Chongqing and media: a case for better understanding
In a possible effort to correct the tone of reporting of the "red culture campaign", on April 29, Chongqing's Party Secretary Bo Xilai spoke to a group of journalists from Hong Kong and Macao.
At the meeting, Bo tried to scotch speculation of the campaign being a movement to revive the politics and spirit of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). On the contrary, Bo said, it was aimed at energizing communities and motivating people in good faith.
Bo's clarification, it is hoped, would reverse the worsening public relations of the Chongqing government that launched the "red culture campaign" a year ago. Since then, the campaign has drawn widespread criticism, giving rise to a suspicion that Chongqing was indoctrinating locals with outdated "red songs" and "revolutionary dogma."
However, it appears that there is a world of difference between media accounts and the actual "red campaign." The "Red TV" that many liberals are prone to ridicule is nothing more than a public service TV station, which is stripped of commercial advertisements.
More important is that while media is questioning alleged attempts at harking back to Chairman Mao's era, Chongqing people are all for the authority's decision. In fact, they find the public service provided by the campaign rather entertaining.
True, the Chongqing government's campaign is based on traditional revolutionary elements, which, of late, are rarely seen or heard. This may explain the considerable misunderstanding that has arisen in the first place. Nevertheless, realistically, the campaign cannot be resonant of the Cultural Revolution. After all, the skepticism against ideas of the Cultural Revolution, characterized mainly by bigotry, is what distinguishes the prevalent pluralistic culture.
Besides, the very misreporting of the campaign reflects a peculiar ambivalence in our society. Many people are nostalgic about the old "red days" of less crime and more honesty when equality, simplicity and a different set of morals were the order of the day.
However, these people dread the return of that egalitarianism which calls for sacrificing the gains of economic liberalization. Thus, liberal media is apprehensive about the word "red," because this evocative word is associated with retrograde solutions to many social problems of today.
Apart from the pervasive prejudice among large sections of the media, perhaps, Chongqing's inept public relations worsened matters. For most of last year, the Chongqing government was generally reserved toward much of the national media. Thereby, first, it failed to mold opinion, and then it did not urge the public to find the truth.
Bo's conversation with Hong Kong and Macao journalists hasn't come too late. At least, it brought to the fore a discussion of Chongqing's own perspectives. The media should focus on providing true accounts rather than travesties. For the Chongqing authorities, this is a deserved lesson on how to manage their public relations.
War against terrorism should benefit all
By killing Osama bin Laden, the US has achieved a symbolic success in the fight against terrorism. The Taliban and Saddam regime were demolished and some masterminds of terrorism eradicated. However, many people still argue that the war against terrorism means more than that. That is to say, the achievements are far from a real triumph.
In the past decade, in the course of combating terrorism, the US has well demonstrated the military muscularity of a superpower. It has fulfilled some "missions impossible." Neither any country nor any organization in the world dares to openly support or sympathize with Al Qaeda, which has been isolated completely.
Even the media known for diversity of opinions showed unprecedented unanimity when it came to criticizing bin Laden and his organization. Only a few online forums remain as a last resort for some of bin Laden's supporters to root for him.
Besides, the US has also successfully injected into the campaign its own interest as well as that of the West, leading to double standards in defining terrorism. Extremists' acts are regarded as terrorism when it hurts the West, but not necessarily when it harms other countries, such as Russia or China.
The US has enlarged its intangible front, rather than the ideological field, in the war against terrorism. The death of bin Laden set off flag-waving celebrations in the US and applause in Europe but evoked mixed reactions in the Arab world. Little celebration was seen on the streets there; some sections of Arabs commemorated bin Laden as a "hero." This is a situation that the US does not acknowledge after fighting a war for 10 years.
So far, the US position as the sole superpower remains unchallenged. It enjoys a kind of strategic advantage by which it can influence any other country. On one hand, the US guides the world's political course according to its own will. On the other hand, such US-guided global politics has led to complex reactions among other countries, especially toward its anti-terrorism efforts.
By killing bin Laden, the US has apparently avenged the death of its countrymen during the 9/11 tragedy, but failed to demonize his image in the Islamic world. After the triumph, there is a case for the US to be sober-minded and show readiness to fight for the good of the world. That would be to the benefit of humankind.
The US is destined to be involved in many parts of the world. As a result, criticism and vengeful acts by extremists are unavoidable. Willingly or otherwise, the world has cooperated with the US in fighting terrorism. Any war or campaign initiated by the US should benefit not only the US but the rest of the world as well. Only then will the US benefit in the long run.
The power of the US makes it the world's pre-eminent force. There is need for the US to receive less negative attention for the sake of its selfish interests. Its behavior as the world's leading power will be crucial to the establishment of a fair, just, peaceful and multilateral world order.
0 comments:
Post a Comment