I've actually seen this on CCTV9 on Friday and they interviewed more than the Ukranian correspondent. The best of all was that Turkish reporter who said, that he felt that the government was giving them even TOO much freedom.
All of the interviewed were non-English native speakers though, thus they just got dubbed by some Chinese person speaking English. Probably all reporters they interviewed could only speak Mandarin. ;-)
CCTV is always worth a laugh.

The new CCTV building perfectly represents CCTV: a crooked eyesore that causes a chuckle every time you look at it. Same goes for it's actual news reporting.

I bet the designer accidentally clicked on goatse when he came up with the design...

OMG, why am I putting this crap into you people's minds...

Chris, thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the debate surrounding the design by Scheeren & Kolhaas for the new CCTV headquarters. The design is quite radical (according to Scheeren, it "breaks every single building code in China"), and many local architects share your discomfort with it. In fact, the architectural historian Xiao Mo (蕭默) has asserted the design "is a fundamental mistake. It's too strange, does not suit Chinese perceptions of beauty and makes people uncomfortable because it is not straight."

On the other hand, his main criticism of western architects seems to be that they don't understand Chinese culture, and that this ignorance is reflected in their designs (in fact, he has referred to the new CCTV headquarters and National Theatre as "stains on Chinese history"), whereas you seem to think the design suits CCTV perfectly, based on your understanding of "it's [sic] actual news reporting."

Two comments:

1. There is a crooked eyesore in the structure of your second sentence.

2. While I agree that news reporting on CCTV leaves much to be desired, it typically isn't worse than other public broadcasters such as the BBC (which is often noxious), or private networks such as CNN or Fox (which can both perhaps be most generously characterized as 'lazy'), and can sometimes even be better. Yes, it does broadcast propaganda, which does include lies on occasion and partial truths on a regular basis, but generally provides credible information, in spite of censorship.

In contrast, consider your own blog. In an article posted 14 Jan on Guangzhou, you begin by writing:

"It might be the third biggest city in China, but Guangzhou is nothing like Beijing or Shanghai. It’s a place where anarchy and chaos still rules and people’s ignorance has no boundaries. In short the place is a f**king hell-hole that can take your life."

You could write anything, and you wrote that. In comparison, Murdoch's Fox looks fair and balanced. I challenge you to find a PRC or western news agency that would give this description even to gangland battles in Gaza or intertribal violence in Kenya. This type of writing is more commonly found in publications and broadcasts from countries such as Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia - although sans expletives.

The distortions in CCTV reporting can generally be explained as effects of censorship. What's your excuse?

You might be interested to know that the types of incidents for which you provide videos are reported in the official media, and are in fact common knowledge. Solving such problems is a different issue. Since you're obviously a highly astute guy, perhaps you could provide some suggestions to this end.

Thank you Mr. Online Spell Checker for your invaluable reply. Have you been in China for so long that you actually believe the crap they're feeding you?

1. The design looked promising and I was quite intrigued by it, until they built a bridge between the two towers that is. Then it became an eyesore, and it gets uglier on a daily basis. Even worse I see it every time I look out my window. So I'm sorry if I don't find it fascinating.

2. Involving my personal blog in this discussion doesn't prove your point. I'm not running a "news agency". Get this it's a PERSONAL BLOG, I write whatever I feel like. It's meant for entertainment purposes only and not to provide people with credible unbiased information.

3. About my post on Guangzhou, I'll quote a sentence from the second paragraph since you seem to have a hard time comprehending it. "after stumbling upon a certain video on youtube.com I just can’t get the images out of my head. That’s why I’m writing this post in order to vent, so I can continue writing stupid but lighthearted posts again."

So before you write another 300 word comment showing off your literacy but making no point whatsoever, maybe just turn on your tv and watch the news for half an hour. If you still feel like defending CCTV and their reports afterwards, I'd like to see it.

Looks like Du Yisa is itching for another flame war. The standard process is anger and vitriol followed by appeasement several posts down the line. watch this space.

still, on the subject of architecture, I have never understood how 'traditionalists' attack the likes of the national theater for not respecting Chinese history and yet have no problem with the much bigger eyesore just 100 metres away - the great hall of the people - which is an even bigger two fingers up to chinese architectural history. (of course, I understand exactly why, but this doesn't stop it grating)

and du yisa, if my sentence(s) are also full of eyesores, you should know in advance that I don't care so don't bother

Chris, sorry you missed the point. It is precisely that having a personal blog on which you can write whatever you like gives you the freedom to determine its quality without censorship, and what you have so far produced isn't even good enough to be on CCTV. I say this with complete confidence, as I have seen both. In case you think that's just an opinion, you still didn't understand my last comment, not that it matters.

By the way, what I called your attention to in your writing was not your spelling. The point of using your own phraseology was to indicate that you know even less about architecture. Well, ignorance never prevented anyone from their opinions.

That said, my previous comment and this one are not written for you. You're simply an illustrative example of a certain type of foreigner that is quite common in China.

Yes, there is crime and violence in Guangzhou, among other places. There are also a lot of people in this country, and they are rapidly migrating into cities in which there aren't enough jobs or even space for all of them. Everyone knows. This was old news over a decade ago.

You watch it online. We live with it. If you really care more about strangers than your own safety as you wrote in your comment below your own blog entry, get involved. But be warned: thieves and gangsters tend to move in groups and carry weapons, and there are lots of them. New groups quickly fill the void when existing ones are broken by the authorities. Again, everyone knows.

Unless you have an obvious plan for dealing with this problem that we're all just too stupid to recognize, it doesn't really behoove you to hold yourself above the locals by calling them cowardly and saying that their ignorance has no boundaries. I suggest the situation is in fact somewhat different.

Mike, I think the answer to your interesting question about Beijing landmarks is probably ideology. The Great Hall of the People embodies a clear ideological significance (which is Stalinist), whereas the new architectural marvels do not. They're technological and visual grandstanding. You could argue that the PRC authorities are very forward-thinking in their decisions as they recreate the city, or that they're ideologically lost, or both, or perhaps that they have a clear vision of society that they want to establish through facts on the ground rather than with ideology, which was the practice of the government for many decades, and didn't work out particularly well in many areas.

Anyway, the point is that the new buildings present a disruption of how some understand historical continuity in the city, without having a clear national identity or narrative to justify their presence. The best one on offer currently seems to be simply that China is finally joining the world as a major player. This still leaves people with something of an identity crisis, as you might have noticed.

Finally Mike, I don't care about your writing either. However, I do care about your ideas, and I trust you can recognize that.

Cheers

I guess opinions of regular people on architecture don't matter, since we don't know jack, right? Since the architects design buildings to be admired by only the select group of people who have knowledge in architecture and it's history. Nobody should care what the masses have to say.

What type of foreigner am I? Care to elaborate?

While you think of a comeback, let me tell you what kind of foreigner you are and why your previous statements mean nothing.

You're the type of foreigner that's got a cushy job with a western salary, live in an upscale expat community, you don't really have working class Chinese friends, but when talking about the Chinese society you use the word "WE". Tell me how exactly do you live with the crime and gang killings? Just because you've been here longer than most foreigners, doesn't mean you're a part of the Chinese society, so don't try to act as if I'm insulting your people.

Second, I've been in many situations where it didn't involve me, but still stepped in and got beaten up, cut or stabbed in the process. And that happened in multiple countries, but only in China I've seen people admire the show while someone is getting beaten up. I know I can't change the people, but I can at least blog about it. And can you tell me, why I should conform and **s kiss on my own blog? If that's the direction I want to take it in, no dumb comments on danwei are gonna make me change my mind.

So yeah dude, whoever you are, next time while you're sipping your Starbucks Mocha and defending the image of "your people" online, don't involve personal blogs. It really doesn't make any valid point in a discussion about CCTV reporting, it's just trying to move in for the low blow.

Chris, I never said your opinion of the new CCTV headquarters doesn't matter, in spite of the fact that you obviously don't know "it's [sic] history" (it's obvious because you commented that "[t]he design looked promising... until they built a bridge between the two towers," which demonstrates you had no idea what the design was to begin with). As it happens, what you wrote about architects is also generally false, which you would know if you paid any attention to them. Nevertheless, you are welcome to your opinion. You don't have to visit the glass-floored observation deck that will be built into the span between the two towers of the new CCTV building if you aren't intrigued by it.

In fact, Chris, I compared your assessment to the reactions of local architects and architectural historians, to show that you are not alone in having a negative impression. The building is controversial. However, whether you love it, loathe it, just don't care, etc., the fact remains that the building is a technical tour de force, whereas you're a guy who doesn't have a coherent critique on any level (I gave you the opportunity to offer one), and who lacks a command of even basic grammar, just to keep things in perspective. I assume you teach English.

Chris, everything you wrote about me happens to be wrong, except for noting my use of the pronoun 'we'. As it happens, I am part of Chinese society. The rest isn't your business.

Regarding your blog, no one has told you to conform or "**s kiss" except yourself. Of course, it's easier to adopt a gratuitous posture like "Fight the power, man! CCTV sucks!" than to understand how things work, which can be somewhat complicated. Someone has to keep things running so that you can blog about how rebellious you imagine you are and go to bars instead of hunting, gathering, and wiping your ass with sticks and leaves. In fact it is precisely society that makes it possible for you to do what you do. You exemplify conformity.

You attack CCTV for its generally recognized limitations, while simultaneously excusing your own even weaker efforts, because, well, they have more money and a larger audience than you, and they represent the government and you don't. They also have far more responsibility and much less freedom of expression, and are actually held accountable for what they say. Right on, dude! Fight the power! Let's get some government-subsidized beer and hit on some chicks who can understand English because of their government-run education! CCTV sucks!

On the subject of street violence: Think for a minute. If you're a store owner, and you have no choice but to pay protection money to a local gang (whether contracted by the government or not), why should you intervene if someone who wants to rob you is being beaten (as was evidently the case in one video you posted)? If nothing is done to them, they are guaranteed to come back, which is your loss. If you're a customer, are you going to risk permanent injury or even questionable medical care you can't afford in order to defend someone who would just as soon steal from you anyway? It's too much trouble if your plan is to have a family, career, or business rather than just get together with your drunk friends and show off your scars. Also, if you are injured and later explain you went out of your way to help a thief, you won't get any sympathy. People will correctly question your intentions. If you are injured from stopping a robbery, people will respect your intent, but consider you imprudent. What you should have done was to act as part of the community. Perhaps that's exactly what you thought you were doing, but it was not. How this works is as follows:

If you pay attention to actual situations instead of just watching videos, you will see people intervene to defuse conflicts before they come to blows, even between strangers. This is done through groups, not by individuals. Generally, if two or more guys are fighting, they won't care whether one other person wants them to stop or not. However, a group of onlookers can frequently help situations de-escalate. This has actually happened to me on more than one occasion, much to my benefit. People will involve themselves when they see something can be resolved with discussion, or even limited physical contact, and prudently stand aside when it can't.

To understand the nature of these situations, it helps to have some context. Simply to watch a few videos and then decide the people standing around are just there to "admire the show" is really pretty ignorant. In fact, Chris, you don't need to "change the people" here. You don't have that mandate. However, you might try to understand the people here, and maybe you will change one another - maybe even in ways you never expected. On the other hand, if you prefer simply to riff on how far beneath you your own ignorance makes the people here seem, and compliment yourself on your own bravado, I would refer readers to my previous comment on foreigners above.

I trust further elaboration isn't necessary.