Wednesday, October 12, 2005

why the defense of BJW report bothers me

a short note to explain my response to the defense of BJW's report.

sound judgement is based on detached observations.

those who at first accused my questioning on BJW report of being a "CCP trap" and later defended BJW report seem to harbor a very strong sentiment and, hold stubborn opinions as from what perspectives we observe the Taishi incident.

and it proved that those mentalities don't have the ability to get into the real core issues of the Taishi incident and truely understand the whole Taishi village affair. by jumping quickly into their pre-set but shallow positions of blaming the "government-supported mafia" and sympathizing the victims, they stopped going further to ask meaningful questions like:

1) who organized the mob?

2) why the governments in the township and provincial levels didn't stop them? were the crimes tolerated or unknown by the governments? if tolerated, are they collaborate with the one who organized the mob? if unknown, why they are so easily fooled?

3) the central government has introduced elections for village head and village ccp secretary, and made corresponding laws to ensure the elections in village level work in order and become a safeguard for villagers interest. what are the attitutes of the central government on taishi village affair?

4) did regional interests clash with the will of the central government? how and why? if they didn't, then why the central government didn't gvie a hand to taishi villagers?

people with such mentalities don't have a place in their minds to raise such questions beacuse they are not detached and their minds are pre-occupied by such prejudice that the government must be bad and they must collaborate with the one who hired those mobs.

such mentalities are fine with writers or preachers or propagandist, but are very bad for those who claim to be "china observers". and with more than 20 years experience of fighting such mentalities in china, i have no tolerance of them.

posted @ 7:32 PM

key points of the Benjamin-report debate

group 1: anti-ESWN

anti: lies won't promote justice (via eswn)

These are lies.  No matter whether the 25-year-old Joffe-Walt was fantasizing out of fear or because his imagination was running wild, he is a liar as far as reporters are concerned.  It is a blight on The Guardian to have such a correspondent in China.

In most foreign news coverage of China, the professional standard requires two independent sources of information to establish veracity.  But when The Guardian reported on China this time, you only used the unverified "first-person" account of a liar.  Furthermore, after this has been exposed, you attempted to hide your mistake.

The Guardian's error obviously has severely affected the Taishi village case and even other rights cases.  Whenever a reader hears about another rights activist being beaten, they will automatically think about Joffe-Walt's fantasy.  Lies cannot promote justice; they can only impede justice.

eswn: Media Coverage of the Taishi Village Affair

In my opinion, this is not about foreigner-bashing in the generic sense.  Anti's post ended with a praise for the professionalism of The Economist, Financial Times and BBC, all from the United Kingdom just like The Guardian.  It is really up to The Guardian to set things right, and the threshold is being set very low.  How about a simple mea culpa?  Like acknowledging that 

(1) Benjamin Joffe-Walt's description was inconsistent with the true extent of Lu Banglie's injuries. 

(2)  Still, this was understandable given the barbaric circumstances that the young and inexperienced reporter found himself to be in.

(3)  And The Guardian promises that it will have rigorous procedures in place to make sure that this will never recur.

These are three very simple talking points that no one will disagree with, and it will not erode the brand equity of The Guardian.  That is all that is being asked for.  Instead, we are getting a sub-headline "Lu Banglie injured but recovered after treatment" or that The Guardian spokesperson who will not divulge his/her name said that there shall be no comments on this matter in accordance with corporate policy.  Is this so hard?  Why continue to dig an even bigger hole as time goes by?

peter: Taishi and the backlash (via simon world)

No one should be surprised to hear that the "truth" is not so important as the "story" for these so-called journalists and the companies they work for. It has been this way for many many years and it is a common trait shared by Main Stream Media throughout the world - and especially so at the Guardian.

The Guardian and the reporter got what they wanted - a headline grabbing story. They do not accept any responsbility for the consequences that their shoddy reports will have on others.

If the reporter really wanted to prove something he would have stayed in Iraq and completed the task of being a human shield for those he professed to support.

One good thing that might come out of this is that more Chinese people will think twice before believing what they read in foreign newspapers or hear on foreign television.

I cannot think of one way this man has helped the "cause" of Taishi. I can think of many ways he has brought discredit to himself and to his employer。 I can also see how his actions are a setback to all those he sought to help. But then I think this is really not any concern of his since he got what he wanted - the story.

sun bin: Taishi and the backlash (via simon world)

There is no question that the journalist made a mistake (if we believe in Anti, but he only talked to the guy, not visited him). The mistake is hurting the cause of Taishi. I also do not like the fact that he didn't try to help poor Mr Lu at the scene (which he regretted in his 1st report).

Precisely because of the importance and sensitivity of this event, we want to hold the Guardian at the highest standard of all media. We demand more from them than from Xinhua.

Everybody makes mistake some time. The fact that they did not admit the mistake and apologize is more detrimental than the original mistake.

They should at least point out the fact that new info contradicts previous reports by BJ-W, and that they are ready to apologize once they have confirmed first hand info from Mr Lu.

All the previous reports on Taishi were credible. In this particular incidence the facts that a mob gang attacked reported with the support of local gov't is not changed.

However, the Guardian should not give the local gov't an excuse to attack the credibility of all external media in the future. To re-establish this credibility it is important to be honest and brave with themselves.

Asking for responsible media discipline does not mean endorsing the local gov't point of view, nor does this mean undermining the foreign journalist effort. It is precisely the opposite. It is our great respect for neutral and unbiased coverage that leads to our demand for the highest standard from the foreign journalists.

LfC: Benjamin Joffe-Walt, Novelist

Unlawful violence, whether it was backed by the government, cannot be tolerated. But cooking up a news story is almost equally regrettable.

Benjamin Joffe-Walt exaggerated Lu's injuries, intentionally or negligently. The exaggeration is not only a blatant breach of journalists' ethics, but a great disservice to the villagers who have been pushing for a decent local government. Mr Joffe-Walt's story has become a red herring diverting attention from the core issue: the country's grassroots democracy.

group 2: richard-rebecca

rebecca: Lu Banglie lives, will his cause die?

... I hope this question of a foreign correspondent's responsibility will not become a convenient way of distracting people from the core issue: one of human rights and the suppression of a democracy movement in Taishi.

Will Chinese netizens be successfully manipulated into foreigner-bashing as an acceptable alternative to communist party-bashing?

richard: rule of the mob

Look, of course the bad reporting was not a ccp plot. Bad reporting sucks and is a fact of life at times. And it should be exposed when it happens. We don't even know yet if that's the case here, and the "plot" (or, as Rebeca says, "manipulation") is the attempt to forget all about the horrors of Taishi and instead get all fired up slamming the reporter. The reporter might deserve a hundred lashes, I just don't know yet. But what i do know is that there's an impiortant stopry here that is being drowned out by cries of indignation over the reporter believing Lu was hurt more seriously than he really was.

I -- and Rebecca -- am concerned the Chinese netizens will be manipulated away from the story the reporter tells, and will focus instead on the reporter not realizing the actual extent of Lu's injuries?

The plot is the manipulation of people away from the story at hand and focusing instead on a lot of indignant huffing and puffing over the bad reporting - at the expense of the story.

Don't fall into the trap the CCP is now trying to lay, steering you to focus on the journalist and not the victim

Sorry, I should have said "the ccp's minions" and not the ccp proper. Word games.

... no, those people you named are not the minions to whom I refer. The minions are people like you, bright and decent and well-intentioned, but conditioned to believe the Pary line and ever ready to respond in a Pavlovian manner to any sign of an outsider criticizing or questioning the Party.

enzo: Taishi and the backlash (via simon world)

Foreign journalist-bashing has started. I told you that Hu and company would shake the story off somehow. Let's not serve this purpose, please.

The point here is that facts like that one - and worse - happen every day in China. The difference is that this time a foreign witness was present. So the instructions are: fire the witness, not the Party thughs. Déjà vu.

It's this overturning that won't help democracy movements in China, not a reporter's "exaggerated" story. Fire the thugs, not the witness.

richard: In defense of the BenjaminJoffe-Walt report from Taishi

The knee-jerk reaction to Joffe-Walts' misunderstanding of the extent of Lu's injuries, while wholly predictable, is a chilling reminder of how sensible discussion and enquiry can be subverted by exploiting emotional trigger points. Whether the trigger point is Taiwan, Japan or "foreigners treating Chinese people like dogs" (to paraphrase Anti's deranged assessment), the result is the same, a meltdown of reason and a return to sloganeering, insults and irrationality, all justified by an insistence on victimhood. A never-ending cycle of pointless rage with no healing, of accusation with no resolution, of anguish with no consolation.

kevin: In defense of the BenjaminJoffe-Walt report from Taishi

I can't even believe that some people get so angry about an honest mistake in reporting. It was obviously a stressful situation. If the story had been about a foreigner beating a Chinese, these people would still be believing it was true.

But this is how things operate here. Distract people's attention from the truth (i.e. hoodlums cooperating with the govt, beating people, denying the people of taishi their rights), and meanwhile these people are busy getting angry over "the bias in the western media." why not stop blaming foreigners for everything, and think about the fact that Lu really was beaten? Maybe he still has his eye, but he was beaten. The situation in Taishi is still the same. Are people really that ignorant and xenophobic that they get off on saying "oh look at the west and the western media, blah blah blah."

This doesn't sound nice, but really no wonder China's still a developing country. There seems to be a real inability to face problems head-on, with everyone instead looking to "blame the foreigners for everything." How about honestly facing a situation in your own country instead of brushing it off and focusing on other pointless things?

richard: In defense of the BenjaminJoffe-Walt report from Taishi

when by doing so, they change the subject, diverting all the attention away from what lies at the heart of the matter (corruption, thuggery, attempted murder) to the very least important aspect of the story. But it deflects attention from the crime, and that's exactly what some parties want to see happen

asia pundit: a defense of benjamin joffe-walt

The primary thing that bothered me yesterday was not the report, but the matter of blaming Joffe-Watt for the beating, That is not a rational response. It's not quite like blaming a rape on the dress of the victim - as Lu was the real victim - but to point accusing fingers at a bystander rather than the assailants shows a serious lapse of judgement.

group 3: asia pundit-others

running dog: Taishi and the backlash (via simon world)

I wouldn't dream of calling Benjamin Joffe-Walt a liar. Like all foreign journalists, he is human, and in this case he was naively pursuing a story and panicked when he realized he was in over his head. To accuse him of malicious fabrication seems quite inappropriate, and to suggest that he has somehow damaged the cause of Taishi seems to me to be a bad-faith argument.

asia pundit: a defense of benjamin joffe-walt

Lu did have an agenda to push, and was taking his own risks to achieve his goals. I'm largely sympathetic to these goals and, I actually believe most senior-level central government officials also are. However, this means Lu was a political figure and he cannot have the same status as an employee or even a trusted or coaxed source.

anonymous: a defense of benjamin joffe-walt (via asian pundit)

Please tell Joffe-Walt and other foreign correspondents in Shanghai that I am shamed by his conduct. He risked the life of Lu Banglie and his own Chinese assistant, stood watching Mr. Lu being beaten so that he can fabricate a report about the beating and then he runs away to save his skin. He makes us excuse him for doing nothing because we do not know what we would have done in his place except that we won't have been so stupid as to take a Chinese with us on sensitive assignments in the first place. My Chinese friends are asking me "How can you do something like that?"

eswn: A Case Study for Media Ethics

Are you a reporter first, or a citizen first?

posted @ 8:29 AM