Those of us who write about China tend to read a lot of others who do likewise. The process of reviewing the work of those who share our interests and focus helps us mature our own conclusions and opinions. So when Tania Branigan of The Guardian e-mailed to invite me out to coffee while she swung through Shanghai this past weekend, I jumped at the chance.
You see, unlike us bloggers who are more commentators than journalists, Ms. Branigan has the benefit of running around to the scenes of where the news actually happened, observing and interviewing the people involved. She does this professionally, which is something few of us bloggers can boast. In the hierarchy of first-hand, second-hand, third-hand observations and information, she’s often at least one level ahead of us all. While we can read their work whenever we want, we don’t always get to meet them in person, and get to know them as a person.
Emerging from the Nanjing Xi Lu Line 2 Metro station, I found Tania waiting at the No. 1 exit, having just purchased three books from a nearby carpet vendor. We shook hands as she commented about Beijing being more difficult to find people selling books off the streets (outside “Sanlitun expat world”) and I expressed surprise. Tania was shorter than I imagined as we rounded the corner onto the redeveloped end of Wujiang Lu and headed straight for the nearest coffee shop, Costa Coffee, to fulfill our plans for “meeting for coffee.” We ended up ordering two Mango-Passionfruit slushies (er, blended drinks).
So much for coffee, eh? I probably could’ve used it too, since I was still feeling a bit out of sorts from a rough night before (old friend in town). This “out of sorts” also served to make me self-conscious for the rest of our conversation that afternoon as, in retrospect, I largely stuttered like a confused Hugh Grant throughout the entire meeting, ending every other thought coming out of my mouth with “but…yeah.”
Tania, of course, was a class-act, but I’m willing to entertain the notion that it’s just the British accent. Regardless, I thoroughly enjoyed sharing and hearing her insights on a wide variety of subjects ranging from the recent Urumqi riots to pop music to journalism to interracial “relationships” in China, amongst other things. I won’t regale you with how Tania got her start in journalism by reviewing pop music (oops, just did) or our discussion about interracial power dynamics, but I can share one interesting insight into the recent Urumqi riots I hadn’t previously thought of and to which I must credit Tania:
Early on in our conversations, Tania explained that she reads CNR and reached out to me just to hang out (because I’m a cool guy and all). As she said this, she also told me how she thought I went easy on the Huffington Post article I recently reviewed, not quite taking Alexander Davenport to task as I should have. We agreed on the points that Davenport brought up as being relevant, but she suggested another angle neither Davenport nor I had considered:
Lhasa got more sustained coverage than Urumqi because…
- There was more access to Urumqi than Lhasa last year. Journalists this time around were able to go in and talk to the people involved themselves, to learn more about what the Uighurs and Han and the government thought of the situation.
- Likewise, more information came out of Urumqi more quickly in the first few days than in Lhasa. Was there more coverage of Urumqi in the first few days than there was of Tibet in its first few days? This then is about distribution of media coverage over time.
- Related to the above, there were subsequent civil disturbances and rioting outside and after Lhasa last year. Did did media coverage for Lhasa seem “more” just because journalists kept revisiting it each time these things happened that didn’t for Urumqi?
I think these are good, realistic contributing explanations to the apparent disparity in Western media coverage that Tania raised to help us better understand what happened and why, specifically because they also don’t boil down to simple Western bias. To be fair to Davenport, he does acknowledge these points when he wrote that “China has become much more sophisticated in its engagement of the press since Lhasa”. However, it is clear that Davenport’s piece set out to highlight Western biases as they related to the coverage and not more mundane explanations as Tania offered above.
Tania has been in China for over a year now, usually based in Beijing, and she plans on being here for at least a few more years, relishing in the journalism she is able to do here, the breadth of stories she’s able to report and share. Much of her work specific to China, along with that of her photographer cohort Dan Chung, can be found in The Guardian’s “China at the crossroads” series, featured in both English and Chinese.
Read and watch more of Tania Branigan’s work at The Guardian »
that’s pimp bro, but you meant armchair journalist, right? Hehe.
I think you have a nice site. Can’t say i read everything in detail though cos itz just too much sometimes.
Tania’s definitely not an armchair journalist. Me? If not a commentator, then sure, I could be an armchair journalist…maybe not a good one though. :|
I always envy when interesting people meet with interesting people…:)
“interracial power dynamics” – oh dear…please regale me.
It is good of you to note that there is a huge difference between what Ms. Branigan does and what bloggers do. She is a journalist, and has a J-visa in her passport. She is accredited and trained to do work in her field. There is nothing “armchair” about it, and what she does has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to what bloggers do.
Certain bloggers insist that they are freelance journalists even though they only publish online at their own sites; while foreign English teachers working at universities believe themselves to be professors; and others call themselves editors when all they do is correct English.
If you want to evaluate journalists and their work, perhaps you might start by becoming one.
you dudes are funny. I was talking about Kai being armchair journalist. Isn’t that what a blogger is? Or is my understanding of “armchair” whatever wrong?
Either way, I’m a loser fuck so fuck you.
relax…please show us YOUR credentials. Where’s your blog and website? Don’t you know that only those in the blog and website club can criticize bloggers? Dickwad!
DUDE MAN> I WAS JOKING WHEN I STARTED.
Seriously man, you guys take ME TOO SERIOUSLY. I’m outa of weed so I’m waz in a bad mood. HAHA.
That’s I quit your blog. Everyone knows I’m a dick, asshole, whatever.
Relax… I was replying to Fregus.
@ Mike Fish,
That’s pretty funny. Yes, I think bloggers feel that way. Unless you’re another blogger, you can’t criticize bloggers!
Honestly I feel that the commentary here (replete with F-bombs) leaves a bit to be desired…
Some thoughts that this interview triggered:
1. I think its hard to deny that the Chinese government is indeed getting more sophisticated at media relations. The Urumqi media bus (metaphorically, not sure if it was really 1 bus) and the internet-enabled hotel room is a far cry from past attempts at media control, in my opinion. Their reward: more balanced coverage.
2. Some in the Western media lack the imagination to deviate from the typical narrative that seeks to portray Chinese authorities as, on the one hand, evil and threateningly powerful, and on the other hand, inept and bumbling. I’ll start with Robert Mackey of The Lede Blog at the New York Times. His thesis in his piece Another Media Tour Goes Very, Very Badly for Chinese Authorities is as follows: the government arranged “state-managed photo-ops” and the minorities had “a habit of not remaining placidly in the background.” Therefore, media relations FAIL.
So let me get this straight. If the media tour only shows Han victims and a Han point of view, then it is an example of total media control. But if the media tour shows Urumqi victims and protesters, then it is a “botched effort.”
This is another example of how Western audiences, Western media, and Western politicians are willing to criticize the Chinese government for doing “A” if they are doing “B,” and doing “B” if they are doing “A.”
3. The chinese government is no longer threatened by objective Western media coverage about current events because (a) it is in English and the average Chinese reader doesn’t relly have access to it, (b) they have the GFW safety valve that they can shut off at any time if they really have to, and (c) from past experience the Western media just doesn’t have that much effect on Chinese popular opinion.
However, they *are* threatened by social media and internet based communications methods. These are threatening on two levels. One one level, it is a form of uncontrolled citizen journalism and civic commons that allows uncontrolled news and rumors to spread and take on life among Chinese people.
Microblogging, BBS, community sites, and other social media also can be used–or subverted, from the point of view of the government–for what military analysts call C3I – Communications, Commmand, Control, and Intelligence. In other words, a social network could form the basis of a communications infrastructure that enables protesters and rioters to coordinate a protest or uprising that would be threatening to the government. This general theme was highlighted by Sky Canaves of WSJ China Journal in a piece entitled Shutting Down Communications to Prevent More Protest. But I see this theme in the choice of what sites to shut down.
Why leave the BBC wide open, but shut down Twitter (who very few in China use)? Because protest organizers and terrorists can’t use the BBC to subvert the government, but they can use Twitter.
Anyway, sounds like it was an interesting conversation, to say the least. I for one do not compare the work of CNReviews bloggers to the real journalism that happens in the field by reporters like Branigan. However, we share the same passion for telling China’s rich, contradictory, and complex story to the world, and embrace this momentous time in history for this country.
let me start by saying I have never met branigan and therefore cannot be as star struck as this poster, so a bit of more objective (subjective?) analysis ahead.
I am not surprised that branigan reads CN Reviews. she seems to pinch all her story ideas off the china blogs. as a long time guardian reader, I feel its china coverage has been very poor since she replaced Jonathan watts. she is very inexperienced, especially in terms of overseas postings, and very rarely scoops and original and insightful stories. most of the guardian’s china stories these days are rehashes of stories I read on blogs 24 hrs earlier.
now, you could argue that she is writing for a different and broader audience than me (who is based in greater china) but I still feel the coverage is just not good enough. there have been many complaints recently about the guardian online dumbing down, and, for me, branigan’s china posting so far is a good example of this.
@mickey,
You are making two assertions: the Guardian’s China coverage is poor (or dumbed down) and Branigan is not delivering original and insightful stories and “pinches all her story ideas off the China blogs.” I disagree with both.
Guardian’s China coverage
The Guardian’s recent China at the Crossroads series was an incredible collection of interviews and essays that provided a rich, multidimensional view of China that goes beyond the “typical” China story. Its hard for me to think of another news outlet that has made this investment in a more “social-historical” view of China. Who would you offer as providing more depth? Maybe Ted Koppel’s Discovery Channel “People’s Republic of Capitalism” series. Maybe James Fallows blog and Atlantic essays. I’m interested in who you think goes more in-depth because obviously I’m missing some of them.
Original Insight
I think the second assertion of lack of original reporting and insight is hard to take seriously. Some examples that come to mind:
1. Most of the articles in China at a Crossroads.
I especially liked Young, Gifted and Red for painting a richer picture of China’s political elite. I haven’t seen any blog cover that topic in the same way.
2. Olympics:
Elderly women sentenced to year’s labour over Olympics protest
3. Sichuan Earthquake:
‘This is not a natural disaster – this is done by humans’
Searching the rubble of a Chinese school, parents’ grief turns to fury
‘Through the streets you see these enormous piles where buildings have collapsed’
Sichuan Earthquake school anger
I don’t think any of these stories were found in the Chinese English-language blogosphere for good reason – it required on-site investigative journalism on the scene of a major natural disaster.
Mickey, I look forward to your recommendations on other news and opinion that I should pay attention to. The tone of your comment suggests that you aren’t really interested in evaluating The Guardian and Branigan with fresh eyes, so I don’t expect that the citations above will do anything to convince you. The way you can productively add to this blog’s dialog is to suggest other sources that you *do* respect to illustrate what you most value. I’d appreciate your efforts to bring a tone of civility to your future comments as well, though to be clear I am not suggesting that you are the only commenter on this blog that lacks civility!
@Elliott Ng
I got the impression after reading your comments to Mickey that if someone expresses his view that he doesn’t like The Guardian or Tania Branigan, he somehow lacks a “tone of civility.”
I read Mickey’s comment and I felt he had a valid opinion. I regularly read The Guardian and Branigan’s column. I like her because she writes nice puff pieces – nothing serious but light and interesting.
As you wrote, “The tone of your [Mickey's] comment suggests that you aren’t really interested in evaluating The Guardian and Branigan with fresh eyes.”
“Fresh eyes!?” What’s wrong with Mickey’s “eyes”? And why should Mickey be under obligation to make “recommendations on other news and opinion that I [you] should pay attention to”?
As you so condescendingly stated, “I’d appreciate your efforts to bring a tone of civility to your future comments.” Don’t you think the tone of your comments are a tad pompous or a little arrogant?
Maybe you should try getting that stick out of your ass.
First, I think both Mickey and Elliott make valid points and I think both are certainly entitled to their own opinion.
Second, I don’t think Elliott’s “tone of civility” comment is an unreasonable reaction when Mickey’s leading sentence insinuates that I, as the writer of this post, am “star struck” and thus lacking objectivity. To Mickey’s credit, he grants that what he’s about to write may not actually be more objective but simply just another subjective perspective. That’s good.
Third, the basic thrust of Mickey’s comment is to explain why he doesn’t approve of Branigan’s work, while acknowledging very respectably that he doesn’t know her personally. He’s just expressing his impression of her work. The basic thrust of Elliott’s comment is to disagree, offer his own impression of her work, and encourage Mickey to offer some examples of what journalist or journalism Mickey approves of. Mickey isn’t under obligation, Elliott is just making a request. I certainly think we stand to learn more from what Mickey thinks is good stuff, right? It’s constructive.
Finally, I don’t think Elliott was being any more pompous, arrogant, or condescending than Mickey was. Just as Mickey can disagree with me or disagree with Branigan, can’t Elliott disagree with Mickey? Just as you’re disagreeing with Elliott? Let’s be reasonable.
@Kai
Agreed.
The tone of your comments is very reasonable although I disagree with some of your views.
I choose to disagree with Elliot. I believe his comments to Mickey were pompous, arrogant, and condescending.
@richard,
Thanks for your response.
I don’t mean to say that anyone who criticizes the Guardian or Branigan lacks a “tone of civility.” I reacted negatively to the statement “she seems to pinch all her stories ideas off of China blogs” which doesn’t strike me as something you would say to someone face to face. Doesn’t “pinch” mean “steal” in this context?
You and Mickey are entitled to your opinion about the “dumbing down” of the Guardian. How about offering some examples and evidence to support your claims?
Mickey is under no obligation to share any other news and opinion sources. But I’m honestly interested in hearing what you and Mickey are reading because I feel the Guardian’s coverage is quite good, and you both are dissatisfied, so your must be reading other sources of China news and opinion. So what are they? I’d like to add them to my RSS Reader.
Sorry I come off as pompous and arrogant in the comment. That probably comes from my presuming that Mickey is closed-minded and not interested in rational debate. That’s my mistake and I shouldn’t presume that from Mickey’s short comment. On the other hand, its clear you and I have different writing styles because I would never tell anyone to “get that stick out of your ass” in person or online! So if that is pompousness in your opinion, then I’ll be happy to remain pompous in your eyes.
Elliot… there are many long time commenters and article writers on here who are often far less civil than mickey… cough*kai*cough
*cough*bastard*cough*
;) Mike…you rat, you!
In my defense, I’m usually only less than civil to those who are being uncivil themselves. I think there’s ample evidence of such both here and elsewhere. You treat me or others with respect, I’ll treat you with respect. Pretty reasonable way of living life, right?
“she seems to pinch all her story ideas off the china blogs.”
I’m a regular Guardian reader too, but I’ve never felt that TB was rehashing some of my content. Pity.
Hi Eliot
I did not feel I was lacking civility. I expressed an opinion. Regarding the ‘pinched” comment – no it does not mean “steal”. Lighter than that. Maybe “lifted” or “borrowed” would be more accurate. This is based on experience of reading branigan bylined articles that give me déjà vu.
I have a strong opinion about branigan as I genuinely feel the guardian’s china coverage has been weaker with her in the lead. I do not offer any sources to back up my opinion, because, quite simply, I do not need to. I am not judging the guardian in the context of other media. I am judging it (something I felt I was very clear about) in the context of the guardian. I used to want to read the guardian’s coverage of china. These days I am less inclined. Some of branigan’s video reports have, in my opionion, been quite naïve. This was especially true when she first arrived, when I genuinely thought she was an intern. This is nothing personal. If I felt she was doing a good job, I would certainly say so,
maybe you are not a long-term regular reader of the guardian, maybe you are, but I have been reading for well over 20 years now so I think my opinion is perfectly valid and should be accepted as an opinion. For example, to your own opinion on branigan I say “fair enough”. I disagree, but I am not going to get my knickers in a twist over it. I have a friend who once said she felt Jonathan Watts was racist towards Chinese. I disagreed. No big deal. I didn’t insist she must produce sources to back up her claim.
Kai. No offence was meant with the star struck comment. It just felt like you was more interested in the fact that branigan took time out to meet you than by anything she had to say.
Nah, while it was fun to meet Ms. Branigan, it isn’t really about her specifically as it is about chatting with anyone who does something I find interesting. I don’t get to travel around nearly as much as she does and she has a different perspective on many things, so while I was definitely keen to meet her specifically, I generally and genuinely enjoy meeting anyone like her. To me, it’s about getting to know them better and hearing more of their thoughts.
I do grant the above was a bit heavy on the “journalists are cool” narrative. However, the reason for this is not because I wasn’t interested in what she had to say or that she didn’t have enough interesting things to say, but by what is prudent for me to publish publicly. Hope that clarifies things. Tania’s a reasonably well-known journalist and all but if you want to see me “star struck” you should see me talk about Leslie Nielson in Minnesota… ;)
@Mickey,
Thanks for the background. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for clarifying your “pinched” comment and taking the time to explain.
‘Richard’ uses the phrase “try getting that stick up your ass” and then accuses the original poster of being “pompous”, “arrogant”, and “condescending”?
Interesting. I suppose courtesy in comments is not a strong point here.
Perhaps ‘Richard’ might wish to think about the possibility that someone who disagrees with him is still entitled to their opinion, and that simply because someone might have an alternative read does not make that person stupid or their views without merit. Fine, you like Branigan and the Guardian. Others disagree, for various reasons.
Or might this “Richard” be the one of Peking Duck fame [sic] who chastises anyone who disagrees with him, and is fond of deleting comments that disagrees, all the while condemning the CCP for censorship?
Same ‘Richard’, perhaps? That would explain matters quite nicely.
Branigan is a journalist and she is trying her best to explain China. Some might be jealous because she is accredited and they are not (and could never, ever be) but that is their problem; it is not an issue of reporting or analysis.
“Or might this “Richard” be the one of Peking Duck fame [sic] who chastises anyone who disagrees with him, and is fond of deleting comments that disagrees, all the while condemning the CCP for censorship?”
I think not. On all counts.
@Fregus
“Richard uses the phrase ‘try getting that stick up your ass’ and then accuses the original poster of being ‘pompous’, ‘arrogant’, and ‘condescending’?
“Interesting. I suppose courtesy in comments is not a strong point here.”
Sorry, Mate, for the vulgar expression. I purposely used it to puncture the pompous and condescending attitude of a certain poster.
In general, I am opposed to personal attacks and vulgarity when expressing views, debating ideas, or making comments.
However, I felt the attack on Mickey’s opinion was unfair and done by someone who uses the luxury of hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
I’m sure if people who post ideas on the web had to express their comments face to face, they would be a tad more considerate and polite. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I express my regrets to those who were offended by my vulgarity.
Thank you, Richard. Good of you to do that, and I apologize if my comments offended in any way, as well.
I can assure you that Elliott is not someone who hides behind the anonymity of the internet, not when he uses his real name, real picture, and makes himself freely reachable via e-mail. I think your characterization of Elliott is unfair, but understandably premised upon your impression that his reaction to Mickey was a tad inconsiderate and impolite. Given that I personally didn’t quite feel that way about his reaction (I thought his response was no less inconsiderate and impolite than Mickey’s, or no less liable to be misconstrued or reasonably misinterpreted as such), I naturally didn’t form the same impression of Elliott. I also have the benefit of knowing Elliott in real life and his interactions and disagreements with people, and he’s quite mild-mannered.
p.s. – The “richard” above is not Richard of Peking Duck, who also used “richard” as a handle for comments elsewhere on CNR. Just wanted to clear that up.
@richard and @Mickey,
I apologize if my comments were construed as an unfair attack and my point on civility was exactly the point you are making richard – people should engage in discourse with others on the Internet as they would with people they talk to face-to-face. So I feel we are in violent agreement about bringing a fair and polite tone to discourse on the internet. And we can agree to disagree on our view of the Guardian’s coverage of China.
Yes I’m using my real name and I can be easily findable on the Intertubes!
@Elliott Ng
All is well.
Take care, Mate.
I mean, seriously, how many times have you read this same story over the last five years? a dozen? and complete with comments from a little girl stood on a wasteland. cliche over cliche. I will give her benefit of the doubt as it is in the travel section.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/aug/08/china-silk-road-kashgar-heritage?page=all
Can you help me?
My mother is 73 years old,she lived in LinYi city in ShanDong Prov. ,China.
She and my grandmother was violently evicted from her house, and her house was crashed into ruins in May 5,2010.
As we know now from the government,her house was broken up to clear the land to build business buildings.It’s illegal now for government to make compulsory relocation for commercial purpose as you know.
As we know,a company had sold the land at a price of $4000 per sq.m.,and they want to pay my mother for $500 per sq.m..It’s so unfair that they have paid nothing to her after they ruined her house.
There are 10.4 million people living in the region of LinYi, 94 million people living in ShanDong Prov.,but the disputes occured in LinYi have accounted 80% in all the disputes of ShanDong Prov. according to an official of the ShanDong Prov..
There was a homicide case in Nov. 6,2009 in a villagein a demolition.I know a demolition managed by government without warrant licence.A village was ruined in the name of building a park,actually there are commercial residential buildings.
Guardian’s China section has been blocked all day (the whole site was down until recently) – maybe due to the ‘rich Chinese snub charity banquet’ article… They do still block English articles they deem sensitive.