A grilling at the Olympics

The following exchange occurred earlier today at a daily press conference that senior spokespeople of the International and Beijing Olympic committees offer to the foreign media.

I include this excerpt between a British television journalist and the two spokesman without any comment of my own:

Question: Hi, I’m Alex Thompson from Channel Four News. My question’s mercifully short, and it’s for Giselle. Given that China got these games largely on making promises on human rights and press freedom, and given that the Chinese government has lied through its teeth about keeping those promises, is the IOC in any way embarrassed?

Giselle Davies, spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee: Good morning, Alex.

Thompson: Good morning.

Davies: There were certainly some hopes and aspirations outlayed in 2001 as to how the games could have a positive impact on the wider social framework. And I think we have to note that there have been enormous steps forward in a number of areas. You’re here reporting on the games. The world is watching. And there will be commentaries made appraising how the games have had an impact, wider through bringing sports, athletes and the world’s attention.

Interestingly, I saw that the Associated Press did a survey whereby their readers say that 55 percent of the respondents of the United States believe the choice was the right choice to come to Beijing, China …

Thompson: Yes, but I’m not asking that. I’m asking the IOC if they are in any way embarrassed about the manifest failure on behalf of the Chinese government to keep their promises. It’s a very straightforward question: Are you embarrassed?   

Davies: We are very proud of the fact that these games are progressing with spectacular sports, spectacular sports venues, operationally running very smoothly, and that’s what we’re here focusing on.

Thompson: I’m asking whether you’re embarrassed. I’m not asking about how well the games have been run or how wonderful the venues are. Are you embarrassed?

Davies: I think I’ve answered your question by explaining…

Thompson: I don’t think anyone in this room, if I may speak, I may be stepping out of line, but I don’t think anybody thinks you’ve answered the question. Is the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese government not keeping those promises?

Davies: We’re very pleased with how the organizers are putting on a good sporting event. That’s what this is. The IOC’s role and remit is to bring sport and the Olympic values to this country. That is what is happening, and the organizers have put on an operationally sound games for the athletes. This is an event, first and foremost, for the athletes, and the athletes are giving us extremely positive feedback about how they see these games being held for them.

Thompson: Well, Giselle, we’re certainly not getting anywhere are we? Let’s try it once more time. Is the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese government’s not keeping promises on both press freedom and human rights? One more chance.

Davies: Well, I think probably your colleagues in the room would like to have a chance at questions as well. I think I’ve answered your question.

(Outbursts from other journalists)

Wang Wei, secretary general of the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games: I think I’ll add something to Giselle’s answer. I was the secretary general of the bidding committee. I was confronted with many questions about the opening up and reform of China. And I did say that the Olympic Games coming to China will help China to open up further and to reform better. And the facts show after 30 years of reform, China has developed greatly. People enjoy more freedom. People enjoy more wealth, have a lot to say. And people’s welfare and people’s economic situation are improved a lot. So everybody can see that. Olympic Games are a good platform. Everybody I see who comes to China for the first time will say to me, China is so different from what they read, what they saw in films and papers. People are so friendly. People (are) leading a good life. Everybody is happy. People are optimistic about their own future. That’s a fact. Of course, there are exceptions, like in any other country. Some people are not satisfied, that is true. But we need to take the legal procedures to resolve their own issues, their problems. We cannot allow the country (to fall) into chaos. So I think we welcome people coming to China to celebrate the Olympic Games with us, to enjoy the festivities with us. Of course, we also welcome suggestions, constructive advice from all the people, all the kind people. And, uh, I think a few, a very few, people come here to be critical, to dig into the small details, to find fault with that. That does not mean we are not fulfilling our promise. So I think the whole country can see how China is progressing, how China is genuinely welcoming the world to China to enjoy everything with us…

Comments

[Dan]

The IOC ought to be embarrassed about its lack of candor, among other things.

[Stan]

Wow...the best tap dancers since Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. The reporters must have gotten 3rd degree burns from the red faces of Wei and Giselle.

[vanessa]

the games are supposed to be about the games. not their political beliefs. watch the events, they are going great (with the exception of the underage participants) the ceromony was beautiful. The rest of the world is not there to change the beliefs of the Chinese government, they have to do that on their own. Get over yourself and enjoy what everyone is supposed to be there for: the sports.

[Eve]

Sounds like Giselle could get a job easily as White House press spokesperson, or run for office. Not answering a question while insisting you have is a classic political move. Bravo though to the reporter that called her on her bullsh**.

[CLC]

I wonder why Wang Wei's response was not given a full quote here. He specifically said (when he was the secretary general of the bidding committee), "I did not say that China would promise to do whatever with the Games in China."

[Pffefer]

Geez, do they stop teaching manners in Britain? This Alex guy is outright nasty, not because of the question he asked but the manner in which he asked ("One more chance". What the heck is that? Who does he think he is?).

Hosting the Olympic Games is not a reward to China for improving its human rights, nor is it a precondition. Hosting the Games is not the privilege of the few "morally superior" countries. Despites its many problems, China has progressed a lot, even since 2001. No matter what China does it will never please some foreign blood-sucking "journalists".

My middle finger to these blood suckers. Enjoy.

[chinese buddhist]

AMAZING. CNN cropped photos, to "support" it's fraudulent "reporting" in Lhasa. And now, TJ crops Wang Wei's comments. AMAZING Western Media: bias in plain view, all the while claiming to be the Soul & Conscience of TRUTH!

[Pffefer]

Tim,

Did you intentionally miss this part from Wang Wei?

“极少数人到中国来就是为了挑毛病，是为了批评，是为了吹毛求疵，是为了找各种各样的瑕疵，这是少数人。这并不意味着我们没有实现我们的承诺，所以我觉得大家都可以看到中国是在进步。”

[LBSH]

At the bidding China just said something vaguely about reforms and improvements, never anything concrete about human rights and political system. The Western journalists put the words in other people's mouth then demand anything they like. It's so typical.

[geez]

Given that the next Olympics will be in London, the incentives of the British journalists are clear: to find faults with Beijing whenever they can so London will look better.

[Relax]

Eerrrr..... dear British journalists, are you embarassed that your country has killed a lot of Iraqi, and what is the feeling of living in a country that plays the role of USA's lapdog? I am sure you guys are very proud of your human rights right? ho ho ho.... West Chauvinism is hillarious.

Afterwards, the British journalists can go and do a free tibet protest in Beijing, purposely let the police throw them into jail so that CNN and BBC can make a high profile report on how the police crackdown protestors. British journalists are proud to do this kind of things. funny.

[MK]

I just read this article:

http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/08/spiritual-needs.html

and it discusses how China has in some ways not completely lived up to Olympic standards and China's own promises to fulfill the spiritual needs of the athletes.

[Realist]

Wow! A lot of "wu mao dang" commenting here.

Anyway, did anyone notice that the sharp exchange was between two Westerners? The British reporter specifically addressed Davies, not one of the Chinese members.

Those of you from the mainland may think the journalist stepped over the line; however, this is pretty typical of how Western journalists try to hold political leaders to account -- something that can never happen in China.

Want to curb corruption by local officials? Just turn loose your journalists. This is what they are trained to do. Lack of press freedom in China is the main reason that the Central Government has, after three decades of reform, still not managed to curb local corruption. (To say nothing of corruption at the very top.)

By the way, I thought Wang Wei's answer was pretty good. It may not have satisfied foreigners, but it's a good view of how the Chinese government understands the meaning of freedom.

[geez]

@Realist:

I don't know about others, but I can tell you that among all the commenters above, at least Pffefer is not a Chinese. So don't be so prerogative as to call everyone who's not criticizing China as a wumaodang.

Also, speaking of the positive roles of a free media, where were the free American media prior to the invasion of Iraq? Why did the free media collaborate with the government, cheering on the invasion of Iraq? What happened to the sacred watchdog role?

[PaZhuLian]

@Dan, stan, et al,

That Alex Thompson of Channel 4 was acting like a spoiled brat, mistaking other people's politeness for weakness. Are you in anyway ashamed of yourselves for being as ignorant as him?

BTW, that was a rhetorical question, not unlike the one he kept repeating like a broken record.

[carryanne]

So I guess their policy adjustment to the CCP not complying with the "promises" is to strip the Olympics of it's original spirit and hale the tremendous success of the carrying out of the physical event for the robotic athletes.

The communist party is so corrupt, it controls all the media and spends all the peoples money making lies to fool people into thinking they are actually going to be rewarded for giving their minds away to the party line. Wang Wei's words are absolute BS, I know BS and I know the CCP and this guy was chosen for this job based on his BSability. he wields the party line with confidence, he molds it and manipulates it like a natural, creating a careful blend of logic and lie.

Communist fascist dictatorship in which the people cannot think freely and are subject to the party's wishes instead of a legal system. Real lawyers go to torture centers, real people are not allowed.

Someone should ask Wei ,if China is so much improved, why does the CCP obsessively monitor internet and media? Why can't they let people take notes of the death penalty rate and the legal trials of dissidents? Why is the CCP opposed to a real legal system? How many Falun Gong did they torture to death? Why do they still use torture to keep thought control? Where do they get all those organs for transplant if they are not stolen from people murdered by the party? can he answer these? I don't think so.

[Chunfa Yuan]

Well done Alex Thompson - the IOC's representative's refusal to engage the question showed tacit admission that the IOC were in fact embarrassed by China's/BOCAGs failure to carry the 'Olympic values'.

The 'protest park' myth has yet to materialise, but I am sure BOCAG will bus in some 'protesters' before the end of the games to 'protest' against some inconsequential matter - perhaps we will be graced with a platoon of Chinese school girls dressed in matching Beijing 08 T-shirts 'protesting' that there should be more traditional Chinese dishes sold in supermarkets.

[Chunfa Yuan]

GEEZ wrote:
>>That Alex Thompson of Channel 4 was acting like a spoiled brat, mistaking other people's politeness for weakness. Are you in anyway ashamed of yourselves for being as ignorant as him?<<

Ad hominem, nothing more.

If you have a challenge on his argument (rather than his character) then you may find yourself at the start of a conversation that would be worth while, but to attack this man as a person shows you have no real challenge to his argument.

The fact that you then go on to call your detractors - (Dan, stan, et al) - 'ignorant' rather than challenge and meet their points only detracts from your credibility on this matter.

How a debate should work:

A: I think we should do XXXXXX
B: No I think we should do YYYYYY
A: But last time we tried YYYYY it failed ?
B: It failed because it was poorly implemented
A: But it still failed, has anything changed ?
B: But there are new and better ways of implementing YYYYY now.
A: Are they any better than XXXXXX ?

etc etc . . .

How a deabte should not work:

A: I think we should do XXXXXX
B: No I think we should do YYYYYY
A: You are an idiot
B: you are a spoilt brat.
A: People like you should STFU
B: You are ignorant, nothing will change as long as you stay this stupid.

etc etc . . .

[PaZhuLian]

Well I think you just took the words out of my mouth with that last sentence. I guess nobody knows you better than yourself. ^O^

[PaZhuLian]

Since some of you here are so thick skulled or purposefully ignorant. Let me explain it to you.

Last time I checked, journalists are supposed to cover the news instead of trying to make news themselves. Do you honestly think this hack from Ch4 was there to attend the briefing and ask meaningful questions? Or was he there to make news by throwing insults at the hosts and creating confrontations. If everyone have already made up their mind about China. Why even bother asking question, let alone debating? Ad hominem. That's what you will get.

[shenqh]

So far, there is no news bad enough for western jounalists to report from Beijing, so they have to create some bad news by themselves. Otherwise, they will lose their jobs.

[XiaoHang]

To PaZhuLian and shenqh:

I don't see how this reporter was creating bad news or throwing insults at the hosts. The point of this exchange was that Thompson asked a simple, possibly even yes or no, question. Then Davies repeatedly refused to say something to the effect of: "no we are not embarrassed, we are very happy with the progress that has been made since 2001." She could have ended it right there, but she had to play Dana Perino instead. If anyone could claim to be insulted, it would be IOC.

It really is that simple, and you are now trying to turn in into the old Western media trying to attack China phenomenon. Sorry but that card has already been played into the ground. Get off it, period.

Just because you tell yourself you don't care about this news (funny how you still post responses on here so virulently), doesn't mean it is somehow less newsworthy. Reporters that are free to choose their topics generally report on things that interest their audience. Thus, Thompson asked a question that is of great interest to his audience, nothing more, nothing less.

To reiterate, the IOC rep could have ended it with a simple 'NO'. Or, she could have said that Thompson was wrong for claiming China's gov't "lied through its teeth". Or she could have done the unthinkable and claimed there were never any promises to be broken. But she didn't do any of these, guys, instead, she dodged the question, which to those of us familiar with these types of interactions, looks like a tacit answer in the affirmative (for more, see Bush administration, US, 2000-200?).

[XiaoHang]

Also, in the comment section here, try not go off topic (eg Geez). Last I checked, this was a China related blog and China related post. Everyone in the world can be hypocritical at times, it's very hard, and very stupid to be 100% anything all the time. In a debate, whether in spoken or written form, you traditionally reply to someone else's points with points of your own, not change the topic to suit your tastes.

This has nothing to do with Iraq, or with the bias of British journalists (everyone has big-time biases in journalism). As an example, if your friend told you your shoe was untied, would you reply: "Yeah, well you're fat."? This is, in effect, what you do when you drag Iraq into the picture here. It's off-topic, rude, and unproductive

[Stan]

@PaZhuLian
I think your slip is showing.Either you have done too much overtime at your job (Pounding square pegs into round holes I suspect)or your masquerade as an adult has an experation date.I must hold up my end of the Ad Hominem Olympic attack trials. Did anyone say "Ad Nauseam or Ad Infinitum" yet? Chunfa Yuan correctly pointed you in the right direction for a conversation but you seem intent on insulting people. Here's a scoop for the press..The 14 year old girls have left the Chinese Gymnastic team...they are hiding out on this blog under the alias of PaZhulian. Let's get that English Bulldog Alex Thompson on the story asap!

[shenqh]

If simply answered in "yes", western got their point. If simply say "no", western media could comment that IOC is blind, as China claimed itself she is not perfect on human right. The point here is that Alex babbled the same question in such an unpolite, rude and barbaric way.