Foreign correspondents try - in vain - to reach the TAR

Cam,

It is politically correct to support Tibet Independence in the west. The public opinion is overwhelmingly one sided. This is the reality. DL is a master of western PR whereas the Chinese government is pretty pathetic at it (they have improved a lot).

As a result, people in the west expect their reporters to report on "news" that how brutal the Chinese are oppressing the Tibetans (e.g. Culture Genocide etc.). Most "reporters" from a culture in which TI is the holy cause would have a predetermined notion in their mind that the Chinese are oppressors there. Their task is only to find out how bad, brutal the Chinese communists could be. No blame on them. Perhaps, the only exposure of the other side of the argument to the public in the west is the ackward, rigid lines of the Chinese government, which, as pointed out ealier, is not good at pumping receivable nice words into western audience' ears.

For example, this morning on the radio, I heard the following report about the Tibet unrest: "......, it is reported that 80 protesters have died in the clash......"

We know where that figure is from. Look at the wording carefully. 80 protesters, as an audience in the west would immediately have the following in their mind:
1. 80 protesters are all Tibetans.
2. They have been killed by the Chinese police/military, who else could have done that?
3. Look how brutal the Chinese communist regime and the Chinese are. No surprise, I knew that since I was 7.

I am not disputing that figure as I don't have the information to back either 80 or 13. However, the way the death toll is reported in this case tells me the following:
1. Selective reporting = taking side. 80 is better than 13. (I repeat I don't know which one is true.)
2. Misleading by twisting words. Are 80 all protesters? If not, why the murdered civilians are not included in the count and reported? If so, it was really a miracle that everybody died in the incident was a protester, Tibetan natually.

The Chinese government and China as a whole in this case is in a no-win situation. If the western reporters are not allowed to enter Tibet and report, as is the current situation, they lose on PR. If the reporters are allowed to enter Tibet and report, most of the reports to be read by the audience in the west, I say with confidence, will be "first-hand stories" about the grivence of the local Tibetans under oppression and the brutality of the Chinese government. There are so many ways you can twist a story to make it look like what is expected. E.g. "My brother was killed by the Chinese police, my father was arrested......" (Did they rob the bank with a machete and burn somebody alive? This piece of information can be harmonised in the way the death toll is "reported" above.)

If you lose anyway, what do you do? Simple, pick the option that you think will cause less damage. Right or wrong, the Chinese government just shows the result of their calculation.

Would this kind of report find the same way in the mainstream western media as those standard political correct reports about Tibet?

http://china.notspecial.org/archives/2008/03/whats_right_wha_1.html

I think it is right for the Chinese government to bar all foreign reporters from the region. China must be able to control all information going to China and the world. Only sanctioned information should be distributed. These information must promote harmony, and not unrest. The usual suspects must be blamed for the trouble, and the rule of the party must be protected, at all costs.

Pierre,

Resorting to sacastic rhetoric helps ventilation, but that's all it does.

The problem with Pierre's sarcasm is that it's also a fairly accurate statement of fact. Yes, supporting T*betan independence IS politically correct in some circles, but to attribute the same views to the mythical entity called "West" is in itself bias. Reports of the kind cc linked above DO find its way to mainstream media outside China. All you need to do is look. (The latest I know of, is
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3578941.ece)
So do views advocating a meaningfull autonomy of the region as opposed to independence. How is that for a bias? I wish sources like Xinhua were capable of that kind of "bias"!
And China government is not in a no-win situation: If the do not allow journalists in T*bet, they play into hands of rumour-mongering and sensation seeking opponents. If they do, they will still get the flack, but you may be suprised how much their credibility would improve!
The only problem with the latter approach seems to be that it would only work if the first step was followed by second, and third one: A transparent judicial process punishing, say, murder and looting, NOT dissent. And then a very public debate of how it all could happen in the first place.
Somehow I do not expect that kind of thing happening in China.

Neddy,

The reports seen in the west regarding Tibet, allow me to continue to use the mythical word, is primarily one-sided, admit it. This is a matter of fact. I am not even saying at the moment whether this one-sided reporting/commentary is biased or not.

I did not say there is NO reporting on the other side of the story in the mainstream western media. A cloud can have a silver lining afterall.

You are right to show the Times report, inter alia, that shows the other side of the story. This is a rare and good sign. However, as I point out above, the reporting in general in the west is still primarily one-sided. Because it is politically correct (not in some circles, almost all the circles) to enhance what has become an accepted belief.

The Tibet issue is not pure black and white, good vs. evil. Nevertheless, it has been painted in this way in the west the same as it is painted in China for decades (though in the opposite direction), especially since the DL started his PR offensive in 1995. There is no angel.

For example, how many people in the west are aware of the claim made by the DL side about the genocide (2 million Tibetans and cultural genocide) conducted by the Chinese/Chinese government against Tibetans? Many. How many of them are capable of detecting the absurdity in this claim instead of jumping on the political correct bandwagon? Very few. What is the result? Based on some truth and some lies told by the DL side, a myth has been created and enhanced over and over again.

Moreover, regarding the "well known fact" that the Chinese government refuses to talk to the "Holy" man, how many people in the west are aware of the demands made by the DL side after they receive their "autonomy"?:

to have a Great Tibet that includes not only TAR but also four other provinces of China (or parts of them), which would accounts for almost 1/3 of China?

to drive all Han and Hui Chinese out of Tibet.

to have no Chinese military presence ("land of peace") in the above vast area, an area preassumebly still Chinese.

Without knowing this context and with the periodical enhancement what has been believed and expected about the evil Chinese in Tibet, what conclusion can you draw with respect to the stalemate? Only one conclusion, which is what you are told and expected to draw.

cc,

Somehow, I am not sure what it is you are really attempting here. Are you debating, or are you simply trying to defend a POV you have already arrived at?

You complain about bias and one-sided reporting. Should you not then mention the 'impartial and even-handed' reporting by official Chinese sources? The Times article is not as rare as you make it to be. Neither is black and white reporting as prevalent. It is all out there for those who want to see it. If you only look for data that fit your conclusions, I cannot help you - except suggest that you read Xinhua releases with the same glasses you wear while reading 'western' press.

As for the degree of one-sided coverage there is, I have said this before: When you start hiding things, the rumour mill will have a field day. You figure who is responsible for this situation here and now, and how to fix it. Banging the pulpit won't do.

Neddy,

Did I ever mention the "impartial and even-handed' reporting by official Chinese sources"? please don't put words into my mouth. The official Chinese sources are certainly biased, should I make it clearer? Part of the reason comes from the propoganda machine which derives from the political structure. The other part of the reason is they are stakeholders in this regard.

However, the difference between you and me is that I have no difficulty whatsoever in acknowledging the facts (so long they are facts) whereas you find it too hard to accept the reality that the reporting of the Tibet issue (not just the recent riot/uprising) in the west has been primarily biased/one-sided.

Propoganda through sources perceived as free, independent and objective is at least as dangerous as propoganda through information control, if not more dangerous. It is also very effective because it makes you feel you know the true, full story.

You may keep your belief that the reporting of the Tibet issue in the west is not as biased as I described, i.e. "The Times article is not as rare as you make it to be. Neither is black and white reporting as prevalent. " That is your "freedom".

"It is all out there for those who want to see it. If you only look for data that fit your conclusions, I cannot help you - except suggest that you read Xinhua releases with the same glasses you wear while reading 'western' press."

This is the exact problem with the reporting of the Tibet issue in the west. Western media (not all) look for data that fit their predetermined, politically correct conclusions. We know what their conclusions are. By the way, (to stop you from putting words into my mouth again,) Chinese media has been doing the same. However, the key is that nobody in the west(almost) believes the stories of the Chinese media because they have already got the label of "propoganda", "brainwashing" on them, but many , many people in the west sincerely believe the "impartial, objective, balanced" reporting of their "independent, free" media, especially with respect to stories from a country where the media is controlled.

Reporting from a place where information is controlled does not necessarily make your reports balanced and impartial. In fact, it often results in, knowingly and unknowingly, biased reporting because of the instinct resistance to whatever information provided by the propoganda side or seemingly in line with their accounts (they are always wrong, false or distorted).

In my previous post, I have given one example of the one-sided, misleading reporting in the west. This kind of reporting happens on a daily basis, but you won't realise it unless you are ready to question, question whatever sources that provide the stories. Another example of the biased reporting (manipulated) is a story in which CNN deliberately cut part of a picture that shows rioters hurling stones/rocks at the Chinese military convoy running on the street to accompany one of its Tibet reports. Which part was harmonised? Why was it harmonised? You tell me.

And for English teachers or for people who say they work in PR but are really only editors of bad English, perhaps you might prefer to return to Podunk College from whence you graduated: "in vain", is what you must mean, not "in vein".

Or perhaps you are not only experts on China (as well as international lawyers specializing in territory and sovereignty) but surgeons?

This blog gets more laughable every day.

Congwen,

You're right. It has been noted and changed.

Thanks,

Cam.

cc,

No, you did not say they were impartial. But I am not putting words in your mouth, either. I am pointing out an omission which, to me, was a sign of bias. Btw, I do not see reporting by official Chinese sources as biased - I see it as totally, and rigidly, controlled. And I bring that up as a counterpoint to your complaint of prejudice. In short, I am saying that I prefer the uncontrolled, messy and often questionable foreign (read not China based) journalism any day, if the alternative is the one and only gospel from Zhongnanhai.

That is not in defense of an individual paper, TV service, or incompetent/irresponsible hack. When I catch someone spreading BS, I'll say (for example) "CNN sucks", and go elsewhere. I am not going to have hissy fit over "biased media out to get China". What I do defend, however, is a system which is imperfect, yet overwhelmingly superior to anything else. Not because it spreads truth, but because it gives me, you, and everybody else a sporting chance to find it. But to do so, we have to use our heads, and make an effort. Many people, on both sides of the fence, find that part too difficult.

Cam,

You are too kind to the little brain surgeon twerp. He has never seen a typo before. Boohoo!

Let's not only talk the talk, but walk the walk as well. The following is the headlines from Guardian's China report, available on their website (only first page shown here), I let the reader decide if it is one-sided just by looking at the wording of the headlines.

1. Dalai Lama fears village massacres as Chinese troops retaliate for protests

2. Unrest in Tibet threatens bid to become oldest Everest climber

3. State admits police shot protesters 'in self-defence'

4. China sidesteps internet criticism

5. China admits shooting Tibet protesters

6. Dalai Lama willing to meet Chinese regime

7. Authorities in Lhasa parade 'repentant rioters' on TV

8. In ever-widening security cordon, a palpable fear

9. Kowtowing to the Chinese

10. Can the Dalai Lama resign?

11. Living nightmare of an alien takeover

12. Brown tells China he will meet Dalai Lama during London visit

13. Free countries must defy Chinese blackmail and greet the Dalai Lama

14. Video: China releases footage of 'Tibet riot suspects'

15. Randeep Ramesh reports from Dharamsala, home of the Tibetan government-in-exile

cc,

You surely must be joking if this is to be a proof of one-sided reporting. Unless you speak of a one-sided source of information, in which case I would second your claim. What I see here is mostly suggestive of plain statements of available ('available' being the operative word) facts, sprinkled with some speculation and rumour, a "human interest" story (2), and a dose of propaganda from Dharamsala. No surprises.

What I would suggest is, you tell us what exactly they did not write about; what do you think should be there to make the coverage even-handed. And while you are at it, let us know where that missing information would come from. Xinhua? As far as I know, clampdown on internet is severe, foreign journalists are verbotten. Have you heard what happened with those two (I think) HK TV crews who tried to report? And until that is corrected, you are likely to read about one side only. I wonder why? A blind Freddy can see that.

On second thought, don't tell us. But think about it.

Since the Chinese reports are one sided, and the western media are also one sided. Now that we get both sides of the story, what is there to complain ? Isn't this world perfect ?

Neddy,

I used the word "one-sided" reporting loosely in the previous report. You know that. If you only have one-sided source of information, you can hardly get balanced reporting in the long term. One-side source does not mean there is always one-sided reporting. However, there may be balanced reporting on something and one-sided reporting on something else. Intuitively, I don't buy that.

You ask me about the specifics. I think I have already given a couple of example of the one-sided reporting in previous posts. In fact, some of them are not really one-side reporting at all, but manipulation of facts (e.g. CNN).

Thanks for giving me such a not-too-difficult task. Here is the link to the latest report of "US lawmaker demands Tibet inquiry" on BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7308169.stm

The first two sections are about the visit. No comment. They are just about the visit per se. The next two sections are about the uprising/riot, i.e. Section "Rifles and bayonets" and "Protesters shot". These two sections apparently are used for giving the reader a context, background of the story. Are they one-sided? I think they are. (Natually, you disagree because BBC, like CNN and many others in the west is free, independent and unbiased on everything)

You have to say that in terms of brainwashing and propoganda, CCP really has a long way to catch up with its western conterparts. BBC, in this case, is much more skillful than the rigid, official lines of reports from China daily, for example. It reports on many established facts of the events and/or facts in terms of the stories as they being told by their sources. Accompanied with a couple of eye-catching headlines ("Rifles and bayonets","Protesters shot") and first hand pictures, it is very difficult for someone not to come up with the following opinion: the Chinese government has been using brutal forces to crack down the legitimate democratic protest of the Tibetan people. ("Ms Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, also called on the international community to denounce Chinese rule in Tibet.")

The problem is that the above is only part, one-side of the story. "Rifles and bayonets", why are they there? "Protesters shot", why were they shot (leave aside whether it is a fact or not), in what context? Were they shot when they were protesting peacefully? etc.

What about the riots? Where are the innocent civilian burnt to death? (Again, (leave aside whether it is a fact or not) Where are the scences of burt shops, stone throwing, (well harmonised already), machete wielding, etc., while pictures of "Rifles and bayonets" and "Protesters shot" are shown?

If the two sections are used to give the reader a context, background of the story, why is only one-side of the story/scence, the "politically correct" side told/communicated (propoganda?)

You may argure that the other side of the story, e.g. the riots, can be seen in other BBC reports. But so are the "Rifles and bayonets", and "Protesters shot" stories, right? Why are they missing here?

I don't expect to change your opinion about the western media's reporting of Tibet. Only because you have challenged me on providing some specific one-sided reporting of the western media, I spent a couple of minutes, literally, collecting a piece of not-to-difficult-to-find evidence for you. More are available upon request.

Western media do not conduct one-sided reporting all the time. You need to look at it on a case by case basis. For example, they are more balanced on domestic issue and issues in the west in general. No surprise, they have to be like that because their audience, living in the same society, can see with their own eyes and verify what they report.

However, the one-sided reporting of the Tibet issue is evident, IMO, and has been going on for quite a long time. As a result, now the audience in the west just expect to see "bad" things from the Chinese government and "good" things from the DL side. To meet that expectation, media is expected to report in this way regardless of what changes have taken place, e.g. the Chinese government is not the same government in 1959 or 1989.

Yes, I do think your opinion is righteous. (So do lots of people). Luckily majority of people are intelligent :).

Neddy said:
"cc,
No, you did not say they were impartial. But I am not putting words in your mouth, either. I am pointing out an omission which, to me, was a sign of bias."

So by your logic, omission by western media about the riots and civilians hurt by rioters and emphasis only on peaceful protesters killed while protesting a Cultural Genocide is also a sign of bias by western media?

Pierre said:
"Since the Chinese reports are one sided, and the western media are also one sided. Now that we get both sides of the story, what is there to complain ? Isn't this world perfect ?"

Alas, it sure would be perfect. A pity that most people reading news would either omit propaganda news from Chinese media or in rare cases that they read it, would read between the lines and take everything with a grain of salt. Otoh, when we read western media, we mostly see balanced reporting, and tend to trust them more. Thus making them a far more powerful propaganda machine than PRC can ever provide when they do selective reporting.

I was watching BBC news on TV last night,
a reporter live from Beijing said things in the line of "Because China has done such a great job at propaganda and selective censorship, the Chinese people are pissed off at the western media for the Tibet reporting. And those that has access to the Internet are the wealthy Chinese that are grateful to the PRC government for making them rich, and will sure side with the Gov over any issue, so their opinion doesn't count."

I see loads of comments saying the same things, that the Chinese are brainwashed to believe dodgy stuff the Government said.

As a Malaysian, I find this very patronizing, and is unfair stereotyping. How ignorant to think that the Chinese people in China and the world naive enough to be brainwashed by PRC propaganda in this Internet age. Is this some cold war withdrawal syndrome or what? In my country the media is also a mouthpiece for the Ruling Party, we learned to read between the lines. The young Chinese can be very cynical about Government media. A great contrast to Western people, who more or less believe in what their Independent media said. Rightly so as most of the time they are fair and balanced, and only practice selective reporting and self-censorship when they see fit.

As for the BBC correspondent's view that only the affluent can afford internet, I personally know lots of Chinese friends who live on a tight budget and cannot afford to watch a movie in the cinema, cannot ever hope to save enough to buy car or house, but owns an Internet connection. Unlike in USA, broadband can be dirt cheap due to economy of scale.

Neddy said:
"What I do defend, however, is a system which is imperfect, yet overwhelmingly superior to anything else. Not because it spreads truth, but because it gives me, you, and everybody else a sporting chance to find it."

I totally agree they (western media) are still the best out there. That doesn't mean we should defend them when they do selective reporting. We should inform them about any mistakes so that they can keep on improving. Well, the sporting chance seems to be getting smaller with selective reporting and self-censorship. And with a few media Giants owning most of the media corps, the job to be impartial is getting tougher.

I recommend reading Tibet and Palestine By URI AVNERY
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04072008.html
while his views are by no means totally correct, he does have a point about western media's favourism, QUOTE

"THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.

But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.

Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?

Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain."END QUOTE

Why?