[JMJX]

I understand your position but I would like to stress out you're only talking about anglo-saxons medias here. Since I am french, I am obviously shocked to be so roughly assimilated with them.

Not that the whole french medias did far better. Besides, generally speaking, our main tv journal is pure crap while the bbc has a rather good reputation. But, still, I am french and I cannot bear to be judged for what americans or english do.

Unfortunately, Gualish media are as much involved in this as the Anglos. "Le Figaro", "La Libération", "Le Monde","RFI" are all involved in this.

No, that's far more complicated. They don'y control since they don't say to them "you have to write this and you cannot write that". However, they're sometimes providing them false informations the journalists more or less trust (the post - 9/11 american journalism has been damn bad on that side). There are also somefriendhsips bounds here and there, influence problems, etc.

I saw the "lions for lambs" movie recently and I think they did a good job at showing some of those complex mechanisms. One of the two main storylines shows an american journalist who is invited in one of the white house's consellor's desk to be presented a new strategic plan for Afghanistan, and their strange relation (frustration, contempt, manipulation, interdependency but opposite motives, ...). If you really think the govts straightly control the medias, you should absolutely have a look.

It might be more complicated, but the outcome is still the same, no?

Wow ! I am amazed the VOA could have been considered as a trustful media for so long. I can understand this of course, it is all logical. But it still amazes me. Thanks for the information.

You are most welcome.

Well, I would like answer with twopoints here :
* First of all, I know China is really frightened by a separatist scenario. However, western countries do not seem to buy this one so I doubt they could try such a strategy. Of course, I can be wrong and it is possible that different intelligence agencies recommended to use that. Still, I don't think this is achievable.

If you look at some other post here, you can see that other have tried to argue that Tibet is a seperate state. Whether the gov't buys it or not is not important, what's important is that whether they are able to sell the story to the public. And so far a lot of ppl from the west has bought it, but the Chinese certainly didn't. It is not achievable, but I don't think they are really trying to seperate Tibet from China. They are only using it as an excuse to apply pressure on China.

* Seocnd of all, I am absolutely and completely sure the current focus on Tibet and so on has nothing to do with any govts move. There was a focus on China because of the olympics, there was a public debate on whether we should go there or not (it started as soon as the olympic comitee granted the games to your country but it has been relived in january-february), Tibet has the favors of the opinions for a long time now (because of past govts move, sure, but today it looks more like a problem for them) and the chineese govt suddenly used real ammos on their people (something we don't do here, you know). It was far more than what is necessary to create a big media buzz. It is only natural and there is *absolutely* no need for a govt intervention/conspiration. And the Ockham's razor tells us so.

Chinese gov't has already denied that they had fired guns, and so far there is no proof that says otherwise. Tibet became a big issue because all the media are focused on it, not the other way around.

When I read such a sentence, I can only conclude you do not understand the western world.

Well, explain it to me then.

[stalker]

Quote:
On the Tibet issue, the western media have show magnificent syncrynization as if they had rehearsal this before, so unfortunately, I will have to group them this way for reference.

When I read such a sentence, I can only conclude you do not understand the western world.

Tibet was portrayed in an unfalteringly positive light, contrasted with wicked China, prattled about the Dalai Lama, etc.

The Western MSM (mainstream media) serves and reflects the Western elite's interests, I fully agree with JMJX on this one.

[Syphodias]

There's a very obvious and easy solution to problem's with the western media's coverage of events in Tibet. Let them in and let them go where ever they want. If you have nothing to hide why prevent reporters from entering Tibet and why restrict them to controlled tours?
If China wants trust and respect from the west it's going to have to be much more open and transparent.

[Tailz]

Stalker wrote:

Tibet was portrayed in an unfalteringly positive light, contrasted with wicked China, prattled about the Dalai Lama, etc.

The pro-tibet campaigns portray the issue in an unfalteringly negative light while the Chinese Government contrasts this with their coverage being an overly flatteringly positive light. Its still all spin from each side. As always the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[xiliyiwuyan]

1 the young students are all pariots, but they are mislead;the occupation of tian'an men square is against chinese law;
2 the leaders of 'June 4' are those who want to lead china to capitalism system;
3 the main target of PLA is the leaders, not the students, a few mis-killed, i'm sorry, but they deserve, why did they not have their own thoughts and ideas, going to street?
4 'june 4' is a danger to china, but China wan eventually, not studying from soviet union, falling apart.
.................

Since it is still a taboo subject in China. You opinion is perfectly the same as what i was told from the goverment.
you should find more sources about this event. Of course, it is hard.

[Harmattan]

nfortunately, Gualish media are as much involved in this as the Anglos. "Le Figaro", "La Libération", "Le Monde","RFI" are all involved in this.

Oh ! I am pleased to read that not only you speak french but still you read all three of those newspapers. My, I have only the time to read one ! Perhaps you could also point me to the infringing articles ?

It might be more complicated, but the outcome is still the same, no?

No ! Control and influence are two really different things. You cannot absolutely compare the power the two respectively carry.

When you control, it substantially means you can say to the medias what they have to write or say. Practically, it rather means you write the official story and every media will take care to never go too far from this version. Straight, simple and very powerful.

On the contrary, when you influence, you're trying, sometimes (a few ones since the more you use your influence, the more you lose it) to sell to journalists your own version. Complex, delicate and very dangerous.



How do you do it ? I see three ways to do that.

First of all, you're expoiting the lack of information. If journalists have few or no sources, or if truth is unclear (complex topics like sciences or economics) and you can truy to sell them a clear explanation they, and their audience, will be satisfied with.

Second of all, you can use a few people whose you are close to (same commercial interests, bribing, same ideological views, ...). As I say, those are few people and it means the information will be tracable : you know where it came from. It also means it cannot be too far from the truth and must harm the source as few as possible if truth is discovered.

Third of all, you use crazy subjects. Topics where emotion or buzz is so big that journalists will not take all the precautions they should.

All in all, such influence is really limited and could absolutely not lead thousands medias in dozens of countries to say the same thing. We're not in an american movie with a crappy conspiracy scenario here.

If you look at some other post here, you can see that other have tried to argue that Tibet is a seperate state. Whether the gov't buys it or not is not important, what's important is that whether they are able to sell the story to the public. And so far a lot of ppl from the west has bought it, but the Chinese certainly didn't. It is not achievable, but I don't think they are really trying to seperate Tibet from China. They are only using it as an excuse to apply pressure on China.

Well, it is true the CIA has a great role in this manichean vision (a power they owned at a few times in the american history : wars, cold war, post-9/11) and the word "invasion" may be wrong, still it is probably not so far from truth. Because the question or whether Tibet was in China is so much complicated.

Fact is Tibet has (most of the time) in the last centuries been officially a vassal from China but this suzerainety relation has been very loose when not purely symbolic. There are countless proofs of that. The dozens of diplomatic or military actions China took to claim its suzerainety over Tibet again and again. The fact that the three free trade agreements in Tibet the British signed with China have never been respected (because Tibet simply ignored the empire's orders) which lead Britain to invade the Tibet at the beginning of the XXth century. The fact that, since then, Chineese govt had to use important military forces on a regular basis in order to maintain Tibet inside China.

So, saying it was an invasion may be oversimplifying but saying the China's govt were just putting the pieces back together is also oversimplifying, with a sweet taste of propaganda as a bonus.

Now, just for the precision : I don't care much about those historical questions neither I am a fond of theocraties. For me, the only viable answer would be a democratic one, like asking to people who live in Tibet : "do you want to become independant, yes or no ?". And I have honestly no clue about what the answer would be.

Chinese gov't has already denied that they had fired guns, and so far there is no proof that says otherwise. Tibet became a big issue because all the media are focused on it, not the other way around.

a) Chineese governement also said they didn't shoot at Tien-an-men and we know they lied. I don't think the western observers who were there just hallucinated when they claim they heard fire shots. I don't think the chineese govt would have closed the borders if it was not to hide something.

b) Tibet became a big issue because the eyes of the world were on you and there was a big mess at your home. It would have happen whetever the country the olympics games would have been setting up. But the fact it was in China, a country known for violating human rights which promised to partially correct that in exchange of the olympics games just made it worse.

Tibet was portrayed in an unfalteringly positive light, contrasted with wicked China, prattled about the Dalai Lama, etc.

The Western MSM (mainstream media) serves and reflects the Western elite's interests, I fully agree with JMJX on this one.

I agree with the distorsion between how the facts and how big american medias and opinion interpreted events but, please, put things in the context. JMJX is arguing the whole buzz about Tibet results of a western conspiracy against China, involving thousands of medias. Do you agree with him on that ?

Of course the journalists are, for a lot of them, part of the "elite" (at least the intellectual one if not the financial one). But don't mix up things, it has nothing to with the matter.

[JMJX]

Oh ! I am pleased to read that not only you speak french but still you read all three of those newspapers. My, I have only the time to read one ! Perhaps you could also point me to the infringing articles ?

I'm not gonna lie. I don't speak French. I　was only quoting what others have said in their thread on other forums. Unfortunately most of them posted in Chinese and did not provide the original article. So I couldn't find the original articles from these three newspaper office, but I did manage to find a article from "La Libération" that made reference to those two articles from "Le Figaro" and "La Libération".
http://www.liberation.fr/rebonds/making ... 740.FR.php
If you insist, I'll take "Le Monde" out of the list since I couldn't find any proof at the moment.

No ! Control and influence are two really different things. You cannot absolutely compare the power the two respectively carry.

When you control, it substantially means you can say to the medias what they have to write or say. Practically, it rather means you write the official story and every media will take care to never go too far from this version. Straight, simple and very powerful.

On the contrary, when you influence, you're trying, sometimes (a few ones since the more you use your influence, the more you lose it) to sell to journalists your own version. Complex, delicate and very dangerous.



How do you do it ? I see three ways to do that.

First of all, you're expoiting the lack of information. If journalists have few or no sources, or if truth is unclear (complex topics like sciences or economics) and you can truy to sell them a clear explanation they, and their audience, will be satisfied with.

Second of all, you can use a few people whose you are close to (same commercial interests, bribing, same ideological views, ...). As I say, those are few people and it means the information will be tracable : you know where it came from. It also means it cannot be too far from the truth and must harm the source as few as possible if truth is discovered.

Third of all, you use crazy subjects. Topics where emotion or buzz is so big that journalists will not take all the precautions they should.

All in all, such influence is really limited and could absolutely not lead thousands medias in dozens of countries to say the same thing. We're not in an american movie with a crappy conspiracy scenario here.

Well, there are two more possibilities beside gov't influence on them.
1. All of them hate China with such a passion that they decided to unite together and attack China all at the same time by the means of manipulating facts.
2. All of them are idiots and each made this idiotic decision individually. It was pure coincidence.

Well, it is true the CIA has a great role in this manichean vision (a power they owned at a few times in the american history : wars, cold war, post-9/11) and the word "invasion" may be wrong, still it is probably not so far from truth. Because the question or whether Tibet was in China is so much complicated.

Fact is Tibet has (most of the time) in the last centuries been officially a vassal from China but this suzerainety relation has been very loose when not purely symbolic. There are countless proofs of that. The dozens of diplomatic or military actions China took to claim its suzerainety over Tibet again and again. The fact that the three free trade agreements in Tibet the British signed with China have never been respected (because Tibet simply ignored the empire's orders) which lead Britain to invade the Tibet at the beginning of the XXth century. The fact that, since then, Chineese govt had to use important military forces on a regular basis in order to maintain Tibet inside China.

So, saying it was an invasion may be oversimplifying but saying the China's govt were just putting the pieces back together is also oversimplifying, with a sweet taste of propaganda as a bonus.

Now, just for the precision : I don't care much about those historical questions neither I am a fond of theocraties. For me, the only viable answer would be a democratic one, like asking to people who live in Tibet : "do you want to become independant, yes or no ?". And I have honestly no clue about what the answer would be.

This is one way to look at things, an interesting one at that. Even though I don't completely agree with you. I am not interested in convincing you on this.

a) Chineese governement also said they didn't shoot at Tien-an-men and we know they lied. I don't think the western observers who were there just hallucinated when they claim they heard fire shots. I don't think the chineese govt would have closed the borders if it was not to hide something.

b) Tibet became a big issue because the eyes of the world were on you and there was a big mess at your home. It would have happen whetever the country the olympics games would have been setting up. But the fact it was in China, a country known for violating human rights which promised to partially correct that in exchange of the olympics games just made it worse.

A) Did the western observers hear them coming from the police? Did they hear the bullet was shot toward the Tibetans (Chinese police do have the tradition of firing warning shots.)?

B) And why wasn't the media this focused on Corsica or Northern Ireland riots? They should be as big news as the Tibet, aren't they? I stand by what I said, "Tibet became a big issue because all the media are focused on it, not the other way around."

[JMJX]

There's a very obvious and easy solution to problem's with the western media's coverage of events in Tibet. Let them in and let them go where ever they want. If you have nothing to hide why prevent reporters from entering Tibet and why restrict them to controlled tours?
If China wants trust and respect from the west it's going to have to be much more open and transparent.

Two points.

1. China are allowing western media to enter Tibet now.

2. Western media has proven that they are not trust worthy.

[Harmattan]

I'm not gonna lie. I don't speak French. I　was only quoting what others have said in their thread on other forums. Unfortunately most of them posted in Chinese and did not provide the original article. So I couldn't find the original articles from these three newspaper office, but I did manage to find a article from "La Libération" that made reference to those two articles from "Le Figaro" and "La Libération".
http://www.liberation.fr/rebonds/making ... 740.FR.php

Actually, this is an article from Libération which report some chineese press' reactions towards two articles from Libération and Le Figaro.

The first paragraph is an introduction who begins with a quote from a chineese article : "Paris is slacking itself".

This second paragraph reports that comments on China Daily and New China qualified those articles by the following expressions : "an hysterical excitation", "an astonishing censure work" and say they "ignored the chineese voices".

The third paragraph reports one of the commentator is suprised that french newspapers qualified the travel of the torch through Paris as a "fiasco" (failure) and did not exhibit more patriotism.

The fourth paragraph quote the same person who said "the chineese people is really hurted by the chaotic show of an extremist who tried to steal the torch to weak handicaped chineese woman in a wheeling chair. Is it the civil behaviour of the french governement ? A slack in the face of China or in the face of France ?"

The fifth and last pragraph is speaking about chineese internauts reactions and calls to boycott.



Now, I found one of the quoted articles : http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008 ... 609477.htm

Well, here I want to defend our newspapers. Please, let me answer on every point to this article from China Daily.

* It says it was hysterical to talk about a fiasco. Frankly, you saw the images too. Wasn't it ? I foind the author to be quite illogical given the whole article.

* It says it is a shame for France that our newspapers describe it as a fiasco. Well, is reporting facts and describing things as they are a lack of pride ? Besides I don't think France has to be ashamed here, I will answer later.

* It says that people who tried to "attack" (!) the torch bearer, grab the torch or extinguish the flame are extremists and can no longer be called legal or non-violent protests. Actually, people who did such attempt have been stopped by the police. But, because such people did that we cannot prohibit the whole protestation. Besides, regarding legality, stealing is prohibited but it does not apply given the context. Agression ? Well, the goal is only to grab the torch and the torch-grabber is not hit so is it an agression ? Sure it carries violence but not a physical neither a verbal one, it is hard to qualify it as an agression. So what ? Sure, it is sad, but it is still a symbolic protestation and no one is harmed here, except the protestants stopped by the police. Does the fact the girl was in a wheelchair make things worse ? Sure it does but it does not make it illegal.

You can think it is against common sense but you have to realize what are laws and rights. I don't think most of french agree with those methods but should we have condemened their authors, french would have heavily protest and sympathize with them. Because it would mean to remove the right to manifest.

* It says the french newspapers choose to side with the criminals (!) and law-breakers (which law ?). I didn't read the original articles but I would be very surprised to learn this is anything else than an interpretation from this chineese journalist.

* It says the articles did an astonishing censoring job ignoring the Chineese voices. Perhaps those both articles did not mention it. Actually, we saw them in a lot of medias, on tv and radio. Is it that important it has not been reported in the both ingringed articles ? From a Chineese point of view, I can understand it is. But french newspapers are mainly for french people and, for us, unfortunately, this total mess was far more important than the support of Chineese people who came. Still, I see it as a negligence, not a big one however and certainly not censorship.

* It says we think we have the right to point our dirty fingers at China. It is true our fingers our stained with blood from other people. But, should that prevent a country to criticize, no one would have this right in the world. However, the infringed articles did not criticized China, they only reported what happened.

I would be curious to know your thougts about this. I understand chineese people are angry about this and why they are hurted as they were expecting those olympic games to be an acknowledgement (something a lot of us did not understand since China was already seen has a great power). I also understand why they think it should be natural to punish the protestants even if I disagree. Now, can you try to understand our own point of view ?

1. All of them hate China with such a passion that they decided to unite together and attack China all at the same time by the means of manipulating facts.
2. All of them are idiots and each made this idiotic decision individually. It was pure coincidence.

Well, could you please give me the infringing articles, tell me how they are wrong and I will tell whether they are idiots or whether you critics are wrong. Some medias reported bullshits but certainly not all of them, don't you think you exagerate things a bit ? I think there is a lot of miscomprehension here, on both sides.

For example, take a look at this article from The Economist. And I can quote you numerous french articles with similar nuances and which underline the violence and the burst of racism of the riots in Tibet.

I am not interested in convincing you on this.

Actually, given how complex the problem is, you could have probably taught me a few things but I am sure this would have been an endless debate. So I am glad we stop here on this topic.

A) Did the western observers hear them coming from the police? Did they hear the bullet was shot toward the Tibetans (Chinese police do have the tradition of firing warning shots.)?

The chineese govt denied they had fireguns (those are your own words). So, those testimonies are enough to demonstrate they lied. Now, regarding the question whether they really shot rioters, I can concede you there is no definite proof. There are only censorship (the interdiciton for westerners to go there) and numerous suspicious elements.

B) And why wasn't the media this focused on Corsica or Northern Ireland riots? They should be as big news as the Tibet, aren't they? I stand by what I said, "Tibet became a big issue because all the media are focused on it, not the other way around."

As far as I can remember, that has not been a single riot in Corsica. The problem in Corsica is there are independantists activists which use light forms of terrorisim (destruction of buildings as they are empty) and mafia-like methods (threatening enterprises to get money). And the most part of the population would like to get rid of them.

However, you know, it happened we chat with some of those groups. They wanted us to set up a referendum (democratic consultation) to propose to corsicans an autonomy. We accepted it since we have no reason to refuse a democratical move. Guess what ? The corsicans refused it because they trust more the french governement than those independantists. Since then, those groups lost influence and the police action is easier.

Now, regarding Northern Island, when civil war was raging there, I can tell you it did the first headlines on the newspapers ! It is quite old now but I think the buzz was far more important than for Tibet. A this time, UK underwent heavy critics too, bigger than the ones against China today.

[stalker]

I agree with the distorsion between how the facts and how big american medias and opinion interpreted events but, please, put things in the context. JMJX is arguing the whole buzz about Tibet results of a western conspiracy against China, involving thousands of medias. Do you agree with him on that ?

The possibility should not be discounted.

I certainly think there is a Western conspiracy to smear Russia (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney12052007.html).

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is "rolling back democracy" began. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction", Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer possible. They claim that the government has become increasingly authoritarian and that the society is growing less "open and pluralistic".

Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. And it is quite an impressive campaign. A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on foreign Relations.

It's interesting to see to what extent the media has become a propaganda bullhorn for the national security state. Putin's personal approval ratings confirm his enormous popularity, and yet, the media continues to treat him like he's a tyrant. It is utterly incongruous...

And if the number of French people who in opinion polls have negative attitudes to Russia is anything to go by, this campaign has been more successful in several mainland European countries (France, Italy, Spain) than even the Anglo-Saxon world.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a similar information war being waged against China.

[Mike Powell]

Because the smug self-satisfied hypocritic West can't stand a radically different culture, sovereign and potentially as powerful as themselves, develop. Their blood boils with anger at the prospect.

How ironic, once its the Chinese who unwilling to accept the new idea from the west. And now, its the west who refuse to acknowledge China rise.

[Harmattan]

Ok, I'm not gonna waste too muh time on this (just like on every conspiracy theory).

* "They claim that the government has become increasingly authoritarian and that the society is growing less open and pluralistic." Well, there are facts which support this : electoral frauds, restrictive measures on newspapers and journalists, tchetcheny, increasing activism of numerous racial groups, etc. So, no wonder you find such things in newspapers. On the contrary side...

* "Putin's personal approval ratings confirm his enormous popularity, and yet, the media continues to treat him like he's a tyrant." Sorry ? Here, in France, despite the electoral frauds it has been widely stressed out how successful Putin has been in the election and why : his numerous successes as Russia's leader.

* "Edwards and Kemp state that a strategic partnership with Russia is no longer possible." An idea really USA-centrist. European's considerations on Russia are fairly different and mainly focused on energy.

* "And if the number of French people who in opinion polls have negative attitudes to Russia is anything to go by, this campaign has been more successful in several mainland European countries (France, Italy, Spain) than even the Anglo-Saxon world." Any facts to support this assertion ? Because, frankly, there is a vast difference in what you say and what I see in France. I also rode some articles from "Le Temps" (Swiss) and they are also full of nuances.

* "A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on foreign Relations." WOuld it be possible to have to protocol to check this ? Because I gave a few tries and they been unsuccessful.


Now, given you think the american govt is just manipulating thousand of newspapers in the world, I don't think my comments will be any useful. Well, american press surely have troubles, being always too servile towards the power, it is still not that crappy.

[Mike Powell]

Ok, I'm not gonna waste too muh time on this (just like on every conspiracy theory).

* "They claim that the government has become increasingly authoritarian and that the society is growing less open and pluralistic." Well, there are facts which support this : electoral frauds, restrictive measures on newspapers and journalists, tchetcheny, increasing activism of numerous racial groups, etc. So, no wonder you find such things in newspapers. On the contrary side...

* "Putin's personal approval ratings confirm his enormous popularity, and yet, the media continues to treat him like he's a tyrant." Sorry ? Here, in France, despite the electoral frauds it has been widely stressed out how successful Putin has been in the election and why : his numerous successes as Russia's leader.

* "Edwards and Kemp state that a strategic partnership with Russia is no longer possible." An idea really USA-centrist. European's considerations on Russia are fairly different and mainly focused on energy.

* "And if the number of French people who in opinion polls have negative attitudes to Russia is anything to go by, this campaign has been more successful in several mainland European countries (France, Italy, Spain) than even the Anglo-Saxon world." Any facts to support this assertion ? Because, frankly, there is a vast difference in what you say and what I see in France. I also rode some articles from "Le Temps" (Swiss) and they are also full of nuances.

* "A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on foreign Relations." WOuld it be possible to have to protocol to check this ? Because I gave a few tries and they been unsuccessful.


Now, given you think the american govt is just manipulating thousand of newspapers in the world, I don't think my comments will be any useful. Well, american press surely have troubles, being always too servile towards the power, it is still not that crappy.

Well, I do heard some reports suggested that the Pentagon members has created a rigged media forum to discuss the war and conflict around the world. And this forum has sadly, poisoned and mislead some American's mind.

[JMJX]

Actually, this is an article from Libération which report some chineese press' reactions towards two articles from Libération and Le Figaro.

The first paragraph is an introduction who begins with a quote from a chineese article : "Paris is slacking itself".

This second paragraph reports that comments on China Daily and New China qualified those articles by the following expressions : "an hysterical excitation", "an astonishing censure work" and say they "ignored the chineese voices".

The third paragraph reports one of the commentator is suprised that french newspapers qualified the travel of the torch through Paris as a "fiasco" (failure) and did not exhibit more patriotism.

The fourth paragraph quote the same person who said "the chineese people is really hurted by the chaotic show of an extremist who tried to steal the torch to weak handicaped chineese woman in a wheeling chair. Is it the civil behaviour of the french governement ? A slack in the face of China or in the face of France ?"

The fifth and last pragraph is speaking about chineese internauts reactions and calls to boycott.

Like I said, I don't speak French. It is difficult for me to search for the articles. I found this one by shear luck. I do apologize for this.

Now, I found one of the quoted articles : http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008 ... 609477.htm

Well, here I want to defend our newspapers. Please, let me answer on every point to this article from China Daily.

* It says it was hysterical to talk about a fiasco. Frankly, you saw the images too. Wasn't it ? I foind the author to be quite illogical given the whole article.

* It says it is a shame for France that our newspapers describe it as a fiasco. Well, is reporting facts and describing things as they are a lack of pride ? Besides I don't think France has to be ashamed here, I will answer later.

* It says that people who tried to "attack" (!) the torch bearer, grab the torch or extinguish the flame are extremists and can no longer be called legal or non-violent protests. Actually, people who did such attempt have been stopped by the police. But, because such people did that we cannot prohibit the whole protestation. Besides, regarding legality, stealing is prohibited but it does not apply given the context. Agression ? Well, the goal is only to grab the torch and the torch-grabber is not hit so is it an agression ? Sure it carries violence but not a physical neither a verbal one, it is hard to qualify it as an agression. So what ? Sure, it is sad, but it is still a symbolic protestation and no one is harmed here, except the protestants stopped by the police. Does the fact the girl was in a wheelchair make things worse ? Sure it does but it does not make it illegal.

You can think it is against common sense but you have to realize what are laws and rights. I don't think most of french agree with those methods but should we have condemened their authors, french would have heavily protest and sympathize with them. Because it would mean to remove the right to manifest.

* It says the french newspapers choose to side with the criminals (!) and law-breakers (which law ?). I didn't read the original articles but I would be very surprised to learn this is anything else than an interpretation from this chineese journalist.

* It says the articles did an astonishing censoring job ignoring the Chineese voices. Perhaps those both articles did not mention it. Actually, we saw them in a lot of medias, on tv and radio. Is it that important it has not been reported in the both ingringed articles ? From a Chineese point of view, I can understand it is. But french newspapers are mainly for french people and, for us, unfortunately, this total mess was far more important than the support of Chineese people who came. Still, I see it as a negligence, not a big one however and certainly not censorship.

* It says we think we have the right to point our dirty fingers at China. It is true our fingers our stained with blood from other people. But, should that prevent a country to criticize, no one would have this right in the world. However, the infringed articles did not criticized China, they only reported what happened.

I would be curious to know your thougts about this. I understand chineese people are angry about this and why they are hurted as they were expecting those olympic games to be an acknowledgement (something a lot of us did not understand since China was already seen has a great power). I also understand why they think it should be natural to punish the protestants even if I disagree. Now, can you try to understand our own point of view ?

First of all, the title "Giving China a slap in the face" itself is insulting enough.
Second of all, protecting the torch and the torch runners is the responsibility of the Paris police department. Yet despite the amount of the police force（300 men from what I read, unconfirmed） that was stationed along the relay route, they still fail their responsibility. And right after their screw up, they called their failure "giving China a slp in the face". The article called it hysterical, but I fail to appreciate the irony here and is a little anger by this.

So I think
* It may not be hysterical, cause it is angering me.

* It is a shame for France that your newspaper called your failure "a slap in China's face" as if it is a triumph.

* He only intended to take the torch away? Well, good for him. And he only intended protest, does that mean he is completely justified? Why would I give a damn about what he INTENDED to do? The fact is he used violence against a physically disabled girl.

Assault, disturbance of public order, and so on... he, in fact, is a criminal.

*We have witnesses that testify against the western media are deliberately avoiding the Chinese supporters while only interviewing and taking shots of the protesters(This is pretty much everywhere, not limited to Paris). One of my friend saw this and actually walked up to a reporter and asked him if he would interview her. And the reporter said, "No, get out the way." And then pushed her to the side. She almost fell(Falling in such a big crowd could be lethal).

* Like I have said, I welcome constructive criticism. But if someone repeatedly tells you you are an idiot for no reason, I don't know what you would do, I would beat the crap out of him.

* I see your point of view, but just like you don't agree with our point of view, I don't agree with yours either.

Well, could you please give me the infringing articles, tell me how they are wrong and I will tell whether they are idiots or whether you critics are wrong. Some medias reported bullshits but certainly not all of them, don't you think you exagerate things a bit ? I think there is a lot of miscomprehension here, on both sides.

For example, take a look at this article from The Economist. And I can quote you numerous french articles with similar nuances and which underline the violence and the burst of racism of the riots in Tibet.

There is actually a web-site dedicated to collecting such proof of idiocy.
http://www.anti-cnn.com/
And I can't open the article you provided.

The chineese govt denied they had fireguns (those are your own words). So, those testimonies are enough to demonstrate they lied. Now, regarding the question whether they really shot rioters, I can concede you there is no definite proof. There are only censorship (the interdiciton for westerners to go there) and numerous suspicious elements.

How do you know the shots are from the police?
And are "censorship and suspicious elements" enough to say that China is "crushing Tibet uprising"?

As far as I can remember, that has not been a single riot in Corsica. The problem in Corsica is there are independantists activists which use light forms of terrorisim (destruction of buildings as they are empty) and mafia-like methods (threatening enterprises to get money). And the most part of the population would like to get rid of them.

However, you know, it happened we chat with some of those groups. They wanted us to set up a referendum (democratic consultation) to propose to corsicans an autonomy. We accepted it since we have no reason to refuse a democratical move. Guess what ? The corsicans refused it because they trust more the french governement than those independantists. Since then, those groups lost influence and the police action is easier.

Now, regarding Northern Island, when civil war was raging there, I can tell you it did the first headlines on the newspapers ! It is quite old now but I think the buzz was far more important than for Tibet. A this time, UK underwent heavy critics too, bigger than the ones against China today.

And do you know anything about the Northern Ireland riot in 2005?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159969,00.html
And here is FOX's wording on the issue, then compare it to their comment on Tibet.

[JMJX]

Ok, that article finally openned up, and it has gotta be one of the most bias article pretending to be neutral.

On China's, even those suggesting something as innocuous as a dialogue are being pilloried as “traitors”. Foreign journalists have received death threats.

So? There are extremists in every group of ppl. There are westerner believes China is hell, and CCP should be overthrown this instant, and ppl like Cafferty. Are there any proof that calling those ppl "traitors" are widely accepted by Chinese?

Coverage in the Western press of unrest in Tibet has been rather one-sided. It has stressed the harsh Chinese crackdown on peaceful protests and tended to overlook the violence by Tibetans. For most Chinese observers, what happened was an outburst of vicious racist thuggery directed at ethnic Han Chinese in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. And the authorities, incomprehensibly, tolerated it until 19 people had been killed.

That's it? Overlooked violence by Tibetans? Stressed harsh Chinese crackdown on peaceful protests? And yet the western media would go through all the trouble to editing pictures and using pictures from Nepal and India to prove that China indeed is using violence against protests, and they "overlooked" the seperatists' violence?
Oh, and since we are on the topic, plz let me quote our official from Tibet gov't in exile, Mr. Da Wa Cha Ren.

"Firstof all, I must state, Tibetan used non-violence from begining to end. From Tibetan point of view, violence means harming someone's life. In the videos you can see (Tibetan) beating Han, but that was only beating, the Han all ran away after the beating, it was only beating, not harming (someone's) life. And, and, the ones who were killed were all by accident. From Chinese communist reporting you can see clearly, they (Han) all ran upstairs when Tibetans came smashing the doors, they were hiding when Tibetan started the fires, they didn't escape but were hiding, so they were all later burned to death by accident as a result, and the those who started the fire, the arsonists, didn't know there were Han people upstairs. So the dead not only included Han and Tibetan, so these things were just kind of accidents, not killing."

I have no comment to this, I can only stand in awe.

Tibetans have real grievances, after decades of cultural discrimination and economic marginalisation.

And how did we discriminate against Tibet culture I might ask?

Having lied to its people about Tibet for so long, how could it explain to them a new, less hostile policy?

What have we lied to whom?

It seems also to have convinced many of its people of the truth of two other egregious lies: that criticism of China's government is an attack on the Chinese people, and that dialogue is a sign of weakness.

Attacking the gov't not the ppl by saying "Over the past 50 years the Chinese people are basically mob and the culprits."? Well, then yeah, the gov't lied to us.


In conclusion, this article is full of crap.

[Mike Powell]

Perhaps one thing that in everyone that feels not good about China, sinophobia. This phenomenon of fear has existed since the ancient time in Asia and sadly, reach to Europe and American populace.

This fear alone has caused some darkside in Asia, Europe, America and Australia histories. Chinese across the globe sometimes, were treated like a "disease" than a human being. Chinese Coolies were once viewed as vampires that will devour the society in the foreign countries until some politicians fear and ignorance has applied some anti-Chinese racial policy that happened inside a country that champions democracy.

We live in this world of globalisation but sadly, some peoples' mind are not. The China's rise has put this phenomenon of fear even greater than the western's colonial era. Like the old said, a big tree gets the most wind. And whatever things that may involve China and non-western, the "big tree" will gets the blame.

A word from the fictional Star Wars character Master Yoda, fear is a power of dark side because fear itself can becomes anger. And as a Chinese in Malaysia myself, I do hope that this phenomenon of fear will not cloud the other nations' leader judgement.

[Tailz]

One can hardly call the many China Towns around the world, social integration, more like self imposed segregation. I certainly agree with a lot of what you have written Mike Powell, but all coins have two sides, and as much as there is a dark site to western society, so too is there a dark side to eastern societies - or for that matter, all societies and peoples. The Chinese are no different and have acted no different in the same circumstances - it is foolish to think that the Chinese are innocent of the same incorrectness you see in others - for we are all the same species and suffer the same flaws.

All your machinations lead towards is providing grounds for an argument of "Us and them, we are righteous, they are not. We are good, they are evil."

The foolishness of the clash of culture, the idiot ideals of differencet races simply because some look different to others - will be the deminse of nationalism.

[amanamuse]

What do you really want from us?

No more posts like this one would do it.

[Mike Powell]

One can hardly call the many China Towns around the world, social integration, more like self imposed segregation. I certainly agree with a lot of what you have written Mike Powell, but all coins have two sides, and as much as there is a dark site to western society, so too is there a dark side to eastern societies - or for that matter, all societies and peoples. The Chinese are no different and have acted no different in the same circumstances - it is foolish to think that the Chinese are innocent of the same incorrectness you see in others - for we are all the same species and suffer the same flaws.

All your machinations lead towards is providing grounds for an argument of "Us and them, we are righteous, they are not. We are good, they are evil."

The foolishness of the clash of culture, the idiot ideals of differencet races simply because some look different to others - will be the deminse of nationalism.

Words from my religion Bubbhism has said, never fear the "dragon", the "dragon" is a mythical creature that will takes time to understand. And never kill the "dragon" out of our fear, for the price of our fear will be the wrath of karma itself.

We are living in the world where hundreds of culture will soon collide, and thats the fact. Its only depends how good is our own tolerance and acceptance on the other.

[Tailz]

Mike Powell wrote:

Words from my religion Bubbhism has said, never fear the "dragon", the "dragon" is a mythical creature that will takes time to understand. And never kill the "dragon" out of our fear, for the price of our fear will be the wrath of karma itself.

We are living in the world where hundreds of culture will soon collide, and thats the fact. Its only depends how good is our own tolerance and acceptance on the other.

Oh I agree, but do these many China Towns provide evidence that foreign cultures and societies have been willing to accept and tolerate the foreign Chinese, even to the extent of letting them found a separate entity "town" within the parent society and culture. But those very foreign Chinese have not been accepting or tolerant of the culture and society they have entered by segregating themselves into their own little "China" instead of enjoying the society they are now within.

So who is not understanding or tolerant of who?

I'm all for sharing and understanding, but lets call a spade a spade - you can not expect understanding and tolerance in another society if you plan to live there and not be a part of it.