Chart manipulation: how to make 99 appears 6 time larger than 663

The Economist is very good in manipulating charts. In the past, it would make 120 appears twice as large as 110 by plotting the y-intercept at 100.

Here is another innovation to mislead our readers.

So what did Ma Ying-Jeou say?

Background see e.g., "Despite his clarification and similar statements by other officials, some commentators insisted that the AP report showed Ma's intention to start political negotiations with Beijing if he wins re-election." - Focus Taiwan

The full excerpt is now published (or here). This is what Ma actually said,

• AP: So, do I understand you correctly that, if economic issues are
  resolved during your second term, during that term, you might move on
  to political questions?
  [00:32:17]
  President Ma: As I said, it depends on how fast we move, whether these
  issues are satisfactorily resolved, and of course all the policies regarding
  the mainland are very sensitive, and we certainly will also make decisions
  on generally whether the decision receives popular support. So usually
  when we lay out our general policy, we will say that: first of all, it has to
  be something needed by the country; secondly, it has to be supported by
  the people; and thirdly, that it will be supervised by the national
  parliament to make sure that this is a policy basically meeting the needs
  of the people.

This is what AP reported

• In between the poles of union and separation, Ma said his government is prepared to discuss political agreements, including security issues, as soon as the priority economic issues are dealt with. He suggested that those political talks could start as early as a second four-year term if he wins re-election in 2012.
• "We are not intentionally delaying the talks on political issues. Certainly the economic ones are more important to people here. People also support the idea (of) economy first, politics later," said Ma. Asked if he would move to political talks in a second term once economic issues are dealt with, Ma said "it depends on how fast we move." Political issues, he said, "will come after all the major economic issues are resolved."

Regarding the territorial dispute in the South China Sea, The AP reporter Hutzler has such a loaded question

• [45:20]
  AP: Now, since you touched on the natural resources, the U.S. has voiced
  some concerns that, you know, there’s the Diaoyutai and then there’s the
  larger issue of the free passage of shipping through the South and East
  China seas and access to natural gas deposits or whatever might be down
  there on the ocean floor. And the U.S. has voiced concerns that the
  mainland is really trying to cut off access to foreign trade in that area,
  which would have, obviously, a poor effect on Taiwan, which really owes
  its existence to free access to those shipping lanes. So, do you share the
  concerns of the United States?
  [45:53]
  President Ma: Certainly. I think most of the waters in the South China
  Sea should be open waters, the so-called high seas according to the Law
  of the Sea. And they’re open to international traffic for sure. Actually, as I
  said, countries started to occupy and garrison those islands a long time
  ago. So this is not a very new issue. We sent our troops, our Marine Corps,
  to station on those islands as early as 1956. Just 10 years ago, we changed
  that with Coast Guard instead of the Marines. I served in our Navy more
  than 30 years ago, and my unit had the responsibility to supply all these
  islands. So I understand this issue well.
  AP: So is China trying to interfere with the open water policy?
  [46:52]
  President Ma: No. So far no. And I don’t think mainland China would do
  that. You know, when they are becoming a power in the region, they also
  become more careful about those issues. Certainly, it wants to maintain
  its sphere of influence but I don’t believe that will reach the level of
  interfering with international traffic.
  16
  [47:15]
  AP: They often raise objections to the passage of U.S. military ships
  through the South China Sea and they have, at times, taken measures to
  block those ships from passing through. The argument that some people
  in the mainland make is that free passage does not extend to military
  vessels, that that can be considered to be preparing the battlefield for the
  future. Does your government believe that these types of military
  surveillance activities are normal and should be allowed?
  President Ma: Well, certainly all the activities on the oceans, particularly
  in international waters, are regulated by the United Nations Convention
  on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which came into effect in 1994. It’s very
  important to note that there are rules of conduct. For instance, a warship
  is not supposed to sail through the territorial waters of other countries, but
  if the waters are too narrow in an international strait, then they certainly
  have to do certain things to make sure that it’s an innocent passage. There
  are rules. I think that each country should follow the rules.

No, Mr Hutzler , China did not object to free passage of international ships in the seas in question, not even US gunboats. China objects to US spy ships snooping some 20 miles by its mainland and main islands only, so far. This is what China's MoFA said regarding the "spy ship harassment" incident

• "China has lodged a solemn representation to the United States as the USNS Impeccable conducted activities in China's special economic zone in the South China Sea without China's permission," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told a regular news briefing. 
• "We demand that the United States put an immediate stop to related activities and take effective measures to prevent similar acts from happening," Ma said.

Passage is not, and has never been, China's complaint. Especially, if it is passing in the open sea far away from its naval bases.China complained about the "activities", not the "passage".

Mr Hutzler, you need to do your homework before an interview, and you need to go back to school to study how to write a report.

Uncritical reading

I have commented on how uncritical reading could sway you previously. (btw, certain apple daily columnist continues to defend the-rapist, even till today, apparently idiots are everywhere in our corwded city)

There is another example today, via Chinasmack

1) from a comment in this post (perhaps also represents some 'widely held' misunderstanding among western media and uncritical readers)

• Domestically, Jiang was well known for his incapability since he handled miserably in diplomatic affairs (Yinhe Incident in 1993, Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996 and NATO bombing of the PRC embassy in 1999). He failed to defend China’s interests. The two Prime Ministers in his cabinet were targets by sides from both inside and outside the party. The first PM, Li Peng, earned his bad name by ordering crackdown on Tiananmen Square and the second PM, hardliner Zhu Rongji was hated by many for his tough administrative style (tempest reform on state-owned enterprises which resulted in soared unemployment, and brash rectification on banking system).

Wait a minute, who was Zhu hated by? many??? corruptor Chen Xitong or those princelings benefited from Jiang/Li era corruption who are now abroad and got a hand on influencing the western media?

The danger of taking a very small sample when you do your reporting.

2) I was going to say people never linked Jiang and Zhu together, but then Chinasmack promptly put up a follow up post (bravo chinasmack!!!), about netizens lamenting on Zhu's jaded silver hair vs Jiang's dyed brown head. You only need to take a couple sample (well, it is a 100% one-sided opinion from netizen up to this minute) to see comments like this

• "NND, why does National Day still need to give Jiang so many shots??? It should give our ex-Premier Zhu more shots instead, as everyone misses the old man more!"
• 哎！说什么好呢！只是朱总理在位的时候搭错了班子。但人民永远怀念您！

If something you heard does not feel right, just go to the forum and check the comments. Democracy works pretty well in the internet.

p.s. here is an exercise, blogger yang hengkun said, "60年前，美国政府对是否要打朝鲜战争举棋不定，这时，美国著名的智库兰德公司搞出了一个“可行性报告”，但他们不给美国政府看，要一大笔钱才肯出卖。可美国政府又舍不得花钱，就拒绝". This doesn't seem right. The US government wouldn't pay for a RAND report? unlikely but i could take this, but such a report could change a government decision? give me a break! the exercise is easy to do, try google for RAND and Korean War, see if you could verify Yang's story at all.

PRC's National Anthem from the original movie

From movie "Children of the Troubled Times" (Feng Yun Er Nuu), the clip is from the end of the movie, when the hero joined the Volunteer Army in Manchuria to fight the Japanese Occupation (at the time Manchukuo). It was in 1935, after the 9-18 but before 7-7 incidents.

March of the Volunteer


Related link: Frog in Well

Oh media and opinion leaders

They are biased. Of course they are.

When the PRC government cleaned up its corrupted official, they would discredit any possibility that certain government(s) in this world, however authoritative or generically corrupted, would want to become less corrupted. Instead, they cooked up some conspiracy theory of power struggle to confuse its reader. If they hate you, whatever you do it is just wrong.

But to think that they are against China is "too simple, sometimes naive", to quote the ex-prez Jiang. To the "main stream media" and so-called opinion leaders, plus the foreign ministers of two major European countries, if they love you, you can rape a young teen brutally and their loves are still eternal.

As for media in Hong Kong, they simply applied google translation for whatever they have received and spit out to their readers (of similar caliber, they would think). They would not bother to read the comment fields under those websites, or a few lonely critical minds such as this.

What could China do to move from the "bad guy" circus to the "good side"? Here are a few tips from this lesson

1. Be rich and famous
2. Be-friend those western opinion leaders who had sold their souls
   
3. Open the comment field
   

It is quite straightforward which way is the more achievable.

We are united! Every Channel is CCTV

I have about 80 channels at the apartment I am staying. Number 1-60 are domestic, including the various CCTV channles, Beijing channels and a collection of provincial satellite TV channels.

During the past couple days they all became CCTV. (to be more precise CCTV-1, except for CCTV9, and a couple provincial/local channels for a few hours which would air a couple hours of their self produced Earthquake coverage)

Some speculated CCTV (together with SARFT) has conspired to capitalize on these 3 days of national mourning to edge on its competitors. This is not without base if we remember how CCTV has pushed Hunan Satellite TV around and finally banned the whole genre of Reality Shows. The rationale is that SARFT may go after any channel that dares to venture to non-quake related programming and that it is "safe" to simply take CCTV-1's programming, which many local channels are obliged to carry (and already has the facilities to do so) for evening news (19:00 p.m.)

For my 20 foreign channels. Only Phoenix News survived (Phoenix is duplicating programs in its sister channel Phoenix News), plus CNN, CNBC and BBC, which are news channels -- all others are classified as 'entertainment' channel and banned. Star China and Channel V became CCTV clone to survive. CETV, unable to negotiate with CCTV or set up the CCTV-1 capture facility, had secured feed from Chongqing TV, (which is basically CCTV), is still banned locally.

What does it mean by "banned locally". You see this screen below. (Either this was done in the satellite uplink or locally at the Cable TV operator, I am not sure which) -- same for Star Movie, HBO and everybody else.

Note the key here is that you are guilty if you "could" contain (a minute of ?) 'entertainment programming, even if you are doing 99% CCTV. I suspect this was why CETV ended up still being shot. The local CATV just did not want to take any risk.

I have taken picture of a few other channels (note the channel logo on upper left side), as below:

A local satellit TV (the logo overlapped with CCTV-1)


Another provincial (Xinjiang) satellit TV (XJTV logo)


CCTV Music Channle is now CCTV-1


StarTV China (logo on right)


Channel V (part of Murdoch's Star TV)


People talk about financial impact on losing 3 days of inventory. But the real impact is not significant. Since most advertising slots are not fully sold, the commitment of CPRP to advertisers can always be compensated in the days that follow. In fact, as a result of overall loss of inventory across the industry, it may even boost price a bit!

Those that sell airtime to Type 2 advertisers (e.g. TV Home Shopping) are perhaps the real losers, as there is no extra airtime to fill.

Lee Kuan Yew tells China how to play the Western media rules

Well, for all of us here, bloggers or surfers, the advice for China's ossfied "Propaganda Department" is quite unaimous -- learn to play by their rules.

Now Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew weighed in. (via Blood and Treasure blog, and also Danwei)

• my outlook, my mental approach is different from theirs. I would laugh at the west. Just like, you know, they say “Singapore is a fine city.” Everything is fine, no chewing gum, no litter in the streets, it's antiseptic, it's sterile. I don't take offence.
  People come here, people stay. It's safe, 3 a.m. in the morning, you can go jogging by the marina, nothing happens to you, no rape, and no muggings. News gets out: “We are dull.”
  Now, we are not dull, we are quite cool. We're going to have reverse bungee, all-night dining by the river and by the marina, two integrated resorts, Formula One. How do you explain that? Whether they like it or not, they have to shift the nuances.
• You take Tibet. Who started it? It was started by the Tibetans. The March incident, March 14. I was reading Jonathan Eyal who writes for our Straits Times. He was a commentator from London. He is from I think Chatham House, a very thoughtful man. He said if they had called in the newspapers right from the word go, and said, look, this is what happened. The Economist correspondent was in Lhasa when it happened and wrote about it. He was favorable to them. The rioters started killing people and they were not reacting. The orders were not to shoot, not to take on the rioters because they didn't want trouble. Had they engaged the west, all this would have turned out differently.
  Why didn't they? Because there was a chasm between their mental make up and that of the west. So they say all western correspondents out, that means you have got something to hide. I think that was not very wise. Supposing it was Singapore, do we say all correspondents out? No. I say look come on, stay, watch it, see what happens, see who started what.
  Are they [the Chinese] stupid? They can't do what we do? No. Its just people at the people at the top have not been educated in the west, they have not been exposed to that kind of environment, that kind of rules of the game, and are not playing by those rules of the game.
  The day they build up an educated middle class, a large middle class, huge numbers of whom have been educated abroad, PHDs, MBAs in America, Europe, Japan elsewhere, and they are the people setting policies at the top, not people whose mental mindsets are from Soviet days, that day they will find they can play by the western rules and win.

I am a bit shortsighted than Senior Minister Lee. I think it takes more than (or it does not really) a new western world exposed generation to pull this. The source of the problem is not just the old hags at the notorious Propaganda Dept (which controls SARFT and the media). It is the extreme risk-averseness of the government which picked the Propaganda heads. This would hinder the effort to let in foreign reporters. However, Mr Lee is right. With the ubiquitous DV and camera phones plus the internet, with or without foreign reporter there is really little difference. They might as well let them in.

If what Mr Lee said is serious. The Singaporeans have to thank the MSM for labeling Singapore "dull", as it forced it to become cooler. In the same spirit, when China becomes "cool", the MSM should be credited, whatever their "original intention" was. The great people are those who could turn even the malicious force against them into something good for themselves. Mr Lee is a great person. China needs to take heed of him.

Anyway, I think what Mr Lee showed is a win-win scenario. Just like in his example of arm-wrestling between Singapore and the MSM. Singapore is now not dull (even if not all agree it is "cool"). When China takes his advise, the accompanying measures (which is as harmless to China itself as making Singapore "cool" for Singapore) will transform China, into something that is closer to the "Western ideal" -- well, in reality, the "universal ideal" which is created by extracting the portion of Western ideal which also is acceptable by China. (again, the "coolness" which fits both Mr Lee's and MSM's definition).

The nitpicking I have on Mr Lee is the notorious T3, and the equally notorious Norman Foster for airport, who had so much pratice at London's Heathrow that walking a km is considered short stroll. T3, though better than Chek Lap Kwok in terms of the limping walks, is not what Mr Lee thinks. It still suffers from the Heathrow/Chek Lap Kwok syndrome, i.e. they are designed as your exercise machines, not as your airport.

杨恒均: CNN为何爱国 (Interview with Rebecca McKinnon and others)

Source: (via Wenxuecity) YHJ Blog

对于西方媒体报道中国时的那种片面和偏激，我是早就领教过的。记得十几年前第一次到美国工作，为了尽快让英语听力过关，每天趴在电视机前看新闻实事或脱口秀节目。起初，由于熟悉新闻背景，完全能够听懂的几乎只有关中国的新闻报道和评论。说实话，从美国新闻里看到报道中国的新闻和他们的评论，确实很让人不爽。

即便在我自己把批评中国当作己任，自认通过批评自己的国家从而促使其进步就是最好的爱国的今天，看到西方媒体对中国的负面报道，我心里还是很不舒服。有时真想找人教训他们一下，可是找谁呢？西方的新闻媒体好像没有主管单位，看看他们如何整天批评甚至攻击总统和政府就知道了。特别是美国的福克斯新闻(FOX)攻击起克林顿夫妇，简直可以用极尽侮辱之能事。

但我也注意到一个现象，那就是在美国遭受到911袭击，以及美国先后出名阿富汗和伊拉克期间，美国的各大新闻媒体包括CNN等都显得非常爱国。这真让我迷糊了。因为那时我也对美国媒体有了一定的了解，确实知道这些媒体是享受充分独立和自由的，和政府没有什么关系，更不是什么上下级关系。那么他们怎么都那么爱国起来？好像是白宫统一安排了舆论导向似的。

这个问题也就放下了，直到两个月前我到香港参加文学节，正好和前CNN驻北京首席记者芮贝卡（Rebecca Mackinnon）同台主持我的作品研讨会。芮贝卡父亲是汉学家，她自己说很流利的中文。她以前长期在CNN工作，从1992年到2001年在CNN驻北京站任首席记者。我最早见到她就是从电视屏幕上开始的。她目前在香港大学从事媒体教学工作。以她对CNN的了解，我想，我自然会为自己的问题找到最准确或者最接近真相的答案。

在我们一起吃中饭时，我提到了这个问题。我说，一向对美国政府桀骜不驯的新闻媒体特别是CNN怎么一到了阿富汗和伊拉克战争时就忽然爱起国来，弄得我不得不怀疑白宫有幕后黑手在操纵。我想，芮贝卡一向对美国的媒体拥有比较独立和公正的看法，对中国人民也持友好的态度，她会给我一个满意的答案。

芮贝卡的回答证实了我的观察没有错。那段时间，CNN等美国大媒体确实“挺爱国的”。但她纠正我说，政府没有给压力，白宫更不敢干涉，也不会是因为CNN的老板是美国人这些原因，主要原因是有一双更加有力的无形的大手在操控。芮贝卡要用自己的亲身经历来向我解释。

阿富汗战争期间，她曾经带一个（日裔）摄影师前往阿富汗前线，为CNN作现场报道。她说，作为一名记者，她自然知道该报道些什么。当时，阿富汗战争刚刚打响，很多阿富汗人因为战争而流离失所。当时芮贝卡所在地方（名字我记不起）正是遭受战乱的阿富汗穷人逃乱的必经之地。芮贝卡看不断涌来的阿富汗难民在美国的炮火下不得不逃离家园，扶老携幼，有的妻离子散。于是，具有敏锐新闻头脑和人文关怀心的芮贝卡把这些难民的真实生活都一一拍摄下来，不停地发回美国CNN总部。

就在芮贝卡以为找到了最好的新闻素材，干得正起劲时，来自CNN的指令下来了。指令要求芮贝卡少报道一些这些（难民）——这些被美国炮火赶离家园的难民潮对于美国那场反恐战争来说毕竟是负面的消息。CNN总部希望芮贝卡多报道一些来自阿富汗前线的能够激励美国人爱国心的新闻。CNN总部的理由很简单：观众不爱看那些难民，他们要看反恐的，爱国的。

芮贝卡给我讲这件事后有些无奈，她说，现在你明白了，CNN为什么爱国了吧。不是政府让他们爱，更不是他们那些老板良心发现突然想爱国，而是因为当时美国观众 们在911后正在爱国的兴头上，不喜欢看那些“不爱国的”——如美国发动的战争造成的大量的难民。

当时CNN的对手福克斯新闻（FOX news）狂热地支持布什政府（福克斯一直为难克林顿政府），赢得了很高的收视率，CNN处于明显的劣势。为了迎合美国主流的爱国激情，CNN不得不放下一些原本够料的新闻，而去报道能够激起美国人爱国热情的东西。

芮贝卡后来离开了CNN，我想这也许就是原因之一，她对于那些超级的国际大媒体持一定的批评态度，认为他们往往为了收视率，为了广告，为了迎合主流人群而放弃一定的新闻原则。

现在不妨把话题转到最近CNN主播卡弗蒂的辱华事件上，我想结合我自己的一些经验和认识谈一些看法，与网友商榷。

1）卡弗蒂的话是不是辱华？

我一早就从网络上看到了卡氏的那段话，今天在写这篇文章的时候，我又核对了英文原文。从我自己的理解来判断，卡氏的讲话确实侮辱了中国人民，他可以说自己没有把话说清楚，那个“他们”可以指中国政府也可以指中国人民。然而，从话语的上下文来看，卡氏说他指责的是中国政府这件事有些牵强。所以，可以这样，卡氏的话是严重地辱华，而且带有种族主义的偏见。

我们回过头来分析，卡氏为什么在中国外交部提出抗议后辩称他是批评中国政府呢？原因很简单，按照西方媒体的标准，任何媒体和新闻人都有批评政府的权力，至于批评的是否有证据，是否正确，那是另外一回事。但媒体拥有批评甚至攻击政府的权力是不容置疑的。所以，在为自己辩解时，卡氏率先抛出了这一点。

卡氏当时说了一长串的话，是关于贸易和“中国产品是垃圾”的。我认为说中国产品是垃圾并不构成辱华，中国出口美国的产品都是很便宜的，相对于欧洲进口的自然质量不高，而且也出现了一些安全问题（据说美国最近要公布中国产品安全问题调查），所以，一个新闻主播带着激动的情绪说“中国产品是垃圾”并不构成什么辱华事件，听说一些公司要起诉，没有这个必要。可是，这位卡氏话锋一转，就说到中国人身上，什么五十年来都是——

这句话，无论按照中国标准，抑或是美国标准，都超越了一个新闻主播的底线，不单单是侮辱中国人，而且带有严重的种族歧视了。卡氏在这句侮辱的话语里虽然使用了一个时间概念（“近五十年”），这也就成为他强调的他在攻击“中国政府”而不是中国人民的依据。

无论卡氏如何辩解，中国人这一次是有理由要求道歉的。问题在于：我们该使用什么方法对付CNN？

2）CNN为什么对中国政府的抗议和愤怒的中国民众漫不经心？

中国外交部连续三次提出严厉交涉，谴责并督促一个私人媒体CNN做出真心的道歉，中国大陆网络爱国者也大张旗鼓口诛笔伐，更有世界各地的华人华侨特别是留学生举行了历史上极其罕见的声势浩大的游行示威活动，真可谓众志成城。

可是迄今为止，不但西方媒体鲜有报道，而且CNN也按兵不动。确实让人费解。然而，结合我上面的故事——CNN为何忽然爱国来分析，我们就不难看出问题的症结所在。

无论西方媒体如何标榜新闻自由，讲究职业道德，他们充其量还是一个赢利的跨国大公司，他们也有上帝——就是他们的观众，也就是暗中操控他们的那只无形的手。从某种意义上说，抛开自由民主等这些核心价值不表，西方媒体要供奉起来的是他们的衣食父母——广大的西方观众。当然，这和他们崇尚民主自由并不一定矛盾，因为西方的绝大多数观众已经接受了民主自由的核心价值理念。

现在，我们来看一下CNN的情况，它的上帝——观众在哪里？很显然，现在起来抗议他的中国人，几乎一个都不是他的观众。中国大陆民众根本不允许看CNN，CNN的收视率自然从来不把中国的观众统计在内。

CNN的衣食父母，和控制它的那只巨大的手——观众几乎全部在中国大陆以外，那么，中国外交部目前连续三次提出抗议，中国民众群情激愤，在外面的观众——特别是西方的观众看来，又是什么情况？

问题就出在这里。目前从中国大陆网络到中国外交部以及席卷全球华人圈的谴责和抗议CNN的活动，看在CNN的观众，特别是西方的观众眼里，对CNN不但没有损害，甚至正在直线提高它的收视率。我想，就这一点来说，CNN的高层也许此时正躲在阴暗角落里偷偷直乐。

中国网民、外交部和全球留学生抗议CNN事件不但CNN本身鲜有报道，其他大的电视台如FOX和BBC等也很少报道，为什么？这当然有其他的原因在里面，但有一个重要的因素不能忽视。举例说，当FOX报道CNN遭到13亿中国人的抗议的时候，那么十有八九的正在观看FOX的观众会立即转台去看看CNN 到底出了啥事。而且，还有一个让我们难堪的现象就是，在目前西方人眼中，中国仍然是一个没有新闻自由的国家，记者动辄因言获罪。于是，头脑简单的西方人也就会以此反推：得罪这样一个国家，能够惹得没有新闻自由的13亿人愤怒的CNN，一定是我们西方为之自豪的新闻自由的榜样。此时不看，更待何时？

我的分析当然不是全面的，只是就某一方面深入浅出。但是，我也并不是没有依据的。那么，这样分析下来，是不是说，我们中国人被一个电视台的主播侮辱了，我们就没有办法了？就要忍受？就要不了了之？

那也未必，外交部发言人说得好：中国人不是好欺负的！

3）我们到底应该怎么办？

在我提一些建议前，我首先表明，外交部目前连续三次严重交涉，以及一些民众自发组织抗议，都是合法合情合理的。但是否还有更好的选择，或者说从长远来说，我们是否还有更好的办法？又或者说，我们是否还有更见效的方法？这些都应该群策群力。

我提几个看法：

第一， CNN作为一个世界性的大媒体，它的触角伸到世界各个角落。可想而知，它在中国自然也有办事处，而且业务量也不会小。这就很自然地让人联想到，如果它不配合我们的要求真诚道歉的话，我们把它赶出中国。那样对于一个世界性的大媒体，被赶出了有13亿人口的中国，自然是损失惨重的。可是，这种方法绝对不能用，因为这种方法在世界上造成的对中国政府形象的损害相比于我们赶走了一个私人媒体获得的尊严要大得多，得不偿失的事我们不能做。更何况今年是奥运年。
第二， 按照我的分析，CNN之所以对中国外交部的抗议和民众的声讨置若罔闻、漫不经心，是因为我们的行为不但不影响它的收视率和经济收入（主要是广告），而且甚至有可能让它在西方获利。从这里我们看出来，就算如CNN这样的超级媒体，剥掉了冠冕堂皇的外衣（新闻自由等），充其量也就是一个企业，一个追逐利润的公司，为老板和股东赚钱赢利是它的目标。那么，中国是否在这方面有一定的作为？我想还是有的，据我观察，CNN的大量广告来自中国大陆和华人世界，如果CNN不对辱华事件做出更真诚的道歉和处理，如果中国人够团结的话（真像愤青们说的那么团结的话），威胁CNN，停止所有来自中国大陆和华人世界的广告，将会对CNN造成巨大的打击。
第三， 但那绝对不是致命的一击。那么，我们还有什么办法从本质上解决这个问题？虽然说卡弗蒂是有名的大嘴巴，也是“臭嘴巴”，他不但辱华，也侮辱过无数的人包括美国人，可是，我们即使通过抗争，让CNN解雇了他，取得了阶段性的胜利，我们能够改变什么？我们能够改变西方媒体对中国的偏见吗？能够保证不会有更多的卡弗蒂出现在西方人的电视台里？我们当然不能，西方媒体不可能因为一个不发达地区的一些侨民和留学生的抗议，就改变他们上百年来形成的新闻模式和理念。那么，我们有什么办法从本质上解决问题？方法倒是有，不过说起来很简单，做起来却很难。那就是从操控西方媒体的那只无形的大手入手——也是西方媒体的上帝——西方观众、西方民众入手。增加西方民众对中国的了解，把中国开放给西方普通民众。

俗话说：说起来容易，做起来难。按说，西方媒体敢于屡次歪曲对中国的报道是有西方民众撑腰的，或者说有民众的基础。说到这里，有人也许就说了，西方民众不是通过西方媒体了解中国吗？那不是恶心循环？话是这样说，但却不尽然。因为在西方包括美国毕竟还是有新闻自由的。至少，如果你愿意，我们的中央电视台在全美国都可以收看得到，没有人会屏蔽你。这些年中国人在西方媒体投入的钱，明里的暗里的，不可谓不多，就拿中文报纸来说，基本上都能够越来越多地正面报道中国大陆，越来越多华人媒体转向，开始走上正确引导华人的舆论导向这条路。

西方观众如果想看，中央电视台的英文节目也是完全可以看到的，但据说世界上收视率最高的新闻节目是我们的新闻联播，可在美国除了搞情报的以及那些和中国大陆做生意的华人外，很少有人会去看中央电视台的新闻。这并不是让我们值得骄傲的。中国大陆的朋友大多想看海外的新闻节目却看不到，而西方人可以看到中国的新闻节目却根本没有人愿意看。

虽然说我们的新闻媒体具有中国特色，但不要忘记，新闻媒体本身就是从西方引进到中国的，我们虽然谴责西方媒体歪曲报道中国的新闻，但却不能把自己孤立于西方媒体之外。西方媒体在舆论监督，民意表达，以及报道真相上，还是有积极意义的。如果中国想从本质上解决问题，想从坐在电视机前的上帝——观众入手，彻底解决问题的话，还应该在自己的新闻媒体的改革上加大力度，学习西方媒体的积极一面。放弃一言堂，放弃只报喜不报忧的新闻模式，放弃把新闻当成喉舌，当成说教的工具——

也许有人会问，你说的这些和我们面临的问题有直接关系吗？当然有，也许不能立即解决问题，但却能够从根本上彻底解决问题。我们中国一向是可以用大钱集中起来做大事的，可是，迄今为止，13亿人的大国怎么就无法弄出一两个国际性的媒体？在美国开办电视台和办办报纸都是绝对自由的，我们为什么办不起来？没有人看，为什么没有人看？如果我们拥有能够得到世界观众信任的媒体，就能够把更公正的中国介绍给世界。

以上只是一个方面，还有一另外一个方面，那就是在我们发现西方媒体在报道中国存在偏见和偏激的时候，我们是否反省过，中国大陆的媒体是否对世界也存在严重的偏见和偏激？

我已经不止一次说过，中国的一些主流媒体对世界的歪曲和偏激也是让人胆颤心惊的。要知道，我这里不是小看CNN，以我对他们的理解，他们那个辱华节目的收视率并不怎么样，而且，就算西方观众听见了他的辱华，也不会太介意，影响也很有限。而且美国观众有很多选择，甚至有权选择看你的中央电视台。

但是，我们中国大陆的媒体就不同了，基本上是一个声音说话，所以，以前出现过关起门来，八亿人民激动兮兮，一个个磨拳擦掌准备解放全世界的奇观。现在当然好多了，但还远远不够。

一个在自己的国家只能听到一种声音的，言论自由还有待发展的国家，且不要说在面对世界时会显得过于简单、易于愤怒，容易受伤，而且也是很难得到国际社会的民众真心地尊重的。

还有一个事情不能不提，因为看到世界各地华人华侨特别是留学生涌上街头抗议西方媒体的对中国的偏见，我很高兴，因为对西方人对中国的偏见，最直接的受害者就是生活在海外的中国人。但我们大家激动之余都不要忘记，西方民众了解中国不仅仅是通过那些西方媒体，而且更主要的是通过住居在他们 国家的华人华侨以及特别是中国留学生。

说到这里，也该结束了，我只希望最后我们的华人华侨和留学生也要问自己一句：除了这一次我站出来抗议西方的媒体歪曲报道中国、表达爱国之外，我平时在西方的一言一行和所作所为，是否能够让西方人看到一个和平、文明和尊重人权与普世价值的中华民族的身影？而且我再问一句：通过这次我们全球总动员来举行针对一个CNN的游行示威后，西方媒体也许会有所收敛，但那些媒体的上帝——西方民众到底会如何看待我们？！

杨恒均 2008-4-22

MSM's knee-jerk reporting: Nepal as an example

Yes, I mean Nepal. My geography is good enough to know Nepal from T0bed to its north, unlike the host who interviewed the US government official (my theory differs from the American left - the Security Adviser did it on purpose and host Stephanopolous did not, or was so absorbed in his 'pointed questions' that he did not care).

For the case of To-bed (东躲）, enough have been said about how the editor/boss abuse the MSM to suit his own prejudice or agenda, or simply to reflect the partial point of view he sees, in which he either abandoned the ethic or was just unprofessional. So I thought I should look at other topics/geographies, to see if the same phenomenon is observed, without the noise of racism, or anti-China agenda. So I browsed MSM coverage on an adjacent country, by a much more respected media, the Economist. The Economist is reputed for its quality and 'neutrality'. So the shortfall in the Economist will probably mean there is similar flaw across the whole of MSM. (The reverse may not necessarily be true)

This is from the April 10th issue: titled "Mountains to climb"

• More worrying, most of the pre-election violence was carried out by one of the main contestants: the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which in 2006 ended a decade-long armed struggle. Its 23,000-strong rebel army is corralled under UN eyes, but intact. On the stump, Maoist leaders argued that anything less than a sweeping victory for their party would be evidence of massive rigging.

• That was ominous: the Maoists are believed, in the absence of any reliable opinion poll, to be widely detested. But that they took part in the election—twice postponed, once on their account—was worth celebrating. Nepal, a country of 28m people, is a poor, lawless and fractious place. It faces worsening ethnic, caste-based and regional conflicts. The hoarding of power and riches in the capital, Kathmandu, causes huge resentment, which fed the Maoist insurgency. Indeed, under the terms of a shambling peace process, the basic shape of the Nepali state is an open question. The election has improved the odds the answer will be found peacefully.

• Assuming, that is, the Maoists accept the results. Winning at least 80 seats—out of a possible 601—is rumoured to be the bottom line for their continued commitment to democracy. But a convoluted electoral system, voter intimidation and the passage of time since Nepal's last serious election, in 1999, make the outcome hard to predict. The aggrieved southerners should also win at least 80 seats, though split between different parties. They are one of several marginalised ethnic or caste groups for whom a block of seats has been reserved. The Terai lot successfully agitated for improved terms in February through a two-week blockade of Kathmandu.

Reading this, my impression was, the Maoists are "widely detested" ("albeit absent of any reliable poll") in Nepal, and ([hence]), they probably won't accept the results, because they wanted to win at least 80 seats (out of a total of 601). Except that, I only got to read this issue one week later. i.e. I already knew the election result, as reported, e.g., by the Economist

• The former rebels surprise everyone with a stunning electoral success. That may prove to have been the easy part
• Defying every prediction but its own, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), until two years ago a feared rebel army, won handsomely.
• A complicated electoral system, in which around 40% of seats are directly elected and 60% through proportional representation, has held up final results. But the Maoists, proscribed by America as terrorists, were on course for a clear majority in the first tranche, with 119 seats out of 224. And they had 33% of the vote in the second. They will certainly be the biggest party, but without a majority, in a 601-seat assembly, which will have a 30-month term limit and will be charged with drafting a new constitution.
• The Maoists ended a decade-long armed struggle in 2006, after Nepal's King Gyanendra, who the previous year had seized absolute power, was compelled by street protests to hand it back. Entering a coalition government with six political parties, the scrubbed-up insurgents committed themselves to the democratic process. To many, this looked like either a tactical ploy or noble folly. Led by a charismatic guerrilla, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Prachanda (“awesome”, pictured above), the Maoists held sway in much of Nepal. But they were thought to be loathed for their part in a nasty war that left more than 10,000 dead. Most pundits expected them to be trounced at the polls.
• They reckoned without three factors. First was the Maoists' manipulation of the result. Thugs from several parties terrorised voters. European Union observers of the election concluded it was held in a “general atmosphere of fear and intimidation”. But the Maoists' thugs were chiefly to blame. The party's candidates also hinted that if it lost, they might resume the war. And no doubt, in the country's many remote and lawless places, some voters wanted the Maoists in faraway Kathmandu—not their forests, stealing their food and pressganging their children.

This sounds quite familiar, the English use of the familiar word 'thug' (which we will see again later), and 'manipulation'. And should I say "pundit" who has (mis-)led the Economist in its prediction just a week ago that "the Maoist are widely detested"?

Fortunately, the Economist is still good when facts are so obvious that manipulation (or misconception) is not easy. It only try to sway you the less than obvious. Further down the article, we see the real truth

• Yet even near Kathmandu, where some 2,000 foreign election observers were clustered and there were few reports of malpractice, the Maoists won seven of 15 directly elected seats. In the eastern Terai area, next to India, the Maoists had been supplanted by local nationalist groups, both armed and democratic. Yet they have so far won ten out of 27 seats there.
• A second explanation for the results is more convincing: that Nepalis were sick of the alternatives. These were chiefly the Nepali Congress (NC) party, which dominates the ruling coalition, and its traditional rival, a mainstream leftist party known as the UML (for “Unified Marxist-Leninist”). Both were tarnished by spells of corrupt and ineffective rule during the 1990s. As for King Gyanendra, he can also take his cue from the electorate. At the Maoists' insistence, the 240-year-old monarchy was provisionally abolished in December—a sentence that the next assembly is due to confirm. This seemed undemocratic at the time; it doesn't now. Nepal's three small royalist parties won no directly elected seat: ie, one fewer than the tiny Nepal Workers' and Peasants' Party, which supports North Korea's Kim Jong Il.
• ..As the biggest party of government, the Maoists may now be in a position to insist. However, their deputy leader, Baburam Bhattarai, implies that they will test their new strength carefully. “Before, we were in a stage of making demands; now we are in a stage of implementation,” he said, seated beneath a poster exhorting workers everywhere to unite behind “Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Prachandaism!!” This last “ism”, which describes the Maoists' struggle as a “bourgeois peasant revolution”, is tricky to pin down. Their economic policies, which include seeking foreign investment for Nepal's hydropower industry, seem quite liberal. Many of their social policies, which the Maoists describe as a war against “feudalism”, are also laudable. Besides scrapping a discredited monarchy, they would fight caste-based discrimination, the deprivation of tribal groups and the exploitation of landless labourers. For poor Nepalis, all this makes a popular message. That is the third—weirdly overlooked—reason for the peasant revolutionaries' great victory. Of course, making big promises is easier than keeping them, and the Maoists will disappoint. The question is: how badly?

Now you can see, how presumption could blind even the high-IQ, mostly oxbridge-educated Economist researchers and editors, as reflected in the difference between its two reports, and how it has learned (together with its readers). The "Maoist" must be bad and detested (which could be safely assumed "absence of any reliable poll"), since Mao himself had made so many major mistakes in China in his later years, and that other Maoist (Peruvian) had failed eventually. What the Economist had "weirdly" overlooked was, the similarity in Nepal today vs China in the early half of the last century, or for that matter, T1-bet in 1950s with a "“feudalism with caste-based discrimination".

Now let's go back to Tobed, and the Olympic, and see how it was reported by the Economist --not sure if James Miles wrote it, or a heavy-handed editor chipped in and secretly loaded the language

• The torch's bad week started in London on April 6th, where hundreds of protesters dogged it, as it was passed from famous hand to hand. At one point, protesters were blocked as it was whisked to Chinatown to give China's ambassador the chance to clasp it for a while. China's flag had an outing too. Hundreds of Chinese students were bused in. Some protesters were unruly, and 37 arrested.
  

This looks like an even handed writing, at first. Except if you read a bit more carefully. Are the "hundreds of Chinese students "bused in"? (or some of the hundreds took the bus?) The way I understand "bused in" is some pre-arranged trip for some elderly innocent people who may not know where they were bused to when they boarded the bus. Is this what our reader could have thought as well (or are intended to be led to think so)? When "some" protesters became unruly, clearly both side, but more likely, "some of those hundreds who bused in" (it was deliberately unclear given where this line is located) were unruly, one was led to think. In reality, was any single one of the 37 arrested those Chinese students? The Economist must have known the answer. But it would try not to clarify. Propaganda is better this way.

Further down,

• The torch was guarded not just by the police but by a phalanx of Chinese men in blue-and-white tracksuits. Their jurisdiction was hazy, but their demeanour unmistakable. As Lord Coe, chairman of the committee organising the 2012 London Olympics, was heard to say, they were “thugs”. Their presence outraged even those who could not find Tibet on a map.
• ...The Chinese press have called the thugs in blue and white “valiant and heroic”. It has reported that the squad is made up of officers from the paramilitary People's Armed Police, who have been training for this role since last August, including learning to give orders in five languages.

I was first amused, what is the percentage of the protestors who were neither Tibetan nor Chinese could find Tibet on a map? But what troubled me more is, the unfortunate torch guards were first described with a quotation mark in an alleged quote, as "thug", a paragraph later the quotation mark has mysteriously been edited away and "thug" morphed officially into the thugs in blue and white, without the quotation mark. I wish Mr Miles, whom I respect, could explain this, and I do not accept that this is a typo. Otherwise, the anonymous editor could have tainted his professionalism for the rest of his life.

Tobed and China is not small country like Nepal. I am also pretty sure the Economist knows the complexity of the Tobed issue (many smaller media could pass as an honest mistake or being ignorance. But I have too much respect for the Economist for such a simple explanation). Yet for Nepal it reckoned its mistake and tried hard to find an explanation, perhaps successfully, while in the case of Tobed it continues to plunge and self-indulge.

The lesson of the comparison of the 2 Nepal reports:

1. The press has its prejudice, due to lack of information, laziness or lack of resources, which is the same in either the case of Nepal or Tobet. In these two cases the link to communist or mao puts one in innate disadvantage. Perhaps our friend 88s has correctly put it, had the C-cp changed its name and claim to be no longer communist, as it really is not, the whole situation may be different
   
2. The Economist (or MSM, or Western in general), respect democracy. i.e., had the Chinese government gone through the test of democracy, like the Maoist in Nepal did, the MSM might eventually have to go through a soul-searching process (like the Economist in its second article). Perhaps until that day, the MSM is still against China, consciously or subconsciouly?
   

It thence appears, it is not really free reporting in T0bet that had contributed to the MSM biase. It is the original sin of China as a communist country in name (even though it is now more capitalistic than 2/3 of the European countries), and perhaps also about other something, for example, this, and this.

BBC's sudden brain death

I have always thought BBC was better than CNN (though not as good as the Economist, but certainly on par with the Guardian).

Well, it could be brain dead at time.

In a bid to defend its (and the fellow western media's) "neutral" coverage, it went in great length to show that it is better than "People's Daily"! So now we all know the western media are as fair and unbiased as Xinhua and People's Daily.
Even after so much disappointment not just recently, I still held thought that they were way above the bar set by the Xinhua's and PD's. Seems that BBC is telling me I was wrong.

(via http://gavinski.stumbleupon.com/)

Update: is the West justified in criticizing China in its human right record? Yes, according to this Chinese writer. But just say human right, the situation in Tibet is mild compared with many other places in China.

--- (cached below)

BBC NEWS / ASIA-PACIFIC
18:55 GMT, Thursday, 10 April 2008 19:55 UK
Olympic media coverage: China vs West

Pro-Tibet protests disrupting the Olympic torch relay have dominated many Western media outlets recently.

But is the coverage itself perpetuating anti-China bias? And how are Chinese journalists covering the same events? Here is a snapshot of some of the prominent coverage:

SAN FRANCISCO
US press
There was a tight focus on the protests and the disruption they caused.
The New York Times described the torch's progress around the city as an "elaborate game of hide-and-seek... as city officials secretly rerouted the planned torch relay, swarmed its runners with blankets of security and then whisked the torch to the airport in a heavily guarded motorcade".
The San Francisco Chronicle also focused heavily on the change of route. Under the headline: "No torch, no problem - they came to protest", the paper painted a picture of a colourful array of protesters, all with different axes to grind, both pro and anti-China.
In a strident editorial, the Washington Post reflected on the events, saying: "The Chinese are seeing for themselves how public opinion around the world has been repulsed by their government's cynical and amoral foreign policy in places such as Sudan and Burma and by its repression of the Tibetan minority."
Chinese press
Under headlines including "Olympic torch relay concludes in San Francisco without major incidents" and "Chinese ambassador: Olympic torch relay in San Francisco 'successful'", state-run news agency Xinhua generally painted a positive picture of the relay.
The protests were mentioned in Xinhua's main news story, where it reported: "At one point, Tibetan separatists tried to disrupt the torch relay. They tried to grab the torch, but were pushed back by police escorting the torch relay."
Further down, the Xinhua article states: "Many San Francisco citizens expressed dismay at attempts to link the Olympic Games with politics."
Another state-run outlet, China Daily, carried articles similar in tone, with headlines including: "San Franciscans denounce disruptions." It also published picture galleries of angry clashes between pro-China and anti-China demonstrators.

PARIS
French press
There were straightforward headlines, including Le Parisien's "The fiasco" and L'Equipe's "Paris extinguishes the flame", combined with much reporting of the protests, with colour from the scene in most papers.
The left-leaning daily Liberation reported how the torch was greeted with jeers by protesters, who threw flags with an image of Olympic rings as handcuffs.
Right-leaning Le Figaro had some words of comfort for the Chinese government, arguing in an editorial: "While the defence of Tibetans is a noble cause, the gesticulations that we have witnessed over the holding of the Olympic Games in Paris are exaggerated."
The paper claims that the Beijing Olympics is a "golden opportunity" to advance the cause of liberty in China.
Chinese press
Xinhua's coverage of the Paris protests kicked off with the headline "French official lashes out at 'kidnapping of Olympics'".
In the archive of Xinhua's website, direct reporting of the protests that accompanied the torch around Paris is scant.
A one-line dispatch states: "The Olympic Torch was put on an accompanying bus due to technical reasons for the third time during its relay in the French capital Monday afternoon, a Xinhua photographer witnessed."
But there was considerable focus on the torchbearers, particularly Jin Jing, a disabled athlete who competes in the Paralympics. She was holding the torch during protests.
The Shanghai Daily reported: "A craven protester has attacked a wheelchair-bound female torchbearer from Shanghai being pushed by a blind Chinese teammate during the Paris section of the Beijing Olympics torch relay."
Xinhua also focused on Ms Jin, putting out several dispatches describing her bravery and reporting on how she received a hero's welcome when she returned home.

LONDON
UK press
Even before the torch touched down in London, the British media was speculating about possible protests.
On 5 April the Times reported under the headline "Police fear Olympic torch protests after China shootings in Tibet", following up the next day with "Met on protest alert as Olympic torch lands".
The Daily Telegraph preview of the London torch route concluded that the protests were "bringing light to political murk", and the paper's website later invited its readers to answer the question: Will you be boycotting the 2008 Olympics?
The tabloids rustled up a chorus of disapproval of China, with the Daily Mirror labelling the London leg of the torch's journey a "disturbing farce".
Under the headline "flaming injustice", the Mirror said: "The oppressive security needed to protect the Olympic torch in London should ram home to China's dictators what the world really thinks of them."

Chinese press
One of Xinhua's main news stories began with a flowery passage proclaiming: "The unseasonable snow in London did little to dampen people's passion for Beijing's Olympic flame as large crowds lined the street to greet the torch relay on Sunday."
The piece went on to describe the torch as a "sacred symbol of the Olympic spirit" spreading the "ideal of peace, friendship and progress" and labelled any attempt to "sabotage" the torch relay as running "against the trend of the times".
Xinhua published several pieces devoted to the protests, under headlines including "London police foil attempt to grab Olympic torch away".
But the main focus of their coverage was the colour and carnival of the torch's procession - an interview with classical violinist Vanessa Mae was more typical.

The danger of confusing "patriotism" with economic opportunity

The Economist is one of the best, if not the best, magazine in this world, in my view.

However, there are misses, from time to time.

In the current issue there is an article called "Land of the Yellow Emperor - The dangers of confusing patriotism with ethnic pride", and under a heading called "Chinese nationalism".

No doubt the line between patriotism and nationlism is very thin. It is also true there the Yellow Emperor as an icon is related to both patriotism and nationalism issues. However, the preeminent reason for what we see (and what the Economist reporter observed) is something he hinted but failed to spelled out.

• Governments in Shaanxi and in Henan province, which claims to be the emperor's birthplace, are competing (and reportedly spending millions of dollars) to make their respective Yellow Emperor shrines pre-eminent. Officials in Henan say they are expecting 20,000 emperor-worshippers this month.

Yes, 20,000 tourists is not a lot, but it will grow. This is the underlying reason for the "Governments". To read the Eocnomist you need to pay keen attention to each word it has chosen, the subtlety and the message underneath. Yes, it is about money, tourism yuan, which means GDP, which in turn means promotion. The reporters has very carefully placed the last sentence and used plural and capital letters in the word "Governments" (competition among the provinces). If you have toured China you would have seen these "Yellow Emperor" phenomenon is nothing new. It is not about 'patriotism', it is about money.

There are other lines one can nitpick, which could draw vehement criticism from the anti-cnn.com crowd, such as

• "China has produced little convincing evidence of any terrorist campaign within its borders" -- seems the bus bombs in Beijing and Urumqi did not count, however, the Economist could have added "in recent years", which may be a more reasonable statement


• "The state media's focus on the alleged pro-Tibetan bias of the Western press in covering the violence in Lhasa has triggered an outpouring of anti-Western sentiment on the internet." -- rather the opposite is true. i.e. it is the internet which started the sentiment and the state media only followed. The Econmist, in its prejudice against the government, played down the power and the will of the people, be it justifiable or not.

It is the nuance and subtlety of wirtings as such which really cultured the "outpouring sentiment".

CNN statement on Tibet coverage

See CNN statement on Tibet coverage

A Chinese translation (together with critique) is here.

Seems cnn has some blood sucking over-priced lawyer to write this. It basically dodged its previous defense and dropped the "car on fire" excuse. Now it simply said "The one image in question was used wholly appropriately in the specific editorial context and there could be no confusion regarding what it was showing"

To defend the fact that it chose some particuler side of opinions and points of views it concluded its statement with "CNN's reputation is based on reporting global news accurately and impartially, while our coverage through the use of words, images or video always reflects a wide range of opinions and points of view on every story."

:) :) :)

Here I would quote a few comments on that Chinese translated page (this site, despite its name which suggests 'patriotism and military related theme' has mainly rational and educated members)

• 其实CNN最开始如果表达：自己是因为适应版面而进行的裁减，对引起的误解表示遗憾，并把照片更换既没有做太大的退让，也不会有这么大的波澜。还可以顺便说说自己播了多少国人”喜欢“的镜头。现在它在中国人心目中位置降低，咎由自取。它的公共关系部门应该好好检讨一下......我们的宣传部门也要引以为戒


• 俺代表中国共产党中央委员会、中宣部、CCTV，对CNN的傻瓜们表示衷心的感谢。是你们让我们树立了信心，知道了这个世界上没有最差，只有更差。让大家都站到了党中央一边，这可是对党中央的最大鼓舞和最直接帮助，这里要再次感谢CNN。俺要授予CNN的各位以三八红旗手、五四奖章、青年文明号、新长征突击手、优秀共产党员…荣誉称号。谢谢大家！！

Related:
MSM biase in the West - and the cnn refutal
做人不能太CNN

Bonus: an 'anti-cnn' poster I found in that Chinese webpage. Pretty creative.

Youtube unblocked but strong filter is still on

Well, yes, many sites were unblocked here in China. I believe it is mainly because the situatiuon has "stabilized". But the strong filters on keywords such as "T\bet" are still on.

As a result, even videos on youtubes such as videos such as "Riot in T/bet: True face of Western media" and "T/bet Was, Is and Always Will be a Part of China" are still blocked. Because they contain the "keyword".

What this means is that the theory (as reported/hinted by many bloggers and MSM) that the unblocking of youtube was related to these 2 videos are without base. So far the only site that has managed to pass the strong filter test is anti-cnn.com (which was still blocked some 30 hours ago by the strong filter). The nanny has been very selective.

MSM biase in the West - and the cnn refutal

(Update: comment on the CNN statements in p.s.)
...in a row.

I am just pasting the "p.s." from my previous two posts.

For Taiwan, the notorious Bradsher from NYT tried to connect his judgment on riot in Lhasa and the Taiwan election, while the same NYT and other MSM coincidentally omitted the important text accompanying a picture from KAdfly's orginial post (and this picture that was taken a few minutes later).

• "they were throwing stones and abuse at PLA soldiers who were blockading the passage to a monastery. After a minute or two, everyone rushed the PLA blockade and burst through. The soldiers left parts of their riot gear lying around and Tibetans started breaking them."

The photo above is my homage to cnn, the full picture is the one below (source: Kadfly. The nyt/cnn cropper wouldn't tell you that. He wouldn't even select this picture.). In this picture one can see clearly the plastic shield, and also the watching crowd behind the line of shield. The crowds (both side of the shield brokade) looks relaxed and joyful at that point of time.

-----
Update on the CNN bullshit
"The CNN spokesperson said that in order to fit the page layout, that controversial photo had to be made smaller. This it was impossible to keep both the demonstrators and the burning vehicle in the photo. "

The CNN spokesperson lied shamelessly. If you examine the screenshot below (source: anti-cnn.com ) you will see that cnn has

(1) chosen to keep the white car (which is arguably peripheral in terms of news value), and

(2) cut down the height to retain the aspect ratio. Yes, CNN cropped the picture but then had to also crop the top to fit the aspect ratio, while it could have simple shrinked the whole picture as the more or less same ratio!

(3) referred to an entirely different AFP cropped-out when it mentioned the burning car. the burning car was not in the cnn picture either!

(4) Is cnn saying the 2 people in the front are 'demonstrators', while that dozen to the right aren't? (I had always thought that "a bigger crowd of", is always more powerful than "a couple of", demonstrators)

Aspect Ratio

• The cnn image has a resolution of 292x219 (i.e. 4:3). Fitted for a traditional TV screen. The CNN spokesperson claimed that if one includes the mob on the RHS, it wouldn't fit. Whether CNN lied is easy to test. So I took this from Getty Image. This is how it looks at approximately 4:3. I am sure one could even include the white car on the left as 4:3 if one also takes the top of the building, as CNN did.

and here is the infamous cnn picture

Now what about the white car? I do not have the original photo, so I tried to merge the two photos I was able to locate and see if it could fit on a 4:3 screen. Yes, it could, with every single object in that cnn picture included. The mob was not that far away from that army truck. I suppose cnn needs to come up with another excuse?

- At this point, I need to admit that I do not know who cropped the 4 photos in getty's website. AFP, Getty or CNN (i.e. CNN archived the cropped picture in such case). But the fact that cnn admitted that it did the cropping job seems to suggest that it did obtain the whole picture from Getty/AFP and hence could not blame AFP for this.

Burning Car

When cnn referred to a "burning car", I believe it was referring to this picutre, where is another burning car to the left of the white car. But that was not the picture CNN chose/cropped. Perhaps the cnn person was really confused when he made up that lie，but my speculation is that cnn was looking for an excuse, but used this photo instead of the one it has actually used (with only the white car).


Lie cannot be covered by another new lie. While cnn could have just admitted to being insensitive and being lazy in picking one random pictures from the several crops AFP/Getty provided (such mistakes are minor and excusable), it chose to deny and degenerated itself into the same class as the propaganda machine of the C-C.P. One has to, again, admire the German way. The German media can now proudly denounce both cnn and the PRC media.

related links (p.s.)

Bias over Tibet cuts both ways

Some Retreat, Others Push Forward

The SARFT censorship comments

I have a friend who works in a TV station in China. He has been telling me how ridiculously sunny some of the censor comments are. The censors basically apply his own taste to his job. At time the censor comment would even suggest a change in color scheme or reduce the frequency of episode because they think the filming staff "would not have enough time" to finish the work.

Well, below is an example of the censor comment. This being from the central government (and for movies), will not have as much entertaining stocks as those from provincial TV, but nonetheless would give us a flavour of what SARFT censor look like.

Note that every single TV episode needs to go through the SARFT censor.

---
Source: Douban's movie forum -- which is where I turn to for Chinese movie equivalent of IMDB.

转自:影武者电影博客 2004-12-12 21:50:56
　　
　　广播电影电视总局电影审查委员会
　　
　　　　你公司送审的合拍片《鬼子来了》已经电影审查委员会审查
　　　　
　　　　审委会认为：
　　　　
　　　　影片没有严格按照电影局《关于合拍片<鬼子来了>立项的批复》（电字[1998]第302号）中的意见修改剧本，并在没有报送备案剧本的情况下擅自拍摄，同时又擅自增加多处台词和情节，致使影片一方面不仅没有表现出在抗日战争大背景下，中国百姓对侵略者的仇恨和反抗（唯一一个敢于痛骂和反抗日军的还是个招村民讨嫌的疯子），反而突出展示和集中夸大了其愚昧、麻木、奴性的一面，另一方面，不仅没有充分暴露日本军国主义的侵略本质，反而突出渲染了日本侵略者耀武扬威的猖獗气势，由此导致影片的基本立意出现严重偏差。
　　　　影片多处出现污言秽语，并从日本兵口中多次辱骂“支那猪”，另外还有女性的裸露镜头，整体上格调低俗，不符合《电影审查规定》的标准。
　　　　
　　　　影片片名须按电影局多次要求重新选择。
　　　　
　　　　影片须在参照附件认真修改后，重新报请审查。
　　　　
　　　　附：《影片<鬼子来了>与批准立项剧本主要不同之外》
　　　　
　　　　《影片<鬼子来了>与批准立项剧本主要不同之外》
　　　　
　　　　一, 擅自修改、增加情节导致影片基本立意出现严重偏差：
　　　　
　　　　1，剧本第7至8页，原文学剧本中众村民审日本兵花屋及汉奸
　　　　董汉臣时，并未表现出恐惧，喝斥他们：“要闹歪，没你
　　　　香饽饽吃，”，“掺假可整出你的黄来”等。而影片却表
　　　　现村民一开始就惧怕他们。并增加第240镜五舅老爷台词：
　　　　“我看你们也都是孩子”，将中国百姓表现得愚昧无知、
　　　　敌我不分。
　　　　
　　　　2，对给鬼子吃细粮的情节，在文学剧本阶段，电影局始终坚持
　　　　删掉，但影片不仅未删，却反复渲染马大三向二拨子娘借米
　　　　那，约定借一还八，从村民还热热闹闹给日本兵和汉奸包饺
　　　　子。客观上表现了战争时期的中国百姓在生活极度困难之
　　　　时，并主动关心日兵和汉奸，严重违背了历史。
　　　　
　　 3，第1027镜；影片较之文学剧本增加了二拨子娘台词：“日本子来咱们村都八年了，八年了咋的，他八 年了他敢动我一根汗毛？我行的正，走的端，我走到哪他都得高看我一眼。”
　　　　日本侵略者在中国烧杀抢掠八年，犯下滔天罪行，影片却借
　　　　二拨子娘之口说日军对自己秋毫无犯，美化了日本侵略者。
　　　　
　　　　4，第472镜至496镜，影片较之原剧本增加了日兵花屋想象马大
　　　　三带乡亲们冲过来的一段，并将马大三和乡亲们设计成日本
　　　　武士的样子。在抗战大背景下，日兵花屋最惧怕的应是抗日
　　　　队伍，是八路军、游击队，马大三和乡亲被设计成日本武士
　　　　的情节不仅虚假，也丑化了中国人。
　　　　
　　　　5，第877镜至893镜，第918镜至931镜，第941镜至947镜，
　　　　第954镜至959镜，影片较之原剧本增加了村民以为马大三杀
　　　　了鬼子，都不理他，甚至鱼儿也躲着他，使马大三神经受刺
　　　　激的情节。表现了中国众多百姓对日军没有应有的仇恨，以
　　　　至敌我不分、愚昧麻木。
　　　　
　　　　6，1002镜至1069镜；影片较之原剧本增加了小孩学日本语造成
　　　　危险之后，众村民向马大三发火，一个个争着让他杀了自
　　　　己，并把头放到了桌子上的情节；鱼二跟村民说：“让他杀
　　　　人，那不是让我怀鬼胎吗……看看这两天，你们谁搭理他
　　　　了……不杀人，逼我们杀人，杀了人，又不搭理我们，见了
　　　　马大三跟见了鬼似的，人没死，冲我们又弄这个……”表现
　　　　了中国百姓不仅不敢抗敌，而且对侵略者充满奴性和恐惧，
　　　　对自己人只会窝里斗，互相猜忌。
　　　　
　　　　7，剧本第34页：原剧本中一刀刘讲自己杀人技巧时，说的是
　　　　杀偷情的太监，而影片第1177镜至1199镜，改成了一刀刘
　　　　杀的是“慈禧身边的八大臣”，“百日维新之主谭嗣
　　　　同”，不仅赋予了新的政治内涵，并对砍头技巧加以自豪
　　　　的渲染，结果杀日本兵时却遭失败，感叹“英名一世，毁
　　　　于一旦”，最后狼狈逃走。给人以千百年来中国人只会举
　　　　起屠刀杀自己人，却不敢抵御外侮的隐喻。
　　　　
　　　　8，剧本第39页，大家商量送鬼子回去一场，原文学剧本中描写
　　　　日军到了村中，将大米洒成一圈，将百姓圈住，逼百姓吃
　　　　饭，吃不下的还按住头往嘴里塞，日军队长讲话时，百姓们
　　　　都不理他。而影片第1763镜至1871镜，将这场戏改为联欢，
　　　　并大力渲染，一起喝酒唱歌，百姓们感激不尽，日军与村民
　　　　亲如兄弟，并有“今儿我高兴，不单是冲这几车粮食，主要
　　　　是冲皇军给了我们面子”等台词，这是对剧本立意的重大改
　　　　动，从根本上悖离了主题。
　　　　
　　　　10，剧本第47页至49页；屠杀村民场面，原文学剧本中有百姓
　　　　终于醒悟，奋起反抗的描写，如二拨端起钢盔砸向日本
　　　　兵，二拨子娘脱下鞋打鬼子，并喊道：“别傻了，抄家伙
　　　　拼吧”。但影片第1872镜至2073镜，百姓们至死也未与鬼
　　　　子拼斗，面对屠杀基本是束手待毙，任人宰割。
　　　　
　　　　11，影片中唯一一个敢于痛骂和反抗日本侵略者的人还是招村
　　　　民讨嫌的疯子。
　　　　
　　　　12，影片较之文学剧本增加了国民党将领召集百姓聚会的场
　　　　面，他公开处死汉奸，发表受降讲话，在讲话中说：
　　　　“只有国军才是投降日军唯一合法的接收者。”并借日本
　　　　人之手杀死马大三。而这一切颠倒事实的行为，却得到
　　　　了围观百姓的呼应，严重歪曲了历史，没有达到批判和
　　　　讽刺国民党的效果。
　　　　
　　　　13，影片中有两个唱小曲的人物，共出场三次，原文学剧本中
　　　　无此描写。镜头第1099“皇军来到咱家乡，共建大东亚共
　　　　荣圈，皇军来了救苦救难……”这样的台词也是增加
　　　　的。这是典型的愚昧、麻木、亡国奴的形象。
　　　　
　　　　14，疯老七骂大三与鱼儿的话和骂日本鬼子的话内容相同，十
　　　　分不妥。
　　　　
　　　　15，片中多处借日本人之口辱骂中国人为“支那猪”，严重损
　　　　害中国的形象。
　　　　
　　　　二，剧本批复中曾提出修改意见，但影片未改之处：
　　　　
　　　　1，剧本第2页：野野村变完把戏之后将糖装回兜里，以表现
　　　　日军在捉弄孩子。现影片第24镜头，不仅给了糖，而且还
　　　　几次表现中国孩子追在日军后边要糖吃。
　　　　
　　　　2，剧本第2页：马大三与鱼儿在床上剧烈的喘息声、鱼儿裸
　　　　体镜头原文学剧本已经将其删除。影片第28至41镜不仅未
　　　　予删除，还增加了台词：“让我看看。”“看啥呀，快
　　　　点的，别歇着。” 这段床上戏时间长，画面、声音效果
　　　　强烈，给人造成强烈的不良的感官刺激。
　　　　
　　　　3，剧本第40页：毛驴发情一场，原文学剧本中已改为毛驴钻
　　　　入鬼子粮仓。现影片第1590镜至1606镜，未做修改。此情
　　　　节格调低俗、无聊。
　　　　
　　　　4，原文学剧本中已将绝大多数脏话删改，但影片中比比皆
　　　　是，每个人物都在骂脏话。
　　　　
　　　　5，影片中频繁吹奏日本军歌，为日本军国主义扬威造势，会
　　　　严重刺伤中国人民的感情。

原来如此

謝冠東思考日記：陶傑過檔蘋果 (via VC)

原来如此。我怪错了苹果“东方化”,也错怪了陶杰的跳跃逻辑。

Let's do our own Queen's Pier Poll

The arrogant HK government plastic government refused to release it "poll".

Let's do it ourselves.

再談皇后碼頭

其實，我也會支持保衛皇后碼頭。不過，是上圖的那個皇后碼頭。當年拆掉那古典建筑的港督，才是造成今天我們普羅大眾對皇后碼頭漠不關心甚至鄙視的源頭。

硬要說建筑美感不重要，回憶才要緊的保皇黨，就如要香港小姐選內在美，比學歷一樣，正硬膠也。回憶在心中就夠了，拍一張照片，存在博物館、甚至網站，不就成就了你們的集體回憶了嗎？
要香港小姐選學歷?我們每年都有10A、6A的狀元，雖然試卷水平參差，總算也客觀公正，難道那幫選美評判的學歷更高，“內在美”無人可及，具備窺視人家內在的超能力？

明明知道皇后碼頭沒有任何美感好言，卻搬出似是而非的理由硬辯，不可能得到民心。 硬要把具體的事物（建筑）抽象化（"歷史價值")，就如去了皮的毛，“毛之焉附”？

其實保皇黨真正想要的，是一個宣傳工具。他們要讓目前對皇后碼頭沒有印象的人、或者現在還沒出生的人，也有他們的“集體記憶”而已。所以，才覺得博物館和照片圖書不夠說服力。不過，這不是把自己的意愿強加在別人身上嗎？這不正正就違反了人家自由選擇的權利嗎？

今天，蘋果日報的尹思哲說的最好。 我的看法大致相同：

1. 皇后碼頭該拆
2. 而且要越早拆越好
3. 同學們的精神可敬，希望以后繼續
4. 下回挑一個真正能引起我們共鳴的題目，比如臭名昭章的“強迫金”

推薦一個香港作家

推薦一個香港作家，他的觀點，我不完全同意，同意的大概60-70%吧。可是，我相信他說的都是經過反復思考的，不是人云亦云的。看他的文章，看到他的誠意。

吳靄儀為何替惡法護航？

撑港台，撑港台什麼？

曾蔭權方案不及查良鏞方案

古惑天皇不夠古惑

「寸爆」名嘴又如何？

多謝李八方俾面

直斥陶傑無人性舊文

陳 太臨 別 演辭 用 心不 良

Miss HK Will Hung 香江小姐孔慶翔

香江小姐選美，選出一個女版孔慶翔。

黑幕內定各有其論，不過最一針見血的莫過于把前任落選港姐的評語斷章取義來讀，“ 好多網友淨係睇樣同身材，我審美係會睇埋邊，最初睇佢個個人履歷，知道佢加拿大返，識英文已經對佢有好感，睇佢寫文字仲知佢係有內涵 ”

噢，原來這一次選的是絕對內在美。去年選的可能也是內在美。1988年選的絕對是外在。前年呢？明年呢？反正每年有新的評判，自然選的標準不一樣。務必讓你們這些蟻民無可適從。內定又如何，又不是你們在選，各位看官，你們只有看的份兒。“吹咩！”

我們特區還有一個八百人的評判團，成員與各次選美多少有重疊之處。都是名流仕紳，達官貴人，社會精英是也，且大都身懷絕技，掌握某些能人所不能的特異“功能”。選出來的特區代表如出一（車撤），都是傾城之貨色。

有好事者，謂來年香港選美必重現1988之輝，以應本年成為郭隗之 千里馬頭骨蓋之典，戲言矣！由來唯客觀不變難以爭辯之基準能成長久之計，比如一號一票之SMS公投。只有公平、公開的規則標準，才能保證最有實力競爭者的勝利，也因而能鼓勵最有實力的競爭者來參賽。胡主席也理解只有社會公平才能持續發展。

不能把800個傀儡拉下馬，未來我們這些蟻民也免不了再遭建華之殃，者我們無能為力。可是，讓大家一起決定甚麼是美總可以吧？

連內地都可以一號一票選出超女快男，而這邊廂欣賞的美卻被牽著鼻子內外亂晃，難道這就是一國兩制？

泛民諸公，該是給三色臺施加壓力的時候了。