:/ dear reuters, i expected more from you
So, I quote:
Despite the Phelps phenomenon, the Games' mood on Day Two was marred by attacks by suspected Muslim separatists in Xinjiang, some 3,000 km (1,900 miles) from Beijing. Seven of the attackers died, and a security guard was also killed.
An attack killed 16 police in the same region a week ago.
Beijing says it has foiled past plots by militants in Xinjiang to sabotage the Olympics. Critics accuse China of exaggerating the threat to justify repression.
Chinese authorities hope the Games will finally put the spotlight on sports after a build-up dominated by accusations of rights abuses and concerns over pollution despite Beijing's desire to showcase its modern face and economic might.
On the first day, though, a Chinese man stabbed to death the father-in-law of a U.S. men's volleyball coach at a tourist spot, then leapt to his death at the ancient Drum Tower. Organizers said the attack was a one-off and Beijing was still safe.
... How about actually reporting on sports in a sports article rather than ninja-ing in some politics?
I can't say I totally blame them; it's expected that media scrutiny will be much higher for something as politically-charged as this, and Olympics or not, Beijing does have issues to settle and everyone is taking advantage of the heightened media focus. It's their ten minutes of fame and everybody wants a say; this is the best time to get seen. Nobody's disputing there may be a human rights issue at stake in Tibet or that it has problems with the Muslims in Xinjiang, we see it, we all do. It's even possible to say that China's stubbornly clinging on to an idea of blanket colonialism that the West abandoned almost half a century ago (though I still maintain, mostly out of necessity rather than enlightenment). The human rights rhetoric is always easy to spout from a moral highground. After all we're talking Western countries here, who have a history of these things. Coming in, weighing in, colonialising. Staying for good. Then getting kicked out because people wise up after awhile. That being said, any separatist tendency must be internalised. An independent Tibet must be won through internal revolution, not anyone else, and certainly not by American intervention, or God forbid, media bashing. It has to. It just won't work out any other way.
There's a certain level of hypocrisy in actively weighing in over China's national policy and then rejecting any criticism leveled at American internal affairs. Because that's clearly what's happening. And how selective this criticism is: like, let's leave off Burma because that doesn't concern us directly. But China. China's important because America needs them, and a capitalist democracy can't justify economic relations with a country that regularly violates human rights (especially during election time). So America is bending itself backwards and forwards to satisfy both parties at the same time. They're not doing too well at the moment, if you ask me.
And the media -- it's not helping. Maybe America doesn't want to do anything about it. For all we know they're perfectly happy letting China do whatever it is they've been doing for the past whatever number of years so long as their imports keep coming in and their corporations can go on hiring cheap labour. But we've seen cases of crazy-ass media jingoism pressuring governments and affecting foreign policy in a way that shouldn't be imaginable (coughEnglandcough) and it's doing that because the people on the ground, the ones voting, are getting fed all this nonsense and getting a totally warped view of the world because suddenly nobody knows how to pick out sensationalism from truth.
But what irks me the most is that this is an article about sports. Has reporting come to a stage where you can't just focus on the subject at hand but you have to inject something, anything in order to make it interesting? What's wrong with just saying that Phelps broke a record and won a gold and that he was really happy about Bush giving him a thumbs up? WHY?
:(
Despite the Phelps phenomenon, the Games' mood on Day Two was marred by attacks by suspected Muslim separatists in Xinjiang, some 3,000 km (1,900 miles) from Beijing. Seven of the attackers died, and a security guard was also killed.
An attack killed 16 police in the same region a week ago.
Beijing says it has foiled past plots by militants in Xinjiang to sabotage the Olympics. Critics accuse China of exaggerating the threat to justify repression.
Chinese authorities hope the Games will finally put the spotlight on sports after a build-up dominated by accusations of rights abuses and concerns over pollution despite Beijing's desire to showcase its modern face and economic might.
On the first day, though, a Chinese man stabbed to death the father-in-law of a U.S. men's volleyball coach at a tourist spot, then leapt to his death at the ancient Drum Tower. Organizers said the attack was a one-off and Beijing was still safe.
... How about actually reporting on sports in a sports article rather than ninja-ing in some politics?
I can't say I totally blame them; it's expected that media scrutiny will be much higher for something as politically-charged as this, and Olympics or not, Beijing does have issues to settle and everyone is taking advantage of the heightened media focus. It's their ten minutes of fame and everybody wants a say; this is the best time to get seen. Nobody's disputing there may be a human rights issue at stake in Tibet or that it has problems with the Muslims in Xinjiang, we see it, we all do. It's even possible to say that China's stubbornly clinging on to an idea of blanket colonialism that the West abandoned almost half a century ago (though I still maintain, mostly out of necessity rather than enlightenment). The human rights rhetoric is always easy to spout from a moral highground. After all we're talking Western countries here, who have a history of these things. Coming in, weighing in, colonialising. Staying for good. Then getting kicked out because people wise up after awhile. That being said, any separatist tendency must be internalised. An independent Tibet must be won through internal revolution, not anyone else, and certainly not by American intervention, or God forbid, media bashing. It has to. It just won't work out any other way.
There's a certain level of hypocrisy in actively weighing in over China's national policy and then rejecting any criticism leveled at American internal affairs. Because that's clearly what's happening. And how selective this criticism is: like, let's leave off Burma because that doesn't concern us directly. But China. China's important because America needs them, and a capitalist democracy can't justify economic relations with a country that regularly violates human rights (especially during election time). So America is bending itself backwards and forwards to satisfy both parties at the same time. They're not doing too well at the moment, if you ask me.
And the media -- it's not helping. Maybe America doesn't want to do anything about it. For all we know they're perfectly happy letting China do whatever it is they've been doing for the past whatever number of years so long as their imports keep coming in and their corporations can go on hiring cheap labour. But we've seen cases of crazy-ass media jingoism pressuring governments and affecting foreign policy in a way that shouldn't be imaginable (coughEnglandcough) and it's doing that because the people on the ground, the ones voting, are getting fed all this nonsense and getting a totally warped view of the world because suddenly nobody knows how to pick out sensationalism from truth.
But what irks me the most is that this is an article about sports. Has reporting come to a stage where you can't just focus on the subject at hand but you have to inject something, anything in order to make it interesting? What's wrong with just saying that Phelps broke a record and won a gold and that he was really happy about Bush giving him a thumbs up? WHY?
:(