>This is disgusting. A news agency that is known for defending its own governments' dirty stuff, twisting truth, and manipulating public opinions, is now appreciating a freedom fighter and a human rights activist.
So, exactly like the major US news outlets, from the Times to the Post to CNN? It's very hard, as a European, to find any news coverage of world affairs in the US that doesn't subscribe to the official Washington party line (with small diversions, according to which of the two parties the outlet/author supports).
>If you are interested in what their reactions were when this kind of thing happened in China, back in 2010, this [1] (google translate: [2]) was xinhuanet's opinion on Chinese human rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Liu Xiaobo [3]. They described Liu Xiaobo as an evil man used by western countries to attack Chinese government, while the truth is Liu Xiaobo spent years striving for Chinese people's freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement in China.
So?
There is a way to strive for your people's "freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement" that's in accordance to your countries and your people's needs (even if your government hates it) AND there is another way to fight for "freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement" that serves the agenda of foreign powers. The second way is mostly how you earn a "Nobel Prize" (which Obama also got, oh, the irony).
It's difficult to convey the above distinction to an American, not because they can't understand it, but because they haven't experienced it. See, the US is a world leader, so there's not another country that can even think of using people to influence American politics, topple politicians, grab it's resources, etc. Things that happen all the time in smaller countries -- and more often than not, those people ("freedom fighters", etc) are agents of US foreign policy (or French, or UK, etc -- it's what's called neo-colonialism).
Unfortunately, the idea that you'd compare Xinhua to CNN says more about your biases than it does about Xinhua or CNN. Xinhua is an instrument of the Chinese state.
In case you were confused, I've never compared Xinhua to CNN. In fact, I never even MENTIONED Xinhua. What I said was that CNN, NYT etc all conform to the official Washington party line.
But now that you brought it up, I can also say this: CNN is as much an instrument of the US state, as Xinhua is.
Of course CNN is privately run, and also pays lip service to journalistic independence and stuff, but that's just how this thing works over there. That's like Google saying "Don't be evil" or McDonalds touting the quality of it's products: i.e. only for very naive people.
You might like this:
"As Major Thomas Collins, of the U.S. Army Information Service acknowledged: "Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our programme 'Training With Industry'. They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news.""
Or this:
"In an extraordinary directive to its staff, Cable News Network has instructed reporters and anchormen to tailor their coverage of the US war against Afghanistan to downplay the toll of death and destruction caused by American bombing, for fear that such coverage will undermine popular support for the US military effort".
Or this:
In a second memo leaked to the Post, CNN’s head of standards and practices, Rick Davis, expressed concern about reports on the bombing of Afghanistan filed by on-the-spot reporters. Davis noted that it “may be hard for the correspondent in these dangerous areas to make the points clearly” about the reasons for the US bombing. In other words, the CNN official feared that overseas correspondents might be intimidated by local opposition to the US military intervention and allow such sentiments to influence their reports.
To ensure that every CNN report always includes a justification of the war, Davis prescribed specific language for anchors to read after each account of civilian casualties and other bomb damage. He suggested three alternative formulations:
* “We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from Taliban-controlled areas, that these US military actions are in response to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the US.”
* “We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the US.”
* “The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the US.”
Davis concluded with an ultimatum to journalists concerned that they may sound like parrots for the White House: “Even though it may start sounding rote, it is important that we make this point each time.”
So, exactly like the major US news outlets, from the Times to the Post to CNN? It's very hard, as a European, to find any news coverage of world affairs in the US that doesn't subscribe to the official Washington party line (with small diversions, according to which of the two parties the outlet/author supports).
>If you are interested in what their reactions were when this kind of thing happened in China, back in 2010, this [1] (google translate: [2]) was xinhuanet's opinion on Chinese human rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Liu Xiaobo [3]. They described Liu Xiaobo as an evil man used by western countries to attack Chinese government, while the truth is Liu Xiaobo spent years striving for Chinese people's freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement in China.
So?
There is a way to strive for your people's "freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement" that's in accordance to your countries and your people's needs (even if your government hates it) AND there is another way to fight for "freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement" that serves the agenda of foreign powers. The second way is mostly how you earn a "Nobel Prize" (which Obama also got, oh, the irony).
It's difficult to convey the above distinction to an American, not because they can't understand it, but because they haven't experienced it. See, the US is a world leader, so there's not another country that can even think of using people to influence American politics, topple politicians, grab it's resources, etc. Things that happen all the time in smaller countries -- and more often than not, those people ("freedom fighters", etc) are agents of US foreign policy (or French, or UK, etc -- it's what's called neo-colonialism).