What is wrong with Edward Cody's article?
By Joseph Miller
Directly following the international community’s coverage of the Tibetan protests and the skirmishes following the Olympic torch, a bellicose and unexpected surge of protest arose from the Chinese people. On the web and on the pavement, citizens of the People’s Republic of China and overseas Chinese decried the western media for being biased and distorted. The most commonly entertained explanation for this fierce outpouring was twofold: a warped vision of the West and Tibet by Chinese government propaganda and a rising irrational nationalist feeling. But after reading the Washington Post’s, “In China, Fascination With Obama's Skin Color”, an analysis by Edward Cody of a Chinese article on the U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, I think its time we considered that the Chinese might be right about the Western Media, or at least Mr. Cody.
The Chinese article in question is called “The Obama Phenomenon” by Ding Gang (to read the English version, click here; to read the Chinese version, click here), and was printed after Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee. As for The Post’s bias, it is so pervasive in the article that one is at a loss over where to begin, as if surveying a totaled car of an article. But why not start with the title, “In China, Fascination with Obama's Skin Color”. Fascination? Ding Gang refers to Obama’s skin color in a purely academic manner, analyzing its likely affect on Americans. If one has read a multitude of Chinese articles on Barack Obama (this article only cites one) and consistently found that skin color was mentioned out of context of a larger American societal debate, one might begin to claim China was indeed fascinated by Obama’s skin. Mr. Cody seems to think it is ample to make this claim for 1.3 billion people based on the first sentence of Ding Gang’s article, which (according to Mr. Cody’s article) states that Obama’s skin color was the biggest focal point of the primary. Never mind the fact that this is an awfully strong translation of Ding Gang’s opening sentence, which can be read as saying, “Obama’s skin color has been one of the most observed aspects of this year’s American presidential race.”. The very next paragraph talks about Obama’s promise of change. “The Obama Phenomenon” extols how this presidential candidate is hugely talented and a representation of the American dream. Fascinated with skin color? It certainly doesn’t appear that way; multiple reasons are given for Obama’s appeal.
This is not to say that Ding Gang’s article doesn’t have a bias of its own. It is an extremely critical and cynical article, with what is very blunt and racially driven rhetoric. Chinese society may indeed have a rather blunt approach to the discussion of race, but the accusation that the U.S. is a nation in the Anglo-Saxon Protestant mold is an oversimplification to say the least. America is a multicultural and religiously pluralistic society; Anglo-Saxons make up only a small section of the white population (there are large Asian, Hispanic, as well as African American minorities) and Catholics outnumber any single Protestant denomination. In terms of Ding Gang’s analysis of Obama’s promise of change, he seems to be making the case that elections in the U.S. do not have a large influence. He states that Obama may represent change, but actually is in line with mainstream U.S. values and can do very little when he enters office. In addition, he compares the election between John McCain and Barack Obama as changing actors on a stage, reinforcing the idea that U.S. elections are a sham. Of course, because Ding Gang is a writer for the People’s Daily (a government supported newspaper) it might be in his interests to state that elections fail to change the government’s situation. To be as cynical as Ding Gang is a bit ridiculous. Hardly a mere actor, the U.S. president is a legislative, executive, and symbolic force. Barack Obama, with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress in tow, could make many real changes to U.S. military, economic, and trade policies. As a head of state, he could be a powerful, transformative symbol of a multicultural society. If he manages to have a successful presidency, he might forever dispel the notions of racial inferiority. This being said, Edward Cody’s critique of Ding Gang is simply flawed.
Perhaps one of the most mirthfully ridiculous claims Cody makes is in his first paragraph. He states: “America may be discussing whether Barack Obama is tough enough to field a 3 a.m. phone call, but for the Chinese Communist Party's official newspaper, the real issue is his race.” Having read Ding Gang’s article, it is baffling that Cody would write such a sentence considering that Ding Gang does discuss whether American’s think Obama is tough enough to answer the infamous 3 A.M. phone call. Ding Gang writes, “To borrow from the Hillary and Obama campaign’s advertisements, perhaps what may in the end decide people’s vote is the frame of mind, “Imagine its 3:00 A.M. at the White House and the red phone is answered; if the person answering is McCain, it would be more reassuring.”
It’s clear that Mr. Cody has no grasp of “The Obama Phenomenon” or the Chinese view in general. In any translation of a Chinese article that discusses skin color one is immediately struck by how the Chinese language uses the terms “black people”, “white people”, and skin color. The Chinese are not delicate about racial features, and as of yet haven’t taken on the politically correct language that many in the U.S. expect. Ding Gang’s article is no exception. He is blunt about the issue of race and gives a very straightforward argument on how Obama relates to American society and African Americans in general. However, can one truly say that the WASP driven culture, assimilation, and Obama’s relation to the African American community are settled issues? It likewise seems ridiculous to use Ding Gang’s article to paint him and the entire Chinese people as “fascinated” with skin color.
Mr. Cody uses a broad brush indeed. It’s quite clear by the third paragraph that he is using Ding Gang’s article to attack China on its treatment of Tibetans, Uighurs, and minorities in general. In a particularly snide remark, he states, “The editorial sought to explain that Obama's breakthrough should not be understood as a demonstration that race relations have crossed a threshold in the United States that China has yet to approach.” While it is true Ding Gang posited that one of the biggest factors in the primary was Obama’s skin color, Mr. Cody never really made an argument against that idea. Instead, he decided to use the painfully weak method of arguing against a foreign reporter by attacking him for the policies of a government in which he had no say, and have nothing to do with Ding Gangs article.
Perhaps more foul is Cody’s implication that Ding Gang is not a real person: “Ding Gang, a name frequently assigned to important analyses in a publication that plays the role of party bulletin board. Chinese journalists said they believe it is a pen name used by senior editors or other party propaganda officials conveying an official point of view.” In actuality, Ding Gang is the associate director of the International Department of The People’s Daily and “The Obama Phenomenon” appeared in its overseas edition. That Mr. Cody would make such an egregious error as calling the author’s existence into question is shocking, but as it appears he failed to do so much as read Ding Gang’s article it’s hard to imagine Mr. Cody thoroughly inquiring into fallacious hearsay regarding the Chinese writer.
In the West we tend to believe that we are privy to the most accurate press in the world; free of bias and factually accurate. But with China bashing inaccurate articles like, “In China, Fascination with Obama's Skin Color”, it is time we had a look at what newspapers and 24 hour news/entertainment channels are calling news. For an article that so distorts a Chinese author’s message (as well as claiming he isn’t real) to lash out against the Chinese government is reprehensible, especially since the original is not readily readable by the average Washington Post consumer. The blatant inability to have a coherent argument, accurately represent a foreign article, do basic fact checking, and leave out anti-Chinese sentiment makes Edward Cody and the Washington Post resemble a ridiculous screed. How ridiculous do the claims that China’s media is censored and useless appear when the Washington Post uses their freedom of speech to run a tabloid and call it news?
No comments:
Post a Comment