Okay, the rampant Western media frenzy over Jackie Chan supposedly saying that “Chinese people still need to be controlled ” during a panel discussion at the Boao Forum in Hainan, China is…well, getting out of control. This is the kind of Western media bullshit that makes Westerners look like they’re frothing at the bits to use anything they can to paint China in a negative political light: “Oh look, even lovable kung-fu funny-man Jackie Chan has betrayed his own, selling out both himself and his kind to the evil Communist regime!” To which the Western masses reply in unison: “Gasp!”
The relevant excerpt from the Associated Press:
“I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not,” Chan said. “I’m really confused now. If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”
Chan added: “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”
And a Chinese report of what Jackie Chan said to foreign reporters:
现在自己对于到底自由好，还是不自由好感到很矛盾，因为太自由了，就会像台湾和香港一样，变得很混乱。所以他慢慢觉得，“中国人还是需要被管的。”
He himself is now very conflicted with regards to whether freedom is better, or is not freedom is better, because if [people] are too free, it will be just like Taiwan and Hong Kong, which have become very disorderly. So, he has slowly come to feel/think that, “Chinese people still need to be regulated.”
Quick lesson in Chinese:
矛盾 = máodùn = conflicted, uncertain, has mixed feelings
You can translate Chan as being confused, but that just makes him sound stupid or getting senile. The more accurate translation taking into account the context of what he is saying would be say he is conflicted or has mixed feelings regarding whether freedom is good or bad.
太自由 = tài zìyóu = too free, in a negative sense, such as being wild, lawless
Freedom is a strong, evocative word in English. Due to the West’s own political history, it is also a noun that is almost always associated with “good.” On the other hand, “zìyóu” in Chinese is not so firmly rooted in the Forces of Good no doubt due to its own political history, whether you want to associate it with Confucianism or Maoist totalitarianism or whatever. You see, “zìyóu” is both a noun (freedom) and an adjective (free), both describing a state of being that is not inherently positive or negative, good or bad. It is how a person, or society, behaves in this state that instead determines whether this state of being can be judged as good or bad. In contrast to the West’s predisposition towards the intrinsic “good” of individualism and self-determination, the Chinese strongly consider how one’s freedom affects those around him. One man’s “freedom” therefore can become disadvantageous or undesirable to a larger social unit if that freedom negatively affects them.
Understandably, Westerners may not like this way of thinking, but failure to consider this sociological context when evaluating and then translating Chan’s comments is irresponsible. Besides, it is not as a strong judicial history weighing the interests between individuals and the larger society is absent in the West itself. Therefore, distorting or failing to contextualize Chan’s comments is inexcusable if not outright sensationalist.
被管 = bèi guǎn = to be managed, regulated, governed
To be certain, you can indeed translate “guǎn” as “control”, but there are more common translations such as those above. More importantly, there is a better Chinese word that is more commonly used for “control”, and that would be: “kòngzhì”.
被控制 = bèi kòngzhì = to be controlled
It is the translation of Chan”s “bèi guǎn” into him advocating that the Chinese people should be “controlled” that reeks of sensationalism, playing into the stereotypical Western narrative of China being a monolithic, heinous, brainwashing, police state diametrically opposed to the courageous West that represents and fights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of all that is holy.
Sure, the Western journalists and media can play dumb and argue semantics, but newspapers are written for the mainstream masses, and it is inexcusable for educated journalists and editors to be ignorant of how the word “controlled” is going to be interpreted by these masses. Like “freedom”, “controlled” is also a very strong and evocative word in English, one that leaves very little room for alternative interpretations. “Guǎn”, however, is a very flexible word in Chinese that can mean a lot of things, many of which are far less fear-mongering than “control”, all depending on context.
So let’s look at context:
后来，成龙被记者追问，才急着表示，他口中的台湾很乱，是指台湾的政治环境很乱，记者再次追问，是指前总统陈水扁的案子吗？成龙说：“对！”成龙又说，现在台湾的政治已经好一些了。
Later, Jackie Chan was pressed by reporter, his reference to Taiwan being disorderly was referring to Taiwan’s political environment being disorderly. The reporter asked again, was he referring to the case of former president Chen Shui-bian? Jackie Chan replied: “Correct!” Jackie Chan also said that Taiwan’s politics are now a little better.
If you’re Taiwanese, pan-green, or otherwise loved Chen Shui-bian, you might take issue with what Jackie Chan said there. However, you’re going to find a lot of Taiwanese, pan-blues, and other overseas Taiwanese agreeing with Chan on this, not because they’re sell-outs to China but because they genuinely did not approve of how Chen Shui-bian presided over Taiwan during his eight years. They, like Chan, are certainly entitled to their political views regarding Chen Shui-bian and Taiwanese politics, right?
Furthermore, both Taiwanese and Chinese alike are more than aware of the brawls that take place almost routinely between Taiwan’s congressmen. To some, they’re hilariously funny, but to others, they’re just one good example of why Taiwanese politics is “luàn.”
乱 = luàn = disorderly, chaotic
Any person with a passing interest in Chinese history should be aware of the Chinese people’s preoccupation with order and chaos. Unification and revolution throughout China’s much boasted 5000 years of history has almost always bore the cause of bringing order to a China plagued with chaos. As a Chinese person, however Hollywood-ified, Chan is deeply aware of this, and his comments regarding his uncertainty over more freedom or less freedom are made with reference to what balance would best serve the interests of developing China forward as a whole.
So please, for the love of God, stop trying to make his comments into some sort of high-profile betrayal of — or backtracking from — the unassailable righteousness and immutable pinnacle of human enlightenment that is “Freedom.” Doing so says more about the colored-lenses you’re wearing than it does about Chan’s personal thoughts regarding individual rights and liberties. It also says your Chinese sucks, or you’re allowing yourself to play stupid.
Context is important, and with the context we have available, the current popular spin of Chan’s comments throughout the Western media suggesting him as supporting the control, repression, or oppression of the Chinese people is questionable at best and shamelessly distorted at worst. The subsequent outrage is understandable, but also silly. You can liken Chan’s comments to the same ignorant comments made by many other audacious celebrities and thus dismiss them, or you can do a better job of not translating his Chinese comments in the most politically inflammatory way possible.
What do you think?
April 23, 2009 Update:
Elliott pointed me over to The Useless Tree where Sam Crane has, with all due respect, lost the plot. How? He’s written an entire post associating Chan’s use of the word “guan” with what he believes to be the most obvious contemporary political use of the word: 城管, “chengguan”. What’s “chengguan”, you ask? Those infamous low-end government ruffians employees in China tasked with enforcing a variety of city ordinances and most notorious for often violently bullying illegal street vendors and snack cart entrepreneurs.
The embarrassment of him having made such a mental connection is only eclipsed by him taking that thought of his seriously enough to share it with the world.
Sam, I don’t know you personally, and I’m sure you’re a great guy, but…are you fracking serious?
Does anyone need me to explain?
April 27, 2009 Update:
Roland Soong of EastSouthWestNorth has a great post (What did Jackie Chan say?) on this issue. Unsatisfied with the transcriptions available, he did his own. Soong writes:
For a detailed discussion of the subtleties in the Chinese word guan, I refer you to CN Reviews. Personally, I have no idea what Jackie Chan means when it comes to the Chinese “needing regulation” or “needing to be controlled.” If you want to elevate what he said to a racist characterization of the Chinese people as being natural-born obedient slaves or advocacy for authoritarianism, that is your right and privilege.
If you’re not functional in the Chinese language, the next best thing is a good translation by someone who is. Please go ahead and take a look at Soong’s transcription and consider his comments. I believe the record reaffirms my criticism of many Western media reports, English bloggers, and English commenters that weighed in on this incident…especially those commenters who huaghtily declared they fully understood Chan’s “context” and it coud only support their conclusions about Chan being a racist advocate of state oppression.
As I said, please take off your colored lenses and stop interpreting Chan by first projecting your own political framework onto him. You can dislike him for other reasons, but willfully sensationalizing his comments is poor form.
May 4, 2009 Update:
Will Moss, the infamous Imagethief, has posted an email he received from Nick Mackie, the Newsweek journalist who actually asked Jackie Chan the question that led to the above-mentioned comments. The main takeaway is that the Jackie Chan was indeed responding to a question specific to the film industry though Jackie Chan broadened it to society in general. This, Mackie explains, may have been influenced by something a fellow panelist (Andre Morgan, an American film producer) said immediately after Mackie asked his question. Mackie’s personal opinion is that Chan definitely believes mainland China needs “firm control by firm leadership” and Chan regrets his remarks.
Imagethief also provides a link to Mackie’s Newsweek piece covering the Boao Forum, and specifically the messages by China Premier Wen and, of course, Jackie Chan. It is worth reading as I think it walked an interesting but cautious line with interpreting Chan’s comments:
The 55-year-old kung fu action man’s moment was an unscripted one. Chan — who happens to be Vice Chairman of the China Film Association – staunchly defended the need for Beijing to carefully regulate artistic and cultural expression. He was responding to a journalist’s question on film-making restrictions, but Chan broadened his answer to embrace society in general.
For those of you seething over the emphasis I added above, Mackie includes the AP translated quote verbatim in the final paragraph.
Mackie wrote a good piece, and a far better one than what the AP offered, perhaps pre-emptively covering a number of bases that proved to be contentious amongst many of those responding to this bit of news. For example, him aserting that Chan’s comments were unscripted help put to rest the suggestion some have tried making that Chan’s comments were orchestrated by the Chinese government, as part of a larger, more nefarious propaganda scheme. Mackie also provides the context I criticized the AP for excluding. This includes the explanatory context with regards to Chan’s comment about Taiwan:
Chan quickly explained away the Taiwan reference as an off-the-cuff remark. “I mean politics, it’s a bit better now,” he remarked. The implication being that President Ma Ying jeou’s leadership of the island is an improvement compared to the days when his predecessor Chen Shui-bian held office. (Chen’s party espoused independence for Taiwan – which Chinese leaders consider a maverick province that must ultimately be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary – and his tenure marked a number of tense crises between Taipei and Beijing.
It also includes context relevant to Chan’s comments with regards to mainland Chinese:
While his publicly stated views on liberalism and artistic controls may not square with many in Hollywood, Chan is certainly at one with much of China’s new middle class — people like the local bank manager or export sales executive who represent the country’s more assertive and even nationalistic younger generation.
For Chinese climbing up the economic ladder – typically earning more than US$ 1500 per month — greater freedom of expression, or Western-style democracy, don’t feature on their list of top priorities. For them, political upheaval could sabotage or encumber their economic endeavors. Despite the economic downturn, many still trust that the ruling communist party will continue to deliver the goods in terms of rising living standards. And if that means some restrictions on creative expression, many Chinese would say it is legitimate and cite the destructive impact of pornography and graphic violence.
Chan’s comments are not unusual, therefore, in the context of Chinese society — though they’d raise eyebrows among Western movie stars who are traditionally thought to embrace liberal politics.
Again, emphasis mine.
Mackie also deftly pays homage to the possibility that Chan’s just kissing butt because his recent movie was banned in China:
Here’s another ironic twist: what Chan didn’t mention is the fact that a recent film of his was not released on the mainland, apparently due to its excessive violence.
As I said, altogether a much better report than what the AP offered. In fact, it actually reports on the controversy (as more befitting the ideals of journalism) with the aim of informing the readers instead of simply contributing to it with sensationalism pandering to readers’ socialized predispositions.
Two things:
1) It’s not a backtrack. Jackie’s not really endeared himself to certain groups in Taiwan his pronouncements (a look back), so this latest thing isn’t really all that surprising.
2) In tracking down what Jackie really said, why not use a more thorough transcript than the news summaries you’ve based your translations on? To provide a larger context and all that…
Here is what he said about his “confusion”:
有自由好还是没有自由好，真的我现在已经混乱了、太自由了，就变成像香港现在这个样子很乱，而且变成台湾这个样子也很乱，我慢慢觉得，我们中国人是需要管的。
矛盾 was apparently just a gloss used in those news reports. It looks like there’s some issue with the punctuation of the transcript. 有自由好还是没有自由好，真的我现在已经混乱了 could be one thought, with 混乱 pretty much meaning “confused.” But some accounts have amended the middle text to be “真的我(们)现在已经混乱了、太自由了“, which avoids any description of Jackie’s thought process whatsoever.
And here’s the exchange in which the reporter “pressed him”:
记者:“您觉得台湾太自由，是哪一部分？”
成龙:“不是自…，现在那么短讲不出来啦！”
记者:“你觉得台湾哪边乱？是政治部分吗？”
成龙:“政治，我讲的是政治。”
记者:“你觉得有比较好吗？现在。”
成龙:“现在好一点。”
记者:“陈水扁现在案子还有什么看法？”
成龙:“现在怎么讲，现在忽然间讲两句很难的。”
记者:“你刚刚讲的是，针对陈水扁的部分吗？”
成龙:“OK。”
In other words, it looks acknowledging the connection to Chen Shuibian was a way of putting an end to that part of the conversation, rather than go into detail about why he sees Taiwan politics as chaotic.
In terms of interpretation, you may have a point in your discussion of “control” vs “regulation” and in the shades of freedom, but a number of Chinese commentators have interpretations of Jackie’s comments that aren’t quite as generous as your own.
Joel, the transcripts or reports of what Jackie said that I have thus far been able to find haven’t made me change my interpretation of what Jackie Chan said or the issue I’m taking up with how the Western media handled it. I’m definitely aware and acknwledge that there are many Chinese, Taiwanese, and Hong Kong people who, like many Westerners, have taken offense to what Jackie said. I’m not discounting them, nor am I suggesting that only the Westerners are interpreting Jackie in the way suggested by the Western media reports.
I’ve seen the Chinese quote of what Jackie said you’ve cited. It doesn’t change my criticism of the Western media translating his feelings as “confusion”, instead of “conflicted” or “having mixed feelings” much less “control” vs. “regulation/governance/management.” I still think “confusion” makes Chan sound like he was either somehow pressured into saying what he said (thus the “sell out”), stupid, or just getting senile. The fact is, his mixed feelings about the balance of freedom is NOT unique to him, the PRC government platform, or even the Chinese overall. I still think “conflicted” or “has mixed feelings” would’ve been more contextually accurate, and I still think “controlled” is sensationalist garbage.
I also think there’s a quick jump or assumption that Jackie is referring to social and political freedoms. Why is that? In reading what he said and in context of the rest of what he mentioned, is his comment necessarily about political freedoms and political control? Or is it just the old Chinese yearning that some enlightened emperor or government would guide and lead the Chinese nation towards greater advancement? I still think there are a lot of people wearing colored-lenses.
Finally, I agree the exchange between the reporter and Jackie on Taiwan was a bit about Jackie being content to put an end to it. However, I think the reporter was also asking leading questions by specifically referring to Chen Shui-bian.
My experience in three years teaching in China (in comparison to Taiwan) is that here when you try not to “管“ them, to give them freedom to choose what they want (as simply as the way of grading the course, giving you the HW…) they are unable to express their will… so, may be and for the worse, Jackie is right, Chinese people need (have been “trained to, used to” 被管。他的想法很悲观。
You could also see the word 管 in the context of the mainland Chinese narrative of 管理, managing the planned economy, and society, and pretty much everything the bureaucracy can get the claws into.
Or look at the converse, 不管, to ignore or not be in charge of. So Chinese people need somebody to lead, to be in charge.
Both of these are, like jdmartinsen calls them, more generous ways of looking at Jackie’s words. But I’m just offering these on their own. I wouldn’t be so generous.
and you say others shouldn’t play semantics?
the political context of what chan was saying was clear, and was reported pretty accurately. i don’t think “regulated” as a translation would make the reading any more favourable to western readers. and it is the reader – in this case you – who can, if he or she chooses, interpret it negatively. if the western readers aren’t aware that the chinese don’t actually want freedom (so you say) there’s not much that can be done about that in a news story.
as for luan, the existence of luan in china is pretty closely related to the determination of autocratic rulers to maintain control to a self-defeating extent. it was realising this that caused deng xiaoping to loosen controls over society, and thus establish greater prosperity, confidence in the government, stability etc. but has the rest of the party/chinese society/jackie chan etc learned that lesson?
Playing semantics is arguing about which definition/translation of a word to use when multiple definitions have equal possibility of being correct or intended. In this case, I am arguing that some definitions/translations of a word are MORE correct/accurate than what was chosen by the reporting Western media.
No, I do not think the political context of what Chan was saying is clear, especially if you didn’t hear Chan speak yourself with a solid command of the Chinese language. Take your pick. If you can provide better primary evidence and context to shed new light on Chan’s comments, I’m all for hearing it and seeing if I should re-evaluate my conclusion. Absent that, you’re just insisting upon your projection on and interpretation of what I’m assuming to be the same Western media reports I’m critical of for not being accurately translated and contextualized.
Regulated, governed, managed, take your pick. I grant the connotations of these words are arguably subjective to each person, but to me, “controlled” sounds a lot more heinous than “managed” or “governed” and even “regulated” (given the context that Chan referred to domestic product quality and the Sanlu milk scandal). If you insist they’re all evil to you, well, not much I can do about that.
In some absolute sense, you’re right that “it is the reader who can, if he or she chooses, interpret it negatively.” In the real world, however, we tend to acknowledge that other people have some influence upon how you interpret something or another. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be somewhat confident that saying “please” when we make a request more often than not results in that request being fulfilled.
No, I didn’t say that.
A news story can offer better translations and more context. A news story is meant to inform the reader. Sensationalist news stories, on the other hand, tend to feed the reader an agenda or what the reader wants to hear.
This is a loaded straw-man argument of a question that really doesn’t deserve a reply. Please try again.
well governed would clearly be wrong, as everyone believes that a government should govern except for an anarchist, and managed would be a little, well, management-speak. To me it seems inescapable – i may be wrong but would need convincing – that chan is saying that the chinese need something beyond straightforward “governance” to the extent that without it they show an extra tendency towards “luan”. So I don’t see how using a word that implies that, whether it is “regulated” or “controlled” is sensationalist. That’s the political context. I don’t see how my understanding of it differs from your understanding of it (as expressed by your analysis of Chinese historic preoccupation with luan).
By the way, isn’t the expression “rampant western media frenzy” a bit sensationalist? reports by AP and AFP seem to have been picked up by some newspaper websites, and of course the showbiz trade press, and some have even put news in briefs in their foreign pages; but it doesn’t quite compete with susan boyle.
I would suggest stepping slightly away from the political context (freedoms, rights, and government) and towards the social context (development of the society).
When I said people are wearing colored lenses, I’m referring to them projecting their own political framework upon Chan and judging his comments by the tenets of their political framework. If your framework believes in individual freedom above all else, you’re going to have a negative reaction to any suggestion that the individual be “controlled, regulated, managed, governed, limited, etc.”
But that’s not being fair to Chan. More importantly, you’re not actually bothering to understand Chan’s comment in the context of where HE’S coming from or what he intends.
To do so, you have to set aside your colored-glasses and disregard your own political ideology. You have to judge Chan’s comment in the context of Chinese politics, society, culture, development, etc. When you do that, you’re going to run into the word “luan.” You’re also going to run into the faith in paternalistic government that not only persists in Chinese social consciousness but has arguably become something foreign to Western liberal democratic ideology where government exists more to serve than to lead.
It is important to understand the social and historical context of the Chinese people before even hoping to interpret Chan’s comments fairly. Contrary to what many Chinese say, you don’t need to be Chinese to understand. You just have to be willing to forget what you think is “right” or what “should be” and just observe how things “were” and “are” for the Chinese.
You can take the Tom Doctoroff approach and insist a large part of Chinese faith in paternalistic government to manage chaos goes back to hierarchical Confucianism. But you don’t have to. The important part is to just accept that the Chinese see government as a some entity that should lead, guide, and manage what is by nature a chaotic and persistently chaotic human existence.
Do the people in Taiwan and Hong Kong feel that way? Many of them don’t, but Chan does, and that’s his opinion. He clearly feels there are still a lot of chaotic excesses or inefficiencies born out of a certain measure of greater “freedom” in both microcosms despite their more liberal democratic experience. He clearly is conflicted about whether more paternalistic governance could improve upon this situation. He isn’t sure, though, whether more or less freedom is good. He’s just thinking maybe more control, governance, management, regulation, guidance, what have you might be needed.
Does this feed into the PRC government platform? Sure. Is it selling out? Maybe. Is it definitely selling out? No, it’s a freaking opinion that is actually quite understandable with a solid understanding of Chinese history and society.
So the question is: Is it racist?
Is Chan a self-loathing bastard who thinks his own kind, the Chinese, are genetically predisposed towards chaos or “luan?”
I don’t think so. I think people are thinking “racist” and letting the word itself overshadow any subtleties inherent in what Chan is saying. In other words, they’re buying their own knee-jerk reaction.
I certainly don’t think Chan believes Chinese people are genetically inferior to other races or nationalities. Rather, I think he’s referring to Chinese with regards to the social development of the Chinese people as a whole (not every individual) as it is NOW. That social development includes the Chinese people’s socio-political sophistication, even in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Remember, Taiwan is a young democracy where people were actually still entertaining the possibility that the DPP might not let Ma win and take office. It isn’t just Chan but many Chinese, including Hong Kongers and Taiwanese, are pretty dismayed with the petty politicking and political farces that unfold in their political systems on a day to day basis. Is it so hard to feel that the Chinese are still “luan” despite more freedoms and a different political system?
Chan’s is admitting his uncertainty, his acknowledgment of freedom’s appeal (“有自由好…”), but also the possible excesses and inefficiencies of too much freedom (“…还是没有自由好?”). He isn’t the first and only person to be wary of the masses nor the first person to wonder if some enlightened ruler could might be better. Furthermore, this isn’t abstract musing, this is all placed within the context of application to present-day Chinese people and society (in aggregate, not individual).
“I used to think more freedom is good, but after seeing certain things in Taiwan and Hong Kong, I’m conflicted now. I’m starting to think, if they’re still so chaotic, maybe it would be better for Chinese to be more strictly governed for now.”
I may be putting words in Chan’s mouth, you may scoff, but at worst, it is about as far off as interpreting Chan as a racist advocating state oppression, which I certainly think is inaccurate and irresponsible of the Western media to have translated, suggested, or otherwise implied so. I also don’t think what he said means he thinks the Chinese people are genetically disposed to “luan” but rather that he thinks Chinese people as they are now quite simply still need paternalistic guidance and regulation. He’s really just echoing the widespread belief amongst many that the Chinese, as they are now, are simply not ready to wield more freedom without hindering or hurting themselves and the continued progress of their country and society.
You can disagree with that, but that’s a different issue altogether.
I’ll repeat: Conclusions that Chan is advocating state oppression and that Chan is a racist says more about the colored-lenses you’re wearing than Chan’s actual position. The Western media’s portrayal of Chan’s comments in this way is distorted, ultimately sensationalizing Chan as some high profile betrayal to an ideal (freedom) their readers take as unassailable, immutable, and inherently righteous. This is ridiculous.
Sure. Would you like me to change it to “extensive Western media coverage?”
much less extensive even than your blog on it.
@Kai Pan Let the Western (hiss booo weeessssssterrrrrrn!!) media do what the do best, we all like to read about a celebrity making a dick of himself, especially one as self righteous as Jackie Chan.
It’s understandable that his remarks drew criticism. When asked to comment on controls on media and filmmakers, his subsequent remarks legitimized the current CCP policies and down-played advancements made in Hong Kong and Taiwan to their detriment. Read between the lines. Nothing sensationalist to see here folks.
His comments annoyed people in Taiwan, albeit, maybe for different reasons, not so on the freedom line but that fact his remarks painted their democracy in a negative light. I’m guessing their Chinese is pretty decent too. (or doesn’t that matter as they are probably just Chen Sui-bian supporting loonies?)
Here’s a quote from a pan-blue legislator (邱毅, Chen Si-bian’s nemesis, as if that matters) which I thought was quite funny:
可能成龍最近拍的戲成績都不太好，因此打算用狂言狂語來製造新聞熱潮，希望挽救日趨下滑的票房成績？他批評，成龍最近講話真的是越來越「脫線」，中國也罵、台灣也罵、香港也罵，好像天下都不如他，難道他真的以為在演「警察故事」，把自己當成「超級警察」、「世紀大救星」了嗎？
Jackie Chan is just another Celebrity dick out to advance his own interests.
The whole “let’s dismiss the celebrity’s comments” is certainly an understandable, and even fair, reaction. I too understand why his comments drew criticism and acknowledged the criticism and offense expressed by some in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Their Chinese is fine, I’m sure, but as you partially recognized, they’re responding to their own interpretation of what Chan’s comments might be saying about whatever it is they care about. They have their own colored-glasses.
So, everyone is interpreting Chan’s comments as they will. I’m simply offering another alternative interpretation (with explanations of context) that doesn’t lead to Chan automatically being a self-loathing racist advocating state oppression, which is a common Western reaction resulting from what I’m arguing as inaccurate translation, failure to contextualize, and sensationalist reporting. My post is not about Chan’s celebrity self-righteousness, it is about the Western media’s reporting. Please don’t muddle the issue.
I think you’re trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When I read a sentence like “中国人还是需要被管的” taken in the context of his remarks, the meaning to me is pretty clear. He’s attempting for a bit of nuanced delicacy perhaps, but to argue that he really meant ‘Chinese need to be ‘managed’, or ‘governed’ is a stretch. And I don’t believe most Chinese read it that way, either, which explains the maelstrom he has created for himself.
Did anyone record him making the remarks? Were they in English or Chinese?
Maelstrom? Amongst whom? Some people from Taiwan and Hong Kong? Some bloggers in China? Or amongst the many Chinese who think his comments actually sound pretty true? You’d be surprised if you think only evil PRC government cronies are agreeing with Chan’s comment. Sure, we can easily guess that they would, seeing as how Chan’s comments reaffirm the existing political structure that provides them with their power and privilege. We didn’t even need the media to tell us Chan received big applause and cheer from the government and business leaders present. However, you’d be unwise to assume that everyone else were uniformly or even mostly appalled by Chan’s comments. It really isn’t just the rich who fear the poor. The poor themselves more often than not fear each other. In China, most people think they themselves can definitely handle greater freedoms and rights while simultaneously not being too confident “others” can.
I haven’t been keeping up with the Taiwan bloggers recently (my bad), but the story is all over the Chinese press there–that’s what I meant by maelstrom, and judging by the comments, letters to the editor, bulletin boards, etc they are reading his meaning differently than you are–more along the lines of “控制”. But what they’re reacting to most strongly was his statement that Taiwan is ‘too free’.
I don’t doubt that many Chinese might somewhat agree with what Jackie Chan said–in the PRC at least. In Taiwan, I really really doubt it.
As far as Western press reading their own values into what a Chinese person does/says–it wouldn’t be the first time–but I think you’re overstating it. It’s pretty much a non-story in the US–I had to actively search look to find it.
In the US it isn’t big but it made the front page of BBC.
I’m cautioning against people being too quick to take the English translation offered by the Western media at face value, and then drawing lines in the sand between “defenders of freedom” and “advocates of state oppression” while assuming uniform support/oppositon from any particular side (i.e. “or democratic friends in Taiwan/Hong Kong/West” vs. “the totalitarian oppressors of Commie China”). When you do that, you’re largely projecting your own political value system onto Chan’s comments and failing to learn what his comments may actually mean or how they represent modes of Chinese thought with regards to Chinese society and governance.
Please note also that I didn’t saying this news story is dominating the headlines in the West, as if everyone is talking about it around the water cooler in Arkansas or as they’re seated in the local patisserie in Alsace. I’m saying this news story has been very widely reported (and commented upon) throughout the English media and blogosphere that covers China. I gave a list of links to illustrate that observation, and since then, there have been more: Shanghaiist (again), GVO, Wall Street Journal, Time, Washington Post (Pomfret), LRB, and Huffington Post.
It is interesting to see the marked difference in reactions by Westerners and western media from those of Chinese. From talking to other Chinese about this issue it seems pretty clearly that Kai is spot on with his assessment here.
I am surprised at how often bias creeps into media coverage (and Western opinion) of China but creep it does. I’ve seen some interesting content analysis of media bias RE: China and it is actually a bit shocking when you see, spelled out as clear as day, just how prevalent it is.
A very illuminating piece linguistically speaking, but I must take issue with a few things.
“…that reeks of sensationalism, playing into the stereotypical Western narrative of China…”
Actually, I feel that the tenet of this article plays to the stereotypical Chinese narrative of a western media out to ‘get China.’
I asked my Chinese wife for her opinion of the meaning of Chan’s words. She said, as I interpreted his words, that he was basically trying to appease his pals in Beijing.
Yes, Kai, context is important.
But as I said in my reply to your comment on my site, “Chan was certainly cosying up to mainland rhetoric, and when you put yourself next to the CCP on the eve of an anniversary that the people of HK have never forgotten (to their lasting endearment), then such comments are likely to be seen my many as insensitive.”
In this context criticism of Chan’s comments (not restricted to western media, btw) are fully justified.
LoL, yes, I was waiting for someone to suggest what I wrote here to be the stereotypical Chinese narrative of the Western media out to “get China!” However, while I do think the Western media translation of Chan’s comments has been sloppy and distorted, I don’t actually think they set out to “get China” so much as they’re just reacting all too predictably. There’s a slight difference of intent here and I grant I may have oversimplified it in my blog post. The former is proactive malevolence, while the former is just reactionary negligence. Chan said something, and the Western media spun it. They emphasized “Chan thinks Taiwan/Hong Kong too free” and “Chan thinks Chinese need to be controlled” in their headlines and captions, while even the main text of their articles fail to bring any context towards Chinese thoughts on freedom and governance. Are these journalists so ignorant as to think the concept of “freedom” is the same with the Chinese as it is for them? Or were they just content to not to contextualize so they wouldn’t have to test the Western conceptions of their Western readers?
Now, I don’t discount the possibility that Chan’s comments were made entirely to appease his pals in Beijing, just as I don’t discount the idea we should just ignore saying the stupid things celebrities are fond of saying. However, I don’t think his comments amount to a bald-faced lie, that he was somehow pressured (either by others or his own desire to appease those pals in Beijing) in such a way that he’s saying something that he 100% does not believe in. Even Pomfret takes his time to contextualize Chan’s comments as being borne out of his social class in modern Chinese society.
The context of Chan’s comments being deliberately made specifically at this point in time to reaffirm the PRC’s ongoing rule and their previous TAM decision were either not offered or fleshed out in these Western news reports. I agree with you that people viewing Chan’s comments within such a context may find them insensitive.
However, my post is about the choices the Western media made in how they reacted and presented this story. Fact is, I quite understand why they reacted and presented the way they did. I’m just sorry that they did. Why? Because they’re replaying and reinforcing the stereotypical freedom vs. oppression, democratic vs. authoritarian, West vs. East, us vs. them narrative that doesn’t actually help or motivate either side to get to know each other better and figure out how we’re all going to coexist peacefully moving forward. My criticism still stands that their translation sucked and they failed to contextualize (amongst other things), both of which lead me to be critical of them being content to political and ideologically sensationalize this story that fell in their lap. Hey, it made for good headlines. Bad news about “those Chinese” sell.
But, of course, we cannot know what people in the PRC truly think politically, not in any systematic manner at least. In an unfree environment people cannot, by definition, freely express their views on political issues. So all of us (myself included) are simply guessing, based on one biased sample (Chinese internet bbs are certainly biased in certain ways…) or another, regarding what most people in the PRC truly believe about the extent to which they must be “managed” or “controlled” by their government. It does seem obvious, however, that Chan was playing to his audience: those in power like to hear that their power is somehow necessary for “social stability.” Authoritarians everywhere always like to hear that….
“But, of course, we cannot know what people in the PRC truly think politically,”
Well, if you ask them you can. China is not as repressed as you seem to think, Sam.
“So all of us (myself included) are simply guessing”
No we aren’t. You may be and I can’t speak for everyone else commenting but in my case the info comes from talking with Chinese. Mainlanders mostly. I have access to opinions from people as old as 75 down to little kids and everywhere in between. From highly educated down to countryside aiyi. So no, no guessing or getting my info from BBS comments. I will say that your impression of things smacks of a lack of really understanding how things are in China. This is not atypical for westerners but it it inaccurate. In fact, your comment reminds me of an older guy I met while taking a class at Zhejiang University. He didn’t know much about China and asked me one day why there were soldiers guarding the entrances to housing developments. He wanted to know if they were there to keep the people in! I explained that they were, just like any gated community in the US, simply security guards who worked for the complex but that he even thought it possible that they were “keeping the people in” shocked me and revealed a wildly inaccurate impression of China
Trust me when I say that you can indeed sit around a table with regular, everyday Chinese and get their frank and explicit opinion on political issues domestic and foreign.
True, statistically rigorous surveying/polling of certain topics in China is fraught with problems above and beyond what is usual in other countries. However, I think it isn’t too difficult to grant that enough Chinese assent to continued CCP rule by the very fact that they haven’t overthrown it yet. This is one of those things where the answer is implicit in the results/current situation. We can argue about propaganda and brainwashing but that’s a huge separate issue I’d rather not confuse this topic about Chan with.
As ST says, you might as well just go ask personally and come up with the conclusions you will. It won’t be statistically representative, but you’ll at least have some data points with regards to “what people in the PRC truly think politically.” I’m personally quite confident in characterizing the Chinese as having very big complaints, criticisms, and grievances with the CCP, but they simultaneously acknowledge that the CCP has bettered China in many other ways and that they’re not confident that any other system of rule would have done better or can do better. That lack of confidence or faith really belies the Chinese fear of and preoccupation with “luan.”
I think by breaking his comments down to the individual words phrases, you are destroying the context and thus completely missing the point. Whether it means to be “managed” or “controlled” is not the issue, he was using this phrase in comparison to the “chaotic” or “unmanaged” nature of HK and Taiwanese politics, which are both (ostensibly) “democracies”, and through this comparison suggesting that democracy (or more popular participation in governance) will not work for Chinese people because Chinese people cannot be trusted to act responsibly as “free” political actors.
Whether you change the translation or not, the meaning is the same, Chan believes that Chinese people are too infantile to govern themselves through a democratic political institution in that under popular controlled government things would quickly deteriorate into anarchy because like toddlers Chinese people “do whatever they want” i.e. act irresponsibly if given too much freedom.
You really think Jackie was considering the nuances of control versus manage when he made the statement? Of course not, he was repeating a cliche in support of the status quo that has become very popular amongst Chinese officials and elites (which was previously used by imperialists as justification for their semi-colonization of China/India/the Americas (you name it) as well).
Why would he say this? Because he was speaking in front of a bunch of business leaders (and Grandpa Wen) who have profited greatly from the type of “control/management” currently espoused by the CCP.
Jackie’s statement was not conceived or spoken in a vacuum and thus shouldn’t be analyzed as such.
Didn’t surprise me either.
Think about it, he has minimum popularity in Taiwan and Hongkong right now, Mainland is his only cash-grabbing hotspot, and to do that he needs all the supports from the Chinese government. It’s like how Phoenix TV did it, loudmouthing for the government’s will so Liu ChangLe could live in Summer Palace and build skyscraper in the heart of Beijing.
And I get the feeling that Jackie isn’t terribly informed on politics, he might want to take some lessons on social science, more importantly, he was NOT in a position, as an entertainment star, to comment on national politics in a political forum.
Ironically, I believe I wasn’t destroying the context at all, and was instead bringing more context into the discussion. Perhaps we just disagree on the context?
I think you’re making a few key assumptions to support your interpretation, and you’re even aware enough of it to qualify with “ostensibly”. Fact is, Chan’s comments were quite vague, and we’re all probably reading our subjective specifics into them. I’m more inclined to believe that Chan is referring to the unwashed, ignorant Chinese masses instead of the every Chinese person as a race when he thinks they’re not ready (or as you say, “too infantile”) to govern themselves. But, this is a critique of Chinese socio-political development (nurture), not about race (nature). Just as when you say the American people are less polite than the British people, it doesn’t mean Americans are racially predisposed to being rude, because they very well can become as polite as the British but they’re not at this point (gross example but I trust you see what I mean).
I don’t think Jackie was considering the nuances of control versus manage. His Chinese isn’t that bad. I think he used the Chinese word he intended to use. I think if he intended to express the same connotations most English-speaking people associate with “control”, he would have used “kong zhi” instead of “guan.” As I said, “guan” is a very flexible word in Chinese, far more so than “kong zhi.” Hell, its what parents do, they “guan” their children, which only reinforces my previous comments about Chinese faith in paternalistic government.
I think it is completely fine for people to question or suspect Chan’s comments in the context of them being made before Chinese business and government leaders that have benefited from the current CCP government, and thus have a vested interest in seeing it continue or reaffirmed. That’s not the issue I’m at odds with in my post. I’m talking about how the Western media translated and sensationalized Chan’s comments. What do you think? Do you agree or do you disagree and think the Western media portrayal was objective, accurate, and properly contextualized?
“My criticism still stands that their translation sucked and they failed to contextualize … Hey, it made for good headlines. Bad news about “those Chinese” sell.”
I can’t accept that characterisation. It was hardly front-page headline news among western commentators outside of sino/asian-dedicated sources. But even if their interpretation sucked, as you suggest, they weren’t the only ones:
Are the views of Ho and Leung also ‘sloppy’, ‘distorted’, and indicative of ‘reactionary negligence’?
I’m sorry, I should’ve been more clear with that sentence, as I had with a previous comment of mine above:
No, you’re mistaken. I didn’t say the views of Ho and Leung are “’sloppy’, ‘distorted’, and indicative of ‘reactionary negligence’?” I said the Western media’s translation and portrayal of Chan’s comments were. Are Ho and Leung the Western media?
Sorry man, you don’t convince me at all!
Why? Because this isn’t the first time Jackie Chan has attacked Taiwan. He’s a raving nationalist and an aging movie star who is planning is political career in China.
If this were a one-off comment, who’d care? But the media is all over him because he’s got diarrhea of the mouth. Sensational? You bet! Few Hollywood movie stars these days ever disgrace themselves as communist sympathizers.
Wait…I’m curious, what is it exactly that you think I am trying to convince you of?
BTW, you should use the screen name: MANthony. That would be awesome.
@Kai Pan
Context IS important and I think by attempting to deconstruct his meaning word by word you’ve lost sight of the bigger picture. @AndyR nailed it.
“Do you agree or do you disagree and think the Western media portrayal was objective, accurate, and properly contextualized?”
Agree. The original AP report hardly deviated from the line the non-mainland Chinese media took on the matter. Forget for a second what Mainlanders think as this is irrelevant to your proposition that the western media have sensationalised and taken this out of context.
“This is the kind of Western media bullshit that makes Westerners look like they’re frothing at the bits to use anything they can to paint China in a negative political light”
Perhaps in some cases the severity of the remarks was exaggerated (this is the internet after all) and terms like racisit and bigot thrown around, but it annoys me that you would use THIS of all things to rip the “weeeestern” media for being rabid, China-bashing pieces of crap. (I resent the generalisation)
As I commented earlier and @AndyR elaborated on, It’s understandable that his remarks drew criticism because his remarks legitimized the current CCP policies and down-played advancements made in Hong Kong and Taiwan to their detriment. – This is newsworthy.
Uh, I think you meant to say you disagree, right?
1. My proposition is not dependent upon what mainlanders think.
2. Even if it were, their relevance is as relevant as your opposing proposition that the western media did NOT sensationalize or take things out of context.
And while we’re on that, there’s actually a difference between taking something out of context and failing to provide context. I think the Western media took his comments out of context by translating it the way they did. I think they compounded (whether maliciously or just negligently) failed to provide context by explaining the different denotations and connotations of the word “guan”. Translations between languages is tricky business. Words, meanings, and intent can all be easily distorted and misrepresented by bad translations. This isn’t even accounting for the fact that the Western report hasn’t even bothered to explain the differing perceptions towards freedom and governance between the Chinese and “Westerners.”
Are you insisting that the perspectives are one and the same?
That’s fine. As I’ve commented above, I’m not above admitting that I was being artistic with my prose. That said, it annoyed me that the Western media ran this story the way it did. So the Western media annoyed me and I annoyed you. What next?
You’re not saying anything new to me. I too understand why his remarks drew criticism. Furthermore, I never said this wasn’t newsworthy. You’re arguing against a straw man. Please re-read my post.
I agree change your alias to MANthony immediately ;-)
“Are Ho and Leung the Western media?”
Exactly my point – because they’re adopting the same take on Chan’s remarks as the apparently contextually-challenged western media.
Do you see?
I know you’re trying to argue that I shouldn’t take issue with how the Western media portrayed Chan’s comments because Ho and Leung’s responses echo those suggested by the Western media’s report. But that’s a bad argument.
1) Ho and Leung were quoted in that Western media report. I’m not surprised the Western media report would quote people who shared their opinion. Are you?
2) No one, least of all me, is even remotely suggesting that no Chinese people are taking issue with Chan’s comments or interpreting them in the same way as the Western media is portraying it: a high profile betrayal of freedom.
3) Ho and Lee represent some people and some people’s interpretations of Chan’s comments. That they thought the same thing as the Western media, or as you did, does not suggest all others or even most others interpret the same way. Surely you’ve seen many comments by Chinese netizens that agreed with Chan, right? I’m sure your field of vision and the sources you can access are not that limited.
So again, my point stll remains that people are wearing colored-glasses and interpreting Chan’s comments through their own subjective political framework. I’m suggesting that people set aside their own subjective context that they’re applying, and instead consider the context within which Chan made his comments.
Do you see?
In your haste to defend the objectivity or accuracy of the Western media, you’ve missed one of my core points: Put down your own blinders and put yourself in Chan’s shoes before you try declaring what he must’ve meant.
BTW, Jackie Chan has made a statement about this issue. You can find the video on Youku. He complained that the media didn’t report what he said before, what he said after, and took only what he said in the middle.
“I’m not surprised the Western media report would quote people who shared their opinion. Are you?”
It was the BBC. They have no opinion ;)
“I’m suggesting that people set aside their own subjective context that they’re applying, and instead consider the context within which Chan made his comments.”
Setting aside one’s subjective context is a pretty hard sell for most people (particularly when that context is hard-wired, I might add). True objectivity is probably an unattainable ideal, but it doesn’t make me guilty of subjectivity if I happen to come to an opinion that echoes western reporting. That’s just the way it goes sometimes. And, having first taken several steps back to view the landscape, my opinion was, and remains, that Chan was kissing CCP ass.
Out of curiosity what is your opinion of Western media bias in reporting about China? I know you live in China (I frequently make extended visits and have lived there before) and you said you have a Chinese wife (as do I) so I am wondering what you think about that topic in general.
p.a. Oh, I am also a “stuart”… in fact, I saw your post where you mentioned having a chinese wife and did a double take. I began to wonder if I had posted something without remembering it (but, as Kai will understand, I shouldn’t be surprised at seeing one of “my” usernames being used by someone else…lol)
Sure, I know it is a hard sell and I too agree that true objectivity is an unattainable ideal, but I still think it is worth striving for, just like striving for “good” in a world that will always have “bad.” I don’t think anything is hard-wired (suggesting genetic predisposition) but I grant that certain convictions are deeply-rooted through years of reinforcing socialization.
You’re guilty of subjectivity if your subjectivity echoes the subjectivity I see in the Western media’s reporting, subjectively of course. ;)
I’m fine with people thinking Chan was kissing CCP ass.
OK, Kai Pan. You like word games obviously. I’ll play your little game. “Sensationalism” is defined as “a manner of being extremely controversial, loud, or attention grabbing. It is especially applied to the emphasis of the unusual or atypical. It is also a form of theatre.”
Jackie Chan is a sensationalist. He was invited to an event where he knew the media would be present in force. He’s an actor, and he’s not so stupid as he looks. He knows how to take advantage of and obtain media attention, and in this case he knew very well how the media would react to his “conflicted feelings.”
He’s a sensationalist. He’s like George Bush saying “You’re either with us or against us.” He’s like Don Imus saying Rutgers women’s basketball teams are “nappy-headed ho’s…”, or former French prime minister Edith Cresson saying that the Japanese are “mindless ants” or “yellow ants trying to take over the world.”
These weren’t weren’t accidental, off the cuff or private comments. They were sensationalist public comments, carefully thought out and spoken by thoughtless, power-addled influencers. This is red meat for the media. They’ll eat it up. And they’ll also bring down, if they can, the speaker.
I have all the published speeches from Boao. A lot more important men than Chan made these speeches, but the speeches themselves were boring as a stockholder’s report. No news to report there. The event was peopled with Chinese, Hong Kong and Taiwanese business leaders — all grey-suited with equally grey personalities. No news there, either. Nothing sensational, nothing even front page-worthy for the Financial Times.
But Jackie Chan provided the fireworks. Why? BECAUSE HE’S A SENSATIONALIST!
Okay, let’s play. Despite the fact that there are various definitions for “sensationalism,” I’ll entertain the one you offered, which I think entirely applies to what I’m criticizing the Western media’s reporting for. Let’s see:
“a manner of being extremely controversial, loud, or attention grabbing. It is especially applied to the emphasis of the unusual or atypical.”
Interpreting Chan’s “guan” as “controlled” as him suggesting that “Chinese people need to be controlled” is indeed extremely controversial for many audiences, particularly the Western audiences the Western media caters to who find the idea that anyone might need to be “controlled” by the government to be “unusual or atypical.” Using “Chinese people need to be controlled” repeatedly as headlines and captions is “attention grabbing” and depending on the relative size disparities and typographical emphasis given, they were “loud” as well.
What do you think?
Jackie Chan being a sensationalist (kinda part and parcel of being an actor and running your own production company) is separate and irrelevant to whether or not the Western media was being sensationalist. You’re trying to confuse the issue by muddling up the two.
To be strict, you can make accidental, off the cuff, public comments too. They tend to happen when people aren’t strictly following scripts, ad-lib, or otherwise have a slip of tongue. You describing Chan’s comments as being “carefully thought out” is you projecting on to him, trying to create a foundation that didn’t exist in so it would support your preferred conclusion.
Whatever Chan says in public is definitely fair game. No one, and again least of all me, is suggesting otherwise. Surely you’re not incapable of seeing how even sensationalist people and sensationalist comments can be sensationalized further by others, right?
Your comments about the other speeches being grey or whatever is irrelevant to the point I’m making with this post.
Finally, I will refuse to reply to you any further until you change your handle to “MANthony.” The masses demand it.
I have to laugh at your insistent argument that the so-called Western media is somehow culpable in sensationalizing this. “Man bites dog” is the timeworn cliche of newspapers. They’re doing their job, and I doubt you or anyone else would disagree that’s what reporters do –look for the “angle” that gets the public’s attention.
You’re also assuming that I’m projecting onto Jackie Chan that he had “thought out” his words. You are also projecting your projection on to me. Being a professional actor and knowing other professionals, I know that actors in popular entertainment field possess a calculated self-awarness to gain atttention. It goes with the territory. As another poster pointed out — he has a big concert event coming up, and I heard his latest movie was banned in China. There is a lot of ass-kissing he has to do, and it’s so easy to diss Taiwan and HK to please the powers-that-be.
Believe me, he knew what he was saying, and it was planned.
I have now learned that the Taiwan promoters of the Deaf Olympics axed him as its representative. And his Facebook fan page dropped over 20,000 members in just a few days. He reaping the rewards of his comments, off the cuff or planned, and a lot of world opinion, including a lot of Asia opinion are against him.
Since most of the pan-Asian media reports in Chinese or other non-Western languages, I don’t think you can maintain your argument that the Western media is somehow guilty of blowing this out of proportion.
Argh, I have to break my promise.
MANthony, you’re confusing understanding how the media operates with agreeing with how it operates. I KNOW what reporters often do, I just don’t have to agree with it. I can understand it even as I criticize it. In fact, one SHOULD understand before criticizing.
You thinking Chan is kissing ass is irrelevant to my criticisms of the Western media’s translations and sensationalism. They’re not mutually exclusive. You’re still either missing or avoiding that point.
Try this logic test: Did the Deaf Olympics axe him as a representative because they think he is advocating state oppression or because they perceived his comments as insulting Taiwan? Did he lose 20,000 members on his Facebook fan page because of what he meant or because of what the media presented him as meaning? Are all those people, every single one of them, in uniform agreement with your take on this?
I understand you’re not going to be convinced and my powers of persuasion are ultimately limited. Moreover, we’re already going in circles and that’s never a good sign. So, perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
The fact is Chan has a big concert on May 1st here in China he needs to coddle the hand that feeds him after all his 霸王洗发水 ads aren’t bringing in what they used to. His statements, ( good or bad Chinese language skills aside) show that he will say anything to keep himself in good stead with the leadership. Stars should just shut up.
ST – “Out of curiosity what is your opinion of Western media bias in reporting about China?”
There are a few outlets that like to overplay the ‘China-threat’ card. In so doing they fuel the CCP’s message to its people: ‘look, they’re all against us’.
Others, as we saw last year, are guilty of sloppy errors (rather than deliberate attempts to mislead) caused by knowledge gaps or lack of research.
But premeditated bias? I don’t think so, really. News is overwhelmingly ‘negative’, be it earthquakes, economic downturn, riot, slaughter, famine, corruption, military conflict, or the banana-skin ranting of people in the public eye. These are the main ingredients of headlines.
The erroneous perception of a biased western media in China is driven by several factors. First, a laughably one-sided view of their own country and the policies of China’s government as presented through their own media. This bias (which it most certainly is) extends to the portrayal of other foreign countries, particularly America, and their role in world affairs.
Second, the general inability (certainly if my students were anything to go by) of Chinese people to look beyond the (mis)information fed to them and ask a question or two about the veracity of what they’re being told. It’s not that they don’t have reservations about their own media, but an injection of pluralism on a given issue usually meets with a wall of denial.
There’s a third factor linked to the one above. Namely, it’s the inclination of Chinese students to accept a single example as conclusive ‘evidence’ of widespread western media bias. Thus, to raise the topic in China will mean invoking knee-jerk responses relating to a cropped photo and a CNN interviewee making an ass of himself.
A final contributory factor in Chinese perceptions of western media bias is the childish aversion to criticism that exists in the minds of Chinese leaders. This leads to my first point, which leads to my second point, which … you get the picture.
So, is a) western media deliberately biased against China, or b) does it just seem that way to the Chinese?
The answer, of course, is b).
I think you need to offer more than an “either/or” choice in this. I’d say the answer is C… that Western media is biased against China but not necessarily to the extent that Chinese claim. This bias is also not (usually) as deliberate as China portrays it to be. Rather it is a more subtle bias influenced by historical prejudice (political, cultural and otherwise) and a rather natural “us versus them” bias.
My wife, who worked as a journalist in China for China Radio International, earned her PhD (in the U.S.) studying media bias as it relates to China. Both bias by Western media towards China and bias by China itself. She looked at it from various political perspectives (like coverage before, during and after the June 4 incident and coverage during various other political ups and downs) and found ample bias to go around. The bias displayed by Western media (she focused on U.S. media specifically) was statistically significant and stronger than I, a member of the media myself at the time, would have guessed. Bias by Chinese media was bad as well.
I won’t argue with you about the propensity of many Chinese to ignore their own national shortcomings (especially when dealing with a foreigner… a very important point as they are generally more open with each other in criticism than they are with “us”) and I think that China’s own bias can be extreme at times but there is most definitely bias against China from media in the West. It’s too bad your students seem to have trouble taking a more open-minded, critically progressive view of their country (and I’ve heard that from a number of different teachers but once again, I suspect there is more than a little “small man syndrome” going on with that) but it doesn’t change the fact of Western media bias regarding China.
*circles C*
Thank God, ST, had you not shown me that option (dastardly hidden from plain view), I might never have gotten past this question! You’re my savior!
Just doing my duty. But seriously, in almost every case when the options presented are “black” and “white” I start looking for the answer somewhere in the shades of grey.
“The bias displayed by Western media (she focused on U.S. media specifically) was statistically significant…”
The term ‘western media bias’ is a propaganda coup for the CCP. Like machines, all media are biased to some extent. Proving that bias exists in western media is about as revealing and insightful as unearthing evidence of criminal activity in China and portraying the Chinese as criminals.
It really is a question of degree; and there is vast shortfall of balanced reporting when media is under state control. Period.
On a related note, without wishing to question your wife’s work, I would posit that there is a greater danger of confounding variables (demand characteristics or researcher bias) among studies conducted by those that have been exposed to a one-dimensional media viewpoint, especially when research seeks (consciously or otherwise) to confirm one aspect of that output.
Just scour China Daily for ‘Chinese experts/study/researchers find…’ and see if you can find any reported outcomes that conflict with established beliefs or reflect in any way negatively on Chinese society or culture. Good luck.
That said, it would be interesting to review your wife’s methodology. And, naturally, your forgiven for drinking her Kool Aid.
Stuart, just as we like to chide the Chinese hyper-nationalists, pointing out that others are guilty of something doesn’t exempt oneself of being legitimately criticized for even a different degree or shade of the same thing. You’re basically saying: “Well, yes, Western media is of course biased because everything is biased, but Chinese media is so much more biased that we shouldn’t even bring up Western media bias.”
Not so, dear friend, I think it’s perfectly acceptable (and probably beneficial) for everyone to be comfortable acknowledging the bias where bias exists. You don’t have to downplay Western media bias to be critical of Chinese media bias. Right is right, wrong is wrong, true is true, false is false. Hypocrisy is understandably annoying, but it doesn’t change the facts, just as a hypocrite accusing others of hypocrisy doesn’t mean the others aren’t guilty as charged.
That said, it would be interesting to review your wife’s methodology. And, naturally, *you’re* forgiven for drinking her Kool Aid.
Appalling error. Could have been the subconscious product of western bias, I suppose.
Warning: Disgusting tangent ahead.
The imagery of ST drinking his wife’s red liquid…
You made me throw up in my mouth a little, lol. Imagine her (virtually) slapping you and making this face: >8-O
Drinking her Kool Aid? Stuart (damn that feels weird to call you me) her study is a content analysis (i.e. is uses hard statistical data… not opinion or wishful thinking) that was accepted as her PhD dissertation by one of the top journalism programs in the U.S. That means it relies primarily on hard statistical data, not opinion. Additionally, she is no “I bleed for the motherland” sort of person (such people generally make her sick). It is honestly very far from Kool Aid. Probably one of the most objective possible looks at the subject.
“I think it’s perfectly acceptable (and probably beneficial) for everyone to be comfortable acknowledging the bias where bias exists.”
Which, again, was one of the points I was making.
“You don’t have to downplay Western media bias to be critical of Chinese media bias.”
I don’t. It’s exaggerated and propagandised (successfully) by China. There’s a difference.
“Right is right, wrong is wrong, true is true, false is false.”
Difficult to take issue with that. What was the truth behind Chan’s remarks? My money is still on the ass-kiss theory, notwithstanding linguistic nuance. Perhaps we’ll never know for sure.
So we’re both making the same point abut different characters. That’s fine.
You’re still downplaying and you’re still seeing things as either black or white.
The point of this post was that the Western media painted Chan’s comments into a specific narrative and a truth, as interpreted by them and not necessarily intended by Chan. Like you, I don’t think they intended to do so with any serious malice. As I’ve said several times now, I think their reaction is a very typical Western one. However, I do think what they did does amount to a certain negligence and irresponsibility they should not be excused, especially in light of their influence with their audience. Linguistic nuance is a big deal when you’re translating between languages. Cultural context is a big deal when you’re translating the intent of someone from a different culture. The Western media, I believe, failed to do either justice in this case.
“her study is a content analysis (i.e. is uses hard statistical data… not opinion or wishful thinking”
Glad to hear it. But you still need to conceptualize ‘bias’ and validate the measure, surely? And one man’s conceptualization is another’s daydream.
I’m just saying, if one of her findings was that western media (not well defined by a reliance on US data) is more biased than a state-controlled media like China’s, then one, I’m surprised, and two, I think the research can be improved upon.
“I’m just saying, if one of her findings was that western media (not well defined by a reliance on US data) is more biased than a state-controlled media like China’s”
I never said or implied that was the case. Classic straw man argument you’ve created there.
Back on topic. From your opening gambit, Kai:
“…the rampant Western media frenzy… ”
A touch sensationalist, I feel. Leading by example?
Stuart, you’re late to the game on this one. Someone above already beat you to it. ;)
I’ve always been a slow learner; but let’s at least embrace my willingness to persevere.
“Classic straw man argument you’ve created there”
I’ve just re-read your post. You’re right about what was or wasn’t implied, but it just read that way. Not a deliberate misrepresentation, I assure you.
Anyway, it’s certainly been a red letter day for me; first I was guilty of ‘small man syndrome’, now I’m a ‘straw man’. Whatever next? ‘China basher’?
“first I was guilty of ’small man syndrome’”. No. That “small man syndrome” was a reference to chinese people who get too defensive about themselves and their country… not to you.
“Whatever next? ‘China basher’?” I don’t know you well enough… are you? A quick look at your blog shows a pretty relentlessly critical series of articles regarding China. There is plenty to criticize and I despise the ever growing nationalism as much as the next reasonable person but it isn’t all doom and gloom.
“it’s certainly been a red letter day for me”. Indeed.
“are you? (a ‘China basher’) A quick look at your blog shows a pretty relentlessly critical series of articles regarding China.”
Absolutely I am not, although I wouldn’t want to lend credibility to a term far too readily applied to anyone falling short of total pandering to Chinese sensibilities.
Yes, insofar as they usually concentrate on issues that are deserving of criticism, my posts are generally critical of China. And I think they need to be.
I’ve done my time writing from the heart about what an amazing experience living, working, and travelling in China was (temporarily, at least, I’m in Oz). But there’s a far, far bigger picture to consider than producing a memoir of past trivia.
In all seriousness I believe that everyone’s future is going to be affected in some way (great or small) to China’s rising tide of global influence. That influence might manifest itself economically, militarily, environmentally, politically, morally, culturally, or some combination of those factors (if it isn’t already).
If this growing influence (I was going to say ‘power’ but I might get accused of scaremongering) is used positively and responsibly perhaps we can all rest a little easier from the reality of a planet going to hell in a handcart. But, in my humble opinion, it’s a huge if.
Like yourself, ST, I find the nationalist sentiment I’ve encountered in China a disturbing trend, and, as yet, I don’t see much evidence of China using its presence on the international stage responsibly. I’ll be the first to praise them if it happens. In the meantime, it would be great if the level of debate and open discourse in China was raised, because right now the bar is set so low an ant couldn’t crawl underneath it. The Chinese government need to be more accountable and that’s not going to happen by running away from issues.
The jury is still out about China’s intentions. That’s because doubt exists, not because it’s been created in an anti-China laboratory in the west. Until the jury reach a unanimous and favourable verdict I think the best thing we can do is lend a voice to the legitimate concerns about China’s growing clout.
A strong, responsible China is in all our best interests; a strong, irresponsible China is Armageddon in kit form. The former preferred state is no certainty, and until it is I intend to keep poking the Middle Kingdom with a stick. It’s the way I show my love for the planet.
You guys are really wasting your time debating on what Jackie Chan says.
My uncle was in the Hong Kong entertainment circle and collaborated with him on several movies. Jackie never received any formal education (grade school equivalency at the best), and is extremely street smart. Prior to 1990s, he was pro-Taiwan and a part of the anti-communist actor circle, because Hong Kong movies could not be easily imported into mainland. He was also publicly very pro-Japan, because Japan was the largest market that any Hong Kong movie stars could explore at that time. Someone should dig up what he said in 1989 after the Tiananmen incident and make a contrast of what he says now. He arranged to have his son to be born in the US for the citizenship, and obtained one himself, right before the 1997 changeover, but lately has his son renounce his citizenship due to the hefty death tax concerns.
His public pro-Chinese government speeches are directly correlated with his profit potential from different geographical markets, and it is only understandable that he will become even more “pro China” (pro-Chinese government to be exact) over time as his influence in non-Chinese entertainment circle wanes drastically.
Jackie Chan is not Bruce Lee, he doesn’t have a philosophy or value system of his own. Well, he does have a value system, which is, follow the money. Jackie Chan is probably one of the finest examples of Hong Kong opportunists.
If China has an economic crash and the US somehow weathers the storm much better, I can guarantee that Jackie Chan will become as anti-China as you can imagine.
Your point of contention is that Western media are somehow guilty of taking the worst possible translation and sensationalizing Chan’s comments, in an effort to play into the typical east vs. west narrative?
I’d say look at how Western media operates with regards to celebrities, any of them, period. When have celebrities–the things they say, the actions they do–not been sensationalized? Michael Jackson? Chris Brown and Rihanna? Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (and of course Jennifer Anniston)? This is the nature of celebrities, they are true to life “mountains out of mole hills”. Clearly Chan said something at least slightly offensive, otherwise Hong Kong and Taiwan would not be up in arms over it. So if the Western media are to report on it, do you expect them to use any other means besides their standard M.O. with regards to celebrities?
The fact that Chan is Chinese and that his comments might play into a more complex (or simple if you’d rather) narrative about global perception, sound more like unfortunate coincidence and poor timing.
Oh sure, the media DOES often take whatever celebrities say and paint them into a typical narrative. That doesn’t change my point. Another commenter above already brought up your fundamental objection: that this is how the media operates. As I answered above, I know this is how the media operates, and knowing doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t criticize it for such. I support a news media that aspires to do better, to translate more accurately, to inform instead of sensationalize. Don’t you?
.
I’m not arguing that you cannot criticize the media for being fundamentally sensationalist. But I don’t get the feeling that you are criticizing them on those grounds. Rather, you’re irritated that western media took this opportunity to continue to stay on the “anti-China” bandwagon, demonize China and further the whole east vs. west narrative. I’m saying that for you to make that jump is disingenuous at best.
I’m every bit as critical of media as the next guy and as I’m sure you are. Let’s try to keep our criticisms focused and grounded. If they translated incorrectly (or rather inadequately), let’s accuse them for doing so, for their disgustingly sensationalist mentality, and not for trying to simply jumping on any occasion to bad mouth China. It’s a subtle distinction I believe worth making.
The media is not free from bias about China. But let’s not make shaky accusations of furthering narratives and mentalities when we have solid ground on which to point out its flaws. Otherwise most of the time we do little more than stir up people’s biases and their indignation, making them even more firm in their already concrete viewpoints.
Yes, I am irritated that they did this, even if I expected it. However, I don’t understand what you’re criticizing as me being disingenuous?
I DID accuse them for incorrectly/inadequately translating and for their disgustingly sensationalist mentality. However, you also think I’m trying to say the Western media only does this to China, and thus you’re emphasizing the subtle distinction that they DON’T just do this to just China. The thing is, I DON’T think it is only done to China nor does my post say so:
This behavior of the Western media, however expected it is to me personally, too often feeds the persecution complex of Chinese hyper-nationalists. I believe that is a legitimate observation on my part, and it is not at odds with the subtle distinction you think I’m missing or feel needs to be made.
I disagree that I’m making shaky accusations. I even grant that the Western media’s reaction may not be borne out of malicious intent but simply out of historical inertia.
Sure, but shouldn’t you be directing this to the Associated Press and other Western media before (not instead of) chiding me for it? After all, who has more influence in stirring up people’s biases and indignation? The Western media or little ol’ me here on CNR?
What do you think? Agree?
“Yes, I am irritated that they did this, even if I expected it. However, I don’t understand what you’re criticizing as me being disingenuous?”
Criticize is a bit harsh no? But if I must, I’m taking this position because of “This is the kind of Western media bullshit that makes Westerners look like they’re frothing at the bits to use anything they can to paint China in a negative political light:”
My point is strictly this: the recent criticism of Jackie Chan should not make Westerners look like “they’re frothing at the bits to use anything they can to paint China in a negative political light.” What it should do is further prove that western media is over sensationalist and cares far too much about celebrities, period. Any further conclusions drawn about China is simply unfortunate coincidence, including “historical inertia.”
In other words, when Jackie Chan made his comments, I believe the media’s thought process was, “Hey, a celebrity made a dumb comment, let’s make it even more eye catching and post it everywhere like we do all the time,” and not “Hey, a Chinese celebrity made a dumb comment, let’s make it even more eye catching and post it everywhere to show how dumb China is.” That, is the distinction I believe worth making.
We shouldn’t be asking the AP, NYT, CNN, BBC to not over sensationalize so that we don’t appear ready at the helm to bad mouth China, we should be asking them not to do it because it’s bad form at the very fundamental level.
Look, my intent wasn’t to chide you instead of the press; you’re not mutually exclusive. But you’re the one who is making the broad accusation of bias, and so I am responding to that. Trust me, I have plenty of words for the “media,” but the media is not some social conscience with one mode of thought. Every paper, and really every writer is a person with their own beliefs and reasons for writing what they do. Our accusations must be equally as concrete as the people we’re accusing.
And the truth is, in the coming era people like you will be the press.
dan, and my point, as compacted and implicit in that very sentence you take issue with, is this: the media, as a organ with built in editorial-review comprised of relatively educated people, does not have the luxury of claiming “unfortunate coincidence” EVEN when it very well might be. The media intrinsically exists to serve and be judged by its audience. It may be ideal but it is also PROPER for the audience to hold them to a higher standard relative to private individuals especially given the weight of their influence as a whole and how seriously they, as a profession, take themselves (what are the basic cardinal rules/ideals of journalism taught to every journalism student?).
You largely agree with this, and you agree with my charge of sensationalism. However, you just want me to say its unfair for the Chinese or anyone else to think it is more than that, that the Western media is somehow “out to get them, the Chinese.”
I think the media’s sensationalism itself suggests that the media is “out to get” SOMETHING, and I think you agree on this. However, you want to argue that it isn’t “them, the Chinese.” I think the super subtle distinction here is that there IS a difference between intentionally making a story critical of the Chinese VERSUS presenting a story so that it happens to fit a narrative critical of the Chinese. But I think that line is VERY FUZZY to observers, especially the oversensitive Chinese in this regard.
I grant that either of your two options is possible, but I think the reality is at least somewhere in the middle. I also think a lot of the bloggers who covered this story tended toward the latter option. What do you think? Do you want to demand that I choose one, or is it fair to say that it isn’t nearly so cut and dry as you offer it? As you say:
I think my post was an appropriate response to those who are guilty of what I accused. I don’t think every paper and every writer is uniformly innocent of bias and only guilty of a tendency towards sensationalism. I know you agree, just by reading your above statement, but you’re still unhappy with my accusations against the Western media. I understand, I felt and still feel the same way over the whole CNN fiasco last year. However, the particulars of both incidents are different, and I personally happen to think the translation mistakes, lack of contextualization, and headline sensationalism evident in this episode are far more egregious than how a photo is cropped.
Accusations: 1) translation mistakes/inadequacy, 2) lack of contextualization (which actually contributes to the translation mistakes), and 3) headline sensationalism.
The people we’re accusing: 1) The Associated Press, 2) Western media who used the same AP translations/material, 3) The English language bloggers who ran with the information provided by #1 and #2 to make their commentary and offer their conclusions.
Bad information results in bad conclusions formed. Garbage In Garbage Out.
I think the pursuit of a story so that it fits a biased narrative is dangerously close enough to a biased pursuit of a story. They’re still different, sure, and I have repeatedly acknowledged that, but negligence is still worthy of admonishment even if it isn’t malevolent intent. The Western media here, I feel, is guilty of presenting a story so that it fits a biased narrative. Whereas I feel they should’ve been intelligent enough to know that, you want to insist it is “unfortunate coincidence.” I’m fine with accepting “unfortunate coincidence,” but I do not think “unfortunate coincidence” excuses them from my criticisms or delegitimizes my accusations.
I understand, and we’re just having a good argument on whether or not I failed to meet your standards for the press with my above post. You think I was sloppy with my accusations just as I thought the Western media was sloppy with their reporting and presentation of this story. We agree on some things and disagree on others, and have been trying to convince each other of our sides. This is good.
Fair enough. I’d really wish you wouldn’t take my charge as strongly as an accusation. The only reason I take issue with any of what you have said is precisely because you have a strong and well founded argument to take to the mainstream press. I feel that to take that opportunity and tack onto it the possibility of demonizing China is to waste it simply because the people who are writing these articles probably are not so biased as we might imagine. As you said, writers are getting press copies and aren’t necessarily doing the translations themselves. And so when they get an accusation that goes as far as to say they reek of bias when it comes to China, they get defensive and “How dare you criticize me for being biased?” all in your face.
Accuse them of negligence, sensationalism, all of those. If writers of the article about Chan get defensive, you have undeniable proof on your side. But the moment you start to wander into “China bias” territory I feel the accusation gets slightly shaky, and that gives the media ample justification (in their eyes) to throw your whole position out the window. It’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater yes, and it’s not fair nor is it proper. But it’s what they will do and if there’s a way around that, why not take it? Even if it means baby steps and more work for us.
And I do think it’s good for you to point out the media’s errors even when they’re accidental. I’m jumping into this industry myself. We need people who aren’t afraid to challenge the fourth estate.
Hi dan, I understand your objections and I do want you to know that I think you’ve communicated yourself very well above.
I agree with your contention that proving them to be negligent and then suggesting there to be bias is less airtight a case than simply proving them to be negligent. I also agree that doing so, no matter how likely or true it may be, automatically makes them defensive and increases the likelihood that they’ll just put their hands over their ears. I agree that when that happens, it hurts the chances of pragmatic progress.
I very much enjoyed our discussion. While I’m an emphatic writer by disposition, I very much agree with the point you’ve brought to my attention. Thank you.
The fourth estate. Heh, very nice. I wonder how many people know/remember that one.
I’m glad we could have a solid discussion. I find too often that most debates on the internet devolve into meaningless caps-lock shouting or forums for practicing sarcasm, probably because they take the internet too seriously or not seriously enough.
In the end you have a point too in reminding the press that their negligence can cause extremely negative effects, even void of malicious intent. It’s a good reminder of how important the media’s position is, and how it should make them all that much more responsible and careful.
I’ll probably be around to read more of your posts (I stumbled across this one through ESWN). You have good things to say.
Alright, we’re having too much man-love here, LoL. Anyway, just added an update to my post above regarding a good Newsweek piece covering Chan’s comments that I find to be infinitely more respectable than the AP piece.
Just a note, if you watch the actual video, Jackie Chan says 中国人是要管的. Either than or I lack the super hearing that the reporters have…
I THINK THAT EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN OPINION AND WHAT CHAN SAID SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE, CUZ WITH ALL THE NEGATIVITY THAT WAS PUBLISHED WILL MAKE CHAN SEEM LIKE HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS SAYING AND THAT HE IS WRONG. I THINK THAT WHAT HE WANTS IS ORGANIZATION AND AN ORDERLY PLACE.
races against yo own race man!!!