Go Back   PROAZN.COM COMMUNITY: Asian Men and All Races of Women Coming Together > Appreciation for Asian Men and their Culture > Asian Culture & Customs > China Talk & Interaction


Members currently using Flashchat: 0
No one is currently using the chat.

Tags: , , ,

Reply
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-19-2008, 12:59 PM
AZN AZN is offline
ProAzn Apprentice
Points: 66,054, Level: 100
Points: 66,054, Level: 100 Points: 66,054, Level: 100 Points: 66,054, Level: 100
Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 2% Level up: 2% Level up: 2%
Activity: 62%
Activity: 62% Activity: 62% Activity: 62%
 
Chinese Zodiac Sign:
Zodiac Sign: Aquarius
Join Date: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 0
Cash: 0
Thanks: 398
Thanked 354 Times in 304 Posts
My Mood:
Rep Power: 0
AZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these partsAZN is infamous around these parts
A case of getting the facts right

A case of getting the facts right By Liu Shinan
Publisher:China Daily - Publication Date: 19-03-2008


Youths' Reference, a Beijing-based newspaper, reprinted an article from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) which criticises Chinese people for their loathing of the Western media's negative reports about their country.
The author of the article is a reporter of the US newspaper and obviously a Chinese by origin.
In the article, the writer cited a number of examples to illustrate what she says is the excessive importance Chinese people attach to 'face'. One example was the media coverage of contaminated drugs sold at the Hualian supermarket in Shanghai. After reading the report by the Guangzhou-based South Weekend online, most readers berated Hualian and China's drug safety administration. The report of the same incident by the Wall Street Journal, however, earned for itself condemnation from angry Chinese netizens.
The author asked: "I feel puzzled why these netizens would rather bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich than know the facts, for the (foreign media's) reports at least can tell them (what is wrong with the medicines). And why should they regard the face (of China) as more important than their compatriots' livelihood and lives?"
I feel puzzled at her remarks.
Since she had noticed that the Chinese netizens had expressed their anger over the incident after learning about it from the Chinese media, how could she claim that they had turned a blind eye to it?
As for her query why Chinese people tolerate their own media's negative reports about China's affairs but are unhappy about the foreign media's coverage of China's dark side, the answer is simple.
Chinese people do not detest the domestic media's critical reports of social problems because they know the reports do not serve to cover the brighter side of society as it is so obvious to every Chinese at home. Even if the media reports are all about negative things, people are fully aware that their country's achievements and progress far outweigh the problems.
The majority of the Western media's reports about China, however, are negative. Admittedly, most of these problems do exist. The question is, do they represent China's real image? As the Western media dominates the world's journalistic arena and thus constitutes the only channel through which the world learns about China, the image of China is all problematic. Is that not a distortion? Do people of any nation like their image to be distorted the same way?
In the Hualian case, what the Chinese people resented, according to the author, was the WSJ's report. Therefore, according to her logic, these Chinese proved to be cold-blooded over a matter concerning their compatriots' lives, because they did not like the WSJ's report. What ridiculous logic.
She seemed to be very proud of being part of the WSJ, for of all the examples she mentioned, three were related to her media's outlet and one of them was an ardent defense of "our newspaper's strict standards". I would like to give her a piece of advice: to work for a prestigious newspaper like the WSJ, one needs to know at least the basic principles of journalism. For instance, when covering a topic, the reporter or commentary writer should try not to cite examples that are too closely related to his/her company.
And the writer needs to improve her language skills. At least she should learn to use the right words. For example, in her article (apparently written in Chinese for it appeared on the WSJ's Chinese website), she used "our compatriots" to refer to Chinese people. That is a mistake. Chinese people are not her compatriots. Americans are.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.



Contact Us  |  ProAzn.com  |  Archive  |  Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007 - 2008, PixelFX Studios
Inactive Reminders By Mished.co.uk and FTP-Anime.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209