I’ve been quiet on Tibet since my first post. It takes time to absorb the events as they unfold, and to hear various points of view. But one thing has struck me of late, the question of media bias.
Jeremiah does a good job over at The China Beat reviewing some of the criticisms that have emerged regarding Western media coverage of the events in Tibet. I will not get bogged down in the various controversies. Suffice it to say that some Western news outlets did make some mistakes in how they initially covered the big day of rioting on March 14th. These mistakes have been seized upon by some Chinese to paint a picture of fundamental and irremediable anti-Chinese bias. But there is a rather big difference between media bias and media control.
Take CNN for instance. It has been castigated because it cropped a picture of the March 14 disturbances in such a manner as to cut out a number of rampaging Tibetans. When challenged, CNN people gave a unpersuasive response. Let’s just say it was, at least, a misjudgment that could have been corrected but was not. But does it suggest systematic bias? To substantiate that claim the critics should consider the full range of CNN coverage of the riots. For example, a few days later, on March 20th, CNN ran an interview with James Miles, one of the few foreigners in Lhasa at the time to report. It clearly stated that Tibetans were attacking Han and Hui Chinese and that the state security forces were acting with restraint. That same message gradually emerged from other Western news sources as well. The initial impression created by the early pictures has been filled out with a more detailed and accurate portrayal.
I do not mean to defend CNN from criticism. Its coverage is far from perfect and is shaped by certain biases. Charges of bias are utterly common in regard to any US media outlet on virtually any story (Clinton says the media is biased in favor of Obama, and Obama says Clinton is favored, etc). But under conditions of relative freedom of the press, bias can be challenged, new information can be brought forward, and a more accurate record established. That is what is happening for those who follow the story in the US.
However, that does not and cannot happen in China. Stricter state control of the media makes it impossible to bring forth alternative viewpoints and survey a broader range of information and interpretations. There is close to nothing in the Chinese media (save a few brave bloggers and a group of largely-ignored intellectuals) to challenge the claim that the Dalai Lama was somehow behind the outburst of violence. Political control of the media makes it very difficult to explore the larger questions at hand: why did Tibetans riot on the 14th? What happened in the days before? We know that some monks were arrested on the 10th what was the nature of their apprehension and detention? And what are the larger economic and social dynamics that might lead young Tibetan men to violence? Yes, there was likely some external encouragement from Tibet independence groups (note: The Dalai Lama is not an independence advocate) and that is part of the story – a part we in the West can see and understand – but there is also an internal, Chinese aspect to the story – one that the CCP obstructs through its media control.
Western media, to repeat, are not perfect. They are biased in many ways. But relative freedom matters. And the relative freedom of Western media allows us to contrast and compare many different sources to come to a better understanding. The CCP does not allow citizens of China that possibility.
In this regard, the Party once again reveals its Legalist basis. Chapter 12 of the Han Fei Tzu, "The Difficulties of Persuasion," could easily be a primer for Communist propagandists – and a resource to PR people everywhere. Here are the opening lines:
On the whole, the difficult thing about persuading others is not that one lacks the knowledge needed to state his case nor the audacity to exercise his abilities to the full. On the whole, the difficult thing about persuasion is to know the mind of the person son is trying to persuade and to be able to fit one’s words to it.
I suppose that the Party is quite successful in knowing the mind of the angry young middle class Han Chinese men who call for Tibetan blood on the internet. As to persuading the world that all is happy and united in the Olympic utopia: not so much.
The Useless Tree 
Leave a reply to jake Cancel reply