Archive for the Guardian’s anti-China campaign Category

Western media hypes China’s non-existent ‘live execution’ of pirates [Asia Times]

Posted in Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Capitalist media double standard, China, China-bashing, Chinese TV program, Corporate Media Critique, CPC, Guardian's anti-China campaign, Law enforcement, Media smear campaign, Myanmar, New York Times lie, U.K., USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Western nations' human rights distortions on March 29, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

I was seeing articles about a ‘live execution’ to be televised in China, but I’ve watched Chinese TV on the mainland for several years and the Western articles did not compute at all. Turns out it was all based on a rumor from South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper that is prone to print rumors and lies regarding mainland news. Of course the UK is just horrified, horrified about the death penalty in the first place, a summarily hypocritical stance given that government’s proclivity to slaughter countless civilians in wars and covert operations abroad without any judicial process whatsoever. – Zuo Shou

by Peter Lee

March 8, 2013

The Western media outrage on the execution in China of Naw Kham focused on the circus surrounding the televising – or non-televising – of the event, which followed the conviction of the Burmese pirate and several of his associates for the massacre of 13 Chinese crew members of two ships on the Mekong River in October 2011…

…By its own – and Western – standards, China’s capture, trial, and execution of Naw Kham appears a model of legality. According to China’s Global Times, the PRC was tempted to assassinate him via a drone strike in his foreign hideout, but declined.

Neither was he shot in the head by special forces and his corpse secretly dumped in the ocean, as was done with Osama bin Laden. Nor was he torched in his hideout with incendiary grenades, as the San Bernadino Sheriff’s Department did to alleged murderer and cop killer Christopher Dorner just a few weeks ago.

Instead, Naw Kham was captured, tried in a Chinese court, and executed by lethal injection, together with three accomplices. The PRC…understandably decided to celebrate this demonstration of Chinese political and legal efficacy with a 21st century wall-to-wall coverage live media festival on the occasion of the execution.

Western media outlets, whose prime directive appears to be to deny the People’s Republic of China any hint of a soft-power victory, were determined to shoehorn the execution of Naw Kham and his fellows into the Butchers of Beijing template.

The heavy lifting was done by the South China Morning Post’s John Kennedy, who…misconstrued CCTV’s promise of live, execution-related coverage from the scene to coverage of the lethal injection itself.

The relevant screen cap from CCTV read “Death sentence to be carried out” and “Live broadcast and more details to be revealed tomorrow”. Perhaps not the finest moment in chyron-writing. However, it’s not just CCTV. If one Googles “Timothy McVeigh TV execution”, (Timothy McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber who murdered 168 people and was executed in 2001) the first hit is: McVeigh Execution: C-Span Video Library. Spoiler: the video does not show the actual execution of Timothy McVeigh.

Another hit from the first page of results: TV coverage of McVeigh execution keeps focus on victims. Written by the AP TV writer, David Bauder, the article relates:

During the moments that lethal drugs were coursing through McVeigh’s veins – unseen to television viewers – ABC showed footage of survivors and relatives
And one more: Networks Plan McVeigh Execution Coverage.

John Kennedy, a Canadian and “a longtime resident of southern China” according to the South China Morning Post “Authors’ list” but obviously unaware of such ancient, tedious, and non-Chinese media history, then doubled down with the tweet:

CCTV said, unambiguously and in plain Chinese, it’s going to live broadcast the execution. I’m not going to put words in its mouth. If it turns out CCTV is deliberately misleading the public to boost viewership (and in a way or two I hope it is), that’s a story in itself.

With that, Western reporters were off to the races.

In a story titled “China TV Kills Live Execution Plans at Last Minute”, ABC News Beijing Bureau declared (I suspect on the strength of John Kennedy’s post that live coverage of the actual execution had been promised):

…but as the program neared its close, the station abruptly changed plans and did not show the execution.

The piece rather shamefacedly hedged its bets in the last paragraph:
For whatever reason, CCTV did not broadcast the actual execution.

Maybe the reason was that the Chinese government had never announced its intention to broadcast the actual execution anyway.

Not good enough for UPI’s Kristen Butler, who linked to the ABC News story in order to buttress her piece, “China’s CCTV Cuts Live Execution Broadcast at Last Minute”, staffers adding the apparently ludicrous sub-head: “State-run CCTV cut short the live execution after a poll on Chinese Twitter, Weibo, showed firm opposition”.

Butler provided no documentation for the assertion that the Weibo poll prompted CCTV to drop its plans to broadcast the actual execution; in keeping with the fug of ambiguity that pervades this story, perhaps she or her editors felt that alternate interpretations of “after” – for instance, referring merely to temporal sequence and not causality – shielded UPI from the need to come up with any sourcing for the claim.

Now, at least in the Western press, the TV event was a public relations rout [sic]:

New York Times: Chinese TV Special on Executions Stirs Debate/ Divided Chinese See a Live TV Program About Executions as Crass, or Cathartic

NPR: China’s Broadcast Of Drug Lord’s Final Hours Sparks Controversy

Reuters: “Execution parade” of four behind Mekong murders angers Chinese

The Guardian: China divided on TV ‘execution parade’: judicial resolve or crude voyeurism

Wall Street Journal: Debate Swirls Around China Execution Broadcast

Virtually alone on the opposite side of the ledger, Sinostand’s Eric Fish had questioned the “actual execution to be televised” meme before the fact and was excoriated by commenters for correctly predicting actual events…

With this generous evidentiary and analytic standard, it is surprising that the China’s Western critics confined themselves to the transitory pleasures of China bashing, media criticism, and fisking of CCTV chyrons…

Asia Online’s original article title: “Did China Execute the Wrong Pirate?” — Full article link:

Also see related: ‘The Teapot Tempest of “Live Execution Broadcast” Showing Dyslexia And Moving Goal Post of Moral Schizophrenia’ [Hidden Harmonies Blog] —


Chinese experts say Gmail hacking accusation evil-intentioned [Xinhua]

Posted in Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Black propaganda, Capitalist media double standard, China, Guardian's anti-China campaign, Sinophobia, vs. Google, Yellow Peril myth on June 4, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Anti-China Guardian headline regarding this issue: “China plays victim in cyber feud”. Wait a minute, “China” has not been proven to have done anything at all yet in the realm of hacking, it’s all cyber-allegations at this point. Why does the Guardian bias against China and take the side of Google and the US? Are we missing some kind of ethical disclosure that the Guardian should be making? Can there be a more transparent lack of objectivity? – Zuo Shou

BEIJING, June 3 (Xinhua) — Google lacked evidence to support its accusations that Chinese hackers are behind the alleged cyber attacks on hundreds of its email accounts and the timing to make such accusations is evil-intentioned, Chinese experts said on Friday.

“Google’s accusation is neither serious nor credible as it has not published any evidence that shows the hackers are from China,” said Dai Yiqi, a cyber security expert with Tsinghua University.

Eric Grosse, engineering director of Google’s Security Team wrote on the company blog Wednesday that unidentified hacker attacks likely originated from the eastern Chinese city of Jinan, tried to collect user passwords of the Gmail accounts of hundreds of users, including senior U.S. government officials, Chinese “human rights activists” and journalists.

A report released in 2009 by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, an organization created by the U.S. Congress, claimed that Jinan is the home of a Chinese military reconnaissance office…

…”Both their intentions and the timing of the accusation are dubious,” Dai said.

Google’s accusation followed on the heel[s] of…report[s of the] Pentagon’s first formal cyber strategy. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the Pentagon concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can count as an act of war and the United States may respond by using traditional military force.

Li Shuisheng, a research fellow with a top military science academy of the People’s Liberation Army, believes there are political motives behind Google’s accusation.

Google may well have attempted to instigate a new round of the cyber row between China and the United States, Li said.

Wednesday’s accusation by Google came more than a year after the company allegedly uncovered a cyber attack on its systems that it said it traced to China.

In January, 2010, Google said it had been attacked by hackers supported by the Chinese government, and later announced to withdraw from Chinese mainland. The row ended up with Google redirecting Chinese mainland users to a site in Hong Kong.

In such cyber attacks, it is easy to locate the IP address of hackers but hard to tell where the hackers actually are, said Dai.

“Hackers usually launch attacks by camouflaging their own IP addresses or controlling computers of others. Therefore, we can hardly tell the location of the hacker unless we have sufficient evidence,” he said.

China is one of the leading targets of cyber attacks. It has the world’s largest number of computers infected with bot, a type of malware which allows a cyber attacker to gain control over the affected computer.

About 13 percent of the world’s computers infected with bot [sic] are in China.

“Without cooperation between governments, absolute security cannot be guaranteed in cyber community,” said Li , adding only cooperation can ensure safe information exchange.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Full article here:

China Refutes Rumor on Laden’s Fleeing to China – Guardian’s 9/11-related smear remembered [Xinhua / Sweet & Sour Socialism Essential Archives]

Posted in Black propaganda, China, Corporate Media Critique, Guardian's anti-China campaign, Media smear campaign, Sweet and Sour Socialism Essential Archives on May 2, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

BEIJING, September 22 2001 (Xinhua)

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao refuted Saturday as "totally ungrounded" the report by a British newspaper saying that Osama bin Laden is in China.

The British newspaper Guardian had reported that Osama bin Laden had fled Afghanistan and entered China. It said that Osama bin Laden was hiding out somewhere in China.

Zhu said that the report by the Guardian is "totally ungrounded.”

"I wonder what motive the newspaper’s reporter harbors in disseminating such a rumor at this moment," Zhu said.

Article link here