BBC News lies about Chinese news media -BBC新闻关于中国媒体的谎言
I’ve been in China nearly a year, and every day I read BBC news as well as a number of other sites through Google News. Today I noticed a story about China cancelling an Oasis gig (this news is actually around 5 days old, but still, I wondered what the reason was for the cancellation).
我在中国近一年了。每天我都看BBC新闻并且通过Google新闻看很多其他网站上的新闻。今天我注意到了一条是关于中国取消了Oasis的演唱会（事实上这个新闻是5天前的了，但是我还是想知道取消的原因。）
To my suprise, I was greeted with the news that the Chinese government had cancelled their gig due to their ‘Free-Tibet’ ties. I thought this was a little extreme (since I doubt Noel and Liam could find Spain on a map, let alone Tibet). Reading on, the BBC detailed some more performers who had been refused entry or had controversial appearances, including Bjork:
让我惊讶的是，我听到的新闻是中国政府因为乐队成员‘藏独’的关系而取消演唱会。我觉得这有一点偏激（因为我怀疑Noel和Liam是不是能在地图上着到西班牙，更别提西藏了）。继续看，BBC还详细提到了其他表演者遭到拒绝或者引起争论的内容，其中包括Bjork：
“Last year, Icelandic star Bjork shouted “Free Tibet!” after a song about independence performed during a Shanghai concert, which went unreported in the state-controlled Chinese media. ”
“去年，冰岛明星Bjork在上海演唱会上表演完一首关于独立的歌以后大喊‘藏独’，此事没有被由国家控制的中国媒体报道过。”
Unreported? That’s weird…I’m sure I remember reading about it somewhere…Probably in local blogs…
没被报道吗? 很奇怪…我肯定在哪里读到过… 很可能是在当地的BLOG上…
http://www.danwei.org/music/raise_your_flag_declare_indepe.php
http://shanghaiist.com/2008/03/04/did_bjork_actua.php
Oh yeah, that’s right, it was in my local newspaper:
喔对，在当地的报纸上：
http://www.shanghaidaily.com (search ‘bjork’ 搜索‘bjork’)
…oh and in that other newspaper, the national one:
…喔，还在另外一份报纸上，全国性的：
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-03/07/content_6518698.htm
…and on this one:
…还有这里：
http://www.china.org.cn/culture/2008-03/13/content_12484616.htm
…oh yeah and on that um website thingy..you know…the big state-controlled media one…
还有网站…要知道…这是最大的国家控制的媒体…
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/07/content_7740989.htm
The last line of the Xinhua article is particularly unreported:
新华文章中最后一行特别没有指出的是：
“It [China's Ministry of Culture] said it will tighten the scrutiny of foreign artistic groups coming for performance in China to prevent similar incidents from happening again.”
“文化部将在进一步调查核实后，依法进行处理，并将在今后对外国来华演出的文艺团组进一步严格把关，防范类似事件再次发生。”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/07/content_7740989.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2008-03/07/content_7741004.htm （Chinese/中文）
Thank liberty that the BBC is now on hand to break this news – almost on its anniversary!
感谢民主，BBC现在及时发布了这条新闻-差不多在它的周年纪念！
Now brush that teeth and go to bed.
Aren’t we all missing the point here… Why would Bjork say “Tibet, Tibet”…? Are you sure it wasn’t an asian betting scandal about how many Tibets she could get in before security whacked her?
Great work Knight of the Realm DJOD aka Roger Cooked on putting the BBC to the sword.
Seriously though this a typical example of sloppy journalism i.e supplementing what you know to be true with what you believe to be true. Just because we in the West all think the Chinese media is a state-controlled propaganda machine doesn’t mean it actually is. I have no first hand evidence, just what I read and believe to be true from established and respected sources such as the BBC. By being sloppy they undermine the repsect they have garnered. People who write ‘Arts and Entertainments’ stories shouldn’t be bringing their political pre-conceptions to the proverbial ‘type-writer’ anyway. A lie is a lie even if you dress it up like a BIG FAT FACT
Falco
Having worked for the Chinese state media, I guarantee that much of what they put out is pro-govt propaganda. I also witnessed on many occasions, information being left out of stories because it was deemed too politically sensitive. Leaving out information because you don’t like it is deliberately lying to your readers, and that’s what the Chinese state media regularly does. Fact.
Having worked as a journalist in the UK, I can also guarantee that it is standard practice when writing follow-up stories to cut and paste background from old stories. If that background information turns out to be wrong and you only find out after you publish then you are being sloppy. You should have checked. You are doing your readers a disservice, but you are not deliberately lying to them. You made this mistake either because of laziness or a lack of time. The person who wrote the latest BBC report is 99 percent likely to have done that. I know that doesn’t fit with your Anti-CNN narrative, but there you go.
Oytun, you still haven’t found me any stories from March 4 2007 or before from the Chinese media about Bjork’s concert rant. And I know you won’t because you don’t wanna talk about that aspect.
As I said before, whether BBC made the mistake because of slopiness, laziness, boredom, or just out of malice is beyond the point and something as a reader I have no interest speculating in. From the beginning there was alot of commenters trying to criticize DJOD for putting up this post, and trying to defend that the BBC did nothing wrong.
It was clearly proven how that statement they made is indeed wrong. It was even accepted by the BBC that they indeed DID make a mistake, and yet you’re still here arguing about God knows what.
Furthermore, you should stop ASSUMING things when you don’t know the facts. You assumed that the BBC were right when they reported that Bjork shouted “Free Tibet”, while it is FACT that he indeed shouted “Tibet, Tibet”..a simple check on Shanghaiist linked here would have confirmed that for you. Now were you sloppy or inept or what…I dont know, and I dont care.
You want me to find you stories of Chinese media reporting on this in 2007 now? I must admit, I can’t do that. The reason why I don’t want to talk about that aspect is because this blog was about BBC and their mistake, not about China’s late reporting on controversial topics.
“As I said before, whether BBC made the mistake because of slopiness, laziness, boredom, or just out of malice is beyond the point and something as a reader I have no interest speculating in.” – which translates as “I am not prepared to let anything stand in the way of my narrative.”
I accept I made a mistake on what Bjork actually said. I made a mistake, but I didn’t lie. I didn’t check my statement was factually correct.
But no one has denied the BBC did anything wrong. What people are saying is a mistake is not a lie. So maybe DJOD should change the title of this entry to “BBC News makes mistake about Chinese news media”? Call it shit journalism, whatever, but not a lie, because just as I don’t know that sloppiness is the reason why the BBC printed the error, you also don’t know that it was a deliberate malicious lie, which is what the title of this blog suggests.
So is DJOD going to be as big as the BBC and correct its error? ie delete “lie” and replace it with “makes a mistake”? Bet you don’t.
People at the start had the tone that BBC knew what they were doing, and that it is not a mistake, but instead uninformed knowledge on DJOD’s part relating to Chinese language Chinese Media vs English Language Chinese Media . From this perspective, yes it can be considered a lie.
Then you came along and said it was slopiness, which I even was fine with as I stated: “You could say BBC were sloppy, or that they neglected to exclude the English language papers from the statement, but trying to claim they were right in what they said makes you look worse than the Chinese propaganda department.”
But as you can see, different people had different stances on the reasons for this mistake. Therefore at the time of reporting DJOD calling this a lie wasn’t a ‘lie’ by any means.
The BBC story was about wrong facts, here you claim that DJOD had the wrong oppinion on the reason. Objective does not equal subjective, fact does not equal oppinion.
I’m not saying DJOD had the “wrong opinion on the reason”, I’m saying it doesn’t know the reason. Therefore DJOD is in NO position to accuse the BBC of lying.
Do you know whether the BBC deliberately lied or merely made a mistake? Come on, man, tell me.
I never said the BBC were right in their latest report, but I believe they were right in their report last year.
Your argument is dangerously close to the Socrates argument that we all just “know nothing”. In this case we don’t know and won’t ever really know WHY this mistake happened. Does that mean we should never write or talk about it?
If he had written ‘its a mistake’ instead of ‘its a lie’ as you advised, wouldnt that equally be wrong under your logic, since he doesn’t REALLY know if it’s a mistake, a joke, or a lie?
DJOD’s assesment at the time was perfectly fair. You could argue it was abit sensationalist but then you would have to post on the comments section of thousands of news posts by MAJOR newspapers everyday. You also probably chose the wrong place to start your crusade against sensationalist headlines, since this is a Blog about funny stuff going on in China.
BTW I’m just a commenter, so my views are just my own.
“a bit sensationalist”. There, we are getting to the crux of the matter.
How can DJOD’s assessment be fair, if it didn’t know the facts?
If you’re not happy with mistake, then let’s change this thread’s headline to “BBC news erroneously reports on Chinese news media”
Come on, DJOD. The BBC rectified its mistake, now why don’t you?
So you want to abolish any non-100% factual claim (even ones where facts can never be 100% collected) . You’d be without a job and left speaking like a retarded robot – congrats.
Check definr.com for lie, the first definition reads: “a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth”. Check dictionary.com for lie; the 3rd definition reads: “an inaccurate or false statement”. The original report by BBC was an inaccurate and false statement. Therefore calling it a ‘lie’ is not so wrong is it?
Good game, thanks for playing.
I’ll stick with the Oxford Concise Dictionary’s definition, thanks: an INTENTIONALLY false statement.
Since we do not know whether the BBC’s false statement was intentional or not, we better refrain from accusing them of lying.
Try this little test. Next time a friend tells you something that later turns out to be inaccurate, accuse them of lying and see what their reaction is.
Hey, why dont you show the full definition:
noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception OR FOUNDED ON A MISTAKEN IMPRESSION.
• verb (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) PRESENT A FALSE IMPRESSION.
Anyways, we’re back to talking about semantics…FUN! It’s the exact point of this article, SPOT ON!
Try this little test: Tell your girlfriend she is beautiful. Oh wait, you can’t…because you have no fact to back it up. You have to say something along the lines of “You are, based solely on my personal observation and feeling at this exact moment in time, physically appealing to me.”
I’m sure most people on this planet see lying as a deliberate act.
What was the point of your final sentence, apart from to state the bleedin obvious?
Like I said go and accuse your friends of lying about something and see what happens. You know they would be pissed off.
If my friend acted like the GOD of his proffesion, always made sure to point out ANY mistake that I ever made, and then attempted to criticize me in a really unnecessary context but ended up being wrong….who would be the person that’s pissed off?
My point from my last sentence before, was that if everyone had to adhere to your factual standards on even non-factual matters…no one would be able to have a normal conversation anymore.
By the way I think DJOD should be flattered at you holding his blog up to the same standards as the BBC.
Here’s another story you might want to wage war over in your quest for English media invincibility:
http://www.djod.co.uk/2008/08/23/london-lie-london-lite-vs-thelondonpaper-readership-figures-mystery/
“You are doing your readers a disservice, but you are not deliberately lying to them. You made this mistake either because of laziness or a lack of time. The person who wrote the latest BBC report is 99 percent likely to have done that. I know that doesn’t fit with your Anti-CNN narrative, but there you go.”
I have no wish to argue the moral (or dictionary) definition of lying. Whether this specific case is a ‘lie’ or ‘not a lie’ is, to my eyes, irrelevant. The crux of the issue is that perpetuating any untruth because of laziness or a lack of time is unacceptable. While I would be the first to agree that we all do it, it is still unacceptable, especially for a journalist. Is it the end of the world? No.
As to your ‘anti-CNN’ referral – it was not my intention to carry any agenda into my post. I saw Ted Turner (CNNs founder) on Newsnight last night and he seemed to be astute and humble, reserving comment only for issues that he felt qualified to answer – to refer to my previous post ‘People who write ‘Arts and Entertainments’ stories shouldn’t be bringing their political pre-conceptions to the proverbial ‘type-writer’ anyway’. However, had you perhaps said anti-FOX-news I might be tempted to agree ;)
oytun
It’s sad that you’ve fallen for this east-west media conflict crap. The conflict doesn’t exist in the west – it’s merely been whipped up by the Chinese government-controlled press to divert attention from the fact that the Chinese media is not free. That is the real issue, or at least it’s certainly a bigger issue than whether or not the BBC is accurate in its China reporting.
Mistakes are unacceptable but it’s an unfortunate fact of the human condition that mistakes are made by even the best journalists.
Now, Oli, are you going to respond to this question: do you know whether the BBC deliberately lied or simply made an unacceptable but honest mistake? Come on, Oli, be man enough to tell us which one is right. Your sensationalist headline is exactly the kind of crime you hate others committing.
It seems like you’re the one who’s fallen for this east vs west crap. China and the West are not comparable, stop using your western standards to judge them.
People here already know the negative aspects of the Chinese media, that’s why we’re able to step back and find humour when the tables are turned and the BBC are looking like the bad guy.
Why are they not comparable?
Anybody that lives in China and doesn’t read foreign media or English is among the most uninformed people in the world. Maybe the bbc got a fact wrong or just not 100% right, but I’ll take the bbc over any China govt controlled media anyday. no comparison whatsoever,
China’s a country with 1.4 billion people, largely poor and uneducated country not ready for a democracy, still in their development stage.
This type of country will naturally have and need a different media constitution and system than a fully developed country.
“People here already know the negative aspects of the Chinese media, that’s why we’re able to step back and find humour when the tables are turned and the BBC are looking like the bad guy.”
This pretty much exactly sums up my opinion and the point of the post. Now LOOK HERE – Chinglish!!! -> http://www.djod.co.uk/2009/03/06/if-ive-told-you-once-%e5%b1%a1%e6%95%99%e4%b8%8d%e6%94%b9/
You’ve linked to a bunch of English language posts, was it reported in Chinese? The one link you do have in Chinese, http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2008-03/07/content_7741004.htm, does not say that Bjork yelled “Free Tibet,” it states that she sang an unapproved song and yelled, “Tibet, Tibet.”
Chinese media sees a big difference in what’s reported in English and what’s reported in Chinese. If you don’t believe me, take the Mandarin Oriental Hotel as a wonderful, and recent, example of that.
See Oli still hasn’t got the balls to say that he doesn’t know whether the BBC was deliberately lying, as his headline suggests, or made a honest mistake.
Oytun
China may or may not be ready for political change, but many countries in a less developed state enjoyed greater liberty. That’s a fact.
tom – From the BBC site: “Correction 4 March 2009: An earlier version of this story wrongly reported that Bjork had shouted “Free Tibet!” during a Shanghai concert in 2008…”
It seems that the BBC and Xinhua agree on what was said.
As to the difference in Chinese language and English language news – the question is not whether there are differences, but whether the report exists in any language.