VP Lu sues CNN

Politics Taiwan Politics
61

[quote=“ac_dropout”]If Michael 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. Michael’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…[/quote]

Well AC this is something of an answer. You clearly acknowledge with your talk of VP Lu’s poor PR that there is a Beijing spin to news on Taiwan. It would seem, however, that you’re much more concerned by Annette Lu as possible leader of Taiwan.

The question of the ethics/fairness/morality of major news agencies content to overwhelmingly present the view of only one side on such a hugely important issue doesn’t even rate a mention. Instead its a ‘marketing issue’. Can’t say I’m convinced.

62

That’s the whole point. It isn’t a “hugely important issue” to anyone outside of Taiwan. Iraq is hugely important. Iran is hugely important. Whether China takes Taiwan? :raspberry: :raspberry: :raspberry: Get real!
CNN needs to make it newsworthy to its viewers. Or at least, emphasize the newsworthy aspect of the story. Which, to the rest of the world, is not that Lu wants to run for the presidency.
For the rest of the world, the real news is that someone China thinks is “the scum of the nation” might be running for the Taiwan presidency. That’s why CNN covered it the way it did.

63

As with all political news there is spin. I only acknowledge the VP Lu PR people are less effective with CNN than PRC PR people. Not that VP Lu doesn’t engage in spin. Nor that she occupies the moral high road on the issue.

In what sense? It is not like the world is going to change if VP Lu becomes President of ROC. Her policy is similar to CSB. So Taiwan will become a binglang republic further isolating itself and squandering what’s left of the national treasury for God knows what.

That because your viewing this issue from a Taiwan perspective, thinking Taiwan is the center of it all and a leader on the world stage.

Now if you view the issue in its true perspective. Of small satellite country within the USA sphere of influence dealing with the reality of the rising PRC, whose populous fears war and can’t admit its being relegated to the backwaters of international politics. Not to mention trying to sue CNN a minor player in Taiwan media landscape…

There is humor to be found.

64

[quote=“sandman”]
CNN needs to make it newsworthy to its viewers. Or at least, emphasize the newsworthy aspect of the story. Which, to the rest of the world, is not that Lu wants to run for the presidency.
For the rest of the world, the real news is that someone China thinks is “the scum of the nation” might be running for the Taiwan presidency. That’s why CNN covered it the way it did.[/quote]

I take your point, but let’s move on a little from it being just about Annette Lu and this particular instance. This question remains: is the Beijing viewpoint consistently taken as Turton claims? This hasn’t been answered at all; instead the entire issue has been reduced to a matter of, Lu’s competence and ‘marketing’. I’m sure the ideals of these news agencies goes well beyond ‘marketing’ the news. Neither you, nor AC seem concerned at all about principles of balance and informing fully. Which brings us to this:

[quote]
That’s the whole point. It isn’t a “hugely important issue” to anyone outside of Taiwan. Iraq is hugely important. Iran is hugely important. Whether China takes Taiwan? :raspberry: :raspberry: :raspberry: Get real![/quote]

‘Get real’? You and AC talk about Taiwan’s importance as a nation as if it weren’t involved in a potentially deadly conflict with China. A conflict that could see the US and China facing off against each other - and the very likely inclusion of Japan and Australia. There’d be a few important consequences there, I’d say.

I think a Google search will turn up US policy makers, and others, who believe, contrary to your assertions, that China is a more important issue than either Iraq or Iran. And Taiwan is a crucial element where China/US relations are concerned.

Not to mention that your inclusion of Iraq and Iran is a little ironic - to say the least - in the context of this discussion. Was the world fully and truthfully informed on Iraq? Are we being fully and truthfully informed about Iran? Is the world being fully and truthfully informed about China? No, not if Beijing is allowed to, ‘frame the discussion’ as Turton claims.

Of course, its entirely possible that these policy makers also hold views that are ‘naive’, (or protectionist, or paranoid) but an argument full of non sequiturs and a default (same thing) to some schtick about Taiwan being irrelevant hasn’t made your case. Not yet, anyway…

So go on give it your best shot, you might find there’s more agreement going on than you think. And don’t be afraid to go into some of the fundamentals if you think it necessary, ie. just why does China want Taiwan so badly? What is Taiwan’s import? (And, yes, it has import) And why do some oppose Taiwanese independance so strongly? All good questions to ground this ‘debate’.

65

Not irrelevant. I didn’t say that. Not newsworthy. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Taiwan/China debate VERY seldom makes the papers abroad. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, they make the papers. It’s just not seen as an important story. I suppose if anything other than pontificating sabre-rattling ever transpires, it’ll make the papers, along with a three-paragraph back story on the Taiwan Strait issue. After that, it’ll fade back into insignificance.
Unless, that is, you’re of the opinion that the US will pay any more than lip service to defending Taiwan when it comes to the crunch. I don’t think it will. Which means neither will Australia or Japan, apart from maybe – a big maybe – a package of trade sanctions.
China as a focus of world news? Hell yeah, no question. Taiwan or cross-strait relations? Page 5, below the fold, unless something blows up, in which case it’ll get its 15 minutes of fame. No more.

66

the state department believes it is definitely in its interest at the moment to soft pedal on the taiwan issue, including limiting discussion, and perhaps even choking mention on the floor of the house or senate.

firstly, they have stated several times that they are committed to too many fronts as it is, and secondly, they need china’s cooperation in dealing with DPRK, which is a bigger priority now. the ‘maintaining the status quo’ fiction suits them quite well for the moment.

67

Ok, so if its relevant but not newsworthy then we’re back on the terrain of Turton’s letter to the Taipei Times. Only now we’ve shifted from AP, CNN, Bloomsberg, et al allowing China to frame the debate to these agencies failing to give us relevant news.

However you call it, and there’s likely no good guys/bad guys answer, these news services are being derelict in their responsibilities to inform. Without full and accurate information - or at least an awareness this is not available - then how do we make informed decisions. Need I remind you again of your wonderful choice of the importance of Iraq and how well the world was informed. Thank god we left that one to ‘marketing’.

No doubt this subject has been done to death, but surely there is the potential for huge economic damage all round. Which means China will never do it. That is, unless Beijing gets desperate in the face of internal dissent and seeks to divert internal conflict using Taiwan as evil proxy. Such elements make the situation very hard to predict. Wouldn’t it help if the world was on China’s case and knew exactly what the stakes were in Taiwan?

As to your bold certainty on what will happen in the future: once again I refer you to Iraq and Donald Rumsfeld’s confident assertions that all would fall into place post-invasion.

It’s remarkable that you and AC seem so resistant to the concept of an informed public. Not once have either of you attempted to answer my directly posed questions on this. I know the leadership in China don’t believe the nation they rule is ready for democracy. Perhaps you hold similar views about the world’s public being ready for informed decisions?

68

Put it this way. How much news do you get each day about, say, Liberia? Iceland? Belize? Taiwan’s not much more important that those places really, to most people. If CNN started giving “full and accurate” information about this pissant little flyspeck, the advertisers and subscribers would hit the roof. “Give us news that’s IMPORTANT!” they’d shout.
It’s the frog in the well syndrome. Taiwan’s a backwater, no more than that. One that’s becoming less and less relevant with each day that passes. The news coverage it gets from the world press reflects that. That’s all.

Its the same with all other pissant, largely irrelevant countries. I need to get my news about Scotland, for example, mainly off Scottish newspaper websites, because its not a newsworthy place. I don’t see much about it on CNN, that’s for sure, and nor do I expect to. My parents, however, are always mystified to hear that coverage of the latest high drama in Holyrood hasn’t made it’s way to Taiwan. Frog in the well.

At least you can rest easy knowing that the world will maybe get to see the latest shoe-throwing or paper-chewing in the Legislative Yuan. Because like it or not, THAT’S Taiwan’s place in the “newsworthy” rankings, as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

I mean, of course there are some people who consider Taiwan to be important, but you can bet they’re not relying on CNN or AP for their news. I mean to say, do YOU?

69

Dial is concerned about the ideal, sandman is giving his opinion about what is currently happening. as the US '08 presidential campaigns get into full swing, i think we will be hearing more negatives about china in the mainstream media- and the taiwan story will be part of that. right now we are already hearing how certain conservatives want to see a candidate who can be tough on china. rep tom tancredo of colorado is running for prez, and while he has been in the news more for his immigration views, he is also a strong supporter of taiwan. i don’t think you can compare scotland with taiwan for newsworthiness unless england has all the sudden threatened to attack it.

70

V,

I hate to disagree, but Iraq and the middle east will occupy '08 presidential election in the USA. China will be of concern in terms of domestic low skill labor voters, but not in the sense of liberating Taiwan from China.

I think the country is somewhat tired of military adventurism right now. Unless a suicide bomber comes out of Taiwan, it will barely get a soundbyte in at the election.

In realistic term are there enough pro-Taiwan voters concentrated in any one area in the USA to swing an entire State.

71

if labor wants to portray china negatively, they would be foolish not to layer on as much criticism as they could. taiwan’s young democracy being bullied by big bad china could be a part of that message. i think the ‘true believers’ in the conservative base care enough about that sort of thing to have an impact at least in the republican primaries. before iraq i always told taiwan people that the us could not go to/sustain a war without strong public support. now i know differently. i don’t want the us to go to war over china, but i could conceive of it happening now while pre-iraq i thought it was an impossibility.

72

v,

By itself USA, going into direct military conflict is suicide. Last time it took 8 nations to bring China into submission. USA has a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does one expect to pay for it? Currently the USA war is funded by special allocation, meaning that it not part of the federal budget. Special Allocation money comes mostly from bond sales. Who’s buying the most of USA bonds? China.

So you attack China, China stops buying bonds, interest rates go up, sub prime mortgage default; economy goes into a tailspin because there’s no money to fund the 3 front wars. Think about it, when was the last time any American heard the word “sacrifice” for the war?

Actually, people who don’t support the war are in the minority in the USA. There is growing discontent with how the war is managed, not outright disapproval for the war.

But don’t get sentiment for the war and actual fiduciary fundamentals mix up. One changes with the wind, the other is actually based on economic principles that hasn’t changed in the last 300 years.

I mean seriously how oppressed is Taiwan, if the VP has time to contemplate suing CNN over a quote well trying to become the next standard bearer for the DPP. Sounds like she’s living the good life and she can save her own behind on ROC tax dollars and lives if her policies precipitate a war with the PRC.

73

so short of a war, how else do you suggest the us and others influence china? if china doesn’t buy our bonds, will someone else?

74

v,

The current war has used about 500 billion USD, that the USA is funding basically as future debt. There is another 100 billion being debated for this year special allocation, and hopefully the war will become part of the federal budget next year (if you’re a democrat).

The treasury notes are sold on the free market. As a consumer at what yeild would make you decide to purchase US debt?

That is basically the question, can a war with China be done on the cheap without “scarifice” for the USA?

If not why would the USA fight with their #1 trading partner and funder of their war in Iraq?

75

as a consumer i in fact was looking a treasury bonds, specifically TIPS- treasury bonds (bills?) that are tied to inflation.