Showing posts with label AFP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFP. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

The arguably ethnocentric presentation of Taiwanese legislative brawling in the US media

It was hard biking in the midday heat, but even so, we just couldn't figure out why our pace was so slow.

Huffington Post offered this report on the legislative brawling last week:
Brawl Breaks Out In Taiwanese Parliament As Lawmakers Throw Water Balloons And Chairs

Who among us hasn’t gotten in a fistfight over infrastructure development?
The ethnocentricism of the article -- or its fundamental laziness, take your pick -- lies in its total lack of recognition that brawling in the legislature needs an explanation. Why do they do that? It's just what they do. How do we know that? Look at the other examples! At the bottom, the article goes on to list other examples of "brawling".

Recall that the fight involved water balloons, meaning that it was planned (no one carries balloons around on the off chance they may be involved in a water balloon fight). So why no inquiry into that? It's not like there aren't 00s of informed individuals on Taiwan  that Huffpost could have emailed for an explanation. But apparently zero effort went into finding out why people might brawl over an infrastructure bill. That was a thing that didn't need explained, because, you know, it's what they do.

The CNN video similarly lacks any recognition that there are reasons that ordinarily peaceful humans might stage a brawl in the legislature. AP at least gives a few lines of description, which hardly amount to an explanation.

The AFP article, one long attack on the DPP as is normal for AFP, at least gives some explanation via repeating KMT talking points (Channel News Asia's AFP version is slightly different and leads with the DPP view). The Straits Times also took some time to report on it. BBC turned in a long report with background information and even a kind of in-depth explanation. But none of these are American.

This news-as-infotainment-spectacle is why we get lots of videos in the US of legislators brawling but zero explanation as to why. It is very bad for American democracy that our news media is so relentlessly committed to producing an endless flow of spectacle instead of news.

Fortunate indeed is the US, whose legislature remains decorous as it attempts to organize a vote to strip millions of Americans of their healthcare, which will lower their living standards and reduce their lifespans. But those legislators in Taiwan! So uncivilized!
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

F-16s: the eternal sunshine of our spotless media

Always a pretty view above the Liyu Reservoir in Miaoli.

Leonard Shelby: If we talk for too long, I'll forget how we started. Next time I see you, I'm not gonna remember this conversation. I don't even know if I've met you before.

According to AFP, we've arrived at a turning point....
Taiwan's Defence Minister Kao Hua-chu said for the first time Monday that Taipei will not necessarily take the deal even if Washington gives the nod.

"Our demand has changed following the announcement of the upgrade project. The jet fighters we buy in the future have to outperform the F-16 upgrades if we (are) to convince the tax payers," he told parliament.

Analysts said the remark marks a key shift in Taipei's approach to the arms deal that has apparently been held off due to Washington's concerns about reaction from Beijing.
A key shift? AFP is only off by about a year. Last May, J Michael Cole published a piece in The Diplomat on the F-35s (which Taipei has been making noises about since 2006). He observed:
The F-35 could therefore become a convenient tool to kill the F-16C/D program while maintaining the politically useful illusion that Taipei remains committed to national defense. While there’s no doubt that requests for the advanced aircraft are heartfelt within the military, there’s reason to doubt that the same applies to Taiwan’s National Security Council and the Presidential Office.
This Administration doesn't want fighters. The US doesn't want to sell them. As many longtime observers have noted -- the kind of observer AFP will never cite -- the whole thing is a charade whose purpose is to delay, delay, delay. The function of the F-35s is to introduce more delay. If pigs flew and the US offered Taiwan F-35s, Taipei would immediately start balking, complaining about the budget, or arguing that it needs even more advanced warp drive craft equipped with phasers and transporters. The entire "debate" is an illusion designed to cover the fact that the KMT didn't want fighters, which is why they prevented the special defense budget from reaching the floor of the legislature over 60 times during the Chen Administration. But in the Memento Media world, the long time preferences of the KMT on this issue simply don't exist.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Ma's Surprising Envoy to the US makes surprising remarks

I'm off on a bike vacation, but I've got my computer with me so I can combine both my addictions. No sooner do I leave than the new Big Man in Washington, King Pu-tsun, Ma's hatchet man, longtime personal friend, and personal appointment as the ROC/Taiwan emissary to the US, makes some surprising statements in a surprising interview with AFP:
We have our own pragmatic approach to survive," said the envoy who cannot call himself ambassador, as the United States broke formal ties with Taiwan in 1979 when it recognised China.

"We need strong support from the United States, but we also have to deal cautiously with mainland China because now they are the number one partner of Taiwan," he added.

"It is a very strategic ambiguity that we have. It is the best shield we have."
King's weird flow of verbiage is a good example of the way Taiwanese grab catch phrases from the vast pool of media commentary and redeploy them (a common one is 'win-win'). "Strategic ambiguity" has long been the phrase to describe the US' position on Taiwan. It reads as if King is signaling a new turn in which Taiwan (further) distances itself from the US. But King denied this and said that he was not translated properly -- a common tactic when Deep Blue politicians become too open about their goals and feelings. King's reverse of this went (Taipei Times)...
King said the “strategic ambiguity” to which AFP referred during the interview did not refer to the trilateral relationship among Taiwan, China and the US, but rather to only the relationship between Taiwan and China.

In a Washington-datelined report earlier in the day titled “Surprise Envoy Protects Taiwan’s ‘Shield’ of Ambiguity,” AFP said that during the interview, King highlighted the importance of the “strategic ambiguity” that Taiwan maintains with China on one side and its protector, the US, on the other.

In a statement, King said his “strategic ambiguity” refers to cross-strait relations, which are handled based on the so-called “1992 consensus” between Taiwan and China, according to which there is only one China, with each side free to interpret what the phrase means.
As the Taipei Times makes clear, he originally was referring to the US-China-Taiwan relationship. Of course, we all know which side Ma is allied with, so King's further distancing fits Ma's policy quite well. Note in the article King follows that with a comment on how Chen Shui-bian damaged US-Taiwan relations, which he is there to repair!

Looks like King was sending out a major trial balloon, which sank like a stone, but he is not. Rather, he's setting out the survey stakes to show where the road is going to go. Also note that he twice gets in the word pragmatic, a staple of the "I'm pragmatic, you're ideological" KMT propaganda campaign against the DPP and of course, another favorite catchword. There was nothing pragmatic about King's remarks. For more on King, see this 2009 post.

MEDIA: AFP positioned King's remarks as part of what appears to be a highly slanted presentation that represents an all-out attack on US support of Taiwan...such a slant appears to be par for the course for AFP. The article first claims that US arms sales hurt relations with China, a staple of Beijing propaganda:
That ambiguity does not help counter US observers who say Taiwan has become a "strategic liability" because of the harm that US arms sales to Taiwan -- about US$180 billion since 2008 -- does to relations with China.
...and then referring to Richard Bush's recent paper:
According to Richard Bush, a former head of the US mission in Taiwan and now director of the Brookings Institution's Centre for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, some US "observers believe that Taiwan has become a strategic liability" so the United States should stop arming Taiwan.

The doubters include Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, and Bill Owens, a retired admiral who was a vice chairman of the US chiefs of staff.

"They echo Chinese diplomats who argue that our arms sales are the major obstacle to good US-China relations," Bush said in a policy paper for Brookings released last month.
Note that no names of individuals wishing to sustain strong US support of Taiwan are mentioned. Instead we get Bill Owens, the American spokesman for that disgusting Remains of the Day-style sellout called the Sanya Initiative (here), and Brzezinski -- I'll leave it to you to find his Beijing connection, but see this old post. AFP does the usual international media move of leaving out the context and instead presenting the two names as if they are neutral and informed commentators. Ah, media ethics, now just a quaint marker of an earlier, lost time, like those gigantic sideburns in civil war officer photos.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Poll Hilarity from AFP =UPDATED=

I don't understand why AFP, the French press group, bothers to station people out here when they can just source their news from Xinhua with exactly the same effect and at much lower cost. Today AFP ran a piece on the polls....
Forty-four percent of 2,011 people interviewed by the United Daily News said they would vote for Ma...

A TVBS news channel poll showed similar results, as Ma maintained a lead of eight percentage points with 45 percent over...

However, Ma and Tsai were much closer in a survey issued by the Taipei-based China Times...
Yes, that's right. AFP ran a piece on the polls from this election, used only polls from pro-Ma newspapers, and didn't mention to its readers (the poor things) that the polls it was using were from papers supporting Ma.

But there is more....
Taiwan polls issued close to presidential elections have a history of predicting the outcomes relatively accurately.

In 2008, opinion polls indicated that Ma enjoyed up to a 20-point advance over DPP candidate Frank Hsieh, and he went on to win the election by almost 17 percentage points.
In 2008, late Feb polling for the Mar 22th election had the KMT up by 28% (UDN) and 26% (China Times), not "up to 20%". In the China Times March 10 poll, the numbers were an identical 26% (UDN had Ma with a 30% lead according to this). They did predict the winner correctly, but underestimated the DPP numbers by 17-18% (and Ma's by about 10%). They way overestimated the victory margin. I suppose you could call that relative accuracy.....

It is quite true that in '04 a number of polls, including the last China Times polls, had the two sides much closer. It is difficult to quickly round up poll data from the 2000 election. Niou and Paolino note:
According to a telephone survey conducted by the China Times on January 20, 24% of the respondents were inclined to vote for the independent candidate James Soong, 23% for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Chen Shui-bian, and only 19% for Lien if the election were held then.
In 2000 the publicly reported polls were so bad, especially the KMT polls which claimed that Lien had a huge lead over Soong but was neck and neck with Chen, that many KMT voters were misled into thinking that Lien was leading and voted for him even though he had no chance of winning.

This experience may explain the kind of polling that is being reported in the local media for the current election. Apparently many netizens are reporting being called by pollsters who proceed to ask only about Ma and Tsai, and do not mention Soong at all. If these reports are true, by reducing Soong's chances to win, perhaps certain pollers may be hoping that voters will vote strategically for Ma.

ADDED: There is a round-up of current polls here:
To summarize the results, all standard polls show Ma in the lead, with a range of margins ranging from 8 points (United Daily News, TVBS) to 0.7 points (Taiwan ThinkTank). The respective blue and green biases of those three sources seem to show through clearly. The DPP also released its internal polls, which are historically quite accurate, but of course they don’t release the parts they don’t want people to see. With a different methodology consisting of combining polls from over 60 legislative districts, they announced that they expect Tsai to win by 1 point, on a turnout of 78-80% (for more details of the DPP’s methodology, see this report in the Taipei Times.) Finally, the much-talked about xFuture/NCCU Exchange of Future Events has Tsai in the lead by 7.2% (Tsai 49.8, Ma 42.6, Soong 10.7) and this trend has been consistent since mid-December. Exchange of Future Events claims accuracy of 95% two months ahead of 2008 presidential elections and 97.6% on the eve of the election day. 
The "International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan" which operates the website consists largely of pro-Green individuals.

UPDATED: Businessweek (Bloomberg) did the same thing.
_______________________ 
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

BBC and AFP: No bias here on Chen

I'm sure everyone has heard by now that Chen was acquitted on charges of pillaging the State Funds for personal use. Consider BBC's unbiased report on this.  First the headline:

Taiwan ex-president Chen Shui-bian gets extra jail term

The KMT's English cheerleader in Taiwan, the China Post, headlined Court Cuts Chen's Term to Ten Months. Taiwan News said: Court overturns former leader's conviction. The pro-Beijing WantChinaTimes headlined Ex-president found not guilty of embezzling special state fund. Taiwan's government media organ Central News Agency said: Ex-president found not guilty of embezzling special state fund. AP titled Taiwan court overturns former leader's conviction.

Of course, AFP, whose political sympathies will be well known to readers of my blog, ran Taiwan ex-leader gets additional jail sentence. And BBC ran much the same headline. Hint, hint. Note that the pro-KMT China Times was so disgusted with this verdict that it complained it was unfair and the judiciary had a problem. Everyone else focused on, and reacted to, the fact that he was found innocent of the embezzlement charges. Not BBC and AFP. They appeared to choose the most anti-Chen spin possible: he got an extra jail term.

BBC wrote in its opening paragraph:
Taiwan's ex-President Chen Shui-bian - who is already in jail for corruption - has been given an additional sentence for money-laundering and forgery.
I especially like the caption for the photo that accompanied the story. "Chen angered Beijing during his eight years in office by pushing for Taiwan's independence".  BBC always reports that Chen angered Beijing -- it also says so in the article, repetition that is sheer waste. Why not a neutral caption like "Chen waves to supporters" which simply describes what is going on?

AFP was even worse. Here are the four sentences it uses to describe the court's action:
Taiwan's former president Chen Shiu-bian, already jailed for bribery, was sentenced Friday to an additional two years and 10 months on separate charges of embezzlement and money laundering.

Chen, who headed the island's government between 2000 and 2008, is serving a jail term of 17 years and six months on two bribery convictions in a sprawling corruption case that saw his wife Wu Shu-chen get the same sentence.

The high court on Friday sentenced the couple to an extra two years for money laundering, and ordered them to return $6.8 million and Tw$100 million they had pocketed in domestic and overseas deals.

It also handed down a 10-month sentence for forgery in a case related to embezzlement of state funds.
Even the BBC piece admits further down that he was found innocent of the embezzlement charge. But the AFP report simply omits the key fact that almost everyone else placed at the center of their story: Chen was acquitted of embezzlement of the special state funds on retrial.

No bias there!

The "documents forgery" of the BBC and "forgery" of the AFP report refer to the conviction for "forged" receipts. Originally the regulations did not require that the President submit receipts for use of the state funds. After Chen became President, the rules were changed. Naturally, since the slush fund was used for all sorts of secret stuff, the receipts were not kosher. Do spies and diplomats give receipts?

None of the international media reports I've seen on the Chen case, when they refer to the bribery charge, have reported that the Koo family testified in May in court that prosecutors had coerced the testimony on the bribery case. Have I misunderstood that? Did this event not occur? (report).

At present, as I recall, Chen is in prison on the charge of accepting bribes from Diana Chen to make her chief administrator of Taipei 101, for money laundering, for receipt forgery, and for the land corruption case involving the Koos. Anything else? I mean besides being pro-Taiwan.
___________________
Daily Links:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

AFP on the youth of Taiwan, struggling to carve out an identity

AFP video report on the rudderless youth of Taiwan, whose identity exists only in context with China's, and who came of age in the 3 years of the Ma Administration: "As Taiwan's ties with China grow closer, the island's younger generation face tough choices -- and struggle to carve out their own identity."

Hard to talk about the issue of Taiwanese identity in just a couple of minutes, so give them some points for at least trying.
_______________________ 
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Fun with the media

If today's AFP story is any guide, AFP is going to be an endless font of media fun during this election season. The story consists of 12 basically one or two sentence paragraphs. In a story about Ma, a third of it is devoted to explaining that former President Chen Shui-bian is corrupt, while claiming (absurdly) that Ma came to power on an anti-corruption platform. Nowhere does AFP give any nuance to the Chen story (found innocent of embezzlement, for example). Nowhere does AFP mention the massive and pervasive corruption within Ma's own party, particularly ironic given the news this week that the French firm Thales has to pay back millions to Taiwan that were part of the alleged kickback scheme dating from the Lafayette sale during the KMT days.

Indeed, nowhere, in a story on Ma's re-election campaign, does AFP mention the apparently tight race between the two parties' respective candidates, or any other fact about the current election cycle, even one as basic as who Ma is running against (instead, it discusses a former president who is a non-candidate) -- or the DPP's Tsai being in Europe learning about renewables, or a possible spoiler role for James Soong (backstory -- Soong has threatened that he might enter the race, I've heard on the quiet). Lots of fun stuff happening, none of it will show up in the AFP story.

Actually, it is not going to be fun to read AFP this election year. It is going to be sad, at all the potential for communication and understanding lost because AFP's political reporting is so often cartoonish.
____________________
Daily Links
  • Gerrit van der Wees reviews Milo Thornberry's book about his involvement with the pro-democracy movement in the 1960s. My right sidebar has a link so you can purchase this great book.
  • WaPo with a travel piece on Fo Guang Shan and its pro-China, pro-KMT, anti-Taiwan leader, Hsing Yun. No mention of the latter, of course, all is sweetness and light for a "humanistic" Buddhist leader who was a member of the leadership of a brutal authoritarian political party that murdered thousands of people in Taiwan. It's a travel piece, can't expect too much. In researching this I noticed Hsing Yun's Wiki page has been scrubbed. It mentions his political involvement but no longer notes that he is a former KMT central standing committee member; as I recall it used to. I collected some stuff on Hsing Yun back in 2009, including his call for obliterating the local Taiwanese identity.
  • Ma's plan to set up Taiwan culture center in Canada may prove awkward for Canadian gov't.
  • BBC with a story on the grouper trade with China
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

N Korea shells S Korea, China/Japan standoff

North Korea shells South Korean island:
A South Korean soldier was killed and 13 others injured after North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells onto a South Korean island setting more than 60 houses ablaze and sending civilians fleeing in terror.
This will certainly win hearts and minds. More details:
Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said the South fired 80 shots in response to the North's shelling.

"We were carrying out naval, air force and army training exercises and they (the North) seem to have opened fire in objection," a military official was quoted as saying by YTN.

The incident comes amid high cross-border tensions over the North's nuclear programme and the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship near the border in March.

The South blames a North Korean torpedo attack while the North denies responsibility.

Yeonpyeong lies just south of the border declared by United Nations forces after the war, but north of the sea border declared by North Korea.

In other news, AFP, which is basically redundant to Xinhua, reports that Chinese and Japanese patrol boats had a stand-off in the Senkakus:
Chinese and Japanese patrol boats were involved in a brief weekend stand-off near disputed islands, China's state media has reported, accusing the Japanese side of "unreasonable interference".

Two Chinese fishery patrol vessels were cruising near the islands in the East China Sea on Saturday when they were approached by up to seven Japanese patrol boats and two reconnaissance aircraft that circled above, the Nanfang Daily newspaper reported.

The Japanese side asked the Chinese boats when they planned to leave, said the report issued Monday.

The Chinese boats responded by saying the disputed waters were "China's sacred territory" and they vowed to continue carrying out patrols in future.

My favorite part of this little piece is AFP's description of Japan's sovereignty over the Senkakus:

Both Tokyo and Beijing claim the potentially resource-rich islets, known as the Diaoyu islands in China and the Senkaku in Japan, along with their surrounding waters.

However, Japan has traditionally had more of a presence in the area.

"traditionally more of a presence." You mean like, ownership, right?

Al Jazeera has more live coverage of the Korean situation.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Why the International Media Sucks: Case #7961

Argh. AP's report on the upcoming frigate sale.... (Taipei Times, FOX entertainment) has an offensive, outrageous pro-China slant. Let's take a look. The opening paragraph:
A Taiwanese newspaper reported Thursday that the U.S. will sell the democratic island two warships, a move that would almost certainly anger China and further undermine Beijing's already tense relations with Washington.
1. The report says that Beijing will be angered, though this has not occurred yet. In fact that sale is not slated for approval until some time from now, and the systems involved are old and minor. Note that we are told only Beijing's projected response, not the US nor Taiwan positions on this sale. From the beginning Beijing's perspective dominates.

2. The sale "undermines" relations, a viciously negative word that again adopts a pro-Beijing viewpoint. Neutral words for effect abound in English: alter, affect, impact.... Further note that undermine normalizes Beijing's anger as a response. One could have written with equal fairness and greater respect for the truth that Beijing's policy of "being angry" undermines relations between Beijing and Washington.

After describing the proposed sale, the article continues:
Any new sale of U.S. military hardware to Taiwan could be expected to incense China. The mainland and the island split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing sees third country involvement in the island's defense as interference in its internal affairs.
1. The bullshit "split in 1949 amid civil war" formulation again. No need to reiterate.

2. Of course we are told Beijing's perspective again. No perspective from Taiwan on how it might see Beijing. Nor are we ever told in this article why the US might want to sell weapons to Taiwan or why Taiwan might want them. The premise of the article is that the weapons sale occurs in a political and military vacuum which it disturbs.

3. Again we are told Beijing will be incensed. The article does not convey that "being incensed" is a policy decision, not a visceral reaction. The article does not provide any support for this claim, such as a quote from an expert:
A political scientist at National Taiwan University, Professor A. Frank Quisling, argues that Beijing....
Nor why Beijing will be "incensed" over the sale of two 40 year old subhunting ships, except for further down it mentions Beijing's "anger" over the last arms sale. The article also nowhere suggests that it might be inappropriate to become angered over such a puny arms sale.

Finally, wouldn't it be a good idea to wait and see what Beijing actually does, rather than propagandizing for its policy of using "anger" to manage its relations with foreign countries and to impact foreign media reporting?

AP then says:
Long dormant tensions between Washington and Beijing resurfaced last month when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an Asian forum in Hanoi, Vietnam, that the U.S. regarded settlement of a series of territorial disputes between China and several Asian countries in the South China Sea as being in America's national interest.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry described those comments - and Clinton's demand that the disputes be resolved through multilateral negotiations - as "an attack." China prefers to address the disputes bilaterally because it believes that approach works to its advantage.
Again we are given the Chinese perspective. No context is given for Sec of State Clinton's announcement, because of course such a context would reflect negatively on Beijing. Imagine if that paragraph had begun In response to recent aggressive moves by Beijing.... I'll bet the editors of AP wonder why people read blogs... Although the last sentence, which hints that maybe Beijing might be a bit of a bully, moves in the right direction.

Finally, the laugher:
Washington transferred recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 but is legally committed to helping Taiwan defend itself against possible Chinese attack.
Dear AP: it is now 2010. The text of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) has been publicly available for thirty-one years. Maybe someone in the AP editor's office should read it, because nowhere in it does it require the US "to help Taiwan defend itself against possible Chinese attack." But just in case anyone is confused, please read this post, also written in response to the same AP eff-up three freaking years ago. Time to stop writing that shit, really.

Meanwhile AFP, always ready to step up to the plate and hit one out of the ballpark for Beijing, spewed:
A Chinese envoy who was shoved to the ground by a pro-independence politician on his last visit to Taiwan shrugged off the incident as he returned to the island Sunday.

"I respected Taiwan's judicial ruling" on the attack, Zhang Mingqing, the vice president of China's quasi-official Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, said after flying into Taoyuan airport.

The incident occurred in October 2008 when Wang Ting-yu, a councillor in Tainan, and a group of his supporters pushed Zhang over as the Chinese envoy was touring the southern Taiwanese city, a hotbed of anti-China feeling.

The fracas was caught on camera and triggered fury in China, with the Beijing government calling for "severe punishment" of the attackers.

Wang was convicted of assault in September last year and sentenced to a four-month jail term. On appeal, that was reduced to a fine of 122,000 Taiwan dollars (3,800 US).

Nowhere does this article report that it is likely he only fell (see my long post with many links including videos) or even that there is an alternative story, or that the video is ambiguous, or that Zhang is a thug who has many times threatened to murder everyone in Taiwan who does not agree with his political stance. A totally slanted piece. Compare this with Taiwan News more balanced approach which takes in all sides and reports Zhang's actual role:
Zhang Mingqing, a vice chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, visited a park near a Confucian temple in Tainan when he was surrounded by opponents of China’s claims of sovereignty over Taiwan and landed on the ground.

Zhang accused his opponents of pushing and shoving him, but the accused said he had fallen over a tree root.

.....

Zhang first gained prominence in Taiwan as a spokesman on Taiwanese affairs in the years when China regularly issued threats against the island to underline its claims of sovereignty.
I don't actually expect AFP to improve; I merely place this here as additional data.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Melbourne Film Festival Success, AFP Crash-n-Burn

Readers may recall that China threw a temper tantrum and pulled Chinese films from the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF) in Melbourne, Australia, last week, because the festival was screening a film about an Uighur activist. One of these films was a joint Hong-Kong-Taiwan production called Miao Miao, whose distributor was from Hong Kong. The Taiwan Economic and Trade Office (TECO) in Australia let everyone know that this was unacceptable and Taiwan still fully backed the festival in a statement released earlier this week:
The Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Australia (TECO) is very surprised and regretful to hear that the distributing company of the film entitled "Miao Miao", namely Fortissimo Films, which is based in Hong Kong, has decided to withdraw the screening of "Miao Miao", by Taiwanese director Heng Hsiao-Tse.

The withdrawal is due to the recent boycott made by the authorities of the Chinese People’s Republic which controls Hong Kong, against the Melbourne International Film Festival. This has nothing to do with Taiwan which is in support of the continuous participation of the film and the freedom of expression and human rights.
Hilariously, the Hong Kong firm denied that it had pulled the film as part of Beijing's toddler outburst, instead claiming that the festival had "a weird ambiance" and had become "politicized." The GIO said it may demand its funding for the project back.

Meanwhile, the Chinese political attack on the film festival was a resounding success, as this advertisement says:
MORE TICKETS AVAILABLE FOR 10 CONDITIONS OF LOVE
Posted 5th August, 2009

Due to overwhelming demand MIFF has decided to relocate the screening of 10 Conditions of Love the documentary about Rebiya Kadeer to a larger venue and to place more tickets on sale.

The film will now screen at the Melbourne Town Hall on Saturday 8th August at 4:45 pm.

THE FILM WILL BE INTRODUCED BY SENATOR BOB BROWN AND MICHAEL DANBY

REBIYA KADEER will be in attendance and will be available to answer questions following the screening.
Tickets have already sold out, demand is overwhelming. Another brilliant policy success for Beijing and all Chinese people! I hope Taiwanese artists and others involved in collaboration with Chinese observe that their work will always be nothing more than a pawn in Beijing's political strategies. The festival director discusses Chinese pressure here, while the director of the film about Kadeer had some pertinent remarks:
The film's director Jeff Daniels says he is concerned about the fact Victoria police will be putting on extra security for the screening.

"I personally find it appalling that the Chinese Government has put the film festival and film-goers in a position where they need a police escort and private security to see a film," he said.

"I think Melbourne is getting a small taste of the position that the Chinese Government has put Rebiya Kadeer and her family and the Uighur population in for the past 60 years."
The really wacky thing this week was AFP's reporting. I posted earlier that AFP had erroneously reported that TECO had joined the boycott with Beijing. AFAIK, no other news organization had reported this (please forward link if anyone knows of one). No biggie, errors are not uncommon, especially where Taipei, Hong Kong, and Beijing can be mixed up. Five days later, today their headline screams:

Taiwan denies boycotting Melbourne film fest

"Denies" as in Senator Denies Affair With Intern or Company Denies Illegal Waste Dumping. The use of "deny" in a newspaper article generally signals that a credible accusation was made, not that the paper had made an ordinary error in the course of reporting. AFP should have simply published a correction with an "AFP regrets the error" note.

I wonder if this would work for other types of news stories -- like if the Taipei Times does a story on me and says I am 62 years old, instead of an error correction, they could just write Turton Denies He Is 62...
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Sunday, November 11, 2007

US Congressman Introduce Resolution to Support UN for Taiwan

Media outlets are reporting the introduction of a resolution backed by 19 US legislators to support Taiwan into the UN (Taipei Times).

No date has been fixed for debate on the bill in the US legislature.

"It's unclear when it will come before the committee, we have no mark-ups scheduled for the next month," said Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for House foreign affairs committee chairman Tom Lantos.

Chen's Democratic Progressive Party is pushing for the controversial vote to be held alongside the presidential elections on March 22, 2008.

But on Friday the de facto US envoy to Taiwan, Stephen Young, said a referendum was "not necessary" or "helpful" and called on Taiwan to adopt a "careful and moderate approach" in relations with China.

"I have regular dialogues with President Chen and the other players in Taiwan on the political side," Young, director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), told reporters.

"I think it is clear to say neither President Chen nor anybody else here in Taiwan should be confused by the effective opposition to the referendum and the reasons."

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in August Washington opposed any such referendum because it would be a step to declaring full independence.

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas J. Christensen also recently urged the leadership in Taipei to "anticipate potential Chinese red lines and reactions and avoid unnecessary and unproductive provocations."

Local Taiwan newspapers have reported that Washington has decided to postpone the sale of dozens of F-16 C/D fighters to Taipei in an effort to show its displeasure.

The resolution was introduced by Scott Garret (R) of New Jersey. It's just a resolution, and is essentially meaningless, as the Bush Administration has already shown time and again that it cares not what Congress does. It's always nice to show support, though.

Tom Christensen, the State Department official mentioned in the article above, was recently identified in a private emailing from someone in the know as extremely knowledgeable on US-China relations but a strong supporter of the refusal to sell Taiwan F-16s, and of the US attacks on Taiwan's referendum plan. Christensen apparently believes that Taiwan should not "provoke" China. Since China determines whether it has been provoked, positions like Christensen's simply make US policy hostage to Chinese initiative. Worse still, they invite war since they makes the US look indifferent to Taiwan's fate, and weak and easily manipulated.

MEDIA NOTES: The AFP article offers a good example of how pro-China biases are introduced into news articles through the use of routine formulations that are either slanted ("China considers Taiwan part of its territory" but what does Taiwan think?) or erroneous ("China and Taiwan split in 1949"), as well as with loaded languages and telling omissions. Note the opening frame of the story:

Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan, a move that could anger China.

Imagine this opening frame:

Nineteen US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan, a move that shows support for Taiwan's vibrant democracy.

The idea of democracy is never referred to in the article, except indirectly in the mention of elections. Instead, the referendum is framed negatively throughout the entire article, using loaded language:

The Bush administration has tried to discourage Chen's effort, which has has touched a raw nerve with China, which considers it a provocative step towards independence.

Do nations have raw nerves?

Taiwan, under its official name the Republic of China, lost its UN seat to China in 1971. Its efforts to rejoin using its official title have been repeatedly blocked by Beijing, which sees the island as part of its territory.

No mention of Taiwan's position on the issue, of course. This is followed by more negative framing:

During a recent Asia-Pacific summit in Sydney, Chinese President Hu Jintao told Bush that Taiwan's referendum plan had propelled the cross-strait situation into a "possibly dangerous period."

The President of China is cited, but nothing contextualizes this. Chinese military and political threats to Taiwan are not mentioned, and Hu is treated as if he were not a man who had killed to get and maintain his power. There is no reason that the AFP report could not have included this passage in the resolution reported in the Taipei Times....

"Taiwan has dramatically improved its record on human rights and routinely holds fair and free elections in a multiparty system, as evidenced by Taiwan's second [sic] democratic presidential election in 2000 and 2004, in which Mr Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁] was elected as President," the resolution said.


...except that it would have spoiled the effectiveness of all that negative language about the horrible referendum, of course, especially in contrast to the regime run by Hu Jintao.