"Irony" out the details

It's like watching someone trapped in quicksand -- the more they struggle, the deeper they sink. After the hosts of the pro-independence radio show Taiwanese Club (台灣人俱樂部) criticized eleven "bandits" within the DPP, and party chairman Yu Shyi-kun stated that he wouldn't allow the China Times access to party officials, the "bandits" -- being bandits and all -- started flailing their arms about more wildly than usual, and they're already about chest-deep in the quicksand.

According to the Taipei Times article linked above, Taiwan's "Joe Lieberman," AKA Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄) went crying to -- can you guess who? -- the China Times to say that the eleven people named by the radio hosts "should rise together and fight back against the party's 'fundamentalists' so as to 'wake the party up.'" You see, that's been the problem all along. Now the quicksand is up to your neck, you fool.

Here's the kicker. Instead of trying to rekindle a "rational debate," these traitors struggled even harder with counterproductive statements such as this whopper:

"Party members would do better to attack our enemies [rather than us]," Tung said.

As there's no one named Tung anywhere else in the article, that is most likely Tuan Yi-kang speaking, and as I recall, it was these guys who attacked the DPP first. Now they're crying because people who vote for the DPP because of their platform don't want to be fooled again by people like Tuan, Shen, and Lin Cho-shui who go against the party platform at every turn? Dudes, the quicksand is already up to your nostrils, and true green supporters aren't gonna be the ones to extend a stick so you can pull them down with you.

Freedom of stupidity
The editors of the Taipei Times must be off their meds again as evidenced not only by the strange typo above, but also by today's editorial ("Yu slaps himself in the face") calling DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun's statement about not allowing party officials to grant any more interviews to the mendacious China Times "self-defeating" and saying that "Yu's complaint stems from a piece of shoddy China Times journalism..." Tsk, tsk. If only it were that simple.

It isn't just a single "piece of shoddy [...] journalism" that is the problem. It's a long-running pattern that can be seen almost every day simply by reading the China Times' front page headlines and comparing them with reality. Why on earth would anyone willingly join in that unwinnable game? (Possible answers: They're fools or double agents.)

The Taipei Times editors go on to say, "The real question is whether he is entitled to cut off contact between the newspaper's reporters and the DPP." Did Yu do something illegal or immoral? Doesn't "freedom of speech" include "the right to remain silent"? The unmedicated editors continue with, "[T]here are now hundreds of new tantalizing sources for China Times reporters." Say, what?! Did those sources spontaneously come into existence when Yu spoke? Did the China Times never before use anonymous sources to smear the DPP? Don't kid yourselves!

Yu didn't shut the friggin' paper down, for cryin' out loud! Go get your prescriptions refilled or something, and stop slapping your readers in the face.

RELATED ARTICLE: 'China Times' ban gets mixed reaction

---

Yummy yams and purple potatoes: Taiwan, 台灣, media, 媒體, Taipei Times, 台北時報, China Times, 中國時報, Shen Fu-hsiung, 沈富雄, Tuan Yi-kang, 段宜康, Lin Cho-shui, 林濁水

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!