Author: northwest

Western media bias against China - cases and examples   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-3-15 09:13:53 |Display all floors
Originally posted by emucentral at 2008-3-15 06:14
Crikey ! Gover-nment influence in the news output of CNN ?

Thank goodness I can get my information from a large number of sources in Australia, Asia, Europe and even the USA !
Surely the US gove-rnment doesn't have offi-cers working in "The Age", ABC Australia, the BBC, Montreal Gazette, SCMP, Straits Times, Jakarta Post and China Daily ?

On the other hand, do Ch-inese govern-ment offi-cials have influence over the news output from CD and Xinhua ?

Over to you for an answer on that please, Northwest !!!   ...


The answer is... no Chinese government media ever denied that it's government's. Because it's so.

But how about CNN? They claimed to be independent and impartial, yet infiltrated by US military. So you expect them to be impartial in reporting US foreign policy?

If they're close with the US establishment, don't be shy, just say so.

And look at your media, helping your government to oust Alkitiri by spreading rumors, lies and "many say".

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-3-15 09:21:41 |Display all floors

Deceit machine funded by the US - VOA

http://www.answers.com/voice%20of%20america

Programming is intended for non-U.S. audiences, and under provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act (1948) and a clarifying amendment in 1972, programs may not be broadcast within the United States without congressional approval.


So... they funded a news organization, by banned it to be broadcasted in their own land.

Why so shy? the contain of reporting between this media and other media is different?

A deceit machine.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-3-15 19:13:19 |Display all floors
We have seen how the western media, in collusion with the British government and Ministry of Defence, has deliberately kept any news of the chump prince harry in Afghanistan from their own public.

Can we trust any word from these people? Can we?

[ Last edited by gotohell at 2008-3-15 07:15 PM ]
You will reap what you sow!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2008-3-16 20:04:20 |Display all floors
This article comes from, Gregory Clark, an ex Australian diplomat, and is currently a Professor in Japan.  It seems that London has  been the source of much of the 'black' information against China in the 60s. Today, it is still the same.


The Japan Times: November 15, 2007
Gregory Clark

In some ways China is not my favorite country. I once went to some trouble to learn its language. I have often had to court rightwing hostility for trying to explain its foreign policies in less than demonic terms. Back in 1971 I even organized, single-handedly and over Canberra's opposition, an Australian team to join in Beijing's Ping-Pong diplomacy. (Canberra in those days saw Beijing as evil incarnate, and its efforts to open up to the world via Ping-Pong team matches as a plot to take us all over.)

Yet, on my first day in China accompanying the team I had organized with such effort, I was almost expelled for trying to rescue an Australian journalist in trouble with the Red Guards. A few weeks later I was to receive a formal reprimand from the Chinese Foreign Ministry for trying to help more mistake-prone Australian journalists in trouble.

This, together with some articles I wrote showing less than complete enthusiasm for China's disastrous Cultural Revolution, put me in Beijing's bad books for quite some time. Others who slavishly praised China at the time were warmly welcomed.

But while it is easy to be annoyed by China's hard-nosed realpolitik in choosing friends, it is hard also not to be annoyed by the continual anti-China carping in the West.

Here is a nation that has begun to lift one quarter of the world's population out of poverty to close to middle-class prosperity in a generation. Yet we are supposed to be upset by suspect paint on some toys ordered to the specifications of a U.S. importer, plus a few other imperfections in the torrent of quality goods helping rescue our Western economies from inflation and improve our own middle-class existences.

China is accused of air pollution and gobbling up world energy resources. But when it dams the Yangtse River to produce over 22,000 megawatts of clean energy in an engineering feat that no Western nation can even begin to match, the Western media complain about the unforeseen erosion of mountain slopes upstream forcing villagers to be evacuated.

So it would have been better not to build the dam, force China to continue to rely on pollution-intense, coal-based energy, and go back to the days when tens of thousands died from flooding in the Yangtse's heavily populated lower reaches?

Somehow the recent opening of the remarkable 1,142-km, 5,000-meter-high railway line into Tibet is also sinful because it opens Tibet to Han Chinese influence. So it would be better to keep Tibetans in backward isolation forever?

The Han Chinese are supposed to be guilty of creeping genocide in Tibet. But since Beijing allows Tibetans, like other minorities, to have as many children as they want while Han Chinese are restricted to only one child, it seems we need a new definition of genocide.

China, it seems, is also guilty for failing to protest atrocities the West condemns in Sudan's Darfur and in Myanmar. Maybe it sees hypocrisy in the way the West not just fails to protest similar atrocities elsewhere, but actually helps to create them, as in Iraq, Somalia or Afghanistan. U.S. free-fire zones in Vietnam forcing villagers to live in underground tunnels for years make Darfur's Janjaweed killers look like a bunch of amateurs.

Maybe we would all be better off if we stopped telling other nations what to do and concentrated on our own affairs, as China does. But the main complaint is that China is not a democracy. Has anyone thought what would happen if China was a democracy?
The first victim would be the unpopular one-child policy, which threatens to cause serious problems for the nation in the future — rapid population aging, a male-female population imbalance, the weakening of family values. Yet, without that policy, the global pollution and resource shortage problems we all face would be far worse. In a sense the Chinese are making sacrifices for our sakes. But they get little thanks. Even the one-child policy is denounced as evil authoritarianism.

Today few criticize Singapore, or Japan for that matter, both of whom chose one-party autocracy during their early growth periods. China's blend of local democracy with reasonably responsible collective leadership from the top could well be a model for many other struggling societies.

Singapore's continuing one-party rule suggests that even advanced Chinese culture societies could prefer Confucian-style benign autocracy to Western-style democracy. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom of choice. But our moralists complain when a nation makes a choice they do not like.

Even more annoying is the way the distorted products of myth-making are constantly dragged out to slam Beijing, as with the Tiananmen "massacre" of 1989? Just read the freely available reports from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing at the time to get the true story.
China attacked India in 1962? Read what the historians have long said: namely, that it was India that attacked China and China retaliated.
China wants to take over Taiwan? Almost the entire world now formally recognizes Taiwan to be part of China.

China crushed Tibetan independence in 1959? But no one, the previous anticommunist Chinese regime especially, has ever recognized Tibet as independent. And we now know that the CIA and India were deeply involved in fomenting the 1959 uprising that China felt it had to crush.

Recent criticisms of China seem aimed to neutralize the kudos Beijing hopes its 2008 Olympics will bring. For some reason the British have long been the most diligent. As proof of Beijing's continuing authoritarianism the BBC recently went to some lengths to show a young reporter speaking execrable Chinese being refused entry to the closely guarded Chinese leadership housing and office compound in Beijing. Perhaps the guards remembered what happened the last time the British arrived there — the looting of invaluable treasures while crushing the 1900 Boxer Rebellion.

London orchestrated much of the anti-China black information campaigns during Vietnam War days. It has used the Tiananmen myth to persuade the European Union to continue its ban on weapons sales to China. Its former governor in Hong Kong, Christopher Patten, was openly contemptuous of the Chinese regime.

Coming from the nation that launched the two Opium Wars of the mid-19th century — wars that were to lead directly to many of China's later troubles, including the loss of Hong Kong — the criticisms seem a bit indulgent.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-3-17 13:27:57 |Display all floors
Originally posted by harihari at 2008-3-16 20:04
This article comes from, Gregory Clark, an ex Australian diplomat, and is currently a Professor in Japan.  It seems that London has  been the source of much of the 'black' information against China ...


I've actually noticed a great deal more criticism from British media than American media. Odd actually considering the British recognized China before us. Of course with the British it's even more hypocritical than our criticism of China. At least we don't have cameras watching every single person's action like the British.

I think the bias can be seen clearly in basically any article talking about reform in China or views in China. One article I read, which I liked quite a bit, was talking about experimentation with different forms of democracy in some areas of China and they talked about China developing a "more responsive form of authoritarianism" which was just nonsense. Another part of the article talking about inner party democracy said the " logical conclusion" was to have factions running on ideological slates and ultimately turning into formal political parties. I saw that and just got pissed. It is not the logical conclusion, it's the Western "China won't be good until they're just like us" mentality.

Apparently some people just don't get that democracy does not describe one specific thing but is a big idea with lots of theories on how it is most likely to be effective.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-3-17 16:44:40 |Display all floors
Originally posted by kodama at 2008-3-17 15:27
I've actually noticed a great deal more criticism from British media than American media.  ...


Actually, I've read many positive stories about China in the British on-line media (BBC).

It's what's called BALANCE. Tell the truth, the good and the bad.

You might not be familiar with such a concept if you only read the mainland media.
"他不是救星, 他是一个非常淘气男孩" - Monty Python

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal

Post time 2008-3-17 16:59:18 |Display all floors
Originally posted by kodama at 2008-3-17 14:27


I've actually noticed a great deal more criticism from British media than American media. Odd actually considering the British recognized China before us. Of course with the British it's even m ...



Kodama,

I agree with your observation. Over the last couple of days this was quite obvious again but I wouldn't just say the Brits, it is more criticism and unbalanced reporting from Europe in general than from the US. Americans always looked into both sides of the story, not so the Europeans.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.