NationStates Jolt Archive

China has begun to fight back against criticism of its handling of the Tibetan protests, launching a sustained publicity offensive as well as blocking foreign broadcasters and websites and denying journalists access to areas of unrest.

After days of ignoring and then playing down protests, the media suddenly switched course yesterday. TV channels aired hours of Friday's anti-Chinese riots in Lhasa and the aftermath.

Employees at the state television service CCTV's English service were instructed to keep broadcasting footage of burned-out shops and Chinese wounded in attacks. No peaceful demonstrators were shown.

Qiangba Puncog, the region's governor, gave a lengthy press conference attacking some Western coverage as "ridiculous" and offering graphic details of attacks on Han Chinese and Hui Muslims.

"I think their first gut reaction with any unrest is to close down the hatches and try and contain information," said Chris O'Brien, a former Xinhua employee and author of the Beijing Newspeak blog. "Maybe [this time] there's been a feeling that they can be a bit cleverer with this.

"You can pretty much count [the footage] as genuine stuff; it's just that it's not put in context. The powerful images of injured Han Chinese speak for themselves. Obviously, the historical discussions and reasons why this happened are not covered."

He added: "It's not a well-oiled machine at all ... [But] Tibet is fairly ridiculous in how tightly they monitor it - one colleague at the Tibetan bureau told me 80% of his ideas were rejected."

The media are overseen by the Ministry of Information and the State Council Information Office, which issue edicts telling them what subjects to cover, and how, and which to avoid. Since foreign media cannot be controlled, the government relies on blocking access.

The so-called Great Firewall of China ensures that access to stories on Tibet and other sensitive subjects is strictly limited - though they are most concerned about Chinese language sites and also video, where images transcend language. Yesterday YouTube and other media websites, including the Guardian, were blocked, though some access later returned.

Attempts to block TV coverage seem rather less sophisticated. While they have repeatedly cut the signal for CNN and the BBC, resulting in unexplained blank screens and silence, they do not always get the timing right.

Nor is the blocking consistent: while prevalent in diplomatic compounds, where many journalists also live and work, foreigners in five star hotels can watch unhindered.

In truth, the government is most concerned about controlling access by its citizens, but those with access to the western media are not always convinced by what they see. Many believe it is at least as biased as official sources and find it hard to reconcile such conflicting accounts.

When the western media reported Tibetan exiles' claims that the protests led monks to attempt suicide, the China Daily website reported police claims that they had cut themselves "in blatant attempts to create sensation ... to blame others for the harm they inflicted upon themselves".

Those Were The Days, a Chinese language blogger, echoed several other bloggers when writing: "I saw the news clip from CCTV and this was obviously a riot ... You will feel that it was a reasonable thing for the Chinese government to send troops in to protect the people."

It added: "Of course, the same thing in the BBC and CNN reports has the emphasis on the Chinese government sending troops in to suppress Tibetan demonstrators, firing, killing and injuring many Tibetans ...

"Unless you were there to see what was happening, the same event may be 'manufactured' into completely different "news" by different 'media'. On the basis of the official Chinese video clips, or the western media reports, one cannot understand the matter better."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/18/tibet.china1

I'm not sure what's more disturbing, that China's trump card of censorship manages to fail so hard, or that it's actually kinda working.

Scary stuff.
With the whole Balkans issue, really makes you wonder how far WWIII is around the corner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/18/tibet.china1

I'm not sure what's more disturbing, that China's trump card of censorship manages to fail so hard, or that it's actually kinda working.

query, does it actually show the protest from the start to end, or only the aftermath (burned out buildings, people hurt and injured, etc...)

otherwise known as editing!

The article says that the protests were taken out of context. So editing would be my guess.

query, does it actually show the protest from the start to end, or only the aftermath (burned out buildings, people hurt and injured, etc...)

otherwise known as editing!
extreme editing. My guess is that they'd only show injured Han Chinese and burnt out shops owned by Han Chinese in order to reinforce the public perception (read state-run propaganda) that Tibetans are violent and the PRC needs to be there in order to maintain safety and security.
There'd be no analysis about why the riots have occurred (except explained as being instigated by 'foreign' elements), about how many Tibetans have been killed by the PRC army, nothing about the oppressive laws operating in Tibet and nothing at all about the peaceful protests going on (and the violent crackdown on them).

You know, there really isn't all that much to say.

Statism at its worst.

extreme editing. My guess is that they'd only show injured Han Chinese and burnt out shops owned by Han Chinese in order to reinforce the public perception (read state-run propaganda) that Tibetans are violent and the PRC needs to be there in order to maintain safety and security.
There'd be no analysis about why the riots have occurred (except explained as being instigated by 'foreign' elements), about how many Tibetans have been killed by the PRC army, nothing about the oppressive laws operating in Tibet and nothing at all about the peaceful protests going on (and the violent crackdown on them).

The same thing happened here the last time there was a demonstration by a local human rights group. Two riot police got injured from a thrown brick, dozens of demonstrators got beaten to a pulp with nightsticks or were shot at with chemical laced water cannons.

The media only showed the riot police injuries.

The same thing happened here the last time there was a demonstration by a local human rights group. Two riot police got injured from a thrown brick, dozens of demonstrators got beaten to a pulp with nightsticks or were shot at with chemical laced water cannons.

The media only showed the riot police injuries.

Yeah, but in such a situation, is it the media being selective or just using what they did manage to get? I mean, could it be possible that the media simply couldn't get to capture footage of the demonstrators? One could imagine that being the case if, for example, they are behind the riot police. In order to get footage of the demonstrators they'd have to be in that crowd or somewhere above.

This case, however, very clearly reeks of editing. There's no way that with the amount of footage they get, they wouldn't be able to get a more nuanced picture and reasons for why all this is happening.

Scary stuff.
With the whole Balkans issue, really makes you wonder how far WWIII is around the corner.

Even though this is similar to a speculative scenario for a major war that I laid out last year, no, it's not likely to be the start of WWIII (or WWV, depending on how you count).

query, does it actually show the protest from the start to end, or only the aftermath (burned out buildings, people hurt and injured, etc...)

otherwise known as editing!

Heh. The PRC's state media actually manages to make FOX News look like they live up to that "Fair and Balanced" motto. ;)

From another article:
For now, Beijing's hard line on Tibet is only likely to get harder. Military police officers are pouring into Tibetan regions to stifle new protests. Nor are the demonstrations winning sympathy in a nation that is 94 percent Han Chinese. State media have tightly controlled coverage to focus on Tibetans burning Chinese businesses or attacking and killing Chinese merchants. No mention is made of Tibetan grievances or reports that 80 or more Tibetans have died.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/17/asia/beijing.php?page=1

Yeah, but in such a situation, is it the media being selective or just using what they did manage to get? I mean, could it be possible that the media simply couldn't get to capture footage of the demonstrators? One could imagine that being the case if, for example, they are behind the riot police. In order to get footage of the demonstrators they'd have to be in that crowd or somewhere above.


The media is fully in control of the ruling party. All editors were forced to resign 8 years ago or go to jail for "seditious acts", and were replaced by ruling party components.

Oh, but Al Jazeera managed to get some footage of the beatings and water cannons being used. Oddly, the local media didn't, what with the oversized armored firetruck, masses of people being beaten, and tear gas being launched.

The same thing happened here the last time there was a demonstration by a local human rights group. Two riot police got injured from a thrown brick, dozens of demonstrators got beaten to a pulp with nightsticks or were shot at with chemical laced water cannons.

The media only showed the riot police injuries.

Where is "here?"

It's a real shame that even in this day of 'free information' on a worldwide scale the state still has such a large degree of control over what people see.

As long as people are saying 'I'm not sure what to believe, the truth properly lies in the middle', the war is lost. Only if those in a position to do something realise how much they are being deceived will anything start to get done.

Where is "here?"

PM me for an answer.

The Chinese government has played a pretty smart game this last quarter-century. If they're that shit-scared of a generalized uprising across China (that they have to invoke nationalist/racist sentiment to keep citizens from talking about what some of them see on the net) ... then perhaps that uprising is a real possibility.

I thought the same about Tienanmen square. Perhaps it wasn't excessive force at all.

It's a real shame that even in this day of 'free information' on a worldwide scale the state still has such a large degree of control over what people see.

Information is only as free as the medium which carries it. Don't be too quick to declare the liberation of all humanity by the internet ... it's not done yet. It's not done anywhere, let alone a 'worldwide scale.'

Warez, anyone? I want to exercise my freedom of speech by reciting a gigabyte of noughts and ones ...

One more thought: the Chinese govt might just be wishing it had never even bid for those damn Olympics. Wtf do they do if Taiwan declares independence during the opening ceremony?

One more thought: the Chinese govt might just be wishing it had never even bid for those damn Olympics. Wtf do they do if Taiwan declares independence during the opening ceremony?

Respectfully ignore them during the games, and bomb the living daylights out of them after.

Respectfully ignore them during the games, and bomb the living daylights out of them after.

I'm not sure that works.

The rest of the world would NOT respectfully ignore Taiwan's intentions during the games. Two weeks later, Taiwan has a posse.