We all know about the irresponsible reporting and bias that many elements in the western media have against China, but when they start using mine disaster survivors to further their 'agenda', then it simply borders on the inhuman.
A few days ago, about 115 miners were rescued from a flooded mine in China's Shaanxi Province, in what is the latest in a string of disasters which have plagued China's mining industry in recent years.
However, the way in which the rescue was reported by some elements in the western media is quite interesting.
A rescue spokesman, Liu Dezheng, told reporters that, "A miracle has finally happened".
In what can only be construed as a naked display of the media's carelessness and even obscenity, many news websites and publications reprehensibly used the word 'Miracle' in the headline in single quotation marks. I wonder - are they effectively mocking or taunting the rescue effort, betraying a certain amount of skepticism in the process?
For example, some headlines:
100-plus trapped miners freed in China 'miracle' (The Washington Post)
'Miracle' as more than 100 trapped Chinese miners are rescued (The Telegraph)
China ‘Miracle’: 115 Trapped Miners Rescued (TIME Magazine)
Many of the same publications, however, are not so 'careless' when it comes to reporting miracle rescues about other disasters around the world:
CANADA: Miracle in the Mine (TIME Magazine)
Miracle survivor found as Haiti rescue teams ordered to stand down (The Guardian)
Haiti earthquake: miracle rescues and survivors' stories in pictures (The Telegraph)
Of course, I wouldn't put it past them to argue that since only one or two people were rescued in the Haiti rescue, it can be called a 'Miracle' (including quotes)!
As if this wasn't enough, some have even used the disaster and the subsequent rescue to carry out what can only be called as a stark display of irresponsibility and even inhumanity, calling the rescue effort 'a round-the-clock reality show'.
better design now.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteI'm still experimenting with the design. I prefer plain and simple designs over very fancy ones, but the old one seemed a bit too plain.
Well, this has always been the case with western reporting about China. One needs to be very careful to source his/her information and news from different channels to get a balanced view w/r China.
ReplyDeleteTo fair, not all western media are bias all the time. Here is a list of top 10 miraculous rescues with no single quotes from Time magazine:
They Almost Didn't Make It
1. China's Mining Miracle
2. Miracle on the Hudson
3. Baby Jessica
4. NASA Saves the Hubble
5. Pennsylvania Miners Rescued Alive
6. Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571
7. 1891 Pennsylvania Coal Miners
8. Prisoners of War No More
9. A Sunken Submarine
10. Under the Haitian Rubble
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1977927,00.html#ixzz0mJgIA5iq
greg
@greg
ReplyDeleteIt is true that not all of the western media is biased against China all the time - but a majority of elements certainly are.
Their are a few sound voices out there, but they generally are few and far apart, and don't receive much attention.
Are you still having problems with using OpenID? Because one other commenter (Chan) had used OpenID to comment.
You can also use the Name/URL option as before. (The URL field is optional).
You could start a whole series on the creative use of quotes in anti-China media. Great post as always.
ReplyDeleteThanks
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly great to read about the bias against China from a non Chinese person. Thank you, Maitreya Bahkal.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ReplyDeleteBTW, its Bhakal, not Bahkal :-)
I think you simply misread or misunderstand a basic style matter here: the rule would be 'miracle' in a headline involved quoted speech and miracle without quotes when the author of the story (or at least the headline) is declaring something to be miraculous. Those who write straight-up news articles are loathe to brand something a miracle, so they use the quotes of an official.
ReplyDeleteIn that same spirit of trying to score cheap points against the West over at China Geeks, you got the definition AND connotation of "deploy" entirely wrong, too, so maybe these are simply your own political-linguistic problems.
@DC: Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteQuoted speech is included in DOUBLE quotes, not SINGLE ones. That is a basic grammatical fact of the English language, taught in school. When single quotes are used, they indicate irony.
And not one , not two; but as many as five publications which I have cited do the same thing. There are many other publications which have used double quotes.
See here and here.
Hence, they are not 'quoting an official', they are mocking the rescue effort. I also don't agree with your assertion that "Those who write straight-up news articles are loathe to brand something a miracle", because as I have indicated in the post, the same publications are not so "loathing" about using the word miracle normally (without quotes) while reporting about many other rescues.
And these are not just simply my "own political-linguistic problems", since many others also agree with me, not to mention the diversity of reporting - some publications have used double quotes, while some have not used quotes at all.
And at Chinageeks, explain to me how exactly you conclude from that conversation that I am "trying to score cheap points against the West"?
The only point which was discussed about the "west" was the Iraq war, which Custer himself brought up; and to which I responded.
As regarding the definition and connotation of 'deploy', I don't think you understood that debate correctly. I have repeatedly made my point there that Custer's usage was technically correct. I have no problems with the dictionary 'definition' of the word, but just the way it is generally used i.e. in 9 cases out of 10. Using the dictionary definition the way it was used there amounts to choosing the letter over the spirit of the word's usage in a very bookish manner.
I mainly took issue to his comparison with Kyrgyzstan and his misinterpreting my statements. I believe I have made myself abundantly clear on that thread.
As an American living in China and having worked in journalism, I think you are making an excellent observation. In headlines a single quotation mark (not double) is usually used to show a quote, so I would like to think that some of the papers were just trying to be accurate. For example, there are specific circumstances when you can use words such as "trajedy" or "travesty" or "disaster." But by having quotes, they can say, in essence, "We're not calling it a miracle, but here is this guy who is." So perhaps they wanted to say it, but the circumstances weren't right.
ReplyDeleteOn an individual level, this could make sense. But in aggregate, as you have pointed out, this rationale starts to crumble.
Thanks for the post, and I'm sorry I just now stumbled upon it.
@Anonymous: Thanks for your insights. What is alarming is that this has now started to become a trend in China-related reporting.
ReplyDelete