This article by Daniel Bell has recently come to my attention. For those of you who can't be bothered to read it, I'll give a quick summary here. Bell criticises the tendency of the Western press to demonise China. He admits that it is important to cover such issues as the Tibet riots because the Chinese press isn't able to, but that there is a dearth of coverage of the positive developments. He lists improvements such as increases in personal freedom, increased acceptance of homosexuality, and economic improvement as cases in point.
Bell also mentions negative news coverage of China, such as its involvement in the Darfur is reported whereas Japanese and Russian involvement is ignored by Western news outlets. Furthermore, comparisons to the Nazi Olympics are useless hyperbole; China is not out to start a world war and has no genocide policy.
Bell calls for some self-reflection, lest we create overly-antagonistic relations with the Chinese. China is not some sort of 'Evil Empire' out to swallow the world. At the risk of being labeled an apologist for the regime, I ask why it is that musicians (such as those who appeared at last week's V-festival), journalists, and semi-educated protesters single out China for attention that is deserved of many other nations of the world. It would seem to me that we are still dominated by xenophobia and a style of issue-populism. Is it any wonder the producers of the videos that I posted earlier this month feel set upon by the Western media?
A couple of years ago I was part of an Australian university student delegation to China. We were traveling with Hon. Greg Hunt MP (yes, that is his real name) who expected us to be a bunch of China-bashers. Consequently, his welcome speech in the forum of the Beijing Hotel urged to stand up for our beliefs and be proud of Australia as a nation. In a return address, from one of the students present, we did just that. Laurie intimated that we were proud Australians and we stand up for our beliefs, but we weren't anti-China.
Yes, China needs to improve aspects of its social policy. But to demonise China is a mistake that serves neither China nor the rest of the world any clear purpose. Anyway, I must go, so I apologise for the weak conclusion.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Friday, 28 March 2008
Tibet and the Media
The recent Tibet uprisings have been quite horrible. But it is the ensuing debate across the international media and posting of individual commentators that has been most revealing. Sloppy reporting by the Western press and Chinese government propaganda have ensured that it is unlikely that the question over Tibet's sovereignty will ever be resolved satisfactorily.
On one hand. Western media has been very sloppy in its reporting of the uprisings.
This has led to the Chinese feeling that they are being persecuted by the Western media in a deliberate campaign against Chinese. This is not an uncommon feeling to Chinese friends of mine, who have discussed issues as wide -reaching as separatist movements and CD piracy with me in terms of the United States "attacking us." The reason that they feel that this is a deliberate campaign is most likely due to a familiarity with campaigns from government-controlled Chinese media and perhaps perceptions of the Western media as being a professional and perhaps infallible source of information.
The official line that China is part of Tibet is perhaps best summed up by this video.
The producers of this video present some facts of Tibetan/Chinese history whilst conveniently forgetting other parts. For instance, Tibet was an independent state from the late 600s through to the early 1200s. As there are with the Turkic nomads to the North and West of Han China, there are noted instances of marriages between the imperial/royal dynasties of China and Tibet. This indicates that even if Tibet was not treated as an equal by the Chinese of the time, it was at least accorded the respect of being an independent state and, perhaps, a threat. Furthermore, it was not until the Yuan dynasty that Tibet was brought into the Chinese Empire. The Yuan, of course, were Mongols. So I would ask the purveyors of the second video shown above whether they would perhaps like to return Tibet, or even greater China over to the control of Ulan Bator.
Of course, such an argument is a facetious one, akin to having Texas and California granted independence or returned to Mexico, or perhaps even returning Normandy to Norway or Acquitaine to the British throne. It is not my purpose to provide a solution to this problem, but rather to show the foolishness of relying on such historical arguments in a situation such as such.
In any debate, there are opinions that differ from that which might otherwise be expected. To illustrate, I leave you with this interesting article from China Digital Times. Read it, it does appear to be a voice of reason amongst a cacophony of posturing.
On one hand. Western media has been very sloppy in its reporting of the uprisings.
This has led to the Chinese feeling that they are being persecuted by the Western media in a deliberate campaign against Chinese. This is not an uncommon feeling to Chinese friends of mine, who have discussed issues as wide -reaching as separatist movements and CD piracy with me in terms of the United States "attacking us." The reason that they feel that this is a deliberate campaign is most likely due to a familiarity with campaigns from government-controlled Chinese media and perhaps perceptions of the Western media as being a professional and perhaps infallible source of information.
The official line that China is part of Tibet is perhaps best summed up by this video.
The producers of this video present some facts of Tibetan/Chinese history whilst conveniently forgetting other parts. For instance, Tibet was an independent state from the late 600s through to the early 1200s. As there are with the Turkic nomads to the North and West of Han China, there are noted instances of marriages between the imperial/royal dynasties of China and Tibet. This indicates that even if Tibet was not treated as an equal by the Chinese of the time, it was at least accorded the respect of being an independent state and, perhaps, a threat. Furthermore, it was not until the Yuan dynasty that Tibet was brought into the Chinese Empire. The Yuan, of course, were Mongols. So I would ask the purveyors of the second video shown above whether they would perhaps like to return Tibet, or even greater China over to the control of Ulan Bator.
Of course, such an argument is a facetious one, akin to having Texas and California granted independence or returned to Mexico, or perhaps even returning Normandy to Norway or Acquitaine to the British throne. It is not my purpose to provide a solution to this problem, but rather to show the foolishness of relying on such historical arguments in a situation such as such.
In any debate, there are opinions that differ from that which might otherwise be expected. To illustrate, I leave you with this interesting article from China Digital Times. Read it, it does appear to be a voice of reason amongst a cacophony of posturing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
