 |
| International
Journalism
|
 |
The mass media plays a very important role in the contemporary
world. Basically, the mass media contributes to the formation
of the public opinion. In such a situation, the position of
the mass media may play the determinant role in the perception
and interpretation of certain events by the public. In this
respect, it is possible to refer to the Tibet conflict, which
has provoked extremely controversial arguments between Chinese
and world mass media since their position varied dramatically
and their views on the essence of the conflict and its significance
was practically opposing to each other. In other words, Chinese
media basically opposed to the position of media of other
countries, such as Singapore, for instance, in the interpretation
and criticism of the actions of the Chinese authorities in
Tibet. The difference in the position of the media in different
countries reveals the impact of socioeconomic, cultural and
political environment on the media since the criticism of
the non-Chinese media of the policy of China in Tibet is the
result of the negative image of China in the world since this
country is considered to be among undemocratic countries,
where civil rights and liberties are violated systematically.
On the other hand, Chinese media are under the control of
the state and, therefore, they often fulfill propagandist
functions supporting the position of the government in such
situations as the Tibet conflict.
In order to reveal the extent to which the position of Chinese
media and non-Chinese media varies, it is possible to refer
to the analysis of Chinese and Singapore media and their depiction
and analysis of the conflict in Tibet. First of all, it should
be said that Chinese media basically support the official
position of the Chinese government and they are quite skeptical
about criticism of actions of China in Tibet. In this respect,
it is important to underline that Chinese media stand on the
ground of the protection of national interests of China in
Tibet. For instance, Qin Jize’s article “Hu Tells
Rudd Tibet is “internal affair” lays emphasis
on the fact that the interference of foreign countries and
organizations in the policy of China in Tibet is unacceptable.
In fact, the article conveys the official position of the
President Hu Jintao who rejects the idea that the Tibet conflict
could be resolved otherwise. Instead, the President of China
focuses on the sovereign rights of China to conduct policy
in its territory in accordance with Chinese laws and national
interests of China. On analyzing this article, it should be
said that the author’s position is basically supportive,
though the voice of the author of the article is apparently
secondary compared to the official position of the President
Hu Jintao. In such a way, this article reveals the fact that
the role of the Chinese authority is still very significant
and the media readily takes the position of the Chinese officials.
Moreover, there is practically no criticism of the policy
of the Chinese government in Tibet. Instead, the article rejects
accusations of foreign organizations in the violation of civil
rights in Tibet and, what is more, the article does not even
admit the possibility of the interference of foreigners into
the internal affair of China. In such a context, the criticism
of Chinese policy in Tibet is considered as the threat to
the independence and sovereignty of China since the article
represents the criticism is interference of foreign states
and attempt to control the domestic policy of China from abroad.
Obviously, this pressure from the part of foreign countries
is absolutely unacceptable neither for Chinese authorities
nor Chinese media.
Moreover, Chinese media attempt to criticize severely the
opposition in Tibet and separatist movement, which, according
to Chinese official position, is headed by Dalai Lama who
has been exiled from the country. For instance, “Qiangba
Puncog’s statement at press conference” published
in China Daily reveals the official position of the Chinese
authorities. To put it more precisely, Qiangba Puncog, chairman
of the government of the Tibet autonomous region, criticizes
severely the anti-Chinese movement in Tibet. In fact, he stands
on the ground that the opposition movement in Tibet headed
by Dalai Lama is a radical, extremist movement, which has
nothing in common with the position of the overwhelming majority
of the population in Tibet. In other words, Qiangba Puncog,
as a Chinese official, views the opposition in Tibet and the
Tibet conflict at large as the conflict between a small group
of extremists and the legal authorities which attempt to maintain
the order in the region and provide the local population with
the possibility to lead the normal life. What is more important,
he lays emphasis on the fact that the riots in Tibet were
organized from abroad and it was Dalai Lama who was actually
responsible for the riots. In such a way, this article reveals
the fact that the Chinese media tends to the official position
and looks for external enemies, instead of critical evaluation
of the policy of the Chinese government.
In this respect, Hu Yan’s article “Hypocrisy of
Dalai Lama” basically supports the official position,
but, unlike the previously discussed article, this article
presents rather the personal position of the author. In such
a way, the article shows that it is not only the Chinese officials
that condemned the separatist movement in Tibet but journalists
and Chinese mass media that also do not justify the actions
of Tibetan opposition. Moreover, the article openly accuses
the leader of the liberation movement of Tibet in anti-Chinese
policy and scheming against China. In fact, the article debunks
the myth about Dalai Lama as a fighter for freedom of Tibet
and, instead, it presents him as a mercantile person that
protects his personal interests and to meet his goals he uses
Tibetan people and provokes conflicts between the Chinese
authorities and a part of the population in Tibet.
However, the position of foreign, Singapore’s media,
is quite different from the official position of Chinese media.
For instance, the article “China’s Hu hits back
over Tibet crackdown” is consistently more critical
compared to Chinese media. To put it more precisely, the article
presents the official position of the President of China,
but, at the same time, it also provides a background of the
conflict and its brief history. Moreover, the article is very
critical and attempts to justify or, at least, explain the
actions of the opposition in Tibet. In such a way, the article
shows that the opponents, both Tibetan and Chinese, have their
own reasons to justify the conflict and, what is more important,
the actions of the Chinese authorities are criticized since
they led to the violation of human rights.
On the other hand, Singapore’s media also indicate at
the peaceful efforts of the Chinese authorities. The article
“China agrees to 2nd round talks with Dalai team”
focuses on the efforts of the Chinese authorities to solve
the conflict in Tibet and stop the violence in the region.
In such a way, the Singapore’s media are more critical
in relation to the actions of the Chinese authorities, but,
at the same time, they attempt to critically evaluate actions
of both parties of the conflict.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible
to conclude that views of Chinese and non-Chinese media on
the conflict in Tibet vary consistently. On the one hand,
Chinese media tend to support the official position of the
Chinese government, while, on the other hand, non-Chinese
media attempt to critically evaluate the events in Tibet and
the policy of China and criticize the Chinese authorities
for the violation of human rights in the region.
References:
China agrees to 2nd round talks with Dalai team. Business
Times Online May 6, 2008. Retrieved May 11, 2008 form <http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,277927,00.html>
China's Hu hits back over Tibet crackdown. April 13, 2008.
Retrieved May 11, 2008 form <http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080412/tap-china-rights-tibet-unrest-oly2008-8d4ea94.html>
Jize, Qin. “Hu tells Rudd Tibet issue is 'internal affair'”
China Daily, April 14, 2008. Retrieved May 11, 2008 form <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/14/content_6614074.htm>
Qiangba Puncog's statement at press conference. chinadaily.com.cn.
April 10, 2008. Retrieved May 11, 2008 form <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/10/content_6606879.htm>
Yan, Hu. Hypocrisy of Dalai Lama. China Daily. April 10, 2008.
Retrieved May 11, 2008 form <http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-04/10/content_6605502.htm>
|
|
