Check out the totally biased backgrounder at the Angus Reid Election Monitor website on the Taiwan Election. Straight from the KMT publicity machine. The opening paragraph will be a special joy for longtime fans of pro-KMT media bias. I sent them the following letter:++++++++++++++
Dear Angus Reid Monitor:
I recently read your discussion of the upcoming presidential election here in Taiwan (http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/view/16631/taiwan20080112/). It contains a highly one-sided background on the election, and several errors.
The opening paragraph contains a complete misreading of history:
In 1895, following a military defeat, China ceded Taiwan to Japan. At the end of World War II, the island was returned to Chinese control. In 1949, as Mao Zedong’s communists were gaining prominence in Mainland China, Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek established the Republic of China in Taiwan. Chiang acted as president from 1950 to 1975, maintaining hopes of ruling Mainland China once again.
At the end of WWII, Japan retained sovereignty over Taiwan, and would until 1951, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed. Only the governments of the ROC and PRC claim Taiwan was “returned to China.” The Powers specifically designed the Treaty so that Taiwan’s sovereignty resided with no power, which was the open position of the United States until the Nixon Administration, and remains its official position today, as well as the quietly official position of other states. The US protested on precisely that ground when UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon rejected Taiwan’s application letter to join the UN.
The sentence “as Mao Zedong’s communists were gaining prominence in Mainland China” contains no recognition of the fact that Chiang was completely defeated and forced to retreat.
I hope that you will change that paragraph to reflect actual history.
Further down, you write:
In March 2004, Chen earned a second presidential term—defeating Lien Chan of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT)—in an election marred by controversy after an apparent assassination attempt.
There is no party called the “Kuomintang Nationalist Party”. The party’s official name is Kuomintang (check their website) and in English it translates to something akin to “Chinese Nationalist Party.” The use of the term “apparent assassination attempt” is a strong signal that the person who prepared this is pro-KMT – the assassination attempt was real, the shooter, a KMT supporter was identified from films and tracked by the police. He committed suicide before the police caught him. He was caught on TV the previous year uttering insults and threats at President Chen and former President Lee. The bullet maker, Tang Yi-shou, fled Taiwan ahead of the police and is now living in China with the notorious gangster Chang An-lo, who has old connections to the KMT’s security services. No evidence supports claims that Chen had himself shot. The “controversy” was caused by public rioting by KMT supporters who could not accept that they had blown an election that they should have won, had Lien Chan not mailed in his campaign. None of this is present in your discussion.
Again, more one-sided presentation in your discussion of the corruption allegations against President Chen:
In 2006, Chen and his family were investigated on allegations of corruption. In November, prosecutors indicted Wu Shu-chen, Chen's wife, for allegedly spending about $450,000 U.S. in public funds on personal expenditures. Authorities also said that the president had submitted fake receipts when drawing from the same fund and lied about how he spent the money.
The paragraph does not say that the fund was the private special fund of the president, used for secret national security initiatives – including funding dissidents in China – and lying about its purposes, as well as submission of fake receipts would not be unusual (in fact receipt fraud is quite normal here; one of Ma’s aides was sent to jail for it in the Ma corruption case). The lack of balance here is striking.
Moving on, you offer the words of Ma Ying-jeou:
On Jun. 25, Ma vowed to "rescue" Taiwan's economy if elected to the presidency and complained about the DDP government's policies, declaring, "Today don't talk to me about unification or independence, those are not real issues, don't talk me about that. That has nothing to do with the livelihood of the people. We just need to focus on the economy. We gave you seven-eight years. If you can't do it, then let someone else take over. It's just that simple."
Again, no balancing information is presented. The reality is that the economy grew 5.7% last year, unemployment is under 4%, and we are now the #2 exporter to China. Incomes have been stagnant because the factories have offshored and the economy is transitioning to a service, knowledge-based economy, but also because the KMT-controlled legislature has blocked needed budgets, apparently in a bid to hold incomes down so it can make credible its absurd claims that Taiwan’s economy is a mess.
Simply reading over the quotes from each side you present shows that current President Chen Shui-bian is cast in a negative light in each quote. Ma is twice quoted saying the economy is sluggish, though it is not. No balancing information is presented.
Further, no background on either candidate is given. Your backgrounder could have spent less space repeating KMT criticisms of the Chen presidency, and more on the background of the two current contenders. You could have mentioned Ma Ying-jeou’s long record of service to the authoritarian regime and his repeated public and private opposition to democratization, including opposition to the lifting of martial law and to the repeal of Article 100, the anti-dissident law. Hsieh’s entry into politics as a human rights lawyer and his successful experience as a lawyer (Ma failed the bar) and legislator (Ma has never held legislative office) could have been presented. Sadly, your article retains an obsession with Chen Shui-bian that is the hallmark of a pro-KMT stance.
Finally – and comically – at the top of the page it says:
Election Date: March 21, 2008
At stake: Legislative Yuan
The election date is March 22, not March 21, and at stake is the Presidency, not the Legislative Yuan.
I think it is sad that Angus Reid has presented such a one-sided view of Taiwan’s politics. I hope you will take the time to offer your readers a more robust view of the critical struggle for the Presidency of one of the world's most important flash points and a key player in global technology markets.
++++++++++++
Send your own letters, folks -- it is incredible that such a one-sided analysis persists. And because of that bias, look how much time is spent on hacking Chen Shui-bian, instead of giving richer, fuller backgrounds on the candidates and the issues. Complete contact info:
Mario Canseco
Director of Global Studies and Editor of the Angus Reid Global Monitor
Tel. 604-647-3570
Fax. 604-647-1005
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com
Gabriela Perdomo
Research Associate, Global Studies and Angus Reid Global Monitor
Tel. 604-647-3573
Fax. 604-647-1005
gabriela.perdomo@angus-reid.com
UPDATE: The dates were changed pretty quickly, but the rest of that incompetent and unbalanced article remains. UPDATE II: Angus Reid's response is below in the comments.
[Taiwan] [media]
12 comments:
"In 1895, following a military defeat, China ceded Taiwan to Japan."
Michael, you forgot to tell them that, in 1895 China didn't exist. What ceded Taiwan to Japan was Qing(Ching), which is a country that invaded and conquered Han-based empire in Chinese area.
Echo, that might be going a bit too far. China did exist, but it was governed by a foreign dynasty.
Although, Michael, I do think you should have called them out on the fact that the ROC was not established in Taiwan in 1949 by CKS but was established by Sun Yat Sen in 1912 in China. This is an error no matter who is analysing the situation.
thomas,
You already mentioned, ROC wasn't established until 1912. And the current China wasn't established until 1949.
Before then, China didn't exist. In the history over the "Chinese" area, there wasn't a country called "China" until 1912.
When the ambassador of Ming Dynasty arrived in Korea, he was called "the ambassador from Ming Guo (ζε)". He was not called "the ambassador from Zhong Guo (δΈε)". That is, even a "dynasty" administrated by Han race, the country was not called "China." The country was called by the name of individual dynasty.
The concept of "China exists since 5000 years ago" was a false statement Chinese fabricate to make themselves feel life is worth living.
Unless you argue that the term "China" means "continent." If defined that way, "China Continent" did exist.
But a "content" can't cede anything to any one.
I understand your point, Echo, and I agree. But unfortunately, this is not the generally perceived view of the situation, and has not been for a long time. I get your point that it was another government that lost Taiwan.
All the same in European literature before the last century (at least the ones I have read), most references are to China and not to the Qing Empire. Remember the name Indochina is a 19th Century construct for the land between India and China. It was named as such because Europeans already were calling China China.
I am only saying that someone who gets that technical with a newspaper editor who does not understand the situation risks being dissmissed outright as a loony. "Haha," he might say, "this guy is even telling me China did not exist before 1900!"
I already sent this to Michael via e-mail, but others might be interested in reading some earlier examples of slanted stuff from Angus Reid. (Search that page for the name.) They've been fluffing Ma as Taiwan's "favourite" since at least May of 2007.
And although they've touched up the meaningless details in the latest one, the distortion and imbalance are still there.
Tim Maddog
Another ridiculous error made by Angus Reid:
Results of Last Election:
President - Mar. 20, 2004
Legislative Yuan - Dec. 12, 2008
Only the date is correct.
Easy earning for those amateur journalists, isn't it ?
Dear Michael,
Indeed, we had the wrong date on our Election Tracker, and we thank you for pointing that out.
The rest of your observations, however, were unconvincing and flawed. Hiding under the San Francisco Peace Treaty to attempt to explain Taiwan's creation misses the point entirely, but then again, so does most of what you wrote and posted. Engaging in a discussion over semantics and the translation of the KMT was particularly ludicrous. Also, while more facts were available about the Mar. 19, 2004 incident in the weeks and months that followed the election, in the moments that mattered (this is, before and during the election itself) the incident was still described by international and domestic media as an "apparent assassination attempt." We never said Chen had himself shot, yet you somehow included this sentence in your rant. Your partisanship is making you read sentences that are not even there. This could point to a real problem, which may require psychological evaluation.
The $450,000 U.S. spent by Wu Shu-chen were part of a public fund. You somehow find it more palatable that the wife of the president spent money from "a private special fund of the president, used for secret national security initiatives." Apparently, the private life of a first lady is an inherent part of Taiwan's national security, and this is something we should be suggesting to our readers. Even more troubling is the fact that you seem to condone corruption in Taiwan. Our project was nominated in an international competition for its efforts to inform the public about corruption all over the world (and Taiwan will be no exception). You, on the other hand, graciously accept the submission of false receipts as part of Taiwanese culture.
Citing a quote from a politician running for office is a customary practice in journalism (I'm actually shocked that this is surprising to you). In Canada, one of the best-performing economies in the world, the governing party lost an election because of a corruption scandal, despite enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in history, and eight consecutive budget surpluses. In the end, when it comes to elections, the reaction of the population to a politician (or his family) getting caught with their hand on the till will be more powerful than any statistic you can quote. This became quite clear after the DPP's debacle in the Legislative Yuan election, and is even more evident in the public opinion polls that show the DPP ticket trailing the KMT.
I understand how convenient it is to claim bias when things don't go your way, and this is the overall thread of your discussion. Therefore, I must conclude that global political analysis is clearly out of your league. Stick to your English courses and your photographs, because your partisanship will always end up jeopardizing any attempt at clarity.
This is the only communication we will have with you.
MC
They also sent that letter to me in the private email.
Michael
They actually implied that you need psychological help....that's slanderous. And the out-right over the top defensiveness of this response screams "Instead of thinking... well... F*** YOU!
I refuse to admit that I got any verifiable facts WRONG. Facts are, after all, a matter of opinion. It's hardly my fault that your opinion and therefore facts are WRONG."
This is the only communication I will have with you.
Hey, after observing politics here for all these years, I believe I DO need counseling... :)
What weasels, eh?!
Now it's time to hammer MC.
* Claiming that CKS established the ROC in Taiwan misses the facts by 37 years and hundreds of kilometers.
* Calling China the "Mainland" further makes the China-centric POV even clearer.
* You admit to being pro-Taiwan, but they deny their own bias.
* They may not have mentioned claims of Chen shooting himself -- but they most certainly pointed to such claims. Pathological lying is a problem which "may require psychological evaluation."
* Those claims weren't made by Taiwan's media, but by Chinese media in Taiwan. There's a huge difference, so their "semantics" are an attempt to hide their bias yet again.
* Their use of the phrase "Kuomintang Nationalist Party" reveals another attempt to hide the Chinese nature of the "controversy" and the opposition and implying that their "Nationalis[m]" is somehow about Taiwan.
* While the US$450,000 is "alleged[]" in the article, they spin it into a fact ("getting caught with [one's] hand on the till") in their comment/e-mail reply.
* They fail to mention that the Ministry of Audit told Chen to use just any receipts to cover the actual expenses, because being for national security issues, real receipts were out of the question. BTW, what about Ma's receipts for ladies' undergarments and Yu Wen (δ½ζ), who was sentenced to 14 months in jail for his role in that, eh?
* In the comment/e-mail reply, the "logic" about Canada's corruption scandal is rather twisted, and it still doesn't provide any balance from the opposite side on the issue.
* Once again, while you admit to being pro-Taiwan, they deny their own bias.
* They cannot counter the issue of the Chinese KMT blocking budgets, because that's exactly what happened.
* If they wanted to "reveal corruption all over the world," they could've gotten a big chunk of their work done in one fell swoop by focusing on just the Chinese KMT (once -- and probably still -- the richest political party in the world) and the enemy of their enemy (hence, their BFF), the CCP. Note again how they say "Taiwan is no exception." During Ma Ying-jeou's trial, didn't the judge mention in his acquittal that the personal use of special allowances was a tradition going back to the Song Dynasty. That didn't have anything to do with Taiwan, did it?
* Was there any real criticism of the very corrupt Chinese KMT? Did Ma Ying-jeou himself not admit that (to paraphrase) that his own hand was "in the till"? Could perceptions created by outlets like Angus Reid and the Chinese media in Taiwan have anything to do with what happened in the January 2008 legislative election?
* "Stick to your English courses and your photographs." Take that ad hominem, Michael! You couldn't possibly know about anything that Mario doesn't know you know about, right? (Note to Mario: "Your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberries" might have been a more effective insult.) ;-)
* Closing his reply by saying that "This is the only communication [they] will have with you," it shows a complete lack of desire on their part to actually understand the issues or to convince others who have a deeper understanding of the facts than many readers of that piece would. They would prefer to just "carpet bomb" their readers with misinformation and distortions -- while hiding their bias -- from the safety of their control room. They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.
* Doesn't that first line about "thank you for pointing that out" ring cavernously hollow?
You sure touched a nerve! Great work! Better still is the number of people who have read/will read this post.
BTW, the article is no longer at the original URL, but can be found here.
They haven't heard the last of me!
Tim Maddog
The online Canadian journal, The Angus Reid Global Monitor, seems to unquestioningly rely on biased opinion polls for Taiwan as primary sources. Judging from the editor, Mario Canseco's, turgid response, one thing seems certain, I doubt the editor has ever been to Taiwan, and has never seen these situations he describes from the inside.
At issue is not that Angus Reid opts to use clearly biased polling results to interpret the political situation in Taiwan (I wonder why they don’t do their own polling? It was certainly be much more credible?), but Canseco’s awkwardly written interpretations appear as fact to the uninformed reader (and with Taiwan, most people are uninformed).
If he didn't want to show his or Angus Reid’s editorial bias, he would certainly have added caveats to his sources (note that the recent TVBS poll he cites doesn’t even have a margin of error).
It’s a great pity that Mr. Canseco resorted to being dismissive and insulting in what could have been an earnest exchange of perspectives.
Since he allows contact from readers by providing his email, it would be assumed that he’s willing to be questioned, challenged and corrected.
If he responds to all critical readers in the same thin-skinned way he did to Michael, I can only assume Mr. Canseco must find himself frequently on the defensive.
Post a Comment