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!
_______________________
[Taiwan] 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!

MEDIAFAIL: it is CNN policy to lie about the US one China policy?

Riding off to the east coast from Fangliao in Pingtung.

I ask the question in the clickbait title of this post almost seriously, because the FAIL is strong with CNN. Last week CNN published an "explainer" which of course, like so many other explainers, got key information grossly wrong. To wit:

Washington officially sticks to a "one China" policy, acknowledging Taiwan being part of China and the People's Republic's status as the sole legitimate government of China.

....

In 1979, the US acknowledged the People's Republic of China's claim that there is one China and that Taiwan is part of China, when Washington severed ties with Taipei to recognize Beijing.

US policy is that Taiwan's status is undetermined. Washington's one China policy doesn't include Taiwan. All of us who track Taiwan policy know that. This information is freely available on the internet. Why doesn't CNN know it?

Despite repeated attempts to contact the authors by email and twitter, only silence was received, and the misleading presentation/error remains. The piece also claims, wrongly, that Beijing and Taipei "reached an agreement" in the 1990s. No agreement was reached in the 1990s. It also refers to the "own interpretation" part of the "1992 Consensus" though Beijing has never accepted that codocil.

The reason I ask the question above is that not only is there this false presentation of US China policy in the "explainer", but CNN presenters routinely say that the US says Taiwan is part of China. When CNN's Fredricka Whitfield interviewed Gerrit van der Wees of FAPA in early Dec, she began her first question by stating: "The U.S. does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent state and backs Beijing's claim that Taiwan is a part of China." van der Wees corrected her, but the error is frequent on CNN and subsequently both Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper have made it.

And check out this short video from CNN, which appears to refer to the "1993" Consensus.

Somewhere, someone is misleading CNN. It needs to stop.
_______________________
[Taiwan] 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!

Ma Interview on CNN: More integration, less tension

Huge news this week as Ma Ying-jeou was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour on CNN. Amanpour obviously wanted to come across as hard-hitting, and Ma underwent his toughest grilling since the excellent Hardtalk interview several years ago. The highlight was Ma saying:

That is why the current administration, like previous administrations, is very pleased with what happened in the last two years. And we will continue to reduce the risks so that we will purchases arms from the United States , but we will never ask the Americans to fight for Taiwan . This is something that is very, very clear.

These remarks caused a public outcry, but since we all knew which side Ma wants to align himself with, it's more of the same, though a bit more openly than normal. In any case Ma can sidle out of it any time by saying "...not Taiwan, but the ROC should be fought for." Remember always that in Ma's view "Taiwan" is just a region in the Chinese imperium.

Furthermore, Ma must know perfectly well that the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) does not include Taiwan itself in the decision loop about whether to defend the island, and thus, knows that "Taiwan" need not ask. America will do what it wants to, period.

Finally, from a practical standpoint, this is the fourth time Ma has answered a closely related question on the US and defending Taiwan. There may not be any real meaning to this, nothing more to see here than an exasperated overstatement from a non-native English speaker. Here's what she asked:

AMANPOUR: That was US President Barak Obama speaking to students in Shanghai last November. As we continue our discussion with President Ma, we asked him which power is rising in the east. I wanted to carry on this conversation with the US-Taiwan relationship but of course the US-China relationship, many have thought over the past years and decade that this is the issue that would cause a conflict or could cause a conflict between China and the United States. Do you think that that is still a realistic concern?

AMAPOUR: Well on that note you were talking before we went to a break with the need to sort of de-escalate any notion of an arms race. And of course, recently it was announced more than 6 billions of arms from the United States to Taiwan and that obviously caused a fairly stiff response in Beijing and I want to play you what the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said about that.

AMANPOUR: And yet many Americans are saying, you know is it really worth given how extended America is in Iraq, in Afghanistan and fighting terrorism. Is it worth the risk of going to war on behalf of Taiwan? So again, the question that I wanted to ask you is, what do you think would happen if the US started to reduce arms sales to Taiwan in order to improve relations with China? And that's your goal too to improve relations with China?

AMANPOUR: Obviously you've spoken about the Chinese missiles pointed towards Taiwan but let me ask you a quick response if you can, to the question that's sometimes posed here, why should Americans risk so much on behalf of Taiwan?

The whole point of all this repetition was to get Ma to say something controversial, which he obliged.

In any case, Ma, who is strongly backed by American global financial firms, is merely mouthing things he thinks his backers in the US want to hear. Note that at the same time he continued to call for arms sales. The cynical among us might recall that years ago Ma promised the US he'd get those weapons sales moving in the legislature, back when he was Chairman of the KMT. Still no sign of new F-16s... After that, President Ma also promises to sell us a bridge....

Meanwhile the real integration continues apace, with Chinese financial services firms now entering Taiwan....

Mainland Chinese banks, insurance companies and securities firms will soon be competing for Taiwan’s financial services market following a Cabinet decision to further ease regulatory controls May 3.

Under the new policy, mainland firms can set up representative offices in Taiwan. Insurance carriers and securities houses from across the strait are also permitted to take stakes in their local counterparts.

Link to the CNN transcript of the interview

As for understanding the impact of the upcoming integration, read Harold Myerson's excellent commentary from last year on the US Congress' vote to send America's industry to China...

Some foresaw the problems that would be unleashed. By nearly a two-to-one margin, House Democrats refused to ratify the agreement when it came to a vote in May 2000, but enough Democrats aligned with Republicans to ensure passage. (In the Senate, both parties favored it overwhelmingly.) Along with union leaders, many House Democrats predicted that the pact would cost American jobs and deepen, rather than lessen, our trade deficit. That they were right while mainstream economists and representatives of economic elites were wrong has not increased their credibility among mainstream economists and economic elites.

....alongside Lin Cho-shui's wonderful piece today on Ma's debate with Tsai -- how wrong the man was in each of his claims....

Finally, Ma said that even if restrictions are lifted on the more than 800 Chinese agricultural products currently banned from Taiwan, this would still be less than the 900 items permitted for import by the DPP administration. He also said that an ECFA would have less of an impact on Taiwan than WTO accession.

In fact, the Chinese agricultural products approved for importation by the DPP were those that Taiwan does not produce. In contrast, the 800 Chinese agricultural products that are still barred are sensitive items produced in both Taiwan and China. The same applies to industrial products.

How is it, then, that the impact of ECFA on Taiwan would be less than that of accession to the WTO?

O brave new world....
_______________________
[Taiwan] 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!

Ma on CNN

A Ma fan in a local office.

Ma Ying-jeou was on CNN's Talk Asia the other day. PART 1, PART 2. The CNN text is a priceless mishmash of KMT talking points and erroneous information that is insulting to both Ma and its readers. Here is the header....

....which refers to "premier" Ma. In the text, after a short intro, come the KMT talking points:

With the backdrop of economic depression Ma's calls to reinvigorate the economy by freer trade and improved relations with China proved stronger than the fears that those ties could lead to a loss in independence.

In case you didn't notice, 5.7% growth last year and 6% growth in the first half of this year is "economic depression." And people wonder why Americans don't know anything about the outside world.

Of course, you know what follows on the heels of that nonsense: The Claim That Won't Die:

Born in Hong Kong in 1950, Ma studied at Harvard Law School and worked as a lawyer in New York in 1981 before returning Taiwan.

Was Ma a lawyer in NY? AFAIK he never passed the Bar there.

And then there is tourism...

Ma's administration hopes that Chinese tourists from the mainland will boost the sluggish tourism industry and talks are already underway to increase the number of weekly flights.

"Sluggish tourism industry?" Weren't the last three years all record breakers?

*sigh*

UPDATE: I checked again on July 30, 2008, 15 days after the story was posted and after several of us wrote in. Ma is still premier, and the KMT talking points are still there.

[Taiwan]

Letter: absolutely the last word on AP and Lu

The Taipei Times was kind enough to run my letter on the AP's use of the "scum of nation" in describing Vice President Lu:

What AP Did

The recent "scum of the nation" flap, and the response to it from the Taipei Times, Associated Press (AP) and other organizations, shows that the media still do not understand why Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) -- along with those of us who follow international media coverage of Taiwan -- find the story so offensive.

The issue is not, as the Taipei Times framed it in a recent editorial ("Annette Lu tames the world press," March 10, page 8), one of naive bias on the part of CNN and AP. Nobody is accusing either organization of slanting stories to favor China. Rather, the issue is the foreign media's uncritical incorporation of propaganda from Beijing into its reporting on Taiwan in a way that is automatic and unconsidered, allowing those opinions to shape its discourse on the nation, instead of developing a robust understanding of Taiwan in its own context.

(more)

For historical purposes, here is the paragraph on the assassination attempt in its entirety as originally written:

"Near the end of the article the writer refers to the assassination attempt by a pan-Blue supporter on Chen and Lu in 2004, noting "The opposition alleged the shooting was staged to win sympathy votes." Fundamentally, there was no reason to mention the shooting; it is irrelevant to Lu's presidential candidacy. The use of "the opposition" coyly refuses to name the KMT (the failure to use "Chinese Nationalist Party" as the correct name of the KMT is widespread in the international media). The writer also failed to mention that no evidence supports the opposition claims, making a hollow pretense of the sound journalistic ethic of balance in ssigning equal weight to nonsense claims, and using the phrase "the police said" as if no investigation was conducted and no chain of evidence was followed. Note that opposition's claim is set off in a sentence of its own, and that it comes last in the discussion of the assassination attempt. It goes with saying that Beijing supports the opposition on that one."

The editor was forced to shrink it a little; my habit of writing long sentences filled with parenthetical comments doesn't really work in the newspaper context. One thing I could kick myself for was forgetting to mention how the Scum of the Nation flap illustrated yet another silly habit of the international media -- its reliance on people based in Beijing and Hong Kong for commentary on Taiwan. As Tetsuo at Forumosa put it, commenting on another blog, that is like asking your Washington DC correspondent for a report on what is going on Canberra.

[Taiwan] [media] [AP] [Annette Lu]

CNN Channels Beijing in describing Lu

The DPP is now officially overflowing with candidates for the 2008 Presidential elections as Annette Lu tossed her fur scarf into the ring. Hardly was she out of the gate when CNN came under fire from all over for its ridiculous story that repeated insulting Chinese characterizations of Lu:(UPDATE: As the comments below pointed out, this is an AP story taken up by CNN. ).

The Presidential Office expressed concern yesterday over a story run by the Associated Press (AP) that described Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) as "the scum of the nation."

With the headline "Taiwan's `scum of the nation' runs for president," the story said Lu was an outspoken vice president that "China has called `insane' and the `scum of the nation.'"

The headline was later changed to a more moderate tone that read "Lu seeks to be first Taiwan woman president" after the Presidential Office expressed concern.

Lu said last night that she would send a letter of protest to CNN and demand an apology or an interview in order to safeguard the country's dignity.

Presidential Office spokesman David Lee (李南陽) said the AP told him that CNN, which is an AP subscriber, had changed its original headline to make it sound more sensational.

CNN's error illustrates once again how the US media thoughtlessly replicates Beijing's discourse on Taiwan. The CNN article also prepares us for the Mad Annette scenario:

She has repeatedly angered Beijing with her support for Taiwanese independence, and tensions with China would likely rise if she were elected.

On Tuesday, she again challenged Beijing's sacred view that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China. "Taiwan is a Pacific country, not an affiliate of China," she said.

Taiwan has been ruled separately from China since the Communists won a civil war and took over the mainland in 1949. Beijing insists Taiwan must unify eventually or face a devastating war.

We can only shake our heads at the kind of reporting that straightfacedly argues that "tensions will rise" if a pro-democracy politician is elected President. Apparently, as with virtually all reporting on the island, tensions are not affected if Chinese packs the Strait with missiles. Can anyone pass me an MSM article that forthrightedly states that China's rising military budget is increasing tension across the Taiwan Straits?

What are Annette's chances? The CNN article cites a political analyst at [National] Taipei University:

Political analyst Chiang Min-chin of Taipei University said Lu would likely lose her ruling Democratic Progressive Party's primary. Most party members dislike her because she isn't a team player.

"Lu has good vision and a blueprint for ruling the country," Chiang said. "But many people have misunderstood her because of her uncompromising character. As a highly conceited person, she has never bothered to clarify her stance."

It is interesting that Lu can have "a good...blueprint" but be a person without a clear stance. I hope next time CNN quotes an analyst who is able to put things in more distanced terms "but many feel she is conceited" or "there is a widespread perception that Lu has a problem with arrogance."

In the main, though, Lu should have little chance of winning a primary. Still, it is good to see her hat in the ring, a reminder of how many quality politicians the DPP has.

Lu's original reaction to being the "scum of the earth" was reported by Time a while back...

TIME: Beijing directed some pretty nasty words at you last week. How did you feel being the target for such verbal abuse?

Lu: They made me famous. I took it as a compliment--targeting me like that has made me internationally well-known. Actually, I'm used to that kind of treatment. Some of the language reminded me of what the Kuomintang (KMT) accused me of 20 years ago. The KMT put me in jail for six years, but they never thought that 20 years later they would have to transfer their regime to me on behalf of the freedom fighters.

TIME: What do you think Beijing's intention was in attacking you?

Lu: I think it reflects a deliberate and considered strategy toward Taiwan. It indicates that they are running out of patience and rationality. Singling me out also shows they were trying to divide me and the President-elect and to undermine our relationship, and to press him to make a more favorable inaugural statement on May 20. Also, to criticize me was a way for them to criticize the President-elect as well, so yesterday Chen Shui-bian urged all DPP colleagues to maintain solidarity. He did not find any fault with me. He said I was being attacked on behalf of him, and that nothing could spoil the relationship between him and me. There are many internal problems in mainland China. Before they enter the World Trade Organization, so many state enterprises have to be privatized. Therefore many people will become jobless. As a result, there have been riots and internal disturbance. So in order to cover up their problems, China is trying to play up nationalism, and certainly to crack down on so-called Taiwan independence is a good excuse for them to take some irrational action. Furthermore, [Beijing] by announcing that they would be watching what the President-elect says and does before May 20 will only cause world leaders to waste some valuable time waiting for his speech. The President-elect has already cautioned that people shouldn't have too high an expectation about the speech; one speech certainly can't resolve such a long and complicated conflict. Putting everything on hold between March 18 and May 20 may just give the PLA time to prepare for something. I believe that no matter what kind of statement President Chen makes, it won't be satisfactory to China unless we surrender. Once the statement is made and the Chinese leaders express their disappointment--and use it as an excuse to take some irrational action--it will be too late. So I urge those who are concerned about peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait to please apply whatever preventive diplomacy is possible, such as expressing concern over the issue to Chinese leaders as soon as possible. I urge them not to underestimate the seriousness of the matter.

[Taiwan] [DPP] [Annette Lu] [CNN][2008 Presidential Election]

Ma on TalkAsia

Chairman Ma handled another interview with the foreign media well, according to the Taipei Times...some excerpts:

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) used an interview on CNN's Talk Asia program to accuse the Dem-ocratic Progressive Party (DPP) of endangering Taiwan's security and international status by advocating independence.

Ma's interview displays some of the reasons the KMT handles the foreign media better than the DPP does. First, Ma speaks English. Second, he's on message, which the DPP often is not. Third, he simply boldly misleads whenever he encounters a problem, meaning that the interviewer must have some knowledge of Taiwan affairs in order to interview him. Managing the media is easy when you don't have to be honest and your interviewers lack the depth of knowledge required to call you on your claims.

"We could adopt a policy that would on one hand really take care of the `one China' principle, but on the other hand maintain Taiwan's dignity. What I mean is we should magnify the benefits but minimize the threat," he added.

Ma's been saying this for some time now, but nothing concrete is ever put forward. What kind of policy can reduce the military threat and "maximize benefits"? He doesn't say. The last time Ma went overseas he had to repudiate criticism of China for pointing missiles at Taiwan -- at the moment, KMT policy is that it is OK for China to point missiles at Taiwan. Who is threatening Taiwan's security?

Asked to comment on the KMT's blocking of the arms procurement bill in the legislature, Ma denied his party had stalled the bill.

"We did not block it ... We only chose those weapons that we believed could be used most efficiently for our defense," Ma said.

It's great that the CNN interviewer actually knew enough to ask about the arms bill. Of course Ma lied barefacedly -- the bill was blocked over 50 times in committee by the KMT and its legislative allies, and never reached the floor. Too bad she didn't call him on that. KMT officials lied repeatedly to the US, saying that the would support the bill. Only recently has there been some movement on the issue. Ma's claim that the KMT "chose only those weapons....defense," is disingenuous -- until very recently, the package had been rejected in toto, repeatedly. It finally took public criticism from US officials to get the KMT and its allies to move on the arms purchase.

Ma also took the opportunity to proclaim his innocence in response to allegations he embezzled money from his special allowance during his tenure as Taipei mayor.

"It is a special allowance for public relations. More than 6,500 government officials have it. We all use the fund according to the rules. At the moment, I believe that I've done nothing wrong. So far, no charges have been brought against me," he said.

It's great that the interviewer hit Ma with this. I love his disingenuous answer: We all use the fund according to the rules. ROFL. Here he avoids saying that the rules, which allow officials to use half the money without providing receipts, are the problem. Not indicted? Could it be because the man investigating Ma is his good friend? Note how Ma's story shifts -- the funds are for PR, he says, though he earlier said that he spent the $$ on rewards and gifts for his employees. Actually, the funds are for whatever the Mayor pleases....and half went directly into his personal accounts, had false receipts substituted for them...

..but where has the slush fund scandal gone? With thousands of current and former officials implicated, the System seems to have quietly made it disappear.

Describing himself as a "man of principle," Ma said he entered politics to promote the rule of law and aimed to upgrade the quality of democracy, calling on all politicians to be honest.

"I don't think that politicians should cheat and fight ... People don't like that," he added. "Honesty is the best policy."

Ma entered politics to promote the rule of law? It's too bad she didn't ask him about the allegations that he reported on fellow students from Taiwan as a spy when he was studying in the US. It might put his comments about "honesty" into perspective.

[Taiwan] [Democracy] [Ma Ying-jeou] [CNN]

Dan Bloom Smokes CNN

My friend Danny Bloom waxed CNN for its blunders in a letter to the Taipei Times, showing once again how Beijing-think dominates media discourse about Taiwan:

First, she (or to be fair, her editors in the CNN control booth) printed Chen's name in English incorrectly -- it's "Chen Shui-bian," not "Chen Shiu Bian" -- and then she referred to China as "the mainland" in one of her questions.

In another question, Rao referred to Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) as Chen's "deputy" when Lu's title is not "deputy president" but "vice president."

These might seem like small quibbles, and are perhaps not big gaffes.

But would Rao refer to US Vice President Dick Cheney as President George W. Bush's "deputy"?

`There is no need for CNN to refer to China as "the mainland." It is nobody's mainland, except for the residents of China's islands.'

And there is no country called "The Mainland." China is officially called the People's Republic of China and informally referred to as China.

Lastly, CNN would never write the name of China's president, Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), as "Hu Jin Tao."

If CNN had done its homework, these gaffes would not have occurred.

But they did occur, and did so on a TV show broadcast around the world.

Rao, who is a seasoned journalist and who asked insightful questions during her interview with Chen, simply was not truly prepared for her meeting with Chen and it seems that her editors did not prepare her in advance, either.

According to a CNN transcript of the program posted on the Internet, this is how Rao began her program with Chen as guest: "Hello I'm Anjali Rao in Taipei. My guest this week is Taiwan's President Chen Shui Bian. This is Talk Asia! Chen Shui Bian is a man in a tough spot. While determined to secure Taiwan's independence from mainland China, he knows what it could mean for the island he's led for seven years."

Later in the interview, Rao says to Chen: "President, recent reports from the Pentagon say China has 900 missiles pointed at this island; do you think that China will attack Taiwan?"

Would Rao refer on air to Japan or Britain or Australia as an "island"?

Good catches, and great work, Dan.

[Taiwan] [CNN] [media] [China] [Chen Shui-bian] [Taiwan Independence]