Here are a couple of my angry responses to Western Media. Since both of them may be left unread by the targeted audience, I thought I might well share them on my space with people who might find them interesting.

 

To CNN:

I cannot help but to feel disappointed by CNN’s statement on its coverage of the recent upheaval in Tibet. After weeks of biased coverage, it amuses me that CNN, as a reputable international media company, did not even have the courage and courtesy to apologies for its failure to upholding its professional integrity.

 

In its statement, CNN unapologetically stated that it is aware of “only two instances where it (Tibet) was incorrectly referenced as a country”, sounding as if it is entirely acceptable for a media group which boasts about its accuracy of reporting to make mistakes like this.

 

While it is true that “CNN’s reputation is based on reporting global news accurately and impartially”, in many cases during the past two weeks, as will be discussed below, CNN’s reporting has failed to live up to such reputation.

 

Shortly after the inception of violence in Lhasa, CNN started quoting death tolls from both the Chinese state media and the Tibetan government in exile. In almost every occasion, the reporting reads as “The Tibetan government-in-exile said at least 80 people were killed by police, but local authority – and Xinhua – said only 13 people died” – no specification made about the fact that the 13 cases of death reported by the Chinese authority referrers to the death of Han Chinese. For those who are not extremely familiar with the situation and does not corroborate numbers reported by CNN with those from other sources, such reporting could be highly confusing and lead readers to think that the Chinese government has admitted to the killing of Tibetan rioters.

 

In more than one occasion, where CNN described the spreading of riot into neighboring provinces, reports referred to an area in Gansu province to which the riot spread as “part of historical Tibet, but is not inside what is now known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region” without referring to the fact that the area has been a part of Gansu province since early Qing Dynasty some 400 years ago. For readers who are not familiar with Chinese / Tibetan history, a seemingly truthful statement like this could mislead the readers to think that the communist government separated parts of Tibet and merged them into Chinese provinces, which is entirely untrue.

 

Also, in more than one occasion where CNN referred to the Chinese government’s accusation that Dalai Lama is behind the recent riot and is trying to harm China’s image ahead of the Olympic Games, an attributive clause “a Nobel Peace Prize winner” is added to the word Dalai Lama. While there is yet to be any material evidence to substantiate the Chinese government’s accusation, and what is contained in the attributive clause is indeed try, the way in which CNN referred to Dalai Lama in this particular instance, nevertheless, can not be said to be entirely objective. By stressing the fact that Dalai Lama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, CNN seems to have been trying to steer the readers towards refuting Chinese government’s allegation without question – a conduct in which objective and responsible media group should not engage. (Yasser Arafat is also a Nobel Prize laurite. Rarely did he, however, enjoy the treat of having the honorable suffixed attached to his name.)  

 

These are a few examples of the words used by CNN that have biased connotation and may bear the consequence of steering public opinion towards one direction rather than to encourage rational debate.

 

In addition to the use of words, the selection of events covered in CNN reports also shows signs of political bias.

 

Despite a number of incidences where overseas Chinese diplomatic institutions were unlawfully attacked by Tibetan protesters (Toronto, San Francisco, Paris, etc), few made their way into CNN news reports. Also, while CNN was eager to remind the world about China’s mishandling during the two anti-government protests in 1989, it mentioned nothing about the appalling human rights record of the Dalai Lama government prior to their fleeing to India. No pro-China expert were interviewed to give a different point of view; and all CNN reports (other than the James Miles interview), particularly televised ones, point at “Chinese suppression” – either explicitly or impolitely - as the sole cause of the riot, overlooking the ethno-socio-economic dynamics that are not dissimilar to those in play during the 1998 anti-Chinese riot in Indonesia. Last, but certainly not least, during early days of the event, CNN news reports overlooked almost completely the suffering of Han and Hui Chinese as a result of the riot, and acted almost like a mouthpiece for Western politicians and anti-China organizations to air their condemnation of China for a crime China may have never committed – i.e. heavy-handed clampdown of the riot (or, in the words that most Western politicians and media groups choose to use in a seeming attempt to downplay the level of violence involved, protest).

 

In the reporting of the recent riot in Tibet, CNN is certainly not the only one that has shown signs of bias against China – some such as Sky TV in the UK even used pictures taken in other countries to “sex-up” the story. As one of the world’s most reputable media group, however, CNN should commit itself to a higher level of standard, and refrain from simply echoing the most popular opinion amongst the Western world, which – when it comes to issues surrounding non-Christian countries – are typically not so accurate and embracive. The role of a responsible international media is to foster mutual understanding and encourage constructive dialogue – not to reinforce misperception and provoke conflict. By this standard, CNN has not acted responsibly, and hence should apologize to those who have vested their trust in CNN to help them form objective judgment. Self-denial is never a solution to problems; and the lack of media freedom – or indeed anything that one, based on western values, does not fully approve of - does not justify compromising of professional integrity.

 

 

To EuroNews:

 

     I've been watching Euronews reports on Tibet recently, and have felt strongly that rather than reporting with objectivity and impartiality, Euronews has been using inaccurate and incomplete information in a way that could mislead the general public.

 

     On a documentary-type news report broadcasted on EuroNews, the area of Tibet prior to communist takeover was grossly exaggerated. The report followed on to claim that a large part of Tibet was merged into China after the communist takeover. Such claim seriously deviates from historical facts, and is a sign of either ignorance or strong bias – the latter of which would indicate a lack of integrity among Euronews editors. As a matter of fact, the communist Chinese government did not remark the border of Tibet after the takeover in 1950. Much of the current Tibetan border was marked in the early Qing Dynasty which is some 400 years ago.

 

   As a documentary made by an independent media group, the story should reflect both sides of the argument. In this report, however, no mentioning was made on the brutality of the Dalai Lama regime prior to its fleeing to India in 1959. The Lamaist state ruled by the Dalai Lama was one that had no regard to human rights whatsoever. 95% of the population was constituted by serfs, whose lives can be taken away as their masters – the theocratic lamas and the rich aristocrats – will. Many religious rituals required the use of fresh human blood and body parts, which are commonly taken from the serfs. While the Dalai Lama is now an advocator of peace and human rights, he never showed any regret for supporting the 1959 riot – which let to his fleeing - instigated by Tibetan aristocrats in fear of losing their lordly privileges after witnessing the reforms that have taken place in bordering regions (the Chinese government agree to allow Tibetan aristocrats within the regions ruled by the Dalai Lama, which does not constitute the entirety of the Tibet-populated areas in China, to retain their privileges over land and serfs in the immediate aftermath of the 1950 takeover, and promised to carry out land reforms only gradually – a policy which is sound and fair by any standard given the suffering of Tibetan serfs under the Dalai Lama regime) .  

 

In addition to the documentary, news reports on EuroNews also show frequent signs of partiality and lack of objectivity. If Euronews editors and reporters have been following news reports on more responsible and objective sources such as the Economist, or have duly exercised their rational judgment, they would have realized that the calls for China to “stop the use of violence in Tibet” by Western leaders are the most ridiculous demand one could possibly make. Throughout the entire duration of the turmoil, the Chinese government has exercised an extraordinarily high level of restraint by any standard. Had such massive scale beating, smashing, mobbing and burning taken place in anywhere else in the world, local governments would have taken swift actions to clam down the violence, and deem the riot as act of terrorism. Yet since the riot happened in China, it seemed – based on the reactions from Western leaders / media – as if not only should such actions be permitted and allowed to persist, any responsive measure taken by the government to calm the deadly violence could be “justifiably” deemed as an act of suppression. Moreover, even if no forceful measure has been taken by the government, it is perfectly acceptable – since it is China - to condemn it for its current conduct, disregard what actually happened, on the sole ground of its past record.

 

Rather than to refute such twisted logic, and to cast doubt on the dubious foundation on which the criticisms and condemnations were based, Euronews was quick to join force with the Western politicians, accusing, repetitively, the Chinese government of carrying out “deadly crackdown” on a “peaceful protest”. I understand the frustration that the Western media must have felt when the Chinese government banned journalist from entering Tibet. Such action indeed deserves criticism and suspicion. Suspicion alone, however, does not qualify and substantiate accusation. Making hypothesis about possible mishandling is one thing, making blunt statement about what has happened based on no substantial evidence is quite another. The latter is an irresponsible act of conduct that takes advantage of the lack of public scrutiny around accusations made against unpopular entities, and it is, unfortunate, an act of conduct in which Euronews chose to engage.

 

It would be naïve for me to demand the Western media to be completely objective, for that when it comes to international affairs journalists usually have a pre-formed set of beliefs - acquired through their earlier experience during which popular opinion, driven by political maneuvering, contributes significantly to the shaping of their subconscious - which are very hard, if not impossible to change. For a responsible media group, nevertheless, it is important to have the courage, wisdom and integrity to at least try to fight against popular opinions that are formed on historical, political, ideological and emotional grounds, and to encourage rational debate and constructive dialogue among groups with different opinions to help construct a social environment that breeds mutual understanding and embraces peace and harmony. In the recent instance, Euronews, alongside a number of supposedly reputable media groups, have failed to perform such role. It helped reinforce, rather than defuse, misunderstanding and has helped intensify hatred against China, Chinese people, and the Chinese government, which, as unjustifiably as it is given the enormous contribution all three are making to the world, is already deeply embedded in the Western society.

 

China is a lovely country - a country with rich history, friendly people, vibrant economy, and flourishing society. China has its problems – problems that are due to China’s relatively rudimentary level of development rather than its “communist nature”. Human rights issues exist in China primarily as a result of lack of awareness in the lower level government organizations and the imperfections within the legal system – particularly the institutional infrastructure for the enforcement of law. These problems are not unique in China, and are not non-existent in even the most developed countries. The Tibet issue is complicated issue, and should not be reduced to human rights violation and suppression of freedom. Tibetans enjoy the best social welfare protection among all Chinese ethic groups – 56 in total – due to their special political sensitiveness. Religious affairs are monitored closely not for the communists’ dislike of religion, but the complex intertwining between religion, particularly in Tibet, and politics. Had the 14^th Dalai Lama been less vocal about the resumption of his government’s rule and the international community been more prudent about the claims made by the 73 year old man who use to be the head of a slavery state, Tibetans monks, the once privileged class that enjoyed massive wealth without engaging in any form of productive activity, would have a much freer life, like that they had in the 1980s before they mobilised a massive riot in 1989. It is important for the world to realize that the communist government is not dark and evil. At most, it is inexperience and, as a result, incompetent. The handling of both 1989 uprisings was a demonstration of its lack of political wisdom; and it would be unreasonable for the West to assume that the government has remained unchanged for the past 20 years. China is evolving rapidly in every aspect. Judging the Chinese government based on events happened 20 years ago would be like judging the Western governments based on their engagement in slave trade, discrimination against women, the opium war, etc. Just because China bashing is popular does not mean it is right. To really engage China into the international community for the greater good of the humanity as a whole, the world need to acknowledge the contributions that China, Chinese people, and – as weird as it may sound to an average Western ear - the Chinese government have made to the world in the past 30 years, and, at the same time, to encourage China to make further improvements with, possibly, constructive assistance from the West. To steer the world toward this direction require the Chinese government becoming more adroit in public relations. Right-minded media groups in the West, nevertheless, also have a crucial role to play.