My chat with Anti-CNN.com

On Monday afternoon I did an online chat with these patriotic young people who run Anti-CNN, a website launched in the wake of the Tibetan unrest and crackdown last year by a group of young Chinese who felt that the Western media was presenting a distorted and inaccurate picture of China. They invited me to do the online chat after I interviewed Anti-CNN founder Rao Jin this past Saturday as part of my book research (more on that interview in a later post). My writings and talks have been a topic of discussion on the Anti-CNN website in the past, and given that I once reported for CNN in Beijing, it was not surprising that they were rather keen to offer me to up to their community.

Despite their website's unfriendly name, I found the founder Rao Jin and his core group of volunteers to be polite, friendly, smart, and professional, while also very passionate about their point of view. They're keen that the outside world not view them as brainwashed government agents. They want the world to understand that they're doing this of their own volition because they love their country and want their fellow citizens to think more critically about global media. The site is financed by Rao Jin's internet company. He insists that they take no government money.

The site has evolved from its CNN-bashing origins last year into a more general forum for media criticism - focused primarily on Western media. They do not, however, subject the Chinese media to the same kind of critical treatment. As Rao Jin said to me: "Our aim is not to challenge the government. We want to create a good space, a good platform where more people have a chance to participate in discussion. If the platform ceases to exist, then there are no voices at all, so first we have to guarantee its survival."

Moderator "Leslie" Liu Jing asked questions submitted in advance by members of the Anti-CNN community. Our conversation was videotaped. Meanwhile, as I answered, two volunteers summarized my answers in real time and posted them into the Anti-CNN forum. This morning I read through the whole thing. As one might expect with any "live-blogged" conversation, some details and nuances of what I said were lost, and sometimes the live-bloggers misunderstood what I was talking about. For instance, I referred to U.S. media coverage of Abu Ghraib as one example of how the interests of the U.S. media and government often do not coincide; the live-blogger typed it up in English as "Albert Grey," which I'm sure was an honest mistake. All in all, they did their best to record the substance of what I was saying. That is, with the exception of a couple of things that were completely omitted.

When I was asked to give examples of reasons why foreign reporters often don't trust what the Chinese government says, I cited my own experiences in which government officials lied about disaster casualties, and about the fate of people who I knew had been jailed. Those two examples were included. I also cited the fact that - while the exact number of deaths in the June 4th 1989 killing of protesters may be subject to dispute, it's a fact that the government refuses to acknowledge the deaths of many people who I know for a fact were killed - because I've spoken to the relatives of those people, who have proof that those individuals existed, and when and how they were killed. I said the fact that the government won't acknowledge their deaths amounts to refusing to acknowledge these people existed. This was not typed into the forum discussion. In response to a question I also discussed the imprisonment of AIDS activist Hu Jia, but no sign of that exchange appears in the forum, either.

After we finished, I was told that the videotape would have to be edited before they can post it online, because some of the content was too sensitive and would cause trouble for their website. I made an audio recording of the whole exchange. It is completely unedited. You can listen to it or download it here:

Due to time constraints, I'm not able to offer a full transcript and full English translation today. In future I may try to find somebody to help me out with that. Meanwhile, here is my summary of a few highlights:

The chat session opened with a question about Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's press conference at the closing of the National People's conference. In the press conference he criticized the Dalai Lama, among many other things he said. A community member wanted to know why the Western media seemed to de-emphasize that part of the press conference, focusing on other content instead. I said I wasn't at the press conference and wasn't in China when it happened, and didn't see the full transcript of the press conference, thus I don't remember precisely what Wen said about the Dalai Lama. However if Wen's remarks were substantively similar to things he has said in the past about the Dalai Lama, or a repetition of previous statements by the Chinese government or Xinhua News Agency, the Western media would not have considered it "news" because it wasn't "new."

Liu Jing then asked me why the Western media gave less attention to Chinese student demonstrators who came out in support for the Chinese Olympic torch relay than to the pro-Tibet independence demonstrations. I said that part of the reason has to do with the fact that the Western media tends to pay more attention to people claiming to be wronged or oppressed, and generally gives less airtime to people representing or supporting power-holders. I did also acknowledge that Westerners generally don't understand the patriotism of today's Chinese students abroad, the reasons for their patriotism, and the extent to which it's genuinely heartfelt.

The next question, from a community member, was whether Americans ever wondered why pro-Tibetan independence protestors appeared at the torch relay. I explained that Americans expect that protesters will appear at events involving a major world power, its leaders, or something representing that country's power. I said that if the Olympics had been held in the U.S. last year and Americans were going around the world doing a torch relay, no doubt all kinds of people would be showing up in protest. China is a world power now, so Chinese people are going to have to get used to seeing people around the world protesting against what China represents. It's part of life as a global power. It's not going to stop and you've got to learn to live with it. That said, I did agree that accosting the wheelchair-bound handicapped Chinese athlete in Paris was a very bad move on the part of the protesters. It showed the protesters' complete lack of understanding (or lack of interest) in how Chinese people viewed their protests.

There were a lot of questions about how CNN operates, how it gets its information, and the extent to which media all over the world, including in the West, is manipulated by political and market forces. I talked about how commercial pressures create media bias which can have a political result - because media outlets looking to boost ratings and circulation are sometimes concerned about reporting too many things that make viewers angry and unhappy, prompting them to change the channel or cancel their subscription. I also talked about how it's an undeniable fact that war is good for the news business, and good for many individual journalists' careers, and that this aspect of mainstream journalism has always made me feel uncomfortable. (I've written about some of these things here and here (PDF).) I also talked about commercial astroturfing, as well as blogging by campaign employees - or by blogger "consultants" - which is increasingly part of any Western politician's campaign strategy. My interviewer tried to get me to say that these things are the same thing as the censorship and manipulation that happens in China. I said it's not the same. But at the same time, anybody who is consuming any news from anywhere should not trust it until that news organization or blogger earns their trust. And there are plenty of reasons in any country not to trust any given news source completely.

I also made the point that while the Chinese media has evolved and grown more sophisticated over the past couple decades, and while the Internet has created a very wide space for discourse and debate than ever existed in the past, the information environment is still very skewed. Chinese investigative journalists have told me about numerous stories their editors won't allow them to publish. This includes the poisoned milk powder story which a Chinese journalist had been ready to break last spring, but was not allowed to do so - with the result that thousands more babies were sickened, their parents unaware of the danger when they might have been informed. Voices critical of central government policies are censored much more heavily on the Internet than voices of patriotic young people like the Anti-CNN, community. This results in a skewed information environment, reinforcing itself in a positive feedback loop.

My moderator said that China's censorship system is a national reality and she believes it's necessary for national stability.

I was asked about my 2003 interview with the Dalai Lama. I described how he said he was concerned about human rights abuses in Tibet, and that he was not seeking independence, but rather autonomy. That he wanted to be able to negotiate with the Chinese government about this. Liu Jing asked me whether I had asked the Dalai Lama why he wanted to return to Tibet and "become Tibet's chief slave owner." I said that the Dalai Lama's point was not to return Tibet to exactly what it was like in feudal times. The point was to give today's Tibetans more say in their own affairs, and that his idea was to return as a religious leader, not a political leader.

I did not get into a debate with them about historical facts surrounding China's sovereignty over Tibet, as that would have made it impossible to talk about anything else. It was very clear that the folks at Anti-CNN have decided what the facts are, and what they believe the correct version of history is, and that a shared view about these facts is a strong underpinning of the Anti-CNN community. I did suggest that aside from arguing with Westerners about Tibet, perhaps they should do more to engage with Tibetan people, and that the problems in Tibet will only be resolved if more Chinese and Tibetan people engage with one another and try to work out solutions. Liu Jing told me that she has been to Tibet and that in her experience all the Tibetan people she has interacted with say they are grateful for the development that the Chinese government has brought to them. She thinks that Westerners don't understand the real views of real Tibetan people. Reading through the comments posted by community members during and after the chat, it's clear that many community members don't think there's a problem in Tibet itself; they appear to believe that the whole problem is caused by the exile community and by Westerners who are enamored of the Dalai Lama, interfering in China's internal affairs.

My purpose in doing this interview was primarily to understand the Anti-CNN community better as part of my book research. Communities of enthusiastic, patriotic young people like the Anti-CNN volunteers are part and parcel of the phenomenon I call cyber-tarianism.

It will be very interesting to see how the Anti-CNN website continues to evolve. Rao Jin has plans to develop an English-language platform - with a less provocative, more friendly name - through which his community can engage in dialogue and debate with the English-speaking world. I think it's great that they're looking to expand their dialogue and engage with the world. It's important that the outside world understand that China's patriotic youth, like young Republicans or young Tories, feel that they are acting on their own belief systems and get angry when characterized as brainwashed puppets. It will be fascinating to see how the outside world reacts to these efforts, and how the Anti-CNN website administrators handle conversations that foreigners want to have with them involving events, people, or points of view that Chinese websites are generally required to censor in order to avoid being shut down.

Comments

[Wahaha]

What do you think of the situation in Thailand ?

[Wahaha]

Please dont use commercial as excuse for biased reports about China.

On Tibet issue, I found lies and manipulations in Wiki, BBC, CCN, anywhere.

Did you ever visit fool's mountain. There is serious problem about native aboriginals in Canada, but people dont know what is going on in the land under their feet, while they think they know a lot about what is going on on the other sider of the earth.

Let us if you are gonna censor my post.

[AchineseDude]

if it is for the purpose of justice to be anti-cnn, xinhua should have been hung long time ago.

[FranklinT]

Thanks for the info, this is really interesting.

On on hand, I can see that anti-cnn.com has a mission to expand China's media savvy when it comes to western media-- but on the other, having a site with that type of name tends to attract reactionary people with clear agendas. This makes dialogue hard.

In recent years, with the advent of the Fox News model for viewership and readership-- Western media has not actually helped Westerners become more educated about differing viewpoints that the rest of the world possesses.

Even Rebecca herself probably knows very clearly that even Reuters and the 1000s of stories per day that are filed-- are implicit in a type of commercial journalism which sells people ideas they are comfortable with and doesn't represent anything that challenges their views.

Freedom of press, especially in the USA, is sadly only reserved for Domestic issues. Foreign Policy and information about other countries is strictly skewed towards the existing biases that certain market segments have.

And, that, is why Chinese people hate living in DC. There are some existing biases in that city that will take 5 Obamas to change.

[Phil in China]

"My moderator said that China's censorship system is a national reality and she believes it's necessary for national stability."

Any government that feels it must "protect" people from the Truth is undeserving of any media attention...

[DBZ]

I'm confused, how come Rao Jin is listed as the founder? According to the China Digital Times article http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/12/interview-with-anti-cnn-founder-qi-hanting/ Qi Hanting was the founder and he said Anti-CNN was apparently hijacked by the fenqing...

[Michael in Sydney]

If Anti-CNN fosters a sense of dialogue about media bias and develops critical skills towards all media then it may be a good thing. I wonder what the folks at anti-CNN think of the fact that one of the most popular shows in the US (the Daily Show) owes its success to being hypercritical of US media and politicians. Perhaps one day CCTV will have a similar show that focuses on Chinese media and Chinese politicians.

[wdd]

"My moderator said that China's censorship system is a national reality and she believes it's necessary for national stability."

I agree with the moderator. The CCP would crumble if people actually knew what was going on. Censorship keeps the CCP alive.

[L.X.]

Personally I feel somewhat offended by the "patriotic youth" title that Rebecca gave to those people at anti-cnn community... they have to prove themselves capable of independent, critical thinking --- not only against western media, but against domestic media, especially official media as well --- before they can be called patriots.

[lei]

There are several issues here: 1) Chine/Tibet relationship. 2) General function of media 3) CNN’s behavior in reporting China/Tibet issue.

I basically agree with you about China/Tibet relationship and genral function of media. But I think that CNN’s behavior in reporting China/Tibet is a shame.

If the conversation’s purpose is discuss China/Tibet and generally about media, that is good. If the conversion’s purpose is to defend CNN, I don’t think CNN deserve it.

[Matt]

You should post a video of the interview on youtube. Oh wait thats right, its blocked in China because of a sensitive video from Tibet.

The problem isnt the western media, the problem is China hiding its problems from its people and the West instead of being open and looking at itself in the mirror.

[Webster Hang Yin]

Thank you for sharing the information.

Here are some points which I think are quite relevant.

1. History has many different versions. These Chinese young people have been taught the Chinese version of history (be it of Tibet or the West), while people in the U.S. has their version of history concerning China or the world. There are other versions, say, Tibetan's own version of their history. The problem is no one is sure, or should be over-confident that his version is the only 'reality', and that his version should be embraced by all.

2. Based upon the different version of history, distinct perspectives are formed. If that is the point of departure for people to discuss an issue, then no agreement can be met.

3. Chinese people AND people outside China should learn to accept that there are salient points in 'the other' version of history and learn to think critically.

4. Why there were so many overseas Chinese protesting during the torch relay last year? My own opinion is that these people recognize that there are many problems with Chinese media, and they acknowledge that. what's more, they also noticed the problems with Western media which are not noticed by many Western audiences. People say these Chinese protesters (overseas Chinese) are 'brainwashed'. Really? or is it simply because they'd learned to think critically?

5. The fellows with Anti-CNN, in my opinion, haven't learn to think critically. they only learned to 'criticize'. As Rebecca points out, they simply don't understand what freedom (of speech) is. Freedom is everyone can have their say, but whether what they've said can be accepted by others is totally anther question. Put it in another way, you can hold your opinion against some protesters advocating something you don't believe. You can even choose to ignore it. You can argue with them. BUT, it is NOT right to prevent others from saying!

Chinese People should learn to react like this: 'go on protesting for whatever you believe; I don't give a shit 'cause I don't believe what you are saying.' instead of trying to justify your own opinion by quenching others'.

My compatriots in Anti-CNN, in China please, please learn to think critically and learn what freedom is because that is the most important prerequisite for any mutual understanding. And the people in the Wester democracies, please, please learn to accept there ARE problems not only in Chinese 'state-controlled' media, but the Western free media as well.

[Aurelie]

I don't think it's realistic to expect Chinese people to criticize the current Chinese version of history, including Tibet and Tiananmen. To this day, French people like to pretend they were all Resistants during World War II and only a handful collaborated with the Germans, while there is significant evidence that a lot more than a handful were involved, and that was 60 years ago.

Chinese people are fighting for respect as a world power. They don't realize protests and dissent come with the territory. It makes me think of a teacher who thinks he's no good unless absolutely every one of his students loves him - that's just not going to happen. Even great teachers aren't loved by every single one of their students, and they're still great.

I believe the Chinese need first to be convinced that the West takes them seriously as a civilization and a great power. Later, they will hopefully realize that allowing people to speak their mind provides new ideas and new solutions.

Also, they have the example of the former USSR, which crumbled when Gorbatchev allowed more freedom of speech. I guess freedom of speech is more a historically Western value and order at all costs is more an Eastern value. This is not something that is going to change fast.

[Webster Hang Yin]

"Chinese people are fighting for respect as a world power...."

don't confuse China with Chinese people

Aurelie, believe me, 'China' may be fighting for respect as a world power as depicted by the media. but 'China' is not the people who live in the country. it is the government. you see what your problem is? you are deeply influenced by the media which only use the words such as 'China' or 'Beijing' to represent 1.3 billion people. The Chinese people are 'de-humanized' in the news reporting. They are simplified, homogenized as 'China'.

People in China are not 'China'. They are people with individual thought. Many of them are becoming critical. And as far as I can see, most of them don't care about politics. They are fighting for a better life, not for respect as a so called 'World power' (but I admit there are politicians with this ambition. it's the same for many powerful governments in the world).

You are quite right that things will not change fast, but I assure you it is changing. And, Aurelie, please also take what you've learned in your textbooks and media critically.

I've talked to some people who got involved in the 1989 Tian'anmen incident. (some of these people were even among the most active students at that time) People WERE KILLED, and I know that. Most Chinese people know that! The one who experienced that terrible moment told me about that. and he was deeply regret. He also told me if they hadn't been instigated by a few student-demagogues, all the students would have survived, and they should have gone back to school first during the martial law and fought back later through other means.

anyway, Aurelie, it's just a few persons' story that i'm telling. It might be far from the real picture. just for your reference. we should talk more to the people who were IN the situation, as Rebecca always does, instead of quoting textbooks, news.

Thank you for using the term 'Chinese people' in your comment, though at one point it is confused with 'China'. And thank you for taking the Chinese civilization 'seriously', actually what Chinese people may want from people around the world is just an understanding of or simply an interest in the Chinese culture.

[someone]

Typical biased viewpoints from an American journalist. It looks like that she used this chatting opportunity to collect materials to prove her biased views that, I'm sure, will be included in her book. By doing this, she can claim that she is a China "expert" who is actually as shallow as many of her peers. The very limited viewpoints from AC members and other Chinese are out of context; only to be used to prove and enhance her own biased viewpoints. Too bad that she even does not realize how biased she is!

[†Invisible Sky Magician†]

Absolutely predictable response from the Pro-China folks at Anti-CNN.com with this gem of a quote:

"My moderator said that China's censorship system is a national reality and she believes it's necessary for national stability."

QUESTION: What is the point of government censorship?
ANSWER: To brainwash the public.

Did she (and any other person who holds the same views as her) think before speaking? So the truth (whatever the truth is) is worth censoring? That doesn't sound very healthy for a society to me.

And she claims that she gets "angry when characterized as brainwashed puppets."

She personally might not be a brainwashed puppet but she's still a puppet. As for the masses of Chinese who live under the totalitarian government censorship with access to only 1 government-sponsored media source and if they're lucky, a government-censored internet, we can only assume THEY are the brainwashed puppets.

It is exactly this oppressive censorship that makes debating/discussion with Chinese people near-impossible. Using censorship as a tool, this promotes the spreading of Pro-China sentiment and dialog while blocking (censoring) all other critical and dissenting voices.

As an internet scholar, I identified this issue and I call this phenomenon the "Chinese Imbalance of Views Syndrome." I uploaded my thesis on this topic on my blog below.

http://invisibleskymagician.baywords.com/2009/03/02/the-chinese-imbalance-of-views-syndrome/

In this new century, it appears Chinese people have learnt how to criticize the actions of the foreign media. That is positive. Perhaps one day, they can learn how to criticize their own DOMESTIC media.

We of the Western world already do that on a daily basis. Perhaps one day, the Chinese can do that too.

[†Invisible Sky Magician†]

Absolutely predictable response from the Pro-China folks at Anti-CNN.com with this gem of a quote:

"My moderator said that China's censorship system is a national reality and she believes it's necessary for national stability."

QUESTION: What is the point of government censorship?
ANSWER: To brainwash the public.

Did she (and any other person who holds the same views as her) think before speaking? So the truth (whatever the truth is) is worth censoring? That doesn't sound very healthy for a society to me.

And she claims that she gets "angry when characterized as brainwashed puppets."

She personally might not be a brainwashed puppet but she's still a puppet. As for the masses of Chinese who live under the totalitarian government censorship with access to only 1 government-sponsored media source and if they're lucky, a government-censored internet, we can only assume THEY are the brainwashed puppets.

It is exactly this oppressive censorship that makes debating/discussion with Chinese people near-impossible. Using censorship as a tool, this promotes the spreading of Pro-China sentiment and dialog while blocking (censoring) all other critical and dissenting voices.

As an internet scholar, I identified this issue and I call this phenomenon the "Chinese Imbalance of Views Syndrome." I uploaded my thesis on this topic on my blog below.

http://invisibleskymagician.baywords.com/2009/03/02/the-chinese-imbalance-of-views-syndrome/

In this new century, it appears Chinese people have learnt how to criticize the actions of the foreign media. That is positive. Perhaps one day, they can learn how to criticize their own DOMESTIC media.

We of the Western world already do that on a daily basis. Perhaps one day, the Chinese can do that too.

[Henry]

From the three weeks I backpacked through Tibetan areas of Sichuan and the Tibet Autonomous Region, I got the impression that many Tibetans were unhappy with Chinese rule. Many Tibetans complained to me about the Chinese government, but no one said they supported it. However, I did not have the chance to talk to a random sample of Tibetans, and my foreign appearance may have attracted those Tibetans who thought they could be free to complain to me about the government. Anyway, I heard some common complaints that the Chinese police in Tibet are too controlling, and that Han businesspeople have brought noisy discos and prostitution into Tibetan towns, which goes against traditional Tibetan values. From my experience, even the small Tibetan towns I stayed in often had loud discos that could be heard throughout the whole town into the wee hours of the night. Also, virtually every Tibetan family I stayed with asked me if I had any pictures of the Dalai Lama and seemed to respect him a great deal. At the same time, I know that some Tibetans are very supportive of the Chinese government. The situation for ordinary Tibetans in Tibet certainly has problems, but it is not as oppressive as some people think it is. Therefore, I would like to see an unbiased study of Tibetans' true opinions. This would require that the Tibetans understood that their answers are completely confidential and anonymous. This would also require that Tibetans from many areas, not just the cities, are surveyed. Finally, the researchers would have to make sure that the Tibetan respondents do not feel intimidated by the researchers. I have seen two so-called studies of Tibetans' opinions, but none that fit all of these criteria. They also had opposite conclusions.

[xie shao]

Anti-CNN.com is still young and naive. There is no way CNN will report anything out of government line. The CNN reporters may genuinely believe in their own propaganda, or they have to report what is told to keep their jobs.

Tibetan-in-exile protesters are professional protesters, and they are all on the payroll of the US gov.

Quote, "The United States of America has allocated $1,000,000 US dollars for a Tibet section of it's Embassy in Beijing.This is just a small part of $17,000,000 dollars the US is putting aside to provide vital funding for VOA Tibet Service and other continuing support for Tibet."

Also, CNN reporters feel comfortable to distort the truth on Tibet because they all hate Chinese gov, or Chinese.

Anti-CNN shall ask these questions directly, such as , Will CNN reporters lose their jobs if they are consider doing propaganda for Chinese communists? (A top US official lost his job because he called last year's Tibetan race riot a race riot; a German reporter and her director were kicked out for reporting different views on Tibet)

[特稿：反歪曲报道也碰上宣传禁忌]

特稿：反歪曲报道也碰上宣传禁忌
DWNEWS.COM-- 2009年4月19日23:30:15(京港台时间) --多维新闻网

多维社记者纪群编译报导/在中国，据说2008年网络第一流行语是：“做人别太CNN”，CNN（美国的有线电视新闻网）成为了西方媒体歪曲报道的代名词。一群中国青年为此还创建了“反CNN网站”（Anti-CNN.com）。如果有机会看到：给CNN做事的人与扬言与CNN对着干的人开展对话，应当是一件饶有兴趣的事情。

前CNN驻北京首席记者丽贝卡٠麦康瑞(Rebecca Mackinnon)是博客网站“全球之声”（RConversation）的创办者，近日，丽贝卡在这个网站上刊登了她接受反CNN网站的一篇访谈报道，题为“我与反CNN网站的交谈”（My chat with Anti-CNN.com）。丽贝卡认为，反CNN网站和一些中国青年人认为，在西方媒体针对中国发起的阴谋中，CNN是冲在第一线的。事实并非如此。

丽贝卡与反CNN网站成员交谈（资料图片）

丽贝卡在这篇博客报道中说，4月13日下午，她与这些运营Anti-CNN网站的爱国青年进行了在线聊天。Anti-CNN是一个在去年西藏骚乱和镇压事件后，由一批认为西方媒体在报道与中国相关的事件时歪曲中国形象的年轻中国人推出的网站。

4月11日，丽贝卡采访了Anti-CNN的创始人饶谨，也是为她的一本新书中的研究做准备，然后，丽贝卡也受邀上网聊天。丽贝卡说，过去，她的著作和发言一直是Anti-CNN网站的讨论话题，而且，鉴于她曾为CNN在北京作报道，他们那么热心地向把她介绍给他们社区则毫不奇怪。

丽贝卡写道，尽管，他们网站的名字非常不友善，但是，她发现创始人饶谨和网站的那些主要的自愿者都很礼貌、友好、聪明，并且专业，与此同时，他们对自己的观点也十分真诚。他们热切地希望外界不要把他们看成是被政府洗脑的代理人。他们希望世界能够理解，他们是因为热爱自己国家和希望国人能够通过更自我的观点看待世界媒体。这网站是由饶谨的互联网公司出资运营的。他坚持声明他们没有接受任何来自政府的资助。

丽贝卡（资料图片）

去年创办该网站最初是以批评CNN为起点的，现在已经转变为一个以批评媒体，特别是以西方媒体为主的，内容更为广泛的论坛。但是，他们对待中国媒体却没有那么严厉。就如饶谨对丽贝卡说的那样：“我们的目标不是挑战政府。我们想创造一个更多人能有机会参与讨论的良好空间和平台。如果没有了这个平台，那么，就根本没法表达我们的心声，所以，我们的首要目标是保证它的存活。”

广东政坛大地震：中共十八大权力...
深度： 温家宝16字回应马英九，还特地查...
互动： 简体还是繁体？海外中文学校陷两难
中国： 贾静雯将赴上海拍戏 23日向剧组...
国际： 说中国人需被管 福斯新闻网指成龙...
视频： 杀人凶犯熊振林被枪决刑前建议废除...
结婚送礼？给钱就好
娱乐： 羊晓东上百万小学堂闯关 败在12...
体育： F1中国赛维泰尔雨战夺冠 红牛包...
论坛： 漂亮的日本邻居 天天品尝她的 ..
丽贝卡说，聊天节目的主持人“Leslie"刘京（Liu Jing，音译）向丽贝卡提问，问题都是由Anti-CNN社区的成员事先就递上来的。这个对话被拍摄下来。与此同时，就在她回答问题的同时，两名自愿者实时总结我的回答，并把它们贴到Anti-CNN的论坛上。

丽贝卡，她是在14日读完了所有关于这次交谈的内容。她说，就像人们对任何“实时博客”对话所预期的那样，她所说的一些细节和微妙之处被遗漏了，而且，有时候这个实时的博客人误解了她所说的事情。例如，她把美国媒体对Abu Ghraib的报道引用为美国媒体和政府的利益不是经常相同的例子时，实时博客人把Abu Ghraib拼写成Albert Grey，不过这肯定是一个诚实的错误。总体上，CNN的工作者是尽了最大的努力来记录她所说的内容。不过有几处完全被省略的事情。

反CNN网站创建人饶谨，今年23岁，福建人，07年毕业于清华大学工程物理系。饶谨从在校期间就开始创业，目前拥有两家属于自己的IT公司。（资料图片）

例如，当丽贝卡被要求举例说明为什么外国记者经常不信任中国政府所说的话时，丽贝卡举了自己曾碰上政府官员对她说谎的经历为例，说那些官员没有真实地回答她提出的关于灾害造成的伤亡人数和她知道被关入监狱的人的命运等问题。反CNN网站登出的实时博客的访谈内容中，这两个例子都没有被包括其中。

丽贝卡说，她还提及中国政府拒绝承认1989年六四时许多人遇害的事实，虽然，六四中示威者的实际死亡人数可能依然有所争议，但是，她曾访谈过死者家属，他们有这些死者曾经存在过的证据，而且知道他们是何时，以及如何被杀害的。丽贝卡说，政府不愿意承认这些死者的事实，等于是不愿意承认这些人曾存在过。这段话也没有被打入论坛上的讨论中。丽贝卡说，在回答一个问题时，她还谈论了关于艾滋病问题的活动人士胡佳被关押一事，这段对话也没有出现在论坛上。

反CNN网站刚创建时的网站首页，称网站旨在收集、整理并发布西方主流媒体作假诬陷中国的证据（资料图片）

丽贝卡说，在聊天结束后，她被告知，他们在把录像放上互联网前必须对其进行剪辑，因为其中一些内容过于敏感，会给他们的网站带来麻烦。丽贝卡对整个对话进行了录音。录音是完全未经剪辑的。网友可以上她的博客网站RConversation下载。丽贝卡说，由于时间限制，她暂时不能够提供完整的谈话记录和英文译本。在将来，她可能会尝试找人来帮助我完成这点。与此同时，这是她总结的几个要点：

本次聊天开篇问题就是有关温家宝总理在全国人大闭幕会的记者招待会。在那次记者招待会上，温家宝曾批评达赖喇嘛。一名Anti-CNN社区成员想知道为什么西方媒体似乎不重视这一部分，反而专注在其他内容上面。丽贝卡回答说，她并没有出席记者招待会，当时也没在中国，也没读过记者招待会的完整记录，因此，她并记得温家宝所说的，关于达赖喇嘛的确切内容。但是，如果温家宝的发言与他过去在达赖喇嘛的问题上的发言在内容上十分相似的话，或者只是重复中国政府或者新华社此前发表的言论，那么，西方媒体不会认为这是“新闻”，因为这点已经不“新鲜”了。

丽贝卡说，接下来，刘京问她为什么西方媒体给予出来支持中国奥运火炬传递活动的中国学生示威者的注意力不及那些支持西藏独立的示威者。丽贝卡回答说，部分原因是，有这样的一个事实：西方媒体倾向于更注意自称受委屈或者受压迫的人们，而且，通常对代表或者支持当权者的人们给予较少的报道。我也承认西方人通常不理解当今中国留学生的爱国主义行为，不明白他们的爱国主义是怎么产生的，以及不了解他们的爱国行为是出自内心的自发行动。

作为一名西方的媒体人，丽贝卡看来，很多报道错误会发生的原因，并不是所谓的“阴谋”，而是因为编辑和记者们面临着截稿时间紧、人手匮乏、资金不够等压力。于是他们常常过于依赖实习生，同时又缺乏足够人手对他们进行合理的督导。结果是，在美国的有线电视和卫星电视新闻频道上，由于工作人员在节目播出以前疏于检查而导致了一些重大失误。网站上的照片则被不假思索地裁切。通讯社的新闻源张冠李戴，明明是从这个国家得知的消息变成了另一个国家。领导人的名字被搞错。对事物的解读出现偏差。错误就在还没来得及被发现时就通过广播电视或者网络媒体传播了出去。这样的事屡屡上演。相信我，不信你随便问问哪个业内人士看看。

所以，丽贝卡说，有一种说法可以解释为什么人们说新闻业如同香肠生产厂：知道了太多生产的过程，你就会发现它难以下咽。

下一个问题，来自另一名Anti-CNN社区的成员，问是美国人是否考虑过，为什么支持西藏独立的示威者出现在火炬传递活动上。丽贝卡的解释是，美国人的预期是，每当一涉及到某个世界大国，或者该国的领导人的活动，或者某种代表这个国家的事情发生时，就肯定会有示威者。丽贝卡说，如果去年的奥运会是在美国举办，而美国人也在世界各地进行火炬传递活动，毫无疑问，各种各样的人都会出来示威。中国现在是个世界大国，所以，中国人必须要习惯于看到，世界各地的人们会抗议中国所代表的事情。这是作为一个全球大国的生活的一部分。这种现象不会消失，你必须学会如何接受它。当然，话虽如此，她还是同意，在巴黎的示威者袭击坐着轮椅的中国运动员的事件，是示威者们一次非常糟糕的决定。这表现出示威者完全缺乏对中国人如何看待他们示威的理解（或者说缺乏兴趣）。

丽贝卡还说，网友们问的许多问题都是有关CNN是如何运营的，如何取得他们报道的消息的，以及在什么程度上，包括西方在内的世界媒体是被政治和市场力量所操纵的。丽贝卡说，她谈到商业广告压力是如何创造媒体偏见的，这种形式可能会导致政治后果，因为，为了增加收视率和流通量，媒体有时候会担心，如果报道太多让观众不高兴和生气的事情，会导致他们转至其他频道或者取消订阅。丽贝卡还谈了有关战争对新闻界是好事，以及它也对许多记者的个人工作生涯有好处这一无法否认的事实，与主流记者报道的这一面一直让她感到舒服的想法。

反CNN网站的年轻人（资料图片）

丽贝卡说，她也谈到了“人造草皮”(astroturf)商业广告，以及竞选雇员或者博客“顾问”的博客，这已经成为了越来越多的西方政客们竞选时所采用的策略。她说Anti-CNN网站的主持人当时试图以此说明，美国的这方面，与在中国发生的审查和媒体操纵，是大同小异的事情。但是丽贝卡反驳说，这是截然不同的两种情况。与此同时，当然，任何人在吸收任何渠道的新闻时，除非那些新闻组织或者博客赢得了你的信任，不要信任这些新闻。而且，在任何国家，都有许多理由不应当完全信任哪些新闻来源。

丽贝卡说她还指出，过去20多年，虽然中国媒体已经在发展和变得越来越有深度，以及虽然互联网创造了一个比以往任何时候都要广泛的发表言论和进行辩论的空间，但是，中国的信息环境仍然非常扭曲。中国的调查记者告诉过她无数个他们编辑不允许发表的故事。例如，毒奶粉事件，一名中国记者去年春季就准备好发布这条消息，但是，没有获得上面的许可，结果是数以千计的婴儿患病，他们不知情的父母原本有机会知道事实。批评中央政策的声音在互联网上被审查的程度要比像 Anti-CNN这类爱国青年社区高得多。结果就是一个扭曲的信息环境，只会在正面的反馈上不断循环，自我强化而已。

主持人说，中国新闻审查系统是一个全国性的现象，而且，她相信这是为了保证国家安定所必须的。

反CNN网站刚创建就遭黑客攻击，“洪水式攻击”涌向服务器（资料图片）

丽贝卡说，在她被问及关于她于2003采访达赖喇嘛的事情时，她报道了达赖是说他担心西藏的侵权状况，以及他并不是寻求独立，而是自治的想法。以及，他希望能够就此与中国政府举行谈判。刘京问丽贝卡是否问过达赖喇嘛为什么他想回到西藏“成为西藏的大奴隶主。”丽贝卡说，达赖喇嘛的想法并不是让西藏倒退到封建时期的状态。他的想法是在西藏事务上给当今的西藏人更多说话权，而且，他的想法是以宗教领袖，而不是一名政治领袖的身份回到西藏。

丽贝卡说，她没有就有关中国在西藏主权上的历史事实与网友们展开辩论，因为这么一来就根本没法谈任何其他事情了。很明显，在Anti-CNN的人都已经决定事实是什么了，以及，他们所认为是正确的历史版本，而在这些事实上的共有观点是Anti-CNN社区的一大支柱。不过，我建议他们，除了与西方人在西藏问题上辩论外，他们也许应该在与西藏人交流上付出更多的努力，而且，西藏问题只有在更多中藏交流，共同寻求解决方案的情况下才可能解决。丽贝卡说刘京告诉她，曾去过西藏，而刘京说她的经历是，所有曾与她打交道的藏民都非常感谢中国政府给西藏带来的发展。她认为西方人没有理解西藏人真实的想法是什么。

丽贝卡认为，在读了这个论坛的社区成员在聊天过程，以及结束后所贴的评价后，感到，显而易见的是，许多网友并不认为问题在于西藏自身；他们似乎认定，整个问题都是由流亡政府和受达赖喇嘛所迷惑的西方人造成的，是干涉了中国的内政。

丽贝卡说我此次接受采访的主要目，的是为了新书的一部分研究更好的理解Anti-CNN社区。像Anti-CNN这类由热情、爱国青年组成的社区是一个她称为“网络独裁”(cyber-tarianism)现象的一个重要组成部分。

看看Anti-CNN网站的将来会怎样地不断发展，这将是非常有趣的事情。饶谨已计划开发的英语平台，不过会用一个挑衅含义少的，更友好的名称来起名，将通过他的这个网站的平台，他们可以进行与英语世界的国家对话和辩论。丽贝卡认为这样做很好，她说，Anti-CNN网站正在寻找扩大与世界各地对话的方式。很重要的一点是，让外部世界认识到，中国的爱国青年，就像共和党或保守党（托利党）的青年人一样，他们的行为是基于他们自己的信仰，他们对说他们是被 “洗脑的傀儡”，是感到很气愤的。

看看对他们的这种努力，外面世界有什么反应，将是很有意思的事情。同样有令人兴趣的就是，了解Anti-CNN网站的管理者们如何处理外国人与他们的对话，这种对话涉及到与他们有关的事情和民众，或者是中国的网站如果不想被关闭，必须对哪些观点进行审查和处理的。

[特稿：反歪曲报道也碰上宣传禁忌]

[转贴]专访Anti-CNN网站创始人饶谨
文章提交者：1440分钟 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net

七日谈·七日访谈:

专访Anti-CNN网站创始人饶谨

LonelyJames发布于 2008-10-12 08:21:23|3543 次阅读 字体：大 小 打印预览

本期人物：饶谨，Anti-CNN网站创始人，清华大学工程物理专业毕业
访谈关键词：Anti-CNN 西方媒体 客观 公正 言论 屏蔽
采访者：LonelyJames
采访日期：2008-09-29

在中关村一家咖啡馆里参加一个小聚会的饶谨，无论从气质上还是从西装革履的打扮上都让人觉得，他更适合做新闻频道的主播。站在照相机镜头前，他习惯把双手背到身后。也许是屋里有点儿热，他解开了衬衣的纽扣，但自始至终都没有脱下黑色西装。他打开自己的ThinkPad，连上无线网络，几乎是下意识的敲出 www.anti-cnn.com的网址，回车。

饶谨用Foxmail收发邮件，大概10年前这款邮件客户端曾经垄断了国内网虫的桌面。他的邮箱里还躺着5封未读邮件，在已经被他归到垃圾邮件的一些信里面，可以看到《日本产经新闻》、《中国新闻周刊》《明镜》周刊、《德国画报》这样的名字。

“其实我们很多媒体的采访都拒绝或拖延了，”饶谨说，“风口浪尖的时候，我们已经保持最大限度的低调。主要也是由于精力比较有限吧。”

在我们的对话中，饶谨有很多次提到这样的话：

“我们所有的工作都有一个底线，当我们讨论的话题触及到国家和民族的利益的时候，我们要坚决拥护国家利益和民族利益。”

那么，饶谨的底线，具体指的是什么呢？

CB：Anti-CNN一直说西方媒体的失实报道，我想知道你们自己的编辑是怎样处理稿件的。
饶：我们人手很少，没有专门的编辑，作为论坛来说我们有管理员和版主队伍，但是也基本是志愿者，根本不够处理网站的日常事务。但是总的来说，大家都是本着相对客观公正的原则来挑选新闻。

CB：什么是客观公正？
饶：我们的原则是尊重事实。

CB：好像在立场问题上不亲西方就肯定会亲政府，有没有第三条路线存在？
饶：西方也有一些在立场上和本国政府不一致的媒体，它们的声音都很小，不具有代表性，那么我们就是要把这些声音报道出来，我们不是要宣传自己的立场，只是希望提供一个观点自由交流的平台，让两方面的意见都可以在上面得到体现。

CB：会做成两栏，一栏写着“左”，一栏写着“右”，然后对照着你来一篇，我来一篇？
饶：我觉得要做到100%的客观公正是不可能的，任何媒体都必然会有自己的立场。在选择事实报道的时候，肯定会有一定的偏向性。像有些西方媒体标榜自己是“客观，公正”的，我觉得没有必要。Anti-CNN只是在尊重事实的原则下，传达一种不同的声音。其实西方的媒体，我觉得说白了也有大量 propaganda（宣传）的成分。

CB：既然都是一种宣传，那么媒体如果标榜自己“客观公正”的话，不是可以起到更好的宣传效果吗？你们不做这样的标榜，在竞争中不就不如别人有宣传效果？
饶：确实有这个问题。

CB：你们不标榜是为了规避风险吗？
饶：没有这方面的意思，我们可以倡导客观公正。但是只要报道是人写的，就难免有点立场吧。所以这只能说是相对的客观。

CB：有很多西方国家重视和保护言论自由的例子。美国允许公民用各种方式来表达自己的言论，包括焚烧国旗等等。它们的法院和政府，激进派和保守派经历了很多争论，最后还是允许了.
饶：这都是一种表面现象。我知道的一件事情是最近科罗拉多州一个小学的6年级班上，老师要求学生穿红白蓝的衣服以显示爱国主义，结果一个11岁的小男孩穿了一件自制的T恤写着“奥巴马是恐怖分子的最好朋友”（Obama is a terrorist's best friend）。学校要求他把衣服反着穿过来，或停课。这个孩子选择了停课。有趣的是，几天后，这篇报道在那个网站上被删除了。在涉及到他们国家利益的时候，他们还是一样要统一口径。国内的事情他们可以批评，但是只要涉及国外的问题，他们往往都是一致的。反对政府的声音不占主流，有时候根本听不见。

CB：但是我们不能在国内说所有国内的问题。
饶：其实我觉得现在我们国家的言论自由还是很充分的，特别是在网络这方面，国外网站比如说BBC、德国之声都标明了要审核每条评论的，国内新浪，网易这类的网站的新闻评论就相对没有太多限制。

CB：但是网易经常会见到“评论x000条，显示0条”这样的情况。
饶：我们当然也有必要要进行一定的监管，就像我们Anti-CNN，我们是要过滤一些纯灌水，言语粗俗和人身攻击的帖子的，过滤了那些之后，我们辩论的质量就会大大提高，也会让真正有价值的民间声音能够凸显出来，这本身也节省访问者的阅读时间。

CB：你认为我们对言论的管理，和西方媒体相比，哪一个更严格？
饶：我刚才说了，其实对媒体的监管和限制，国内和国外都有，不能说谁更严格，只能说西方媒体伪装的技巧要比中国好。我们要维护国家利益和民族利益。

CB：Anti-CNN平时做的一部分工作是把国内看不到的外国媒体文章摘编过来。那么访问的人都掌握了访问外国网站的技术，或者如果外国网站放开了，Anti-CNN还有没有继续存在的意义？
我觉得我们现在欠缺的是一些专业的人员，如何能进行有效的宣传工作和公关工作。像西方一些公关部门，还有我们平时说的“美分党”，他们平时可以从政府拿到津贴，他们的素质都相当高，很擅长在网络上煽动和制造影响。而且大大小小的反华基金会、NGO则“装备精良”，有雄厚的资金支持和理论、技术培训，相比较而言，他们是正规的集团军，而我们民间的爱国网友则更像是散兵游勇，当然大家团结的时候，力量也可以很强大。

CB：我们的公关人员和技术不如国外，假如让国外专业的公司帮我们做就好了，是吧？
饶：我认为不应该让位外国的公司做。但是好像目前政府有请外国的公关公司吧？

CB：国外公司本身也有他们所坚持的意识形态，他们愿不愿意同我们的政府合作呢？
饶：光靠公关公司当然不行，这需要我们国家“硬实力”和“软实力”都要有很大的进步才行。这是一个长期的过程。从“硬实力”上来说，你看今年2008年奥运会的开幕式，要是放在1998年或1988年，即使张艺谋再有才，他也做不出这么好的效果。国家有经济实力了，才能办出这样的一届奥运会。“软实力”呢，是增强我们国民的素质，培养国民有独立思考的能力。

CB：但是现在要想培养国民独立思考的能力非常困难吧，应该不是很快就可以见到效果的。
饶：这是当然的。

CB：同时国家正在不断加强中小学，包括大学的思想政治教育。国家出台了一系列政策，同时相关专业的老师也越来越抢手，这些表明国家希望能够尽可能统一孩子们的思想认识。这样的政策有利于孩子们形成独立思考的能力吗，你认为？
饶：确实我们还需要在教育的方面有所改善，但是一个正在发展中的国家肯定会有很多的问题，当我们“硬实力”和“软实力”都不如别人的时候，我们更需要一个稳定的环境来发展自己。假如通过激进的方式进行变革，有可能对大家都没好处。

CB：你们网站的网友里还有多少人记得今年年初的南方雪灾？
饶：大家应该都记得吧。

CB：但是现在必须有人提醒，我们才能想起来：哦，自己有一阵子没有关注这件事了。
饶：是这样的。不过我们并没有真正忘记。我们开设了一个“512地震专区”，把灾区相关的新闻放到一块，作为一个永久的历史存档，也经常有网友在上面发帖子。

CB：也许要不了多久，引起Anti-CNN这个网站诞生的拉萨“3•14”事件也会被人们忘记的差不多，那么访问的人就会忘记：Anti-CNN这个网站到底当初是想做什么？它存在的意义又在哪里？
饶：并不是说3•14当天才一下子冒出那么多的不实报道，以前西方媒体一直都有对中国现象有所扭曲的报道，只不过没有引起我们足够的关注。我们的初衷就是想反对西方媒体的不实报道，给西方民众传达我们民间的真实声音。很多人以前觉得西方媒体比国内媒体可信度高，如果我们把西方媒体当成唯一可信的信源，那将是非常危险的。我们以后想慢慢发展成为中西方交流的一座桥梁。交流文化，交流彼此的意识形态。

CB：西方在输出自己的意识形态，我们要把中国的意识形态输出到西方去，那我们的意识形态足够吸引人吗？西方意识形态有可能会吸引我们当中的一些人，我们的也有可能吸引他们当中的一些人吗？
饶：我发现有一个很有趣的现象，那就是现在有不少西方人都重新提倡起了社会主义理论。

CB：不管是“美国梦”还是个人奋斗的这类资本主义的理想，它们都至少可以在人有限的一生之内完成，相比之下“实现共产主义”这个目标对于一个人的一生来说是不是过于宏伟？甚至在欧美，人们都倾向于把这个当成一种空想。
饶：这的确是一个值得注意的问题，但是无论如何，在国外宣传他们自己的价值观的时候，我们这边也要有相应的动作，因为他们绝对不会喜欢放手去容忍一个繁荣富强的中国的崛起。因为中国的崛起并不是空想，而是现实。最近有美国媒体报道说，正如中国建设中国特色的社会主义经济一样，美国也在建立美国特色的社会主义经济。

CB：以后会不会考虑把服务器搬到国外？
饶：没有这个想法。我们在国内经过了备案。但是未来我们会考虑在国外多设一些镜像服务器。

CB：有人会说Anti-CNN只针对国外媒体。
饶：其实关于反CCTV这样的网站国内外也是不少的，有的甚至很无聊。我们在精力有限的情况下，只能选择一个主要的方面，就是针对国外的不实报道。

CB：放到国外，被屏蔽的风险是很低的，比如你在国外可以发表批评当地政府的意见，但是在国内你不能发表批评国内政府的意见。
饶：论坛里面并不是没有讨论国内问题的帖子，而比如瓮安事件，我们的管理其实是很宽松的。我们基本保持一个原则，那就是只要是客观理性的，建设性的，即使是批评，我们也保留，如果纯粹是宣泄和煽动不满情绪、言语粗俗的、胡搅蛮缠的，我们发现后会采取一些删除或者屏蔽的措施。实际上我们这里可以看到很多你从国内媒体上看到不多的内容，比如国外也有问题奶粉。国外一样是有屏蔽的，我自己在澳大利亚和美国的新闻网站上发表过支持中国的帖子，写了很长一段，结果很快就被删除了。另外，4月份我们的网站就被纽约联合国总部屏蔽了。

CB：我听说了。
饶：他们的法规提到要屏蔽的有三种网站：“色情”或“从事赌博活动”或“危及联合国的声誉和安全”的。 包括Anti-CNN在内的几家网站都被封掉了。可我们既不是色情网站，也不是赌博网站，更不知道哪里会危害到联合国的“声誉和安全”。

CB：可是，如果在国外封锁，那么国外即使封锁也是一视同仁，既封锁你们，也封锁反对你们的网站，可是在国内，比如说北京奥运之前，我们的封锁是单方面的，BBC、德国之声封锁了，但是好像并没有封锁你们的网站。
饶：不是的，4月份的时候，我们很多留学生网友反映相当一部分国内网站他们在国外上不了，比如anti-cnn和中华网。

聚会结束，我们拍照告别。“认识你很高兴。”饶谨一边说，一边和我握手。他确实在微笑。

临走的时候，饶谨问：“你对我的印象有没有什么改变？”

我说：“其实我觉得我们有一点是相似的。你看到了中国和西方媒体的不同，你两方面的事情都了解很多，但是你依然坚持自己的观点和立场。这点我也一样。”

饶谨报以一笑。

人物背景：饶谨

2007 年，饶谨毕业于清华大学工程物理专业，现自主创立一家IT公司。此外，他还担任着水木论坛Gentleman版的版主。一次和现在旅居国外的朋友的聊天以后，饶谨“才知道，在我们眼里极少数人的打砸抢，经过西方媒体的报道，全成了另外一副样子。他们告诉我，在国外甚至麦当劳里尚不懂事的白人小女孩，也会挥着雪山狮子旗声援达赖。”

2008年拉萨事件发生后，身在IT业的饶谨迅速自己出钱组建了Anti-CNN网站，并在论坛上发帖征集“西方媒体作恶的证据”。饶谨的帖子迅速被无数网友转载至其他论坛，很多志愿者以MSN签名、QQ群宣传网站。短短5天，浏览量超过20万。有两三百人希望做网站的志愿者，希望参与网站的材料整理、论坛管理和翻译工作；近2000人提供了各种证据，“网站上已经发布的只是经过我们严格核实的一小部分。”

3 月27日，有记者在外交部记者会上提问：“有一个叫Anti-CNN.com的民间网站专门批评外国媒体针对西藏的新闻报道，不知道您对这一网站是否赞赏或支持，中国政府有没有对该网站给予任何物力或财力支持？”秦刚说：“ 你提到的这个事情反映了一种社会现象，值得在座的媒体进行反思和思考。你问是不是有政府的成分在里面，你们应该看一看有的西方媒体的报道，这种现象难道还用中国政府去煽动吗？这完全是中国各界群众对这种不负责任、违反职业道德的报道予以的自发谴责和批判。拉萨事件过去了，我们的国家会更好，西藏会更好，但是这一事件就像一面镜子，照出了国际上有些人的真实面目。它也是一个反面教材，教育了民众有些西方媒体标榜的公正客观到底是什么样的。” 自此，Anti-CNN的知名度迅速飙升。

本文发表前已经过Anti-CNN工作人员审读

《七日谈》文章均获得撰稿作者授权发布，转载请注明来源。文中言论不代表cnBeta的观点或立场。

[忧心忡忡看anti-cnn的裸体冲锋]

文章提交者：acrophobia 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net

忧心忡忡看anti-cnn的“裸体冲锋”
最近抽空去了趟FQ的总坛anti-cnn，我吃惊的发现他们已经不再抨击“洋媒”，不再骂“民猪人士”了！
恩？这么快就被和平演变了？
不！他们更上一层楼了！
他们开始把矛头对准在台上的了，作为党办的报纸的南方周末就因为提到了普世价值被他们打成“右粪”，要知道普世价值可是温总理在十五大上提出来的。作为官方经济学家的茅于轼因为表达一些市场派的观点也被打成“精蝇”了。同时被拉出来批斗的还有几位部长，因为他们“阴谋策划”了人民币升值。
反对逐步推进政治体制改革自然不必说了，甚至开始抵制外资企业在中国的发展，这可是zf坚持了30年的基本方针。在那里人人张口闭口毛主义！
有一位“爱国青年”信誓旦旦的说：在台上的这一代人已经腐朽了，就看我们这一代了，等到我们上台了，中国就大不一样了！————大有要抢班夺权的意思！
这就是cctv所说的理性爱国网站？
给人一种感觉新一代的红卫兵已经粉墨登场了。

至于，anti-cnn的这一次裸体冲锋什么时候会“撞墙”我们将拭目以待！

[Anti-cnn网站管理层感言]

北小沫（论坛版主，上海）：“因为经历过工作，社会上的风风雨雨和磕磕碰碰，让我觉得AC真的好像一个美好而又纯净的天堂，每天来这里，看见这样多的年轻人，高中生，甚至是初中生，在这里贡献自己的时光和激情，会很感动，也很有勉励我自己的感觉。
我想我一定会坚持下去的，一直到。。。。。。。天长地久。。HOHO”

520china（论坛版主，加拿大）：“我很高兴在ac当版主,因为我觉得这是在为我的祖国作贡献,虽然我个人的力量单薄,但是在维护祖国的形象和尊严的战线上,我也是一名战士,这让远离祖国在外求学的我感到很自豪.”

愤青广州（论坛版主，广州）：“2008年，对我而言，有很多第一次，第一次在网上发贴，第一次用QQ，第一次做版主……呵呵。作为一个40岁的人，虽很不容易，但在AC的激情、倾情的付出以及对AC的深厚感情，与各位无异。这三个月在AC的忘我经历，会永远值得我回忆，在这里能有这样的机会接识了像你们这些充满激情、充满想法、敢于行动的年轻人，我真的很高兴。”

空气稀薄（论坛管理员，德国）：“尊严，责任，真理，以及对祖国深沉的爱，是我一直在坚守的动力。让我们一起见证中国的强大！”

CC_best(论坛版主，香港)：“AC 的最大用處是要讓現在的年青人了解東西方,還有是認同自己的國家,對國家民族有責任感,敢於去承擔.並且提升自身的價值觀和世界觀。”

[A normal Chinese]

I only have one question.

Since the CNN website and TV programs are blocked by chinese government, how do this young men/wemon know what was reported by CNN???

Do you think a normal Chinese will care about what CNN report, since he/she even did not have chance to know what was reported by CNN?

Anti-CNN is a big joke and jerk.

They are not anti-CNN, what they antied is human right.

They are Chinese new Nazi!
I'm a Chinese, I totally understand what they want.

[Eric Olander]

Rebecca's interview with Anti-CNN highlights the huge knowledge gap that exists between those Chinese who possess a limited understanding of western media and westerners who often know even less about Chinese politics/nationalism.

I worked at CNN's Atlanta headquarters for many years and I can tell you right now that those at Anti-CNN would benefit quite a bit by taking more time to understand what drives an American media company like CNN. It's hard to really explain how little Americans media executives care about China and its domestic politics. So, as several Anti-CNN posters on this forum contend, to make the leap that a journalist's job would be jeopardized by advancing a particular storyline is just way out of sync with the realities that define U.S. cable news. In fact, we should all be so lucky that these news managers at networks like CNN only cared enough to be that sophisticated to know anything more about Tibet than that it is a pet-project of Richard Gere and certain Hollywood celebrities. They don't care about Tibet, China or pretty much anything else other than what will generate ratings. It's that simple. There is no conspiracy or hidden agenda, period... end of story.

If there is anything to reveal about the American news media it is that it's filled with people who are overall quite mediocre in their knowledge of international affairs, especially China. This is an extremely difficult concept for young Chinese people to understand. The vast majority of news producers, writers and even reporters at big cable news networks in the United States can be best described as people who "know a little bit about everything and nothing about anything."

Anti-CNNers: do not give CNN or any other American journalist more credit than s/he deserves.