5/29/2003
I used to have fantasy to the American democracy mainly due to its Fourth Power. This vision was cracked like a colorful bubble even before the US smart bombs, like surgical knifes, burned the Iraqis soil and later liberalized rogues to loot and destroy relics of the 7000 years civilization.
The tradedy was also a result of conspiracy backed by major American press. That is so called the violence of democracy, driven by the mainstreem press which leading the opinion of the majority public.
The article below was written before the war when the media was fiercely feeding the public the impartial facts, in an effor and in effect to justify this evil war.
I did not try to contribute it to any Chinese press.
American Journalism At War
A war is under way.
The “liberal ” American news media has become strikingly conservative as Bush administration is clamoring to wage Gulf War 2.0.
Media opinion appears virtually monolithic in support of an attack on Iraq, while debates widely remain on the issue of the wisdom of, or timetable of the possible war. According to a survey of U.S.-based Editor & Publisher , among the top 50 dailies by circulation, none is strongly anti-war.
On the other hand, however, the stories of global anti-war protest were somehow elusive in the U.S press, or at least with impartial coverage.
In an January issue, Columbia Journalism Review that is published at Columbia University, gave failing grades to major media outlets from the Washington Post and the New York Times to San Diego Union-Tribune on the story of the anti-war protest in the west coast on Jan. 11.
On the coverage of the global anti-war rallies on Feb. 15, the Times said “U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a planet than the one covered by foreign media”. Fox News, which the Times dubs as Bush’s official news agency, described the event as “ the usual protesters” or “serial protesters”. And the headline on CNN’s Web site read “ Antiwar rallies delight Iraq”, with photo showing marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
But on the other side of the Atlantic, according to analysis of TV news around the world, the British broadcast media is taking a hard line on the U.S., with 33% of all stories being classed as negative. The research - by German media monitoring agency Medien Tenor - shows different stances adopted by U.K. and U.S. TV. “A closer look at international coverage of the U.S. reveals that TV is turning against the U.S.,” it said. What’s more, a recently British poll ranked the U.S. as the world’s most dangerous nation, ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
A Dangerous Signal
Why the American press and their European counterparts are at such odd?
Jingoistic journalism is dying hard. The horror of 911 attack is haunting. Corporate journalism dominates.
When Bush’s effort to disarm Saddam Hussein was thwarted by France and Germany, jingoism fever ramps in the U.S. press. The Wall Street Journal, which has “the only editorial page in the country that actually sells newspapers”(Robert Bartley, former editor of the Journal), has led an op-ed diplomacy by publishing a joint-signed letter of eight European leaders, calling for unity with the U.S. New York Post and The London Sun, both owned by Rupert Murdoch, bashed France and Germany, branding them "the Axis of Weasel". Fox News, also owned by Mr. Murdoch, developed its own critique and CBS followed suit.
Although it is understandable for journalists to feel attached to their home nations, journalistically, the imminent war itself is a great story, which is interesting, exciting and challenging, providing a great career chance for journalists. Universal Press Syndicate columnist Richard Reeves notes, it’s like military commanders whose careers are usually advanced when there is a war. The ethic of objectivity, independence and integrity of American journalism is at stake.
Chicago Tribune commented that some American journalists “have abandoned themselves to the patriotic passions of the times so enthusiastically” and they “apparently have forgotten their role as the Fourth Estate”.
Aside the pro-war coverage and op-ed in the print media, TV news networks produce dumbing down programs with dramatic captions like Fox’s “War on Terror” defining their coverage on the coming war against Iraq and in effect alerting American public that the nation is at war. In many places, news anchors and journalists sport American flag lapel pins. However, the fact is that there is only possibility of a war and essentially the war is oceans away from the soil of the States.
The line between news and entertainment is blurred. The New York Times cries, “for months major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq ahs already made, and have in effect see it’s their job to prepare the American public for the coming war”.
Such jingoistic passion is well sheltered with a doctrine of the American media: political correctness. Traditionally for the American press, anti-communism is all politically correct; pro-democracy is all politically correct; covering U.S. international policy, particularly amid international confrontation, pro-administration is all politically correct.
After the 911 attacks, anti-terrorism has become an omnipotent cause to justify any unprofessional behavior of the news media. As the American press covers al Qaeda and the Iraq regime with equal effort and during the same period, the target audience is somehow fuzzy about the distinction of the two. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 911 attacks, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. As a result, many Americans (the news consumers and voters) think a war against Iraq is necessary.
In this case, the news media should be the first to be blamed for deepening the trans-Atlantic rift and American people’s misunderstanding with the other parts of the world. Some media critics call the phenomena the state propaganda of the American and the violence of democracy.
War Profit
The possible war offers the media industry a good business opportunity. After all, the news business ends up with profits.
The Journal headlines a story as “some U.S., U.K. media resort to France-bashing to sell papers”, mainly referring to Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp. The media mogul is the one who deals with politics best in this industry, according to his biography author William Shawcross. Mr. Murdoch came down firmly on the side of military action. He said that Bush was acting “very morally and very correctly” and Blair was being “extraordinarily courageous and strong”, reports U.K.-based Guardian.
Eighty percent of the American newspapers are now controlled by a handful of newspaper chains. And all the major TV news networks are controlled by giant companies, as AOL Time Warner owns CNN, GE has NBC, News Corp. controls Fox New, Microsoft and GE jointly own MSNBC, Viacom holds CBS, and Walt-Disney possesses ABC. All these companies are blue shares that are widely held and closely watched by the Wall Street. By all means, the bottom line matters to the news companies.
Many American media observers point to the widening division between profitability and good journalism. As the control of the media has gradually passed into the hands of corporate managers less concerned with press tradition than with business profitability, news media owners are more inclined to appease advertisers and enrich shareowners. Traditional values of public service journalism are giving way to corporate journalism. In his article “The Death of Journalism”, James Squires, former editor of the Chicago Tribune, notes that the corporate journalism “is run solely in the interest of the highest level of profitability”.
War always makes sense for news organizations. But war doesn’t help the news corporate generate profit, on the contrary, war stories are money-losing business. Reportedly, many advertisers are ready to withdraw their advertisement and commercials, while the TV networks would have to adjust time slots in the wartime. Not only because the product promotion effects would dramatically reduce, but also because advertising at this time would be deemed as lack of patriotism, a charge that neither the advertisers nor the media would like to shoulder. Meanwhile, the TV networks are mobilizing large scale reporting staff and facilities at the front line, which cost a huge amount of money. For example, CNN is said will invest $60-70 million in covering the Gulf War 2.0, though the parent company is in financial swamp.
The key point: the war coverage helps brand building. Remember CNN? The biggest winner of the Gulf War 1.0 rapidly became a global TV news network from a local cable network after covering the real time war.
The coming war will be a battle field for the TV network to compete for rating and print media for readership, which will pay off afterward with better branding and more advertisement.
The bottom line: bias, the charge journalists and editors hate most, prevails among the American press, thanks to jingoism and corporate new culture. And real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world--and their bias directly affects how the public sees the world.
More Dangers Ahead
American journalists are marching to the battlefield.
Early February, Pentagon announced that 500-1,000 journalists from all media would be “embedded ”with specific combat units to the battlefront in the possible war with Iraq.
This announcement is widely greeted with applause and questions. For sure, war correspondents need protection as no story is worth of risking life. Meanwhile, the relationship of journalism to government is complex, one of dependence and antagonism. Now in the U.S. press, there is a lot of argument concerning government censorship and reporting independence in this case. The trade-off is a measure of access for a measure of control.
While the U.S. government maintains its rhetoric to the press, walking a fine line between state propaganda and independent press, the devils are in its details.
Once bombs fall, the embedded journalist will ratchet up for war stories. It is foreseeable that the American news sources will monopoly the global access to information about the war. When entertained by the war stories and motion pictures, world audience, joining the American news consumers, will have to face an ambivalent judgement: trust them, or not.
What the terrorists will react? Watching the embedded correspondents in uniforms of U.S. Army-like, will they take the journalists as part of the crusade?
A chilly preconception: more journalists and news organizations will be the targets of terrorists. The tragedy of Daniel Pearl is far from end.
-The End-
February 26, 2003
The tradedy was also a result of conspiracy backed by major American press. That is so called the violence of democracy, driven by the mainstreem press which leading the opinion of the majority public.
The article below was written before the war when the media was fiercely feeding the public the impartial facts, in an effor and in effect to justify this evil war.
I did not try to contribute it to any Chinese press.
American Journalism At War
A war is under way.
The “liberal ” American news media has become strikingly conservative as Bush administration is clamoring to wage Gulf War 2.0.
Media opinion appears virtually monolithic in support of an attack on Iraq, while debates widely remain on the issue of the wisdom of, or timetable of the possible war. According to a survey of U.S.-based Editor & Publisher , among the top 50 dailies by circulation, none is strongly anti-war.
On the other hand, however, the stories of global anti-war protest were somehow elusive in the U.S press, or at least with impartial coverage.
In an January issue, Columbia Journalism Review that is published at Columbia University, gave failing grades to major media outlets from the Washington Post and the New York Times to San Diego Union-Tribune on the story of the anti-war protest in the west coast on Jan. 11.
On the coverage of the global anti-war rallies on Feb. 15, the Times said “U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a planet than the one covered by foreign media”. Fox News, which the Times dubs as Bush’s official news agency, described the event as “ the usual protesters” or “serial protesters”. And the headline on CNN’s Web site read “ Antiwar rallies delight Iraq”, with photo showing marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
But on the other side of the Atlantic, according to analysis of TV news around the world, the British broadcast media is taking a hard line on the U.S., with 33% of all stories being classed as negative. The research - by German media monitoring agency Medien Tenor - shows different stances adopted by U.K. and U.S. TV. “A closer look at international coverage of the U.S. reveals that TV is turning against the U.S.,” it said. What’s more, a recently British poll ranked the U.S. as the world’s most dangerous nation, ahead of North Korea and Iraq.
A Dangerous Signal
Why the American press and their European counterparts are at such odd?
Jingoistic journalism is dying hard. The horror of 911 attack is haunting. Corporate journalism dominates.
When Bush’s effort to disarm Saddam Hussein was thwarted by France and Germany, jingoism fever ramps in the U.S. press. The Wall Street Journal, which has “the only editorial page in the country that actually sells newspapers”(Robert Bartley, former editor of the Journal), has led an op-ed diplomacy by publishing a joint-signed letter of eight European leaders, calling for unity with the U.S. New York Post and The London Sun, both owned by Rupert Murdoch, bashed France and Germany, branding them "the Axis of Weasel". Fox News, also owned by Mr. Murdoch, developed its own critique and CBS followed suit.
Although it is understandable for journalists to feel attached to their home nations, journalistically, the imminent war itself is a great story, which is interesting, exciting and challenging, providing a great career chance for journalists. Universal Press Syndicate columnist Richard Reeves notes, it’s like military commanders whose careers are usually advanced when there is a war. The ethic of objectivity, independence and integrity of American journalism is at stake.
Chicago Tribune commented that some American journalists “have abandoned themselves to the patriotic passions of the times so enthusiastically” and they “apparently have forgotten their role as the Fourth Estate”.
Aside the pro-war coverage and op-ed in the print media, TV news networks produce dumbing down programs with dramatic captions like Fox’s “War on Terror” defining their coverage on the coming war against Iraq and in effect alerting American public that the nation is at war. In many places, news anchors and journalists sport American flag lapel pins. However, the fact is that there is only possibility of a war and essentially the war is oceans away from the soil of the States.
The line between news and entertainment is blurred. The New York Times cries, “for months major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq ahs already made, and have in effect see it’s their job to prepare the American public for the coming war”.
Such jingoistic passion is well sheltered with a doctrine of the American media: political correctness. Traditionally for the American press, anti-communism is all politically correct; pro-democracy is all politically correct; covering U.S. international policy, particularly amid international confrontation, pro-administration is all politically correct.
After the 911 attacks, anti-terrorism has become an omnipotent cause to justify any unprofessional behavior of the news media. As the American press covers al Qaeda and the Iraq regime with equal effort and during the same period, the target audience is somehow fuzzy about the distinction of the two. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 911 attacks, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. As a result, many Americans (the news consumers and voters) think a war against Iraq is necessary.
In this case, the news media should be the first to be blamed for deepening the trans-Atlantic rift and American people’s misunderstanding with the other parts of the world. Some media critics call the phenomena the state propaganda of the American and the violence of democracy.
War Profit
The possible war offers the media industry a good business opportunity. After all, the news business ends up with profits.
The Journal headlines a story as “some U.S., U.K. media resort to France-bashing to sell papers”, mainly referring to Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp. The media mogul is the one who deals with politics best in this industry, according to his biography author William Shawcross. Mr. Murdoch came down firmly on the side of military action. He said that Bush was acting “very morally and very correctly” and Blair was being “extraordinarily courageous and strong”, reports U.K.-based Guardian.
Eighty percent of the American newspapers are now controlled by a handful of newspaper chains. And all the major TV news networks are controlled by giant companies, as AOL Time Warner owns CNN, GE has NBC, News Corp. controls Fox New, Microsoft and GE jointly own MSNBC, Viacom holds CBS, and Walt-Disney possesses ABC. All these companies are blue shares that are widely held and closely watched by the Wall Street. By all means, the bottom line matters to the news companies.
Many American media observers point to the widening division between profitability and good journalism. As the control of the media has gradually passed into the hands of corporate managers less concerned with press tradition than with business profitability, news media owners are more inclined to appease advertisers and enrich shareowners. Traditional values of public service journalism are giving way to corporate journalism. In his article “The Death of Journalism”, James Squires, former editor of the Chicago Tribune, notes that the corporate journalism “is run solely in the interest of the highest level of profitability”.
War always makes sense for news organizations. But war doesn’t help the news corporate generate profit, on the contrary, war stories are money-losing business. Reportedly, many advertisers are ready to withdraw their advertisement and commercials, while the TV networks would have to adjust time slots in the wartime. Not only because the product promotion effects would dramatically reduce, but also because advertising at this time would be deemed as lack of patriotism, a charge that neither the advertisers nor the media would like to shoulder. Meanwhile, the TV networks are mobilizing large scale reporting staff and facilities at the front line, which cost a huge amount of money. For example, CNN is said will invest $60-70 million in covering the Gulf War 2.0, though the parent company is in financial swamp.
The key point: the war coverage helps brand building. Remember CNN? The biggest winner of the Gulf War 1.0 rapidly became a global TV news network from a local cable network after covering the real time war.
The coming war will be a battle field for the TV network to compete for rating and print media for readership, which will pay off afterward with better branding and more advertisement.
The bottom line: bias, the charge journalists and editors hate most, prevails among the American press, thanks to jingoism and corporate new culture. And real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world--and their bias directly affects how the public sees the world.
More Dangers Ahead
American journalists are marching to the battlefield.
Early February, Pentagon announced that 500-1,000 journalists from all media would be “embedded ”with specific combat units to the battlefront in the possible war with Iraq.
This announcement is widely greeted with applause and questions. For sure, war correspondents need protection as no story is worth of risking life. Meanwhile, the relationship of journalism to government is complex, one of dependence and antagonism. Now in the U.S. press, there is a lot of argument concerning government censorship and reporting independence in this case. The trade-off is a measure of access for a measure of control.
While the U.S. government maintains its rhetoric to the press, walking a fine line between state propaganda and independent press, the devils are in its details.
Once bombs fall, the embedded journalist will ratchet up for war stories. It is foreseeable that the American news sources will monopoly the global access to information about the war. When entertained by the war stories and motion pictures, world audience, joining the American news consumers, will have to face an ambivalent judgement: trust them, or not.
What the terrorists will react? Watching the embedded correspondents in uniforms of U.S. Army-like, will they take the journalists as part of the crusade?
A chilly preconception: more journalists and news organizations will be the targets of terrorists. The tragedy of Daniel Pearl is far from end.
-The End-
February 26, 2003
5/28/2003
I created a new blog hosted by BlogCity, though it is more more complicated to mange its features.
5/27/2003
I don't like blogcn for its fancy but unlikely reliable features and tools, though it is accessible from anywhere. So I leave it deserted.
I am trying other blogs which is not firewalled by Chinese watchdog.
See what I will get.
I am trying other blogs which is not firewalled by Chinese watchdog.
See what I will get.
I created a new blog hosted in China, which will be a cloned blog of this.
Firewalls could be circumvented this way or that way. Bingo.
Firewalls could be circumvented this way or that way. Bingo.
My blog is not accessible through the local service providers as the host is blocked by the Chinese government. I was told this fact bya girl blogger , who is an active participant on cnblog and will soon graduate from a university in Hang Zhou.
So, the freedom on the web is too much quarantined by the Communist government, who are currently engaged in the campaign against SARS. The truth behind must be blogspot.com has irritated Beijing by hosting many dissidents' blogs.
And I am a viticm of the firewalling web freedom.
So, the freedom on the web is too much quarantined by the Communist government, who are currently engaged in the campaign against SARS. The truth behind must be blogspot.com has irritated Beijing by hosting many dissidents' blogs.
And I am a viticm of the firewalling web freedom.
5/26/2003
My friend said to me today via MSN messenger that this is an interesting thing that some guys enjoy porn stuff like 色狼, while they are reading Economist and The Wall Street Journal and talking about the China-US relations , with equally serious attitude. For sure, he is talking about guys like me. In fact, 色狼 is a good site with many good stuff and , I must say, this site represents a good business model in China, where online payment has yet been a ususal practice. I enjoy it and visit very often.
In the meantime, I am a loyal reader of online or print publications of business and politics. That mirrors a typical man, whose libido is transalated into sex and business, both of which are two sides of a complete man. You can't claim to be a man with any side absent in the your soul. I even doubt that there is a definite line between these two.
In the meantime, I am a loyal reader of online or print publications of business and politics. That mirrors a typical man, whose libido is transalated into sex and business, both of which are two sides of a complete man. You can't claim to be a man with any side absent in the your soul. I even doubt that there is a definite line between these two.
Embracing the new international image, Beijing's modern office and department buildings are swallowing some deeply-rooted historical sites, where peole live for generations while the life condition and environment is poor.
Nanyingfang, which is near the city center and home to thousands of poor but proud people , is to become the lastest victim of Beijing's modern construction effort, according to the New York Times.
Business is developing so fast that Hou Hai (Back Sea) is becoming a cluster of bars, replacing Sanlitun, traditionally the center for the bar-goers and recently deserted thanks to the SARS.
Cityweekend, a biweekly entertainment magazine in Beijing, questions what will happen next to one of Beijing's most historic areas which survives the city's modernization.
The north bank of Hou Hai is less attractive but more notorious as cars are jamming in the narrow drive and people are talking loudly amid the noisy music from bars and cars. Vanished the tranquility I enjoyed one year ago.
Nanyingfang, which is near the city center and home to thousands of poor but proud people , is to become the lastest victim of Beijing's modern construction effort, according to the New York Times.
Business is developing so fast that Hou Hai (Back Sea) is becoming a cluster of bars, replacing Sanlitun, traditionally the center for the bar-goers and recently deserted thanks to the SARS.
Cityweekend, a biweekly entertainment magazine in Beijing, questions what will happen next to one of Beijing's most historic areas which survives the city's modernization.
The north bank of Hou Hai is less attractive but more notorious as cars are jamming in the narrow drive and people are talking loudly amid the noisy music from bars and cars. Vanished the tranquility I enjoyed one year ago.
Chinese net facility must be blamed for my failure to link my blogger in the previous days, as it only showed me blank page or automatical search engines, which is not friendly to me. I am able to log on the publishing page and blogger very fast with the company's net.
It is fixed anyway. And the blog skin also changes, thanks to blogger.com.
I searched some Chinese blogger or blogger about China, while disappointed to see little.
It is fixed anyway. And the blog skin also changes, thanks to blogger.com.
I searched some Chinese blogger or blogger about China, while disappointed to see little.
5/25/2003
MAUREEN DOWD, a columnist of the New York Times bullies the neo-con in her lastest piece Yo, Ayatollahs!.
She is a fighter against Bush's war to topple Saddam Hussein.
She is a fighter against Bush's war to topple Saddam Hussein.
5/24/2003
It is so odd that I can't log on my blogger page. Yes, I am freshman in this blogger world, is there anything wrong with my understanding of this tool and or with my net.
Though blogchina is out there, I suspect that is the real blogger community in China.
I was cared by someone far away. This is really cool.
Though blogchina is out there, I suspect that is the real blogger community in China.
I was cared by someone far away. This is really cool.
