Analyze China on its own terms and merits

Videos
Photos

By Victor Paul Borg (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-10-31 07:47

Now that the Olympic-era provisions for foreign journalists allowing unfettered interviews and movement have been indefinitely extended, will foreign journalists report about China more objectively?

It's a question that some commentators in China have posed, but objectivity is not easy to define. For "objectivity" isn't an immutable entity, something that you either possess or you don't; what constitutes objectivity is subjective.

Every story has different angles, and the angle that a journalist chooses arises out of a mix of personal beliefs or perceptions, the perceived interest of the readers or audience, and the overall stance of the particular media organization he's working for. Then the journalist creates the illusion of "objectivity" by presenting all arguments that are relevant to the angle or perspective he has chosen.

This is deemed by his audience to be a fair approach. Yet a different audience might consider the same story to have missed the point, or to be a distortion, as the angle is wrong to start with. These dichotomies illustrate the relativity of "objectivity" - there is no such thing as independent, calculable objectivity.

Perhaps a better analysis wouldn't consider objectivity as such, but the fairness of reports to all audiences. Fairness presupposes correct diagnosis of the subject, as well as knowledge of larger issues and background insight, and this is where foreign journalists begin to show their failings and limitations.

I read journalists who write with analytical lucidity and empathy about their country or similar countries (or cultures), but then the same journalists travel to different countries or cultures, particularly in Asia, and they churn out garbled stories that draw bizarre conclusions.

The reason is partly due to lack of understanding and partly due to lack of empathy with different peoples. Often these journalists analyze situations in different cultures by how they differ from their country. The result is misinterpretations, and a propensity to miss much of the point in regard to a given story.

Many Westerners are particularly prone to misinterpretations because they are blinkered by the conceit that the Western way, in politics and society and arts, represents the pinnacle of civilization and hence anyone who's different is yet to become enlightened.

In this logic, anyone who deviates from the Western way still has catching up to do. So in China we get the obsession of Western journalists with multi-party democracy and human rights. The hubris in this area is that multi-party democracy has been elevated to something religious, not simply a system of governance subject to evolution, but an end in itself.

Fixing such absolute allegiance to a system of governance or social system ignores history and evolution. For any social system, like nature, is in a constant state of flux. Yet in the West much was made of the theory of "the end of history" after the end of the Cold War, a theory that held that the United States (and Europe) had emerged victorious ideologically and stood at the pinnacle of the pyramidal world order, and that every other country would fall in line.

I have used past tense to refer to that theory, as that's a theory that has since been shown to be incredibly naive by events in the real world, and I use it as an example here to show the West's susceptibility for self-delusion - different societies tend to create their own historical constructs. Likewise, politicians in the West often state that their democratic system is inherently peaceable, bizarrely overlooking the fact that the countries in the West are among the most militaristic.

So many foreign journalists and columnists, caught up in the intellectual concoctions of their society, often look at a different country like China and focus on how it differs from their own, or how far it has advanced, or what it's lacking, in relation to the West. In most cases this is not explicitly stated, but it's implied in the angle of the stories and in the assumptions that lurk within the stories.

This kind of focus overlooks the fact that China is forging its own way in terms of political and social contracts. It's forging its own political construct and democratic context, and hence it calls for evaluation on its own merits, on the effectiveness and triumphs and shortcomings of its evolving social and political system. Another pitfall of journalism is that it tends to become caught up in the alter reality of political drama. News tends to create its own orbit and momentum, leading journalists to lose sight of street realities, or the ordinary people who, in most cases, would be preoccupied with a different set of priorities only loosely related to news and politics.

Foreign journalists in foreign cultures are more prone to this separation from ordinary people, as foreignness creates barriers that take time and social relationships to overcome. In this you cannot blame the journalists, who often find themselves in a foreign country and have to start working without the luxury of a period of assimilation.

This often means that many journalists don't understand well the feelings of ordinary people. For example, many journalists were puzzled that Chinese people took offence at the nature of the reports on the Tibetan riots last March. These journalists couldn't see that the bulk of their coverage was unfair, and an affront to Chinese people who can empathize with their compatriots' sacrifices in going to Tibet out of economic necessity or on government service.

I say the "bulk of the coverage" as not all Western journalists and columnists can be clumped in one sweeping depiction - some do immerse themselves in the history and ethos of China, and assimilate China's point of view.

Any mention of Tibet requires some elaboration as it's a special case. Most Westerners hold a peculiarly romantic notion of anything Tibetan. Westerners view Buddhism as an enlightened alternative to the monotheistic religions, more of a "philosophy of life".

And the Dalai Lama has reached celebrity status by his writings and speeches that pander to Westerners' bourgeois and yuppyish regret of the Western world's "lost innocence". Perhaps this is why the Dalai Lama's political rhetoric is not scrutinized for its true meaning and aims.

Neither is the Dalai Lama cross-examined for the consistency between his words and actions. Only Al Jazeera, for example, reported the Dalai Lama's ban on the worship of a deity called Dorje Shugden, a deity that has been worshipped for 500 years. According to Al Jazeera's report, Shugden's worshippers have been thrown out of jobs, schools, and shops in some areas of India where the Dalai Lama holds sway; and notices bearing "No Shugden followers allowed" have been put up at hospitals and shops.

This posits the question: if the Dalai Lama's accusations of religious oppression in Tibet are worth reporting, isn't the hypocrisy displayed by the stifling of a section of Tibetan Buddhists equally relevant as a news report?

This brings us back to the question of fairness, which I think will grow as China notches up more successes. Even China's harshest critics are beginning to concede that China is demonstrating remarkable leadership qualities. This ranges from the style of leaders, who project their ideas and not their ego (in contrast to the vanity and swagger of many Western leaders), to the manner the government is tackling China's problems with long sight.

In the financial crises, China has emerged as an international stabilizing factor, and people are noticing that fast strides are also being made in dealing with climate change.

By extending the Olympic-era provisions for foreign journalists, the government has shown confidence and leadership. Together with increasing sophistication in putting across China's viewpoints, there seems to be a greater effort of reaching out that's compelling Westerners to look at China with more respect.

It takes time to change attitudes, and there will always be a mixture of good and bad news, unfair and fair reporting, and journalists will continue to be mistaken at least some of the time - the media's fallibility is soberly common.

Yet the important trend, from China's perspective, is that China's fast evolution is gaining plaudits and recognition. And as the effect of the extended regulations for foreign journalists diffuses - the opportunity to mix in a more unfettered manner with a range of people will improve journalists' understanding of China - the likelihood is that foreign journalists will increasingly analyze China on its own terms and merits.

The author is a Maltese writer

(China Daily 10/31/2008 page9)