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

[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。