Recently in Charles Adler - National Category

We're exploring the possibilities of doing a regular podcast here on ZHN, like other ones we've worked on in the past. Until then, this will have to do.

I've been getting an increasing number of requests to appear on radio shows in Canada to discuss China's reaction to the Tibet mess, torch protests, and looming Olympic games. I appeared on the nationally-syndicated Adler Online during Friday's program, and will guest on Hamilton and Toronto's Ben Guyatt Show and Victoria's Al Ferraby show this week.

You can download the mp3 for the Adler spot below (13 MB). As you'll hear in the interview, Charles Adler, the host, says that the west sorely lacks information on how the Chinese people feel, and more importantly, why they feel that way. It's a substantive interview, one of the longest segments on the program I've done.

The torch relay mess is also having an impact on the Vancouver Olympic Games, scheduled for 2010. VANOC, the organizing committee, has announced it will have an extremely short torch relay or none at all. Right now, it is considering going to London, Paris, and Vimy Ridge (where Canadian soldiers were instrumental in a World War I battle). It may also tour the United States. Canadian Olympic officials are seeking to avoid the fiasco China now finds itself a part of.

The Adler interview, however, focuses mostly on China. He asks genuine questions in trying to understand why China feels the way it does. I think many in the west are perplexed with China's reaction to concerns about Tibet. He asks whether the protests have prompted the Chinese people to put pressure on their own government for policy changes in Tibet. The question is completely understandable from a western perspective, but completely absurd if one has spent any time in China. It's this kind of information - and culture - gap that needs to be bridged. But I feel like many (not all) western media outlets are making a genuine effort. At the very least, reportage of China's point of view has increased. Conversely, China still refuses to report on any of the reasons why Tibetans may be unhappy.

I often feel like the Chinese press criticizing western media on bias is like a 400 pound man telling a 250 pound man to lose weight. Sure, the guy needs to shed a few. But the criticism is coming from an odd source.

You can download the Adler interview here:

Adler Online - Cam MacMurchy - April 11 2008.mp3

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.)

As mentioned previously, I will be appearing live on the Charles Adler show to discuss the date-rape-laced beads that kiddies are swallowing in Australia and New Zealand.

The show will air in Toronto at 3pm EDT Friday, which is 4am Saturday in China (meaning I'm tasked with making the difficult decision of staying up extra late, or waking up extra early). You can listen live by going here and clicking "Listen Live" in the top left-hand corner. If you miss it, it will be available at flagship station CJOB's Audio Vault. (Just click 2pm Friday November 9th - Winnipeg has a one-hour time difference from Toronto).

Adler Online is also heard on these stations for others listening in Canada:

• Vancouver CKNW
• Kelowna AM1150
• Kamloops NL Radio 610AM
• Saskatoon 650 CKOM
• Regina 980 CJME
• Calgary AM 770 CHQR
• Edmonton 630 CHED
• Winnipeg CJOB 68
• London AM980 CFPL
• Cornwall AM 1220
• Wingham CKNX 920
• Hamilton AM900 CHML
• Toronto AM640
• Montreal AM940