Tom Miller Award Nominee: “Our Foreign Staff” at Telegraph
Filed under:-mini-posts, media | Tags:media, Telegraph, Tom Miller
Add comments
News title/claim: China dumps gold medallists from Olympics ‘for political reasons’
Comment: Some writers at this British newspaper need to learn English. “Politics” as in office team politics =/= “political reasons”.
The entire basis of this Telegraph article’s title/claim is the following opening line from China Daily’s report “Team China sparks elation, devastation“:
The Olympics is a dream come true for the lucky few who secure their tickets. But it can be a nightmare for those on the bubble, forced out either by injuries, politics, or a country’s excess of qualified competitors.
The only example of an athlete bypassed in the Olympic roster due to “politics” is the exclusion of diver Tian Liang. Tian Liang’s conflict with the national diving team over his pursuit of commercial endorsement deals and entertainment career is widely reported and known in China. His story is detailed in the China Daily report and repeated in the Telegraph.
So, Telegraph, care to tell us which athlete is dropped due to “political reasons”?
Note: This award is given to the news report from one of the “serious” media companies that is best described as a sensational title/claim based on flimsy or less basis. It is named in honor of Tom Miller (South China Morning Post), who caused quite a stir with his, hmmm unconfirmed, story “Authorities order bars not to serve black people”. Suggestions for other nominations are welcome.
Further note: I understand that at some newspapers, the reporters write stories but not the titles. Does anyone know how it is practiced at Telegraph?
[Update] Well maybe it is alright for a journalist to equal office “politics” to “political” issues. If one works for the Onion News Network, that is.
There are currently no comments highlighted.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:10 am
Tom Miller Award. I like this new feature very much. I’m interested in knowing how often an award will be given out?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:57 am
I first learned about and always liked the practice of establishing some awards and regularly posting nominees as fitting ones show up while reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog. I don’t know if he ever gave one out yet. Lots of nominees though and they were usually fun to read about and have a laugh at.
So should we actually give the award out on a periodic basis? quarterly? yearly? What do you guys think?
I must also give credit to KnowItAll, who started a thread at GeoExpat.com with a title “SCMP Tom Miller Award”. I glanced at that while searching news about SCMP and Tom Miller after being out of internet access for a week, and thought, “that’s a good idea! and Andrew Sullivan does it all the time.”
July 31st, 2008 at 2:45 am
Hey DJ,
We got to understand that newspapers are just like any other business — they got to put things in the kind of slant that sells.
Chinky bashing is in so much fashion right how can they not put that kind of angle on it. Just think about what the story would be if they didn’t.
But you got to hand it to them though. By having ‘ for political reasons’ in quotes in the title, they turn a yawner into that something that at first glance spurs to its readers wonder what “bad things” has Chinkyland done now. At the same time the quotes give them an excellent way out because it is not real political reasons — it is in quotes.
It is only after you had read the story, that you would feel cheated because all that innuendo and then nothing. But then again, I may be giving people too much credit. There could very well be people out there, after reading the Telegraph article, that think pushing floors and seafood snack are two more human rights that are denied in China.
Anyhow, although the whole thing is kind of underhanded and slimy, given that this kind of tricks is used all the time I kind of have my reservations about whether with this particular article “Our Foreign Staff” at Telegraph is worthy of being the same league as Tom Miller. I personally would like to see who else is in the running first.
BTW, the whole idea about a Tom Miller award is brilliant. We should have open nominations and have people put it to a vote.
Just my 2 cents.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:51 am
@my_mother
That’s a fair point. Fear not though, I have a sense that there will be many truly worthy contenders for the Tom Miller Award showing up. 🙂
July 31st, 2008 at 3:50 am
Or it could just refer to “politics”, you know, as office politics, corporate politics, etc
July 31st, 2008 at 4:32 am
You guys are making an anthill out of a molehill. The writer’s English is fine. His use of the word “political” was in reference to team politics, or “office politics”, as you say. He is not stating, implying, or inferring Communist Party politics as the motivation to leave people off the team. It is you who is implying that he made that inference. So I’d say you deserve the award more than anyone at this point. The title might be a little ambiguous, but titles are meant to catch your attention and entice you to read on; so if you’re judging the title alone without evaluating the article as a whole, that already seems rather superficial and selective.
As for Tom Miller, well, he may yet be deserving of derision, but again, you’ve still got 9 more days before you can truly begin to pass judgment.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:15 am
It seems, in your haste to jump on the word “political”, that you’ve bypassed stories at the Telegraph by one Richard Spencer, first on internet censorship for foreign journalists (and presumably foreign athletes) in Beijing, as well as a piece on Amnesty International. He’s also written about an apparent government edict to ban worship among monks in certain prefectures within Sichuan. Not to mention the video of smog/fog obscuring the Bird’s Nest Stadium.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:59 am
@DJ – I don’t think this is really justified, all they are doing is quoting CD on this one, if you want to get heavy on anyone, get heavy on the China Daily.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:11 am
And Tom Miller hasn’t been proved 100% wrong yet – I’m sure he’s going to be, but isn’t there going to be a bit of egg on faces if he is not?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:26 am
@FOARP,
The China Daily article is a straightforward story that is balanced and informative. And all Telegraph did in this case was to twist one word in CD’s report and come out with a sensationally titled story that is meant to mislead readers. What exactly did “Our Foreign Staff” do to put substance into and justify this story? A rehashed paragraph on Yang Wenjun’s professed desire to quit flatwater canoeing that has nothing to do with this story? Or quotes from Susan Brownell and Mao Zhe Xiong that essentially refuted the very title of this report?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:35 am
@SKC #7
Does the presence of other true “political” stories make this one any less wrong?
Or are you suggesting the motivation for the writer(s) of this story is to come up with a brazen and unsupported claim so that it matches the tones of other reports? What kind of excuse it that?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:42 am
All major newspapers have headline writers, this is why it is usually not a good idea to pounce on those who write the headlines unless the headline is not supported by the piece. In this case, the China Daily quote does support the headline, it may be sensationalist, but it is not bad sourcing. Tom Miller is (I’m 95% sure) a case of a bad (or non-existent) source being over-blown, but this piece isn’t an example of that. “Our foreign staff” just means their writers covering overseas news, it’s on all of their heads if they get it wrong. For an Orwellian phrase try “Agencies via Xinhua” – which always made me ask “Which agencies, and what has Xinhua taken out?”.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:59 am
@FOARP
I actually considered if I should have focused on the title writer alone, but felt the writer(s) of the story itself (i.e., besides the title) also clearly tried to twist the word “politics” as in “team politics” into “political”.
I wonder if you agree with the take from my_mother on Telegraph’s practice in comment #3?
You may think it is no big deal. I do! Stories of this kind cause a non-trivial portion of negative perceptions of China in a non-trivial fraction of the population outside. How many people would glance at that title without reading the story itself? And what do you think they would take away from the wording of it?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:00 am
The more I read the article, he more I think you’re just jumping on the headline, the quotes from Mao Zhe Xiong and Brownell do not ‘refute’ the headline, but balance it out. Now, it may be sensationalist for them to go for a attention-grabbing headline, but the headline is supported by the sources quoted. The subject of the piece is basically how many gold-medalists didn’t make the cut this year and the suspicion that politics (and really, in this context there is no difference between what you label ‘office politics’ and the government-related type) played a role in this.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:01 am
To DJ:
the other “political” stories are what they are; what you quoted isn’t really a “political” story at all, and the text of the Telegraph piece shows that. The only thing “brazen” was a somewhat misleading title, but if that’s the only source of your beef in this case…as I said, it’s a molehill.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:04 am
SKC,
Please see the last paragraph in my comment #13.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:24 am
FOARP,
Yes I did jump on the headline. That’s what caught my attention initially when Google News placed it as the top (and prominent) item of a large group of stories somewhere. I should repeat: I am not pleased by its inevitable damage on China in the population that is far larger than just Telegraph’s own reader base.
Please note my definition of this award: sensational title/claim based on flimsy or less basis. Tom Miller’s act perhaps should be viewed in much harsher light than this one. But it could also be said that Tom Miller supposedly had some flimsy evidence while this story contains even less.
By the way, I concede that you are theoretically correct in comment #9. If that would turn out to be the case, which has a rather minuscule likelihood as you also agreed, I would feel really aweful but not because of eggs on my face.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:46 am
To DJ:
saw your comment #13, and I can, on a certain level, appreciate your frustration. However, “this story contains even less” evidence because political interference is NOT the point of the article. One might INFER that from the title, but the text clearly points in a different direction. The title is only “sensational” if you happen to make said inference, but if that inference is wrong, then is that still the fault of the title?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:56 am
SKC,
I am glad that you understand my “frustration”. Actually I am not that frustrated since this is really par of the course, so to speak, nowadays in news coverage of China.
Now, if someone only reading the title gets the wrong impression, would you blame him/her for deficiencies in English comprehension? Or should Telegraph be faulted for being intentionally misleading?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 am
DJ,
I’m on FOARP’s case in the last few days. Of course he don’t want to see any award of highlighting something bad of the West. He is here to badmouth China.
The other day he accused Dashan had some website blocked. I demanded he back up his claim. He then says he didn’t exactly claim that. He calls himself a neocon.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Having an award once a year is good, in my view. As they say in Hollywood, it’s an honor to be nominated. I guess winning is seondary.
Maybe a bit more descriptive award title, such as Tom Miller Award for Sensational Journalism/Reporting/Sensational title/Flimsy Reporting, or something in that vein.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:39 am
@Netizen – Yes, that’s right, I’m a China-bashing neocon who doesn’t want to hear any criticism of the west, did you even bother reading what I wrote? And here we are talking about checking your facts.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am
@FOARP,
“Yes, that’s right, I’m a China-bashing necon who doesn’t want to hear any criticism of the west,” or “did you even bother reading what I wrote?” Which part is fact and which part is not? You tell me. Your confusing responses here and earler are intentional when you are put on the spot on the facts?
July 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
@Netizen – Please, you should be able to spot sarcasm by now. I have already given you your answer, check what I wrote and you will see it is true. Either you wish to engage in a debate, or you wish to engage in a process of creating silly caricatures of other people.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
@FOARP,
I’m checking accusations and asking for facts to back them up. Putting you on the spot may not be comfortable for you but when you accused other people of something untrue, it demanded clarification. I’m clearing facts and expose those who were not telling the truth.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
FOARP,
Is calling you a neocon caricature? You called yourself that. Neocons call themselves that.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
@Netizen,
please don’t be hard to our friend FOARP . He is a nice guy who always have different opinion but with often intelligent and polite comments and knows a lot about China and politics. Please understand FOARP comes from a different background.
I’ve already be able to tell FOARP has understood some of our points after the few months of debate as I clearly remember FOARP first few comments were bit of harsher towards China compare now.
Don’t you agree FOARP?:-)
July 31st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
@BMY – Thank you for the kind words.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I agree that this is perhaps a little overdone. However, the use of “politics” in the Chinese context more strongly implies a government connection IMO. I’m not saying that this is what it should be. Like someone else said, and very correctly i think , it could mean office politics or team politics.
I guess it’s my background in America of seeing a lot of things in China related to the government because they are “communist”, the “big brother facade” as I call it.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
@BMY,
When I see FOARP links to Fool’s Mountain in his blog, I’d know he will have changed color.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
My all time favorite of sensational titles is “the Death of Hong Kong”. The article was published in Fortune Magazine (cover story) on June 26, 1995, more than two years before Hong Kong’s return to China.
12 years later, commemorating the 10th year of Hong Kong’s return to China, the same magazine run a short piece with another tantalizing title: “Oops! Hong Kong is hardly dead”. By that time, the author of the 1995 Hong Kong’s premature obituary had died. “Old girl Hong Kong is proudly marching on, while her obituary writer’s body is rotting in the grave.” Cruelty tastes so great. Once in a while, I mean. Anybody wants another longevity contest with China or Hong Kong?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Another sensational one: the Coming Collapse of China. Where is that clueless Gordon Chang now, who wrote the deadwood before China joined WTO?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
@Netizen,
Last I saw, Gordon Chang was writing a similar book about North Korea (which is probably more deserving). I think he’s been adopted by some neo-con “think tank”.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:45 am
To DJ:
if someone only reads the title, and doesn’t bother to read the text, then it’d be a fairly superficial discussion anyway, so why worry about it that that particular individual is being mislead, if at all? Actually, it’s got nothing to do with comprehension…it’s just use of the word in context, and one derives the context by reading the article.
I’d say the Telegraph put in a somewhat ambiguous title to entice you to read the article. As you say, that’s par for the course, for most newspapers, I suspect.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:48 am
To Netizen:
as I’ve said before, perhaps you should wait till after Aug 8 to hand out awards in Miller’s name.
As for China in the WTO, it didn’t do much in the recent Doha round, although you could probably argue that India was more to blame for the failure due to a penchant for agricultural protectionism.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:56 am
SKC,
Why is India “more to blame”? You seem to imply only India’s position (which was supported by China) wrong. How so? And why do you assume the US and others are not unreasonable in their positions?
August 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am
I agree with SKC. The title is misleading, but I feel that the text is only a little skewed. The reporter does open up the article with a bit of a sensationalized feeling, but to his credit, he also allows ample space at the end for opposing viewpoints. That said, the title should be reflective of the story, and I think the Telegraph should have renamed this article.
This kind of reporting seems to be one of the main targets for the anti-CNN crowd, and it confuses me. I’ve seen a lot of minor issues blown way out of proportion. Much of the time the actual reporting, even when skewed, still gets the underlying story straight. Take the riots in Tibet – a lot of people complained that the reporters talked about the bad side of Chinese treatment of Tibetans, but didn’t talk about all the good that China had done for Tibet; or that some reports used the photos of Nepalese police. While these are things that need to be addressed, and certainly shouldn’t be repeated, did they change the underlying facts that 1) Tibetans were denied certain religious and speech freedoms, and 2) that police did in fact arrest many Tibetan protestors? I don’t think they did. More often than not, it seems that people are angry that the reports are not being written in what, to them, is the right context. “Poor Farmers Get Evicted” sound much worse than “Poor Farmers Moved to New Homes as City Grows Rapidly due to Amazing Economic Growth”.
Of course, that’s just my Western-tinted viewpoint.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
B. Smith,
I don’t think that pointing out foreign media’s cumulative and consistent biased reporting is minor issue. It’s the issue. That’s how prejudice and ignorance got spread in mass scale. That’s why Americans think WMD have been found in Iraq because people like Dick Cheney told lies consistently and spread by the American media uncritically. The media spread lies, Americans believed them, war broke out, and disaster resulted. How can that be a minor issue?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am
@Netizen – The majority of Americans do not now believe that WMD were found in Iraq, the majority of American media has not uncritically covered the failure to find any WMD, and for your information, even some of Saddam Hussein’s chief ministers said they believed he had WMD.
And anyway – this is a piece in the Telegraph, not an American newspaper, and if you read the whole piece you will see that every part of the story is supported by quotes from the relevant sources. If you believe that ‘western media’ is engaged in a conspiracy against China, well carry on thinking so, but there is no evidence for it.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
FOARP,
Where did you get your number “majority of Americans do not now believe that WMD were in Iraq” from? I debunked a number of your false assertions and intentionally-left out important information in your comments in this blog.
“even some of Saddam Hussein’s chief ministers said they believed he had WMD.” That’s a typical neocon line to deny responsibility for their war-mongering follies.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
@Netizen –
And where did you do that?
Look here:
http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000250.htm
And here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html
Particularly these passages:
“[Footnote #1] For many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere (although they adamantly insisted that they had no direct knowledge of WMD programs). Coalition interviewers discovered that this belief was based on the fact that Iraq had possessed and used WMD in the past and might need them again; on the plausibility of secret, compartmentalized WMD programs existing given how the Iraqi regime worked; and on the fact that so many Western governments believed such programs existed.”
August 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
@FOARP,
I don’t see “majority of Americans do not now believe that WMD were in Iraq” in any references you provided. When you’re on the spot, are you trying to distract by providing boxes and boxes of useless information?
August 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
@FOARP,
Were your former name Fear of A White Planet?
August 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
hmm.. thank you very much. usefull information
August 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
@Netizen – If a survey shows that only a third of the US public think (or at least thought) that WMD had been found in Iraq, then it seems reasonable to say that the majority do not believe they have been found – not so?
And the rest speaks for itself – but what has this to do with the topic?
August 1st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
And if you want an example if things that the US media will report, look here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/
August 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
@FOARP,
A third said yes. How many said no is not clear, depending on how many said don’t know/no oppinion. But you massaged number to “majority” said no. That’s another example of massaging of the facts.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
To B. Smith:
agreed. Much ado about a teensy-weensy bit more than nothing.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
To DJ:
WTO chose 7 countries to hash out an agreement. 5 were on board. India wasn’t, and China was leaning that way. So I think it is safe to say that India (and a smaller extent China) scuttled the discussions. As to whether agricultural protectionism is the “right” thing, well, to each his own, I suppose. I imagine you can surmise my POV.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:34 pm
To Netizen:
“biased” reporting, for one thing, is in the eyes of the beholder. And it’s a topic that’s been well-vetted on this site before. But rather than painting with a broad brush, it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; and in THIS case, your and others’ objection seems to be with the title, and not the body of the article. Quibbles with titles does seem rather “minor” to me.
“Americans think WMD have been found in Iraq” – which Americans still think this??
As for a logic lesson, a la your bit with FOARP, if a third said yes, then 2/3 didn’t say yes. That means 2/3 (ie a majority) don’t think there are WMDs in Iraq. That is different than saying that 2/3 think there aren’t WMDs in Iraq. See if you can tell the difference. But it’s certainly consistent with FOARP’s initial response. BTW, “debunking” others with your own bunk doesn’t make it any more compelling.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am
SK Cheung,
I don’t know what the bunk you’re talking about? A third saying yes doesn’t mean two thirds say no. Someone with elementary polling knowledge know that.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
SK Cheung,
Nonsense. Blaming who scuttled the WTO discussions depends which side you’re on. The US, Europeans, Japaneses didn’t low their subsidies,, so India and China didn’t want to cut tariff rates. Obviously you don’t know that a coin has two sides.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 am
Netizen:
dude, read the words. 1/3 said yes means 2/3 didn’t say yes…which I believe in FOARP’s point, ie majority didn’t agree with the statement. How much simpler do you want it, pal?
What, a coin has two sides? Wow, you’re freakin’ brilliant! I know which side I’m on…and you? You might also want to check out the meaning of “to each his own”.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 am
SK Cheung,
Freakin’ dude, I know what FOARP said and it meant. I don’t need you interpret for me, stupid!
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 am
Alright now. Calm down everyone. There is no need for raised voices.
Did you guys notice the latest update I did to the post, by the way?
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 am
Yo Netizen, blowhard,
if you knew what he meant, you certainly didn’t sound it. Stupid is as stupid does, beavis!
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
Love the Onion. My authoritative source for news that really matters… well… them and Steven Colbert. Okay… the Onion, Colbert, and Jon Stewart. The Triad of Newsiness. Nobody else.
Honest.
The Triad of Newsiness.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 am
To MJ,
with any luck, “newsiness” will get you into Wikipedia like Colbert.
I’m already a Stewart and Colbert disciple…maybe I’ll have to check out the onion more. Funny piece.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
While you are at it, check out the Onion piece “is Beijing Olympics a trap?”. Quite funny as well.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
SK Cheung,
Yo stupid blowhard as you always do. You didn’t understand it because you’re beavis.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
To DJ:
pardon my ignorance, but never saw the ONN before. Is it a cable show, or a you-tube creation? Where can I get more of it? Thanks.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Netizen:
you seem just like some of the morons I come across on other sites. The reason why I frequent this site is because most people here are very much unlike you. Piece of advice: if you’re going to put someone down, at least have the intelligence and creativity to come up with you own stuff; parroting others just makes you look like…well…a moron. No charge for that, go and enjoy it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
SK Cheung,
Yo moron, freakin’ dude, stupid blowhard. Why do I need creativity of being nasty? I give you your own medicine. You beavis, go away and don’t get in my way of exposing Western biases, moron.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Now this is getting silly. Both of you, please just stop it.
I subscribe to the Onion video podcast on iTune. You can also find it at http://www.theonion.com
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Wow Netizen,
your “nastiness” scares me, how ’bout bringin’ it on some more. I’ll take pleasure in calling bs on a numbskull like you anytime, any place. Deal with it. BTW, the only thing you’ve exposed so far is your immaturity.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
To DJ:
sorry, posted the last one before I saw yours. I’m done with him. Thanks for the link.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
SK Cheung,
Yo numbskull, freakin’ dude, stupid blowhard. It’s your nastiness bs that I give you your own medicine. You beavis, go away. Ya, I’m scared, big time, of a numbskull like you.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
DJ,
I’ve just given his medicine to him. I hope it’s done after he’s got a taste of his own medicine.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Back to normal business. Tom Miller Award is a good idea. I hope Western reporters don’t him a totally disreputable journalist because he is still employed by SCMP and no one has asked for his firing or anything like that.
So giving a foreign reporter or media a such award won’t cause a world-wide sensantion or disreputation. It’s a fun way of highlighting their lazy, close-minded, or ideological practices that qualify someone for this an award.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I wonder which Chinese might qualify for this prematurely-named award too?
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Someone can go to Time Mag’s “anti-” China Blog and create an award that qualify Chinese journalists. I don’t mind.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Is it too late to point out that some Olympic gold medalists are being denied their chance to take part in the games for waht are clearly political reasons?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4468933.ece
August 9th, 2008 at 7:06 am
So are blacks being served in the bars?