An
angry crowd of Uyghur locals confront Chinese security forces
on an Urumqi street. From July 5-7 last year, at least 197
people
were in killed in rioting that pit Xinjiang's
ethnic Uyghurs against
Han
Chinese.
Xinjingbao, People's Republic of China
Why Western Media Coverage
Distorts China
Is China's media less biased than
the West's? According to this article from the state-controlled Xinjingbao
by foreign affairs analyst Song Luzheng, Western government and conglomerate
control and media reliance on 'objective reporting' leads to lopsided outcomes
in news coverage - and a misinterpretation of events.
The "7-5" incident in Urumqi, Xinjiang Province (July 5, 2009) reverberated throughout
the world. The unrest again set off a “news war” between East and West.
Technically speaking, China's performance was impeccable. First, the event was
publicly reported, and on the following day domestic and foreign journalists
were free to do unrestricted on-the-spot reporting. From a counter-terrorism
point of view - considering the terrorist character of the event which
consisted of bloody violence against civilians, East and West should have been
allies. Therefore, China should have been given seen as being on the right side
in this “news war.” Unexpectedly, however, the Western media offered nothing
but objective reporting - no backing taking a stand and no condemnation of the
violence. This disappointed the Chinese people and left a sense of foreboding.
As expected, the Western
media began to shift on the second day, citing improvable eyewitness testimony
and information from the “World Uighur Congress” exiled in Germany - which was
quickly exposed by overseas Chinese as forged. So in the Western World, the
image of Uyghur's as innocent victims and peaceful demonstrators began to
emerge. On the third day, reports began to emerge that were heavily biased. The
leading French newspaper Le Figaro used the headline, Bloody
Suppression in Western China. At this point, what was a terrorist attack on
a civilian population was distorted in the West into repression of peaceful
demonstrators by the Chinese government. In this context, the terrorism-linked
"World Uyghur Congress" and its chairman, Rebiya Kadeer, have been in
the limelight. This is particularly true in the West, where Kadeer has become a
media darling. The Melbourne International Film Festival not only ignored
Chinese protests about screening her whitewash of a documentary, but it also
invited Japan, the rest of Australia and other countries to watch it. The
“opening up” of Chinese news was once rebuffed by harsh international reality.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
First, for example, if a Han Chinese
is approached for an interview by a Western journalist in Xinjiang, he might
dare to say, "Will you dare to go and broadcast everything I say? I know
you'll edit my comments to fit the meaning you want them to. I won't accept
your interview!" After being deceived so many times, this ringing rejection
is a result of the awakening of China's people. The
West flaunts its “press freedom,” but this no way equates to being fair and
objective. The Western media as it has developed is either in government
hands, such as French channels 1 and 2, Agence France-Presse and Deutsche
Presse-Agentur (which are subject to government regulation), and Reuters,
which is secretly funded by the government [Britain]. Otherwise, Western media
is in the hands of a media consortium. For example, the largest shareholder of Le
Figaro is the military industrial group Dassault. The American media is
controlled by six groups: Murdoch Group (Fox TV, New York Post, Times of
London), General Electric (NBC, National Broadcasting Corp.),
Time Warner (CNN, Voice of America), Disney (ABC, American
Broadcasting Company), Comcast (largest cable TV company), and Clear Channel (with most
of the more than 1,200 U.S. radio stations). As for the independence of the Associated
Press, its news is by definition "subject to official sources."
Taking into account the Western consortia, political parties and government
relations, objectivity and fairness would be impossible.
During the 2004 U.S.
presidential election, surprising media propaganda led most Americans to
actually believe the absurd proposition that [George W.] Bush would create 3 million
jobs and that [John] Kerry would raise taxes 300 times! In August 2009, Western
human rights organizations released a report that stated Hamas rocket attacks
against Israel constituted war crimes. Yet when Israel invaded Lebanon, causing
heavy civilian casualties and using internationally-banned white phosphorus
shells, where were the human rights reports? In fact, the Chinese people
(especially the intellectuals) have reflected on this deeply. Why would they so
easily believe the self-promotion of Western press “freedom” and “objectivity”?
After all, the success of a cheater depends not only on his deception, but on
the poor reasoning skills of the person being cheated.
Secondly, the need for
counter-terrorism after 2001 resulted in the establishment of a new Western
alliance with China. But a few years later, with terrorist forces in temporary
retreat, China on the rise, and the U.S.-originated financial crisis sweeping
the globe, the West felt threatened to its very marrow. This is why East-West
relations began to take a turn for the worse in the second half of 2007. Therefore,
the West naturally couldn't pass up the opportunity to attack or contain China:
the Olympic Games, Taiwan independence, Tibetan unrest, and then Xinjiang in
its turn. This is how it seems to the West: if things turn out well, at least
we can enjoy diminishing China's interests and China trade; if things turn out badly,
at least we have a leg to stand on in China's domestic affairs - slowing the
momentum of its rise and keeping Western hegemony in world politics. Thus, in
this context, rather than Western press freedom, distorted reporting is much
more commonplace.
Once again we see in this Western
news game that the West maintains an unchallenged right to be heard. I recall
that after the September 11, 2001 incident, the United States quickly
recognized Osama bin Laden (whom it had previously supported) as the culprit,
and loudly proclaimed that the world had two choices: either the United States
or terrorism. This included the Arab world, no doubt. However, when the same
thing happened in China, and China identified the culprit of the terrorist
incidents as Rebiya Kadeer,
the actions of the West were quite different. It seems that the more China
accused, the more red-faced the West became. In fact, some people think that
China's response aided Kadeer, since it raised her group’s standing. But hasn't
bin Laden's standing been raised by the U.S.? Why does the U.S. accuse Osama
bin Laden? Just to keep him in hiding?
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Finally, the reason China has
repeatedly fallen behind in the international media arena is that it has an
important job acting as referee of Western injustice. In the balance of power
between China and the West, China is naturally at a disadvantage. Actually,
anyone who competes with Kadeer is at a disadvantage. This isn't because China lacks
knowledge or skill, but that the West is such an unfair judge. Even though
Chinese learn and use Western methods, it's to no avail.
But contrary to Western
calculations, although they can unjustly help Kadeer have her moment of fame, it
comes at the cost of their credibility among the Chinese people and lost
influence with liberal groups at home and abroad. The Chinese people have
united on the side of China's political elite. As the Chinese saying goes, “one
must have either external enemies or internal strife.” Under the pressure of
“external enemies” from the West, China has united and is recovering fast. With
the reversal of fortunes of East and West, events like "7-5" will no
longer be seen. As for the “opening up” of China's news media, it will move
ahead based on national conditions. After all, the more open China becomes, the
greater the price paid by the West for its injustices, and the more marginalized
its role will become.
*Song Luzheng [宋鲁郑]is an
analyst of current affairs and international politics
