正文
Hi, Dennis,
I think you have a very good point that "Rather than trying to 'oust' Cafferty, create a reply to what he said that is positive and based on fact and reason rather than emotion, and present that to the American people through newspapers, Internet blogs, television, and any other medium you can." BUT the fact is most of the western media is now SO BIASED, e.g. you can see there are more supporters than protesters in San Francisco to support Olympics in Beijing from the videos on www.cbs.com, but on the CBS television news program, the title is always protesting and nobody dared to mention the fact that there are more supporters. So the Chinese people have to use Internet blogs, YouTube and any media they can to express their anger, e.g. see http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200804/news-gb2312-566655.html. And the complaints on FCC website is one of them, I guess.
Honestly, I think the western media had a complete failure in reporting this protest. They are just trying to please some American people who don't really know what was going on. They are supporting Dalai Lama and the rioters, but do they really know what kind of people they are? While Dalai Lama was ruling Tibet, most of the people there were treated slaves. No freedom at all, let alone democracy! Do you know? Now they lost power and found the western society likes freedom and democracy. To get support, they suddenly become the representatives of freedom and democracy - it is so ironic! But do the American people know that?
OK, fine, you may say, he may have changed. Now he may respect people's freedom and human rights now and they are asking human rights. But look at his supporters, in the 3.16 roit, his supporters were attacking the ordinary Han Chinese people like yo and me, they were burning the cars and shops as long as they are owned by the Han Chinese. You need to know those shops are owned by small business people, not by the government. And they burned nearly 20 people to death, let alone many were hurt badly. Does the western media reported that? Do they respect the human rights of those innocent people who were burned to death? Did the western media and the western politicians condemn these terrorists? Not a word! They are covering the truth! On the opposite, they are condemning the government's crackdown. BUT, from the videos taken by the western tourists and published by the government, the millitary and police only did protecting the people being attacked. I searched lots of videos, but couldn't find the Chinese police are attacking the protesters. All the videos and pictures showing the police are cracking down the Tibetans are from India and Napel. BUT, nobody condemned India and Napel! This is so UNFAIR!!!
Now probably you may understand why the Chinese people are so angry. They see the Chinese government wants to host the Olympic Games and tries to learn how to be a good member of the international family, but the Chinese people see their government were bullied by the unfriendly western media and inept western politicians. If the western society wants China and Chinese people to be responsible for the world and try to influence them, they should try to be their friends and influence China as they did in the past 30 years. If you know China, you can see the sea change during the past 30 years, not like what the unknowledgable Jack Cafferty said no change - actually if you know China, you will think these words must come from the mouth of an idiot.
Right now, the credit of the western media are totally bankrupt. One of my friends, who attended the 1986 and 1989 students demonstration in China, said, "I used to believe the western media is independent and more objective, but now I completely don't believe that any more." I really don't know what the western media wants to achieve? They want to care about the human rights issue in China to help the Chinese? How can they do that without winning the trust of most of the Chinese? They are totally achieving nothing, except generating more misunderstanding or even hatred between the Chinese people and the western. This is against the benefit of both the western people and the Chinese people. So I cannot find any positive effect for them to do this.
They are totally doing wrong things, but nobody dares to point it out, because the western media's customers are the western people, who are busy in making a living and don't have much time and energy to find out the truth. The media has to please these unknowledgable people, who have been used to criticizing China for tens of years. The politicians also want to please the voters by showing they are the right person to protect their faith. Obviously, explaining the complicated truth is always risky, if you didn't do it well, you may become an easy target of your opponent. Sooooo, the easiest thing for them to do is to sacrifice the reputation of Chinese ---- who cares (except the Chinese)? Right?
This is the fact. Unfrotunately. In my understanding.
Dennis Southwood
Yes, Cafferty is an insensitive jerk. Yes, he says outrageous things. I don't agree with the way he expressed his opinion, but:
The Constitution of the United States protects the right of every person to say things that are unpopular. In fact, that is the very reason why the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech. There is no need to protect nice words; nobody would ever try to prevent someone else from saying nice things. It is exactly the kind of opinion that some people might not like that needs to be protected.
The link to the Federal Communications Commission is for reporting obscene, profane, or indecent material--things that are against the FCC rules. There is no rule against Cafferty being a jerk. In fact, complaints against him would only serve to give him more publicity and cause other news outlets to repeat his words in their news stories.Alfred Whitney Griswold, an American historian and educator and President of Yale University, said, â評論目前還沒有任何評論登錄後才可評論.
