Tibet, Chinese national pride and unhappy thoughts about journalism (part 1)
chatnoir
Tibet, Chinese national pride and unhappy thoughts about journalism
(part 1)
Security: Public
Before I start writing, let me just say that I am not biased in any
way towards either the Tibetans, or the Chinese government on the
matter
of Tibet that crams today's media's headlines. I am however, very
unhappy
with the reporting done below. It almost seem to make the Chinese
student's point that the media is biased. In the next entry, I'll
discuss
some of my personal experiences with this matter, especially with
both
foreign expats, Chinese Americans, and the native mainlanders working
in
Hong Kong next to me and their views on the matter. But first:
The NYT article here:
discusses some of the counterdemonstrations and the anger expressed
by
many of the Chinese students studying in America at recent US media
"misrepresentations" of Chinese gov't's actions in Tibet. However,
personally I felt the article presented its arguments in a
condescending
tone, casting the Chinese students in a ignorant light.
"Campuses including Cornell, the University of Washington in Seattle
and
the University of California, Irvine, have seen a wave of
counterdemonstrations using tactics that seem jarring in the American
academic context. At the University of Washington, students fought to
limit the Dalai Lama’s address to nonpolitical topics. At Duke, pro-
China
students surrounded and drowned out a pro-Tibet vigil; a Chinese
freshman
who tried to mediate received death threats, and her family was
forced
into hiding."
"Rather than blend in to the prevailing campus ethos of free debate,
the
more strident Chinese students seem to replicate the authoritarian
framework of their homeland, photographing demonstration participants
and
sometimes drowning out dissent.
A Tibetan student who declined to be identified for fear of
harassment
said he decided not to attend a vigil for Tibet on his campus, which
he
also did not want identified because there are so few Tibetans there.
“It’s not that I didn’t want to, I really did want to go — it’s our
cause,” he said. “At the same time, I have to consider that my
family’s
back there, and I’m going back there in May.”
Another factor fueling the zeal of many Chinese demonstrators could
be
that they, too, intend to return home; the Chinese government is
widely
believed to be monitoring large e-mail lists."
For instance "rather than blending in to the prevailing campus ethos
of
free debate...seem to replicate the authoritarian framework of their
homeland". I understand that the NYT is left leaning, but this is
almost
offensive to suggest by participating and FINALLY expressing their
views
(though probably not with the finesse and articulation that Westerners
are
used to), they are replicating an authoritarian regime?! Chinese and
the
general Asian populate are more mild mannered than their Western
counterparts. In the Chinese culture, flexibility is stressed and
stubbornness is seen as a sign of confrontation. Rigidity often causes
a
loss of face to the other side, which is a undesirable no no in
Chinese
society, as fluidity and guan xi (relationship) is all important in
getting anything done. As most of the readers of my feeble blog will
probably know, the loss of face is the worst thing Chinese people can
experience (even worse than death - there are many documented cases
of
Chinese/Japanese individuals/families would rather disown/suicide
before
withstanding public humiliation)
When I say Chinese, sometimes I also mean the general Asian mindset.
Generally, the Chinese people exercise this flexibility and rarely
speak
up when they have a differing opinion, unless they really feel
differently. But for the article to suggest when Chinese people
finally
stand up for something they truly believe in, it is insignificant,
and
worse, the mouthpiece of the "authoritarian framework of their
homeland"
The article seems to suggest that the Chinese students are sheep of
the
central government, brainwashed in their youth and fervently defending
a
concept they themselves do not understand. The article suggests the
central Chinese government is using the students like pawns to further
its
counter argument that it [the government] is the victim here, rather
than
the aggressor. As shown below
"Students argue that China has spent billions on Tibet, building
schools,
roads and other infrastructure. Asked if the Tibetans wanted such
development, they looked blankly incredulous. “They don’t ask that
question,” said Lionel Jensen, a China scholar at Notre Dame.
“They’ve
accepted the basic premise of aggressive modernization.”"
Nowhere in the article does NYT suggest there might be some truth to
what
the Chinese students are saying. Instead, it presents the most
outrageous
facets of their argument. It makes the Chinese students appear
uninformed,
and worse outrageous and way out in left field, with no relevant
arguments.
"At the U.S.C. lecture, the Chinese students arrived early to
distribute
handouts on Tibet and China that contained a jumble of abbreviated
history, slogans and maps with little context. A chart showing that
infant
mortality in Tibet had plummeted since 1951, when the Communist
Chinese
government asserted control, did not provide any means for comparison
with
mortality rates in China or other countries.
One photograph showed the Dalai Lama with Heinrich Harrer, author of
“Seven Years in Tibet” and a one-time member of the Nazi Party — hence
the
question about the Dalai Lama’s connection to Hitler, who died when
the
Dalai Lama was nine. The question about slavery referred to the
feudal
system in place in Tibet until the mid-20th century. Another
photograph
purported to show a Tibetan drum that, according to the caption, was
covered with “a virgin girl’s skin.” "
This is not an Op-Ed column, this is the NYT reporting directly from
Cambridge, Mass and written by a NYT writer. Granted, I'm not saying
what
they're reporting is wrong. There is probably many truths in what the
reporter is saying, however, the attacking and scathing tone of the
article suggests one of disdain for the unintelligent Chinese
student,
blind and uninformed.
Were there any reasonable questions asked during the
meetings/lectures/interviews? I'm sure there were. Were there any
valid
points/facts discussed? I'm sure there were. Granted, the Chinese
students
were probably heated in their language and did not facilitate an
open,
calm discussion, but the poor level of journalism here is
unacceptable.
Like I mentioned earlier, the Chinese are not accustomed to open,
frank
discussions where honest candidness is appreciated and constructive
criticism received well. Their debate skills are un-honed and it's
unfortunately true that most of the demonstrations you see out in
China
are fairly mob like, bordering on violent. The article does make
mention
of this, but glosses it over and does not take it into consideration
in
its scathing attack. And as such, that should not be what journalism
is
about, especially from a respected paper like the NYT.