I did not get your ideas, can you make it more clear? You mean CNN chop pictures is right, Chinese police keep peace is wrong? Or what?

Maybe you can make your article more clear, so people can have a debate, it is interesting to see different idea though.

AHH, Now I know you are the one who claim, you are the friend of Granqvist Eirik and you said article 'Riots in Lhasa - By a Finnish professor'is fake (http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-25-2-1.html check out the link). so this time you are 'a German Student speaks out about Western Bias'. You comes again. You said I did not give you a chance to speak why you fake your post. Ok, now please tell me the reason.

[ Last edited by kukkaukkonen at 29-4-2008 02:00 ]

I think his article is rather clear. He is not giving judgment about anything he is just saying that Anti-CNN also fabricated some "evidence" I feel some of his statements are good. About blurring the text does make some of the message go away. This should be corrected.

The thing he did mis is how most people view the situation. The reporting did give the impression that China was doing something wrong and should be punished or acted against. Also like he said it took him a day just to find this out. Most people will not spend so much time to investigate something so that is why the media needs to be so objective as possible. Also media has corrected himself and some even apologized this means that they did something wrong. There is enough evidence that they did do something wrong and there is enough evidence the western protest groups and some government officials where bashing China.

At last don't forget.... A picture says more then a thousand words!

i bet this dude didt see the misleading/Chopped photos news publish by CNN after They made the Tibet Statement.

Agrees... anti-cnn is founded in anger and no doubt volunteers with passion will make some mistakes. We shouldn't fight back with just passion, but also credible proof. I noticed that westerners care about that very much, and I agree with that. If we also use fabrication to fight back we're no different from those we despise.

We Chinese should give up thoughts like "we are all right and you are all wrong". Chinese are using "Chinese gov did something wrong, but..." while defenders of the West using "CNN lied, but..." Both sides made some mistakes and we shall calm down and look into these things carefully, not driven by anger or prejudice.

Ronald do not make me wrong, the first post I sent is just really not very clear about the content 'davehor1' has made, I advice him to improve it. But I just accidently saw the post he sent on 'Riots in Lhasa - By a Finnish professor' so I know he is the same person I baned a few days ago.

Dui bu qi kukkaukkonen!

I was thinking you didn't understand the things said by that German guy. Sorry I miss understood you. It would be nice if he would give his opinion about it. But it is good he showed us this link so we can have a different view on everything.

Ronald Don't worry, it was good I found out his ture face immediatly, he just ran way like last time, now I know as a Moderator is not a very nice job.

This so-called "German student" is getting tough on a translation problem.

The German text in total is: "Chinesisches Sicherheitspersonal im Steinhagel: Das Militär reagiert mit
Härte".

The Chinese guy who made the anti-cnn photo translated as "Spiegel said: army response with cruel act!"

This so-called "German student" says the translation must be "army response with hardness".  And then he ranted a lot about the difference between "cruel act" and "hardness".  Finally he concluded: it must be translated into "hardness", otherwise, those who translate the german text into "cruel act" are called as liars.

After the Cafferty incident, suddenly we have another linguistic problem popped up.    Can somebody who understand german language tell us whether the german text can be translated into "cruel act" or not?   And if yes, who gives the so-called "German student"'s privilege to enforce a dedicated way of translation?  We all know that writers do explore "puns" to instigate tricky implications to their audience, don't we?  Why should Spiegel use such puns at the first place, and then play the Cafferty trick here?  Are they honest people we can trust?