Fool’s Mountain:New Face and New Initiative
Filed under:Announcements | Tags:report, translation
Add comments
First off, to follow the tradition of our site reports, here is our web stats for August. 
As you can see, we had another good month with 50% increase of unique visitors over July’s numbers. That’s certainly something to be pound of and I am, of course, very grateful for all who contributed. However, it did not escape our attention that several regular commentators recently complained the dilution of our front page message quality. Dan from ChinaLaw Blog also raised this issue in an email, “I would prefer to see things on your site return to where they were, with fewer posts, but all very thoughtful.”
For one thing, this site has never shied away from constructive criticism and I think Dan had a very good point. To implement quality control, though, is a difficult task. With the expansion of our own team and more guest submissions, we are bound to have thoughtful posts mixed with some emotional blurbs. I can not dictate what others to write. I also don’t like to pass a judgment before readers get a chance to form their own opinions.
So after extensive discussion with our editors and taking into account of technical feasibility, I decided to implement a 3 level system (thanks Nimrod for pointing me to this direction).
- Regular submission will still go to the “Letters” page ( Guest submission page is now one-click accessible).
- High quality post will be promoted to the front page by editors or in response to popular demand.
- To reward truly thoughtful posts, we will make them “sticky” (they will not be pushed down by newer posts).
In addition, we now display our most popular posts in a flash gallery at the top of the page (removed, more of a distraction) and we list our featured posts on the sidebar. I also added recommended reading lists to the sidebar. As always, feedback is appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Occasionally there are questions raised on this forum on what is the “central theme” of this blog. Frankly, for a new site like us, it is no surprise that we are still in the process of finding our “core identity. ” The “central theme” of this blog is and will be shaped by our writers and commemorators. I do have some ideas on what this site is not and will not become, though.
First, this site is not another “anti-CNN.” We are acutely aware of western media bias and we have pointed out blatant untrue reports such as “Chinese goverment ordered bars not to serve black people” and “Yang Peiyi banned from the Olympic opening ceremony because of her crooked teeth“. However, that’s not all we are about. We are much more interested in presenting Chinese perspective and Chinese voices, as one can see clearly from our featured/most popular posts.
Secondly, this site is not merely a cheerleader for China. We are unequivocally “pro” China. It does not mean that we are blind to her current ills or future challenges. For example, DJ had posted about the lip-sync contrversy before any major western media did so. And Nimrod provided an unique insight on the fudging formality culture in China. On many hot topics concerning China, be it corruption, enviorment, democray, 6/4, riots, or Tibet, you can always find plenty of posts with diverse and intelligent discussions.
Ultimately, we hope the presence of this blog will contribute to a better China, and in turn, a better word. Buxi oft referred to a quote by Carl Schurz and I think it summed up my feelings as well, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Translated Chinese content is always a great asset for this site. Previously I posted some Chinese content as blog entries in the hope that readers would translate in small chunks as comments. Well, that did not pan out. However, Charles Liu (Big thanks!) did answer my call and translated the beginning part of “Is Russia’s reform more successful than China’s?”. Recently reader DaMai also emailed me offering help in translation.
With their encouragement, and my firm belief that “a single spark can start a prairie fire.” 😉 I want to start a new initiative to use a wiki-like approach to encourage collaborative translation. Specifically, we have enabled a multi-author system so many translators can work on the same post. And with the new WordPress’ version control feature, they can do Wiki-like tracking of edits.
To give you a taste on what is like at the backstage, I created an account so for a limited time you can log in and see our dashboard as well write a post (Username:visitor; Password:visitor). So Login and take a tour.
If you are intersted to participate this initiative, sign up for an account and email me at webmaster@foolsmountain.com. Thank you in advance!
There are currently no comments highlighted.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 am
Good work!
I like the header image
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 am
LOL,you are welcome
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 am
Congrats on the continued growth. Nice banner too.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 am
sounds good. I like the “less is more” approach, and it would help distinguish FM from most others. The “emotional blurbs” seemed to be in higher supply in the last few weeks, so I’m glad to see you guys are on top of stuff.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 am
Woo, nice work, you are all so talented.
About the header, since you are inspired by this http://www.artx.cn/artx/guoxue/26372.html
you may also think about Wu Bairu’s paintings:http://bbs.artron.net/viewthread.php?tid=569683
^_^, also nice, but maybe not suitable for this site, what a pity.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 am
I like the plan!
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
What about this one by 徐悲鸿? The oil version was auctioned for a record price
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I never look at unique visitors or number of visits or the number of hits.
It is always about page views.
In July, the number of page views was 277,713.
In August, the number of page views was 210,279.
Either you had fewer pages posted, or else your pages were less attractive (e.g. fewer outside links).
Please conduct a self-criticism session …
You have the data in hand … What are the difference between July and August?
Which were your most popular posts in July? Whatever they are, you should have more of them …
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Nice work.
However, I also want to mention something. Almost every website such as this I’ve been to where there’s a significant increase of visitors, I always run into the complaint by regular members regarding how their quality is decreasing or changing but not in a positive context, a lot of work needs to be done, etc. However, I think your initiative is fair.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
@Glyx
Thanks for the links.
@Wuming,
We actually discussed the painting by 徐悲鸿, please see this thread.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/06/20/do-you-like-the-new-theme-and-a-delayed-update/
@eswn,
Yes, we did have less number of posts in August than that in July (73 vs 85). However, I think the number of unique visitors is probably a more objective indicator as pageview numbers are counted differently across analytics software. For example, if I take WPstats data, then we had 83,812 page views in July and 92,760 in August. (Edited to add: another stats program, Webalizer, put our pageview number at 398,735 in August vs. 368,019 in July). So actually we had an increase in page views.
And among the top 5 most popular posts (WP stats), two of them were published in August.
Has He Kexin’s age been changed to older or younger? 4,288 views (August)
What does it mean to be Chinese? 3,763 views (July)
“Chocolate City” 3,632 views (June)
An imperfect perfection 3,190 views (August)
Translation error 2,885 views (July)
As to a self-criticism session, it’s ongoing. 😉
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Is there any point in my pointing out that SCMP is a generally pro-Beijing Hong Kong publication, and that I could not find any mention of an article with the title “Yang Peiyi banned from the Olympic opening ceremony because of her crooked teeth“ in the article to which you link here?
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
FOARP,
1. So what’s your point? That untrue report has a pro-Beijing bias?
2. The thread I linked to is to discuss multiple such reports, to save you a little bit googling, here is one from a pro-Beijing UK source
China banned child singer with crooked teeth from singing at opening ceremony.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4512250.ece
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
@Admin –
1) SCMP is not western media, I think that was fairly obviously my point.
2) There is nothing in that report that is factually incorrect, the singer in question has crooked teeth, and was not allowed to sing. DJ’s point was that many of these articles were cruel to the girl concerned, others suggested there was an element of bias in the choice of negative themes. However, all of this is irrelevant because the Times article was not mentioned in DJ’s post. Finally, it would probably be news to Jane Macartney – one of the journalists who received death threats from nationalist crazies earlier this year – that she is ‘pro-Beijing’.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
@FOARP
1. In case you have not noticed, I have said in the post that I am not that interested in the western media bias. But false reporting is a different animal and we want it to be exposed (no matter it’s pro-Beijing or anti-Beijing. edited to add, for example, http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/07/02/wengan-how-the-state-media-hurts-china/).
2. A newspaper based on HK does not exclude it from western media. In addition, there are other newspapers involved in spreading the rumor.
3. If you paid attention to read DJ’s post and follow up discussions, the Jane Macartney piece was identified by JXie as the source of the “crooked teeth” meme.
4. Finally, relax. I say “pro-Beijing UK source” to show you that by just adding a “pro-Beijing” label will make a false report, surprise, still a false report.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
@Admin –
1) So western media is whatever you say it is, even if it is published in China and follows a pro-Beijing editorial line.
2) From the sentence “We are acutely aware of western media bias and we have pointed out blatant untrue reports such as . . . ” I would say it is fairly obvious that you are talking about untruths in the western media, not merely untruths in general.
3) You might not see my point here, so let me say it again: a ‘meme’ is not an “untruth”, nothing in the Times report was proven untrue. That the girl in question has crooked teeth is not doubted, but nowhere in the Times article did it actually say that she was not allowed to sing “because she had crooked teeth”.
You might object to me digging all this up again, but I object to this idea (which a lot of people here seem to subscribe to) that the publishing of stories which Xinhua does not publish is somehow evidence of ‘bias’. Let me say it again – there is no evidence of systematic bias in the ‘western’ media.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
@FOARP
I think you know well enough that SCMP, for most of its history, was an English newspaper published in a British colony. Mark Clifford, an American, was the editor-in-chief until last year. And what’s the point to add a subjective label? I always think WSJ is more “pro Beijing” than NYT. Shall I exclude it from the “western media?”
And you may fail to notice, but China banned child singer with crooked teeth from singing at opening ceremony is untrue.
Finally, I hate to repeat myself, I don’t care that much about western media bias. So if you say there is no bias. I am glad to hear that.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
To FOARP:
I’ve also said this before. To some, it seems op-ed pieces=western media…so they go around looking for columnists who cast things in an unflattering light. Forget about the selection bias of just cherry-picking the ones that support their POV to the exclusion of others, but since when did Tom Miller or Jane McCartney = western media?
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
To Admin:
Of your bolded statement, which part is untrue? The girl has not the best teeth. She didn’t sing at the opening ceremony. She didn’t because the dudes in charge wanted the other girl to be on stage as their first choice. If the title was “China banned child singer from singing at opening ceremony BECAUSE of her crooked teeth”, then there MIGHT be a point of contention. But as the title stands, you’ll have to tell me where the untruth lies.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
It’s the context the title attempted to establish that is untrue. In the report Times UK tried to put the “fat face/crooked teeth” thing on some unnamed desparate Communist Party officials – which turned out to be fabricated.
Roland Soong as well as John Garnaut of Sydney Morning Hearld covered this, I will not repost the links.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
To Charles:
so then it is the “interpretation” of the title that was untrue. So now the authors of the “western media” are not only responsible for the literally meaning of their words, but also for any potential interpretations of those words. Gee, that’s a pretty tough standard. Fair? Not so much.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
SKC and FOARP,
I dont know what kind of definition of “West media bias” you want from us. Are you trying to deny the strong bias by West media against China ?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
The reports by Telegraph and Times were both based on Chen Qigang’s interview. They actually changed the story.
Telegraph reported: “He gave an interview to Beijing radio saying the real singer was a seven-year-old girl who had won a grueling competition to perform the anthem, a patriotic song called “Hymn to the Motherland…..At the last moment a member of the Chinese politburo who was watching a rehearsal pronounced that the winner, a girl called Yang Peiyi, might have a perfect voice but was unsuited to the lead role because of her buck teeth.”
Times reported :”After watching a rehearsal with Peiyi in the lead role, a senior member of the Politburo told Beijing Olympic organisers that they had an urgent problem that needed fixing.”
What Chen actually said was:
Chen: “That’s right. It was a last minute, tough decision. We went through multiple practices and reviews. We played Lin Miaoke’s recording during one joint practice. Many reviewers, particularly someone in the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, made comments that (Lin’s) voice is not OK and it must be changed. We had no choice.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 am
To Wahaha:
in my months on this blog, the multitude of “examples” of western media bias comes down to the unearthing of this editorial and that op-ed piece. Of course, when the going gets tough, people throw in a Cafferty or a Dobbs. All fine and good, if your point is that some columnists and editorialists seem to have biases and opinions. I would agree with that assessment. Nor is there anything wrong with that, since that’s their job. Their biases and opinions are their raison d’etre. But if that’s your beef, fine.
But when this beef is extended to a massive generalization of systematic (yet incredibly generic) “western media bias”, that to me is an excuse to engineer a problem where none exists.
And take the latest example above from Admin. If the bias comes from an “interpretation” of the words and not the words themselves, then give me a break. People should perhaps remove chip from shoulder (or dare I say, your own biases), and try to take things from a somewhat more neutral position.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 am
Not “interpretation”, but false “attribution:
“Chubby-cheeked with crooked teeth, she was substituted at the eleventh hour by Communist Party officials desperate to present the best possible image of Chinese youth to a curious world.”
As evidence presented above, there was no such Communist Party officials saying anything about Yang’s face or teeth.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 am
SKC,
Suppose a kid failed math test last year , he hired a tutor and had been working hard since under tutor, finally he improved his score from F to C or B, Someone complains about how bad the tutor has been as a tutor.
That is bias.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 am
S.K. Cheung — The post right above yours cited the actual words in the REPORTS of the Telegraph and Times compared with the original source. The distortions are obvious. The motivation is obvious as well, the catch word “Poliburo” fitted so perfectly with their preconceived story lines nothing can budge them (and apparently you and FOARP) from these stories.
No, as far as I know there is no media or political conspiracy in these reports. Bias, by definition, works culturally, deeply embedded in the psyche. It’s good that you don’t have to feel that, it stings like hell for many of us.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
To Charles:
well, I was addressing your point, I haven’t dealt with HLL’s yet. And if your point in #19 was “It’s the context the title attempted to establish that is untrue”, that’s interpretation, baby. That’s not attributing anything to anybody.
Now, I’m getting confused with the multiple dueling quotes. Is yours in #24 in quotations because you copied it from some evil “western” publication, or did such a publication actually quote a live human as saying those words? If you quoted someone, then who’s doing the attribution? And even if it’s the latter, on what evidence do you have to PROVE that no official said any such thing. Lemme guess, an official unbiased pure-as-the-driven-snow Chinese news agency?
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 am
To Wahaha:
as you recall, i’ve always enjoyed your colourful examples. So, if I may ask, what on earth are you talking about? First, it’s not even “bias”; that “someone” just has unreasonable expectations. Second, what’s this “example” got to do with absolutely anything??
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
SKC,
Are you sure that it is only “someone” just has unreasonable expectations ?
I think that this “someone” hates to see the kids having improved.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 am
@SKC
The child singer was not banned. She did sing and was given credit for it.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 am
To Wuming:
first off, I haven’t been addressing HLL’s points. All of my points have stemmed from Admin’s entries, particularly #16. Perhaps if you read them in that context, they might appear less unreasonable.
To Wuming and HLL:
so, it sounds like the TImes and Telegraph are saying that Yang’s voice is fine but face isn’t. Your quote of Chen is essentially that Lin’s face is fine but voice isn’t. So my question is, do you actually have the entire transcript of the interview, and can show that Chen only said the latter and not the former? Better yet, do you know for a fact that this mysterious Politburo member only said the latter, and not the former?
But on a more fundamental level, are you quoting news items in said publications, or are you quoting from yet another op-ed piece? If it’s the latter, please see #23.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 am
To Wahaha:
OMG! I’m not sure. It’s my interpretation of your hypothetical. Who cares! What’s that got to do with absolutely friggin anything? Could we please focus, preferably on the post, and not this drivel?
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
SKC,
It is hypothetical ?
I did focus, We are talking about westmedia report, arent we ?
Listen, I am NOT saying you have biased opinion against China, I am saying your media is biased.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 am
SKC
Read HLL’s entry again, if you still don’t understand the problem or still imagining another way out, than I can’t help you. The reports were written in your first language (I presume), not mine. I am done.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 am
Congrats on the continued and exceptionally successful and high growth.
Reading what’s written here is always quite interesting… even though the mass amounts of comments are too daunting at times to wade through. 🙂 (Which is a good thing- you fellows have an exceptionally vibrant community.)
The three-tier system idea seems like a great way to balance getting people’s voices heard whilst maintaining quality.
Good Luck!
~chinacomment.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 am
To Wahaha:
my apologies. The “focus” comment was meant for the other conversation we’re having. Please ignore it. I’ll try to be more careful next time.
But your “example” is hypothetical, is it not? Unless you’re thinking of a specific tutor, and a specific student. But I’m not privy to those thoughts.
I can go along with some “western” columnists are biased. But “western media” is way to broad a brush.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 am
To Wuming:
I don’t need any help; my English rocks (and not my first language either). I think I made my points in #31. Do with it as you please. But if you have the transcript of Chen’s interview in its entirety, then we’re talking.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 am
@SKC
Read DJ’s posts.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 am
To Admin #30:
since we’re talking about word choice, let’s be rigorous and precise about the wording. Yang may have sang FOR the ceremonies; but she didn’t sing AT the ceremonies (well, she may have hummed it to herself backstage, but that’s hardly the same thing).
“China banned child singer with crooked teeth from singing at opening ceremony ” – you also don’t seem overly troubled by the “crooked teeth”. So really, it comes down to the word “banned”. If that was replaced with “prevented”, would everything be right in the world?
This phrase also seems to be the title to an article. And you know what they say about judging a book by its cover. So are you citing this as an example of “western media bias” based 1/12 of the cover? If so, then absolutely there’s bias, but not where you suggest.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 am
@SKC
As I said, please read DI’s two posts on this topic as well as follow up discussions. All the details, including Chen’s interview transcript, are there. We don’t have to repeat the same discussion again.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 am
@SKC
Here is the link to the video of the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=UcC6CsCicTQ
The English transcript can be found in DJ’s post:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/08/12/an-imperfect-perfection/
The transcript was generally faithful although it missed some minor details. For example, the senior official did comment that Lin’s voice was not OK. Chen did not say if the official watched Yang’s rehearsal.
According to Chen, they selected Yang Peiyi, Lin Miaoke and another kid from many candidates. The criteria include: first, good image; second, good voice. So he actually implied that Yang’ image was good and Lin’s voice was good.
My understanding is that there are differences between “good” and “best”. The image, as explained by Chen Qigang, included not only looks but also internal feeling and expression. Chen said Lin was the best in terms of image, internal feeling and expression. Yang had a flawless voice. I guess the younger Yang Peiyi might lack acting experience or maybe was a little shy. Chen did not say much about it.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:35 am
@SKC
Isn’t there a little difference between “a book’s cover” and “a book’s title” in English? 😉
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 am
@SKC
Here is a photo of Lin and Yang together in the stadium:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/wp-content/uploads//611/miaoke-peiyi2.jpg
Both girls were listed in the playbill as performers for the song. It is reasonable to say that if Lin did not show up that day due to a bad flu, probably Yang would be on the stage. It was not likely that Yang was banned.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 am
To Admin and HLL:
read what’s there of the English transcript. Your point is taken, based on what’s there. If the Times and Telegraph came up with their versions based on that link, then they are in the wrong. Of course, that assumes that the link provided contains the entirety of the interview, and those papers didn’t get the other quotes from another interview with Chen. Now, if your TImes and Telegraph quotes came from a columnist, that’s still hardly western media bias; that’s 2 biased columnists. And if the quotes came from front page articles reported as fact, then you’ve got 2 potentially biased newspapers…and still hardly proof of a sweeping conspiracy of “western media” bias.
But Admin still should address, in #16, how the debatable choice of one word qualifies that as an example of such a sweeping conspiracy.
BTW, of course “cover” is not the same as “title”, but in this case, the point is the same. Or maybe try: the title is to an article what a cover is to a book.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 am
Via a beijing-based foreign correspondent, the beijing radio interview was actually longer than in the YouTube segment. Here is the transcript that the foreign correspondent has. Whatever else,
“chubby cheeks,” “buck teeth,”
Chen Qigang, director of opening ceremony music,
“We selected three to four children (to sing the song).
The director’s primary requirement is the child must be cute.
So firstly we had ten kids to choose from. We listen to their singing.
But some of them just lose their tune. So we can’t use those. That’s also
in accordance with director’s mind, to select the best voice and singer from
those with looks. All these children gave our work a lot of help.
The first child we had was about ten. The singing in plan is to open the whole
sector. But she’s a bit grown out of our standard, almost a youngster.
Our standard then sets upon age around seven. Lin Miaoke was one of them,
along with Yang Peiyi, and other kids. We recorded them at China National
Radio. But we felt Lin’s voice doesn’t really fit. Not quite good at
accuracy of tune, neither depth of her voice. At the end we decided to use
Yang Peiyi’s voice.
Reason for doing such is for our country’s interest. The girl on screen must
be flawless in her look, emotion and acting. Lin Miaoke is really good on
these.
But on voice, all of our team reckon Yang is perfect and the most
outstanding. The choice is a last-minute decision with no alternatives. We
went through reviews several times. Very strict. We played Lin’s recording once at
rehersal.
Leaders from all relevant departments, perticularly leaders from
PolitBureau, told us, their suggestion is we must change it. So there’s nothing else we
could do. Here we feel we are responsible to explain to audience in China, because
we think people understand this is in our country’s interest. Not only
symbolizing the musical culture of our country, but also for the solemn moment of our
national flag entering the stadium. It’s a very great and serious moment.
The decision we made, in my opinion, is fair to both Lin and Yang. A perfect voice with
perfect look and performance. We have two recording of voices, which are pretty
close in quality. The singing Lin heard by herself is Yang Peiyi’s; but Lin
wouldn’t have noticed.
Yang’s the first year student at Beida affiliated primary school, 7 1/2
years old. I think this is a matter about music. We are responsible for this. Why I’m
telling it here is because we want to shoulder the responsibility. For the voice and
performance, to achieve perfection, I must explain this to audience in China.
Yang is our option B. Lin is option A. At rehersals, sometimes children
can’t be there. So we recorded them. Everything was recorded.
At the end, Yang’s voice is the most perfect. For that moment, it’s not
about lip-sync or real sing. It’s about how to present the most perfect
image of China to people and to the world. There’s no alternative on this
issue. Yang’s also very cute. She’s only missing two teeth.”
….
It is also rumored that there exists a second interview with Chen,
in which he said that Yang had developing teeth “zhen zai fa ya zi”.
The foreign correspondent has not been able to locate this,
so this may be ‘urban legend.’
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 am
@SKC
Please don’t put words into my mouth. I have never said there was a western conspiracy, not in #16, not on this forum. I did say there was a western media bias. I also said I did not care about that much and this blog was not about fighting “perceived” media bias.
If you want to press on why I hold such an opinion, the we have to go back to revisit the western media coverage during the Lhasa riot and the Olympic torch relay. If you are really interested, please read this thread,
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/05/03/our-voice-%E2%80%93-our-truth/.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 am
To Admin:
you’re right, the “sweeping conspiracy” was my characterization, and I retract it. But I still stand by my other points. If you say there’s bias among some in the western media, I have no quarrel. But when you throw around “western media bias”, even if not conspiratorial in nature, it still suggests a ubiquitous systematic problem. As you’ve no doubt figured, that doesn’t fly with me.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:22 am
Well, ESWN’s source gives a fuller account of the interview, even if the grammar is a bit more suspect. Nonetheless, on that basis, the Times and Telegraph reports as quoted by HLL are wrong in my opinion, in the absence of any further info available to me. If that’s the contention, I can stipulate. If, on that basis, there’s “western media bias”, you’ve got a ways to go yet.
Ohhh, to be a fly on the wall when those unnamed Politburo members “suggested” to Chen to make changes…
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 am
@Wahahaha –
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. What I have read in the press in Britain is by-and-large representative of the true state of affairs in China. Is there the occasional piece which is somewhat wide of the mark? Certainly, the story a few months back about a British government official who, whilst visiting Shanghai, took a girl he met at a night club back to his hotel room and woke up to find his Blackberry gone is not something I felt had “all the hallmarks” of an “espionage” plot – despite most of the papers over here reporting it as such. But this is not evidence of systematic bias, or a grand anti-China plot, or an evil conspiracy.
@Admin – As far as I am aware ‘banned’ and ‘not allowed’ are the same thing. Was the girl allowed to sing? No. Was she banned from singing at the ceremony on the instructions of a politician? Yes. And no, I would not class SCMP as western media, any more than I would class The Times of India or The Singapore Straits Times as western media – despite both having British-run colonial history.
@HLL – “an urgent problem which needed fixing” and “not OK and it must be changed.” do not conflict with each other.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
@FOARP: Please read the transcript again, Chen said reviewers including the official listened to Lin’s recording and commented that Lin’s voice was not OK. Chen did not say they watched Yang’s rehearsal and declared Yang should be rejected due to her looks.
Times reported: ”After watching a rehearsal with Peiyi in the lead role…..”
No, Chen did not say that. Chen also did not say Yang Peiyi was the winner of a competition, as reported by Telegraph.
@eswn: I wonder if the audio or video exists for the whole interview. I have to say, there was something (minor) lost in translation in both English transcripts above. I do not blame the translators because it is probably impossible to have a perfect translation.
We have yet to see more evidence about the rumored second interview. The closest evidence was this opinion on Legal Daily, published on 8/25 and written by a law professor. It is unlikely this guy interviewed Chen directly.
http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/2007jdwt/2008-08/25/content_930999.htm
@SKC
Here is the link to the Telegraph report. It is not an opinion. We can find more reports like this. But let’s just use one or two as examples here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2545387/Beijing-Olympics-Faking-scandal-over-girl-who-sang-in-opening-ceremony.html
Chen said in a later interview with Yazhou Zhoukan that the western media did not bother to interview the directors about the opening ceremony before the scandal broke out. It is understandable that he does not want to be interviewed on this issue again.
http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=ms&Path=2268527452/35ms1a.cfm
I agree with wuming. I do not see the evidence that the media conspired to sensationalize. All the media, including the Chinese media and the western media, are biased and sometimes vicious. It is hardly a secret.
I would highly recommend the following article “A reporter’s guide to covering the Olympics” if you missed it. Please note it was posted before Olympics. It seems the guidelines were perfectly followed by the media 🙂
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/07/31/a-must-read-a-reporters-guide-to-covering-the-olympics/
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
@HLL – At which point you have to ask – is this an example of ‘bias’? Examine the following stories reported in the last 48 hours –
1) Newcastle United manager Kevin Keegan reported sacked from his job – but he had in fact quit his job.
2) Sarah Palin reported to be an ex-member of the Alaskan Independence Party – she isn’t, her husband is.
No apology or correction is going to be issued for these stories, the mistake does not really change the issues – Kevin Keegan is still no longer manager of Newcastle, Sarah Palin is still associated with the Alaskan Independence movement, the decision to have one girl mime the words of another was a political one.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“But this is not evidence of systematic bias..”
Yes, there is. The theory of “bloody invasion” is systematic bias.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
@FOARP,
You are entitled to your opinions. Many people also regard Fox News as “fair and balanced.”
Have you seen those headlines?
Pavarotti not allowed to sing at the Torino Olympics. or
The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra banned from performing at the Opening Ceremony for the 2000 Games.
So with everything else being equal, the western press’ response is predictable.
You may also want to check out this thought experiment.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/05/12/separatists-kill-8-railway-workers/
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
@FOARP:
I am not crying for apologies from the media. I do not support the idea of shooting the messenger :-). The examples were used to show that more than one reporter fabricated the facts and they were from “reliable” newspapers. Many people did not care much about lip sync. They were angry after reading the news that the singer Yang Peiyi was banned by an official because she was deemed as ugly. As we can see, it is not true.
Let me repeat: I do not see the evidence that the media conspired to sensationalize. All the media, including the Chinese media and the western media, are biased and sometimes vicious. It is hardly a secret.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
SKC, I don’t know if Roland is “pure-as-the-driven-snow”, but you can ask him, who covered this in depth.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
@Wahaha – ‘bloody invasion’ is not proof of systematic bias, no system is involved, no plot is involved, what is involved is 1) bloodshed and 2) The use of military force – add these two together and you get a ‘bloody invasion’ – or are you denying that military force was used and that people were killed?
@Admin – See here:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080829/twl-orchestra-mimed-at-2000-olympics-3fd0ae9.html
This was on the front page of Yahoo last Friday.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
@FOARP
I answer both of your replys here.
OK,
1) After UK’s bloody invasion of Falklands Islands, Britain reoccupied the islands 10,000 miles away from UK, but only just 30 minutes flight away from Argentina.
2) After US bloody invasion of Iraq, Iraq people are free from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Did I tell the truth ? Yes, Do you feel OK as a British ? Do you think I have agenda against UK ?
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
If China had “brainwashed” Chinese with “fact” like 1) above, Which country would Chinese believe have the sovereignty of Falklands Islands, Britain or Argentina ?
That, is systematic bias.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
@Wahahaha – Strangely enough, I wouldn’t care. This is no evidence of ‘systematic bias’ – you have not identified a system, you have simply identified something you find annoying.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
@FOARP,
You were obviously annoyed when I mentioned the opium war in 1840.
Let me give you a personal experience :
30 years ago, I was taught to believe that people in West were living in misery, under the suppression of riches. One example I was taught is that Olympic gold medalist (100 meters) had to run along the horses …. to entertain the riches.
Is it fact (competing with horses) ? Yes.
Please tell me why it is not systematic bias.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
@Wahahaha –
That’s just because I’d just been through a titanic week-long argument with Pfeffer on the subject.
You mention the phrase ‘bloody invasion’ as an example of systematic bias, however, this is the first time I can actually remember having seen that actual phrase in connection with Tibet. Now, you have to ask why it is that very few people accept the Chinese version of this – that the re-imposition of rule from Beijing was a ‘peaceful liberation’. Now, do you think this is a line of reasoning that is likely to convince that many people? Do you think that many people outside China believed that the ‘Dalai clique’ and ‘a handful of splittists’ were behind the uprisings this year, in 1989, and in 1959? Are these convincing arguments? Then ask yourself why the discussion in the west leans so heavily towards the Tibetan version of events.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“Now, you have to ask why it is that very few people accept the Chinese version of this – that the re-imposition of rule from Beijing was a ‘peaceful liberation’. Now, do you think this is a line of reasoning that is likely to convince that many people?”
Hundreds of millions of chinese were made to believe people in West living in misery, I am sure people in North Korea believe they are better off than those in South.
50 million Americans believed Bush’s war in Iraq was right decision in 2004, and voted him into white house for 2nd term. (if Americans had listened to the media of France and Germany, how many of them wouldve supported the war in Iraq in 2003 and now?)
That is power of media.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Correct me if I am wrong :
In the constitution by Tibet Exile government, they declare their goal is the independence of Tibet from China. and Dalai Lama denied it was his goal in Tibet.
West supports them, right ? Why didnt West ask them to remove that item from their constitution before asking Chinese government talking to Dalai Lama ?
September 4th, 2008 at 12:08 am
To HLL #50:
I am happy to see that you are now diving into the Sports section to look for your controversies. Based on your linked article, Spencer wasn’t even quoting Chen when he made reference to the Politburo member and the teeth (although he does later quote Chen as Chen was referring to unnamed Politburo members).
So really, what you’ve got is a Sports reporter who may (assuming he didn’t have his own sources) have misrepresented the specifics of Chen’s interview. Hold them presses! Full on western media bias in full view.
Next time I want political news, perhaps I’ll turn to the Entertainment section.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:13 am
To Wahaha #52:
you have got to be frickin kidding me!. Go look up the “Our Truth” thread from THIS BLOG, dated May 3. In it, you will find reference to the invasion as “bloody”…now, it apologizes for it as being no bloodier than anything else that happened to other Chinese in that era. But still, it’s right there. So you might have to speak to Admin (or whoever wrote that) about their “systematic” anti-China bias as editors of a pro-China site.
Bloody invasion isn’t a theory. Your head is in serious need of a vigorous shake.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:19 am
To HLL #54:
“banned by an official because she was deemed as ugly. As we can see, it is not true.” – well, you can say Chen didn’t say that in the interview that has been oft referred to. As to what the Politburo members actually said, who knows. But for whatever reason, someone didn’t think she had the visual perfection to go along with the vocal perfection.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:38 am
To Wahaha:
you might want to get a clearer definition or understanding of “systematic bias” before you continue to throw the term around indiscriminately.
Your example is #60 was Chinese propaganda. It isn’t a biased slant on the facts; it is plain fabricated. Big difference. See if you can see it.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:53 am
It was fabricated by West media that Han chinese try to destory Tibetan culture;
It was fabricated by West media that Han chinese discriminate Tibetans;
It was fabricated by West media that PLA invaded a territory in 1950 that didnt belong to China;
It was fabricated by West media that Tibet was a paradise before 1950;
it was fabricated by West media that Tibetan seperatists are human right warriors.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am
to your #65
Show me the evidence that PLA killed lot of Tibetans in 1950 when they entered Tibet, not 1958 or 1959 during the uprising.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Let me tell you what really happened in later 1950s :
Chinese government stopped those monks from forcifully taking kids away from poor families.
Chinese government forcifully took lands away from nobles and gave them to poor serfs or liberating those poor slaves, like they did in early 1950 in inland China.
Those made the ruling class and monks of Tibet extremely unhappy, as they gradually lost political power over Tibetans. That was the reason for the uprising.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:23 am
@SKC #65
I really don’t appreciate your tendency to distort other people’s words. The only time “bloody” was used in that “Our truth ” thread is this sentence:
“China’s history over the past 50 years has unfortunately been a very bloody one. “
September 4th, 2008 at 1:42 am
@HLL (54): “All the media, including the Chinese media and the western media, are biased and sometimes vicious.”
Indeed. I don’t agree with FOARP there is no bias against China, or at least constantly bringing its political system up, but at the same time a lot of Chinese are oversensitive to any reports from the West. If some hothead runs an op-ed that’s negative to China, it because the voice of the whole Western media. While it ought to be criticized, this Jack Cafferty thing was just ridiculous. Suddenly “goons and thugs” was the viewpoint of every Westerner.
As for bias, check out what regular mainland media reports about Taiwan. 🙂 When are we going to see angry demonstrations on the island against the slanderous Chinese media?
@Wahaha: “Let me tell you what really happened in later 1950s :”
Without getting too philosophical, how do you know it is what really happened? If you were made to believe that Westerners are living in misery, then where did you learn this thing about Tibet? Isn’t it as ridiculous to believe that Tibet was a hell and became a paradise after the Chinese fixed it, as it is to belive that Tibet was a paradise that was made hell by Chinese?
September 4th, 2008 at 1:45 am
“it because the voice of the whole Western media”
should be
“it becomes the voice of the whole Western media”
September 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am
@S.K.C,
How could you so sure wahaha was fed by propaganda and you were not fed by a different propaganda.:-)
From my understanding of both propaganda, the “invasion” of Tibet(now TAR) in 1951 was not bloody and under seventeen-point agreement . There were battles out side of the area of now TAR just like everywhere when PLA were taking over in China then. To be fair , the 1959 uprising was bloody.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:11 am
WKL,
In 1950, Dalai Lama welcomed Chen Yi, the PLA general in Lhasa. Had PLA invaded Tibet by killing lot of Tibetans, Dalai Lama would have fleed to India by then.
Land reform, that is what communism means, take property away from rich and give to poor, equally rich and eqully poor. That is what happened In inland China in early 50s. Do you think those landowners and nobles would be OK with that ? not mention PLA liberated those slaves.
I am not kind of person who will buy CCP’s propaganda easily, I dont know what I said is hard to believe.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Nice update guys. I agree that the site’s quality was somewhat diluted so I’m glad you are making some changes. Of course, Buxi was on vacation so that had a lot to do with it as well.
Congrats on your growth, keep up the good work.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:39 am
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/Look_Whos_Talking/articleshow/3409074.cms
September 4th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Here are some of the seventeen-point agreement :
4. The Central Authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The Central Authorities also will not alter the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of various ranks shall hold office as usual.
11. In matters related to various reforms in Tibet, there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central Authorities. The Local Government of Tibet should carry out reforms of its own accord, and when the people raise demands for reform, they must be settled through consultation with the leading personnel of Tibet.
I believe that in late 50s, after several years patiently waiting, Chinese government pushed political reform and land reform, then everything started going south for the nobles and Lamas in Tibet.
__________________________________________________
Can anyone confirm the following from Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_Point_Agreement_for_the_Peaceful_Liberation_of_Tibet#cite_ref-Powers113_6_8-0
Events leading to the signing of the document
China had 20,000 troops at the Tibetan border when it ordered Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate a treaty. The treaty was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese (in the form of threats of personal violence as well as military invasion) to sign anyway, using seals which the Chinese had made for the purpose.
Here is China’s side of story at that time :
Dalai Lama was near the boundary between Tibet and Nepal (or India, I am not sure), waiting for the message from his delegation. If no agreement was reached, he would flee aboard. Cuz the agreement was reached, he returned to Lhasa and waited for Chen Yi.
_____
If Dalai Lama was near the boundary, then Wikipedia is manipulating the information. I dont see the point why Chinese government had to lie about this.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Here is the link about 17 point agreement :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_Point_Agreement_for_the_Peaceful_Liberation_of_Tibet#cite_ref-Powers113_6_8-0
Read #4 and # 11
_________________________
Then read following :
Events leading to the signing of the document
China had 20,000 troops at the Tibetan border when it ordered Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate a treaty. The treaty was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese (in the form of threats of personal violence as well as military invasion) to sign anyway, using seals which the Chinese had made for the purpose.
Which is lie again, in Wikipedia !!!! cuz Dalai Lama was waiting for the message from his delegation near Nepal. If no agreement could be reached, he would flee to India.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:34 am
@SKC
First, you want to see reports instead of opinions. When I show you the reports, you complain they are in the Sports section. 🙂 I do not have a screenshot to present but I am quite sure the report was in headlines. As I said, we can find more reports like this. But let’s just use one or two as examples.
Telegraph is not National Enquirer. Richard Spencer is not a clueless sports reporter. He is the senior reporter of Telegraph in Beijing, a buddy of Boris Johnson 🙂
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/richard_spencer
If a reader really examines Spencer’s report objectively, she/he can see more distortions. Since you do not care, I will not elaborate. Many people have explained repeatedly, it was not just about looks. The image also involved internal feeling and expression. A person with good voice or good looks is not always a good performer. Maybe Yang was a little shy. Yes, we do not know. But the fact that we do not know does not give the reporters rights to describe Yang as ugly.
Most of your questions and concerns were already addressed in the comments of the post below.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/08/13/the-cruelest-insults/
September 4th, 2008 at 4:13 am
To HLL:
objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. So forget the Sports section; let’s say it was the lead article on the front page. Beyond representing one biased reporter of one UK newspaper, what does that show?
Furthermore, saying he’s biased assumes, as I said earlier, that he had no alternate sources. It also assumes that the transcript of Chen in question actually represents the entirety of that interview.
Look, some western journalists are biased. That’s unfortunate. And specific examples serve to illustrate that point. But don’t make it out to be more than what it actually is.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:51 am
@Wahaha: About what’s hard or not to believe, well… You said:
“Chinese government stopped those monks from forcifully taking kids away from poor families.”
This is a claim that needs some backing.
“Chinese government forcifully took lands away from nobles and gave them to poor serfs or liberating those poor slaves, like they did in early 1950 in inland China.”
Land was redistributed, yes, and as for the amount of population that were slaves (that is in dispute) they were given freedom. However, in inland China, to keep with Marxist theory, I haven’t heard any mention of 农奴 like I have about Tibet.
“Those made the ruling class and monks of Tibet extremely unhappy, as they gradually lost political power over Tibetans. That was the reason for the uprising.”
That may have been part of the reason for the uprising, but there are also other versions.
“I am not kind of person who will buy CCP’s propaganda easily, I dont know what I said is hard to believe.”
No, but you seem to believe it halfway. I have my biases too, so perhaps I believe in what I read when I was young halfway too. It’s hard to know when almost all accounts come from either the Chinese or the Western side, and they are diametrically opposed.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:59 am
WKL,
Read 17 points in Wikipedia,
#4 and # 11
September 4th, 2008 at 5:00 am
@admin: Is there a way to comment on the recommended readings? I had a look at “BKK: The truth is out there” about Western media bias, and the article seemed very US-centric. Western media is said to never cover the Palestinian point of view. I’ve seen this before in a Chinese book about the Arab world and Western media bias, in which it’s claimed that Israeli atrocities are never criticized in Western media. However, in most countries in Europe, it’s the other way around and media is mostly pro-Palestinian.
The view that “US is the Western world”, which seems common in many countries, including China, would be interesting to discuss.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:05 am
The folloing comement from Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_Point_Agreement_for_the_Peaceful_Liberation_of_Tibet
Events leading to the signing of the document
China had 20,000 troops at the Tibetan border when it ordered Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate a treaty. The treaty was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese (in the form of threats of personal violence as well as military invasion) to sign anyway, using seals which the Chinese had made for the purpose
China’s story :
Dalai Lama was near Nepal when his delegation was negotiating with Chinese government.
I cant think of a reason why China had to lie about this, therefore I believe Wikipedia manipulatied the information.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Admin,
Why didnt my comment on the following statement from Wikipedia not pop up ?
[edit] Events leading to the signing of the document
China had 20,000 troops at the Tibetan border when it ordered Tibet to send representatives to Beijing to negotiate a treaty. The treaty was written by China, and Tibetan representatives were not allowed to suggest any alterations. China did not allow the Tibetan representatives to communicate with Lhasa. The Tibetan delegation was not authorized by Lhasa to sign, but ultimately submitted to pressure from the Chinese (in the form of threats of personal violence as well as military invasion) to sign anyway, using seals which the Chinese had made for the purpose
September 4th, 2008 at 5:11 am
BTW, WKL,
If you think Chinese government made up the story of 农奴, well, I have nothing to say ….
If you have chance to go to Beijing, go to the Tibet museum there.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:19 am
“Chinese government stopped those monks from forcifully taking kids away from poor families.”
This is a claim that needs some backing
_____________________
Mao said “religion is poison”.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Well, religion might be poison unless he was the one being worshiped, and then he was pretty much ok with it 😉
September 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
@Wahaha: I know about the 17 points. Also, I didn’t say that the history of 农奴 were made up, rather that the systems in inland China and Tibet were different. The systems in China might have been freer than the ones in Tibet, and according to Marxist theory they must have been since China was feudalist, whereas Tibet was still a slave society. Right?
I know about the Tibetan museum as well, was going to go there about a month ago, but it was too hot outside. 🙂 Though I should say, I’m well-aware of the arguments of both sides, and what you are saying is basically that the Chinese side is right. Fair enough.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:44 am
@Damai #86
spot on about Mao 😉
September 4th, 2008 at 7:51 am
@wahaha,
I think some of your comments got caught by spam filter and have just been released.
I am not Admin.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:14 am
@Wukailong #84
Yes, you may comment on the recommended readings by clicking on the “#” sign.
It would be even better if you can write a post on this topic. 😉
September 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
@adming: Thanks! 🙂
September 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
@SKC
At least we agree now that Richard Spencer does not seem to be a sports reporter 🙂
“No alternate sources” did not give him the right to fabricate the facts. And he was not the only one who twisted the facts. I also quoted the report from Times which had similar problems.
Times and Telegraph are not tabloid or maybe they are 🙂 Whatever they are, they have millions of readers.
As I said, I do not want to shoot the messenger. I recommended to you the post “A reporter’s guide to covering the Olympics”. It is a funny satire, but it renders some interesting points. Certainly there are reporters who did not fabricate the facts. But there are also “clueless sports writers” who did their jobs by copying from China Daily or Telegraph and adding a little bit of their imagination :-).
September 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
WKL,
If you read the comment of Wikipedia in # 85, what does that tell you ?
It fits all the “standard” description on CCP by West media, right ?
Then you look at #4 and #11 of 17 points, Do you think it sounds right ? Do you think a party, which has refused to share political power with anyone in last 58 years, would put #4 and # 11 on the treaty ?
4. The Central Authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. ……
11. In matters related to various reforms in Tibet, there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central Authorities……
I got my conclusions from my trip to Tibet and FROM INFORMATION IN WEST. Even Wikipedia manipulated the information on Tibet, I dont know what more I need to convince me that West side of story on Tibet is lie.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
An interesting debate among Tibetan people: http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/viewthread.php?tid=62138&extra=&page=1
September 4th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Wahaha,
Yeah, I can see where you are coming from, knowing all the western media spread nothing but lies, i.e. mouthpiece for the NWO.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:56 am
@Wahaha,
Do you know if he meant religion as a social phenomenon or religion as personal private faith – or both?
September 5th, 2008 at 2:14 am
@Allen,
Mao said “宗教是一种毒药,他减灭人口,忽视物质的进步。”
“religion is poison, it reduces the population and ignores material progress.”
Can anyone please correct my “server translation error” ?
I think Mao more meant religion as a social phenomenon when he said that to Dalai Lama in 1955. Then it means both when people quote that words later on . I am no religious person but I don’t agree with what Mao said.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:32 am
@BMY,
Do you know if Mao considers religion to be worse than superstition or simply as another type of superstition?
September 5th, 2008 at 3:57 am
To HLL #95:
“Certainly there are reporters who did not fabricate the facts.” – and that’s my point. Shine a light on those who aren’t doing there jobs properly. I have no problem with that. But don’t indiscriminately paint everyone with a huge brush. Otherwise you’d be just as guilty of fabrication as those you accuse. In fact, I’d suggest there are far more who are doing their jobs than those who aren’t.
THis is the irony, of course. Many Chinese get bent out of shape when they see media outlets making disproportionate use of certain facts or events as a tool to purportedly inflame. Yet they’re not shy about making similar disproportionate accusations upon the media against whom they choose to retaliate.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:11 am
@Wahaha: I was just curious what your information sources were when you said “this is what actually happened in Tibet.”
I have no problems with you using Chinese sources, and comparing it to what you have seen. I was just wondering how you could be so sure that your sources describe things exactly as they happened. Your point is that you have been comparing Chinese and Western sources with your own observations and drawing conclusions. That’s all fine with me.
As for what the Western media writes about Tibet, it is of little concern for this discussion, I think, because I haven’t said that these reports are “what actually happened”, and I’ve expressed no general belief that the Western media is right in this case.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:54 am
@Allen #101
I remember I was taught that all religion were superstition when I was little(in the 70s) . So I think Mao meant that.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
@SKY
“THis is the irony, of course. Many Chinese get bent out of shape when they see media outlets making disproportionate use of certain facts or events as a tool to purportedly inflame. Yet they’re not shy about making similar disproportionate accusations upon the media against whom they choose to retaliate.”
I thought you were talking about the republicans, or maybe the democrats? 🙂
September 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I thought you were talking about the republicans, or maybe the democrats?
LOL…good point. HLL.
For arguments’ sake: Fed up with the usual “We good , they bad. We right, they wrong,” argument with my friend, we once had to agree to disagree — a lot of times “facts” don’t matter with regard to matters of faith & cultural beliefs.
In the end, it’s all about making choices and taking sides. Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever changes their minds at all — other than switching sides for whatever practical reasons, necessitating compromises and adjusting the argument and justifications accordingly. Do people get converted through arguments —- without any threat to ones, for example, social or financial status?????
September 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
WKL,
“I was just curious what your information sources were when you said “this is what actually happened in Tibet.”
Cuz those were the good things done by CCP, but West and monks never try to deny that.
By the same reasoning, as West and monks never talk about how Tibet was like before 1950, so what CCP said about pre1950 Tibet, like the brutal serf system, is true. Otherwise, it will be good evidence to bash CCP. CCP also made claim that 95% of Tibetans lived in extreme poverty or were slaved, which was never denied by Dalai Lama and West.
If CCP had made up stories about pre-1950 situation in Tibet, why didnt West media and Dalai deny them ? As no1 in modern world will face that kind of accusation without saying a word, So the story by CCP has to been true.
If the pre-1950 system in Tibet was brutal, then the 1950 invasion was liberation, liberated 95% of Tibetans.
And those monks claimed that PLA killed 1 million Tibetans , so 5% of tibetans = 1mllion Tibetans, so there were 20 million Tibetans in 1950 ? That is stupid lie.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
BTW, 20,000 troop control Tibet ?
Even if that was a bloody invasion, the only way PLA couldve killed 20,000 Tibet is all those nobles and monks lined up to let PLA killed them.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Also, if Han chinese had killed so many Tibetans, wouldnt tibetans have beat me to death when I was alone with them 20 years ago ?
September 6th, 2008 at 12:27 am
@Wahaha – If British had killed so many Irish, wouldn’t they have beat me (and a British military intelligence officer who I was with) to death two months ago when we were alone with them?
September 6th, 2008 at 1:15 am
@Wahaha – I have seen refutations and criticisms of the things you mention, but I feel no need to bring them up now. I have the answers to the question I wanted. 🙂
September 6th, 2008 at 1:34 am
@FOARP, you were lucky they didn’t kick the xxxx out of you two! 😉
September 6th, 2008 at 2:40 am
@Allen – Us four, you mean, and my man’s as tough as nails – but thinking about it, yeah, we were lucky to get away without trouble, but were all drinking together and nobody seemed to be in the mood.
I guess my point is that people, any people anywhere, are a lot less likely to be violent toward you when it’s just you or a small group of people, and they can see that you’re a human being just like everyone else. I guess this just doesn’t happen often enough.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:30 am
@FOARP,
Can’t argue with you there…
That also means there is plenty of hope left for the world, after all!
September 6th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
@FORAP,
With the vast territory of tibet, without road and traffic, CCP had to sent at least 1 milllion soldier over there to control.
My logic is very simple :
People who hate CCP keep mentioning Great Leap and Culture revolution, and CCP simply doesnt want to talk about it, what does that mean ? Well, Great Leap and Culture revolution are ugly parts of CCP history.
Now CCP claims Tibet was a brutal regime before 1950, and West media and Tibet Exile simple dont talk about it, what does that mean ? Well Tibet was a brutal regime before 1950.
May 20th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Yes … the design is clearly needed to be changed 🙂
What would be brighter , nebudu (