Anger at CNN and the world

I only irregularly attend the briefings offered by the Foreign Ministry every Tuesday and Thursday. But I sometimes find them useful, if only to hear the questions some of my colleagues from different countries ask. For instance, that was the way I learned earlier this year that a case of pesticide-tainted dumplings from China that sickened 10 Japanese consumers had suddenly morphed into a much larger matter of mutual suspicion between Tokyo and Beijing.

So there I was at the press briefing yesterday when a Xinhua reporter asked ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu a question about biased reporting from CNN, and particularly from someone she described as an anchor with what sounded like the surname Ka-Fu-Di.

The simultaneous English language translator kept referring to what sounded like Kafdi.

First, I didn’t know who the heck they were talking about. Secondly, I was struck with the speed at which Ms. Jiang issued what seemed to be a prepared response.

“We are shocked and strongly condemn the vicious remarks by Kafdi, the CNN anchor. He’s used his microphone to denigrate and insult China and the Chinese people,” she began, noting that Kafdi displayed “hatred” for China. “We solemnly request that CNN and Kafdi himself take back the malicious remarks and apologize to the Chinese people.”

After some mulling, I concluded that they must be referring to Jack Cafferty, a commentator who appears regularly on domestic CNN and, I believe, rarely on CNN international. Here’s the story I wrote about the matter.

No matter what Cafferty said, I found it rather odd that the Foreign Ministry would elevate it to the level of a pressing bilateral matter, demanding an apology. Can you imagine a Chinese diplomat heading into Foggy Bottom in Washington with a demarche about something a commentator said on TV? They’d be laughed out of the State Department. Will the Chinese Foreign Ministry begin monitoring all U.S. television talk shows for opinions deemed offensive to China? Does China want to be seen as trying to impose its own kind of media controls on commentators in the United States? I can't imagine that tactic will get far.

On several occasions over the past few years, and particularly during the anti-Japanese riots of 2005, when official pronouncements seemed strident but not as strident as what was appearing on the internet, it has struck me that Chinese officialdom runs a little panicked. As nationalism gains steam, officials are afraid of the anger on the street, worried about staying ahead of the firestorm. After all, the party doesn’t want to seem out of touch on issues of patriotism and national dignity. So this is entirely about maintaining a tough image before the domestic audience. And sure enough, state TV all morning has replayed Ms. Jiang’s demands for an apology.

In 2005, the party was able to keep a lid on nationalist sentiments. I hope it can do the same now.

Here’s the CNN response that was emailed to me early this morning:

We are aware of concerns about Jack Cafferty's comments related to China in the context of the upcoming Olympics, which were broadcast on The Situation Room on April 9, 2008.

CNN would like to clarify that it was not Mr. Cafferty's, nor CNN's, intent to cause offense to the Chinese people, and would apologize to anyone who has interpreted the comments in this way.

CNN is a network that reports the news in an objective and balanced fashion. However, as part of our coverage we also employ commentators who provide robust opinions that generate debate.

On this occasion Jack was offering his strongly held opinion of the Chinese government, not the Chinese people –- a point he subsequently clarified on The Situation Room on April 14.

It should be noted that over many years, Jack Cafferty has expressed critical comments on many governments, including the U.S. government and its leaders.

Comments

[A B]

The unfortunate part is that the MOFA could have spoken a lot louder if they kept their mouth shut, but for some mysterious reason, the ABG Nielson's Rating of CNN plunged, and with it, subscriptions.

The real issue is not the government trying to keep ahead of public opinion, but the ineffectiveness of the methods and means used by the Government in "getting out the message" to a Western audience.

If China's government were more visibly effective abroad, it would really limit the scope of nationalist sentiments beyond the government's control.

[chanps]

You find it rather odd?? I am a Malaysian. I have the liberty to watch BBC, CCTV ,Al Jezeera, CNN to form my own opinion. Remember the "goons and thugs" are real honest hardworking people who toil their lives, for a better living, growing and producing affordable food and goods for the world's population, whilst those holier than thou, suppossedly educated professionals are dishonest conniving individuals speculating to enrich themselves by driving up prices of products ...oil, housing and now food...causing untold misery and sufferings to the rest of mankind.

[Gahori]

Unfortunately, whether somebody refers to Chinese people or the government, the Chinese I have met take it very personally. I mean try criticizing the Chinese government for any of their policies, and a Chinese person will become very defensive about their government and pat comes the reply " 'Our' government blah blah blah...".

Somehow Chinese nationalism and the Chinese governance are so intricately intertwined. I have a hard time explaining my Chinese friends that criticizing their government does not mean that I am showing disrespect to their country or the culture!

I find it quite amusing that most of the arguments my friends put forth are direct words from Hu Jintao or the government press releases. Talk about mind control !

[bemis]

Gahori: Why "Amusing"? Your Chinese friends quote President Hu Jintao & Chinese press, because they are UNITED. In speech & thought. You have difficulty (apparently) not only in explaining things, but ALSO difficulty in UNDERSTANDING things.

[bemis]

By-the-way, who the HELL is Cafferty? Never before heard the name.Or Kafudi either. Beijing should simply kick him out.

[Gahori]

bemis: Thanks for your comments and clarifications (BTW I said 'press releases'). Now I understand (with all uppercases).
BTW "Beijing should kick Cafferty out", of where?
Never heard of Cafferty before, but China made him famous I guess :)

[Some guy]

Jack Cafferty isn't a US official; he is an individual expressing his private opinion. For China to demand an apology from him is a blatant attack on Western liberties. I guess this is more of what we have to look forward too in the coming decades; I guess if it was up to Party central, the Western media would only be able to use duplicates of Xinhua articles like they do it in the domestic Chinese market.

Time for America and the West to grow a pair and tell the Chinese that if they don't like what they see to change the channel.

[Mick]

The Jack Cafferty remarks are being used by the Chinese establishment to whip up more xenophobia. "Look, see how much the foreigners hate China". They portray his remarks as being directed at the Chinese people instead of the goons and thugs of the CCP.
The government response is designed for a Chinese audience, and to see how much CNN will grovel, which they already have.

[Paul Carr]

Keeping up my habit from yesterday. I'm just going to copy over a comment I made to thebeijinger message board/forum earlier today to here in response to the Cafferty story.

***************************

Well, it's clear Jack Cafferty isn't interested in keeping abreast with affairs in China. He wouldn't be the only one in the US news media who isn't interested and who, therefore, fall back on simplified caricatures and stereotypes.

As a best case scenario, Jack Cafferty meant the Chinese government and not the Chinese people when he said "I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years". He clarified this on Monday but didn't apologize. I think he should have. And, because he didn't, I think he's sending out a racist message.

This yahoo report here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080415/wl_mcclatchy/2...

conveniently sandpapers over Cafferty's inflammatory remark about goons and thugs by paraphrasing and, thereby, changing the meaning.

Here's the paragraph from there:

"Cafferty, a resident curmudgeon at CNN , sounded off on China on the program "The Situation Room" on April 9 . He said the United States imports "their junk with the lead paint" and its "poisoned pet food" while losing factory jobs to China , a country run by "the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years.""

Talk about gutter journalism.

Paul

[A B]

Let me ask a dumb question....

It is perfectly fair game for foreigners to express views that are offensive to China OUTSIDE of China.

It is also fair game for some tolerance of the difference in views of foreigners within China providing it does not exceed limits of Chinese tolerance.

This is not a privilege unique to China, but to all nations.

For example, the United States have a very low tolerance for foreigners advocating support for al-Qaeda in the United States and it is doubtful that persons doing so would be permitted to enter the US with the intent to publically express those views.

So if China is really unhappy with this kind of views being expressed, why is it not doing legitimate things to sanction the offenders?

Example #1:

Encourage Chinese Nationals within China and abroad to peacefully put forward China's views both within China and abroad.

In order to do this, it would greatly help if Beijing ended the blocking of the internet, so Chinese nationals can participate in the global discussion.

Right now, Chinese nationals cannot access many key websites, like blogs, comment areas, video sites, etc. where this global conversation is taking place.

By leaving the field to Tibetan activists abroad, China have left the growth of separatism and challenges to Chinese authority unchecked except by Beijing.

The problem with internet blocking it is so easy to bypass that almost every Tibetan activist opposed to China INSIDE China can get around it, but supporters of China are by and large, blocked from it.

China has many people who are conversant in foreign languages, and if given the encouragement and relived from internet blocking, can join this global conversation to support China.

Beijing need to address this issue so we are not left with a one-sided view of the Tibetan issue abroad on the blogs and chat groups.

Example #2

China have been overtly tolerant of foreign media and their representatives even when they espouse support for Tibetan and Taiwan separatism and incite violence.

This stance have to stop.

It is time that news organizations who espouse those views have to take corporate and personal responsibility.

I do not know if CNN has crossed the line on this issue, but clearly, a line need to be drawn by the Chinese government, and if news organizations cross them, then, sanctions like the following need to be applied:

- restrict contact with officials, etc. such as not granting interviews to them

- reduction in their ability to participate in news conferences

- reduction of their bureau staff

- restriction of their news gathering privileges

- the ultimate sanction would be to require that the news bureau(s) be closed.

- in the mean time, foreigners known to be trouble ought to be barred from entering China.

Fair is fair.

Look at how the US treats al-jazeera. Sanctions against them have included all of the above, including jailing one of their correspondents as a terrorist, and bombing their news bureau in Afghanistan.

I am not suggesting China adopt these extreme means used by the US to control the news, but China need to end its liberal policy of allowing foreigners to foment trouble within China.

There is no free speech right to yell "fire" at a crowded, dark theater.

Nor a free speech right to assault a torch bearer in a wheelchair.

Shame on Beijing for not acting on this.

[chanps]

Right on AB. Dont need to go far ...read the FEER and those sarcastic China bashing articles.

[Leonard]

Right on! AB. Fair is fair. A commentator in US can reach a large audiance. Any half thought through comment can harm the relationship of our countries and our people.

[Pffefer]

The Chinese Foreign Ministry is run by a bunch of retards, from Yang Jiechi down. You have to remember this is the same bunch of lunatics that said "Chinese is easy to learn because 1.3 billion people speak it". Why would they even bother to respond? Have some self-esteem, Chinese people! Why would you be bothered by the remarks of some foreign news network goon like Cafferty?

The problem with the English lanuguage is that people often say "the Chinese" this, "the Chinese" that and you don't know who the target really is. I would think "the Chinese" means the Chinese government + Chinese people.

[A B]

In a better world, what a two bit commentator says on CNN ought to be taken with about the same seriousness as the pronouncements of a cult leader like Pat Robertson.

However, it is important for it to be addressed as an issue --- though not necessarily the MOFA which should preserve its influence and face for more important issues.

That is where "unofficial" commentators like Chinese nationals who do not hold an official position comes in. They can do, say, and make stick things that the government would rather not do.

That is why the central government need to relax controls on access to the internet, and let the Chinese people speak for themselves about what they think of the rants of two bit commentators on CNN and other places.

[LaoLiao]

Here is Seattle time report. At leaset someone knows the Tibet history
Not everyone was enraptured by the Dalai Lama's visit.

The Rev. Joe Fuiten of Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell and Larry Stickney, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, both conservative Christians, said the monk has their admiration for standing up to Chinese communists.

But before the Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 following an uprising against Chinese control, a small minority of nobility and lamas held considerable power over serfs or slaves, they said. In his sermon Sunday, Fuiten asked: "How can the Dalai Lama come here and talk to us about compassion for people when his own record in Tibet showed so little regard for the personal and economic well-being" of common Tibetans?

An estimated 400 pro-China demonstrators chanted "liar, liar, liar" outside the Dalai Lama's appearance Monday at the university. They accused him of instigating violence in Tibet and undermining the Beijing Olympics, which he denied.

[Yiu-cho]

@AB:
I'm not sure that doing both of those things concurrently really makes sense. You're advocating that the Chinese government needs to increase the number of voices by removing the censor from foreign sites that they disapprove of... but then reducing the number of voices by imposing media sanctions on foreign sources? That doesn't seem to make sense to me, but maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

Personally I think if people keep thinking that 'fair is fair' and one side should come at the other with the same type and strength of force, then the dialogue will be stifled even more. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, and this is one of those cases where I don't think it's very conducive to blind ourselves to each other.

Yes, the Chinese government needs to gradually remove censoring of websites, but no they should not impose 'sanctions' on media, because this is blatantly hypocritical and would certainly reflect onto the Chinese government. The free flow of information isn't a one-way street.

I certainly don't agree with Cafferty and think he, himself, is a scaly reptile of a man, but he's entitled to his own incredibly twisted opinion. But the reaction to this is very unfortunate too. How can the Foreign Ministry even begin to think it should impose its own values on other foreign companies? Trying to keep ahead of the public sentiments of nationalism is a shaky strategy, because nationalism, in the wrong place and time, is one of the most dangerous human sentiments of all.

[A B]

Yiu,

I am advocating the Chinese central government adopt the same subtle, but effective methods used by most governments in developed countries to control the press.

The beauty of these methods is that they give the press the illusion of freedom.

Just try to practice it.

For example, see how far the McClatchy White House correspondent would get if they started asking tough questions at press conferences.

Want a quick ticket off the Campaign bus of the presidential candidates? Start reporting nasty things.

China, read Beijing, just got to get a lot better at the game than they are now.

And they will get better.

You can bet on it.

[max]

new foundland
good job!
our government is way too serious on this one
too sad

[jono]

The way of Chinese culture is perhaps respect, not cynicism. Consideration, rather than neglect. Reflection rather than condemnation, and endurance instead of a quick fix.
Tibet was a feudal slave owning society, whoever dissipated it would have gained credit. Why not the Chinese?

[Junhui]

I don't care much about "Kafudi" had to say; he had the right to speak his opinions because lord knows opinions aren't always the truth. I just wanted to reply to Gahori. The fact that some people try to convince the Chinese populous that they are separate from their government is truly a powerful sign of how much those people understand Chinese culture and its Confucian roots. Does anyone remember this picture?

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/china/images/2007/09/30/german18.jpg

On the left is the German view of superiors, on the right is the Chinese view. The things that are happening right now in the world come to show how there is a lack of mutual understanding between cultures. Instead of asking why the Chinese are so angry; why not ask why they think the way they do? Sometimes whats good for one person is not necessarily good for someone else.

[Mike]

Jack's opinion is BLATANTLY WRONG! He got off easy with a lame apology. His comment is racist and those who belive him are racists too! Apology is the least he could do this case. This is not free speech because 1) he made his comments on tv that is broaccast all over the world (as opposed to his own circle of fmaily and friends) 2) his comments is totally false.

The sad thing is that many IGNORAnT americans/westerners will take his words at its face value and act on it (blame china for job losses/unsafe product/environment)

[joe schmoe]

chinese are beyond brainwashed. 60 years of getting shot in the head or shipped to the desert if you ever disagree with your dictator/master will do that to you.
unfortunately it is impossible for most chinese individuals and certainly the government to ever learn anything from constructive criticism.

[justanotherdude]

"don't care much about "Kafudi" had to say; he had the right to speak his opinions because lord knows opinions aren't always the truth."

jono:
Racists think the blacks are monkeys, it is not true, it is just an opinion. What true is a racist is a racist.

He has the right to say his "option" in national TV, so do we have the right to demand his apology, even though, I can't care less about his apology because I know a racist is a racist, his apology, if there is any, means nothing.

[justanotherdude]

Mike,

"constructive criticism" -- wow, you call that a "constructive criticism"???

well, sorry, that's just disgusting.

[justanotherdude]

Mike,

"constructive criticism" -- wow, you call that a "constructive criticism"???

well, sorry, that's just disgusting.