Why is the bar so low? Why does the reporting always need to be so tedious and pedestrian? Take for instance this piece by the Economist:
What an opening line! And the rest of the write-up is similarly enthralling. Compare this to the generally witty reporting on Britain, Europe or the US the Economist is well-acclaimed for.
Although the facts are generally there, their interpretation is quite shallow and superficial. Hokwongwei’s excellent analysis would be much more in place there instead of this article. And, while some discussion of China’s possible reaction is justified given the unresolved sovereignty issue, for some articles including this, it seems like every mention of “Taiwan” must be followed with a “balancing” reference to “China.” Here, I’ve actually done the count and it ends up in a draw: Taiwan-China 8:8. But this is an article about Taiwan, and the Economist already has an extensive coverage of China with its own, dedicated section.
Another example is the today’s editorial from the Guardian, which is actually supposed to be about Hong Kong but then swerves into Taiwan:
It just strikes me as incredibly naïve to write something like that. I can’t believe anything even remotely similar would be allowed to appear in an editorial concerning Europe or America.
These are just the two recent examples of what I see as a general paucity of decent coverage, especially conspicuous when compared to the abundance of quality reporting on the stand-off in Hong Kong. Is this your impression too? Or perhaps there is better reporting, just elsewhere (links much appreciated)?