Comments for James Reynolds' China »
Posted By Alexia 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsThe Chinese Communist Party has taken away my opening line. A month or two ago, when I thought about how I'd start this blog, this seemed like the best way to begin: "If you're reading these words, you're not in China." (a nice, pithy start that I was extremely proud of.) At the time, the Chinese government blocked access to this website - it had done so for years, for reasons that were never entirely explained.
Read Full Story at bbc.co.uk »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 21
-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If anyone has regularly watched CNN International and BBC World, the latter being the BBC's international cable television service, what becomes apparent are the journalistic 'styles' that are, in some ways, the definitive trademark of each.
Firstly, both show a clear bias to their mother nation -- CNN to the US and the BBC to Britain. This is understandable as they are both primarily services aimed at their own expatriates abroad. Secondly, what is particularly recognisable about the BBC's style of coverage is a penchant for wrapping up their report with the dig; although 'dig' is far too gentile a word.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This involves a closing remark that Americans would call a 'b*tchslap.' A snide, backhanded put down. James Reynolds is probably the most blunt and severe in its use possibly due to his inexperience and youthful pre-judgements. The problem with this kind of journalism however is that the journalist elevates his/her own ego to God-like, judgemental authority. Although it's not all too apparent in his blog, James Reynolds has this complex.
If anyone were to know anything about Britain's history with China and its imperial escapades of war, deceit and treachery they would understand that there is a great deal of bad blood between the two nations. In many ways, it is Britain's incursions into China that ultimately forced China to withdraw from the world and adopt communism as its political ideology; although Britain is certainly not the only nation to do this as there were quite a few, mostly from Europe.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My apologies for my circumspect comments but the point I wish to make is this -- news should never be taken on face value. It will always be presented with a specific conscious or unconscious bias in support of a particular philosophy. Nothing permeates a person's thinking more than nationalism; it affects and shapes the 'styles' of both the BBC and CNN. Unfortunately for the rest of us in the international community who are neither American nor British, the BBC and CNN are often the primary sources of international news coverage. This includes the intrinsic, nationalistic prejudices of both which, often, amounts to imperial, cultural indoctrination.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Furthermore, James Reynolds is being untruthful in his vagueness with regards to the BBC's difficult relationship with China.
The BBC, and simultaneously, Rupert Murdoch fell out with China over the BBC's coverage of Mao Tse Tung. This was a programme that was aired within China on Murdoch's Hong Kong-based Star TV feed. Up until that time, you will be surprised to know, as it perhaps goes against your own pre-judgements and understanding as to just how much news is actually allowed into China, that the BBC was openly permitted by Chinese authorities to broadcast into China.
Here is an excerpt on the matter from Reynold's own employer.
"In 1994, the Star network removed the BBC's international news from its service because a programme critical of late leader Mao Zedong offended the authorities."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/172116...
James Reynolds would, in all likelihood, be very much aware of this and probably a great deal more that we are not.
Reply-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most of what you said is pretty reasonable, but
"it is Britain's incursions into China that ultimately forced China to withdraw from the world and adopt communism as its political ideology", is a bit of a stretch. Your comments about bad blood between the BBC and China also seem to reflect a bizarre reality in which past in politics take precedence over the present. It's obvious that the BBC is not real popular in China, but I think that has more to do with recent reporting than it does with stories from 12 years ago.
Regarding the blog itself, James Reynolds suggested that by unblocking the BBC online website China is changing, implicitly opening up to western media. I suspect he is wrong on this point, perhaps intentionally so. To me it seems far more likely that access to the English version of BBC online is aimed supporting the current public in China outcry against CNN and the BBC.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not a stretch but a fact.
From Wikipedia.
"The Qing Dynasty, which lasted until 1912, was the last dynasty in China. In the 19th century the Qing Dynasty adopted a defensive posture towards European imperialism, even though it engaged in imperialistic expansion into Central Asia itself. At this time China awoke to the significance of the rest of the world, in particular the West. As China opened up to foreign trade and missionary activity, opium produced by British India was forced onto Qing China. Two Opium Wars with Britain weakened the Emperor's control."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China
What you call "past politics" is less than a century ago. It is where the paths between China and the West radically diverged and China withdrew from Western aggression.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for the BBC, it most definitely has to do with what happened 12 years ago. This is well known and undisputed throughout the media industry and within the BBC itself. Murdoch has spent these past 12 years trying to find his way back into China, appointing a Chinese as COO of Star TV and even marrying a Chinese, Wendy Deng, but all with very little success. The recent reporting that you say is responsible for China's caution with the BBC is only a consequence of it. Equally, so is that same said recent reporting. James Reynolds' stance toward China could hardly be described as supportive or sympathetic, as you suggest. Far from it.
Reply-
Neutral
ZenAgain1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Skeek old friend. This is my first post in ages and I must say I do you follow your posts with great interest. It's refreshing to see your balanced and lucid posts seemingly swimming in a sea of jingoistic banality (This is not directed at you Grancher).
Having just returned from my first trip to China (all be it a short business one) I have to say, I loved it.
Cabs are a bit crook though- green is good, blue is bad and red, don't even bother ha ha.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi ZenAgain, good to hear from you again. You're right, the taxis are a nightmare, but they usually are in most places. I find taxis a microcosm of where China's rapid change is most apparent -- the urban drift, the shift from 19th century feudalism to 21st century capitalism. All in one driver. How's Japan these days? I find the memories of Nanjing still run deep amongst the Chinese. Little known to the West, and no real remorse shown by the Japanese, it remains an open wound, and fuel for future Sino-Japan hostilities.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I admit I don't know much about what goes on in the media industry, and I have heard that Beijing can hold a grudge for a long time, you probably know more about it then I do.
I didn't mean to suggest that James Reynolds' stance was sympathetic to China. I meant that I think his interpretation of the Chinese government's decision to stop blocking access to the BBC online website is probably wrong. I suspect that decision was made in order to facilitate and fuel the anti-BBC, anti-CNN sympathies currently held by much of the Chinese public. A general feeling of hatred is being formed for these two news outlets, and western media in general, on the grounds that they are biased against China. This is closely related to the reaction to the torch relay protests. Both of them are beneficial to the government's image domestically because they help to keep the flames of nationalism from dying too low, and by bashing Western media China's own media looks more reliable by comparison.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
oldgringo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahh, thanks for the lesson on media bias, skeek. Most Conservative Republicans would agree with your analysis, lol!
More to the point, when we allow something as globally unifying as the Olympics to be politicized by any "special interest group", we condone it as a logical venue to be terrorized by any "special interest group".
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They may agree, but where they and I would differ is that they would approve of it. The media, such as the BBC and CNN, supports a nationalistic, and ultimately, an imperialistic agenda. They would say the opposite.
It is sad to see efforts to have the Olympic Torch snuffed out, some of which included a physical assault on a young Chinese woman in a wheelchair, a torchbearer, applauded by the West and its media. The torch is supposed to be, in a deeply flawed world, a symbol that hope remains. I'm not sure if it does anymore.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Opium Wars did weaken Qing power, but those wars were over by 1860 and a lot of things changed in the 52 years that followed. One of the things that had the most corrosive effect on the Qing was their inability, or unwillingness, to adapt to the changes in the economy brought by the opening of the country to international trade. If you want to pin the fall of the Qing on the British you might be able to do that here, because it was the British who forcefully expanded the number of ports where they could trade in China, but to do this would suggest that the Qing government was powerless to adapt, which may not have been the case. Regardless there were several rebellions between the end of the Opium wars and the fall of the Qing, some of which the British even helped to put down. Right around the turn of the century losses in the first and second Sino-Japanese wars were also major blows to Qing credibility.
Reply-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And in the end it was the a coalition of the Revolutionary Alliance (formed by Sun Yat-sen, who is seen as a hero by both the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party), secret societies, criminal gangs and several rebel generals that overthrew the Qing Dynasty. In 1912 there was no Chinese Communist Party and it's future ascendancy was not the least bit certain. Yuan Shi-Kai was the prominent rebel general, and he used his influence to become the President of the Chinese Republic set up by the Revolutionary Alliance and it's supporters. I think he had the support of most of the Great Powers, but he tried to become emperor and was overthrown. After that there was a lot of chaos until the Nationalist Party (the heir of Sun Yat-sen's Revolutionary Alliance) under Chiang Kai-shek, allied with the recently created Chinese Communist Party took control of most of China through a combination of inciting peasant and worker uprisings military, and diplomatic prowess in 1926.
Reply-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Nationalists turned on the Communists and were busy trying to exterminate them(with international support, Communism was not a popular philosophy with very many governments at the time) until the Japanese invaded in 1936. In a way you could blame the Japanese for China going to the Communists (which is ironic because Japan is the favorite enemy of the Chinese government today), if the Japanese had not invaded, or if they had waited a few more months, Nationalist forces could probably have wiped out the last Communist enclaves and killed off Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, and the rest of the old guard Chinese leadership before they ever got close to controlling the country.
What I'm trying to say with all this is that the British and the Opium Wars were not insignificant, but their influence on the rise of Chinese Communism was relatively minor. In politics, a century is a very very long time, the world has been remade many times over since 1912.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hadn't blamed the withdrawal into isolation solely on the British. I had said, "it is Britain's incursions into China that ultimately forced China to withdraw from the world and adopt communism as its political ideology; although Britain is certainly not the only nation to do this as there were quite a few, mostly from Europe." There were, of course, the Japanese, but there were also the Russians, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Portuguese, etc. Britain's contribution to the erosion of China wasn't only the Opium Wars. However with regards to the BBC, making reference to China's fouled relationship with the British and imperial erosion from the Brits, amongst others, was indeed relevant.
The corruption and weakness of China's last ruling imperial elite contributed, as you rightly pointed out. I can't say that Chiang Kai Chek and the Nationalists would have wiped out, as you say, Mao's forces. Regardless, they instead fled to Formosa, otherwise known as Taiwan.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Going through the history, you're right about Japan and how it affected the breakdown of the Nationalists and represented the wildcard in China's future.
"In his diary on June 1948, Chiang wrote that the Kuomintang had failed, not because of external enemies but because of disintegration and rot from within; and it was this, more than any alleged foreign intrigue, that contributed to his defeat. The war had severely weakened the Nationalists both in terms of resources and popularity, while the Communists were strengthened by aid from Stalin, and guerrilla organizations extending throughout rural areas. The Nationalists initially had superiority in arms and men; but their lack of popularity, heavy infiltration of communist agents in the nationalist government, and apparent disorganization soon allowed the Communists to gain the upper hand."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek
History however doesn't happen in a vacuum. The course had been set centuries before.
Reply -
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks Grancher, for the exchange, it's much appreciated. I know I was going out on a limb with the comment in regards to the British; it was perhaps a tad too strong and simplistic, but when you are set a one thousand character limit, fortune favours the brave. I felt I needed to throw a none too subtle punch or two out there to incite some interesting dialogue. It looks like I got it too. Cheers.
Reply-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's true that Britain and other countries played roles in Chinese politics during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, some of them major roles. However I'm inclined to put the fate of China at the feet of the Chinese. In retrospect it is easy to say this or that was the ultimate cause of such and such because one thing followed the other. But if you consider how the events would have looked at the time there may be little connection between the two things.
I keep harping away on this because blaming Europe, America and Japan for China's problems is currently a popular thing to do in China. For the Chinese it's a means of avoiding responsibility, while in the US it seems to be a means of reinforcing the idea of Chinese inferiority by suggesting they had little control over their own destiny. That very attitude though, does indeed make your comments relevant.
Reply-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Popular with who? Certainly not Westerners as most are ignorant of China's history. Indeed, as it is still a Western dominated world, China's history is of no consequence from the West's perspective. What is only of concern to the West is the potential threat China could represent. It's demonisation. Nothing more. Therefore China's history, and subsequently any effort at understanding, is far from anything that could be called 'popular.'
If it is 'popular' it is amongst the Chinese themselves. Almost all Chinese I've spoken with about what China is today and how it came to be that way would say it was a consequence of Western intervention in addition to their own weakness and corruption under the last emperor. I don't agree that this is an inability to accept responsibility. Far from it. If anything, the Chinese and China have made a very firm resolution to never let it happen again. Behind China's emerging power and rapid development is a steely resolve to do just that.
Reply-
Neutral
Grancher1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yup I meant the Chinese. I'm sure you're right that they don't want to let it happen again. Maybe the purpose of blaming other countries for China's problems depends on who you're talk to, I've heard people say things like 'China is poor because foreigners stole China's wealth during the wars'. This kind of thing is pretty ridiculous as it mostly ignores the nature of wealth. Perhaps you have run into more reasonable people. From a more political standpoint though, blaming things on foreign countries is a handy way to bolster nationalist sympathies in the population and direct attention away from other issues. So whatever else it may be, it's useful.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
LARK1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was busy today and could not respond to the discussion in this thread, and now it is no longer seen on the propeller site unless one clicks to view skeek's participation. How quick and how sad!
The western media has gone to such extreme with their reporting regarding China! In many cases, there's no regard to truth and justice. How can those journalists twist things and be biased to such an extreme to suit their own purpose. What's the difference between civilized human beings and beasts. Am I too naive to talk in this way? Nationalism and politics aside, where's human conscience? Where's justice?
Were it some other woman being hurt, her picture could have been enlarged and put on front pages with very emotive phrases. Were China in the least involved in an injury of such a woman, she could have been described as an unforgivable demon. Why? Why are things like this! I write this with a weeping heart. Where's justice? Where's human conscience?
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.