The journalism divide: discussing the roles of east and west
Western media bias has come to the fore in recent days with the launch of the Anti-CNN website, which outlines some of the apparent western media bias with regards to the unrest in Tibet. The Chinese mainstream media have picked up on the theme, and have run stories criticizing western outlets for not fact-checking their material.
There is no doubt that the cases cited are abhorrent examples of what journalism should aspire to be. Anytime simple facts are incorrect, or photos mislabelled, it shows carelessness and a lack of attention to the craft. Anybody who labels Nepalese police as Chinese, labels protests in Nepal as protests in Lhasa, or artfully crops photographs to alter the context (all of which happened) should face full criticism of not only the Chinese, but anyone who cares about free speech, fairness, and objectivity.
Mistakes made in the western media were timely, as it nicely coincided with Tuesday night's Danwei Plenary Session. I attended along with fellow Zhongnanhai writer Chris, and we both came away rather impressed with the guests, the audience questions, and the nuanced discussion which followed. There are, however, a couple of things I'd humbly like to add on this general topic, if not on the Plenary itself.
First, there must be tens of thousands of stories, photos, and videos of the unrest in Tibet. Mistakes should never be tolerated, but if, in that avalanche of coverage in this digital era, only a handful of examples of bias have been discovered, I would say that strengthens the argument that the western media generally does a decent job.
Second, an audience member asked a question regarding the use of the word "crackdown", and more specifically why western journalists use this word in relation to Tibet, but not in relation to the semi-recent riots in France. I met up with a few colleagues for hot pot afterwards, and we got into an interesting debate on this word. I generally feel "crackdown" doesn't necessarily come with negative connotations. For example, a Chinese "crackdown" on DVD piracy is generally believed to be a good thing (well, unless you like stocking up at the Lido). The problem, we felt, is that "crackdown" reminds people of the non-event in a big square in Beijing in 1989. To western minds, I would submit, a "crackdown in Tibet" conjures up images of peaceful monks praying for a modicum of freedom and peace while big, burly Chinese military officers come in to crack some skulls. If this is the perceived notion, then journalists should be careful when using the word "crackdown".
Jonathan Watts, the correspondent for the Guardian newspaper (who was filling in for an absent Jaime FlorCruz from CNN), said that he has struggled to use the correct terminology in his stories. Are the Tibetans rioters or protesters? Are the Chinese "cracking down" or "restoring order"? He said that he's used nearly all the terms, and makes a judgement call based on that individual situation. I believe that's as best as can be asked.
Lindsey Hilsum, the China correspondent for Britain's Channel 4 News, said the biggest problem isn't the terminology or bias but rather the lack of access to Tibet. Whether it was a crackdown, riot, protest, or civil disorder, no journalist can label anything properly unless they get access to the region. Unfortunately, that hadn't happened at the time of the plenary (it was reported later that journalists are now trickling into Tibet).
The other two panelists, Raymond Zhou from the China Daily and Steven Lin from Sohu also provided unique insights. Raymond feels that western journalists spend too much time focusing on issues like censorship and democracy. Both feel a free press would be good for China, but must be introduced slowly. They also feel that foreign reporters tend to gravitate towards the negative.
Generally speaking, I don't believe the foreign journalists based in China have been churning out biased coverage. In fact, of all the foreign media, those who have lived and worked in China will most likely provide the most nuances to their coverage - which is why it's surprising the government wouldn't allow them into Tibet. There are a number of western commentators based in the UK, America, and other countries that like to bloviate on China's crimes without having much understanding of the country. I might not like it, perhaps the Chinese don't like it, and maybe Danwei doesn't either, but in a free-speech environment they're entitled to their opinions, too. If China is confident in itself, it must allow these reporters into the region to verify the government's word. If the Chinese authorities can't manage that, then suspicions are raised and fodder is given to its harshest critics.
Finally, slightly off topic, I was a guest on Adler Online, a nationally-syndicated Canadian radio show, at 2 o'clock Tuesday morning (gotta love that time difference) to discuss Tibet. His producer called me for a chat prior to the segment, and her anger at China was vitriolic. She favors a boycott of the Olympic games. I reckon the host of the program, Charles Adler, does too. Following our segment, he took calls from Canadians to get their opinions. 100% of the callers (the phone segment was only 15 minutes in length) favoured a complete Olympic boycott by the Canadian Olympic Committee.
Feelings on the subject of Tibet are obviously running deep. While I tend to consider "moral equivalency" a convenient but often inaccurate crutch when two sides are firmly entrenched, both sides of this dispute nontheless need to look in the mirror, calm down, and begin making efforts to understand the other.
Journalists are caught in the middle, and whether Chinese or foreign, their jobs are under that much more scrutiny on such a polarizing issue.
(Note: You can listen to the interview on the national edition of Adler Online via its flagship station, CJOB in Winnipeg. Go here, click on Mon Mar 24, 1pm. The interview will start following the 5 minute hourly news.)
Categories
Charles Adler - National , Media , Tibet1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The journalism divide: discussing the roles of east and west.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/296
At the Danwei Plenary Session last month, moderator Jeremy Goldkorn issued a proviso before the discussion began: he would be referring to the western media and the Chinese media, even though "western media" is not, by any stretch, a homogeneous... Read More
Charles Adler - Sean Hannity's Dog Robber, all that needs to be said.
Cam,
So far as I can see, the following is one of the key points of your comment regarding the alleged bias in western media in its reporting of the Tibet unrest, i.e. "I would say that strengthens the argument that the western media generally does a decent job."
Let's assume that the western media has generally done a decent job in its reporting of the unrest in Tibet. In other words, the western media has been generally balanced and unbiased in its reporting as far as the facts of the incident available to them are concerned.
Considering that the primary source of information with regard to this incident for most of the people in the west is the "western media", we should expect, statistically, that the opinions of the western audience would be balanced and unbiased as well because according to our assumption they have been informed by the western media in a balanced and unbiased way with balanced and unbiased information.
Now, let's look at their opinion. Well, I don't have any statistics. For the sake of argument, I borrow a piece of "slightly off topic" information from you.
"Finally, slightly off topic, I was a guest on Adler Online, a nationally-syndicated Canadian radio show ... to discuss Tibet. His producer called me for a chat prior to the segment, and her anger at China was vitriolic. She favors a boycott of the Olympic games. I reckon the host of the program, Charles Adler, does too. Following our segment, he took calls from Canadians to get their opinions. 100% of the callers (the phone segment was only 15 minutes in length) favoured a complete Olympic boycott by the Canadian Olympic Committee."
I think it is reasonable to say that this completely one-sided ("one-sided" is just my decription of the non-existence of the opposite opinion) opinon of calling for a Olympic boycott by the Canadian audience (a limited sample unfortunately) has A LOT to do with what has just happened in Tibet.
Here comes the question. How do they come to form this unanimous verdict? Their opinion must be based on the information they have received (assuming that Canadian people are rationale). Because we have assumed that the information provided to them by the western media is balanced and unbiased, the only conclusion is that there must have been terrible atrocities committed by the Chinese government in its "crack down" of the latest unrest in Tibet in March 2008, which has also been reported by the western media in a balanced and unbiased way.
Now, what evidence do we have so far? According to the accounts, pictures, videos provided by all sorts of sources, which are related to both sides of the conflict or some, preassumably, independent parties, I personally cannot find sufficient and reliable evidence that can lead to the generation of such kind of one-sided opinion. For example, I have not seen any accounts, pictures or videos from either the western media or the DL media that can be verified and clearly show excessive violence employed by the Chinese police or military against peaceful demonstrators in the latest unrest in Lhasa.
If the evidence is not there, or at least what is available is no way near to convincing everybody that the story is a pure black and white, good vs. evil one, and the reporting by the western media has been balanced and unbiased, as we assumed, could you tell me how come the western audience, some canadian audience in this case, have reached such kind of unanimous opinion?
In my opinion, whether it is biased or unbiased reporting needs to be considered in relation to the established facts or the amount of facts available in a proportionate manner. Values, moral standards and political standpoints should not play a part. Otherwise, the same report can be both biased and unbiased at the same time depending on which side you are taking.
According to the above measure, the reporting of the unrest in Tibet by western media has been generally biased. Sometimes, it is the false, biased information that is provided (captions, pictures, one-sided, unverified information used as factual, verified). Sometimes, it is the way of reporting that is biased (see my comment http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/2008/03/foreign-correspondents-try-in.htm).
Cam,
You have also touched the issue of wording in the western media in relation to its reporting of China related stories. In terms of the word "crackdown" itself, I think you are right to say that is a kind of neutral word. You are also right to point out that given a context, the same word can be used to indicate a rather negative connotation.
I think the point is a matter of consistency. If you use one word with netural connotation to describe one situation and use another with negative connotation for a similar situation, you are effectively setting up a subjective, emotional context for your readers before telling them the "facutal" information that follows. In other words, you are taking sides even before "facts" are communicated. This may seem to be a small issue on an individual report basis, but over time a rather serious effect can be generated by consistently applying this technique.
For example, now and again you see the word "regime" being used by western media to describe the Chinese government, though the practice is not as often as it is used in relation to some other countries, e.g. NK. However, I have never seen the word "regime" being used in the case of any western government (I mean, e.g. the US regime, the British regime, the Franch regime instead of the xxx government). Why? What is the effect of this kind of reporting over time? Why not use the same word for all cases, or use a set of words interchangeably and indiscriminately for all cases, assuming that they have the same connotation?
If you are not consistent, it is very hard to be balanced and unbiased.
Finally, on the issue of information access. It is a matter of fact that the Chinese government has been blocking foreign reports from Tibet (until recently), for whatever reasons, it is a fact. However, this is no justification for biased reporting, let alone cropping picture and using unverified information as facts.
You can report the restrictions set up by the Chinese government, their actions, make comments and point out the effects on reporting. You can say that we have no way of verifying what the Chinese government says in relation to what really happened in Tibet as we have no access to information. However, you cannot use the information from the other side (the DL side), which, reasonably speaking, does not (should not) have much better information access either, without qualification. The restrictions set up by one side does not mean the information provided by the other side is more reliable. They are both stakeholders and have the motivation of "providing" and/or "restricting" access to "information", the information they want to provide or restrict access to.
CC...
You make excellent points. I agree with you on the word "regime". There is something sinister about that word, and it's usually used in relation to a government which is considered authoritarian or illigitimate by western powers.
Now, on your larger point about public opinion and how it might be influenced by a "biased media".
First, the story of Tibet as presented through books, the Tibet Government-in-Exile, Dalai Lama, and scholars (all of whom are not journalists) have painted a narrative that strikes a chord with people in democratic countries: oppressed religious people who currently live, unwillingly, under the control of a Communist, authoritarian government. People in the west are naturally (by culture) drawn to freedom and self-determination. Tibet, with all the dynamics at play, is a signature issue that galvinizes people who believe in these causes.
Now, is this public opinion attributable to journalists? Perhaps only partially; as I mentioned there are NGOs, special intrest groups, and the Dalai Lama all contributing to current western public opinion. Nonetheless, the riots in Tibet show that many Tibetans would rather not live under Chinese rule. Even the Chinese media and people must admit this fact. Westerners (and I'm generalizing) tend to believe whatever historical precedents have been set, distinct ethnic groups have the right to choose their own governments and be fairly represented. This is a fundamental difference between two radically different cultures and political systems, and, I would submit, the larger reason for the divergent public opinion in China and the west. Sometimes bashing the media is a bit too easy. If China was somehow able to make Tibetans content inside China, and no longer longed for independence/autonomy, I think you'd see foreigners back away from supporting independence as well.
Finally, while I'm willing to admit there are issues with the way some of the western media have covered the Tibetan riots, the root cause of this remains government policy. We must not lose sight of this. Regardless of media reports or propaganda from both sides, the Tibetans clearly have grievances that are not being addressed. This should be the starting point to resolving the dispute, not criticizing the media.
Ah, nothing like seeing an opinion I agree with on someone else's blog...
The most frustrating thing about all this for me has been discussing it with Chinese people. Some Chinese distrust Chinese media, and even disagree with the CCP on Tibet and Taiwan. Most though will simply refer to Iraq, or Westerner's supposed biases. These all seem to be dodging the point to me. I'm not criticizing the CCP as an American, I'm criticizing as an individual- I'm not Bush, and there was nothing I could do to stop the Iraq war or to prevent my ancestors from owning slaves, taking Native American's land, etc., so how can I be held personally responsible? And even so, how does that justify other countries' actions? Following that logic leads you to the least common denominator- "he did this, so I can do it too." And how can you just assume that I'm biased, or just "don't understand China?" Who's to say that everyone understands their own country? How do you know I don't have a good reason for thinking what I do- and how can you be sure that I'm wrong?
Of course I have to ask myself the last question. That's why we need criticism- how can a situation be improved if everyone is never told that they're wrong, or that they made a mistake? A lot of criticism may be unfair, but rather than dismissing it as biased, you have to assume that it's just a misunderstanding and refute it. That's the problem with the CCP's response to criticism- they dismiss it off hand. How can we take seriously a government that acts like it's never wrong? That sort of attitude is patronizing and just makes the CCP look even worse. It confirms the beliefs of people who really are prejudiced against China, and alienates those who are not.
Cam,
You made a valid point. The western media certainly is only part of the formation of the current public opinion towards the Tibet issue in the west. However, this does not invalidate the claim that the reporting of the Tibet issue by the western media has been biased (statistically significant), particularly in relation to the latest unrest in Lhasa.
You may point out that the Chinese media has been biased as well, other information providers, e.g. the DL side, books, also make a contribution. However, do these invalidate the claim? No. To invalidate the claim, I think you still have to go back to the measure I proposed, i.e. look at the factual information that is available in relation to the stories and the ways the stories are reported in a proportionate manner. By this measure, I still come to the same conclusion.
Moreover, please do not underestimate the power of the western media (you know more than I do). You mentioned "there are NGOs, special interest groups, and the Dalai Lama all contributing to current western public opinion". That is true. However, how does the voice of the NGOs, special interest groups, and the Dalai Lama reach the western audience? How has it been reported? Have the western audience been provided with balanced, unbiased information in a balanced and unbiased way in relation to the problem whenever the voice of the above groups is reported in the west.
For example, there have been numerous reports/complaints in the west about the lack of negotiation between the Chinese government and the DL side. The general impression is that the Chinese government refuses to talk to the DL. This is only partly true. (it is important to have not only the truth, but also all truth). Have the people in the west been informed that there have been on and off negotiations between the two sides for years. Moreover, have they been told the terms and conditions of both sides in full? How many people in the west actually know that the DL demands the establishment of a greater Tibet which would accounts for about 1/3 of China, where Tibetans are not necessarily the majority and the DL didn't have effective control . (I am accused by you and others because I refuse to talk to you. However, you didn't tell others that your actual demand is to amputate my leg.)
You also mentioned books. First, what is the proportion of the people in the west who have based their opinion on information provided by books about Tibet? Tiny, IMO. Further, what is the proportion of the people in the west who have actually read books about Tibet which present two sides of the argument? Tinier?
What is the major information source for the common people on the street? The western media, i.e. newspaper, agencies, TV channels and radio channels etc. Hollywood has its say as well.
It is also true that "the story of Tibet as presented through books, the Tibet Government-in-Exile, Dalai Lama, and scholars (all of whom are not journalists) have painted a narrative that strikes a chord with people in democratic countries". Nevertheless, I need to point out that not all the scholars have painted the Tibet issue in the way that narrates "oppressed religious people who currently live, unwillingly, under the control of a Communist, authoritarian government". They have made many insightful points that, in my opinion, could have significant impact on finding a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, their voice is overwhelmed, mostly because their presentation of the story does not strike a chord with people in democratic countries.
"People in the west are naturally (by culture) drawn to freedom and self-determination. Tibet, with all the dynamics at play, is a signature issue that galvanizes people who believe in these causes." This is true. More importantly, the people in the western media are part of the people in the west. So, as far as I can see, you are effectively suggesting that there is an inherent, culturally built-in preference(bias?), which is another important issue.
What I want to say is that people in the west may be naturally (culturally) drawn to some set of values, standards and practices, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. So are the people in the east (over-generalisation permitted). However, does this mean people in the west are naturally drawn to receiving biased information? I don't think so. They may form some "biased" opinion after receiving the unbiased information. This "bias" is not caused by biased reporting but by their cultural preference (and is not the bias I am talking about).
I don't want to extend my argument too far away from the original point. At the end of the day, all what I am claiming is that given the amount of information available, the western media have been generally biased in its reporting of the latest unrest in Tibet (for whatever reasons). This practice has been having a negative effect on reaching a compromise/finding a solution to the problem between the sides. The western media (excluding those having a separate agenda) should hold itself to a higher standard than where it is standing now. This change of attitude won't solve the fundamental problem, but at least , as people say, "every little helps"
J B,
I agree that you are not personally responsible for what the US did in Iraq, or what your ancesters did to the natives and slaves, but please remember you are ENJOYING some of the highest living standards on this planet, and it's what your ancesters did that led you into this position. Your ancesters never paid for their wrongdoings, and you inherited their wealth, are you not responsible to pay?
The viewpoint "he did this, so I can do it too." is generally wrong in a large society, because the lawbreakers are only a very small fraction of the entire population, and they are generally punished. Thus the overall fairness of the society is maintained. But in the world politics, there are not many major players, and the crimes are never punished, this is not a fair arena!
We Chinese could just ignore what you say, wait 100 years when China is powerful and wealthy enough, when the unification has finished and no part would want to separate any more. Our descentdants then will also claim irresponsible for what we are doing now, and support the separationists in the rising countries then, using the same reason you are saying now.
You can't blame us, because your ancesters are no more noble than us, and you are no more noble than our descendants.
This is what many of us Chinese think, I'm just being frank here.
"People in the west are naturally (by culture) drawn to freedom and self-determination"? Yes, only when it is someone’s problem.
Most journalists are elitist, left leaning and by default are out of touch with community sentiment especially when it comes to issues regarding immigrants, foreigners, dole bludgers, and welfare for natives.
I have been living in Australia for more than 20 years, when it comes to the question of natives, majority of white people I knew (rich or poor) believed the aboriginals got more than their deserved from the government/society and they should shut up and stop complaining.
Self-determination for the aboriginals ? --- Yes, over my dead body !
"People in the west are naturally (by culture) drawn to freedom and self-determination"? Yes, only when it is someone’s problem.
Most journalists are elitist, left leaning and by default are out of touch with community sentiments especially when it comes to issues regarding immigrants, foreigners, dole bludgers, and welfare for natives.
I have been living in Australia for more than 20 years, when it comes to the question of natives, majority of white people I knew (rich or poor) believed the aboriginals got more than their deserved from the government/society and they should shut up and stop complaining.
Self-determination for the aboriginals ? --- Yes, over my dead body !