Commentary: CNN owes China an apology for slandering

[shan]

The American Cable News Network (CNN) is making news with China, again. Last time, cnn.com editors chopped a picture with more than 10 stone-throwing Tibetan mobs chasing a Chinese riot police wagon nowhere to see, causing wrath of millions for photo doctoring. This time, an amateur anchor blasted out Chinese people as "goons and thugs" and Chinese-made goods as "junk".

 

Sixty-six-year-old Jack Cafferty, in a TV program called Situation Room that aired on April 9, obviously unhappy with China "holding hundreds of billions of dollars" of U.S. paper deficits, more and more American consumers "buying from (inexpensive) Wal-Mart", and certainly the "changed relationship" with China, moaned: "The Chinese are basically the same bunch goons and thugs they have been in the past 50 years."

 

Many, assumingly including U.S. citizens, are stunned and shocked with such racist and vicious attack without any cover on a group of people. As a matter of fact, in the past years, Chinese people are getting on good terms with a huge number of earth residents, of different color, different language, from different continents.

 

As the head wind is changing its direction, Cafferty becomes sick.

 

So annoyed by Cafferty's despicable and shameless attack on an American national TV, American Chinese have launched an online petition, requesting an apology from CNN. The petition has got more than 11,000 signatures. China's Foreign Ministry, on April 15, also strongly condemned Cafferty's weird remarks, demanding CNN and the anchor himself take back the malicious remarks, and apologize to all Chinese people.

 

It is rare for the world audience to hear such a blatant discrimination against an ethnic group of people with such a derogatory connotation. What Cafferty did was using his privilege as a CNN anchor to insult China and slander all Chinese people. He is pathetic to have wantonly violated professional ethics of journalism and lost his conscience.

 

The United States is known for "melting-pot" culture, and the dangling "American dream" which have inspired people of different colors to emigrate to it. However, the like of Jack Cafferty, sitting before TV screens watched by tens of thousands of audiences in America and elsewhere, and attacking Chinese people, is nothing but showing its rudeness, arrogance, ignorance and hostility towards China.

 

After years of efforts by some Western media to demonize China has failed, the ink of Cafferty have come to the forefront to directly assault China, which reflects the utter frustration and despair of some wicked men and women.

 

The biased reportage on the Lhasa riot that took place on March 14 by CNN and some other western press has backfired. Tens of millions of Chinese, living at home and abroad, the young and Internet savvy especially, have rallied together. They have stood firmly behind the Chinese government and fought back the twisting journalists with one big voice: Stop doing it!

 

Angry with Cafferty's outburst, an increasing number of Chinese people have written on Chinese online chatrooms, demanding the Foreign Ministry deport CNN from China. China Daily website may not agree with the punitive measure, but a prompt and sincere apology from Cafferty and his organization is needed.

Wolf Blitzer: "...This is a very diferent China today, that would be inexistent 10 years ago, certainly 20 or 30 years ago. This communist regime today of capitals, regime of huge economic, super power that allows the United States to maintain the economic relationship with China."


Jack Cafferty: "Well, I don't know if China is any different, but our relationship with China is certainly different. We're in hawk to the Chinese up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They're holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We also are running hundred of billions of dollars worth of trade deficits with them, as we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal- Mart. So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."

[shan]

http://www.petitiononline.com/cnncaff/petition.html


God , those news really keep me busy these days

I wonder if i can go on under so many blows .

[shan]

！中国人在法国人的论坛里发表的一首诗


   从我们被称为东亚病夫时起就已经被当作“黄祸”。
　　当我们被宣传为下一个超级大国时，我们又被当成了威胁。 　　
　　当我们关上大门时，你们靠走私毒品来“打开市场”。
　　当我们想拒绝毒品时，你们就用武力强行推销。　　
　　等我们也信奉自由贸易时，你们却责骂我们夺走了你们的工作。 　当我们碎裂成几片时，你们的军队闯进来要求公平分赃。
　　当我们把碎片重拼接好时，你们又叫嚣要“解放被入侵的西藏”。 \我们尝试共产主义，你们恨我们是共产分子。
　　好，我们接纳了资本主义，你们又恨我们是资本家
　　当我们有十亿人民时，你们说我们正在压垮这个星球。
　　于是我们实行了计划生育，可是你们又说这是违反人权。
　　当我们贫穷时，你们认为我们是狗。 　
　　当我们借给你们现金时，你们又骂我们使你们负了债。
　　当我们建设我们的工业时，你们称我们是污染者。 　
　　你们一边享用我们提供的物美价廉的商品，一边责备我们助长了温室效应。 　　
　　当我们购买石油时，你们嚷嚷着“剥削非洲和支持种族屠杀”。 　而当你们为石油发动战争时，你们说它是“解放”。 　
　　当我们在***时，你们惊呼，然后要插手替我们制定律法。 　　
　　当我们依法平息暴乱时，你们称这是“野蛮镇压”。 　
　　当我们沉默时，你们说我们没有言论自由。
　　当我们不再沉默时，你们又说我们仇外，因为全都被洗了脑。　　　“你们为什么那么恨我们？”我们不禁要问。
　　“不不不，我们不恨任何人，我们西方世界一向文明、公平、宽容、博爱……” 　　
　　“你们理解我们吗？”我们不禁疑惑。
　　“开什么玩笑，这还用问？！”你们说，“别忘了我们有世界上最好的媒体——AFP、CNN和BBCs.”


 

[Art]

The Chinese miss the point. In China anything shown on TV is pre-approved by the state and so represents the official viewpoint. In the west we have free speech and so anyone can say pretty much anything they like on TV representing nobody's views but their own, an attitude best summed up by a quote from Voltaire

"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

The particular interview you take exception to is as much a criticism of the American gov'ts economic and foreign policies as it is a criticism of China.

[The Smoking Man]

True for normal citizens but not for news anchors.

Stations across the USA are frequently required to apologize or fire news anchors for blatant editorializing in this way.

A private citizen can get away with it but an employee of a news service can't since their speech is required to be the voice of the 4th estate.

Now what do the French have to say about the 4th estate?

In the link to the Forth Estate on Wiki:

The role of news gathering organizations in society as a check on the abuses of the powerful, and a provider of information needed to keep citizens informed, thus supporting public discourse. -Brian Feeney

Thus the forth estate is to gather the facts and present them to the public telling them what is going on so that they may be better informed.

Too much today, we have the press making political statements rather than reporting the facts.

Isn't this the argument everyone uses against Fox News, for example?

Didn't you just come out in a previous posting on this system and support one of Clinton's aids because a reporter quoted her even though at the end of her speech she stated 'off the record'?

Obviously, you believe there are some rules in addition to normal free speech that reporters must follow or you would not have made the earlier reference to some 'additional rules' for the 'forth estate' because you didn't quote Voltaire when The Scotsman reported what Clinton's adviser said but quoted a separate rule that neither you nor I must follow when listening to someone else.

In fact, a reporter CAN refuse to divulge the names of people who tell things to them or identify them in any way where you or I would be required by the rules of evidence to tell a court of law what was said and BY WHOM.

Woodward and Bernstein were not required to supply the US congress the name of 'Deep Throat' which would have simplified the impeachment proceedings against Nixon wouldn't you say? And yet no US citizen can refuse to answer a question from a court except in the case of self incrimination or that it amounts to testimony against a spouse.

Free speech is only truly accepted if the words are said as a private citizen.

The other 'Estates': The Clergy, The Government and The Press do indeed have restrictions on their speech.

The same words could not be said in the British Parliament for example.

Witness the recent calls for the Archbishop of Canterbury to be removed from office for statements about Shariah Law.

In Canada:

'Moron Bush' aide resigns

A top aide to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien resigned on Tuesday after nearly a week of political tension over a remark she reportedly made about the president of the United States being a "moron".

Francoise Ducros tendered her resignation in a letter to the prime minister saying her position had become untenable.

Mr Chretien, whose relations with George W Bush already appeared strained before the current controversy, had refused to accept his aide's initial offer to resign on the grounds that the remark was made in a private conversation with a reporter.

"I'm very sorry. She was very good, a very competent person and served me and served the government extremely well and I wish her good luck," he told reporters on Tuesday.

Ducros made her reported remark in the context of Iraq

Ms Ducros, the prime minister's director of communications since mid-1999, is due to return to a post she held earlier in the public service, a government statement said in Ottawa.

"It is very apparent to me that the controversy will make it impossible for me to do my job," she said in her letter.

"I would therefore like to leave my position as immediately."

Earlier she apologised for her remark, adding: "If I made comments in the context of what I understood to be a private conversation, I regret that they have attracted so much media attention."

So why was her speech not protected?

Ironically, in this case, she was overheard saying this in a private conversation and it was reported by the Forth Estate. Had she been in an official interview and subject to your earlier views on speech, all she would have had to have said was 'off the record' and they would not have been able to report it, isn't that correct? So politicians have some speech that is 'off limits' ... ie. it can be said but not reported.

Now we have a news anchor making a statement on camera during the execution of his job in the forth estate and somehow, with his extra rights and privilege as a journalist, this has become allowed?

What of Andrew Gilligan and the Kelley Affair? Why did so many people lose their jobs for merely reporting the truth?

[shan]

The Foreign Ministry Wednesday summoned CNN's Beijing executives to lodge a solemn representation for failing to apologize for insulting remarks by one of its commentators.

Spokesman Liu Jianchao said a statement issued by CNN on Tuesday failed to apologize for Jack Cafferty's remarks, which "maliciously attacked the Chinese people and seriously violated the professional ethics of journalism".

 
"CNN's ulterior motive in targeting the Chinese government, continuing to mislead public opinion as well as deceiving the Chinese people will never succeed", Liu said in a written statement.
"Journalists should abide by ethics, and don't have the privilege to slander or rail at anybody or any government", Liu said in the statement, noting that CNN's recent reporting programs completely went against the principles of being objective and balanced - which the network often claimed as its basic standards for news coverage.

"We once again solemnly urge CNN and Cafferty to withdraw the vile remarks and make a sincere apology to all Chinese people", Liu said.

Beijing on Tuesday demanded an apology for Cafferty's comments aired on April 9, when he called Chinese products "junk" and the Chinese "goons and thugs".

CNN's statement said it "would like to clarify that it was not Cafferty's, nor CNN's, intent to cause offense to the Chinese people", and would "apologize to anyone who has interpreted the comments in this way".

"CNN is a network that reports the news in an objective and balanced fashion. However, as part of our coverage, we also employ commentators who provide robust opinions that generate debate".

The network also said Cafferty was offering his "strongly held" opinion of the Chinese government, not China's people, adding that he clarified the point on Monday.

The statement failed to assuage the feelings of many Chinese netizens, who think the "apology" lacks sincerity.

"The CNN statement in no way can be interpreted as an apology. I don't see any sincerity in that. It tried to defend its insulting remarks," said one posting on China Daily's website. "We demand a formal and sincere apology," it added.

A netizen named "Get it straight" said "the insult to the Chinese government was also an insult to all Chinese people".

"It does not change the racist and hostile nature of the comments," the netizen added.

Ding Gang, a commentator at People's Daily, said Cafferty's words reminded him of the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in the United States in 1882.

The act barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States and denied them naturalization following large-scale anti-Chinese protests in the 1870s.

"Though the US Congress abolished the act in 1943, racial discrimination is still deeply rooted in the minds of some people like Cafferty," Ding wrote on the People's Daily website.

[Art]

TSM free speech is protected in the west other than libelous or slanderous remarks which only applies to individuals.

The examples you gave of people who suffered because their comments were reported has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of free speech. In no instance did these people suffer any legal sanctions for stating their opinions. They suffered politically which is an entirely different matter driven by it's own unique dynamics. For example, if Gordon Brown decides to publicly call the British electorate a bunch of wankers and is then voted out of office it is not his right to free speech which is being punished it is what he said.

In the case of the BBC, this is a publicly funded broadcaster and for that reason is allowed far less editorial leeway than independent broadcasters and is also set a far higher standard of proof when asserting a 'fact' with an independent body monitoring them to ensure they adhere to those standards. In the case of Gilligan they clearly did not live up to their charter. Whether what Gilligan said was right or wrong is irrelevant, it was the process by which it was reported that was found to be sub-standard. The guy was lazy and didn't do his job properly and his supervisors didn't do theirs by ignoring his lapses. That is what they got fired for.

Stations such as CNN and FOX are fully independent commercial stations and as such are entitled to slant the news anyway they like. Generally in practice they represent the views of their owners but even they have to be careful not to alienate their viewers and thus their advertisers as ultimately to do so would lead to commercial failure or at the very least restrict their audience to a narrow niche. For this reason some commentators do get fired but again not because they overstepped their right to free speech but because of what they said and it's commercial impact.

[The Smoking Man]

It will be interesting how this commercial company will report anything from China and the olympics when their visas are revoked.


Ask the Beeb what that feels like for a few years.

You see, the political thing runs both ways.

In a foreign country, it is the country that recognizes press credentials and issues the press visas.

I am sure CNN will appreciate being able to use the Al Jazeera Olympic Feed to report to their audience.

 

[The Smoking Man]

One thing I think you're missing here, Art is that there was no differentiation between 'government', 'farmers', 'manufacturers', 'monks', 'Christians', etc.

Apparently, ALL Chinese are like this no matter where they are and what their professions or upbringing.

It's akin to saying 'all niggers are lazy'.

So, do all manufacturers from China ship crap?

Do all Chinese people act like thugs?

That is what CNN would have us believe.

And how many Americans ship crap and act like thugs? Are they in the control of the Chinese too?

What the Chinese are complaining of is blatant 'racism' that tends to dog visible minorities.

[The Smoking Man]

Let's look at another form of racism that is being forgotten here too.

The protesters in Tibet deliberately targeted Chinese and Moslem stores and torched a Mosque. These were run by simple businessmen like you or I and were probably run by at least 3rd generation TIBETANS since they were probably born there.

These PROTESTERS are not being called racist or terrorists.

WHY?

Is the hatred of the Chinese government sacrosanct and does it allow blatant racism to be forgiven regardless of culpability?

And to top it off, CNN is responsible for cropping OFF the protesters from the picture that showed a truck merely driving along the road while being pelted by the very people that CNN defends.

That, believe it or not, IS media bias and racism.

Neither is defensible under the laws of free speech in the USA.

In fact, it is a hate crime.

[Art]

One thing I think you're missing here, Art is that there was no differentiation between 'government', 'farmers', 'manufacturers', 'monks', 'Christians', etc.

Apparently, ALL Chinese are like this no matter where they are and what their professions or upbringing.

It's akin to saying 'all niggers are lazy'.

So, do all manufacturers from China ship crap?

Do all Chinese people act like thugs?

That is what CNN would have us believe.

And how many Americans ship crap and act like thugs? Are they in the control of the Chinese too?

What the Chinese are complaining of is blatant 'racism' that tends to dog visible minorities.

I'm not missing it at all TSM. The guy's comments were racist but with free speech even racists get to air their views. Acknowledging someone's right to express their views doesn't mean to say you agree with them and at least that way you know who these racists are though while on the subject of overt racism having seen some of the comments on here from Chinese people in relation to blacks the word hypocrites springs instantly to mind.

[The Smoking Man]

But then the stock answer of 'this third world country does it so we can be forgiven for doing it back' also doesn't fly.

Since Rhodesians hacked to death all the white Rhodesians then it is okay if we hack to death Rhodesian refugees who get uppity.

You are sounding vaguely American with that opinion Art.

You also glossed over the racial targeting of innocent Han and Moslems which was in the follow-up.

When do the 'protesters' become 'terrorists'.

Are shop girls and a mosque so much smaller than the WTC in NYC that it doesn't rate as a terrorist act?

Are their lives worth less because they are Chinese shopkeepers and not investors and secretaries in the big apple?

Yeah all CHINESE are thugs ... even the ones killed by the 'free Tibet movement'. Speaking of which, I noticed the spokesman for the free Tibet Movement in San Francisco was a man called 'Peter Weiss'. I wonder what part of Tibet he is from?

[shan]

and at least that way you know who these racists are though while on the subject of overt racism having seen some of the comments on here from Chinese people in relation to blacks the word hypocrites springs instantly to mind.

yes, but they are not CCTV anchors

[Art]

But then the stock answer of 'this third world country does it so we can be forgiven for doing it back' also doesn't fly.

Since Rhodesians hacked to death all the white Rhodesians then it is okay if we hack to death Rhodesian refugees who get uppity.

You are sounding vaguely American with that opinion Art.

You also glossed over the racial targeting of innocent Han and Moslems which was in the follow-up.

When do the 'protesters' become 'terrorists'.

Are shop girls and a mosque so much smaller than the WTC in NYC that it doesn't rate as a terrorist act?

Are their lives worth less because they are Chinese shopkeepers and not investors and secretaries in the big apple?

Yeah all CHINESE are thugs ... even the ones killed by the 'free Tibet movement'. Speaking of which, I noticed the spokesman for the free Tibet Movement in San Francisco was a man called 'Peter Weiss'. I wonder what part of Tibet he is from?

I am certainly not suggesting two wrongs make a right I am simply suggesting that having been recent victims of racist comments themselves now might be a good time for the Chinese to reflect on their attitude to blacks.

I am not glossing over the attacks on the shop girls which I think is utterly deplorable but what has that to do with this thread?  This thread is about free speech and although that sometimes means you hear things you find offensive or even repulsive it is a price worth paying.

[The Smoking Man]

Free speech is increasingly being limited when it devolves into hate crimes.

When we have news stations making claims against races ... When they talk of genocides that never happened ... when they goad the people of the world into an undeserved action against a race ... this is where free speech becomes hate crime.

All the photos from India and Nepal attributed to Chinese Security forces and the doctored photos etc., they amount to hate crimes.

They were created specifically to provoke only one reaction and that is to sway world opinion against the Chinese race.

We now have the French about to give The Dalai Lama a Gold Medal and 'citizenship of Paris'. The USA has already awarded him the highest civilian award. He is a Nobel Lauriet.

And he ran one of the most despicable Feudalistic regimes the world has ever seen.

The Chinese are all wondering just how this man got to this position and they are the ones demonized.

Freedom of speech has certainly not worked in their favour and not in the world's favour.

The Dalai Lama has been manipulating Free Speech for 60 years.

It reminds me of the old saying ... The greatest thing the devil did was to convince everyone he doesn't exist.

When a man who ran a regime as disgusting as that of Hitler can achieve all this through the power of the 'free press' and 'free speech', then there are lies being told and believed at an unprecedented level.

Contrary to what everyone thought about this ... like Driveby ... people in China are not enamoured with 'the power of the press or free speech' and they won't be organizing marches against 'Uncle Hu' any time soon.

They have been disgusted by what they see as lies from a bunch of liars, most of whom have never seen Tibet and all of whom are unaware of the torture devices that were once used by command of the DL.

When will that part of the story be told?

When will the people of the world become better informed so they might make better political decisions?

... That is the very reason for the forth estate.