Sometimes it’s really easy to understand why Chinese people might be less than satisfied with the foreign media. Take, for example, this snippet from that Associated Propaganda article on the Sichuan quake I linked to this morning:
Though slow to release information at first, the government and its state media ramped up quickly. Nearly 20,000 soldiers, police and reservists were sent to the disaster area.
Disasters always pose a test for the communist government, whose mandate rests heavily on maintaining order, delivering economic growth, and providing relief in emergencies.
Pressure for a rapid response was particularly intense this year, with the government already grappling with public discontent over high inflation and a widespread uprising among Tibetans in western China while trying to prepare for the Aug. 8-24 Beijing Olympics.
Why do they feel the need to politicise a disaster? Really:
- Probably the government was slow to release information first because it was not easy to get information. Yes, I know their record, but…. Earthquakes do tend to play havoc with communication systems. If they don’t knock down transmission towers and sever cables, the sheer volume of traffic generated by people trying to make sure their loved ones are ok and/or calling for help tends to overwhelm the system. And Wenchuan, remember, was completely cut off by the quake, and the first soldiers had to go in there on foot.
- Disasters pose a test for any government and its “legitimacy” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Hurricane Katrina, anyone? Didn’t do much for people’s approval of the Bush administration, now, did it? Anybody want to start taking bets on Cyclone Nargis’ likely effect on Myanmar politics?
- And you know what? I find the implication that the government’s only concern is staying in power just plain offensive. Is it really so hard to imagine that they would, perhaps, be concerned and motivated to respond by the fact that roughly 10,000 people have been killed, thousands upon thousands more injured, and untold numbers are at risk of death, injury or disease?
Should I point out that that snippet is followed by a quotation from President Bush which AP does not question in any way?
Really, politicising an earthquake. Incredible. Disgusting.
Not trying to speak up for the western press here per se — I think they tend to comport themselves fairly disgracefully when it comes to China coverage, given how up their own arseholes they are about having “free access to the bigger picture,” and that is a pretty miserable excuse for an article — but I don’t think it’s really right to be calling the AP ‘Associated Propaganda’ for a couple of reasons, the main one being that unlike, say, Xinhua, they’re not toeing a government line.
Their coverage is biased, to be sure, but it’s not biased because there’s someone standing behind them telling them what and how to report (other than the standard media rule, ‘if it bleeds, it leads’). It’s biased because the majority of journalists simply do not know very much about what they’re reporting on, and they are on tight deadlines, and so rather than do original writing and thinking, which takes time and mental energy that they mostly don’t have, they build a story based on whatever tropes they have at hand, plus a few specifics about whatever’s being reported.
You can see that at work here. I haven’t got the time or space here to go fully meta on the story, but here’s the trope breakdown just for the word ‘disaster’:
DISASTER = Test of legitimacy (c.f. SARS medical reporting, Chunjie snowstorm, Tangshan earthquake, etc.) + historical tendency to be bad about reporting information (c.f. especially the Tangshan earthquake, which wasn’t officially reported on for like three or four years after it happened if memory serves, SARS etc etc) + strict controls on foreign media (Teebet etc.) etc. etc.
The decision that I came to about reporting, back in my days working as a researcher at the Voice of America (you could call the VOA ‘Associated Propaganda,’ I guess, except that we mostly just plagiarized Xinhua), was that the necessity to reduce every single incident down to 500 words or less, on a deadline of 10 hours or less, made the whole thing inimical to good thinking and good writing.
You’re right, especially about the Associated Propaganda (Sure, I overdid it, but I was venting), but that snippet I quoted was completely unnecessary, added nothing of any value to the story, and injected a political slant where it simply should not have been. This is not the kind of thing that happens due to tight deadlines and pressure to get a story out- that explanation I would accept for Nepali police being labelled Chinese. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing in AP articles, either.
I’m not disagreeing — but I don’t think it’s malicious; I think it’s just that this is the only tool they’ve got in their kit when it comes to looking at China. It’s like the old adage about the guy holding a hammer, except in their case they’re holding a narrow set of Cold War-influenced preconceptions.
I wouldn’t, now that I’ve calmed down again, go so far as to call it “malicious” either. Unnecessary and stupid, yes, malicious, though, is perhaps giving them too much credit. In hindsight, though, I should’ve deleted that rant instead of posting it. Oh well, unless somebody in AP decides to take legal action, too late now.
Nahhh, they deserve to be called out. I’d been thinking of writing something longer in Chinese on the “foreign journalists aren’t malicious; they’re just working with the blunt instruments at hand” thesis, but decided I couldn’t really be arsed, and also didn’t want to help reinforce the bullshit notion that foreigners are incapable of understanding China.
I thought the Western press would wait until the stories emerged of shoddy construction, materials and workmanship as a consequence of corruption etc. being blamed for the collapse of so many buildings. I found this evening that The Guardian has already got to the shoddy part with ‘This is not a natural disaster – this is done by humans’.
I suppose the question is whether there’s any value in publishing a report which includes such a provocative opinion from one of the quake’s casualties because it’s then very hard not to suspect that the foreign hack isn’t trying to stir up some sort of controversy.
Oh dear. Clearly the hack in question is trying to stir something up. Would’ve thought, though, that they’d have the decency to wait until people have been pulled out of the rubble.
There is, however, some truth to that opinion, and quakes that would do no damage in NZ can cause pretty serious damage here because of construction standards (or lack thereof, or lack of enforcement).
I saw a similar quote in a WSJ article yesterday. It’s interesting: I don’t know if it was coached, but it certainly is a valid opinion, given how common it is for local corruption to show up in gimcrack construction, lax enforcement of building codes (there *are* building codes dealing with earthquakes; they were drawn up after Tangshan), etc. I certainly wouldn’t jump on the journalist in question for bringing it up.
Who’s to say whether or not it was a coached quote — but I think it’s pretty plausible. People aren’t so dumb that they can’t see this stuff going on, and I don’t see any reason that the foreign press should have to wait for the Chinese press (which is not likely to publish anything seriously investigative on this in the short term – maybe in Caijing or Nanfang Zhoumo in a cople of weeks) to break the story first.
Maybe I’m just being too grumpy, but I’d prefer to see the focus on getting people out of the rubble first.
I tend to agree with you mate. Looks to me that China’s response is putting the Bush Administrations (Katrina) to shame. Ive had BBC on quite a bit and they are singing the relief efforts praises.
It was all over CCTV 1 last night. Most impressive. I hope the weather breaks and allows them to pick the pace up, though.
I had the same reaction to the NYT’s initial coverage of the disaster. Its like they just cut and paste the same paragraph into each article. Is this supposed to pass as their expert political analysis of the situation? Howabout sticking to the facts? And the fact is that Wen has been busting his ass since the winter storms hit, so why try to detract from that? (of course we never see him on the golf course or at his vacation retreat, but still)
Jeff, sometimes I think that in the Western media’s eyes there is only politics in China, and those politics never change.