The following exchange occurred earlier today at a daily press conference that senior spokespeople of the International and Beijing Olympic committees offer to the foreign media.
I include this excerpt between a British television journalist and the two spokesman without any comment of my own:
Question: Hi, I’m Alex Thompson from Channel Four News. My question’s mercifully short, and it’s for Giselle. Given that China got these games largely on making promises on human rights and press freedom, and given that the Chinese government has lied through its teeth about keeping those promises, is the IOC in any way embarrassed?
Giselle Davies, spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee: Good morning, Alex.
Thompson: Good morning.
Davies: There were certainly some hopes and aspirations outlayed in 2001 as to how the games could have a positive impact on the wider social framework. And I think we have to note that there have been enormous steps forward in a number of areas. You’re here reporting on the games. The world is watching. And there will be commentaries made appraising how the games have had an impact, wider through bringing sports, athletes and the world’s attention.
Interestingly, I saw that the Associated Press did a survey whereby their readers say that 55 percent of the respondents of the United States believe the choice was the right choice to come to Beijing, China …
Thompson: Yes, but I’m not asking that. I’m asking the IOC if they are in any way embarrassed about the manifest failure on behalf of the Chinese government to keep their promises. It’s a very straightforward question: Are you embarrassed?
Davies: We are very proud of the fact that these games are progressing with spectacular sports, spectacular sports venues, operationally running very smoothly, and that’s what we’re here focusing on.
Thompson: I’m asking whether you’re embarrassed. I’m not asking about how well the games have been run or how wonderful the venues are. Are you embarrassed?
Davies: I think I’ve answered your question by explaining…
Thompson: I don’t think anyone in this room, if I may speak, I may be stepping out of line, but I don’t think anybody thinks you’ve answered the question. Is the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese government not keeping those promises?
Davies: We’re very pleased with how the organizers are putting on a good sporting event. That’s what this is. The IOC’s role and remit is to bring sport and the Olympic values to this country. That is what is happening, and the organizers have put on an operationally sound games for the athletes. This is an event, first and foremost, for the athletes, and the athletes are giving us extremely positive feedback about how they see these games being held for them.
Thompson: Well, Giselle, we’re certainly not getting anywhere are we? Let’s try it once more time. Is the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese government’s not keeping promises on both press freedom and human rights? One more chance.
Davies: Well, I think probably your colleagues in the room would like to have a chance at questions as well. I think I’ve answered your question.
(Outbursts from other journalists)
Wang Wei, secretary general of the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games: I think I’ll add something to Giselle’s answer. I was the secretary general of the bidding committee. I was confronted with many questions about the opening up and reform of China. And I did say that the Olympic Games coming to China will help China to open up further and to reform better. And the facts show after 30 years of reform, China has developed greatly. People enjoy more freedom. People enjoy more wealth, have a lot to say. And people’s welfare and people’s economic situation are improved a lot. So everybody can see that. Olympic Games are a good platform. Everybody I see who comes to China for the first time will say to me, China is so different from what they read, what they saw in films and papers. People are so friendly. People (are) leading a good life. Everybody is happy. People are optimistic about their own future. That’s a fact. Of course, there are exceptions, like in any other country. Some people are not satisfied, that is true. But we need to take the legal procedures to resolve their own issues, their problems. We cannot allow the country (to fall) into chaos. So I think we welcome people coming to China to celebrate the Olympic Games with us, to enjoy the festivities with us. Of course, we also welcome suggestions, constructive advice from all the people, all the kind people. And, uh, I think a few, a very few, people come here to be critical, to dig into the small details, to find fault with that. That does not mean we are not fulfilling our promise. So I think the whole country can see how China is progressing, how China is genuinely welcoming the world to China to enjoy everything with us…
Watch the outburst on BBC. The BBC seems to be proud of the rude brit journalist and frames it as "IOC avoids pointed question". Maybe it's just that I am Chinese but these brits still think they have special rights in China. I love freedom of speech but I wish the Chinese govt would just deport that S.O.B.
Posted by: PY | August 26, 2008 at 09:06 AM
a lot of journalists in China think they're abve the law, or above any general etiquette. Have this british guy tried anything like this in front of Her Majesty?
Posted by: whatever | August 24, 2008 at 02:21 AM
The Greeks should never have let the Olympics become an appendage of a UN like cripple. The Greeks and the Greeks alone should have maintained administrative rights.
The IOC politicized the Beijing Olympics the moment they walked of the plane and obtained an agrrement with the Communist dictatorship. The fact that they are a dictatorship and not a freely elected government makes everything "political" in China.
I will wager that the Olympics will not be played again in China for at least another 40 years or when the Communist regime finally collapse.
Posted by: Tian Li | August 20, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Richard in SC,
You are the one who needs to examine China's history better.
Tibet: Tibet was incorporated into China in the 18th century when the white settlers in America were too busy killing native Americans and expending their territory. Did the US protest back then? What were you doing?
Laos: You tell me how the Chinese invaded Laos?
Vietnam: Isn't it so hypocritical for you, as a citizen of a country who invaded Vietnam and was eventually defeated to lecture the Chinese about invading Vietnam? You don't see the irony?
South Korea: Gosh, do they even teach history the way it is in the US these days? If you are referring to the Korean War, keep in mind the US-led UN forces entered Korea before the Chinese CVA forces did.
Before you lecture someone else, clean up your own act. Don't give me the "do as I say, not as I do" Da Bian.
Posted by: Pffefer | August 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I think its a straight forward question. The IOC "required" China to make basic guarantees on press freedom, full internet access, full religious freedom for visitors, and the ability of individuals to protest, among other issues. Yes or no, has China lived up to the promises they made in order to secure the games? I think in large part the answer is no.
I give great credit to this British journalist for asking this pointed question. Certainly, the coverage the NBC Networks have provided might as well have been written by the Chinese Communist Party themselves. And I assure you that these same morons that are whining about the question asked and the nationality of the journalist, will be the same people whining and bitching about the London games and any future games in the U.S.
BTW, Mr. Blix, While the U.S. is far from perfect, I really think you need to examine China's history. The people of Tibet might tell you China invaded them as well as Laos, Vietnam, South Korea and they've gone to war with India in recent history. Not to mention they continue to threaten to invade Taiwan if they dare declare their independence.
Posted by: Richard in Columbia, SC | August 18, 2008 at 05:16 AM
I wonder whether Alex Thompson
was talking to Tony Blair like this when Britain was deciding to invade Iraq. Journalistic bravery involves speaking truth to power. It is not just harassing some convenient scapegoat.
Posted by: Andrew | August 17, 2008 at 02:00 PM
I wonder whether Alex Thompson
was talking to Tony Blair like this when Britain was deciding to invade Iraq. Journalistic bravery involves speaking truth to power. It is not just harassing some convenient scapegoat.
Posted by: Andrew | August 17, 2008 at 02:00 PM
I wish our press would STFU.
I am so tired of all the China bashing. If any country needs a good bashing it is ours, invading two countries, one under a pack full of lies (when was the last time China invaded a sovereign country?) to having the largest incarceration rate in the world.
When in the hell are we going to address our own shortcomings?
Damn, I am so sick of this!
Peace
James Blix
.
Posted by: James Blix | August 17, 2008 at 11:19 AM
@PaZhuLian
.It appears there is a fundamental analogy that applies to our differences. I think the West tends to build bridges (Yes they fall sometimes but we try and construct them again) and the PRC tries to build walls (Great and Fire)...It is not a "great leap forward" for you to see the distinction...May all your ups and downs in life be in bed.
Best Regards
Stan
Posted by: stan | August 17, 2008 at 01:14 AM
@stan
You really needed to get out of your basement a little more. Otherwise you would know that you can buy huggies, or "hao qi" as they are called in Chinese, everywhere now, thanks in part for walmart.
But you are correct. I do live in western hemisphere...does anybody still say that nowadays? And by no means I feel intimadated by its diversity. Why should I? I'm actually helping to create this diversity.
"Ideologues need the anonymity of a blog to spout their bias." Nice one. Hope you didn't borrow that from someone describing you.
Love to stay around trading some more insults. But I just couldn't stop yawning at this point. Time to hug my wife now. wink wink.
So I'll let you have the last words, stan(I guess that would be your real and full name). Peace, love and joy.
^o^
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 17, 2008 at 12:42 AM
@PaZhuLian
Gee..you mean you have something in common with Alex Thompson?..All he wanted was simple Yes or No answer too...Huggies?!...sounds like you are in the West! Poor baby so far from home. I imagine you feel intimidated by all the diversity and freedom around you. I will not add more stress to your timid life since you would never have the courage of your convictions in an open public forum. Ideologues need the anonymity of a blog to spout their bias.Hug your wife,kiss your son and thank your lucky stars that the world is not like the nasty bots of the CCP that you admire.Take care...oh and watch out for Marvin the Mutt..he is some fanatical bon bon queen that suddenly pops up on this blog.Hopefully he is swimming in his limited gene pool with Wee Wayne Lo.
Posted by: stan | August 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
@Stan
Man! I didn't know you are so hopelessly ill. All I wanted was a simple Yes or No answer. But once again you couldn't resist but to produce these sputtering puddles of watery arguments, like someone suffering from a severe case of intellectual diarrhea, regardless of the time, place and audience. I can give you some left-over huggies that my son didn't get to use. All you need to do is to ask. ^O^
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 16, 2008 at 09:08 PM
Lame retort....but you do win the consolation prizes for dodging a bullet.
First you will get a copy of CCTV's award winning documentary on the SARS cover-up....10 hours of blank screen.Next you'll be the proud recipient of the CCP'S report on school construction standards in Sichuane....more blank pages but they do list the current hush money pay scale.Finally we will rush you to you Gao Xingjian's classic play "The Other Shore".....No need to thank me little guy, your stupidity is payment enough.Oh yeah.."your shoe is untied" or it is "you're fat"...I forgot but I'm sure you'll sort it out big bad blogger thug that you are..just don't hit me with purse.
Posted by: stan | August 16, 2008 at 07:29 PM
@Stan
You haven't answered my question. I only needed a Yes or No answer, which a well-read person like you is surely capable of providing.
So let me ask you one more time from a different angle. Which one feels better inside you, my square peg or Xiaohang's round one?
I will fill out your questionaire if you give me a straightforward answer, deal?
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 16, 2008 at 05:12 PM
@PaZhuLai
See what you did? You woke up Marvin the Mutt and his sidekick Wee Wayne Lo...Two Obtuse Oafs.
Apologists such as yourself find refuge from distress by posing questions rather that addressing the issues at hand. In keeping with that format..Let's go to the LIGHTNING ROUND...I've asked these questions before but the drones never answer..let's see how you do!
(CCP CHEAT SHEET PROVIDED AT THE END)
(A) How do you reconcile the PLA massacre at Tiananmen Square in your unreal world of denial?
(B)How do you balance out the
predictable predjudice and censorship of your media by the bots at the CCP?
(C)If the PLA is such a bad ass, why did they allow a bunch of Tibetian Buddhists to run amok and smack all the Han Chinese around?
(D)Why are CCP members only able to have one pair of pants made from a bolt of cloth in Beijing..yet when they take the exact same bolt of cloth to NYC they can get an entire suit made for them?
Bonus Question
(E)Is your clown act a work in progress or as Peggy Lee once sang.."Is That All There Is?"
CCP ANSWER KEY
(A)The Massacre never happened.
(B)It is better to know a lie and live in the dark than to risk life in light of the truth.
(C)They were not Buddhists. They were CIA "Agents Provocateurs" from the 1950's
(D)The farther away from Beijing that CCP members get,...the smaller they become!
(E)A work in progress..provided you "do it my way"...(with apologies to Frank Sinatra)
PRIZE LIST
First Prize...A case of "Mao Bow Wow Running Dog Food"
Second Prize..A collectors addition of "Chou Enlai didn't lie"...Published by the
Gang of Four No More Truth Squad.
Third Prize..Pirated copy of "The Harmonious Melodies of The Red Guard in Glorious Frenzy"..circa 1969
Fourth Prize...Two of the thinnest books in the world.
First Book.."President Hu's witty responses to unscripted questions at a Chinese press conference."..(Since this has not happened yet we can not commit to a delivery date at this time)
The second book is.."Unpolluted Cities in the PRC"..Only one page to turn in this vacation favorite.
Soooo..How about that Alex Thompson...really had those two flacks on the run!
Posted by: stan | August 16, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Sorry for the bad gramma up there, I was listening to music while writing three pieces of document at the same time.
My point is, if a journalist, an editor or a media corp. does not act like professionals, they don't deserve the respect for that profession.
Posted by: Sparkle | August 16, 2008 at 01:48 PM
By uplifting millions of people out of poverty at a rate unprecedented in all of human history, China is a champion of human rights.
Furthermore China's development has not come from invading, dispossessing and exploiting foreign peoples.
As for Britain, I think the Chinese government should call some experts in international economics in and draw up a reparations bill to forward to Her Majesty for a century of plunder by her country of mine.
These Westerners who invaded the entire world and enriched themselves off everyone else think they can lecture to China on 'human rights?' Get real. China now is not the China of the Opium Wars. The Chinese people stood up in 1949.
Posted by: Wayne Lo | August 16, 2008 at 11:25 AM
That British journalist is just a showboater.
Chinese people as a whole are more happy with the direction the country is going than any other. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of Chinese people support the Olympics. But of course this Western hypocrite thinks he knows what is best for the Chinese people. Just ignore this little shit stirrer.
And by the way I think everyone should be talking about boycotting London 2012 over the killing of Iraqis and Afghanis - China's human rights is a lot better than that of Britain.
Zhong Guo Jia you!!!!
Posted by: Wayne Lo | August 16, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I would agree with one of the commenter above, this is not a real question. The question answered itself a the underlying statement that "China has not fullfilled whatever promises" they made. I can ask a samiliar question to anybody, "you killed a man last year, do you have the gut to admit it" and demanding an Yes-No answer. Chinese people are perfectly capable of seeing through things beyond its superfacial disguise. Accusations can be made with a good intention or a bad one.
@shenqh XiaoHang's et al's comment of addressing the journalist personally. I believe Wang Wei's comment about the "picky eyes" is perfectly reasonable and valid. All I can say is if this Alex Thompson claims to be a journalist act like one. However, his action and intention are dispecable and at that very moment he lost his professionality.
XiaoHang's comment on this "bias issue" seems that he or she is tolerating this BIAS. Just like I never tolerate corruption, I never tolerate this bias on journalism. And this bias should not be tolerated.
Posted by: Sparkle | August 15, 2008 at 09:24 PM
Is this the best theGeorgian ambassador to the Jew Klux Klan Olmypics can do for a blogroll.
Why did George W Bush tell the President of Georgia to open fire on his own citizens and kill 2 thousand people? Was he planning a larger attack on Iran and wanted the Russians to be preoccupied with the smaller conflict in Georgia? so they would not engage the West in a nuclear war? Why did George W Bush declare war on the Russians during the Olympics?
Posted by: Marvin L Foushee | August 15, 2008 at 09:22 PM
@XiaoHang
I see you still don't get it. Well let me make it a little simpler and more "direct" for you by using Alex Thompson's style of questioning that you are so enamored of.
Um-hum, here it goes.
Stan is a pedophile who's been preying on minors like you over the internet. Are you in anyway feeling concerned and ashamed of your relationship with him, Xoaohang? No need to pout, it's a straightforward question. A simple YES or NO will suffice.
Now @Stan
I see that square peg was really tearing you up inside, since you obviously enjoy the soothing relief of that round ped of Xiaohang's. I'm sorry. Do you feel better now? Just answer Yes or No please. ^O^
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 15, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Soooooooo, you use this knid of attitute to educate Chinese about human right. Get yourself evolved first, barbarian, before you can teach Chinese what is human right.
Posted by: shenqh | August 15, 2008 at 04:29 PM
@shenqh
Actually XiaoHang is funny and you are a fat barbarian whose shoe is untied.
Posted by: Stan | August 15, 2008 at 04:17 PM
obviously, your shoe is untied and I am fat.
Posted by: shenqh | August 15, 2008 at 02:04 PM
@shenqh
"Eevn an elementary school student in a western country would know Alex answer thanks to the brainwahing by western media. He draged on the same question again and again like a barbrian. If Alex stopped on the second time, he made the point."
So is that what barbarians do, shenqh, they ask questions repeatedly?
I'm sorry to everybody else reading this, but I can't resist replying to this kind of tripe. It's like shooting barbarians in a barrel.
Posted by: XiaoHang | August 15, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Doesn’t anyone get it? This isn’t about politics, it’s about humanity. I can’t believe these people who say “this is JUST about sports,” if this was just about sports, the Chinese would not have spent nearly as much on fixing up their city and impressing the rest of the world with their gardening skills. You want to have an opinion but you don’t want to research what you say. Just because you saw a couple of episodes of The O’Reilly Factor or the Daily Show does not mean you know what’s going on in the world. You just want to have your opinion and spout it off at others. These human rights issues were being talked about long before the Olympics, but the average person wasn’t getting the message. Now, with the Olympics there, protesters can actually be heard by the average man. Unfortunately, the average man isn't interested. We want to see all the flashy lights and sweaty men and we don’t give a damn what’s really going on, or who’s abused in the process. If you don’t care, then fine, but don’t pretend like you know what you’re talking about.
Also, this is the first I've seen of this transcript, so I don't know how correct it is, but I do not think that Mr. Thompson was wrong to use the phrase "One last chance." I think he was simply saying that now is the time for them to be truthful.
Posted by: m | August 15, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Eevn an elementary school student in a western country would know Alex answer thanks to the brainwahing by western media. He draged on the same question again and again like a barbrian. If Alex stopped on the second time, he made the point.
Posted by: shenqh | August 15, 2008 at 01:11 PM
@shenqh
Direct does not equal unpolite, rude, or barbaric (barbaric?! really? I'm not sure that's an appropriate use of the word. Was Alex riding into the room on horseback, pillaging his way to the podium while drinking a horn of fermented mare's milk? If so, I demand pictures!)
Posted by: XiaoHang | August 15, 2008 at 12:25 PM
@XaioHang
Good ,concise, clear points ...thanks
Posted by: stan | August 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM
If simply answered in "yes", western got their point. If simply say "no", western media could comment that IOC is blind, as China claimed itself she is not perfect on human right. The point here is that Alex babbled the same question in such an unpolite, rude and barbaric way.
Posted by: shenqh | August 15, 2008 at 09:58 AM
@PaZhuLian
I think your slip is showing.Either you have done too much overtime at your job (Pounding square pegs into round holes I suspect)or your masquerade as an adult has an experation date.I must hold up my end of the Ad Hominem Olympic attack trials. Did anyone say "Ad Nauseam or Ad Infinitum" yet? Chunfa Yuan correctly pointed you in the right direction for a conversation but you seem intent on insulting people. Here's a scoop for the press..The 14 year old girls have left the Chinese Gymnastic team...they are hiding out on this blog under the alias of PaZhulian. Let's get that English Bulldog Alex Thompson on the story asap!
Posted by: Stan | August 15, 2008 at 09:47 AM
Also, in the comment section here, try not go off topic (eg Geez). Last I checked, this was a China related blog and China related post. Everyone in the world can be hypocritical at times, it's very hard, and very stupid to be 100% anything all the time. In a debate, whether in spoken or written form, you traditionally reply to someone else's points with points of your own, not change the topic to suit your tastes.
This has nothing to do with Iraq, or with the bias of British journalists (everyone has big-time biases in journalism). As an example, if your friend told you your shoe was untied, would you reply: "Yeah, well you're fat."? This is, in effect, what you do when you drag Iraq into the picture here. It's off-topic, rude, and unproductive
Posted by: XiaoHang | August 15, 2008 at 09:39 AM
To PaZhuLian and shenqh:
I don't see how this reporter was creating bad news or throwing insults at the hosts. The point of this exchange was that Thompson asked a simple, possibly even yes or no, question. Then Davies repeatedly refused to say something to the effect of: "no we are not embarrassed, we are very happy with the progress that has been made since 2001." She could have ended it right there, but she had to play Dana Perino instead. If anyone could claim to be insulted, it would be IOC.
It really is that simple, and you are now trying to turn in into the old Western media trying to attack China phenomenon. Sorry but that card has already been played into the ground. Get off it, period.
Just because you tell yourself you don't care about this news (funny how you still post responses on here so virulently), doesn't mean it is somehow less newsworthy. Reporters that are free to choose their topics generally report on things that interest their audience. Thus, Thompson asked a question that is of great interest to his audience, nothing more, nothing less.
To reiterate, the IOC rep could have ended it with a simple 'NO'. Or, she could have said that Thompson was wrong for claiming China's gov't "lied through its teeth". Or she could have done the unthinkable and claimed there were never any promises to be broken. But she didn't do any of these, guys, instead, she dodged the question, which to those of us familiar with these types of interactions, looks like a tacit answer in the affirmative (for more, see Bush administration, US, 2000-200?).
Posted by: XiaoHang | August 15, 2008 at 09:31 AM
So far, there is no news bad enough for western jounalists to report from Beijing, so they have to create some bad news by themselves. Otherwise, they will lose their jobs.
Posted by: shenqh | August 15, 2008 at 08:34 AM
Since some of you here are so thick skulled or purposefully ignorant. Let me explain it to you.
Last time I checked, journalists are supposed to cover the news instead of trying to make news themselves. Do you honestly think this hack from Ch4 was there to attend the briefing and ask meaningful questions? Or was he there to make news by throwing insults at the hosts and creating confrontations. If everyone have already made up their mind about China. Why even bother asking question, let alone debating? Ad hominem. That's what you will get.
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 15, 2008 at 02:24 AM
Well I think you just took the words out of my mouth with that last sentence. I guess nobody knows you better than yourself. ^O^
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 15, 2008 at 02:00 AM
GEEZ wrote:
>>That Alex Thompson of Channel 4 was acting like a spoiled brat, mistaking other people's politeness for weakness. Are you in anyway ashamed of yourselves for being as ignorant as him?<<
Ad hominem, nothing more.
If you have a challenge on his argument (rather than his character) then you may find yourself at the start of a conversation that would be worth while, but to attack this man as a person shows you have no real challenge to his argument.
The fact that you then go on to call your detractors - (Dan, stan, et al) - 'ignorant' rather than challenge and meet their points only detracts from your credibility on this matter.
How a debate should work:
A: I think we should do XXXXXX
B: No I think we should do YYYYYY
A: But last time we tried YYYYY it failed ?
B: It failed because it was poorly implemented
A: But it still failed, has anything changed ?
B: But there are new and better ways of implementing YYYYY now.
A: Are they any better than XXXXXX ?
etc etc . . .
How a deabte should not work:
A: I think we should do XXXXXX
B: No I think we should do YYYYYY
A: You are an idiot
B: you are a spoilt brat.
A: People like you should STFU
B: You are ignorant, nothing will change as long as you stay this stupid.
etc etc . . .
Posted by: Chunfa Yuan | August 15, 2008 at 01:44 AM
Well done Alex Thompson - the IOC's representative's refusal to engage the question showed tacit admission that the IOC were in fact embarrassed by China's/BOCAGs failure to carry the 'Olympic values'.
The 'protest park' myth has yet to materialise, but I am sure BOCAG will bus in some 'protesters' before the end of the games to 'protest' against some inconsequential matter - perhaps we will be graced with a platoon of Chinese school girls dressed in matching Beijing 08 T-shirts 'protesting' that there should be more traditional Chinese dishes sold in supermarkets.
Posted by: Chunfa Yuan | August 15, 2008 at 01:32 AM
So I guess their policy adjustment to the CCP not complying with the "promises" is to strip the Olympics of it's original spirit and hale the tremendous success of the carrying out of the physical event for the robotic athletes.
The communist party is so corrupt, it controls all the media and spends all the peoples money making lies to fool people into thinking they are actually going to be rewarded for giving their minds away to the party line. Wang Wei's words are absolute BS, I know BS and I know the CCP and this guy was chosen for this job based on his BSability. he wields the party line with confidence, he molds it and manipulates it like a natural, creating a careful blend of logic and lie.
Communist fascist dictatorship in which the people cannot think freely and are subject to the party's wishes instead of a legal system. Real lawyers go to torture centers, real people are not allowed.
Someone should ask Wei ,if China is so much improved, why does the CCP obsessively monitor internet and media? Why can't they let people take notes of the death penalty rate and the legal trials of dissidents? Why is the CCP opposed to a real legal system? How many Falun Gong did they torture to death? Why do they still use torture to keep thought control? Where do they get all those organs for transplant if they are not stolen from people murdered by the party? can he answer these? I don't think so.
Posted by: carryanne | August 14, 2008 at 10:43 PM
@Dan, stan, et al,
That Alex Thompson of Channel 4 was acting like a spoiled brat, mistaking other people's politeness for weakness. Are you in anyway ashamed of yourselves for being as ignorant as him?
BTW, that was a rhetorical question, not unlike the one he kept repeating like a broken record.
Posted by: PaZhuLian | August 14, 2008 at 10:32 PM
@Realist:
I don't know about others, but I can tell you that among all the commenters above, at least Pffefer is not a Chinese. So don't be so prerogative as to call everyone who's not criticizing China as a wumaodang.
Also, speaking of the positive roles of a free media, where were the free American media prior to the invasion of Iraq? Why did the free media collaborate with the government, cheering on the invasion of Iraq? What happened to the sacred watchdog role?
Posted by: geez | August 14, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Wow! A lot of "wu mao dang" commenting here.
Anyway, did anyone notice that the sharp exchange was between two Westerners? The British reporter specifically addressed Davies, not one of the Chinese members.
Those of you from the mainland may think the journalist stepped over the line; however, this is pretty typical of how Western journalists try to hold political leaders to account -- something that can never happen in China.
Want to curb corruption by local officials? Just turn loose your journalists. This is what they are trained to do. Lack of press freedom in China is the main reason that the Central Government has, after three decades of reform, still not managed to curb local corruption. (To say nothing of corruption at the very top.)
By the way, I thought Wang Wei's answer was pretty good. It may not have satisfied foreigners, but it's a good view of how the Chinese government understands the meaning of freedom.
Posted by: Realist | August 14, 2008 at 08:00 PM
I just read this article:
http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/08/spiritual-needs.html
and it discusses how China has in some ways not completely lived up to Olympic standards and China's own promises to fulfill the spiritual needs of the athletes.
Posted by: MK | August 14, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Eerrrr..... dear British journalists, are you embarassed that your country has killed a lot of Iraqi, and what is the feeling of living in a country that plays the role of USA's lapdog? I am sure you guys are very proud of your human rights right? ho ho ho.... West Chauvinism is hillarious.
Afterwards, the British journalists can go and do a free tibet protest in Beijing, purposely let the police throw them into jail so that CNN and BBC can make a high profile report on how the police crackdown protestors. British journalists are proud to do this kind of things. funny.
Posted by: Relax | August 14, 2008 at 06:44 PM
Given that the next Olympics will be in London, the incentives of the British journalists are clear: to find faults with Beijing whenever they can so London will look better.
Posted by: geez | August 14, 2008 at 06:34 PM
At the bidding China just said something vaguely about reforms and improvements, never anything concrete about human rights and political system. The Western journalists put the words in other people's mouth then demand anything they like. It's so typical.
Posted by: LBSH | August 14, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Tim,
Did you intentionally miss this part from Wang Wei?
“极少数人到中国来就是为了挑毛病，是为了批评，是为了吹毛求疵，是为了找各种各样的瑕疵，这是少数人。这并不意味着我们没有实现我们的承诺，所以我觉得大家都可以看到中国是在进步。”
Posted by: Pffefer | August 14, 2008 at 05:23 PM
AMAZING. CNN cropped photos, to "support" it's fraudulent "reporting" in Lhasa. And now, TJ crops Wang Wei's comments. AMAZING Western Media: bias in plain view, all the while claiming to be the Soul & Conscience of TRUTH!
Posted by: chinese buddhist | August 14, 2008 at 05:23 PM
Geez, do they stop teaching manners in Britain? This Alex guy is outright nasty, not because of the question he asked but the manner in which he asked ("One more chance". What the heck is that? Who does he think he is?).
Hosting the Olympic Games is not a reward to China for improving its human rights, nor is it a precondition. Hosting the Games is not the privilege of the few "morally superior" countries. Despites its many problems, China has progressed a lot, even since 2001. No matter what China does it will never please some foreign blood-sucking "journalists".
My middle finger to these blood suckers. Enjoy.
Posted by: Pffefer | August 14, 2008 at 02:31 PM
I wonder why Wang Wei's response was not given a full quote here. He specifically said (when he was the secretary general of the bidding committee), "I did not say that China would promise to do whatever with the Games in China."
Posted by: CLC | August 14, 2008 at 02:29 PM