LOL! I just read about this elsewhere:
`Scum of the nation’ report sparks Lu’s ire
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003351286
Does Lu deserve an apology from the Taipei Times, as well?
In the 1970s a senior member of the USG called the Shah of Iran a “nut job” and the press ran with the story. In the end it was the G-man who had to apologise, not the press. Sure the story has a slant, but what do you expect from the press? A better way to report it would have been “China calls Taiwan VP a _____” and “Lu runs for Pres” but the clumsy combining of those two headline hurt our sensitive little Annie’s feelings. Too bad. Life’s a bitch. Note she is not suing any low-profile, no-money newspapers which have an awful lot more to say about her. She is suing CNN for the publicity. For her to be called a vacuous slag by a major news service is like Christmas come early!
“Don’t be silly everyone knows it is the Jews and liberals that control the media.
The Chinese are only interested in a peaceful rise.”
-say wasn’t there a movie “Dumb and Dumber”?
"There is a reason why ‘Scum of the Nation’ is in single quotes.
One could ask why a proponent of democracy is trying to suppress freedom of the press."
-“This just in, xyz news source reports that ‘we have photos of
cctang bumfucking a goat!’ pictures at 11!”
democracy doesn’t equate libel.
The letter from Michael Turton in today’s Taipei Times makes a good argument in my view: namely, the problem is not so much that Lu is being called ‘Scum’, and this is being reported, but that news agencies are uncritically using Mainland souces for information/views on Taiwan. Big big problem.
Yes, the media should have reported “Annette Lu, whom nasty, icky Beijing officials have called ‘the scum of the nation,’ is actually a very nice person and quite clean.”
What itchy problem? The situation is not as bad if you don’t blindly follow what is written in Taipei Times. Put it clearly, Taipei Times or even Xinhua News, are no doubt, mother of all biased journalism.
–
What itchy problem? The situation is not as bad if you don’t blindly follow what is written in Taipei Times. Put it clearly, Taipei Times or even Xinhua News, are no doubt, mother of all biased journalism.
–
What itchy problem? The situation is not as bad if you don’t blindly follow what is written in Taipei Times. Put it clearly, Taipei Times or even Xinhua News, are no doubt, mother of all biased journalism.
–[/quote]
I see three possibilities:
First ignore the Taipei Times and only get your info from the China Post. That would seem to be merely exchanging one bias for another.
Two, Only read respected International news agencies. As Turton and others point out, however, these agencies rely on heavily biased views out of Hong Kong or Beijing.
Three, aim for a range of views from both sides of the fence/spectrum, along with some analysis/reflection on the difference between these views.
Do tell, Beebee which do you see as the best option, and why?
But how does that solve VP Lu issue of have newspapers apologizing or paying damages to her everytime that print something she doesn’t agree with.
If a newspaper reports as fact insults that another party aimed at her, how should the newspaper be held accountable?
Depends whether you think this is the most important issue, or, that the said newspaper has a long term pattern of getting its reports from sources that are completely and consistently hostile. Reports which are then presented as the facts of the situation.
What do you think is the more fundamental/important issue here: Lu trying to get newspapers to print what she’d like? (How often does she suceed?) Or the fact that Reuters, BBC, CNN et al are happy to let the Mainland speak for Taiwan?
Or do you think this is acceptable?
Dial,
How is PRC speaking for Taiwan in this instance?
Isn’t VP Lu staff at fault for not issuing their own compelling copy, with easy to read bullet points, to the reporters at this event.
If the reporter has to write their own material, you can’t really blame the PRC for providing the only interesting fact out there.
If VP Lu can’t even get a good PR on staff, why should she be President of ROC. In a modern democracy a candidate has to be marketed better than the leading soft drink.
[quote=“Dial”]…the fact that Reuters, BBC, CNN et al are happy to let the Mainland speak for Taiwan?
Or do you think this is acceptable?[/quote]
Wow, you should be a journalist! Or maybe you already are one! In which case, I’m sure you, unlike our beloved VP, know all about that little thing we like to call “Attribution,” or, as the Taipei Times likes to put it, “Attri-wha?”
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Dial,
How is PRC speaking for Taiwan in this instance?
Isn’t VP Lu staff at fault for not issuing their own compelling copy, with easy to read bullet points, to the reporters at this event.
If the reporter has to write their own material, you can’t really blame the PRC for providing the only interesting fact out there.
If VP Lu can’t even get a good PR on staff, why should she be President of ROC. In a modern democracy a candidate has to be marketed better than the leading soft drink.[/quote]
ac_dropout
You really think its all about Annette Lu’s lack of good PR? BBC, Reuters, CNN, all depend on press releases?
I have a question for you: Is it ok that international news agencies uncritically take Beijing’s line on Taiwan. Yes or No?
This was the problem that Michael Turton identified as the real issue. His letter seemed convincing to me. See here: taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003352099
There are two ways to go from here: Either you say, its ok that International news agencies uncritically offer the world Beijing’s take on Taiwan. Case closed. (or perhaps you have reasons?)
Or you could say, no, its not ok that the world receives Beijing’s view of Taiwan, but don’t worry because that’s not happening. CNN et al are wonderfully balanced in their reporting. In which case could you provide a clear rebuttal/counter argument to Turton along these lines.
So which is it? I’m not terribly informed so I’d be happy to be shown that the situation is not as Turton argues.
[quote=“Poagao”][quote=“Dial”]…the fact that Reuters, BBC, CNN et al are happy to let the Mainland speak for Taiwan?
Or do you think this is acceptable?[/quote]
Wow, you should be a journalist! Or maybe you already are one! In which case, I’m sure you, unlike our beloved VP, know all about that little thing we like to call “Attribution,” or, as the Taipei Times likes to put it, “Attri-wha?”[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re point is here, Poagao. Perhaps you could clarify.
[quote=“Dial”][quote=“Poagao”][quote=“Dial”]…the fact that Reuters, BBC, CNN et al are happy to let the Mainland speak for Taiwan?
Or do you think this is acceptable?[/quote]
Wow, you should be a journalist! Or maybe you already are one! In which case, I’m sure you, unlike our beloved VP, know all about that little thing we like to call “Attribution,” or, as the Taipei Times likes to put it, “Attri-wha?”[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re point is here, Poagao. Perhaps you could clarify.[/quote]
Exactly my point, right there. Couldn’t have said it better.
The issue isn’t attribution, as you know perfectly well, Poagao. It is the automatic reach for What Beijing Says whenever the world media discuss Taiwan.
Thanks for the kind words, Dial. But I could kick myself for forgetting to put in another nasty habit of the world media, reaching for the Hong Kong or Beijing correspondent to describe Taiwan. And yet AP already has a very fine correspondent here, Stephan Grauwels. So why use some nameless reporter from Hong Kong to tell this story?
Michael
[quote=“Dial”][quote=“ac_dropout”]Dial,
How is PRC speaking for Taiwan in this instance?
Isn’t VP Lu staff at fault for not issuing their own compelling copy, with easy to read bullet points, to the reporters at this event.
If the reporter has to write their own material, you can’t really blame the PRC for providing the only interesting fact out there.
If VP Lu can’t even get a good PR on staff, why should she be President of ROC. In a modern democracy a candidate has to be marketed better than the leading soft drink.[/quote]
ac_dropout
You really think its all about Annette Lu’s lack of good PR? BBC, Reuters, CNN, all depend on press releases?
I have a question for you: Is it ok that international news agencies uncritically take Beijing’s line on Taiwan. Yes or No?
This was the problem that Michael Turton identified as the real issue. His letter seemed convincing to me. See here: taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003352099
There are two ways to go from here: Either you say, its ok that International news agencies uncritically offer the world Beijing’s take on Taiwan. Case closed. (or perhaps you have reasons?)
Or you could say, no, its not ok that the world receives Beijing’s view of Taiwan, but don’t worry because that’s not happening. CNN et al are wonderfully balanced in their reporting. In which case could you provide a clear rebuttal/counter argument to Turton along these lines.
So which is it? I’m not terribly informed so I’d be happy to be shown that the situation is not as Turton argues.[/quote]
If Micheal is handling VP Lu English PR, perhaps that is the issue right there. Perhaps she needs someone with more influence with the AP, CNN, and Bloombergs of the world. This is a marketing issue and for whatever reason this particular DPP individual is not pro-actively managing her perception in the media.
Even though news organizations are suppose to be balanced, they are easily influence by factiods and spin just like everyone else. Micheal’s position is not compelling to me because it takes the position of “our competition out promoted us.” Which is just a fact of life when you have a candidate not well versed in international affairs with limited resources. To lay the responsibility solely on a for profit organization that is motivated to attract the most viewship within its niche is naive.
Seriously this really reflects poorly on VP Lu because this is the type of leadership Taiwan will be expecting post 2008 election…sue and fine everyone that doesn’t agree with me…
The issue isn’t attribution, as you know perfectly well, Poagao. It is the automatic reach for What Beijing Says whenever the world media discuss Taiwan.
Thanks for the kind words, Dial. But I could kick myself for forgetting to put in another nasty habit of the world media, reaching for the Hong Kong or Beijing correspondent to describe Taiwan. And yet AP already has a very fine correspondent here, Stephan Grauwels. So why use some nameless reporter from Hong Kong to tell this story?
Michael[/quote]
It’s not an “automatic reach,” it’s journalism. Annette Lu is famous for her anti-Beijing stance, thus the connection and inclusion of the rude language Beijing has used to describe her. The fact that you don’t like what they say about her (I don’t either, btw, but that’s just my opinion and shouldn’t enter into what is and isn’t reported) doesn’t make it disappear. It happened. Relevant facts were reported. Attribution is of course important because journalists use it as a tool to say “Someone said ‘A=B’” rather than “A=B”. That way the parties A and B can get mad at each other, but not the journalist for reporting that they said it.
Another thing is the mention further up here of “what’s more important? Beijing’s attitude toward Lu or Lu’s running in the DPP primary?”
I suppose to some people, it should be the fact that Lu’s running and that therefore the inclusion of Beijing’s slur was a cheap shot.
I think, however, that what is FAR more important to the rest of the world – the ONLY think of any importance, in fact – is the fact that Taiwan might be getting a leader with this reputation.
Who outside of Taiwan really gives a rat’s ass about who’s running? Nobody. Throw into the mix, however, the fact that one of them is described by China as “the scum of the nation” and a few people might prick up their ears a little. Because outside of this tiny goldfish bowl, this soup stain in the Taiwan Strait, THAT’S the only newsworthy part of the entire story.