Completely unacceptable

On my Facebook wall, Alex Raymond alerted me to a Ralph Jennings piece from Saturday titled "Taiwanese show guarded acceptance of China pact."

Do Taiwanese "accept" this so-called Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) at all?

Take a look this particular paragraph of Jennings' article [emphasis mine]:

Political analysts said the size of the protest, a month after a sit-in in Taipei attracted only a few hundred, was an indication that Taiwan's public accepted the deal, wanted to know more details or believed the government was deaf to protests.

The first problem there is that Jennings quotes unnamed "political analysts." Would it make a difference if these "analysts" were close to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the party he chairs, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? Yes, it would. (See an earlier example of Jennings' use of similar tactics.)

The next problem is the simple lack of deductive logic. The first paragraph of the article claims that the size of Saturday's protest was "10,000" (and Jennings has greatly underestimated the number of attendees at previous protests by pro-Taiwan groups) and then tells readers of a sit-in that happened "a month" ago (which, in reality, was a 3-day protest which ended just 15 days ago) and which "attracted only a few hundred." Gee, according to my math, "10,000" is a much larger number, and 15 days is only half a month.

While it may be correct to say that Taiwanese "believed the government was deaf to protests," note how it's not the single possibility which was placed in the headline. Despite the addition of the word "guarded," the one which does appear there (and in the article minus the qualifier) is the one which is the easiest to disprove.

Just what do Taiwanese think about this ECFA?
Let's look at a poll from the pro-Chinese KMT TVBS which was released just this past Monday (May 31, 2010) [104 kb PDF file] for some indications [translations, emphasis mine]:

公投題目「是否同意政府與中國簽ECFA？」：同意42% v.s.不同意44%

Voting on a referendum which asks: "Should the government sign an ECFA with China?" 42% say "Yes" while 44% say "No."

[...] 15%未表示意見。

[...] 15% expressed no opinion.

[...]

辦 ECFA公投？民眾贊成的比例上升至55%，不贊成則下滑到 30%

Hold a referendum on ECFA? Public support increases to 55%, opposition slips to 30%

[...]

若辦公投，六成（59%）民眾說會去投票 [...]

If there is a referendum, 59% of the public says they will vote [...]

Bias!
I don't trust TVBS, but remember that if there's any bias in their poll, it will be in favor of those pushing this ECFA with China. So, I must wonder: Does Ralph Jennings hate Taiwan and the truth, or will he write just anything -- as long as he keeps getting paid to do so?

Don't just accept what you read, especially not when it's written by "pros" who repeatedly provide you with information that is as easily disputed as the stuff Jennings keeps shoveling.

Bonus
Check out how Reuters dissembles even more by using an image (with a caption that only appears as a pop-up) of cheering Taiwanese atop this version of the article.

---

Counterpoints: Taiwan, 台灣, ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, media, 媒體

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Labels: ECFA, media, Ralph Jennings, Taiwan, 台灣, 唐甯思, 媒體, 經濟合作架構協議

Inexcusable biases

A problematic Reuters piece titled "Taiwan president, opposition clash over China deal" appeared online less than an hour after the close of a debate Sunday afternoon between Taiwan's president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). The topic of the debate was the controversial Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which Ma has been touting as "urgent" without providing any concrete details regarding the content to the public or to opposition parties.


19:35 YouTube video: "ECFA 第一階段申論"
Translation: ECFA [Debate] Part 1: Introductory Remarks
A reader e-mailed me about Jennings' "false statement[s]" within [that's a direct quote]:

The debate, a new step in Taiwan's democracy, is expected to sway public opinion towards an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) set to be signed with China in June.

You've got to be kidding me! Jennings -- who has previously labeled me as a "sniper" for calling out his lies -- has some nerve. He would have to be hiding under a rock to actually be unaware of previous debates between political adversaries in Taiwan. (Does he mean something else? Whether this so-called "professional" writer and/or his editors are trying to deceive us on purpose is uncertain.)

But when Jennings -- working for a wire service whose reports get carried far and wide -- claims that this particular debate is "expected" to do just what Ma wants it to, this functions as the "carpet bombing" variety of propaganda. (My e-mail correspondent notes that the article is already being carried in the Malaysia Star and the Straits Times.)

Who is "expect[ing]" this kind of result from the debate? You might think Jennings would provide at least one example of who it is that thinks in a way which precisely benefits Ma. But he doesn't.

The article also drops this unbecoming description of Ma's opponent in the very next paragraph:

"If we don't do this deal, what else can we do? The rest of Asia is forming alliances," Ma said, his voice rising, as he stood beside anti-China opposition Democratic Progressive Party chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen.

Why does Ralph Jennings hate neutral reporting? He could have noted how Tsai's party opened trade to China (which Jennings knows is targeting Taiwan with over 1,500 missiles) -- just without sacrificing Taiwan's sovereignty in the process.

Jennings also "generously" (from Ma's perspective) provided this generalization near the bottom of the article:

Television pundits were split on who fared better, giving the island's colourful media talk shows and staunchly divided public plenty to talk about.

Which "television pundits"? Jennings doesn't/won't specify, but if you want to read about some numbers I saw during and after the debate about "who fared better," just follow that link. Unlike Jennings, I even say where I found those numbers.

UPDATE: Here's an online poll by Yahoo asking who did a better job in the debate. The current results are:
* Tsai Ing-wen: 3,682 (59.1%)
* Ma Ying-jeou: 2,333 (37.4%)
* Neither: 216 (3.5%)
[/update]

The craptastic conclusion?
That's anti-Taiwan Ralph Jennings for ya! Go see what other unappetizing things (e.g., positive descriptions of Ma and/or China, unchallenged counterfactual claims, etc.) you can find in his "reporting."

Further reference:
Taiwan's Public Television Service (PTS, 公共電視) uploaded videos of the entire debate to YouTube. The first segment of the series is at the top of this post. Here are the remaining segments:
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（1） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (1)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（2） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (2)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（3） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (3)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（4） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (4)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（5） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (5)
* ECFA 第三階段結論 Translation: Segment 3, Closing Remarks (5)

* Perhaps this is the sort of place Ralph Jennings finds such "expectations." After the Sunday debate, the deep-blue TVBS did a survey of 906 Taiwanese over the age of 20. With a margin of error of 3.2 percent, it said that "support for ECFA increased by 3 percentage points" [163 kb PDF file] since a survey four days earlier.

---

Ghouls and strangulations: Taiwan, 台灣, Reuters, 路透社, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, propaganda, 宣傳, ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議, debate, 辯論, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九 Tsai Ing-wen, 蔡英文

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Labels: debate, ECFA, Ma Ying-jeou, propaganda, Ralph Jennings, Reuters, Taiwan, 台灣, 唐甯思, 宣傳, 經濟合作架構協議, 蔡英文, 路透社, 辯論, 馬英九 Tsai Ing-wen

Sweeping those dirty counties clean!

All three of yesterday's by-elections to choose new legislators in Taoyuan (桃園), Taichung (台中), and Taitung (台東) Counties -- all Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) strongholds -- were won by pro-Taiwan opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates, and won by surprising margins.

While the Taitung by-election was held to replace Justin Huang (黃健庭), who resigned his legislative position before being elected as Taitung County commissioner, the Taichung and Taoyuan elections were held to replace Chinese KMT politicians whose elections were annulled due to vote-buying convictions: Liao Cheng-ching (廖正井) in Taoyuan and Chiang Lien-fu (江連福) in Taichung.

Here are the numbers for the two major parties extracted from a press release (MS Word .doc file) available on the Central Election Commission (CEC) web site (percentage calculations mine, "non-partisan" candidates' votes included in calculating totals):

Taoyuan: DPP = 53,633 (58.05%) / KMT = 36,989 (40.01%)
Taichung: DPP = 63,335 (55.02%) / KMT = 51,776 (44.98%)
Taitung: DPP = 23,190 (49.46%) / KMT = 21,215 (45.25%)
The Sunday Taipei Times has an English-language chart (in image format) of the same numbers I show above, but including the other candidates.

Implications
The DPP now holds 30 legislative seats (compared to the Chinese KMT's 74 seats), giving them the power to initiate recall proceedings against President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) or propose amendments to the constitution.

Considering the gains made by the DPP in last month's election and this one, I'm looking forward to the February 27, 2010 by-election (to replace more legislators who were elected as county commissioners in the December 5, 2009 3-in-1 election) to demonstrate a real trend.

FURTHER READING:
* Taipei Times: "DPP wins all three seats in by-elections"

* Taiwan News: "Sweep shows voice of Taiwan people, says DPP leader"

* Taiwan News: "DPP will not launch presidential recall at legislature"

* Radio Taiwan International: "DPP takes all three legislative by-election seats "

* Straits Times (Singapore): "Taiwan opposition scores win"

* Reuters' Kelvin Soh and Ralph Jennings "report," Nick Macfie edits: "Taiwan anti-China opposition gains legislative seats" (Note the use of "anti-China" instead of "pro-Taiwan" -- putting the onus for the antipathy on the wrong side -- and so much more anti-Taiwan BS within.)

* AFP: "Taiwan opposition scores fresh election win" (Note the big zombie lie within the piece which says: "The self-ruled island and China split in 1949 after a civil war.")

---

Participants: Taiwan, 台灣, election, 選舉, Democratic Progressive Party, 民主進步黨, DPP, 民進黨, Chinese Nationalist Party, 中國國民黨, Kuomintang, KMT, 國民黨, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Labels: Chinese Nationalist Party, Democratic Progressive Party, DPP, election, KMT, Ralph Jennings, Taiwan, 中國國民黨, 台灣, 唐甯思, 國民黨, 民主進步黨, 民進黨, 選舉

Jennings can't read?

Earlier today via Twitter user anitaworld, I came across the latest piece of anti-Taiwan propaganda from Reuters. The headline reads:

One hurt, six detained in Taiwan scuffle over China

The average reader might not have any idea what's beneath that headline. Is Taiwan "fighting to take over China" or something? Since only a small percentage of people read past the headline, it only serves to create confusion about the situation.

Here's what's going on: The Taiwanese protesters are standing up for their sovereignty while deals compromising Taiwan's sovereignty are being signed by two authoritarian parties without the people's consent. But Reuters fails to provide you any of that information which is vital to understanding the story.

Although a scant few more details appear within the article, those details are obscured by a mess of unhelpful memes and outright smearing of the victims in this matter, thus canceling any value they might have otherwise contained.

The anatomy of mendacity
The article begins:

TAIPEI (Reuters) - A police officer was hurt and six people detained late on Wednesday during a protest against a visit by China's top negotiator to Taiwan, officials said.

It was the first violence in four days of protests against the visit of Beijing negotiator Chen Yunlin in Taichung, central Taiwan.

There goes Ralph Jennings (whose byline appears at the bottom of the article) phoning it in from Taipei yet again. If he could read (or maybe a quote by Upton Sinclair is what applies here), the Tuesday December 22, 2009 edition of the Taipei Times (that's two days ago) would have informed him of this violence by police:

A Taichung City policeman was penalized yesterday for using pepper spray on two protesters on Sunday night, but the police said his demerit was for carrying non-standard equipment rather than for assaulting the protesters, adding that he acted in self-defense.

Don't mace me, 兄弟!
The actual incident mentioned above took place four days ago (Sunday, December 20, 2009). "[F]irst violence," my ass! The police were the ones who drew "first blood"! Jennings isn't telling you the truth.

Getting back to the Reuters piece, Jennings feeds the readers generalities:

Also on Wednesday, protesters tried to stop Chen from visiting a temple, taunting police that have guarded every step of his December 21-25 visit, local media reported.

Jennings fails to answer some essential questions for the readers: Who were the protesters? (Were they members of the violent China Unification Promotion Party (CUPP, 中華統一促進黨), members of the peaceful Falun Gong movement, common hooligans, or simply citizens of Taiwan who don't want an authoritarian regime to take over their lives?); Why were the protesters there? (Chen Yunlin has previously threatened Taiwan, and he and his comrades are currently trying to annex Taiwan.); How did they try to stop Chen Yunlin? (Did they use weapons [sticks, stones, knives, guns, Molotov cocktails]? [No.], or did they just stand at the scene, hold up signs, and shout? [Yes.]); Which temple was this, and does it have any special significance? (Could it be Chenlan Temple, a temple which is run by a convicted criminal? [Yes!]); Which local media? (I dunno. Jennings doesn't/won't specify.)

Can you feel just how empty of any actual information that paragraph of the article is? He could have used that space much more efficiently if he had instead explained some of the facts to the readers. Ben Goren's blog Letters from Taiwan has a good list from which lazy reporters could simply copy and paste some terse, well-researched facts about Taiwan.

The generalities above are followed directly by this meme:

China has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan since 1949, when Mao Zedong's forces won the Chinese civil war and Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists fled to the island. Beijing has vowed to bring Taiwan under its rule, by force if necessary.

The full name of the party Jennings is referring to is the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- not just the "Nationalists." They fled to Taiwan to save their own asses from Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) Commie bandits (共匪), not to "save Taiwan," as is often purported by those who support the Chinese KMT's authoritarianism.

More importantly, China's "claim" has no legal basis, but Jennings doesn't keep my italicized phrase in his clipboard where he could easily paste it into the article to at least provide some semblance of "balance." And there he goes with that faux-honest "the island" formulation yet again, trying to undermine the fact that Taiwan is an independent country with a population slightly higher than that of the entire "island continent" of Australia (never just "the island [of Australia]").

The article ends with these two paragraphs full of copy-and-paste "journalism" and a byline:

As ties warm under Taiwan's Beijing-friendly President Ma Ying-jeou, economic powerhouse China and the export-reliant island agreed on Tuesday to negotiate a trade deal that would cut tariffs.

Protesters oppose closer ties between the governments.

(Reporting by Ralph Jennings; Editing by David Fox)

FOX News Taiwan?
Let's take down the troubling elements one by one.

Note the positive words ascribed to China and Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九): warm, friendly, powerhouse. Note the diminutives ascribed to Taiwan: reliant, island.

What the protesters oppose is not any sort of ties between "governments." What they oppose is unequal party-to-party negotiations taking place behind closed doors with no opposition oversight whatsoever and which evidence shows to be a series of steps leading up to Taiwan's annexation by two authoritarian regimes working hand-in-hand.

How many average readers would have noticed these things upon first reading them? Far too many ordinary people have become numb to this kind of garbage that passes as "journalism."

The writers whom I have repeatedly criticized apparently won't change, so the readers must wake up, stop falling for this, and wake others up as well. Your most basic human rights and your livelihoods -- if not your lives -- are at stake, and mendacious media therefore amounts to just another form of violence.

Further reading/viewing:
* For better coverage of the story, try this article in the Taipei Times: "CROSS STRAIT TALKS: Police officer injured in Taichung protests."

* For comparison, here's a CNA round-up (in the Taiwan News) of other articles on the incident: "News digest of local media - Clashes."

* Here's a YouTube video of some of the hooligans stationed around the Chenlan Temple: "大甲鎮瀾宮前成自治區，廟方派出紅衣人保護警方維安現場-民視新聞" (Translation: The front of Dajia Township's Chenlan Temple becomes an "autonomous region," people in red [and pink] shirts dispatched to protect police, "preserve order" at the scene - FTV News). Note that in addition to the "uniforms," some of these guys are wearing earpieces, indicating that they're organized and awaiting orders from someone, much like soldiers on a battlefield.

---

Squiggly lines of BS detection: Taiwan, 台灣, media, 媒體, memes, 大腦模仿病毒, Reuters, 路透社, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, Yen Ching-piao, 顏清標, violence, 暴力

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Labels: media, memes, Ralph Jennings, Reuters, Taiwan, violence, Yen Ching-piao, 台灣, 唐甯思, 大腦模仿病毒, 媒體, 暴力, 路透社, 顏清標

Too numerous for some to properly estimate

A protest Saturday in Taipei against the harm brought upon the country by Ma "Don't Paint Me Red" Ying-jeou (馬英九) and China had a huge turnout.

At around 6 PM, the very blue Era News reported a turnout of "400,000" while FTV was saying "600,000" right up until 10 PM.

But when TVBS said that there were 500,000 people at an anti-Ma/anti-China rally, then you can be pretty sure that there were at least that many.


Talking Show (大話新聞) discusses Reuters' coverage
(Click to enlarge)
Even Reuters' Ralph Jennings -- of whom I've been extremely critical for getting the story very wrong when it comes to Taiwan -- tells us that "half a million" attended the protest:

Half a million march in Taiwan against China, president

Close to half a million people marched in Taiwan on Saturday to protest against the government's growing ties with China, where a tainted milk powder scandal has fueled fresh distrust toward Beijing among island citizens.

In the strongest display of opposition yet to President Ma Ying-jeou, demonstrators flooded central Taipei demanding that Ma step down over his friendly approach to Chinese officials.

I wasn't able to attend today's rally because I had to work, but Jerome Keating took part, and he replies to that report, saying, "I would concur with at least a half a million; perhaps more." Good to see a believable figure from Jennings this time around.

On the lower end of the crowd estimates, my wife heard on TV that the Taipei police claim that there were "200,000" participants, and in CNN's headline news segment, Rosemary Church says "tens of thousands" -- the same vague and inaccurate description used by the BBC.

What next?
As 10 PM approached and the event drew to a close, DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) says to be prepared to take to the streets again if the planned visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) happens. Despite how Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokespersons and surrogates tried to spin the news, this was more than just "the DPP base" out there today, and neither Ma nor China are doing anything to satisfy them.

Keep your eyes and ears open.

---

Participants: Taiwan, 台灣, China, 中國, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Chen Yunlin, 陳雲林, protest, 抗議, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, Reuters, 路透社

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Labels: Chen Yunlin, China, Ma Ying-jeou, protest, Ralph Jennings, Reuters, Taiwan, 中國, 台灣, 唐甯思, 抗議, 路透社, 陳雲林, 馬英九

Calling Ralph what he is

This Reuters piece by Ralph Jennings made me nauseous:

Taiwan to axe "China" from name of Mandarin Chinese
Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:26pm GMT

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Taiwan plans to change the name of its official Mandarin Chinese language in public schools to a term that avoids referring to China, a curriculum planner said on Thursday, another move to distance the self-ruled island from Beijing.

[...]

The island now plans to do away with "zhong-wen", the name of the official language, because of its reference to "China", said Chen Wan-yi, a curriculum architect with the Ministry of Education.

Mandarin Chinese's new name would be "hua-yu," which does not pinpoint a country. The change could come into force in schools by 2010 once the proposal is approved, he said.

Most people in Taiwan speak Mandarin, which originated in China and is all but universally spoken there.

So many lies, so little time
First of all, the textbooks I see my students carrying to class say "國語" (guoyu, or "national language") on the cover -- not "zhong-wen" (中文, or "Chinese"), so Ralph is lying to you, as even the pro-unification (duh, look at the name) United Daily News (聯合報) will reveal. [See "* CLARIFICATION," below.]


The cover of the textbook says "Guoyu" (國語) or "National Language."
Next, "hua-yu" (華語) is not a "new name" for Mandarin. Even if he means that it's new to Taiwan's schools, Ralph is not telling the whole truth about "pinpoint[ing] a country." If you click the link, you will see that it means "Chinese language" which should immediately bring "China" to most people's minds.

Furthermore, Mandarin is not "all but universally spoken" in China. Even China's own media admits that "only 53 percent of people in China can communicate in Putonghua, or Mandarin."

Is Ralph a pathological liar or a professional one?

* CLARIFICATION: After reading a post on Arbiter of Waste, I realized that my explanation may be lacking a key piece of the puzzle which would help those unfamiliar with the context to put it all together. That would be that the term "國語" (guoyu, or "national language") is not explicit in naming "Chinese" as the language being taught/learned. Changing the name of the curriculum to "華語" (Huayu) does indeed make the "China" part explicit. See also this other instance of the definition of "華" (Hua) linked in a related post by A-gu (阿牛). [/clarification]

---

Truths and consequences: Taiwan, 台灣, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, Reuters, 路透社

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Labels: Ralph Jennings, Reuters, Taiwan, 台灣, 唐甯思, 路透社