Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Self hype
I have just started writing a blog for journalism.co.uk that can be found here. I am also editing a book at the moment and this has become a nightmare in that it is preventing me maintaining this blog and writing freelance. I hope to write more when it is finished.
Food for thought
It is a peculiar trait of Chinese office culture that most people communicate via MSN, even if you happen to be sitting right next to the colleague you are speaking to. Recently, my Chinese colleagues have en masse added the prefix "I love China" to their MSN names. One has even added "no Carrefour" next to hers as a boycott of French goods is being proposed here due to the recent torch relay protests in Paris.
This is all very worrying. Speaking to another colleague, she said the symbols were designed to show solidarity with the Chinese students in the West who may be coming under pressure in the current media climate. It is a fair point, but one that illustrates the continuing impasse between the views of Chinese and the West. To me, I love China campaign makes the Chinese appear homogeneous or “faceless automatons” as I provocatively suggested to my colleague.
The way CNN has been held up as a pariah for the comments of one misguided anchor somewhat reinforces this point. Amid all the shouting and flag waving, I have not seen one article that has tried to address the root cause of all the angst, apart from perhaps Simon Barnes in the Times. There is a huge gap that needs to be bridged. Chinese media has jumped on these comments to the exclusion of pretty much everything else that has been said in the Western press about Tibet, the Olympics and Beijing. They do not see the irony that Chinese media consistently prints untruths, or that one opinion amongst many is not representative of intrinsic bias.
So where is it all going to end? I have noticed that on many of the comments left on Western news articles, both sides have begun to address each other’s points, rather than just wading in all guns blazing irrespective of what has been said before. This is progress, of a sort. I have not even attempted to cover the back and forth in detail, primarily because I have not had time, but also because it really is very difficult to weigh the arguments objectively.
The debate raging next to me about the CNN comments at the moment is a positive thing, and hopefully the clash of cultures will make the West more introspective as well as the Chinese. Why do we feel the need to uphold the values of the Enlightenment so vigorously? How can we counter the accusation that British and American actions in Iraq are in no way different from China’s in Tibet? For me, this all comes back to democratic accountability and the free press, but trying to argue this with people who have no experience of either has made me realize the breadth of the chasm that separates our cultures.
This is all very worrying. Speaking to another colleague, she said the symbols were designed to show solidarity with the Chinese students in the West who may be coming under pressure in the current media climate. It is a fair point, but one that illustrates the continuing impasse between the views of Chinese and the West. To me, I love China campaign makes the Chinese appear homogeneous or “faceless automatons” as I provocatively suggested to my colleague.
The way CNN has been held up as a pariah for the comments of one misguided anchor somewhat reinforces this point. Amid all the shouting and flag waving, I have not seen one article that has tried to address the root cause of all the angst, apart from perhaps Simon Barnes in the Times. There is a huge gap that needs to be bridged. Chinese media has jumped on these comments to the exclusion of pretty much everything else that has been said in the Western press about Tibet, the Olympics and Beijing. They do not see the irony that Chinese media consistently prints untruths, or that one opinion amongst many is not representative of intrinsic bias.
So where is it all going to end? I have noticed that on many of the comments left on Western news articles, both sides have begun to address each other’s points, rather than just wading in all guns blazing irrespective of what has been said before. This is progress, of a sort. I have not even attempted to cover the back and forth in detail, primarily because I have not had time, but also because it really is very difficult to weigh the arguments objectively.
The debate raging next to me about the CNN comments at the moment is a positive thing, and hopefully the clash of cultures will make the West more introspective as well as the Chinese. Why do we feel the need to uphold the values of the Enlightenment so vigorously? How can we counter the accusation that British and American actions in Iraq are in no way different from China’s in Tibet? For me, this all comes back to democratic accountability and the free press, but trying to argue this with people who have no experience of either has made me realize the breadth of the chasm that separates our cultures.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Losing the media battle
The past couple of weeks week have seen a couple of incidents that do not reflect well on the Western media. During the early stages of the National People's Congress, Zhao Baige, vice-minister at the state population and family planning commission, was quoted as saying the one child policy was up for review.
Western media on both sides of the Atlantic jumped on the story. At the time commented to a friend I know working at the Guardian's office in Beijing, that the story lacked any grounding in hard fact. Later, it appeared this assessment had been correct, as China announced it would not renew the policy for a decade. Of course, Western media had to cover the story in light of their previous copy, which had suggested there might be a change. This resulted in much duplication of statistics and, in short, was a bit of a waste of time.
There is, however, a larger issue at stake here. The Guardian's story states that the confusion was the result of inter-party squabbling, which may well be the case. What is interesting is how the government later used this difference in opinion in a China Daily column. The passage cites the difference in views as evidence of the democratic nature of the NPC. This displays an uncanny knack for understanding how the media can be manipulated and how it might be used to influence others.
Which brings us to the front page of China Daily this weekend: Riot reports show media bias in West. The main thrust of the article is that pictures distributed across Western media that purported to show Chinese police violently quelling Tibetan rioters were actually taken in Nepal. It includes the classic quote: "The pictures illustrate how the news can be manipulated."
Despite the obvious irony here, the pictures did carry incorrect captions. They should serve as a warning for the West to avoid the temptation to speculate without hard evidence. The commodification of news has led agencies to take increasingly greater risks in an effort to be first, or to carry exclusive content. This was an example of that tendency getting out of hand. With such a dearth of definitive material on the current situation in Tibet, there is a temptation to satisfy consumers' demand without checking the facts as thoroughly they should be.
However, in the West's defence - what is one to do when China has banned all reporters from entering Tibet (apart from the Economist's correspondent who was later ejected)? Such restrictions contradict the country's pledge to allow journalists to report freely over the nine month period of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Foreign Correspondents Club of China is currently collecting reports from journalists encountering restrictions in the region.
The West is also criticized for ignoring the victimization of Chinese in Lhasa and the surrounding regions. This could well be a fair point, but when reporters are unable to confirm anything this argument cannot be sustained. It is too easy to make the assumption that the restrictions are there because there is something to hide. To then suggest the news is being manipulated is profoundly hypocritical.
Those pictures that have trickled out of Tibet invariably show acts of violence by Tibetans on Chinese citizens. Such acts have undoubtedly occurred, but when the flow of information is so restricted, we must ask whether there are other photographs out there that are yet, if ever, to see the light of day. I can only hope that when the restrictions are lifted, as they surely must be, the journalists who attempt to find the truth can still find someone who is prepared to tell it to them.
Western media on both sides of the Atlantic jumped on the story. At the time commented to a friend I know working at the Guardian's office in Beijing, that the story lacked any grounding in hard fact. Later, it appeared this assessment had been correct, as China announced it would not renew the policy for a decade. Of course, Western media had to cover the story in light of their previous copy, which had suggested there might be a change. This resulted in much duplication of statistics and, in short, was a bit of a waste of time.
There is, however, a larger issue at stake here. The Guardian's story states that the confusion was the result of inter-party squabbling, which may well be the case. What is interesting is how the government later used this difference in opinion in a China Daily column. The passage cites the difference in views as evidence of the democratic nature of the NPC. This displays an uncanny knack for understanding how the media can be manipulated and how it might be used to influence others.
Which brings us to the front page of China Daily this weekend: Riot reports show media bias in West. The main thrust of the article is that pictures distributed across Western media that purported to show Chinese police violently quelling Tibetan rioters were actually taken in Nepal. It includes the classic quote: "The pictures illustrate how the news can be manipulated."
Despite the obvious irony here, the pictures did carry incorrect captions. They should serve as a warning for the West to avoid the temptation to speculate without hard evidence. The commodification of news has led agencies to take increasingly greater risks in an effort to be first, or to carry exclusive content. This was an example of that tendency getting out of hand. With such a dearth of definitive material on the current situation in Tibet, there is a temptation to satisfy consumers' demand without checking the facts as thoroughly they should be.
However, in the West's defence - what is one to do when China has banned all reporters from entering Tibet (apart from the Economist's correspondent who was later ejected)? Such restrictions contradict the country's pledge to allow journalists to report freely over the nine month period of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Foreign Correspondents Club of China is currently collecting reports from journalists encountering restrictions in the region.
The West is also criticized for ignoring the victimization of Chinese in Lhasa and the surrounding regions. This could well be a fair point, but when reporters are unable to confirm anything this argument cannot be sustained. It is too easy to make the assumption that the restrictions are there because there is something to hide. To then suggest the news is being manipulated is profoundly hypocritical.
Those pictures that have trickled out of Tibet invariably show acts of violence by Tibetans on Chinese citizens. Such acts have undoubtedly occurred, but when the flow of information is so restricted, we must ask whether there are other photographs out there that are yet, if ever, to see the light of day. I can only hope that when the restrictions are lifted, as they surely must be, the journalists who attempt to find the truth can still find someone who is prepared to tell it to them.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Defending itself on defence
China yesterday announced at the National People's Congress it plans to increase its defence budget by 17.6%. Comparing the front page of China Daily with those of other newspapers that covered the same story is like staring at a mirror image in a lake. CD stresses "The increased amount would be used raise the pay of service personnel and offset the impact of price hikes" - giving the injection an air of humanitarianism. It continues: "Military equipment will be moderately upgraded to enhance troops' ability to fight a defensive war based on IT." The article goes on to stress how little China spends on its armed forces in comparison with the West and Russia. It concludes with a warning for Taiwan, which is "destined to pay a 'dear price' if they stubbornly take the dangerous path of 'Taiwan Independence' in a desperate throw of the dice."
Any reference that contains the words Taiwan and parliament or independence is always put in quotation marks, a practice so mind-bogglingly patronising and immature it calls to mind images of Team America's Kim Jong-Il dancing around on a podium giving quote marks with his fingers every second sentence - at least to my mind. The fact Taiwan is to hold a referendum on UN membership this month is not mentioned anywhere on CD's front page, almost as if the very notion is too dangerous to even contemplate. This kind of cloak and dagger insinuation makes a mockery of the intelligence of China Daily's readers.
It is true that the increase in the defence budget is the same as last year, but the New York Times points out that many analysts believe China actually spends at least twice as much as it declares it does. It then leads with what the budget means for Taiwan, and links to a great story about a Chinese submarine getting the better of US aircraft carrier The Kitty Hawk by surfacing undetected within torpedo range. The implications are obvious - this budget is aimed at deterring Taiwan and warning the US that China is well on its way to being able to compete militarily in East Asia.
The Guardian focuses more on the IT war threat (and leads with a story today on NATO warning on the dangers of cyber-terrorism and intrusion that references China). Britain and the US are concerned after businesses and state security systems came under attack from Chinese hackers late last year. It is unconfirmed whether or not the hackers had the endorsement of Beijing.
In any case, the stories make you wonder why China is so keen to stress the defensive nature of the expansion of its armed forces, while rattling the saber against Tawian and dropping hints about IT warfare. Who is it trying to fool?
Any reference that contains the words Taiwan and parliament or independence is always put in quotation marks, a practice so mind-bogglingly patronising and immature it calls to mind images of Team America's Kim Jong-Il dancing around on a podium giving quote marks with his fingers every second sentence - at least to my mind. The fact Taiwan is to hold a referendum on UN membership this month is not mentioned anywhere on CD's front page, almost as if the very notion is too dangerous to even contemplate. This kind of cloak and dagger insinuation makes a mockery of the intelligence of China Daily's readers.
It is true that the increase in the defence budget is the same as last year, but the New York Times points out that many analysts believe China actually spends at least twice as much as it declares it does. It then leads with what the budget means for Taiwan, and links to a great story about a Chinese submarine getting the better of US aircraft carrier The Kitty Hawk by surfacing undetected within torpedo range. The implications are obvious - this budget is aimed at deterring Taiwan and warning the US that China is well on its way to being able to compete militarily in East Asia.
The Guardian focuses more on the IT war threat (and leads with a story today on NATO warning on the dangers of cyber-terrorism and intrusion that references China). Britain and the US are concerned after businesses and state security systems came under attack from Chinese hackers late last year. It is unconfirmed whether or not the hackers had the endorsement of Beijing.
In any case, the stories make you wonder why China is so keen to stress the defensive nature of the expansion of its armed forces, while rattling the saber against Tawian and dropping hints about IT warfare. Who is it trying to fool?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Inertial dampers
So the Spring Festival break refreshed the staff, and now we have returned to work full of new ideas. Except the foreign staff seem to have been frozen out of the editorial meetings. Although conducting the meetings in Chinese is obviously easier for our editors, excluding us entirely (without actually stating that this has been done) is a laughable illustration of our colleagues' lack of communication skills. It seems we are not even worthy of being debriefed after the meeting, but must somehow guess what topics we are addressing this week.
Meanwhile, an article about St Patrick's Day has confused the censors. An independent country so close to Britain, i.e. Ireland, appears just too dangerous a notion to allow readers to become aware of it. I mean, they might start asking how and why Ireland became independent, and subsequently draw a parallel with Taiwan. So Ireland is in "northern Europe" and references to its national colour being green have been removed from the article...
Meanwhile, an article about St Patrick's Day has confused the censors. An independent country so close to Britain, i.e. Ireland, appears just too dangerous a notion to allow readers to become aware of it. I mean, they might start asking how and why Ireland became independent, and subsequently draw a parallel with Taiwan. So Ireland is in "northern Europe" and references to its national colour being green have been removed from the article...
Friday, February 15, 2008
Korean escape
South Korea was a welcome escape from the China Daily cage. The holiday offered a brief and illuminating insight into the history and culture of these two neighbours, and an opportunity to reflect on propaganda of a curious kind.
At the border between North and South Korea stands a marvelously grand train station, designed by the same architect responsible for Seoul's ultra-modern Incheon airport.It's all ready and set to process passengers, but the only direction you can travel is south. The tour guides would have you believe a link to the trans-Siberian railway is imminent. Yet necessary new track costs a million dollars per kilometer and the idea of free passage across North Korea is still just a pipe-dream.
The tour guides seemed to have been instructed to push the case for peaceful reunification - that both sides are eager to welcome each other with open arms if a suitable agreement can be reached. However, by applying the smallest pressure to the facade our guide was quick to acknowledge that North Korean defectors cannot adapt to life in the South. Their mindsets are almost totally opposed, and the likelihood of a porous border any time soon seems remarkably slim.
It is also hard to believe the propaganda film that is obligatory viewing at the DMZ.The film suggests the DMZ is a site of peaceful prosperity, but the North Korean gun turret visible from the observatory suggests otherwise. As recently as 1990 the South Korea detected a North Korean attempt to dig a tunnel beneath the border. Walking along a similar 3km tunnel built by the North with the intention of invading Seoul in 1978 , it is hard to see how such recent attempted incursions could be easily forgotten. Our guide wryly mentioned that now the South has opened the tunnel as a tourist attraction, the North wants a share of the proceeds. The audacity of such a request is perhaps matched only by NK's apparently genuine attempt to excuse the tunnel by painting the walls black and stating they were merely digging for coal (in a solid granite area).
On the North Korean side of the border the tallest flagpole in the world (160m) towers over even the obligatory statue of Kim Jong-Il. Apparently the flagpole is the result of a prestige battle that saw both sides building higher poles until the SKs packed up and took the moral high ground.
Chinese netizens have allowed the Koreans to retain this position recently through their callous jibes at the destruction of the nation's most treasured monument, the 610-year-old Namdaemun gate in Seoul. Quite why such a tragedy should elicit this kind of response is hard to ascertain, especially as the two nations have enjoyed an historically close relationship. My colleagues say Chinese are resentful at what they see as Korea's assumption of the Chinese identity. However, what I witnessed in South Korea was a harmonious rendering of Confucian ideals. These principles are supposed to underpin Chinese society, but appear to be being rapidly forgotten in the rush to grasp the next fistful of dollars.
At the border between North and South Korea stands a marvelously grand train station, designed by the same architect responsible for Seoul's ultra-modern Incheon airport.It's all ready and set to process passengers, but the only direction you can travel is south. The tour guides would have you believe a link to the trans-Siberian railway is imminent. Yet necessary new track costs a million dollars per kilometer and the idea of free passage across North Korea is still just a pipe-dream.
The tour guides seemed to have been instructed to push the case for peaceful reunification - that both sides are eager to welcome each other with open arms if a suitable agreement can be reached. However, by applying the smallest pressure to the facade our guide was quick to acknowledge that North Korean defectors cannot adapt to life in the South. Their mindsets are almost totally opposed, and the likelihood of a porous border any time soon seems remarkably slim.
It is also hard to believe the propaganda film that is obligatory viewing at the DMZ.The film suggests the DMZ is a site of peaceful prosperity, but the North Korean gun turret visible from the observatory suggests otherwise. As recently as 1990 the South Korea detected a North Korean attempt to dig a tunnel beneath the border. Walking along a similar 3km tunnel built by the North with the intention of invading Seoul in 1978 , it is hard to see how such recent attempted incursions could be easily forgotten. Our guide wryly mentioned that now the South has opened the tunnel as a tourist attraction, the North wants a share of the proceeds. The audacity of such a request is perhaps matched only by NK's apparently genuine attempt to excuse the tunnel by painting the walls black and stating they were merely digging for coal (in a solid granite area).
On the North Korean side of the border the tallest flagpole in the world (160m) towers over even the obligatory statue of Kim Jong-Il. Apparently the flagpole is the result of a prestige battle that saw both sides building higher poles until the SKs packed up and took the moral high ground.
Chinese netizens have allowed the Koreans to retain this position recently through their callous jibes at the destruction of the nation's most treasured monument, the 610-year-old Namdaemun gate in Seoul. Quite why such a tragedy should elicit this kind of response is hard to ascertain, especially as the two nations have enjoyed an historically close relationship. My colleagues say Chinese are resentful at what they see as Korea's assumption of the Chinese identity. However, what I witnessed in South Korea was a harmonious rendering of Confucian ideals. These principles are supposed to underpin Chinese society, but appear to be being rapidly forgotten in the rush to grasp the next fistful of dollars.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The writing's off the wall
US must be more open on economic policies. I sincerely hope this CD opinion piece does not reflect the opinion of the powers that be. Below is a comment I have attempted to lodge on the article. We shall see if it makes an appearance on the website...
I'm not really sure this article has any relevance at all. It is ludicrous to suggest the G7 Group of Nations fixes exchange rate policies, especially as China itself will not allow its currency to float freely. Furthermore, China's US dollar assets are by far the largest in the world, allowing China to influence global currency markets considerably, should it so desire.
To suggest G7 is somehow collectively responsible for allowing the market to become jittery fundamentally misunderstands how the market works - there is little anyone could have done even if they were "secretly" colluding. The US problem lies within its banking sector and is not a product of state financial policy.
In truth, China is the "financial cowboy" - making off with its people's money by controlling the money supply. Every time an export is sold, the central bank siphons off the dollars as they re-enter China, keeping its people out of pocket to avoid the hyper-inflationary pressure that would stop the country's economic miracle in its tracks.
I have read your opinion, I hope you now freely print mine.
Admittedly, this is a bit of a rant, and on reflection a more reasonable comment would have a much higher chance of being accepted on the China Daily website's comments section. However, it is an opinion, and as such is just as valid as the view expressed by Mr Liu Junhong.
... and apparently CD agree with me!
There's an infinitely better informed explanation of what's going on by Gerard Baker here
I'm not really sure this article has any relevance at all. It is ludicrous to suggest the G7 Group of Nations fixes exchange rate policies, especially as China itself will not allow its currency to float freely. Furthermore, China's US dollar assets are by far the largest in the world, allowing China to influence global currency markets considerably, should it so desire.
To suggest G7 is somehow collectively responsible for allowing the market to become jittery fundamentally misunderstands how the market works - there is little anyone could have done even if they were "secretly" colluding. The US problem lies within its banking sector and is not a product of state financial policy.
In truth, China is the "financial cowboy" - making off with its people's money by controlling the money supply. Every time an export is sold, the central bank siphons off the dollars as they re-enter China, keeping its people out of pocket to avoid the hyper-inflationary pressure that would stop the country's economic miracle in its tracks.
I have read your opinion, I hope you now freely print mine.
Admittedly, this is a bit of a rant, and on reflection a more reasonable comment would have a much higher chance of being accepted on the China Daily website's comments section. However, it is an opinion, and as such is just as valid as the view expressed by Mr Liu Junhong.
... and apparently CD agree with me!
There's an infinitely better informed explanation of what's going on by Gerard Baker here
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)