Finally a no non-sense article!

Agreed, the writer has a very good point.
However, his analogy would be better if he noted that B hit A multiple times before. That doesn't excuse A hitting B back, or Western news sources not emphasizing this fact, but I would also suggest that this has happened because Western media's views on Tibet were formed long ago. I think that perhaps the reason for the more extreme Chinese reactions to this might be that many people didn't realize the degree to which Westerners disapprove of China's rule of Tibet.

Before I get accused of being too soft on the "Western media" (I find it rather odd to refer to the news sources of all Western countries with all their varying viewpoints as one, by the way), I think it's a bad thing that their views on Tibet have hardened. However, I also think the CCP can only blame its own bad policies for this, and for losing credibility. 事出必有因.

there are a few problems with the author's reasoning, namely:

(1) the word "majority" means 51% or more. it's highly doubtful--and contrary to my own observations--that "[t]he majority of western media were deliberately producing misleading reports." rather, finite number mistakenly captioned and later corrected photos of protests in Nepal; a larger number irresponsibly played fast-and-loose with these photos by properly captioning them but pairing them with stories of the Tibet riots; and the majority of major media outlets kept their noses clean, though were obviously sympathetic to Tibetans and hostile to China in their tone.

(2) the author's assertion that "the sum total of the multi-faceted facts and reports must be proportionate in order for the conclusion to be relatively fair is wrong because it fails to allow for differences not only in the quantity but also the quality of the biased reports. though "Biased Perspective A" may be less well-represented in the total quantum of public information than is "Biased Perspective B," it may yet be more powerful if it hews more closely to the facts and is therefore of higher quality than "Biased Perspective B."

(3) a quick search of the web shows that several Western news organizations (read "all of those that I follow") used the term "rioters" to refer to Tibetans, including the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Reuters, Associated-Press, and Agence France-Presse.

That blogger is funny. The fact that # 3 is even included is a great example of sleight of hand/smoke and mirrors. Its clever, and because my IQ is only 37, I was almost convinced that it was in any way relevant. This is the same tactic used by Republican politicians in the United States and lots of nationalistic Americans fall for it.

As for the other point, how about B imprisoned many As, used cattle prods to electrocute, raped nuns with battons, stifled any religious freedom, shat on the concepts of self-determination, freedom of speech, and assembly, has engaged in a systematic and systemic attempt at cultural genocide, and instituted a bifurcated society in Tibet where the transplanted Han recieve most of the benefits and the Tibetans very few . . . then A finally stands up for itself and lashes back. I think I would "riot" under those circumstances too. what did the Chinese do when the Japanese invaded in 1937? I hope they rioted. I hope they fought back.

This is a perfect case where the defence "China did it too" applies.

JB,

You got one thing right, that "Western media's views on Tibet were formed long ago. ...Westerners disapprove of China's rule of Tibet." So essentially what happened in Lhasa does not matter, whether it was the Chinese government brutally cracking down on peaceful protesters or rioters savagely attacking civilians and destroying properties, it does not matter to the western public. Like you said, their opinions were formed a long time ago, rock solid, it is all because they disapprove of China's rule of Tibet. Of course, that is not to say westerners are necessarily correct and their opinions have any merits. I think the Chinese need to realize that the western media/western government/westerners at large will always pick on China with regard to Tibet precisely because of this reason, what happened really does not matter. Once they realize that they will know it is useless to point out how and why western media have been "unfair".

Why do westerners disapprove of China's rule of Tibet? I think this question warrants a whole new discussion of its own. Partly I agree with JB that it is because of China's bad or failed policies. But I also think a lot of it has to do with the fact that westerners were brainwashed by the sophisticated anti-Chinese propaganda put out by the Tibetan government-in-exile and its supporters and sympathizers, the belief that China invaded and annexed Tibet out of blue in 1951 (as it has been mentioned by western media every single time Tibet is mentioned) and the notion that the Chinese government, being a communist regime, is automatically a bad guy.

JB you said "I find it rather odd to refer to the news sources of all Western countries with all their varying viewpoints as one, by the way". Certainly western media are a lot diverse than the average Chinese thinks, however when it comes to Tibet and certainly other things, they do speak with one voice.

B, the Chinese are just using incorrectly cited photos to make a point, which is that the western media are very biased when it comes to covering Tibet. Of course the majority of western media outlets did not have these problems, it is the embedded hostility that bothers the Chinese. And why and how this came to be? Going back to JB's point above.

Pelkyi Dorje, I partitially agree with your first paragraph. But ironically, in the second paragraph, you just repeated the "western media" told you again and again.

Beware, in some degree, Han chinese group is the culturally genocided one, instead of ethnic minorities. Han chinese culture received major extermination in Yuan and Qing dynasty, and there is no Han's unique characteristics now.

There is no pure Han chinese nowadays. Pure Han chinese had extincted in Yuan Dynasty. That is another story. The Han chinese now is a mixture of too many ethnic blood.

Currently, various ethnical policies limit Han but boost minorities, for example, planned parenthood (计划生育), make Han's percent in population decrease dramatically.

Good point. I hope people can all think like this.

Aside from The Economist's use of the word "rioters", there is another example on potentially misleading connotations: The Washington Post use the phrase "Uprising in Tibet". ---- well, "rioters" and "riot" probably can be seen as objective, but "uprising" might be seen differently depending on the readers' background. For instance, in the communist chinese system, uprising is always used to decribe fighting by the oppressed against the authority. you can read "uprising" stories as far as "Cheng Sheng - Wu Guang" and as recent as the Taiping.

The more the world relies on Westerners (indeed the White people) to interprete world's history on their own system, the more people around the world will find it absurb about all the non-Christian and non-white countries. Hatred against the Chinese and China started from all these petite facts, effectively and transformatively.

Michael, of we use the communist chinese system of usage, the surely 'uprising' was indeed the right word to use in this context.

as for the second paragraph: poor China, everybody is against you. A big cuddle and everything will be okay again...