Hello, McNetwork!
And shame on Anderson Cooper!
By John Kusumi
It is a nod to full disclosure when I mention that I'm a former presidential candidate. That doesn't mean that I'm a household name; I remain an obscure public figure. Independent presidential candidates seem always to be consigned to what journalists call "the nut pile." I was the teenager running against the re-election of Ronald Reagan in 1984. I became a back page news story and turned 18 on the news, while I campaigned for "the politics of practical idealism." When my writing turns to being for the China Support Network -- and in support of the Chinese democracy movement generally -- then my 1984 campaign is irrelevant and as I say, it is a nod to full disclosure to mention it. ("This country has heard from me before!" "I can wag my finger and say 'America, I told you so!'") Many times, I don't even include the disclosure, because I'm writing articles for CSN and we don't need a rehash of my prior political advocacy. My background can always be looked up by anybody who cares to Google me.
But now you know who's the man at the China Support Network, with 19 years of writing, speeches, and public statements in behalf of freedom, democracy, and human rights for mainland China -- a place where the government is still a one-party dictatorship of the CCP, or Chinese Communist Party. I can underscore that it is mere happenstance that one man wears multiple hats -- there was no plan in 1984 to have a Tiananmen Square massacre, and the China Support Network as a response to it, in 1989. All of my pre-1989 activity would have been "blind," without knowledge that the Chinese democracy movement was coming down the pike, would break out into an uprising, and meet with a crackdown where I'd be drawn into the response. So, the China Support Network is simply not about climbing towards the U.S. presidency. It does allow me to make speeches against communists, dictators, tyrants, and thugs -- so I realize that it looks too convenient. But I continue to insist that it is unplanned happenstance; a nuclear-armed, communist superpower found its way into my Inbox, somehow.
Of course, with two different hats to wear, it means that my statements are subject to double review. I can do the China Support Network because it is fully compatible with my established politics and principles. It would be good for America if "red China" became "blue China" -- if we could have a friend and strategic partner, rather than a latent menace and strategic competitor, in China. So, the things that I do for the China Support Network are also "okay by practical idealism." To have more than one standpoint, more than one set of experiences, is also eye opening as a matter of perspective on what I see. Where I've spent time in the public sector, the non profit sector, and the private sector -- it means that I can do the calculus from each standpoint. The private sector does not concern itself with human rights, but the non profit sector does and the public sector should.
The news media seemingly tries to find one "establishment narrative" that balances or encompasses all three sectors. --Wait, scratch that thought.-- In an upright world, the news media WOULD try to find one "establishment narrative" that balances or encompasses that which is observably true about those three sectors, plus also the various segments of the public like consumers and voters. When voters get together with an issue -- e.g., the China Support Network -- then that becomes a part of the non profit sector. But, ours is a fallen world rather than the imagined upright world as noted above. In real life, the news media seems to report things "of, by, and for" the private sector. (By "private sector" I mean corporate America.)
So, the news media doesn't quite have the "establishment narrative" that would exist in an upright world. Instead, they have the "private sector narrative," and they pass it off as the establishment narrative. This is one reason why so many people cry, "Foul!" about the news media. Also, above I said that "the public sector should" concern itself with human rights. Does it? No! And, for younger people I should say that in the old days, the government was the public sector and distinct from the private sector. One reason why I was Ronald Reagan's youngest political opponent was because we were losing a public sector in this country -- the government was co-opted and subborned and became given to doling out "corporate welfare." By now, our country seems to have two private sectors and zero public sector. So young people might need a refresher to tell them that "public sector concerns" exist, and they have been given short shrift in recent years by both the government and the media in this country. It seems almost quaint to write about public service in a public sector. That seems to be writing about La La Land, not the America that we know in the 21st century.
News outlets are, themselves, within the private sector, and that's what they report about. We haven't heard much about the Chinese democracy movement in recent years, that's for sure. They have faced tawdry neglect and shabby treatment from the powerful.
Now, it is the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I am less than 48 hours away from giving a speech at the candle light vigil, which is always outside the Chinese embassy when it is the anniversary of the "June 4" massacre. (And actually, that vigil is held on June 1 this year.) I'll give my speech again, but with a raised eyebrow for the news media people who have seemed to be callous pro-communist stenographers. They are missing news stories that originate from the Chinese democracy movement. What are they missing? Well, go ahead and Google "China Support Network." We have so much material that it won't fit into one article, and it will take a research project to look into the backlog of news that they never reported.
Shame on them. And in a recent interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper piously said, "Every day in my job I think, 'Am I, is what I'm doing fair?' 'Is the way I'm portraying things accurate?' 'Am I showing any bias?' 'Are the people around me showing bias?' These are daily considerations." --Hello? McNetwork? --At the time of Tiananmen Square, all the world knew that there were two sides to China's story. For some years after that, anchormen reported "blue" news as well as "red" news. Under Bill Clinton, the anchormen became entirely one-sided, and now they report "red" Chinese news, and pretend or make believe that there is no blue side. Yes, Virginia, there is a blue side. But every day, blow dried TV people like Anderson Cooper go to work and pretend and make believe like they're on top of everything; like they're oh-so-sophisticated; and like business-as-usual during a human rights emergency isn't a flawed modus operandi. Shame on Anderson Cooper!
[[[Note. At other web sites, this post received good questions requesting clarification, expansion, explanation, or examples. Therefore the following material is appended in answer to the response.]]]
--As for pro-communist reporting, there are four big coalitions against the Olympics: Save Darfur, pro-Tibet, Falun Gong, and Chinese dissidents. I am a director in the dissidents' Freedom First Olympics Second Coalition.
None of us "called off" our concerns about human rights. None of us "called off" our Olympic boycotting efforts. However, the news media has tried to call such shots, where it genuinely has no authority. Here are recent headlines:
The mend is in sight --Sunday Mirror, UK
China's quake calms Olympic controversies --Associated Press
Quake gives China chance to improve army image --Reuters
China PLA Sent to Quake in 14 Minutes, Showing Change --Bloomberg
Quake Quiets the Critics of China's Human Rights Record --Wall Street Journal
China Earthquake Pushes Tibet to Sidelines --New York Times
--In the case of the Reuters and Bloomberg articles above, they amount to stenography of the type I decry. Their Beijing people attended a press conference by Beijing officials. Those are one-sided affairs that dish out the party line. Party propaganda was passed along to Western readers largely verbatim. In fact, see the Bloomberg headline where they've put the CCP claim directly into the headline (China PLA Sent to Quake in 14 minutes)!
...Not 13 minutes...Not 15 minutes...14 minutes!!!....
] It's a real stretch to use the earthquake story "against" the Olympic boycott, which arose for other reasons. If those other reasons (human rights abuse) don't go away, why should the Olympic boycott go away?
Really, two separate stories are two separate stories. I realize that editorial "news budgets" shift to reflect the priorities of the moment. But if human rights abuse isn't going away, we aren't either. Why should upstanding journalists (mis)use the quake story "against" the Olympics story? It is a stretch too far to write the obituary of the Freedom First Olympics Second Coalition. I worked to assemble it; I am an authority there; and journalists have no authority to call it off.
And it's too convenient for the Communist Party, like they're off the hook. That is a grasp on top of a reach after a stretch. Journalists seem to be prematurely falling for the idea that the Chinese government, or at least the narrative about it, has gone from bad to good. This is faulty logic, too simplistic, and vulnerable to changing events.
Silly journalists are making like the CCP is "great, glorious, and correct" and that China's PR problem is behind it. Those are suggestions that won't stick. Journalists are trying -- in this case too obviously -- to act as opinion leaders. They are suggesting how other journalists should handle China stories.
Can a clear head see through this faulty logic? --Well yes, the President of France isn't fooled. "A spokesman for Mr. Sarkozy said Monday France's president hasn't changed his position about whether to attend the Opening Ceremonies. 'The Olympic Games and the terrifying earthquake are two different things,' the spokesman said."
Hooray for the French spokesman. "The Olympic Games and the terrifying earthquake are two different things."
Amen to that, and again - hooray for the clear minded thinker, who knows that two different things are two different things. And boo hiss for journalists who conflate and confuse two different things like one matter solves the other matter. I see through it! I wish that all clear minded thinkers would see through the jeuvenile shenanigans and games of the journalists who love to call the shots, but for my group, I call the shots. It goes from me to them, not vice-versa. "Nice try," is what I'd say to these ersatz journalists. Are they reporting? Or just spin doctoring?
