[Swprograms] Re: CRI

[jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I agree with you with respect to *degree* viz BBC, VOA, CRI.  But make no mistake that about the depth of pressure that has been placed on BBC and VOA reporters when the political leaders in each sponsoring country feel the sting of reportage they don't want.  The VOA is being systematically dismembered because it alone has a Charter, carrying the force of law, that requires its reporting to tell the truth as opposed to trumpeting the government line.  BBC managers were fired when their reporters had the temerity to report the truth about what happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war, regardless of what was said by dottering old judge (Hutton) dragged out of retirement because he would be only too pleased to carry the government's water.)

Is there a difference?  Yes.  But mostly with respect to subtlety.  The danger is the same, only much closer to home than China.

John Figliozzi  

----- Original Message -----
From: atlsvo@xxxxxxxxx (maryanne kehoe)
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:29 am
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Re: CRI

> OK, I have been following the debate here in regards to CRI 
> comparing to
> VOA/BBC/ propaganda/etc....there is one big difference:
> 
> 
> If a VOA BBC, and a CRI reporter do a story on, say, the Falug Gong,
> guess which one of those reporters is going to see the police at their
> door and being taken downtown for some questioning and government
> lodging? (To say nothing of losing their job _just for performing 
> theirjournalistic duties._) It's a no-brainer!
> 
> I don't trust Xinhua and anything that comes out of their mouth---for
> reasons I have covered here previously. They're nasty people. I would
> much rather tune to VOA or BBC for at least some resemblance of debate
> and opinion, and not CP propaganda. Besides, unless one's been 
> under a
> rock for the past 16 or 17 years or so, the CP has been pretty 
> much out
> of business, or in a diminished role where they held government sway
> previously. 
> 
> Just my opinion-your mileage may vary.
> 
> 
> 
> Maryanne  
> 
> 
> 
> Saved e-mail message   
> 
> Sender: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: 
> jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Tue, Mar 22, 2005, 3:23pm To: 
> swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject:
> [Swprograms] Re: CRI 
> Yes, Roger. I think the phrase I hear being bandied about in 
> Washingtonis "public diplomacy". Someone more enlightened than I 
> will have to
> explain to me the difference between that and "propaganda"... 
> Someone will have to also explain to me how the BBCWS has somehow
> emerged unaffected by the recent inquiry and the attendant political
> pressure placed on its "parent" and the entire corporation's
> newsgathering operations. 
> John Figliozzi 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Roger Tidy <rogertidy@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [dxld] CRI 
> I'd like to say a few words in support of the ever-developing and
> improving CRI. 
> Sure, we all know it's a government broadcaster. So what? So are many
> other stations, including VOA. 
> Second, concerning Mike's quote from Xinhua (the New China News 
> Agency)referring to CRI's mission to promote "postive propaganda" 
> about China:
> I think we have to have a proper understanding of the word 
> "propaganda".Properly understood, "propaganda" is "ethically 
> neutral", i.e. it is
> neither inherently truthful nor false and can be either malevolent or
> well-intentioned. The term, in fact, originates from a Latin word
> meaning "to propagate" and was first used by the Catholic church 
> when it
> set up its Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to spread the
> word amongst the faithful. The mis-use of "propaganda" as a negative
> term is really a phenomenon of the twentieth century, largely due, I
> suspect, to the creation by Goebbels of a Ministry for Propaganda. 
> Evenso, if you look at internal documents of the British 
> government from
> World War Two and ater, you will find that the word is often used 
> in its
> original and correct form in describing the broadcasting and 
> publishingactivities of the British. So there's is nothing 
> disreputable about CRI
> being a propaganda station in the true sense of the term. My only
> criticism is that if the Chinese were better "propagandists" they 
> wouldtranslate "propaganda" as "publicity" on their English 
> newswire given
> the widespread mis-use of the term in popular usage. 
> Third, I remember listening to VOA in the late fifties as a very 
> juniorlistener. One report that has stuck in my mind concerns a 
> "news" item
> about an anti-nuclear demonstration in Britain attented by 
> thousands of
> Britons from all walks of life and of many different political
> persuasions. This was dimissed by VOA with the insulting, and 
> inaccuratecomment, that "the demonstrators consisted mainly of 
> youngsters in gaudy
> dress" - hardly an "objective" or "unbiased" report, despite VOA's
> alleged commitment to such journalistic values. Over the years VOA has
> improved, and so have most other governmental stations, but you still
> hear on allegedly impartial stations, such as the BBC World Service,
> news reports describing governments of which they disapprove as
> "regimes" whilst those they do approve of are correctly designated as
> governments or administrations (i.e. "The Cuban regime" and "the
> Washington Administration"). Like VOA before it, CRI is changing. It's
> much different and much better than the old Radio Peking and Radio
> Beijing and, as far as my own ears are concerned, it's getting better
> every day. Economic developments is indeed causing big problems in 
> Chinaand the Chinese government are trying to tackle the problem, 
> e.g. by
> clamping down on corrupt officials and improving the life of migrant
> workers. Change in China will be incremental, just as it was in 
> the USA.
> Remember, it took the US more than 150 years before it introduced 
> Blackcivil rights. The People's Republic of China is only 56 years 
> old. Don't
> expect too much too soon. Countries develop unevenly, according to 
> theirown history and their own needs at a particular time. We 
> shouldn't try
> to impose our way of life on the Chinese (or for that matter on anyone
> else). Let them develop in their own way according to their own needs,
> and for God's sake stop preaching to the Chinese. The folks who
> inflicted the Opium War on China, turned it into a semi-colony and put
> up signs in Shanghai saying "Dogs and Chinamen not allowed", etc.are
> hardly fit people to speak down to the Chinese now! Cultural 
> imperialismcan be as insulting as the old variety to those on the 
> receiving end! 
> Roger Tidy 
> --- Mike Barraclough <mikewb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote Mike For one thing, I
> don't think that CRI and the 
> Chinese Communist Party are one 
> and the same. 
> It's a Government broadcaster, they fund it and give it its 
> mission, and
> the 
> use of all distributions services for its mission was part of a 
> Party 
> directive which is why my contention is the words are 
> interchangeable in
> the 
> sentence of yours I quoted. I would suspect its structure is 
> similar to
> that 
> of Soviet era Eastern European international broadcasters staffed by
> both 
> Communist Party Officials and journalists. 
> Here is a report I carried in the January 2002 DX News column I 
> edit for 
> World DX Club Contact: 
> CHINA Chinese Communist Party propaganda chief Dian Guangen has called
> on 
> China Radio International, when speaking at its 60th anniversary 
> celebrations, to become more competitive, speed up reform and 
> raise its 
> international profile. Convergence and technological innovation, Ding
> said, 
> were vital for CRI's survival as an international broadcaster.
> Therefore, 
> Ding said CRI should integrate its shortwave, mediumwave, FM and 
> online 
> services. Ding stressed that CRI's main role was to promote 
> "positive 
> propaganda" about China and serve as a mouthpiece of the party and 
> the 
> people. (New China News Agency via DXLD) I am so disappointed. I 
> thoughtit 
> was a genuine friendly station. From the above (DXLD also printed the
> full 
> speech) we now know it is admittedly nothing but a propaganda 
> outlet of
> the 
> party. (Glenn Hauser, DXLD) 
> I have traced the original long speech which is in DXLD 1-192 
> availableat 
> http://www.angelfire.com/ok/worldofradio/dxld1192.txt 
> Mike 
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:  
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxld/ 
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  
> dxld-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> ______________________________________________ 
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms 
> To unsubscribe: Send an E-mail to
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
> URL shown above. 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.