Wow, I liked how Tom cut off Yang Rui at the end there... "Hypersensitive in Beijing, and we hear that loud and clear." What tact! Well that was entertaining and depressing all at once.

here we see Yang Rui gather and deploy with passion a series of thread-bare premises, minor innuendos, and unfounded inferences to limited cumulative effect--a genuine word salad tossed together from equal parts frustration, ethnocentricity, and a vague but sweeping sense of patriotic indignity.

these laundry-lists of minor grievances are on average even less well-received by western audiences than are one-dimensional hard-line positions--though they seem to have great appeal in China.

but as Dennis Miller so rightly said of the Men's Wearhouse Two-for Suit Sale: "two of shit is still shit."

the form of Yang Rui's argument(s) doesn't make the underlying substance of China's concerns any more or less valid. but when an advocate for China's position appears in the western media and uses discredited rhetorical devices to argue this position, substance gives way to form, and the advocate does more harm to his position than he does good. the same is true of westerners who appear and give opinions in the Chinese media.

Very superficial discussions...Unqualified guests...Waste of time

If only CCTV's Yang Rui could speak for himself.Alas not!

NPR is total liberal BS. The only good thing on there is "Car Talk" by those brothers from Boston.

My name's JACK Cafferty, not Jim...

I think Yang was trying to make his point that an international media should take international responses into consideration; and that CNN obviously lacks the cultural sensitivity when it talks about other nations. Sounds farmilar? The host Tom insisted that it's a "free world" and people can say whatever they want to. Yes, ofcourse, it's not US itself who was insulted. If US were the next Olympic host, and Chinese all over China boycotts it because US owns Hawaii island, and make the same radical statement towards US on the international air. I'm very curious about how US would react.

"It's a free world." it sounds so "righteous" and at the same time, ironic. As long as the gun is not pointed to itself, of course it is free to insult others. Tom, please define this "free" and how this "free" concept frees America from troubles? Free to shoot innocent people dead in the campus? Free to tear other countries in pieces? Free to launch the war where there are no actual enemies? Just take a look at the interview from Katie Couric with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. When Gordon stated that Europe generally does not support what US is doing in Iraq, she suddenly showed a disapproval gesture, and Gordon also adjusted his tone not to offend as well. "Free" here smells all over just like money. I've never seen a country's Prime Minister who could be afraid of US like this obvious in public.

And on China issues, who are the ones entitled to judge? Whose happiness are we talking about then?

Last but not the least, why American hosts could be this dominating during the talk; it's almost like a general American media phenomenon; only let others speak what he wants to hear. About the American election, another candidate Ron Paul with his campaign of being friends with other nations, has been kicked out of the media attention to nowhere. Why is that? Tom, can you enlighten me on that a bit?

As a Tibetan, I truly hope Yang Rui in his heart, doesn't believe all the hate he pours out towards Tibetans and Dalai Lama.

It was interesting to hear Yang Rui go off on Jack Cafferty's traffic stop. Chinese sensitivity to foreign criticism is understandable-- many Americans suffer from the same sort of touchiness. What's distinctive about the latest round of outrage against CNN and the Western media in general is the sense abroad that the Chinese are shadowboxing.

Cafferty's crass comments on Chinese leadership are accurate: figures in the current government have committed atrocities against their own people, and if you consider Tibet to be a conquered nation, atrocities against foreigners. A rebuttal to Cafferty on the level of "you're not helping things/we work with the system we have/not everybody in the leadership pulled the trigger in T*ananm*n, so don't be a jerk" would all be valid, and would forward overall understanding. A rebuttal of "he sideswiped a cyclist" makes Yang Rui sound as bad as Cafferty. Both have valid facts to support their positions, but neither one is doing anything to increase understanding, and Yang Rui's responsibility (as the "injured party" in the broadest sense of the word) is to rise above Cafferty's level. He failed.

While the level of public debate has fallen very low in most parts of the media, Ashbrook, On Point, and NPR in general has retained some of the best reporting in the US, which can sometimes rival the BBC for excellence. An hour-long talkshow will, by necessity, be somewhat perfunctory, but by the standards of American media, that stuff was gold. (Chinese media, of course, would never feature such a frank exchange of views.)

I don't see why Yang Rui's appearance merits so much discussion, other than wondering at his inclusion in this dialogue. Didn't we all stop taking him seriously LOOOOOONG ago? If anything, Tom Ashbrook was a fool/naïve for having him on.

@Ron

Insult seems SOOOO important to the Chinese. Perhaps it’s government could better avoid insulrt by acting above reproach.

comments:
If Cafferty’s racist remarks is not a big deal to you, You can call your own country and its people "bunch of goons and mobs". because we all know your country is by no means perfect.
I guess this action will be helpful to promote your own country 's democracy and freedom. Your goon or mob father will be defintely proud of your bravery.

If you think your country and people immunize from such critique.then seems nothing need to argue with you.Anyone called his/her copuntry a perfect state is really a goon (Cafferty said)

(Ron:)
Cafferty rightfully named many GOVERNMENT sins, and was not aiming his comments at Chinese people as such. THose who accuse him of racism are guilty of a disingenuous misdirection. They would do better to distinguish the people from the government.

comment:
Had you ever read the transcript of said Cafferty's comment? I highly doubt it? In Cafferty's original words he criticize China's product as junks and describe Chinese people
"basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years". I don't know What lead to your misjudgements here. I assume you are a real "goon" what Cafferty called .

(sorry I excersise my rights of freedom in speech as many westerner told me here.)

guests unqualified? Willy Lam is certainly qualified. His writing is the best around.

I'm offended by your characterization of the caller from Iowa. I'm still trying to figure out where he was going with 'An honest man beats his wife in public... ' though.

In all seriousness, it's pretty depressing to see how lost American media are when it comes to covering China. It's as if these organizations are immune to talent and expertise. Is there some sort of media training that says you have to be as obtuse as possible when you encounter a substantive issue?

-joe

@ Juan: Anyone who thinks that Tom Ashbrook is a typical American talk show host hasn't been paying much attention. He is often critical, and rightly so, of Americans and American policy. His China background is obviously pretty thin, but his reporting is miles better than a hack like Katie Couric. A real journalist doesn't back down from hard questions to avoid offense, even or especially national offense, and they don't get their panties in a twist when someone comes up with something unflattering to say to them. Neither do they truck in insubstantial provocation and character assassination, like both Cafferty and Yang Rui.

As far as the "gun" comment comment goes-- words are not weapons. Point that "gun" at the US, why don't you, and see what happens? Nothing. We Americans are arrogant, true, but we've lived with a free press long enough to understand that there are far worse things in the world than getting insulted. Give it a try, go nuts-- there will be some Americans who agree with you. We believe the risk of getting insulted is necessary in order to properly function as a country. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

@ merkel_Br:

I encourage you to go for it. Call America a country of goons. It is. Americans are crass and ignorant of the world. Overall, we're a fairly racist, money-hungry society trashing the environment for personal gain and killing thousands of foreigners for purely internal political reasons. I invite you to tell this to some Americans face to face. You might be surprised how many agree with you.

Sticks and stones, sticks and stones.

This is true to an extent, words are just words.

But sometimes words can affect public opinion, and in turn pressure governments.. as we see with the one-sided support of the Tibet situation

"Sticks and stones, sticks and stones."