Anti-CNN and the Tibet information war

Today for some unknown length of time, CNN.com was running a "quickvote" poll asking readers to vote "yes" or "no" to the question: "Should the Olympics in China be boycotted?" CNN.com is not my regular source of global news, and when I do read it I check their RSS feed not the website, so I found out about their online poll from this post on the Chinese tech site DoNews, which reposted an item from the blog dengjin.com. The blogger instructs readers how to vote "no" and urges them to do so in large numbers:

The blog post was published some point today, and DoNews republished it at around 5pm Beijing/Hong Kong time. I checked the CNN.com website at 10:30pm Hong Kong time and found they've replaced that poll with this thing:

OK... right. [UPDATE 9am Weds HKT: somebody has accused me of implying that the poll was hacked. That's not what I meant. The point is that CNN.com replaced the poll quickly after Chinese netizens started all voting "no" in big numbers...or perhaps somebody complained.]

It's well known by now that Chinese cyberspace for the past several days has been seething with anger against CNN and most Western media for what many Chinese netizens feel is blatant anti-China bias. If you haven't seen the anti-CNN website check it out. (The Washington post interviewed the site's founder here.)

The anger against CNN started after Chinese netizens discovered that CNN.com had cropped out a group of Tibetan rioters, who appear to be beating somebody up, from the original AFP/Getty Images photo. On the left is the cropped photo, on the right is the original image that Chinese netizens located on the internet:

As Roland Soong points out, CNN.com has quietly gone and replaced the photo in the original story with a new version that includes the mob violence in the background. But of course the old version still lives in the Google cache.  He writes: "This is a self-inflicted wound.  If CNN believed that it was right in the first place, then it should have stuck to that position.  Instead, it surrendered quietly.  Not only did this not appease the Chinese netizens, it only made it worse." Roland also links to this forum thread discussing the whole thing, in which one netizen announces that the new "hip phrase" of 2008 is: "做人不能太CNN a person should not be too CNN."  As Roland puts it: "This means that a person should not be too shameless and oblivious to the truth." Roland also quotes from an Associated Press article which reports:

CNN's bureau in Beijing has been deluged in recent days by a barrage of harassing phone calls and faxes that accuse the organization of unfair coverage. An e-mail to United Nations-based reporters purportedly from China's U.N. mission sent an Internet link to a 15-minute state television program showing Tibetans attacking Chinese in Lhasa.

A slideshow posted on YouTube accused CNN, Germany's Der Spiegel and other media of cropping pictures to show Chinese military while screening out Tibetan rioters, or putting pictures of Indian and Nepalese police wrestling Tibetan protesters with captions about China's crackdown.

Though of uncertain origin, the piece at least had official blessing, with excerpts appearing on the official English-language China Daily and on state TV.

Many of the examples of Western media anti-China bias posted at anti-cnn.com hone in on a series of agency photos that ran in various Western news outlets which were mislabeled as Chinese police arresting Tibetan protesters, when they are actually Nepalese or Indian police arresting exiled Tibetan protesters. Roland has been tirelessly documenting the conversation about the Tibet riots taking place on the Chinese Internet. He points out that RTL news in Germany has apologized for mis-reporting Nepali police violence as Chinese police violence, and that German station NTV is reviewing its coverage after similar mistakes appeared in their broadcasts. Also be sure to read Roland's post When Helping Becomes Hurting to see how Western protests are playing not only in China but amongst many Chinese around the world, who have unfettered access to Western media from outside the "Great Firewall."

Meanwhile with videos such as "Riot in Tibet: True face of Western media" and "Tibet Was, Is and Always Will be a Part of China" getting over 700 thousand and a million views, respectively, at the time of this writing, YouTube has been unblocked in China, though as the Shanghaiist points out access can be shaky at times. The BBC English-language website is also generally unblocked.

Perhaps the Chinese government is feeling a little less worried lately about losing public support? Perhaps they are less worried that people will turn against the Communist Party after reading something in the Western media, now that it is no longer fashionable in many circles to believe what the Western media reports?

It is also worth pointing out that alternative views - though not as loud - do exist in Chinese cyberspace. Lian Yue wrote the other day that the only way to prevent more violence is to allow the press to freely report in Tibet. Memedia also points out that some Chinese netizens have been spreading some fake news themselves - such as this blog post claiming that there was recently a Tibetan terrorist bombing in Chengdu, but using victim photos from a 2005 incident in Fuzhou. The Memedia editors observe that the Tibet issue has become like the South China Photographs incident: "An issue that originally is seen through simple logic, but through the course of debating it people start considering much deeper questions."

Hopefully most of China's netizens will draw the obvious conclusion: that in the end you shouldn't trust any information source - Western or Chinese, professional or amateur, digital or analog - until and unless they have earned your trust.

Addendum: Somebody e-mailed me this report from the Toronto Star containing chilling eyewitness accounts from Canadian tourists who were in Lhasa for the worst of the violence.

Comments

[Charles Liu]

Right, "Chinese cyberspace seething" right after mentionging the new poll? If you are trying to insinuate the poll was hacked, then perhaps you haven't seen the news:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/25/miss.bimbo/index.html?eref=rss_latest

The doll breast implant poll is for real.

[mahathir_fan]

When I saw all the Western news report, my reaction is along the lines of "I TOLD YOU SO.". I am completely apathetic about it, actually, OK. maybe I like what I saw in the Western media a little.

This is just the way it is: Western media is a propaganda tool and watching it will lead you to be brainwashed. I have said that for many many years.

The current anti-Western media movement in China has a dark side to it, and that is, it could cause the Western media to be more self conscious and therefore allow themselves to hide their hypocracy better the next time. This would work against us in the long run.

Rather it would have been better for this to be a silent period of evidence gathering so that the hypocracy could be documented for the benefit of the next generation of Chinese.

In other words, we do not hate you, but we will not buy your medias or your news, and whenever you trip we will be there to document them.

Generation thoughts tend to move in opposite directions by generations. One generation may be pro-Western, and their off springs would become anti and their next generation becomes pro.

A sudden outleash of anger will also mean a sudden end of anger. It is better to let this brew slowly but for the longer term in order for it to have a lasting impact.

The next step I see that should be taken is a total Olympic boycott. Those who believe that China is evil or invading Tibet SHOULD BOYCOTT the Olympics. I highly encourage people to boycott the Beijing games.

I have heard of a "best of both worlds" suggestion and that is for countries to boycott the opening ceremony instead of the entire games.

I think this is a good idea too, if you cannot convince your country to outright boycott it, how about just boycotting the opening and closing ceremonies? That would have been easy as a sign of protest.

That way, you can still haul some medals and still leave the games with some conscience. Think about it.

In the longer term, we can also boycott made in China products. You do not want to do any business with a regime that invades another nation, so do not do business with them.

[bandw]

"in the end you shouldn't trust any information source - Western or Chinese, professional or amateur, digital or analog - until and unless they have earned your trust."

well said!

[xiao xi liu]

My former respect for the “objectivity” of the Western media has been shattered long before their recent blunders which enraged the ordinary Chinese. Just think how little of the tragic loss of ordinary Iraqis and Palestines has been covered by the US media! Ironically I often found myself exposed to a wider coverage of the world news from Chinese news media and TV programs when visiting there; and despite the web police control I found my friends there by and large are well informed on world events and less provincial than the general American public.

[Jack]

@xiao xi liu

There has been a lot of coverage of Iraq and Palestine in the news, if one knows where to look. The fact is the rise of New Media has fragmented coverage. It used to be that people would tune to the nightly news or read their local Daily like the Orange County Register and that was it. But with the explosion of magazines, the Web, and Cable/Satellite TV it's possible to focus only on certain topics.

With wider selection and more competition, specialization is bound to happen. Rebecca herself mentions that CNN is not her regular source, and it isn't mine either. In fact, if you bothered look at my RSS Reader, it would be hard to point to a "regular" since I jump around and add so often.

[elench]

It's pretty depressing to hear "Western media" blasted for being a propaganda tool, or too "biased", or "not objective". The media landscape in the West is HUGE, and it operates on principles of freedom of speech, which pretty much guarantees endless variety of quality and position. It is therefore ridiculous to apply a collective judgement to "western media" just because one medium screws up.

Sure, I agree that one would expect giants like CNN to maintain high standards in their TV reporting, but that doesn't often happen - so why get all riled up now? We already *know* they're sloppy. For CNN and other American media it is not so much the news that matter but the way in which the news is reported, and the personality of the people presenting to you. The American media consumer likes familiarity and reassurance.

What drives a lot of this negative China coverage is the perception that the Tibetans have a rough deal, and have had a rough deal for the past half century while China pretty much does what it wants. Yes, that is a bias, but I don't see much evidence of a deeper conspiracy or an organized propaganda war (which is a funny thing to claim, considering that 100% of everything that the state of China puts out is ultra-biased propaganda). I like my reports to be as free of bias as possible - so I watch the BBC and read select media. But if I had to choose between the rubbish the vast majority of the Chinese media issue, and the rubbish the majority of American media issue, I will choose the American, simply because in that bunch there will be a few good media with the freedom to do their job properly, and operating without fear of the government raiding the office, shutting everything down, and imprisoning the editors.

There's also the problem of planted material. Remember when Israel invaded Lebanon the last time, all those pictures of Beirut in flames that were distributed by (I think) Reuters? It turns out a number of them had been touched up, with fire and smoke added to the Beirut landscape and suggesting an even greater degre of destruction than what the Israelis inflicted.

Well, of course the usual dimwits started screaming about a vast anti-Israeli propaganda conspiracy, but it turns out that Reuters was buying photos from one Beirut local who had touched them up. Reuters would then feed this material to various other media. The problem wasn't media bias, but a tainted source of information.

China is in Tibet because of the mineral wealth, the strategic importance, and the extra living room that Tibet supposedly affords. The actions of the Chinese are easily classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity (annihilation of native culture, massacres, ethnic dispossesion, etc., etc.). Anyone who thinks that China brought any benefit whatsoever to Tibet or Tibetans is a seriously deluded victim of cheap Chinese propaganda. So I for one do not mind so much if some media choose a counter-balancing bias in this matter. Everyone lets China get away with murder except for some media. While I like my media to be as objective as possible, I cannot complain if they pick a fight that is based on sound principles. At least it's a lot better than the crap we saw for years and years in support of the Bush administration's adventures in Iraq!

I love China and my people!!!!

I hate you guys intending to break China. I love China, my great homeland! I love Chinese people who are living happily in peace if not disturbed by your untrue reports!

[mahathir_fan]

"Anyone who thinks that China brought any benefit whatsoever to Tibet or Tibetans is a seriously deluded victim of cheap Chinese propaganda."

And anyone who doesn't think so is also brainwashed. Why don't you ask a Han Chinese if Tibetans get easier entrance into university? Do you know that in China not anyone can decide to migrate into Tibet, but require special permission in order to protect the land from being populated by non-Tibetans?

While government owned propaganda may not measure up to the West, there are certain distinct qualities that make it safe to consume:
1) Its propaganda aspect is easily spotted.
2) It is truthful when reporting numbers.
3) They are very very shy at speculating because they hate to admit they are wrong so if they do report something, there is very good credibility that it is true or well known fact already in certain circles.

Government news is like having a cockroach in your drink. You can spot it easily and remove it. Western media is like having arsenic in your drink. You think it is clean until a few hours after you drink it.

Perhaps you have not viewed my youtube video on the Western media report on the Tiananmen massacre which is a myth by the way:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SbX0gAk3zRA

In the end, it was the Chinese government account of what happened that was closest to the truth.

It is of course hard to convince people who spent their entire life reading Western media. I recommend you read some Chomsky such as manufacturing consent.

I have seen cases like this and it no longer angers me. As an example, in my own church, I have tried to convince my fellow Christians that the bible isn't God's words, yet despite all the evidence I brought out, all still refuses to believe me, because they have accepted it was a dogma.
At best, they claim ignorance and skepticism rather than to agree with me. So I am putting out videos now, enjoy:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1-vJN1l71NQ

If a bible can be a tool of propaganda with 1 billion people in the world accepting it as God's words, the Western media surely can be propaganda without people realizing that it is.

[barnychan]

Rebecca, I've looked all over your home page but I can't find the poll to vote on whether Charles should have breast implants. My vote would be in the affirmative, so perhaps you can register it on my behalf. Many thanks, Barny.

[Baltimoron]

How about the suggestion of a PRC-Western media summit, with bloggers, academics, and reporters?

http://www.radicalcontrapositions.com/left_flank/2008/03/26/thinning-the-lhasa-scrum/

[Twofish]

"But if I had to choose between the rubbish the vast majority of the Chinese media issue, and the rubbish the majority of American media issue, I will choose the American, simply because in that bunch there will be a few good media with the freedom to do their job properly, and operating without fear of the government raiding the office, shutting everything down, and imprisoning the editors."

In an information rich world, why do you have to choose? If you just read American newspapers, you are going to miss large parts of the story. It's very depressing to hear someone that has the advantage of "freedom of speech" and choose not to use it. Even if what you are reading is 100% government propaganda it provides very useful information since it tells you what the government wants people to believe, and listening to people tells you to what extent it is actually believed.

"I like my reports to be as free of bias as possible"

This is impossible. Everyone has a bias. To find truth, I've found that the best approach is to find as many different sources with as many different biases as possible. Once you've seen a situation from dozens of different directions, then you get a better understanding of what those directions are. More importantly, by reading news from people who see the world in basically different ways that you do, you understand your own biases and beliefs better.

"China is in Tibet because of the mineral wealth, the strategic importance, and the extra living room that Tibet supposedly affords."

That's actually not true, and if you believe this you fundamentally misunderstand the situation.

China is in Tibet because most Chinese (myself included) emotionally believe that Tibet is part of China, and because of some random historical events that gave rise to this belief and maintains it. I'm not going to try to justify this, since there are dozens of places that you can read justifications. What's important is that this emotional belief is there, and if you are really interested, I can explain where the emotion comes from.

The reason this is important is that if China were in Tibet for "strategic" reasons, it would be quite easy to kick China out. All you have to do is to raise the cost beyond the benefits, and the history of colonial wars suggests that this is not hard to do.

However, because China is in Tibet for "emotional" reasons, then it is much, much harder to kick China out. China will stay in Tibet even if it is a massive major economic and political loss.

If you don't take into account these emotional beliefs, you lose Chinese, like myself, who are relatively liberal on the issue of Tibet. I don't have a problem with Tibetan autonomy. I don't really have a problem with working with groups that promote Tibetan autonomy and culture. However, if you come in with the attitude that Tibet should be independent and that I'm a war criminal and evil person for believing otherwise, I'm sorry, but I just can't work with you. If you come in with the attitude that I'm an idiot and brainwashed, then I also can't work with you.

And if you can't work with people like me, then I don't see how you are going to actually improve the situation in Tibet.

[Jack]

"If a bible can be a tool of propaganda with 1 billion people in the world accepting it as God's words, the Western media surely can be propaganda without people realizing that it is."

Yes, I'm most certain you have studied multiple versions of the Bible and have talked to all one billion believers of Christianity to be able to make such a large assumption on all Christians out there.

Please, that's as bad as saying one billion Chinese are brainwashed.

[Charles Liu]

@jack - yes, the truth is somewhere in between. But try to convince all the China haters.

@elen - may I remind you the Native Americans, our own "Tibet", have had a "rough deal" for over 200 years.

[fridayinlove]

I am not sure about the media being sloppy or taking side, the key point is when every channel (I myself saw CNN, Fox, and even bloomberg TV) is showing Nepalese policemen beating Tibetan monks when anchors talk about China "crack down" "peaceful protest in Tibet", how do you expect those people understand, especially those freedom-loving gay-adoring young lefties or those overweighted women wearing "Vote Bush" T's?

[Charles Liu]

Jack, there was at one time US media urged recognition of ROC with Tibet as part of it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/china/plea.htm

(Atlantic Monthly, Jan 1913)

"Suffice it to say, that facts and the concurrence of best opinion testify that China deserves recognition. Indeed, the Chinese people, as well as many others, would be most happy to know in what respect China has not fulfilled the requirements to deserve recognition. The
only reason we have heard up to this time is that given by England and Russia, namely, that China must make a new treaty to give practical independence to Tibet and Mongolia before she can expect recognition from these two countries. Now let us ask, how could the making of a new treaty, or the granting of independence to Tibet and Mongolia,
better qualify China as a nation? It seems a pity that such a
retrogressive step should be taken, and that the recognition of a new government should be made an excuse for fraudulent bargaining."

From this one can asertain the following:

- Tibet was not independent in 1912. The fact the provinces declared independence is not to form independent nations, but to cut ties with Qing Dynasty.

- Extra-legal demand from UK and Russia, and private dealing without China's consent, can not affect China's sovereignty under internal laws.

[Jack]

@Charles

The China haters don't matter for Tibet. They're a fringe element even in their home governments. In all honesty the main people primarily affected by Tibet are those living there.

The China haters only matter if you wrap the Olympics in all this, because as Imagethief has said the Olympics was a way for China to show the world it's peaceful rise. And that narrative is fundamentally at odds with the other narrative that the Olympics is supposed to change China.

So, in the end, China wants to have its cake and eat it too.

I have never expected anything just in the CNN's report on China, because they serve US, and whatever they can do to earn money for US, they will do, no matter it is lying, or robbing, or stealing, I am not surprised at all.

[mahathir_fan]

Whether or not Tibet belongs to China - it doesn't matter. That we are even discussing is troubling.

What we should be talking about is for those who believe it is not part of China, what should we do?

The best course of action is an Olympic boycott. Short of that, we can urge our goverments to boycott just the opening ceremony.

Again, I repeat, an Olympic boycott is the answer and if that is hard, a boycott of the opening ceremony. Please start those letter writings now.

[William]

1) Do you know that most western media (especially America & UK & ECC countries)only serve the interests of their governments /countries so there are no wander their reports in Tibet are biased!

2) Facts:
(A) Long before(something like in 1957 & now still) US CIA trained groups of Tibetans as fighters to fight against the Chinese & wanted Tibet to be splitted from China!

(B) Again, the British long ago also wanted Tibet to be splitted from China & became part of India since at that time India was still ruled by British.

3) It's most likely that this time CIA is behind & control the riot Tibetans.

3) The so called democratic countries follow the USA route to report the incidents/riots as China's suppression!

4) Why nobody mentions or condemns the American & British killed so many civilians in Iraq?!

[Jack]

@William

"Why nobody mentions or condemns the American & British killed so many civilians in Iraq?"

Allow me to put on my Anti-War hat for a moment:

1) Lancet study estimating death of Iraq War to mid '06 at 655k
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

2) ORB Survey til 09/07 puts deaths at 1.2 million
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

3) Iraqi Health Ministry/WHO estimate through 01/08 puts deaths at low of 130k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Health_Ministry_casualty_survey

If you include contractors as civilians, then increase all death tolls by at least 1,016 according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Contractors

As for condemnation, it's a bit more tricky since there's degrees of condemnation, but definitely groups like MSF, Amnesty Int'l, and ICRC are definitely critical of the War.

[singasongeu]

In China, there were some new words appeared when the distortion report of Tibet from CNN BBC and other western medias. When a guy lied in public, his friend will laughed at the guy ‘too CNN’.
The Tibet truth is not all the country like a more powerful China appeared in the world,they enjoy raped by the United State.

[mahathir_fan]

Actually there is condemnation in the Iraq was but it was done AFTER the fact, AFTER the war went wrong.

The Western press could have condemned the war BEFORE it started and this is where they show their biasness despite knowing the truth.
1) The Western press trumpeted the same lines as their government for justification for war: That Saddam defied UN inspections by not allowing the UN unfettered access for inspections.
---> The Western press knows full well that this is just one side of the story. The other side of the story is that for years, Saddam had cooperated with the UN. However, at the end of every inspection, the Iraqis would go to the UN to ask the UN to certify them as free from WMD because those inspections found nothing. And at every such attempt, the UN under the control of the US would say that those inspections were not enough and demand another round of inspections. It went on for nearly 5-7 years. Finally, seeing no end in sight, they decided that cooperation with UN was futile and they stopped those inspections. This was later used as justification to go to war. So it was not fair to them because because the UN never showed any good faith in this process. If the inspections found nothing, then they need to certify them as what the inspections found, which is nothing instead of perpetually demanding more inspections.

2) Colin Powell went to the UN showed a few photos of trucks and white tanks and claimed that this were chemical weapon facilities. I'm not a very intelligent guy, but I could see that if white tanks and trucks are signs of chemical weapons, then I need to report my country to the UN because I believe that right around the corner of my house, there is a also chemical weapons facility disguised as a petrol station because I could see from google maps a photo of white tanks and several trucks. Again, how come they didn't ask such obvious questions?? Again the Western press toe-d the official line, and helped their governments convince their people that white tanks and trucks means chemical weapons facilities.

You can see from other examples as well. The Western governments like to for example champion human rights. Yet this championing of human rights were done AFTER the end of colonization. AFTER they have lost all their powers and were kicked out from their colonial lands.

The Western governments could have championed human rights BEFORE the end of colonization. Yet, they were imprisoning our people without trials, controlling our anti-colonial presses etc. etc..

So jack as you can see, those condemnation should come BEFORE so that they will make a difference.

[Londoner]

Great job and great observation, Rebbecca. I'm glad you moved to China, because now you can understand what people like me have been saying for a long time about how the Euro-American media easily twists the facts and gets away with it.

What is happening to reporting on China is actually very similar to the coverage on the Iranian elections, anything that Ahmadinejad says, women, student and workers protests, etc.

I'm affraid to say even the Global Voices' coverage on Iran follows the same pattern in just reproducing the Israeli-American propaganda against Iran, by heavily quoting from a small group of opposition bloggers.

Just take a look at the coverage yourself and compare it to the Chinese coverage. It's quite one-sided and not balanced at all, especially in terms of the topics that are selected and also the blogs that are quoted. Can you for example find anything positive about Ahmadinejad or the state in general, while there is a big chunk of the Iranians blogs now who are supportive of the state and even Ahmadinejad.

Russian, Syria, Iran, Venezuella, Cuba and now China are being misrepresented and demonised on a daily basis in the Western press and sadly Global Voices more or less repeats the same type of coverage.

The good thing is that you are now in China and can see the ugly reality of such propaganda. But what about the rest?

I'm sure by living in Iran for six months and being able to speak the language and hang out with people outside the Northern Tehran bubble, you'd reach to the same conclusion.

[Twofish]

I do find it interesting that these sorts of discussions go into two directions:

1) your war crimes are worse than my war crimes
2) your view of history is stupider than my view of history (since obviously you have been brainwashed)

What's interesting is to step back and understand *why* the discussion goes into that direction. The implied message is that because your war crimes are worse than my war crimes and your view of history is stupider than my view of history then *you have no right to speak and your opinions are worthless*. The trouble with this is that then the conversation goes into who is morally superior which tends to be a useless waste of time.