Comparing Taiwan and the U.S.’s media of the overall reporting perspectives on Taiwan’s presidential election

March 22, 2008, the historical moment for Taiwanese to practice the democracy again by voting for the next president. Ma Ying-Jeou, the candidate of Nationalist’s Party, was elected in the forth direct presidential election in Taiwan. It is quite interesting to look at this event through the reports from different countries, especially form local, and the U.S perspectives.

From the U.S. media, such as the New York Times, we can see more descriptions about Ma Ying-Jeou himself, and his family, emphasizing he is a Harvard-educated elite. It is a fair treatment because most Americans are not familiar with the candidates, not to mention the domestic issues in Taiwan. But interestingly enough, when it comes to Taiwan’s standpoint to Chinese Government, the New York Times reporter said the two parties provide “slightly different” approaches to maintain a relationship with China, while Taiwan’s media often use more strong adjectives such as “opposing viewpoints”, “strongly disagree to each other’s opinions ”, or “condemn the counterparts’ attitude on the issue across the Taiwan Strait” to illustrate two election campaigns’ very different standpoints. Another article on the New York Times indicates that the result of this election is positive news for the U.S., and this article also points out that since Taiwan elects a supporter of closer Mainland ties, Washington will be relieved that at least the relationships among the U.S., China and Taiwan could be more stable than past few years. The application to join the U.N under the name of Taiwan and the referendum provoked a lot of issues between supporters and opponents in Taiwan, in China, as well as the White House. And it seems that most people in the U.S who follow the presidential election in Taiwan are optimistic about the results.

Nationalist’s Party and Democratic Progress Party (DPP) are two major political parties in Taiwan, and the biggest difference between these two is their attitude toward Mainland China. Nationalist Party holds a view that “One China” is negotiable and seeks for closer relations with China. While DPP, a relatively young party established in 1986, insists that Taiwan is an independent entity and should has a self- government. Therefore, what happened in Tibet few weeks ago has been a big surprise during this election, and Chinese government’s suppression on Tibet raised an intense debate. Since Tibet is unrest, it has quickly became a domestic issue in Taiwan’s presidential election and both parties showed that they’re going to be tougher now when facing Chinese government. In Taiwan, the bleeding rebellion became the headline news on prime-time newscasts and the No.1 issue discussed in several famous talk shows. Besides showing sympathy about Tibetan, somehow I think the two election campaigns, and the news programs were both overdone with the Tibetan rebellion during the election period, repeating day after day for the similar speeches from two presidential candidates, and many Taiwanese people were upset with the situation in Taiwan and worried about being the next victim under the threaten of Chinese government, which I think is an unnecessary and imbalanced comparison.

But anyway, I am so glad to see that the presidential election in Taiwan finished peacefully. One should never forget the fundamental obligation of being a leader of a country is to build up a harmonious society first, than he or she is qualified to lead the country to a prosperous, promising future. Democracy is either a tool for politicians to fool people around or a slogan for citizens to be proud of. Rather, it is only through reasonable practices that could manifest the value of democracy. President-elect Ma, Ying-Jeou is going to become the new president of Taiwan after the inauguration on May 20. It is time for him and his team to demonstrate their abilities to people in this island as well as people around the world that if they are qualified to lead this country. Time will tell, and people will use their ballots to make a choice.



Sources:

The New York Times:
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/for-the-us-positive-news/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/asia/24taiwan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


News form Taiwan:
http://www.cna.com.tw/2008PresidentialElection/ShowTopicNews.aspx?TopicNo=0463&NewsID=200803210129&strType=&PageNo=1

http://www.worldjournal.com/pr/taiwanvote/twv_news.php?nt_seq_id=1688626&sc_seq_id=3825

http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS1/4265334.shtml

http://times.hinet.net/SpecialTopic/2008_vote/news.jsp?id=1421220

Chinese News Regulation

The United States and European Union are taking action through the World Trade Organization to push China into lifting restrictions on foreign news distribution within the country. Currently, outside news organizations (such as newswire distributions) must distribute content through a Chinese-government regulated agency such as Xinhua. The New York Times stated that the proposed change in policy would open doors for business information & news companies including the Dow Jones, Bloomberg, Reuters and others. The news organizations argue that China's restrictive policies currently limit their abilities to sell news information to banks, businesses, and other customers throughout China.

But, as trade restrictions between U.S./Europe and China relax in the the 21st century, are severe actions such as filing claims with the W.T.O. hurting or helping international relationships? In the NY Times article, a Unites States trade official, Susan Schwab said "China's restrictive treatment of outside suppliers of financial information services places U.S. and other foreign suppliers at a serious competitive disadvantage." But, isn't that the point of such regulations?

A spokesman for China's foreign ministry says the regulatory action will help standardize news releases and help protect intellectual-property rights for foreign news services in the country (Asia Times Online).

With high speed internet and satellite communications able to beam information around the globe in milliseconds, it's no wonder that countries like China are taking steps to protect domestic communications agencies from being dominated in the open market by Western communications superpowers. Schwab's comments reveal that this is not merely a communications or a free speech issue for either the West or China. This is a business issue at its heart. To begin a serious discussion of opening further communication services between China and the U.S./Europe, we need to take a step back to examine this issue in the much larger context of mismatched economic policies among these nations.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/business/worldbusiness/04trade.html?ref=todayspaper (requires NY Times login)

Additional resources:
Asia Times Online
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HI14Ad01.html

International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/03/business/3wtofw.php

The Interpretation of Cuban Leader Changing in the US and China

On February 19, 2008, Cuban leader Fidel Castro announced that he decided to resign, and would not accept a new term as president or commander-in-chief. On February 24, 2008, Raul Castro, Fidel Castro’s younger brother, was elected as the new president of Cuba, ending Fidel Castro’s near half century rule. As the special relationship between Cuba and America, the Cuban leader changing has brought up some attention to the American media, and Chinese media have been reporting Fidel Castro’s resignation as well.

American media mainly focus on Castro’s quitting, the new regime of Cuba, making prediction about the future relationship between the US and Cuba, which has just ushered a new leader. New York Times, for instance, published an article Castro Quits One Role, but May Not Be Done Yet that indicated the if Raul was elected to be the new leader, the power would still be remained to the Castros, which means Cuba was actually not so eager to seek a change either of itself nor with Washington. Two articles on New York Times and Washington Post paid attention to the action Raul took on human rights in Cuba just a few days after he became the president of this country, reviewing that Raul’s policy implied he would like to improve Cuba’s current state of human rights rather than his brother Fidel, of course in the condition of himself being in charge of the country.

In the meantime, with regard to Cuban leader’s changing, Chinese media report more about Fidel Castro himself, and his achievements as a great leader of a communist country. Words like “icon” and “legend” are commonly used in the reports. They generally emphasize that as the new president of Cuba, Raul will lead the country wisely as his brother did, while Fidel will still be the spiritual leader of Cuba. Some of the reports, but not too many, talked about the change of international relation (basically with the US) that Cuban leader changing would bring, and these views are usually mentioned in the special columns that demonstrate Fidel himself.

I understand the difference between the reports from China and America. From American perspective, the US has been imposing embargo against Cuba since February 1962, both the American government and media are paying attention on Cuban leader changing, and are looking on the changes it might bring to the Cuba-US relationship. China is a communist government leading country as well as Cuba, and these two countries have always had a “friendship” like most of the Chinese media say, therefore, China does not pay attention much on a “change”, but on Fidel himself. The American and Chinese different attitudes and points of view on Cuban leader changing actually reflect the difference of their media system and social system.




Sources:

New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/americas/20cuba.html?pagewanted=2&sq=Castro&st=cse&scp=4

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/americas/25cuba.html?st=cse&sq=Castro&scp=5

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/world/americas/01cuba.html?st=cse&sq=Castro&scp=1

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030100491.html?sub=AR

ChinaNews.com:

http://www.chinanews.com.cn/gj/gjxqdb/news/2008/02-28/1176745.shtml

xinhuanet.com (the official Website of Xinhua Agency):

http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/kasiteluo.htm

The Comparison between Chinese and American Media on Reporting the Independence of Kosovo

Kosovo announced its independence to the whole world on February 17^th, 2007. Kosovo, once an autonomous province of former Yugoslav Republic of the Union of Serbia, started fighting for independence since 1980^th. Since then, discussion on this issue in United Nation has always had no results and the confliction in that area has never stopped. Consequently, Kosovo’s announcement was like a bomb which attracted all countries’ attention. It became the headline of every media’s news on that day. Here I just want to make a comparison between Chinese media and American media on this issue. The source I use is basically from CNN’s news on website, peoplle.com.cn and Phoenix TV’s news on website.

First of all, after browsed all these websites, the first impression I got was that Chinese media seemed to pay more attention on this issue. All of these three media especially set a column for it but Chinese media made more specifically report. In people.com.cn and Phoenix TV’s website, we can see there are different categories which are latest news update, background information, professional view, reaction all over the world and related pictures and videos. On the other hand, in the CNN’s website, although there are different categories, the content is not as rich as Chinese ones. For example, there is not so much deep analysis from experts and there are also not so many related pictures reports in the website.

Secondly, the angle of the reports in Chinese and America media is different from each other. In CNN’s website, we can see reports about the refugees, Yugoslavia’s future, military campaign and peace settlement, which focus more on the Kosovo and Yugoslavia themselves. In Chinese media website, however, what we can see is reports about the reaction of other countries, the effect of Kosovo’s independence and the analysis about the inside of its independence, which focus more on the whole world. Certainly, it does not mean that the more international angle the reports are, the better they will be. In my opinion, the media has its right to choose how to report an event. I also believe that the choice will be affected by culture, as well as official political views.

The other aspect I want to mention is that, in these two Chinese media websites, both of them talked about the news that Kosovo claimed that the government would not accept the admission from TaiWan government while the CNN’s website did not mention it at all. I think it reflected that the media in China speaks for the government. It is plain to see that the government wanted to use this piece of news to say to the whole country or to TaiWan government that there is no hope for TaiWan to be independent because no countries in the world will support TaiWan’s independence even a brand new country. I can understand that it may be natural for to connect this two issues together in China. But I still think that the media gave too much to this piece of news, which made this issue like a political tool for Chinese government. As media, what they should do I think is to focus on the issue itself to report more the situation now happening in Kosovo. On the other hand, I think it may be not fair to push all responsibility to media because the model of Chinese media system and the relation between media and government also decide what media can do.

The main purpose of this comparison is not to find out which one did a better job in this issue. The difference can not only show us the distinction of the reports themselves, but also reflect the distinction of media environment and culture.

In Oil-Rich Mid-east, Shades of the Ivy League

There was an interesting article on New York Times which talks about the American education in the mid-east. Education City, the largest enclave of American universities overseas, has quick become the elite of Qatari education, sort of local Ivy League. There are already five universities have brought programs to Doha, the capital of Qatar, and more are on their way. Cornell’s medical school will graduate the first Qatar-trained physicians this spring; Virginia Commonwealth University brought its art and design program to Qatari women few years ago and began admitting men this year; Carnegie Mellon provides computer and business programs. Also, the largest of the Education City schools, Texas A&M, offers engineering programs. The latest arrival is Georgetown’s foreign service school, and soon, Northwestern University’s journalism program will join in.

Globalization makes all these happen. Living in this global village, now we have a new “global classroom” in mid-east. There are definitely some good sides of Education City in Doha: Women have more opportunities to get higher learning in a nation where many parents do not allow their daughters to travel overseas for advanced study or to mix casually with men; young people have chance to broaden their horizons, thinking critically of some issues such as faith and religion; and students are able to visit the American home campus for a semester or a few weeks, fulfilling the experience of studying abroad.

However, some drawbacks are inevitably revealed in this system. While The Education City is proud of its endeavor to provide the so-called “real American education”, this island of American-style open debate in what remains an Islamic monarchy. Because Education City graduates will be broadly educated elites who have had extended contact with American professors and American ways of thinking, this consequence also makes some parents worried about their traditional values and way of life. In addition, whether the job market will view Education City graduates the same as American graduates of the same schools is not yet clear, since these graduates will be the first batch, and no one can guarantee how well they will do. There are also some potential problems from the faculty. According to Dr. Antonio M. Gotto Jr., dean of Weill Cornell Medical School in New York, there are about 15 percent of lectures are through videoconferencing. Although the new technology allows both instructors and students in Education City have a convenient way to interact and to communicate via screen, the quality of the lectures raises some concerns. Another question is, even with free housing, bonus pay and big tax advantages, and still few professors want to move to Qatar. “You get a lot of people at the end of their careers. Coming to Qatar, where you don’t have graduate students and research grants, does you no good for getting tenure.” Said one computer-science professor at Carnegie Mellon.

People outside of the U.S. see or hear about American education from different sources, one of the important sources is electronic media. From the TV programs, Hollywood movies, and the “omnipotent” Internet, the different learning atmosphere presented on the media allures bunch of people coming here to study. No matter the media portrayed education in the U.S. in a partial or an oversimplified way, there must be some reasons that many countries in the world recognize the overall concept of American education. I believe that to many international students, one of the most precious characteristics in American education, meanwhile the most different one comparing to the philosophy of education in their own countries, is that students are encouraged to share their own opinions with others, and are welcomed to have alternative voices as well. Especially in Asian countries, students are taught to be “happy-mediums”, according to the golden mean of Confucius school. Harmony and modesty are the basic principles that most of Asian people shared. There is no right or wrong since cultures and customs vary from nation to nation. But I do think that a person’s intellect needs to be stimulated. Just like the dean of Carnegie Mellon in Qatar explains that American education is a very big change for many of their students, who had no experience with questions like “What do you think the author meant by that?” or “Do you agree or disagree?”

Overall, I think Education City is a successful example of bringing more diversity and creating more opportunities for people in Qatar. But at the same time, the dilemma between maintaining the traditional values and being a more globalized person by adopting American education exists in every student’s minds at Education City. Professor Gary Wasserman, who taught “U.S. Political System” course at Georgetown branch in Doha, mentioned that students came up with questions he had never thought of. “You can see how much they want to be a part of a globalized world, but you also can see that they don’t want to have to give up their faith, their family, their traditions. And why should they?”

source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/education/11global.htmlpagewanted=1&_r=1&sq&st=nyt&scp=55