Background: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) created the new leadership.
When it comes to this kind of political news, the international media would like to show their own views on the same issue. However, some media act as the tools for their countries while others might "criticise" it by themselves.
A basic notion in Chinese journalism theory is that the official media should guarantee they stand by the same line of the government when they make voices for the international political issue. Therefore, like the two stories from the official media Xinhua news agency said, they delivered the official opinions from the leaders, such as the President Hu - "CPC (Communist Party of China) to strengthen ties with DPRK's new leadership", and the senior official of the CPC - "China ready to work with new leadership of DPRK ruling party".
In western media, the situation does not look like the same. The Voice of American dug the inside and outside of North Korea about the next leader, and concluded that North Korea already "clears way for a third-generation Kim". The Reuters deeply analysed the issue by asking question like "what role might the conference accord Kim" and "how will North Koreans react" to the new leader's rise. Similarly, the Guardian explained why the former leader choose his "youngest son as successor" and how the Workers' party impacts on this issue. All kinds of opinions are gathered on media from the western countries, no matter they are the attitudes of their own countries.
As a Chinese, I admit the journalists of the official media tend to lose their own voices in this kind of political issue because of the control of the government and party. In spite of that, it does not mean they cannot be the independent observer as a journalist. They just stand by the neutral position at this moment, and they will post their own views in the future. Believe it or not? Let's wait and see.
Related links:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/02/c_13540074.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/01/c_13538842.htm
http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/North-Korea-Clears-Way-for-a-Third-Generation-Kim-as-Leader--104186829.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68Q0UW20100927
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/21/north-korea-kim-jong-un
Oct 2, 2010
keep skeptical and avoid clichéd
The 2010 Shanghai EXPO is coming to the end. While a lot of media focus on the investments and tourist industry profits from this event, this story written by an American journalist attracts my eyes by discussing the actual contents and impacts on the US Pavilion. It evaluates the public concerns and points out the skeptical opinions which is unique among so many reports.
Firstly, the headline is enough attractive. She expressed her view clearly and strongly by saying that "US Pavilion falls flat with skeptical Chinese audience". Not like some other western media who always show their powerful and supreme position in the world, this article truthfully told the public how Chinese people question the American and the originality ideas of its Pavilion.
Secondly, the journalist wrote in the first person. She humourously said she "expected to feel some glimmer of national sentiment", but she found she cannot get the ideal results. Also, she use the sentence " the Chinese audience would have a similar reaction" to keep the Chinese audience close.
In addition, the journalist use several separate films to demonstrate the ways the American designers "to flatter the Chinese". She made the story vividly and made the audience to feel like YOU just participated in those moments. From her own feelings, the readers know both the pro and con impressions from the Chinese visitors which support the article comprehensively.
However, Chinese media always concentrated the achievements of the Shanghai Expo 2010 especially because of China National Day. The Chinese typical stories from the official media were all talking about how this event "made history and set new standards for World Expo", how it "thronged with record number of visitors" and how the "series of activities held to mark" the special day.
Instead, in my opinions, just like the American journalist said in her stories, the journalists should insist a skeptical attitude rather than follow "the clichéd attempts at sentimental propaganda".
Relative links:
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/foreign-view/2010-09/577799.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Swiss_Pavilion_chairlift_goes_back_into_action.html?cid=28453816
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Dragon-wants-to-dance--like-the-elephant/Article1-606663.aspx
http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201010017487/Economics/china-morocco-participation-in-shanghai-expo-to-foster-bilateral-ties.html
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2010/10/01/pavilion-adventure-poised-to-pay-off-92534-27377228/
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/01/c_13538587.htm
http://www.china.org.cn/travel/expo2010shanghai/2010-09/24/content_20994386.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90783/91300/7156153.html
Firstly, the headline is enough attractive. She expressed her view clearly and strongly by saying that "US Pavilion falls flat with skeptical Chinese audience". Not like some other western media who always show their powerful and supreme position in the world, this article truthfully told the public how Chinese people question the American and the originality ideas of its Pavilion.
Secondly, the journalist wrote in the first person. She humourously said she "expected to feel some glimmer of national sentiment", but she found she cannot get the ideal results. Also, she use the sentence " the Chinese audience would have a similar reaction" to keep the Chinese audience close.
In addition, the journalist use several separate films to demonstrate the ways the American designers "to flatter the Chinese". She made the story vividly and made the audience to feel like YOU just participated in those moments. From her own feelings, the readers know both the pro and con impressions from the Chinese visitors which support the article comprehensively.
However, Chinese media always concentrated the achievements of the Shanghai Expo 2010 especially because of China National Day. The Chinese typical stories from the official media were all talking about how this event "made history and set new standards for World Expo", how it "thronged with record number of visitors" and how the "series of activities held to mark" the special day.
Instead, in my opinions, just like the American journalist said in her stories, the journalists should insist a skeptical attitude rather than follow "the clichéd attempts at sentimental propaganda".
Relative links:
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/foreign-view/2010-09/577799.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Swiss_Pavilion_chairlift_goes_back_into_action.html?cid=28453816
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Dragon-wants-to-dance--like-the-elephant/Article1-606663.aspx
http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201010017487/Economics/china-morocco-participation-in-shanghai-expo-to-foster-bilateral-ties.html
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-daily-post/2010/10/01/pavilion-adventure-poised-to-pay-off-92534-27377228/
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/01/c_13538587.htm
http://www.china.org.cn/travel/expo2010shanghai/2010-09/24/content_20994386.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90783/91300/7156153.html
Oct 1, 2010
choosing different resources but be fair
News Background: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett host a charity banquet on Wednesday (29th Sep) with China's super-rich in Beijing.
That's the Chinese news when you see the sentences like this - "Charity banquet of China's super-rich opens east-west dialogue". A typical Chinese media usually use the official language to point out the meanings of an event directly, even the event is not a political one.
Obviously, every media interpret this news differently by using different resources from the meeting and interviews.
In Xinhua news, it used the interview materials from the son of Warren Buffett. And in the second half of the news, the journalist demonstrate the different attitudes from Chinese super-rich people. All the contents showed the different opinions from the east and west cultures, which matched the angle it said in the headline.
The AFP news gave the headline "China's super-rich banquet exceeds hopes" by quoting the saying of Buffett. And the entire article is made up of the sayings from Buffett and Gates. Some quoting terms were revised and reconstructed by the journalist. The last sentence selected from the state-run Global Times showed the attitude of this media as well.
The BBC news showed its rigorous style of work. As the spectator, the journalist use "perhaps" to express the objective of this dinner. And he use the materials from "one of those invited to dine". So this article is like a profile story from the angle of Chinese philanthropist.
The AP making this news much more comprehensive. The journalist use the resources from the Buffett and Gates, and the different part of Chinese people whatever they attended the dine. Therefore, it represented some of the attitudes from the American sides, and offered the Chinese opinions as well.
Not like the TODAY news which just use the interview materials from one person - the CEO of Far Eastern Group, the only goal is to express the idea about "China not so charitable about Buffett, Gates". So even the journalist use the records from the Xinhua news agency, the Global Times and the state media, they all serviced for this angle. Although that's good for promoting a story, I don't think it is enough objective.
Anyway, every journalist can make their own story by choosing different resources. But I should mention that, fairness and objective would be the most important elements they should consider about firstly.
Relative links:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-09/29/c_13535364.htm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g7K0jscDmeKr1xSno8V0c6Z54z1Q?docId=CNG.164caa25dc9f9cd73359c4be468ff1ec.6e1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hN2WLoWY2aKjHObeYbB9EWr15P1AD9II33480?docId=D9II33480
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11429141
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/world/asia/01china.html?src=mv
http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC100930-0000099/China-not-so-charitable-about-Buffett,-Gates
That's the Chinese news when you see the sentences like this - "Charity banquet of China's super-rich opens east-west dialogue". A typical Chinese media usually use the official language to point out the meanings of an event directly, even the event is not a political one.
Obviously, every media interpret this news differently by using different resources from the meeting and interviews.
In Xinhua news, it used the interview materials from the son of Warren Buffett. And in the second half of the news, the journalist demonstrate the different attitudes from Chinese super-rich people. All the contents showed the different opinions from the east and west cultures, which matched the angle it said in the headline.
The AFP news gave the headline "China's super-rich banquet exceeds hopes" by quoting the saying of Buffett. And the entire article is made up of the sayings from Buffett and Gates. Some quoting terms were revised and reconstructed by the journalist. The last sentence selected from the state-run Global Times showed the attitude of this media as well.
The BBC news showed its rigorous style of work. As the spectator, the journalist use "perhaps" to express the objective of this dinner. And he use the materials from "one of those invited to dine". So this article is like a profile story from the angle of Chinese philanthropist.
The AP making this news much more comprehensive. The journalist use the resources from the Buffett and Gates, and the different part of Chinese people whatever they attended the dine. Therefore, it represented some of the attitudes from the American sides, and offered the Chinese opinions as well.
Not like the TODAY news which just use the interview materials from one person - the CEO of Far Eastern Group, the only goal is to express the idea about "China not so charitable about Buffett, Gates". So even the journalist use the records from the Xinhua news agency, the Global Times and the state media, they all serviced for this angle. Although that's good for promoting a story, I don't think it is enough objective.
Anyway, every journalist can make their own story by choosing different resources. But I should mention that, fairness and objective would be the most important elements they should consider about firstly.
Relative links:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-09/29/c_13535364.htm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g7K0jscDmeKr1xSno8V0c6Z54z1Q?docId=CNG.164caa25dc9f9cd73359c4be468ff1ec.6e1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hN2WLoWY2aKjHObeYbB9EWr15P1AD9II33480?docId=D9II33480
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11429141
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/world/asia/01china.html?src=mv
http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC100930-0000099/China-not-so-charitable-about-Buffett,-Gates
Sep 28, 2010
International news? But work for the "individual"
United State is the centre of the world. She always make a voice in the international affairs. Recently, when dealing with the increasingly bitter dispute between China and Japan over a small group of islands in the Pacific, the US cannot act as the angel of peace and a unifying bond any more. Viewing from the American news stories, it is obvious that media opinions of the stakeholder like the US, always show the apparent inclination in international issues.
The US media keep their own attitudes towards the foreign political actions both indirectly and directly. Although they use the image of the protesters holding a banner reading "Protect Diaoyu Islands", they borrowed the term from Japan and explained that it is an "extreme nationalism" in a diplomatic standoff with China. This is the evidence that the US actually stands by the side of Japan. Meanwhile, they also pointed out directly by saying that Washington "would back Japan in the territorial dispute" clearly.
Firstly, economic element plays a dominant role. Like Kurt Campbell, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs said that "the United States, Japan and China are deeply engaged in the global economy and that we all have a stake in the smooth functioning of the international economic situation". Therefore, the US media would like to participate in controlling the international relationship between these two countries strongly because of their own profit and self-interests.
Likewise, political element impacts greatly as well. As the "longstanding ally of Japan", the US should maintain the good reputation of Japan. Moreover, the disputed islands are covered under a security treaty that "requires the United States to defend Japan in event of an attack". Thus, the US has no choice to bias to another side.
So, can the media who engaged in the deputes work for the international public? To some extent, he can only work for the individual - his country and his business canpanies.
Relative links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092306843.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-24/politics/us.china.japan_1_diaoyu-senkaku-east-china-sea?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20100928p2g00m0in010000c.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ixbc11MsSSYjt96qSqcvxoYoz79Q?docId=CNG.cd0ab416a2c7901c0abb23f392c5057d.c71
The US media keep their own attitudes towards the foreign political actions both indirectly and directly. Although they use the image of the protesters holding a banner reading "Protect Diaoyu Islands", they borrowed the term from Japan and explained that it is an "extreme nationalism" in a diplomatic standoff with China. This is the evidence that the US actually stands by the side of Japan. Meanwhile, they also pointed out directly by saying that Washington "would back Japan in the territorial dispute" clearly.
Firstly, economic element plays a dominant role. Like Kurt Campbell, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs said that "the United States, Japan and China are deeply engaged in the global economy and that we all have a stake in the smooth functioning of the international economic situation". Therefore, the US media would like to participate in controlling the international relationship between these two countries strongly because of their own profit and self-interests.
Likewise, political element impacts greatly as well. As the "longstanding ally of Japan", the US should maintain the good reputation of Japan. Moreover, the disputed islands are covered under a security treaty that "requires the United States to defend Japan in event of an attack". Thus, the US has no choice to bias to another side.
So, can the media who engaged in the deputes work for the international public? To some extent, he can only work for the individual - his country and his business canpanies.
Relative links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092306843.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-24/politics/us.china.japan_1_diaoyu-senkaku-east-china-sea?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/international/news/20100928p2g00m0in010000c.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ixbc11MsSSYjt96qSqcvxoYoz79Q?docId=CNG.cd0ab416a2c7901c0abb23f392c5057d.c71
Sep 21, 2010
Proximity decides, comparisons and interests
After 7.4-the magnitude earthquake happened in New Zealand, both Australian and Chinese give high level of media exposure these days. Chinese media seems report the news by normal proceedings, focusing more about the death (actually no death this time), severe injuries, survivors, damaged buildings and rescuing and rebuilding issues. Also they care about the attitudes from the local government, civil social organisations and the public. In particular, Chinese media pay more attentions to the non-death miracle this time, as China also experienced several big earthquakes these years. Most of the articles are discussing about the comparisons with the handling approaches between New Zealand related departments and Chinese ones.
However, from the opinions of the Australian media, they treats this issue for some other purposes. The media care more about the issues such as whether it would impact greater on Australian stakeholders, and how it will influence the natural factors in Australia. Like the Sydney Morning Herald said, it focus on whether "NZ quake set" will "shake Australia insurers". The Australian's headline appears more closed relationship by saying that "It wasn't meant to happen here". On the one hand, it is the geographic position determines that Australian citizen would be more likely to know the details about the impacts on them, rather them simply listing the disaster information. On the other hands, as these two countries have the similar cultural and economic environment, the Australian can borrow some ideas of the disaster relevant handling issues from the New Zealanders.
The media's spotlights change because of the different interests, not only from the state but also from the individuals and business companies. A series of issues may happen after the initial earthquake in New Zealand, which raises the Australian seismologist's attention as well. Similarly, like the news from Sydney Morning Herald, the journalist compares the last "Newcastle earthquake in 1989" which still ranks as the most expensive insurance event with the New Zealand one. Each media will find their own emphasis by compare with the similar cases from different aspects.
Related links:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/nz-quake-set-to-shake-australia-insurers-20100905-14vzj.html
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-09/05/content_20864785.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7129970.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7128991.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7129000.html
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-09/04/content_20862032.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/world/emergency-extended-amid-aftershocks-20100906-14xz3.html?autostart=1
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/it-wasnt-meant-to-happen-here/story-e6frg6nf-1225915033861
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/quake-city-facing-decade-long-rebuild/story-e6frg6so-1225915021009
However, from the opinions of the Australian media, they treats this issue for some other purposes. The media care more about the issues such as whether it would impact greater on Australian stakeholders, and how it will influence the natural factors in Australia. Like the Sydney Morning Herald said, it focus on whether "NZ quake set" will "shake Australia insurers". The Australian's headline appears more closed relationship by saying that "It wasn't meant to happen here". On the one hand, it is the geographic position determines that Australian citizen would be more likely to know the details about the impacts on them, rather them simply listing the disaster information. On the other hands, as these two countries have the similar cultural and economic environment, the Australian can borrow some ideas of the disaster relevant handling issues from the New Zealanders.
The media's spotlights change because of the different interests, not only from the state but also from the individuals and business companies. A series of issues may happen after the initial earthquake in New Zealand, which raises the Australian seismologist's attention as well. Similarly, like the news from Sydney Morning Herald, the journalist compares the last "Newcastle earthquake in 1989" which still ranks as the most expensive insurance event with the New Zealand one. Each media will find their own emphasis by compare with the similar cases from different aspects.
Related links:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/nz-quake-set-to-shake-australia-insurers-20100905-14vzj.html
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-09/05/content_20864785.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7129970.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7128991.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7129000.html
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-09/04/content_20862032.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/world/emergency-extended-amid-aftershocks-20100906-14xz3.html?autostart=1
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/it-wasnt-meant-to-happen-here/story-e6frg6nf-1225915033861
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/quake-city-facing-decade-long-rebuild/story-e6frg6so-1225915021009
Sep 3, 2010
Data and quotes using by choosing different angles
From this Wednesday (1st September), Chinese government started to requires cellphone users to register their identities when they purchase the new cellphone numbers. As the Wall Street Journalist said, it is "a long-discussed measure" in China, it catches worldwide attention. All kinds of experts and journalists analyse the reasons and trends of this implement.
These two stories both use the graphic approach to show the current status in the cellphone market in China. They clearly reflect the trends as well as the impacts in the mobile social life.
In the meantime, they both appraise the future of this implement is blurred. They both considered it is a much more difficult thing to control, using the quotes from the interviewees.
Also, like this kind of technological subject, the data and number is the most effective words to clarify and emphasis the matters, making the stories simple and direct, especially with the combination of graphic columns.
Then, the story written by the journalist of Wall Street Journal said the reason why Chinese government want to regulate the market is that " the anonymity" of cellphone "has enabled people to share politically sensitive information—from text-message jokes poking fun at top leaders to photographs of public demonstrations". It concerned about the privacy issue against the rights and interests of cellphone customers.
However, the Chinese journalist use many examples from other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and Singapore, to prove it is a commonplace implement in the mobile market in the world. It is not relevant to the political issue, and not in the use of restricting the freedom of speech, but focus on preventing "spam, pornographic messages and rampant fraud through the network".
Therefore, the angles the journalists choose tend to determine the soundbites they select. Thinking about the Google issue talked several months ago, it is easy to find the inclination of the Wall Street Journal is to express the opinion that Chinese government try to enforce this implement to regulate the free speech market of the public, in order to censor their words.
Actually, Chinese media tell the public it is an equal implement enforced on everyone, including foreigners. And they treat this implement more objective this time by admitting "it will definitely hurt business".
relevant links:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704791004575465190777886192.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-09/01/c_13472445.htm
These two stories both use the graphic approach to show the current status in the cellphone market in China. They clearly reflect the trends as well as the impacts in the mobile social life.
In the meantime, they both appraise the future of this implement is blurred. They both considered it is a much more difficult thing to control, using the quotes from the interviewees.
Also, like this kind of technological subject, the data and number is the most effective words to clarify and emphasis the matters, making the stories simple and direct, especially with the combination of graphic columns.
Then, the story written by the journalist of Wall Street Journal said the reason why Chinese government want to regulate the market is that " the anonymity" of cellphone "has enabled people to share politically sensitive information—from text-message jokes poking fun at top leaders to photographs of public demonstrations". It concerned about the privacy issue against the rights and interests of cellphone customers.
However, the Chinese journalist use many examples from other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and Singapore, to prove it is a commonplace implement in the mobile market in the world. It is not relevant to the political issue, and not in the use of restricting the freedom of speech, but focus on preventing "spam, pornographic messages and rampant fraud through the network".
Therefore, the angles the journalists choose tend to determine the soundbites they select. Thinking about the Google issue talked several months ago, it is easy to find the inclination of the Wall Street Journal is to express the opinion that Chinese government try to enforce this implement to regulate the free speech market of the public, in order to censor their words.
Actually, Chinese media tell the public it is an equal implement enforced on everyone, including foreigners. And they treat this implement more objective this time by admitting "it will definitely hurt business".
relevant links:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704791004575465190777886192.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-09/01/c_13472445.htm
Aug 26, 2010
International relationship "game"?
The voices from national media usually reflect the country's attitudes. When an accident happened between two countries, the third parties tend to be beyond the occurrence itself, and make some independent views.
on 23 August, a 12-hour hostage stand-off on a hijacked Philippine bus ended in bloodshed Monday, with officials saying at least seven Chinese tourists from Hong Kong were dead along with the disgruntled ex-policeman who seized their vehicle in a bid to get his job back.
This accident captures many national media's attention to coverage it. Some of them concern about the attitudes from the relative countries, some focus on the occurrence itself and the coming investigative results, some of them would like to analysis the reason and something under that.
As the relative country, Chinese media sent a severe reproof to the international society. Asking for the "concrete measures to ensure the safety and security of Chinese citizens in the Philippines", "strongly condemned the atrocity by the hostage-taker", "declared a severe threat in the Philippines", are the strong voices made by Chinese media. After a big disaster caused by and in another country, media power is the vital weapon to express national attitude - anger.
In Philippines, some journalists like Babe Romualdez, who works for the Philippines star, quickly response to the occurrence. It analysis the disaster reason, the international relationship in the coming years, and the fear factor in the tourism. He acts as a spectator, but in fact, his view certainly cling to his nation. As the headline said, "the blame game" ridicule the media voices from China and other condemned media.
From the international media's view, like TODAYonline in US, it tells the public the voices from the both countries with no bias. The objectivity is the obvious feature in this kind of news. After simply demonstrated the occurrence and the on-going process, the US media doesn't stand by any side. It informed "the Chinese government demands the Philippine government launch a thorough investigation into the incident", while give the information of "Philippines President Benigno Aquino III said the incident showed the need for more police training and better equipment" as well.
Actually, many more media in the status of the third party would like to pay more attention to the relationship between the two relative countries. Like BBC, it collected several opinions from the international media, and titled it "Angry media reaction to Manila siege" in his news reporting.
P.S: Please allow me to express my anger on this occurrence. Keep silence for the victims first. I would like to say - China, please be more powerful! We are strong enough to strike back! Don't look down upon China!
Related links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11084273
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-08/24/c_13459188.htm
http://www.todayonline.com/BreakingNews/EDC100824-0000169/China-demands-explanation-after-8-Hong-Kong-tourists-killed-in-Philippine-bus-hijacking
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=606057&publicationSubCategoryId=66
on 23 August, a 12-hour hostage stand-off on a hijacked Philippine bus ended in bloodshed Monday, with officials saying at least seven Chinese tourists from Hong Kong were dead along with the disgruntled ex-policeman who seized their vehicle in a bid to get his job back.
This accident captures many national media's attention to coverage it. Some of them concern about the attitudes from the relative countries, some focus on the occurrence itself and the coming investigative results, some of them would like to analysis the reason and something under that.
As the relative country, Chinese media sent a severe reproof to the international society. Asking for the "concrete measures to ensure the safety and security of Chinese citizens in the Philippines", "strongly condemned the atrocity by the hostage-taker", "declared a severe threat in the Philippines", are the strong voices made by Chinese media. After a big disaster caused by and in another country, media power is the vital weapon to express national attitude - anger.
In Philippines, some journalists like Babe Romualdez, who works for the Philippines star, quickly response to the occurrence. It analysis the disaster reason, the international relationship in the coming years, and the fear factor in the tourism. He acts as a spectator, but in fact, his view certainly cling to his nation. As the headline said, "the blame game" ridicule the media voices from China and other condemned media.
From the international media's view, like TODAYonline in US, it tells the public the voices from the both countries with no bias. The objectivity is the obvious feature in this kind of news. After simply demonstrated the occurrence and the on-going process, the US media doesn't stand by any side. It informed "the Chinese government demands the Philippine government launch a thorough investigation into the incident", while give the information of "Philippines President Benigno Aquino III said the incident showed the need for more police training and better equipment" as well.
Actually, many more media in the status of the third party would like to pay more attention to the relationship between the two relative countries. Like BBC, it collected several opinions from the international media, and titled it "Angry media reaction to Manila siege" in his news reporting.
P.S: Please allow me to express my anger on this occurrence. Keep silence for the victims first. I would like to say - China, please be more powerful! We are strong enough to strike back! Don't look down upon China!
Related links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11084273
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-08/24/c_13459188.htm
http://www.todayonline.com/BreakingNews/EDC100824-0000169/China-demands-explanation-after-8-Hong-Kong-tourists-killed-in-Philippine-bus-hijacking
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=606057&publicationSubCategoryId=66
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)