靠我們。全球華人兄弟姐妹對此問題的清晰理解是真正重要的。為此我很高興會見你們。」
達賴一向推崇和平及非暴力，但近來圍繞奧運聖火傳遞發生的暴力行為，顯示出有些人已經失去了控制，也就是說失去了達賴的控制。本報記者首先要求達賴就此作出解釋。
達賴表示，首先我不是世界的統治者。在藏人中間——你昨天也看到了我演講門口的抗議(指另一佛教宗派雄登信徒)，他們極力反對我。我在五一年到七十年代時也信奉過這個信仰，但後來發覺這是不對的，就不再信仰了。他們就這樣反對我。達賴指出雄登信徒在印度殺人，被列罪犯。他說，你看，也有反對我的人。在藏人社區，現在有些團體全面違背我的中間路線。
這是達賴喇嘛首次將抗議奧運聖火傳遞的人，同長期以來極力反對他的雄登信徒放在一起提出，以說明部分藏人並不聽他話。
記者表示胡錦濤最近發表了只要他做到「三個停止」，與達賴談判大門是敞開的講話。請他回應這個講話。
達賴喇嘛表示：從2002年到現在有6次圓桌會議，但無實質結果。他認為胡錦濤未準備好進行對話。對話不僅是見面，而是要相互聆聽對方意見，共同尋找一個解決問題的方法。達賴表示他全力支持胡錦濤的和諧社會主張，認為是非常重要，實在的理念。
達賴日前在密歇根會見了美國西藏問題特使，但沒有公布具體內容。達賴在專訪中透露，他向美國方面提出現在出現的這種危機，會使中國領導人更加注意到西藏真正的現狀。過去中國領導人認為西藏人是快樂的，現在他們會發現情況不是這樣。他認為這次危機可能使中國領導人會重新考慮對西藏流亡政府的態度。如果那樣的話，所以現在美國可以進行幫助。如果這樣情況出現，達賴表示將全力支持中央政府解決西藏問題。
達賴表示美國特使向他告知中美間就此問題的幾次接觸，如在歐洲會見中國官員等。稱指美國特使完全同意他的看法。
在採訪將結束時，達賴已經非常激動。他說：「政府指責我，我不在乎，但有幾百萬中國人，無辜的中國人真正感到達賴是個很壞的人，那樣我真的感到很悲傷。」
達賴喇嘛把民族團結的希望放在年青一代身上，希望年青一代藏人同漢族交流。他指出他去年在加拿大發現有一個當地的西藏青年人團體，同漢人青年團體組成了一個友誼組織。他感到非常高興。因為今後如有事件發生，雙方馬上可以展開對話。
專訪結束時，我們要求達賴喇嘛通過星島日報，用一句話向所有中國人表達他想說的話。他激動地用英中相雜的話說：「我們是兄弟民族，不要對我們感到憤怒，讓我們站在一起。所有的分歧我們都可以在內部解決。」
如閣下想就此新聞發表意見﹐請電郵到forum@singtaousa.com
http://www.singtaousa.com/
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 1:34 pm →
And here is more of “bad China”!
It’s time for “Shark awareness week”!
http://tinyurl.com/4zt6j4
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pm →
Bausch & Lomb, Areva, Total, Renault and Suez?
Because those companies are associated with high technology, advanced manufacturing and modern management methods and so are necessary for China’s development. So they stay protected, Carrefour is just a department store.
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 25th, 2008 at 9:30 pm →
Josh,
I thought your answer on #7 would be about money and it turned out to be exactly that. But, you have missed the point I was trying to make.
Now think carefully - The “goon and thug” remark is NOT an opinion. It is name calling, and name calling stirring up hatred on the Chinese people. Moreover, this remark was made on a mainstream news channel that boasts of reporting the news “in an objective and balanced fashion”.
It’s amazing to note how smoothly a cheap and shameful PR plot from CNN can have it whitewashed and painted as a “robust opinion that generates bebate”, and how swiftly public opinion at home can be turned against the Chinese government at which this remark was thought to be courageously challenging.
Let’s not forget, free speech is a qualifed freedom. For example, the law does not allow slander and defamation, or inciting hatred/violence on TV. Broadcasters have no freedom to call black or Jewish Americans names like “goons and thugs”. And remarks like that, once made, won’t be so easily allowed to be switched to “what I really meant was…” in court. The same should apply to Cafferty and CNN.
That’s why I said Cup of Cha needs a moderator, not just because of money.
P.S. cathy w, I have to get back to you in another occasion, but the above is part of my response to your comments.
Josh responds:
Posted: April 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am →
@Wingswing
I think it’s safe to say, Cup of Cha is a tiny consideration in this equation.
Second, no one has said these comments were brilliant AND THEY AREN’T ABOUT THE CHINESE PEOPLE!!!! They’re about the government!!!!
Monica responds:
Posted: April 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm →
Luckily, I am not silly enough to trust our stupid media. :0
Rhys responds:
Posted: April 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm →
WIndswing
Americans (I am not one, by the way) slander their leaders at almost any given opportunity. Calling a foreign gov “goons and thugs” is hardly stuff to create an international incident over. J Cafferty called Donald Rumsfeld a “war crimininal” (A sentiment which i have to say I heartily endorse) Come on - he may have expressed himself poorly but do u seriously think he is that ignorant and stupid to call more than a billion people on earth “goons and thugs?” Really?
Why on earth, in a million freakin years, would sb be that friggin dumb?
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 29th, 2008 at 1:05 am →
Rhys and Josh,
For your info, the Chinese government is composed of some 5-10 million civil servants. Now, you guys tell me “why on earth, in a million freakin years, would sb be that friggin dumb” to call all these people “goons and thugs”?
Also please bear in mind, Cafferty is a TV commentator working for a serious mainstream news channel. As a pro, if he doesn’t know how to choose his words properly on air, he should be fired for incompetence if nothing else. I fully support the idea that politicians and governments should be subject to stricter media scrutiny, but please do not tell me that by CNN’s standard, name-calling is “robust opinion that generates debate”.
As for the question whether Cafferty is that ignorant and stupid to call more than a billion people on earth “goons and thugs”, I’m afraid that is something Cafferty himself have to explain. But one thing I do know about bigots is, carefree utterances sometimes best portray their subconsciousness or true state of mind.
And in case you are still wondering why the Chinese made a big fuss out of all this, I should probably share with you the knowledge that for many Chinese, what is more outrageous is not the bigotry in Cafferty’s remarks, but the length CNN has gone through to have the whole thing white-washed with a devious PR exercise, under the background of its repeated biased reporting on the riot in Tibet.
Another thing that seems to have been forgotten in this debate is, people in different parts of the world do have different ideas about how far free speech or press freedom can go. The laws on this, though similar in spirit, have marked differences in specific arrangments all over the world (even among the so-called Western democracies). As far as I know, the Singaporean government in the past has launched and indeed won quite a lot of libel lawsuits against some renowned Western media outlets.
One can debate whether these lawsuits have been used to stifle press freedom, but it is not really for the US to make decision for everyone on this planet as to what the proper limits for free speech should be. Quite frankly, telling the Chinese, who have been insulted in the first place, to just “chill out” for YOUR ieda of press freedom, does sound to me a bit patronizing.
Rhys responds:
Posted: April 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am →
Windswing
Well maybe you’re right, and he should be fired for his incompetence if nothing else. (Although that is not what you were originally arguing)
So who else should we fire? On the basis of incompetence, any Chinese journalist who claimed not a single Tibetan was killed during or after the riots? Or perhaps the administrators who barred all western media from seeing the evidence of this incredibly effective restraint? Or the officials who previously claimed that western journalists would be free to interview anyone without permission this year in the spirit of openness the Olympics engenders?
Should the US president be fired on this basis (I would argue so in that particlaur case)
The world is full of people and journalists doing their jobs incompetently. But the government of a world power making a diplomatic incident over a journalist’s incompetent remarks - now that is rare.
Rhys responds:
Posted: April 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am →
Actually, I would go further.
The Government of a world power making a diplomatic incident over a throwaway line on a TV show aimed at a domestic audience in a country halfway around the world - it’s not rare. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of it before. (But I may be wrong, if you have a good example for me)
Rhys responds:
Posted: April 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am →
Windswing
I should have written this is one post - but anyway. I’m don’t disbelieve the Singaporean Gov has sued western media outlets (sth I think a western gov would have a snowballs chance of hell in doing to a Chinese media outlet) but do you know specifically what the issue was?
Windswing responds:
Posted: April 29th, 2008 at 5:12 pm →
Rhys,
A simple answer to your last round of questions would be - two wrongs do not make one right.
I’ve never said the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s approach is the one and only right solution. But to dismiss the Chinese demand for apology as ridiculous, childish, etc. surely is not the one and only right solution either.
According to what I have read about the Singaporean libel cases, Lee Kuan Yew, his son Lee Hsien Loong, and government ministers have won against a long list of reputable Western media outlets including WSJ, TIME, IHT, BLOOMBERG, FT, ECONOMIST, and BUSINESS WEEK.
For details, please refer to the following links I have come across, you’re also encouraged to do your own research on the topic.
http://www.pressreference.com/Sa-Sw/Singapore.html
http://www.asianz.org.nz/node/181
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004067.pdf
http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/wp/wp130.pdf
http://business.smh.com.au/singapore-libel-case-a-test-of-murdochs-bona-fides/20080106-1kg3.html?page=fullpage
Rhys responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm →
Windswing
Thanks for the links. The Murdoch Uni one mentioned foreign publications being taken to task for commenting on some of the unsavory aspects of the PAP gov - something which I have to say I would be very supportive of the journalists doing. Hey - if their system is so superior what harm could media criticism do it?surely people would see the criticism for what it was.
This is also quite a different situation to the Mcaferty saga. For starters - his comment came as a sideline to his criticism of the AMERICAN government. Secondly - it was a piece of commentary. He hadn’t gone out and done and expose of the CCP. Thirdly - it was for DOMESTIC consumption. It wasn’t said for the the Asia Wall Street Journal or some similar publication in Chin or even the region. Fourthly - I don’t see the SIngaporean Gov asking for apologies from these publications. lawsuits, yes, apologies, no.
Rhys responds:
Posted: May 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm →
Fifthly - some people were offended by the line. and i think cafferty should have apologised for that - out of his own sense of decency and in the interests of clarification. but the chinese media chose to portray his comment in the broadest possible sense. they translated it as him referring to 华人, being thugs and goons for gods sake. there was no reasonable discussion or debate in the chinese media about what he might have meant - they went straight for the jugular and, i’m sure, convinced a lot of chinese people that he had gone on some kind of white trash nationalistic orgy of Chinese-people bashing.
by your line of argument it makes equal sense to fire any chinese sub-editor who translated his comments with the word 华人, - for grossly misleading the chinese people.
Windswing responds:
Posted: May 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm →
Rhys,
On the Singapore case study, it appears in the heat of this debate you have once again missed some major points I was trying to make - Unfettered press freedom does not exist in this world. The proper limits for press freedom should be decided by people in each country according to their local conditions. Imposing the Anglo-American (or the so-called liberal democracies) model of press freedom on others is over-simplistic and tantamount to cultural imperialism. The danger of unfettered press freedom during race riots, the questionable credibility of unelected media against elected government - key arguements among many from the Singaporean government to justify their approach are not without merits.
As to your five specific points, let me deal with them one by one:
1. Sideline or not, if a comment is racist or offensive, it should be condemned.
2. I repeat, Cafferty’s “goons and thugs” remark is NOT commentary. Be aware of the CNN PR spin.
3. FYI, CNN is NOT just for domestic consumption - CNN Int’l is worldwide and can be seen in thousands of 4-star above hotels all over China. “Situation Room” have loads of viewers in China.
4. If you study the links I provided earlier hard enough, you’ll find that the Singaporean government has indeed asked for and received open and written apologies for many times, and went on further with the lawsuits regardless of these apologies.
5. How do you explain the fact that millions of English-speaking Chinese nationals, overseas Chinese that need no translation and totally free from Chinese media influence, and many non-Chinese from English-speaking countries, all happen to see Cafferty’s remarks as referring to the Chinese people? (I personally agree with them, after carefully looking at the context of Cafferty’s whole outburst)
And as I have pointed out, even if we allow for a moment the remarks were meant for the government, categorizing 5-10 million Chinese civil servants all as “goons and thugs” is just beyond earthly comprehension. Cafferty might be dumb, but seriously is he that dumb?
Finally, I’d like to share with you and everyone interested in the topic the following links I came across lately which strike me as making a lot of sense (though the authors and commentators may not see eye to eye with me on everything):
http://www.chinavortex.com/2008/05/whats-wrong-with-the-economists-angry-china-article/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8287/
http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/2008/05/just-so-we-get-this-clear.htm
(The comments in this blog are worthy of special notice)
http://chinalawpracticeblog.com/?p=22