Edwin Maher controversy: which side is more balanced?
It's been with intense interest that I've watched the discussion unfold surrounding the controversial article on Edwin Maher, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times last week. (Our sister site, China Media News, was first to post the article on Wednesday).
The article was somewhat critical of Mr. Maher, calling him a "sellout" for lending western credibility to Chinese government propaganda:
"It sounds like an effort to lend a whiff of Western-style credibility to their news operations, in a superficial way, without having to actually adhere to high standards such as fairness, independence, balance, public service and accuracy," said Neil Henry, a UC Berkeley School of Journalism professor.
"But a propagandist is a propagandist, no matter what one's race or country of origin."
Maher hears from his critics -- from irate e-mail writers to the foreigners he meets. "One writer said there was no excuse for what I was doing. And Westerners on the street will ask how I feel about being a mouthpiece for the Chinese government."
Black and White Cat has since provided a translation from an article in the Global Times, in which the Chinese media have come to Edwin's defense:
A senior media expert told the Global Times that some media in the West are always assuming a role of "moral judge" as if they alone "understand news," they alone are news experts, and only their reports can be the most objective. However, they are completely unaware that they themselves are seeing China through colored glasses. Some foreign experts have lived in China for decades and criticize their so-called western news experts, saying they simply don't understand China, don't understand the Chinese media, or that they have only seen things superficially.
The article on Maher has heated up the debate between western and Chinese journalists, most notably which ones are more balanced in their reporting.
As an acquaintance of Mr. Maher, and former employee of CCTV 9, I can attest to his professionalism, kindness, and generosity. Edwin is like the grandfather of the room, often bringing treats and joking with his much younger colleagues. Through his years of television experience, mostly as a weatherman in Australia, he has earned the respect and admiration of nearly everyone on staff at CCTV 9, including management. I share this respect for Mr. Maher and his accomplishments.
That being said, and before we continue, we need to point out a couple of facts:
- CCTV 9 is directly run by China's Central Government, and must broadcast the expressed wishes of the government.
- Western media outlets may come under pressure from governments not to report something, however are entitled to make the ultimate decision themselves (a right protected by law).
- Western media outlets are free to criticize their own government, officials, leaders, companies, and other organizations, as long as it does not violate libel laws.
The LA Times article, as far as I can tell, seemed fair enough. To those of us who know Edwin, perhaps criticizing him is unthinkable. But the story told both sides: first, it reported that some western journalists believe he has lowered himself by being a mouthpiece for the government. Then it sought reaction from Edwin himself, who talked about the gains being made in state-run broadcasting and that, really, he doesn't care what the critics think anyway.
I would like to ask what LA Times reporter John M. Glionna should have written about Maher to make it more balanced. Did they ask Maher for his comments? Yes. Did they talk to CCTV? Yes they did, quoting one anonymous official. One segment of the story could not have possibly been more balanced:
...CCTV officials say they hope their foreign reporters will help provide a more credible Chinese perspective on world affairs.
Media experts call the move a public relations ploy.
The article also pointed out that CCTV is not alone in seeking foreign journalists, but that Al Jazeera, CNN, and BBC do the same. Contrary to the reporting in the LA Times, as this correspondent sees it, the Global Times took a much more extreme line, writing "They hurl one insult after another, like 'news sellout' and 'mouthpiece'."
The more I hear about the argument for "balanced" journalism among Chinese journalists, the more I'm starting to believe balanced journalism is anything that doesn't touch their sacred cows. Balance means both sides: good and bad. Left and right. Positive and negative.
To make matters more muddied, there are many westerners in China who quickly come to China's defense when its journalism is criticized by outsiders. Often times, the longer foreigners remain in China the more they seem estranged from their home countries, and the more comfortable they are towing China's official party line.
Now, if we examine the piece in the Global Times, we see some seriously flawed journalism.
As this reporter understands it, these so-called Western media figures simply don't understand Maher and they have never made any enquiries on this matter to CCTV.
Actually, as mentioned, the LA Times talked to a station official, and Edwin Maher himself.
"Maher is absolutely not the kind of person they say he is," a senior media worker told the Global Times, expressing intense indignation at the unreasonable attacks from certain Western figures in this report. This person believes that Maher is someone in the media who deserves respect, both for his character and professional ability. This media worker dismisses the criticisms of these so-called Western media experts, "Do they understand Maher? Do they know the facts?"
What kind of person did the Times article say he was? Selfish? Dishonourable? A liar? A bad man? No, they criticized him for using his stature in the media business to help promote a Communist government which is unelected, has a horrendous human rights record, and continually threatens its neighbor, Taiwan. (There are those that will claim the previous sentence was a loaded one, however each of those points are factual.) Obviously those working under this system won't appreciate this point of view, because it cuts a little close to home. But in an open media environment, I would submit, this criticism is fair game.
In addition, the LA Times article did talk about what kind of man Maher is, and also mentioned his long and distinguished career in the industry. These two quotes from the Global Times article are not only misleading, they are downright wrong, and an extremely poor example of the kind of Chinese journalism it claims to defend.
Obviously a western article that is overly critical of China, its government, or its media institutions without any rebuttal is biased. But one that shows criticism of China, and its defense, is fair. And in my opinion, the article on Edwin Maher in the LA Times lived up to that spirit.
At the end of the day, comparing western journalism with Chinese journalism is exceedingly difficult. They are completely different, and run in a completely different manner. When people complain that CNN is the "mouthpiece" of the US government, I ask them about the continual negative coverage of George W. Bush, the Iraq war, Afghanistan, the falling US dollar, and other US policies. Would CCTV 9 run similar criticisms of the Chinese government? Of course not, unless it was pre-approved by the party cadres who roam the highest floors of Xinhua News Agency.
Whatever defenders of Chinese media say, it's still a far cry from being dependable, fair, balanced, and credible news. Sure, Chinese journalists often dig up interesting human interest stories. Some even push the envelope by touching on sensitive subjects. And as Edwin Maher mentioned, the window continues to open. But while some battles for a free press are being won, the war is almost a certain defeat, at least as long as the Communist party remains in power.
One fact is indisputable: The government of China directly manages news stories, angles, and coverage on CCTV 9 and other national media. Regardless of what the reporters can uncover under this system, their work is tainted by association. Western news organizations have many flaws, but at least there is diversity of choice and a number of points-of-view and opinions. This does not exist within China's state-run machine.
For every article that comes out of the west that is overly critical of China, there is another one which has gone to great lengths to understand China's changing landscape, it's rapid development, and its culture and people. Criticism of "western" journalism is not only unfair, it also lumps all newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television programs, blogs and others from Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries into one homogeneous group. On the other hand, media which fall under China's central government can all be categorized in one group, because they all take their marching orders from Xinhua.
I expect some negative feedback from this post, but I refer you to the three points I made earlier. As someone who has worked at China Radio International, CCTV 9, and two other municipal TV stations, I know what happens behind closed doors. As someone who continues to write for foreign newspapers and worked for five years as a journalist in Canada, I know what happens there too -- and sometimes, it's not pretty. But it's far better than it is here, and will be for decades to come.
The staff at these organizations are some of the most talented, friendly, and outgoing that I have worked with, and I consider many of them good friends (some for life). I support them in their quest to use their creativity to create good journalism. Unfortunately, they are working with one hand tied behind their backs. The current state of Chinese journalism is not their fault -- it lies with the government.
As for Edwin Maher, I support what he's doing at CCTV 9. He's aware of the criticism leveled at him, and to his credit, he doesn't care. I admire that much more than somebody who claims CCTV 9 is something that it's not.
Categories
Media3 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Edwin Maher controversy: which side is more balanced?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/175
Imagethief found the LA Times article on CCTV9's western anchorman, Edwin Maher, quite interesting. I Read More
The Beijing Youth Daily (北京青年报）has published a large feature on CCTV 9 anchor Edwin Maher in today's edition. In it, he addresses the most recent comments surrounding his profile in the Los Angeles Times. "During the last four years, the... Read More
I'd rather keep this blog on topic, which is either the news of the day, or to point out what other blogs or columnists think about the news of the day. This is going to be an exciting year in... Read More
I doubt if you're going to get much negative feedback, Cam.
It true that CCTV is owned by the Chinese communist government, but it only dictates its own people, unlike some western media, which always try to dictate people of other countires.
For example, Voice of America, a service of the United States federal government, has for decades transmitted political broadcasts to foreign states. Besides VoA, the US also has other "credible" news operations, like Radio Free Asia (what an ironic name), which was founded by CIA to broadcast propaganda to Asian states for the US government. Not to mention the country's numerous propaganda activities specifically targeted at other European and Middle East countires and Cuba.
VoA does a much better job than CCTV in borrowing credibility from others. It pays mainstream media journalists to appear on VOA shows, as quoted by one US official: "For decades, for many years, some of the most respectable journalists in the country have received payments to participate in programs of the Voice of America". Of course, the people VoA pays to appear, including heads or former director of New York Daily and Washington Times, have much higher credibility than Mr. Maher does.
VoA and many other US operations employ hundreds of journalists and correspondents, including, in Professor Neil Henry's words, Chinese "sellouts", as employees of the US government. Isn't it fair that Professor Neil Henry can also say that this is "an effort to lend a whiff of Chinese-style credibility to their news operations, in a superficial way, without having to actually adhere to high standards such as fairness, independence, balance, public service and accuracy"?
As you said, you have good knowledge of both western journalism and Chinese journalism. Your comparison of the two systems is very fair from a professional perspective, and the facts you used are truly factual. But things are not isoloated, they are located in contexts. In your opinion the LA Times article is fair, and this view should be fully respected from a professional perspective. But obviously the Chinese and the Global Times do not think so, from a Chinese perspective, they think the article is biased and partisan, and LA Times published this article because it, and the Americans, are hostile to China, just like the VoA and its numerous counterparts. If the western media do no such thing, as you said, "balanced", "both sides", then why did not LA Times and Professor Neil Henry criticise the western propaganda operations directed at China and other states, and the use of Chinese "sellouts" by some US propaganda operations in the same article? This is (a part of) the context.
Viewed in isolation, both the Professor and LA Times have been fair. But putting into the context, they certainly arouse suspicions.
And this is not just about journalism. China controls the media and jails journalists or any people the government does not like. But how many people, mostly innocent, lost their life due to some western countries' operations in foreign territories (not to mention the evil motivations behind these operations)?
In the context, partly as a result of many unfriendly western activities, it is reasonable for Chinese to suspect that the western world has a hidden agenda. It is reasonable for Chinese to suspect that the western world's true motive is to damange or confine China's development, and the attack on China's government and journalism is just a weapon. It is clear that many, many westerners are virtuous and truly friendly to China, but look back at the things some people and governments have done, aren't they also truly distrustful?
It is crystal clear and factual that "The government of China directly manages news stories, angles, and coverage on CCTV 9 and other national media", but if the western world want to introduce democracy and freedom of speech and media to China, and want to do this for the sake and welfare of China and its citizens, they need to act as a role model and treat China as a friend. Unfortunately they are nowhere close now.
Hi, I thought your posting on the Edwin Maher affair was excellent and right on the mark. You put the whole issue into perspective.
Good column. I agree with you about edwin, he is a very nice man. Salt of the earth type of guy. I also agree with your critism of Chinese media and CCTV. Anyone who has worked for Chinese state run media knows how totally biased and unbalanced it is. Is Edwin a mouth piece for the government? Yes he is. Am I as a talk show host at CRI? You bet I am. My show is a lifestyle show and we don't do politics in general but I have been told not to talk about some things and been warned away from things I wanted to talk about. I think the L.A. Times article was balanced and even in its reporting. Any media outlet in China that is critical of western media really has no leg to stand on as they are all government run and operated. I think there will be no balance in Chinese media until there is a political system that allows more than one party.
Anonymous:
I agree with your assessment of VOA. Like CCTV, it gets its funding and is directly managed by the federal government. I would take anything I heard over VOA with a giant grain of salt.
A very well put article. But let me posit another suggestion. This article written by the LA Times goes under the contention that the Chinese government actually wants to get its message out to the rest of the world through CCTV 9. I would argue that is not the case at all. Working in state-run media myself, I know that the chief concern when the program goes out is not who may or may not be listening to the international broadcast, but who is listening to the domestic broadcast. The Foreign Affairs Ministry monitors all the state-run broadcasts, and as such, the emphasis is on pleasing the masters in the ministry. Sure, the broadcast signal goes out to other parts of the world, but other parts of the world don't have any say in what happens here in China. So, to perpetuate the image of strength and international flare to its own people, the Chinese government developed international broadcasts as a way of 'gaining face.' As such, to put out the contention that Edwin is selling a CPC message to the rest of the world doesn't really hold water. Those opposed to the Communist government and who point the finger at guys like Edwin, who by rights needs a job to live, might want to think about this: Every time you buy a Chinese product, you help give the CPC its ultimate strength, economic power. At least Edwin is taking money away from the government through his sallary!
Paul:
Western professionals have criticized Edwin for being a mouthpiece of the government. I don't criticize him for that, but I also acknowledge that that's what he is. And, so are you.
Nobody is denying anybody's right to make a salary, and as a former state-run employee, I acknowledge that I was a mouthpiece, too. Let's just call it what it is, instead of trying to moralize it.
Paul:
One other thought... the assertion that "other parts of the world don't have any say in what happens here in China" is nonsense. Foreign governments and people put tremendous pressure on the Chinese government on any number of issues, and while progress may be slow, the government tends to bend to the pressure (example: after pressure from the US to revalue its currency, China pegged it to a basket of Asian currencies and de-linked it from the greenback). Other countries also pressure China for explanations, such as when the old weather satellite was shot down last January. After outcries from foreign countries, China finally responded.
I agree China's focus is on its domestic audience. However your assertion that China has launched an internationally-broadcast, English-language television station, yet isn't targeting a western audience, tough to stomach.
Would so many people be quick to spin Edwin Maher's propaganda participation if he was working for the Iranian news service? Or North Korea's? Burma's? Zimbabwe's? Sudan's? Would he be "just expressing their points of view in a professional manner or an active participant in their governments' schemes?
Now imagine what would have happened to such a man working for the Nazis. Oh, he's just doing his job...
Actually, the interesting thing to me is that while media experts direct this vitriol at Maher, who is working for an organ everyone knows is state-controlled, you rarely see a mainstream media article on the way US China policy is affected by the deep, money-driven connections between members of the Establishment and China -- Diane Feinstein and her wealthy husband, Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao, who has connections in the highest circles in China, and the thousands of US corporations that invest in China and take advantage of its exploitation of its own people and its indifference to the destruction of its own environment.
What's Maher? Just a scapegoat for a self-serving moral righteousness. He's easy to pick on; he's not married to a powerful Senator and he doesn't have a multimillion dollar corporation at his back. This is really a controversy about nothing -- there is hardly a figure less powerful than a retired TV weatherman from New Zealand. Why can't people generate this level of passion about the destruction of the fisheries off Shanghai due to Three Gorges (to give just one example)?
Michael
I agree China's focus is on its domestic audience. However your assertion that China has launched an internationally-broadcast, English-language television station, yet isn't targeting a western audience, tough to stomach.
Cam, isn't it targeted at English-speaking Chinese in the diaspora? My wife used to translate cookbooks whose sole market was Chinese who had lost the ability to speak and read the language, and lived in English-speaking Asia. Here in Taiwan hardly any expats listen to ICRT, the local English radio station -- its programming is aimed pretty much at locals who have some English. I don't think we should conclude that English-language programming is necessarily aimed at "the West."
Michael
Hey Michael, Overseas Chinese are a Western Audience. Why would CCTV9 only be targeting them anyway? I don't get that. I'd say it's obvious that they're trying to reach as many people as they can. Remind them that this land of tea gardens & ancient ways is the next superpower. We can only hope that economic pigs can't fly.
On another note, I thought it was interesting that people think cringing when you see a westie dance like a monkey for Chinese amusement amounts to racism. I came here with the Canadian public school indoctrination about respecting other cultures unquestioningly. 6 years has taught me better. Sorry. I think this society is less sustainable than ours, & ours is far from perfect. But I don't think race is any factor. Look at the french tax official leading a normal life with a head 90% full of fluid. Chinese have bigger brains than him. They've just lived through 2228 years of brutal textbook fascism interrupted only with unimaginable strife. Emperors from day 1 focused on crippling the society at large for their personal security in power. This society is woven in oppression. I think it's chilling and I'm not a racist. Although I'd be happy to dance like a monekey for money too.
Hey meat stick-
Why is The CPC any more cupcakes & daisies than the Nazis? Why am I supposed to read through the list of current inhuman regimes but only gasp when get to Nazis? I'm not Roma, Jewish, Tibetan or Uighur, but I don't think that if China has a chance to come out on top, the CPC'll prove themselves one bit nicer than our german friends.
Hooray for plurality in media.
I guess on the Kiwi anchor topic Michael said it best. Forget the kiwi and focus on the fish, on the Mekong dams that are stealing life giving water from half of SE Asia, the constant military incursions in to india, the genocide through sterilisation (etc) in Tibet that few westies in China seem to linger on, all other human/worker rights 'abuses' to put it lightly, Dealings in Africa, Taiwan, the heavy pollution reaching accross the Pacific, colonisation of Siberia, espionage, propping up Burma, N Korea, Zimbabwe, exporting toys with date rape drug in them, claiming territory from at least 4 neighbors...
First things first... it's pretty clear that China is a Communist country that controls its broadcast and print content.
So why, then, do the quite possibly right-wing critics of China's media jump up and down when CCTV's content is not like Fox or CNN or what they are used to at home?
What would these people expect? Of course CCTV and other such groups are going to broadcast/publish the government's agenda.That's a given.
Now that is out the way... all those criticising EM -- like people from America's "non-agenda" media and others -- should look at the trade deficit their country probably has with China.
For example, the U.S. deficit with China today widened to a record $25.9 billion.
Perhaps reporter John M. Glionna (and I'm not saying his article wasn't balanced), UC Berkeley School of Journalism professor Neil Henry and quite a few others should take a look around their places of work and homes.
I suspect a fair chunk of what they own is made in China. Does that make them a "sellout"?
What's worse... EM lowering "himself by being a mouthpiece for the government" or the likes of Messrs Glionna and Henry financially propping up the Chinese government and its many media outlets?
Edwin Maher may very well be a collaborator and a traitor - but who among us isn't? We who live here - all of us - are all guilty of giving credibility to the brutal regime that holds the reins of power in this sick place. We who buy their products - all of us - are guilty of providing aid and comfort to a self-confessed enemy of civllisation. We who ignore or gloss over or apologise for the horrendous and ongoing crimes against humanity - all of us - are guilty of contributing to it's continuance.
It gives me sleepless nights at times, wondering how we will be judged by history - all of us.
So yes, Mr Maher is guilty, but let he, and only he, who is without sin be the first to cast stones.
I don’t know Edwin and I’m sure he’s very nice and brings lots of “treats” to the office (please!!!) but as a viewer what I do know is he’s really not very good at his job. On the screen he appears vacuous - not really understanding what he is reading out, putting intonation in the wrong place, slavishly repeating what’s been written down even if its clearly a misprint (“Israel declared Independence in 1984” I recall him repeatedly informing us) etc. I’m just surprised he sticks doing a job that he’s clearly not cut out for.
Frankly though, I’d prefer the amateurish Edwin to stick around and continue to sap CCTV 9 of credibility. I fear that in the future the propaganda message will be delivered by smarter, slicker, more professional staff – the brainwashing will be far more effective.
I am a Chinese currently living in US.
First, I think LA times's report is objective, although it subtly contains the writer's attitude.(it mentioned "soldiers'twice, which he would like to hint "this is the tool of the "Brutal regime". But do you want to work somewhere without security guards?)
Second, let's don't talk about FOX,which has full of crap. Look at CNN, which is regarded as "Liberal"in US. Oh, My god. CNN has so maaannny propagandas. It makes me puke. Its propaganda stytle is so similar to CCTV. For example, around the Veteran's day, it reported how heroic some American soldiers were. I have seen so many the same-style propaganda stories in CCTV. So at some moment, I doubt if CNN plagiarize it from CCTV. If you have so-called "freedom of press", but you still fail to make a good,objective report, that is hopeless and pathetic. At least Chinese journalists can put blame on the news censorship to defend for their some flawed news reports.
THird. you miss the point. The critism of Global Times is NOT aimed at the LA times article. It is aimed at the hysterical attitude of some Western journalists in general. It is similar to the case of Dashan, who drew critism from west by apprearing on CCTV new year gala around 1990. Anybody who has contact with chinese government is easily blasted as "sellout of westerners". (Is China pariah country?) Now you can see many westerners are so desperate to show up on CHinese TV screen.
is it Western media homogeneous? Well, on the surface of management, it is not. but on the cultural aspect, it is, unfortuanately.
"If you have so-called "freedom of press", but you still fail to make a good,objective report, that is hopeless and pathetic."
I've said the same thing myself, many times.
I am not competant to comment on Edwins job with CCTV but as a former workmate and friend when we both worked for New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation in Gisborne then Wellington I can attaest as to his strength of character,decency and professionalism.I do know that he was never awed by status, systems or hierarchy,he was his own person.It is many years since we worked together but I dont believe that Edwin has changed any.Although I look askance at what he is doing I do believe that he has chosen this as a means of doing a professional job to the best of his ability and of course to earn a decent living, no more.