If the New York Times cannot get the story right, who can?

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

The New York Times, in an editorial the other day, as reprinted in the Taiwan News today, cannot even get the current China-Taiwan story correct. It shows how dumb even so-called smart newspaper reporters and editors can be.

In an editorial, unsigned, titled “A rising China calls for adjustments,” the writer says:

“Beijing finally seems to be learning that honey works better than vinegar in winning over Taiwanese opinion. The warm welcome China gave last week to Taiwan’s main opposition leader [Lien Chan] has now forced the island’s independence-minded president, Chen Shui-bian, to send an emissary of his own [James Soong]…”

This was written in black ink in the respected New York Times and then reprinted around the world in over 500 newspapers. Since when is James Soong, leader of the PFP opposition party, an “emissary” of Chen?

Emissary?

Sure, Soong and Chen have talked before, agreed on some things, disagreed on other things, but in no way was Soong’s trip ever as an emissary of Chen’s, for the trip was planned before Lien Chan even went over there.

The welcome China gave Lien Chan forced Chen to send over an emissary of his own? This is just plain not true.

No wonder the world (and the US state department as well) does not understand what is happening here. When the New York Times cannot even get it right, it’s a sad day among the commentaryiat and punditariat.

This makes it sound like Chen panicked when he saw the warm welcome Lien Chan was getting, and quickly Chen called up a DPP sympathizer or even party member to be his ‘‘emissary’’ to China.

Certainly James Soong is not Chen’s emissary, and never intended his trip as such. Okay, Soong was carrying some secret message to Hu, but does that make him Chen’s own emissary?

How can the New York Times misunderstand the situation so baldly?

2

  1. As far as I know, the New York Times doesn’t have a correspondent based in Taiwan so I suspect no one is following the events in Taiwan for the NYT on a regular and consistent basis.

  2. As for whether or not Soong is Chen’s emissary, the Taiwan media has been spinning the question in all directions so it’s very easy to pick up wrong information.

  3. Or maybe it’s just a fantasy made up by the brilliant editorial writer to fill in his mental picture of the story.

3

Yes, I believe it does. A person who is asked to carry a message for another is an emissary and according to the reports I read, that’s exactly what happened. I see nothing inaccurate in the quote that you posted.

I don’t know if he panicked, but he sure blew the whole situation badly, not criticizing Lien for mucking up the chain of command between the two countries with his illegal deal brokering, then further mucking up the issue by sending Soong as his emissary. Who will negotiate for Taiwan next, Lo Fu Chu?

4

Fox News?

5

Good point, MT.

But the NYTimes wrote that Lien’s China visit FORCED Chen to send his own emissary, but Chen had already spoken with Soong before Lien even left for China, and Soong’s trip had been planned before Lien went to China, so the word FORCED seems… forced.

“The warm welcome China gave last week to Taiwan’s main opposition leader [Lien Chan] has now FORCED [???] the island’s independence-minded president, Chen Shui-bian, to send an emissary of his own [James Soong]…”

But I see your point. Maybe I was wrong.

6

I think Chen blew it big time when he signed the 10-point agreement with Soong, who is now saying things far beyond that agreement to please the Chinese over there.

Chen apparently wanted to get PFP help to pass some key legislation, not least the arms budget. It doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon. Soong basically got away with it real cheap.

7

Here is what the Times told me in response to a note I sent them re the strange editorial position above that Lien’s visit *FORCED Chen to suddenly send an emissary [Soong] to China.

"Dear Sir,

The positions taken by the editorial board or on the op-ed pages of The NY Times are not within the purview of the ombudsman, nor should they be; the editorial board is entitled to its views, and readers are free to agree or disagree with them.

You are welcome to submit your letter to the editor by sending it to letters@nytimes.com

Sincerely,
The New York Times"