Responding to Chinese poem on the world's perception of China

Below is a poem that was written anonymously and has been circulated widely on the internet. It's ironic that a poem which closes with demands for understanding and cooperation to make the world a better place is proceeded by a couple dozen lines of vague accusations as to how "you" (the US? France? Japan? the World?) view and/or treat China in a negative, unfair manner. It just goes to prove that the lack of understanding goes both ways.

I don't deny that China has gotten a lot of unjust criticism lately. Many experts have made valid, measured analyses of certain events and developments in China (Tibet, class division, etc.) that merit considerable attention, both in and outside of China. These same analyses have been used by people who know very little about China, and here I'm not claiming to be an expert, to serve as a means of blaming them for most of the ills in the world today.

This isn't productive. Somewhere in the thick of it all, the idea that we're all in this together is lost.

On the other hand, the ostensible nationalism that's apparently even got the Chinese government itself worried about the flames it's fanned is quite worrisome. Many people have presented the poem below as a valid call for understanding from the Chinese, but I can't help but see it as emblematic of a certain, perhaps large, group's belief that criticism of anything Chinese is an insult to all of China (case in point the absurd, though vehement, criticism of Jack Cafferty for his "racist" remarks). This sort of knee-jerk reaction not only overshadows the valid concerns being raised over China, highlighting the more fantastic admonitions, but it also weakens the Chinese defense of themselves.

I copied the poem as it appears at The China Desk, where there is also another edited version. My comments are in bold.


What Do You Want From Us?
Original Version by Anonymous

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
Sick? It had, in the US at least, to do with G-O-L-D. Things like that are almost always economic. Which is why every generation has it's perceived threat (and they always seem more dangerous when you put "the" in front of them: the Italians, the Irish, the Japanese, the Latinos, the communists, the Muslims, the Osmonds, the abolitionists, etc.), and it's something we have to deal with in every country.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
You are also, as you noted, called the next superpower. Let's not forget that.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
And you used them. That's the sad thing about drugs. Ever heard of Afghanistan?
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
The easiest person to blame is never yourself. To be honest, though, most of the criticism I've heard is of the companies that ship the jobs off, not of the people to whom they go.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
You've done your fair share of marching. (Still not finished) All countries have done a little too much dabbling outside of their borders.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
How long does it count as broken? You going to pick up Korea and Vietnam, too? Heck, if Tibet is a part of China, isn't Mongolia, most of Russia, Iraq, the Ukraine? Where does it stop?
When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
"We" obviously "hated" you less than that other communist country.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
By that reasoning, I'm afraid of snakes because they have scales, and I like computers because they're made of plastic. That's obviously not the case. Your transition to capitalism isn't in and of itself the cause of current disputes.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
You are. We all are. All six billion of us. Everyone else's problem is that you want to say that it's not fair that the West had its chance to destroy and, now that its your time, no one will let you. There's only one environment to destroy, and it's almost there. Sorry. Life's not fair.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
Sure, if that were the only way to limit numbers. There are plenty more options than the one you implemented, and, now, where are the wives for those twenty million men?
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
No. People said you ate dogs, which, as all my Chinese friends told me, is spot on.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
I've never heard anyone blame China for lending cash. I have however heard people express anxiety over the fact that China holds so much US' currency. There's a difference. Most Americans see it as irresponsible and blame their government.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
Again, you are number one. That's not a baseless claim. It is reality. I know most western countries did it in the past, but that doesn't make it okay now. Sorry. On the bright side, there's a lot of money in renewable energy, which China is actually starting to use more and more. Hope it goes well for you. I really do.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
Again, we blame everyone. Everyone who doesn't ride his bike everywhere (that he made out of spare parts from an older bike), grow his own food, compost waste, use solar energy, only buy biodegradable packaging, and so on. Which is to say, almost everyone. You are not being blamed. You -- no, we are being warned.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you give weapons to the Sudanese government in return for oil, it's called supporting genocide. When you sail a ship full of weapons to some of the most corrupt places in the world, it's called exploitation. You're country isn't the only to have done it, but the government seems to have remarkably few qualms about its effects.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
Yep, and you might have heard how badly that went for us. I wouldn't advise you to do the same.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
I'm pretty sure a lot of you were demanding rule of law as well. Isn't that normal, in chaos, to want order?
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
That's a mouthful. What's confusing there is the fact that upholding the law in China often means violating what many around the world believe are inherent human rights. For instance, in China, it's illegal to view certain things on the internet, so when you are caught doing so, you are punished. Therefore, the punishment is for a crime by Chinese law, but, elsewhere in the world, that crime is actually a basic right of the citizenry.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
The thing here is that there are a lot of people who aren't silent, until they're silenced. It's your personal choice to be silent, but your right to speak freely should not be abrogated should you desire to do so.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Some are. They're the ones who make the news. It's the same everywhere.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
I don't at all actually. (Phew! Glad we got that cleared up!)
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
Oh. Should have read the whole thing through.
We don't hate you either
Good. That's a start.
...But, do you understand us?
Understand you? Yes and no. It doesn't have everything to do to do with being Chinese, though. There are plenty of Americans, French, and Taiwanese that I don't understand either. It's safe to say I have a lot to learn about everyone.
Of course we do, you said,
No, I didn't. Not exactly. I said, "Yes and no." (see above)
...We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
And you have XinHua, CCTV, and the People's Daily.
What do you really want from us?
That would take forever...
Think hard first, then answer... Because you only get so many chances.
Oh, no, really. I've actually thought about it quite a bit. It's just that that question is so vague. I mean, I think the world asks a lot of China, just as it asks a lot of other countries. Believe it or not, most Americans feel like the entire world looks to them to fix things. Your question, though, implies that the world is only asking these things of China.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
Amen!
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
對阿!
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
Indeed. But it's crowded, so we need to work together to get some of this stuff worked out.

China & the Olympics: pollution, censorship, and a turkey-sized chicken

There's a lot of news out lately about China and the Olympics. The closer the games get, the more exasperating the international media coverage gets, and if there's one thing the Chinese government adores, it's the press. I'll admit, too, that the intensity of the scrutiny afforded China is somewhat unfair as far as the Olympics go -- and, of course, many probably think it's not enough -- but the fact that other countries don't weather the same barrage of negative coverage is the only thing I find regrettable. I defer to the side of keeping them honest, rather than keeping them comfortable, no matter the country on the receiving end, especially if it were Taiwan.

As far as coverage goes, a lot of this stuff has been floating around for a long time, no pun intended. For instance, the fact that the air in Beijing is slightly more breathable than the windswept plains of Venus doesn't bode well for those hoping to demonstrate their aerobic prowess. About two months ago, the news wasn't too promising [all emphasis mine]:

The gray, acrid skies rated an eye-popping 421 on a scale of 1 to 500. In the West, pollution this bad might qualify as an emergency. In Beijing, doctors advised people to stay indoors, but residents here are accustomed to breathing foul air. Earlier this year, the city actually recorded a 500.

For Beijing officials, Thursday was especially depressing because the city was hoping to celebrate an environmental victory. In recent years, Beijing has steadily increased its "Blue Sky" days - those scoring below 101 - and the city needs one more "good" air day to reach its goal of 245 for this year. These improving ratings are often how Beijing tries to allay fears that Olympic marathoners will be gasping for breath.

"We're definitely hoping for the best," said Jon Kolb, a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee, "but preparing for the worst."

For the world's Olympic athletes, Beijing's air is a performance issue. The concern is that respiratory problems could impede athletic performance and prevent records from being broken. For Beijing's estimated 12 million residents, pollution is an inescapable health and quality of life issue. Skepticism about the improving Blue Sky ratings is common. The concern is whether the city can clean itself up long after the Games are over.

This article from The Times paints picture that's a little rosier:

I watch a news report on BBC World, talking about fears of pollution during the build-up to the Olympics, and the shots are of a smoggy day in Beijing. I look out of my window. It is the kind of winter sun you get on a good day skiing in the Alps.

Our fixer has two young sons. She says that they have permanent colds and chesty coughs. There is no doubt that the weather is abnormal this week, but there is also no doubt that China will be doing everything in its power to recreate these skies in August. Factories will shut down, half the cars will be taken off the road and houses will not be burning coal - it will be 40C and more when the Games are on. In fact, if I was a marathon runner - not that I spent the entire week worrying about Paula Radcliffe, my hero - I would be more concerned with heat and humidity than smog.

But a commenter says that a couple of days with blue skies is a bit too superficial for an assessment:

A clear sky does not show the real problem: try to spend a couple of weeks in your own rented flat and measure the amount of dust that settles in your floor every day. I'm on the 8th floor and it's staggering, you must hoover everyday if you don't want to wake up with a sore throat. Then check how much your skin and eyes dry up and finally try and use any of the local gyms: do some running and let me know if it feels the same. I don't want to be a scaremonger,but let's scratch beyond the surface. The criticism I have against the IOC (human rights issues aside, which are many and extremely relevant) is that they come over here to do their scheduled checks once in a while. Had they come the week preceeding Christmas, they would have cancelled the event altogether (pollution index of 420 out of 500). They should monitor the situation day in, day out and from here. As for the freedom of speech...

I'm paranoid about breathing the air in Taipei. I can't ever convince myself to go jogging or take a long bike ride because I think the benefits would be canceled out by the particulate lodged permanently in my alveoli. This would be much worse if I lived in Beijing, and, honestly, it's the first thought that comes to my mind when I think of studying in China.

Of course, the environment isn't the only thing that pesky international journalists insist on pointing out over and over. They're just giddy over the wealth of reports that await them in every internet cafe, back alley, and all the places in between. Human rights abuses, internet censorship, etc. abound, and the Chinese government is doing everything they can to paint them black to make sure the Olympic torch doesn't illuminate them.

Luckily for them, British Olympic Association has been kind enough to ban their athletes from speaking ill of the Middle Kingdom. After all, it's not polite to disgrace your host:

British athletes will be banned from competing in this summer's Olympic Games in Beijing if they criticise China's totalitarian regime.

The gagging order has been imposed by the British Olympic Association. Competitors who break the rule will not travel to the games or, if they are already in China, will be put on the next plane home.

It means sportsmen and women will be unable to raise concerns about China's human rights record or its occupation of Tibet.

Critics accused the BOA of bowing to political pressure and said that the move raised the spectre of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which passed off without protest and were hailed as a propaganda coup for the Nazi regime.

Hmm, I think I've seen that Nazi comparison somewhere else....

The reaction is in contrast to other countries, including the United States and Australia, where athletes will be free to speak out about China should they wish to do so. The Prince of Wales will not attend the Beijing games because of concerns over human rights.

Since the 1988 Olympics in Soeul, British competitors have been asked to sign contracts that include a pledge "not to comment on any politically sensitive issues".

However, this year's contracts will, for the first time, explicitly refer competitors to Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter, which "provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas".

The requirement is actually not that terribly distasteful. The Olympics is supposed to be a place for sportsmanship and a celebration of peaceful competition where people from all countries can come together, put aside their political differences, and play. However, the fact that this is the first time the BOA has found it necessary to stress the issues that the athletes are not to broach is telling.

Moreover, the fact that the United States doesn't require their athletes to acknowledge such an agreement brings me back to the discrepancies in the policies of Europe and the United States vis-à-vis China.

Imagine the possibility of a British athlete getting sent home for merely paying respects to those who died during the construction of the stadiums and arenas in which he or she is competing. While that would seem normal to us, it's certainly "politically sensitive" to China. Why else would they have denied it?

Thankfully, the international athletes, spectators, and press may be a little freer to read and report on their experiences in China than they normally would, seeing as the government might be opening a gate in the Great Firewall, according to the Peking Duck.

We all knew this was inevitable: there was no way China would invest gazillions of dollars in all things related to the 2008 Olympics and then leave themselves vulnerable to charges of mass censorship, which would obviously rise up in a deafening chorus as the thousands of foreign media who will be here seek to get on their favorite web sites only to encounter the dreaded "server not found" page. Just as the "Juden verboten" signs were quietly removed from the storefront windows in 1936, the cybernanny will go on temporary leave come the summer. (And no, I am not equating the CCP with the Nazi party, but this comparison of how each prettied things up for the Olympics is a valid one.)

One commenter even notes that he heard they were going to be selling Playboy "so that foreign athletes wouldn't rage without easy access to nudity." There appears to be some truth to this.

In the same vein, restrictions on the foreign press are being relaxed in the lead up to the Olympics. This, I believe, includes Taiwanese journalists, yet it may not be any easier for Taiwanese politicians to get a seat:

"Beijing as the host welcomes all guests of all NOCs,'' he said.'' However, he then hedged when asked if political leaders of Taiwan would be welcome if they were invited by their NOC.

"Up to now I haven't got any information about that,'' he said.

Pressed on the question, he replied: "There are 205 NOCs recognized by the IOC, but only 192 sovereign states recognized by the United Nations,'' Zhao said. "So not all the NOCs are sovereign states or nations. ... Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are inseparable from China.''

"We welcome all Chinese people to come to Beijing for the Olympics Games.''

So will Taiwan officials be coming or not?

The most difficult Taiwanese official for China to stomach would be president Chen Shui-bian, who will leave office after elections in March. Chen has strengthened the island's independent identity.

Finally, it comes as no surprise to most people that the US cooking staff (and I suppose, probably, everyone else) will be bringing their own food:

When a caterer working for the United States Olympic Committee went to a supermarket in China last year, he encountered a piece of chicken — half of a breast — that measured 14 inches. “Enough to feed a family of eight,” said Frank Puleo, a caterer from Staten Island who has traveled to China to handle food-related issues.

“We had it tested and it was so full of steroids that we never could have given it to athletes. They all would have tested positive.”

In preparing to take a delegation of more than 600 athletes to the Summer Games in Beijing this year, the U.S.O.C. faces food issues beyond steroid-laced chicken. In recent years, some foods in China have been found to be tainted with insecticides and illegal veterinary drugs, and the standards applied to meat there are lower than those in the United States, raising fears of food-borne illnesses.

This may be the moment for Ron Paul...No, I'm not kidding.

Romney is out.

Man, it feels good to say that.

Romney is out.

The divisive, hateful speech he just gave makes it feel all the more better. Of the four men who were still in the republican race this morning, there was no one more divisive than Romney. Of course McCain and Huckabee had played the liberals-will-be-the-end-of-US distraction, but no one had played it more willingly than Romney. Never was this been more evident than minutes ago when Romney announced that he was "suspending" his campaign.

Before I get started, though, I want to clear some things up. While it might not be evident in all my blathering about Obama and Paul, I have for quite some time liked John McCain. He was my choice in 2000, and I still have an (albeit withering) appreciation for him as a presidential candidate. And, if I were voting just based on foreign policy towards Taiwan, he'd be my only choice. I'm happy that he will likely be the Republican nominee.

Moreover, I am not writing this as a Ron Paul supporter. I've come to believe that Barack Obama, the "Left-libertarian," is the candidate that better fits my political views. That said, I have the utmost respect for Ron Paul and his candidacy. I commend his record, and I think it's a shame the media has treated him they way they have. It's on this principle, in the recent republican primaries in South Carolina, I voted not for Obama but for Ron Paul.

I'm writing this post because I feel that an interesting, new dynamic has been created by Romney's departure concerning the media's coverage of the campaigns. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been let down by the way the media has handled their coverage of the presidential candidates' races over the last six months or so. I may, however, have been the only person who half expected it to be any different. Naively believing that it didn't matter so much that these news companies are businesses and must make money, I assumed that as it became more obvious that Ron Paul had an incredible grassroots support web, unlike that of any other candidate, that the media would start to pay attention.

You live, and you learn.

What happened instead is that the media watched and reported incessantly on its floundering golden boys.

FRED THOMPSON, ladies and gentlemen! The country, nay, THE WORLD is abuzz with the possibility of a Thompson presidency! Hear ye! Hear y--- What? He's out already? How many states did he w--- None? Damn.

Well no worries, America's Mayor! RUDY! On his way to the White H--- He's out too? No states? Who's still in? Huckabee? Is he the guy who used to be fat? Really? Him?

Well played, y'all.

All the while, this depressing spectacle of the campaigns' slow deaths was followed with morbid infatuation, like watching ants squirm under a magnifying glass. Here's Rudy doing the Macarena! Today, Fred Thompson ate a hamburger, because he loves America! Tomorrow, we'll be doing a four hour special round-table on Mike Huckabee's weight and whether he'd be able to keep off the pounds during four year in the White House, our special guest, co-host of the hit show Project Runway, Tim Gunn, will be with us discussing presidential fashion over the years. So please join us tomorrow at 8pm eastern for "Don't Huck it up: Dieting with Mike Huckabee."

Never once did I see a general update on Ron Paul's campaign (and I watch a lot of news, too much). I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I defy anyone to show me a news network that talked about Ron Paul's stumping across the country. The only times I ever saw Paul on the news was when he was defending himself about claims that he was racist or, the media's favorite by far, whether he really should really be running as a republican.

I'm sure many won't think this is important, but the truth is that most people still don't get their news from alternative media (where Paul has done well). They get it from CNN, FOX, or major newspapers. Without the daily coverage that the media's crushes garnered, Paul simply does not become a household name.

Making things worse was the fact that Paul's questions in the debates were fewer than those of his competitors, reaching a nadir in the Reagan Library debates in which Paul only got, if my memory serves me correctly, three unique questions (Huckabee only getting a couple more).

Yet, on February 28th, assuming the three candidates still remain, Paul will have an interesting opportunity. Sure, with only 16 pledged delegates, compared to McCain's 700+, I'm not holding my breath for a Paul candidacy, but there is the distinct possibility that the CNN debates at the end of this month could be the largest and most generous platform he will ever get, and he has a one clear advantage over his opponents.

If there are two things that Paul loves talking about, it's the economy and the war on terror. While I don't buy into the idea that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the economy, he's certainly not as comfortable as Paul, and Huckabee's knowledge of foreign policy is about as good as, well, Bush's. He didn't know what the NIE was, even days after the declassified report came out, and he tried to beat around the bush on a question about Pakistan, turning it into a question about immigration.

Despite his pretty dismal showing in the primaries so far, support for Paul doesn't seem to be waning. He's still bringing in money, and I don't see him throwing in the towel. If that's the case, he may be due for more exposure in the coming weeks as a result of the vacuum created by Romney's departure. However, the media, I'm sure, still sees Huckabee as a more viable candidate than Paul, so he'll have to fight for whatever exposure that he does get.

Does in-depth reporting exist in Taiwan? Asia?

I was reading an altogether frightening article in Esquire about Flynt and Hillary Mann Levertt's ongoing fight against the current administration's lustful desire to invade Iran. Both of the Leveretts have had a very close relationship with officials within the Bush Administration. For instance, the article describes Flynt as "the man standing behind [Condoleezza Rice] taking notes and whispering in her ear" whenever she, the President, and Rummy were talkin' Middle East policy.

Both of the Leveretts have become strong critics of the direction the White House's Middle East policy is going. It was news to me that the Iranians "had been engaging in high-level diplomacy with the American government for more than a year" when Bush grouped them in the axis of evil. It was also news that the Iranians had offered to acquiesce to a number of concessions at the center of the debate over Iran, but Bush ignored the offer:

A two-page summary was attached. Scanning it, Mann was startled by one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel.

This was huge. Mann sat down and drafted a quick memo to her boss, Richard Haass. It was important to send a swift and positive response.

Then she heard that the White House had already made up its mind -- it was going to ignore the offer. Its only response was to lodge a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador's meddling.

Hoping to silence the Leverett's campaign, the White house has stepped up censorship of their publications:

When he submitted the paper to the CIA for a routine review, they told him the CIA had no problem with it but someone from the NSC called to complain. "You shouldn't have cleared this without letting the White House take a look at it," the official said.

Leverett told them he wasn't going to let White House operatives judge his criticisms of White House operatives and distilled his argument into an op-ed piece for The New York Times. This time he shared a byline with his wife, who had experienced the peace offer up close. They submitted their first draft to the CIA and the State Department on a Sunday in early December, expecting to hear back the next day.

The next morning, Leverett gave a blistering talk on Bush's Iran policy to the influential conservatives at the Cato Institute. The speech was carried live on C-SPAN. Later that day, he flew to New York and made the same arguments at a private dinner with the UN ambassadors of Russia and Britain. He was starting to have an impact.

By Tuesday, he still hadn't heard from the CIA review board.

They called on Wednesday and told him that there was nothing classified in the piece as far as the agency was concerned, but someone in the West Wing wasn't happy with it and would be redacting large sections.

"You're the clearing agency," Leverett said. "You're the people named in my agreement."

They said their hands were tied.

Now, reading this, I found myself asking two questions. First, why hasn't everyone in the Bush Administration been impeached*? We deserve answers as to why our country is being dragged into fights that just about every specialist says are increasing the threats we are supposedly fighting?

(NOTE: I do not consider Pat Robertson or any of Giuliani's advisers as specialists)

The second question I was tossing around was about articles like the one I was reading -- along with hundreds of others every week published in the North America and Europe** -- that delve deep into the hopeless and heart-crushing nothingness of Khat addiction in "the hellhole of Creation" that is Djibouti, expose war profiteering in Iraq, illuminate some of the less than savory practices (and chemicals) that make your McDonald's french fries taste so darn good, or probe the changing role of religion in American society.

Does in-depth reporting exist in Taiwan? Does it exist in Asia?

My guess is, at least for Taiwan, not a chance. But, again, that's my guess.

I've mentioned several times my disdain for the Taiwanese media (see the above link). Often touted as the "freest in Asia," the press here is a textbook example of how a free press can go wrong. Indeed the Taiwanese press, last I saw, was rated ten points higher than the United States in the Worldwide Press Index. Yet, instead of being free to report the facts -- which it is -- it's often simply fact-free. It's as though Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore were the spiritual beacons for an entire nation's journalists -- imploring young ink slingers to forego all that boring business about laying out facts, presenting both sides of an argument, yadayadayada and just give us the juice! Don't worry about telling us that people are upset, show them crying and pounding their fists in agonizing desperation. Oh, and don't worry if it's not really "news" -- if it bleeds it leads, right? -- feel free to follow Mrs. Wang around her house, right after she finds out her son -- her only child -- just killed himself. Make sure you get every last soul-crushing sob and moan that comes out of her mouth.

Most importantly, don't worry about checking up on rumors. Just report them. Any dummy knows rumors are more interesting than the truth.

I know it's harsh, but that's the impression I have. As usual, I'm no pro when it comes to this (I understand so little of what they're saying), but my sneaky suspicions have been confirmed by most experienced Asia-ologists I've had the good graces to speak to. I've been told that, for the most part, the press all over Asia isn't much better.

What I want to know, though, is this just a Westerner's outside opinion, or is it true? Does there exist respectable, non-foreign journalists on this side of the Hindu Kush? Are there publications in Taiwan and beyond that skim deeper than the first two or three nanometers of the cake that are visible from spitting distance?

Of course, I'm not holding Western reporting up as the paragon. A lot of European press outlets (barring, perhaps, Britain and Ireland) seem to act as a bullhorn for their elitist politicians, and the American press keeps us on the edge of our seats with thrilling who-done-its involving missing white girls and/or OJ Simpson. Oh, and I'm dying to know how Lindsey Lohan faired during her 84-minute stint in the slammer.

Then, there's the gratuitous almost-nudity FOX runs while they're talking about how horrible it is that people show this kind of gratuitous almost-nudity:


In light of this, I think it's important to understand that there are significant differences between forms of press: print media, news networks, etc. For the purposes of this article, I'm mostly concerned about learning if there exists print media of a reputable nature in Taiwan or in Asia as a whole. What publications consistently publish thoughtful, in-depth pieces, no matter what language?

Again, though, I'm not that hopeful -- just curious.


*Remember, since impeachment seems too often to be equated with "conviction" or "deposition," impeachment just means that said politician must respond to accusations.

From the Constitution [emphasis mine]:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

** South America? I don't know. I have no experience in that part of the world.

Fresh off the press: "Taiwan leader" pisses everyone off...

“It’s interesting to me that the U.S. pressured the former Kuomintang government to make Taiwan a democratic country for decades and that is now seems it does not want Taiwan to be ‘that’ democratic.” - Lo Chih-cheng, a professor at Soochow University [via Bent]

I'm only bringing this up because the title of the only article on my Associated Press feed rang out like a stack of bricks on a glass floor:

Taiwan Leader Riles China, U.S.

Yes, there he goes again, riling. That wacky "leader." Ole' Chen, we call him. He's always doing outlandish things like trying to protect his country -- of which he is the democratically elected "leader," whom we normally call the President -- and citing truisms like Taiwan is not a part of the PRC which makes poppa' bear China all hot and bothered, which, consequently, is Taiwan's fault somehow. You know, like if you get to close to a snake, and it bites you.

Well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, and you can't tell Ole' "Leader" Chen to stop poo-pooing on China's feet.

The article itself is not too bad -- not great, but not too bad. I'm mainly just pointing out the maddening, oft-repeated meme that has been highlighted hundreds of times by Taiwan bloggers. Taiwan's democratically elected "leader" is constantly denigrated and crapped upon when he does the things he was elected to do.

While, across the straight, the unelected figurehead of an authoritarian, murderous regime gets to go by the respectful title of President Hu, not the "China Leader."

I would like to go into the article more, because there's a lot of interesting stuff, but I'm just too tired, and I have another article to translate before bed.

Chinese smörgåsbord: citizen journalism

This is an interesting article about how those fighting child labor, unjust land deals, and other legal disputes are being bolstered by citizen journalism, despite government censors:

In the strictly controlled media world of communist China, "citizen journalism" is beating a way through censorship, breaking taboos and offering a pressure valve for social tensions.

In one striking example this month, the Internet was largely responsible for breaking open a slave scandal in two Chinese provinces that some local authorities had been complicit in.

A letter posted on the Internet by 400 parents of children working as slaves in brickyards was the trigger for the national press to finally report on the scandal that some rights groups say had been going on for years.

The parents' Internet posting was part of a growing phenomenon for marginalised people in China who can not otherwise have their complaints addressed by the traditional, government-controlled press.

"The phenomenon of 'citizen journalism' suddenly arrived several years ago," said Beijing-based dissident Liu Xiaobo, who was one of the student leaders of the 1989 Tiananmen democracy protests.

"Since the appearance of blogs in particular, every blog is a new platform for the spread of information."

He cited the example of a couple in the southwestern city of Chongqing who became known as the "Stubborn Nails" in April because they refused to leave their home until they received adequate compensation from the property developer who wanted them out.

This is a reference to this family who refused to leave their house, even after the land around their house was almost literally dug out from underneath them (the photos are amazing)

They quickly became household names in China -- and symbols of resistance against greedy land developers and corrupt local authorities -- mainly thanks to Internet postings.

"That case was first revealed through blogs," Liu said.

Read on, there are several more instances of riots and such that were brought to light on the internet because the broadcast media refused to show. I know that I have to be reasonable and always remind myself that this is probably a let less revolutionary than it seems. The vast majority of people who learn about these things, I assume, are outside of China.

Yet, at the same time, I am one of those people who believe that the internet can serve as a democratizing force, where ideas and issues can be set in motion much easier than through traditional channels.

The one good thing about Taiwanese media is, for once, I feel good about American media

I remember when I first got here, in the heat of the "red ant" Chen protests, there was a flurry of posts on Taiwan related sites berating the Taiwanese media for their lack of balance, fact-checking, and general credibility. Around the same time there was a slew of Taipei Times articles essentially authenticating said bloggers' claims of rampant disingenuousness.

Some examples [all emphasis mine]:

• "Taiwanese distrust media, say it lacks credibility: survey":
  

  The credibility of the country's media is in jeopardy, dropping to a "trust rating" of only 1 percent among major business stakeholder groups, according to an annual survey on Asia-Pacific business stakeholders.

  Alan VanderMolen, president of consulting and public relations firm Edelman Asia-Pacific, said of the finding in the annual Asia-Pacific Stakeholder Study that "Taiwan's media is in trouble."

  VanderMolen said the survey was based on interviews with 1,050 consumers, employees, investors, media members, government officials, non-government organization workers and business executives -- the seven stakeholder groups -- in various countries including Taiwan.

  He said it polled 70 people in Taiwan.

  The Taiwanese respondents gave the media only 1 percent in trust rating with regard to credibility, according to VanderMolen. Government, NGOs and businesses — the other institutions rated — all received trust ratings of 11 percent, he said.

  The survey also found that the trust rating of the mainstream media in Taiwan is lower than foreign mainstream media, Web-based media and even bloggers, VanderMolen said. Only 3 percent of the respondents in Taiwan believe what the media prints about corporations, he said.

  Among the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan's media credibility was ranked last, with Australia second from the bottom, VanderMolen said.

• "Turning a blind eye to global news"
  

  International news has all but disappeared from the local broadcast media. Recent major East Asian events, including Thailand's military coup, the inauguration of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the summits between Japan and China and Japan and South Korea and North Korea's claim to have successfully tested a nuclear device, were largely ignored by the local TV stations.

  This is not a recent problem, but rather a unique problem that has long plagued Taiwan. Despite the country's ongoing democratization and localization, it has failed to pay attention to the forces of globalization and international developments.

  This has resulted in public indifference to international news and an unwillingness to face up to international competition, resulting in Taiwan's marginalization in the global and East-Asian communities. The importance of staying informed about international news is not limited to understanding world affairs; rather, it is about Taiwan's involvement in the international community, national development, educational level and personal benefit.

• "Editorial: The media has lost the public's trust"
  

  The local media has paid a great deal of attention to Taiwan's improved ranking in the recent 2006 Worldwide Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders on Tuesday. The index ranked Taiwan 43rd this year, up from 51st last year, whereas Japan was ranked No. 51 and the US 53rd.

  However, the results of another study [from the first article] touching on the media industry seem to have been largely ignored by local media.

  ...
  

  The results from the two separate studies suggest that even as Taiwan's press freedom is rising, the media's credibility has hit an all-time low.

  Nonetheless, the result of the Edelman study should serve as a warning to the nation's media -- that is, if any of its members still care to engage in introspection.

  It seems, regrettably, that the liberalization of the media has given birth to intense ideological and political competition which, as a result, has lowered the quality and credibility of the industry.

  The media, which is supposed to play the role of the "Fourth Estate," often points to governmental misdeeds and corruption with an air of righteousness and moral superiority.

  Indeed, when it acts in an unbiased manner, media can be powerful. However, in many cases, the nation's media outlets abuse this power in order to further political goals.

  The media cannot credibly help to uphold justice, offer a voice for the powerless and hold the government accountable when it suffers from such low credibility and fails to act in a responsible, unbiased manner.

  Readers in Taiwan often find themselves reading stories that have been labeled as "exclusives" or "scoops," only to discover that the contents consist of unverified "facts," hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations.

  The nation's media sources, broadcast and print alike, are coming under fire from critics for their lack of professionalism and their over-emphasis on trivial, sensational and "exclusive" stories.

  It's time that the media takes a long, hard look at itself, searches its heart and starts to live up to its social responsibilities.

  Sooner rather then later, the media industry needs to wake up and begin to earn back the nation's trust by working for the betterment of society and advancing the interests of the public, rather than the interests of politicians and political parties.
  

All three of these articles came out in a period of only two days. I have thought about these articles almost every time I watch the news here. Not only is the general presentation of the news unprofessional and bombastic, it's content is laughable. Most of the stories, since they squeezed every last story out of the protests, are about purse snatchings, car wrecks, ghosts, political scuffles, etc.

They are generally presented as follows:


Flurries of cameras and microphones thrust before every person who might be inclined to cry or scream, chaos, etc. I believe this particular video is about some sort of natural disaster during a vacation. The youtube poster wrote " 這就是台灣的新聞水準" or "This is exactly the standard of news in Taiwan."

My perspective is very skewed, of course, due to my minimal, but growing, comprehension of what's being said. Yet, it still seems to me -- based on what I read on a regular basis and on my on the spot translations, grâce à Fanfan -- there seems to be very little analysis of the issues. They just skim the surface, giving the juicy bits -- who hit who, who died, now here's the shocking video -- without giving any of the why, what led up to it, what's the debate about, what are the two sides saying, etc.

Case in point, once Fanfan and I were sitting in a restaurant eating lunch, and like nearly every public place in Taiwan there is a TV set to whichever news channel they like (or bought them the television).* The story at the time was about Rush Limbaugh accusing Michael J. Fox embellishing his Parkinson's as an emotional appeal to Americans to support stem cell research. Our conversation followed as such, in French:

Me: I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.
Fanfan: Who is he?
Me: They didn't say?
Fanfan: No, they just said he didn't believe MJF's disease was that bad.
Me: They didn't say what he does? They didn't mention why it matters that he said what he said? I mean, he's not just some guy on the street.
Fanfan: No. They just said that MJF made a commercial and that RL didn't believe it.
Me: Did they say what the commercial was about?
Fanfan: No **

This sort of thing happens quite often. Though, far worse still than neglecting important aspects of an issue is the Taiwanese press' portrayal of pure hearsay and rumor as fact. Recently, a group of students from Hong Kong/Macau new this and took advantage of it to make a point [via Michael Turton]:

In Taiwan, three university students from Hong Kong/Macau found the news reporting on certain television channels to be unacceptable in many ways. "If you grasp the media tastes, it is easy to manipulate the media because they never verify anything." To demonstrate this assertion, they created two fake news items and forwarded them as tips to seven cable television news channels. Eventually, four of them broadcast those stories.

In the first story entitled "The Ghost of the Dog," a female university students pretended to be troubled by the appearance ghost of her beloved dog (e.g. she found dog hair by her bed when she woke up) and asked for help on the Internet. An anonymous netizen then faxed the plea for help to the media. This story was broadcast on August 18 by Era TV.

In the second story entitled "Internet auctions of luck," a female university student was able to buy a bottle of "luck." Prior to that, she had a quarrel with her best friend, she lost her winning lottery ticket, she misplaced her mobile telephone, and had general bad luck. After spending NT$1,380 to buy a bottle of "luck," things improved. The best friend came back, apologized and made up. She found her misplaced mobile telephone and so on. On August 25, ETTV, CTTV and SETV broadcast this story.

Based upon the current AGB Nielsen Media television ratings, these two stories were seen by 360,000 viewers.

I actually think this is a wonderful way of incurring change within the Taiwanese media establishment. I hope some concerned Taiwanese citizens will take to barraging different outlets with juicy stories that they just can't resist until they get so deep in viewer complaints of their mistakes that they will have to start doing some factchecking.

There, I'm making one big assumption: that the viewers will complain.

I know these kinds of things happen within the American media establishment. Still, I have no reason to believe that it is near as systematic as it is here in Taiwan.

One final note, I'm constantly asking myself if some of the problem comes from the fact that a large number of journalists in Taiwan may just be people willing to do it, for the rush. That's to say, I wonder how many journalist actually have any qualifications. Having a girlfriend who is a Taiwanese journalist, I meet a fair amount of people here that don't seem to know what they're doing. A lot of them like the job because it pays better than being a secretary. Yet, someone with the qualifications Fanfan has under her belt, it's hard to find a respectable job where the pay resembles anything like what a Western journalist would be getting (I would guess at least eight to ten times less), which is probably why she's translating a French novel, which pays a lot better, and not doing what she really loves.


*I've been told that, allegedly, some news companies buy televisions for restaurants who want one, as long as the restaurant will keep the set tuned to their channel.
**This is a translation from French of a translation from Chinese of a news story and conversation that all took place months ago. It's just meant as an example of the kind of things that get me thinking about the state of Taiwanese journalism.

International coverage of Chinese military buildup in an alternate universe....

I had to read this three times to understand what it was (because I read it before I read about CNN's botched coverage of Lu's presidential bid). It's quite funny, in a sad-but-true kind of way. This is how news might sound if news organizations had reporters in Taipei, Kaohsiung, and Taichung, instead of Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Or if hell froze over:

via Michael Turton:

"Murderous Communist Dictator" Announces Missile Buildup

(Taipei) AP: Hu Jin-tao, whom Taiwan has referred to as a "murderous Communist dictator" and "relentless expansionist madman" today announced that more missiles would be placed opposite Taiwan, further increasing tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan, which considers China an expansionist, authoritarian state which has no claim to Taiwan, protested to the UN again over the continuing build up.

Analysts in both Taipei and in Washington, DC worried that the dictator's continued flouting of international norms may lead to war in the Strait. "Despite pragmatic diplomacy from the leadership in Taiwan," said one, "China has continued to refuse to talk to the island, and to enhance its military forces."

Regional leaders, including Prime Minister of Japan Namie Amuro, condemned China's continued missile build up in the strongest possible terms. "It is unacceptable that China unceasingly expands its missile bases, threatening not only democratic Taiwan but the free passage of goods through nearby waters." Most of Japan's oil imports pass near the island of 23 million. South Korea also issued a statement objecting to the build up.

China has claimed Taiwan since 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated to the island after it lost the Chinese civil war to the Communists. However, postwar treaties make no mention of the final recipient of the island's sovereignty, and legal experts consider China's claims doubtful at best.

Analysts foresaw a grim future for the provocative Hu. "China's belligerent policies, its brutal occupation of Tibet, its claims to islands as far away as the Natunas, and its authoritarian governance have isolated it from world trade networks,"observed Alfred Marshall, a Hong Kong-based securities analyst. "Investors have sent their cash elsewhere. Consequently, Hu is desperate. With his term of office likely to expire soon, as CCP leaders are restless, he could do anything."

Videos of Chen and Ma from recent interviews.

I just wanted to mention that Tim from INDIAC as the videos from both Chen and Ma's recent appearences on CNN's TalkAsia. He also has some thoughts about the interview here [via here].

It makes you think about all of the news you see about other parts of the world when you see stuff like this [via who else?]:

And there is no country called "The Mainland." China is officially called the People's Republic of China and informally referred to as China.

There is no need for CNN to refer to China as "the mainland." It is nobody's mainland, except for the residents of China's islands.

Lastly, CNN would never write the name of China's president, Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), as "Hu Jin Tao."

If CNN had done its homework, these gaffes would not have occurred.

I saw it time and again when I lived in France, especially during the riots and protests. As long as the report seems feasible, it's good. Remember this?


(untitled) on Vimeo


(untitled) on Vimeo

This was the same time that American journalists were comparing the streets of Paris to the streets of Baghdad.

China lifts ban on Taiwan news sites

This seems promising, but I'm always inclined to believe that there is more to this than we see here:

Officials in China have lifted Internet censorship measures levied against two of Taiwan's top daily newspapers, after blocking them for years amid fears the publications would spread anti-Communist propaganda, a Taiwan official has said.

Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council said that users in the populous Pearl River Delta and other parts of China over the past two weeks had accessed previously blocked web sites run by the China Times and the United Daily News.

A search of the sites in Beijing found the United Daily was accessible but the China Times was still blocked.

The Taiwan government had appealed for more than a year to get the bans lifted.

'China is facing pressure from its own citizens,' said Mainland Affairs Council spokeswoman Corinna Wei.

Read more

Xinhua's sensitivity training

Though there is a part of me that disdains political correctness and wishes people just said what they meant (no matter how distasteful), instead of sculpting reportage with telling omitions and double-entendre.

It's unfortunate that I only hate pirates (in favor of ninjas) and headlice -- two groups that I doubt even S.O.S. Racisme would stand behind -- because I assure you that if there was any significant group against which I chose to direct some form of ignorant bigotry, I wouldn't hold back, because I believe in testing one's belief and changing any personal dogma that doesn't hold up to serious skepticism (a characteristic that perhaps presupposes the impossibility of bigotry).

I digress.

It turns out that China's Xinhua has taken steps to be a little more sensative in it's reporting, and, judging from the things listed, perhaps this is a good dose of mild political correctness as well as more measured appelations (see the last two bullets):

• It is forbidden to use slang or professional terminology that may insult various ethnic groups. For example, it is prohibited to use "Mongolian doctor 蒙古大夫" for a charlatan doctor, or to use "Mongolian" to refer to the condition of Down syndrome.
• Physically handicapped persons should not be described by denigrating terms such as "cripple 残废人", "one-eyed dragon 独眼龙", "blindie 瞎子", "deafie 聋子", "fool 傻子", "idiot 呆子". Instead, the appropriate terms are "handicapped person 残疾人", "blind person 盲人 ", "deaf person 聋人", "mentally impaired person 智力障碍者".
• In reporting about medicine, do not use terms such as "best curative effect 疗效最佳", "cure once and for all 根治", "safe prevention 安全预防", "safe without side effect 安全无副作用." In reporting about medical drugs, do not use terms such as "cure immediately after taking 药到病除", "refund if ineffective 无效退款", "insured by insurance company 保险公司保险", "latest technology 最新技术", "highest technology 最高技术", "most advanced production method 最先进制法", "king of medicines 药之王", "national-class new medicine 国家级新药," etc.
• For persons in the art and literature field, do no use terms such as "movie king 影帝", "movie queen 影后", "superstar 巨星", "celestial king 天王". Normally, use instead "art and literature field person 文艺界人士" or "famous actor/actress 著名演员", "famous artist 著名艺术家," etc.

I have to say that I don't quite understand the necessity of noting that "in all reports concerning persons of Islamic faith, 'pork' must not be mentioned." You can't even mention the word "pork" in reports regarding the Islamic faith? What about saying: "Concerning the Islamic faith, it is sinful to eat pork"?

Then, there's that whole "Taiwan" thing:

• Hong Kong and Macau are special administrative regions of China. Taiwan is a province of China. In any text, map and map annotations, do not describe them as "nations." When a nation and its regions are cited simultaneously, pay extra attention to remember to write as "the nation and its regions."
• Concerning the "government systems" and other organizations in Taiwan, quotation marks should be used if they have to be mentioned. For example, the "Parliament 立法院," the "Executive Yuan 行政院," the "Control Yuan 监察院," the "Election Committee 选委会," the "Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan 行政院主计处," etc. There are also entities that include terms such as "Central," "National," "China (Taipei)," etc. If they must be cited, quotation marks must be added as in the Taiwan "Central Bank 中央银行", etc. The Taiwan "Premier 行政院长", "Legislator 立法委员," and so on should also be placed inside quotation marks. The term "President (Vice-President) of the Republic of China 中华民国总统（副总统）" is strictly bidden, not even inside quotation marks. Use instead the "leader of the Taiwan region."
• Concerning the so-called "laws" in the Taiwan region, they should be described as "the existing regulations in the Taiwan region." With respect to all legal affairs in Taiwan, do not use terms such as "documentary evidence 文书验证," "judicial assistance 司法协助," "extradition 引渡" etc that are commonly used in international law.
• Do not refer to Taiwan as "Formosa 福摩萨." If necessary to quote, then quotation marks must be added.
• Do not write "Tourists from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan visit China." The proper usage is "Tourists from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan visit the mainland."

That's all to be expected, I guess.