ZDF is main anti-China media outlet in Germany!
[b]For the last year or so there is a more and more intensifying anti-China campaign in german TV but the ZDF, a conservative biased public channel (basically a state owned entity!), tops all other german media outlets.[/b]Especially their so called (anti-!:lol) [i]´China correspondent´[/i] [b]Johannes Hano[/b] is an example for distorting, prejudiced and utterly abject propaganda [b]only intending to smear and tarnish China[/b]. Watching his propaganda pieces is like looking at an old worn out movie from the cold war: He turns every stone only to find something negative, presents a dumbass like Hu Jia as an [i]´intellectual dissident´[/i] (never mind that every chinese in his sane senses considers the guy a real fruitcake!:lol) and[b] of course he employs the oldest cold warrior trick: He carefully differentiates between the bad chinese communists, the bad chinese government and the good chinese people.[/b] (Though he must think that the Chinese are really stupid if he expects that they would believe in his crap!)
[b]I really beg my chinese friends just to confront that guy so that he cannot play his dirty tricks anymore![/b] Send him some mails calling him in plain language what we would call him in german e.g.[b] ´Kleines Arschloch´[/b]!:lol Every time he sets up his camera and wants to produce his arrogant anti-China crap just tell him that he can get lost and that he is indeed already known for his anti-China bias.
[b]Most funny about Johannes Hano is that the guy is only a little princeling [/b]who got his precious job as ZDF reporter only by the[i] ´good services´ [/i]of his daddy Horst Hano who also worked for the ZDF for decades as a foreign correspondent. (Of course his dad was also a pro-US and anti-Soviet hardliner and now he has obviously told his offspring to take the ´struggle´ to the remaining [i]´Empire of Evil´[/i]!) [b]Probably he will indeed get somewhat embarrassed if more chinese people would know about his background and confront him about his hypocritical behavior. [/b]
[b]China's government must eventually realize that the unrelenting cold war-style campaign on german TV is a grave threat for chinese interests in Europe![/b][i] Most german people wish the chinese people success and want friendship with the PRC but there is a growing vocal minority who are instigated to sinophobic hatred by TV stations like the ZDF.[/i] [b]Beijing has to do something about this, ...and the sooner the better![/b] Arguments, arguments, arguments! Where are your arguments! Claiming something is easy! So where are your arguments, where are the facts, which story and which pictures do you mean? This Westener thinks Johannes Hano is a fruit-tard too. Go China :victory:
-Samtom Samtom,
you said: "This Westener thinks Johannes Hano is a fruit-tard too. Go China"
Where did I say this? It is very easy, to claim something! But you have to give at least one arguement! There were no arguments. It is only insulting someone!
--
Yanda,
where are your arguments!? [quote]Original posted by [i]de_guo_ren[/i] at 12-7-2008 04:32 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=18265&ptid=2298][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
Samtom,
you said: "This Westener thinks Johannes Hano is a fruit-tard too. Go China"
Where did I say this? It is very easy, to claim something! But you have to give at least one arguement! Ther ... [/quote]
Samtom meant herself when she said "this Westerner." She claims to be Canadian. @de guo ren:
Are you fluent in German? So just have a look at ZDF.de website and search up some of the streamings of Hano's clips from ZDF Beijing and you will probably get indeed jolted with [i]´arguments´[/i].
Moreover I have to admit that we should not emotionalize our postings here and my usage of german [i]´strong language´[/i] was actually inappropriate.:Q
Nevertheless my desrciption of his extremely biased way of reporting about chinese affairs is quite accurate and my comment about Mr. Hano's [i]guanxi[/i] :lol is unfortunately not polite though simply correct. (...not that I would suggest in general talking too aggressively about [i]´family background´[/i]: Guys like Bush jr., Fukuda and even a certain Mr. Xi could easily get somewhat uncomfortable.:D)
After all I'm surprised that you are criticizing my style of argumentation without any consideration of the subject of my post. [b]Perhaps you are indeed endorsing Hano's condescending, arrogant and provocative cold war style propaganda and you are only dodging away from a frank commitment by argumentative evasion?[/b]
[[i] Last edited by Yanda at 12-7-2008 12:59 [/i]] Hi Yanda,
I don't know German language, so I can't enter ZDF website to read Johannes Hano's article. I checked with my German friends, well, they said, Johannes Hano is not friendly to China. Well, I understand everything now; my friends are German, so they didn't want to use too bad words to describe Johannes Hano (keep his face), :lol, However, obviously they can't agree with Johannes Hano on many of his opinion about China.
Best Wishes and Regards
Yan Yan Yanda,
still where is your arguments!
I speak German! (=mother tongue)
So why should I do your work? You claim something, than [b][i][u]YOU[/u][/i][/b] have to give the arguments. It is your job to do! Not mine! This is a dirty trick! When I say, do you mean this, and it has no bias, because it it true, you say, "No, no, it the other thing" and this game could be endless!
So arguments, arguments, arguments, where are your arguments!
Hear say is not a valid ground for discussion!
--
Yanyan,
we are polite to our guest, especially Chinese, we know you do not like to lose face! That´s is why we normally say Beijing Government not China or something else! But Chinese allways say, we and our government are one!
Not a very good playground to discuss things!
--
Yanda,
when somebody get his job with guanxi in the west, he has to work twice as hard than others! He will be closely observed by his colleagues. Because, we in the west don´t like this! And when he is a reporter, he has to work three times as hard as others. Do you really think, they are not crictical. They are reporters, they are critical outside and inside, especially when somebody as you claim get his job by "guanxi"! So I doubt your claim, he get his job by "guanxi"!
--
Yanyan,
which article! Please gave me the link! And second, ask your friend to translate them and publish them here!
--
Davo,
didn´t know this.
[[i] Last edited by de_guo_ren at 14-7-2008 01:21 [/i]] @de guo ren:
Hano is really busy now and this will probably stay so until after the Olympics so currently new releases of his [i]´work´ [/i]are appearing several times a week on ZDF website, main channel and various digital satellite channels. [b]Notwithstanding I will try to find some time to pick a couple of the most glaring examples of[/b][i] ´Hano spin´ [/i]:D[b] and post my detailed[/b][i] critique[/i][b] here on Anti-CNN. So stay tuned ... [/b]but for a guy like you de guo ren the[i] ´urge to believe in systemic certainties ´[/i] of his own society is presumably too overwhelming for being scrutinized.
As for your comments about how abhorrent [i]´Westerners´[/i] feel about [i]guanxi[/i] and [i]princelings[/i] you should at least know that most Chinese also do not condone that kind of practice and that some discernible progress in preventing nepotism has actually been made. [b]However I decidedly do not share your compassionate feelings about how the poor privileged princelings have to fight so hard in their lives for legitimate recognitio[/b]n:D. ([i]...poor boys[/i]! :'()
[b]Instead of acting as a [/b][b][i] `Praktikant vom Dienst´[/i][/b][b] defending stubbornly every indefensible position as if it was an unassailable moral high ground you should better do some reasoning about a country like your own where political and [/b][b][i](even more pronounced![/i][/b][b]) economic elites are rapidly degenerating into impermeable[/b][b][i] ´castes´ [/i][/b][b]exercising unimpeded control by virtue of wealth and connections. [/b](Of course de guo ren, the current situation in China is equally lamentable but your quite[i] ´one-eyed´[/i] reflections about [i]guanxi [/i](or [i]non-guanxi[/i]?) in the[i] ´West´ [/i]are [i]naive[/i] to say the least. :Q)
[[i] Last edited by Yanda at 14-7-2008 13:32 [/i]] Yanda,
I do not doubt, that we have something you can call "Guanxi". Actually, it is nowadays heavily discussed.
But you claim, that his guanxi is the base
- for his carreer
- and his negative attitude against China
But both without any reliable fact!
--
second: I doubt that the ZDF is the "main anti-China media outlet in Germany"
I haven´t seen a really Anti-China-News on TV, nor on the ZDF.
My Chinese friend said the same about "Der Spiegel" a magazine here in Germany. I read this article, but I couldn´t find really something that was "Anti-China"! Everything was allready published in different magazines before. And a lot go along with my experience. I translated some of them, but my Chinese friend couldn´t say that one of these were wrong!
--
I remember a story, about a US-Journalist (15 or 20 years ago). He worked in China, and he had to go regularly to a Chinese official, because of his "wrong", untrue, biased articles!
Official (=O): Your articles are wrong!
(The Chinese Official starts a 5 to 10 minute monologue, where he blaim the reporter, not to tell the truth. But didn´t deliver any fact! He is very vague!)
US: Which article were wrong?
(The Chinese Official starts a 5 to 10 minute monologue, where he blaim the reporter, not to tell the truth. But didn´t deliver any fact! He is very vague!)
US: So not a whole article. So which fact were wrong?
(The Chinese Official starts a 5 to 10 minute monologue, where he blaim the reporter, not to tell the truth. But didn´t deliver any fact! He is very vague!)
US: So you do not like the phrase, which I use! Which exactly?
(Once again, the Chinese Official starts a 5 to 10 minute monolog, where he blaim the reporter, not to tell the truth. But didn´t deliver any fact! He is very vague once again!)
This takes allways one to three hours. Allways Claiming everything, and saying nothing!
--
History repeats!
--
And the ZDF is state owned, thats true. But it is not controlled by politicians or the state. It reflects the people! (We have a democracy!)
The 77 ZDF-Council-members come from:
Politicians
- 16 for each Federal state
- 3 from the German government
- 12 political parties (4 CDU, 5 SPD, 1 CSU, 1 FDP, 1 Green)
- 3 cities, counties
= 34
The rest come from
- different Organizations for example Churchs (4), Jew organization (1), Labour Union (3), Service club(4), Olympic committee (1)
- represent different groups like Consumer protection, science, culture, education
And all strongly defend the interest of their groups, based on the Public interest
So it is state owened, but controlled by the people!
--
Cold warrior trick!
Really! You really think, a US-Soldier in Korea or Vietnam think of "Bad communist government and good enemy soldier"!
There is a good enemy soldier, only mislead by his bad communist government, so I have to give him freedom, and kill him!
Sounds a little bit strange!
--
In cold war time, Chinese were called "Blue ants". We saw no difference between government and people!
--
So why we differ nowadays between government and people!
You know "Hegel", maybe not, but surely "Karl Marx". His dialectic thinking is based on Hegel! So when you want to discuss something, you must be able to see difference, based on facts. This is only possible, when you are rational. But when you say, we and the government are one, you will take every critic personal, and you will get emotional. As we have seen the last few months! Samtom argues that de_guo_ren is nothing more than a reincarnation of the flaming troll MartinfromtheUK:lol
-Samtom Samtom,
someone said, that you are a canadian. But you are obviously a Chinese!
And If you do not believe, that I am a German. That´s up to you. But you should at least see this because of my poor English.
But, lets try it another way! Use a German dialect! Maybe some Chinese here in Germany can translate this:
"Du hascht ja ke Ahnung von de Welt. Det I ä Engländer sei könn´t , des seht ja ä Blinder, det desch net die Wahrheit isch. Do würdst mie im Grab umdräh, wenn det stimme wörd!" Alright, no more accusing who each other are and stick to the topic, people.
[quote]And If you do not believe, that I am a German. That´s up to you. But you should at least see this because of my poor English. [/quote]
I believe all of you are who you say you are, but your English really isn't that bad. stop derailing this topic.
We all know that German media outlets are propaganda tools of the government.
What is the Chinese Government supposed to do apart from coming up with its own propaganda?
"China and the progression of rights" written by Geoffrey Howe
Sir Geoffrey Howe, is a senior British Conservative politician. He was Margaret Thatcher's longest-serving Cabinet minister, successively holding the posts of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and finally Leader of the House of Commons and Deputy Prime Minister.Please read his articles for some reference. It is thirty years since I made my first visit to China and sixteen since I led a British mission there “to discuss matters of mutual concern, including human rights”. It was not easy – indeed it was a significant achievement – to get the words “human rights” included in the definition of our mission. Given the strength of the media spotlight that Beijing’s hosting of the Olympics has already focused on China’s human rights record, this is as good a time as any to take stock - and, perhaps, to bring some balance into a relentlessly critical, and, in my view, unsophisticatedly black-and-white portrayal of life in China today.
It was as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer that I was invited to visit the People’s Republic as long ago as August 1978. The chance to see something of the country, when it was still very much in the shadow of the Cultural Revolution, has served to equip me with a mental yardstick, against which to judge developments over the following thirty years.
The Gang of Four were universal scapegoats; and the re-emerging Deng Xiaoping was only just getting into his stride. My first memories are of the ill-lit, single-track road to the city, from Beijing’s then third world airport; and my most relevant (from the last day of our ten day visit) memories are of the only “court” we were able to find. It was in the heart of a Shanghai police cantonment - and devoid of any visible activity. The two “judges”, whom we were able to find, were retired generals. Neither had ever recorded an acquittal.
Fast forward to this year’s opening of Beijing airport’s third terminal (bigger than the whole of Heathrow) and the cityscape of extraordinarily modern and iconic buildings being built as the City prepares for the Olympics - and the pace of perceivable physical change has been more than fantastic. Against that impressive background, it would be churlish indeed for anyone to contend that there has been no parallel progress in the enhancement of rights – economic, social and civil alike. The personal freedoms that ordinary Chinese citizens now enjoy would have been totally unthinkable at the time of my first visit. Political reform, of course, has been much less in evidence. But from 1978 onwards China has been taking action to establish the basic pillars of a justice system – in contrast to the overriding “rule of man”, which characterised the Cultural Revolution. And since 1992, the year of my delegation’s visit, formal activity towards the establishment of the rule of law has been more or less continuous. Enforcement has no doubt often trailed behind enactment, but the sheer volume (and indeed the quality) of legislation incorporating human rights protection has indeed been impressive.
In the context of international law, China has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (2001); and has signed, but not yet ratified, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1998). In the field of domestic law, the passing of the reformed Criminal Procedure Law, 1996 began to recognise the case for the presumption of innocence, for a bail system and for defence lawyers.
Fulfilment of that objective has been less than complete; and the system is in continuing need of updating. But these have been significant steps forward in the establishment of defendant’s rights to fair trial. So too, in 2004, the incorporation into revisions of the Chinese constitution of the need to respect and protect human rights. Nor has China stood still since then. This year alone sees significant steps forward in the protection of employees’ rights, with the new Labour Contract Law (effective since January this year). This requires written contracts of employment and establishes protection from summary dismissal. So too the revised Lawyers Law (effective from June this year) enhances the role and rights of defence lawyers – and, once again therefore, the prospects of fair trial.
Nor should we fail to acknowledge the truly laudable achievement, over the last decade, of lifting more than 150 million people out of absolute poverty. This has been a striking fulfilment of Jiang Zemin’s declaration, to my delegation in 1992, that the need to feed people was his most pressing priority. From the perspective of some countries in Asia, China is now perceived, almost literally, as a land of milk and honey. This certainly is the view expressed by refugees, who have recently chosen, and been able, to escape into China from North Korea – and who have declared themselves astonished (I quote from a leaflet published on their behalf) to find that “personal property and possessions are permitted … the harvest is mine to keep … and there is freedom of residence, freedom of speech and freedom to travel wherever and whenever I want to go”. Benchmarks of this kind are significant and any society would be justifiably proud of such progress. But it does not receive the recognition which it surely deserves in most media coverage of modern China. Certainly it has carried no weight in the balance of recent press reports on the balance of China’s human rights record. So why is there this recognition gap? How far is the view justified that China should have done more, towards a greater realisation of, in particular, civil and political rights? And even more particularly, how far should it, could it, have done so in this year of hosting the Olympics?
Mark Leonard, in an impressively perceptive book, ‘What does China think?’ writes, “China’s rise is different: it is the big story of our age and its after-effects could echo down generations to come.” This is certainly one reason why China is being called to account in a way that, rightly or wrongly, other smaller, less significant nations, are not. There is also a feeling of disappointment, again highlighted by Mark Leonard, that even though China has grown richer it has not become more “like us”. There has been an assumption that economic growth and development would inevitably lead to the demise of the Chinese Communist Party and to the growth of multi-party democracy. This has not happened. Indeed, the Party’s ability to reinvent itself has so far ensured its own survival and stability.
This certainly challenges Western concepts of the supremacy of liberal democracy, as being the only way to guarantee the freedoms and rights of the governed. But in a society as ancient and continental in scale as China, whose history has experienced long periods of conflict and turmoil, stability is bound to be a dominant objective. Against that background, there can be no doubt that relations between our two
countries are best conducted within a framework of mutually respectful dialogue and exchange of views.
It is that which has characterised the work of two organisations with which I have been myself closely involved, namely the Great Britain – China Centre and the Thomson Foundation. If one takes the issue of freedom of expression as one example, it is notable that China has indeed honoured its commitment to the International Olympics Committee to remove restrictions on foreign journalists’ ability to interview people within China. So too, it has recently allowed access to the long-blocked BBC News website in English. These two examples underline what folly it is that Hu Jia, an Aids activist, has been imprisoned for “subverting state security”, when we would consider that he was merely exercising his right to express his views on human rights. So, in spite of the significant progress to which I have already alluded, it remains the case that the Chinese authorities appear still to lack the confidence to allow their own citizens to debate and argue freely – whether in print or on electronic media – still less to allow free access to foreign websites. Not unlike some other governments, China’s rulers are still unwisely unwilling to accept criticism of their rights record – all the more so when such criticism comes from overseas.
Freedom of expression and press liberalisation must, as we believe, be the way forward - and ultimately in China’s own interests. A more balanced account of the diversity of views about, for example, Sino-Tibetan relationships and related events would have been more likely to reach the outside world, if the media had had more and not less freedom to observe and report on such matters. Media independence is often the only force that brings incompetence or misbehaviour onto a nation’s agenda – a necessary process, if such misdeeds or misbehaviour are to be identified and corrected. For this reason, the training of Chinese journalists by the Thomson Foundation (and similar work by other UK organisations) on freedom of expression are important interventions. And I am more than convinced that they help to move the debate forward. Encouragingly, there are signs that press freedom is growing in China. Magazines such as Caijing (Finance) play a role in holding the government to account. But progress of this kind is patchy since what is allowed in one month may not be tolerated in the next - which, understandably, makes editors nervous and cautious.
The promotion of the rule of law is an oft-stated goal of the Chinese government - and an organisation like the Great Britain – China Centre works hard with Chinese partners in the judiciary, police and procuratorate, to secure the introduction of best practice models from European experience – for example, in detention centre supervision, human rights training and better procedural processes. No matter how well crafted legislation may be (and there is a good deal now on China’s statute book) it is practice which is ultimately the bedrock for effective protection of human rights. Unless those responsible for implementation understand, and indeed have an interest in understanding, what the law seeks to protect, the law itself is empty -or, at best, a possible ground for appeal. On its own, the law can be no more than an instigator of necessary change. So again training programmes, dialogue and workshops - the very heart of GBCC’s work, - can do much to secure the necessary understanding and practical acceptance of the legal requirements. But we should never underestimate just how daunting a task this can be. By way of example, there are in China over 1.7 million police officers. Getting every one of them to understand and embrace the principles of human rights in their day-to-day policing must be recognised as no mean task.
Ultimately China, the Chinese government and the Chinese people, will determine the level and scope of the rights and freedoms to be enjoyed. We in the West can support dialogue and offer encouragement. We can certainly continue to hold China to account for the promises it has made – and, in particular, the promise of the Beijing Olympics officials that the games would be "an opportunity to foster democracy, improve human rights, and integrate China with the rest of the world". But equally, I believe, we have a duty to inform ourselves of what is actually happening in China - rather than relying on alarmist knee jerk reactions to China’s growing role – political as well as economic - on the international stage.
Upon the basis of our own two thousand years of history, I remain a firm believer in the model of parliamentary democracy and in the values and benefits it confers upon the people of the United Kingdom. But I am prepared to recognise that China, with a history twice as long as ours, and a comprehensive culture of its own making, may yet be forging a new model, that will work for a unified country of one fifth of the world’s population. It is more likely than not to be borne out of its own kaleidoscopic cultural experience and political philosophies, rather than based upon a copycat model of Western historic development.
P. 5 “What does China think?” Mark Leonard; Fourth Estate, London 2008 "What is the Chinese Government supposed to do apart from coming up with its own propaganda?"
I will not even comment this phrase.
but yang yang, it is good to see that you quote sensed people.
What a relief if everybody here recongnised that:
"These two examples underline what folly it is that Hu Jia, an Aids activist, has been imprisoned for “subverting state security”, when we would consider that he was merely exercising his right to express his views on human rights. So, in spite of the significant progress to which I have already alluded, it remains the case that the Chinese authorities appear still to lack the confidence to allow their own citizens to debate and argue freely – whether in print or on electronic media – still less to allow free access to foreign websites. Not unlike some other governments, China’s rulers are still unwisely unwilling to accept criticism of their rights record – all the more so when such criticism comes from overseas."
Finally, this is my last word i promise, i find it ridiculous to make a mockery of someone like Hu Jia, who, whether who share his ideas or not, has a thousand times more guts than anyone here on this forum.
Good day to you
ps: de_guo_ren, you're from bavaria, aren't you? lol