« Bolton's Principles | Main | Iraq did have WMD capability »
March 14, 2005
Why I don't read the Washington Post
I gave up on the Washington Post in the late 80's, and started subscribing to what G Gordon Liddy describes as "Washington's premier newspaper", the Washington Times. Now I have one more reason to be glad I switched.
"The Peoples Daily" is the (or a) propaganda organ of the Communist-run Peoples Republic of China. The other day they published an interview with Washington Post Managing Editor Philip Bennett.
Why anyone would consent to an interview with this paper is beyond me. I suppose I might do so just to be sure that they understood that some of us in the U.S. know what thugs they still are. But of course, for that very reason I am not the type who's views they'd want printed in their pages.
But the good Mr. Bennett doesn't see things this way. Far from it. Very, very, far. Following are some excerpts:
You can already see where this is going. Bush is a hypocrite, we support dictators, Jimmy Carter was oh such a great human rights president.Yong Tang: The Bush administration always claims that it is spreading freedom and democracy to all over the world. But there is widespread suspicion over the motives of What the Bush administration is doing. Some experts say democracy is just a beautiful pretext for America to seek its own interests. So personally I think there is a kind of hypocrisy here.
Bennett: The Bush administration believes that there isn't a contradiction between defending its self-interest and promoting friendly and democratic regimes. Because they believe that promoting those kinds of governments would make the world more friendly to the US and therefore it is in the interest of America to do that.
But if you look at the different parts of the world, it would be very difficult for the Bush administration to argue that they do not apply same standards to different parts of the world. Clearly US is a great ally of Pakistan and Saudi Arbia, which are not democracies. US has a very complex relations with China, which is not a democracy either by American standard. The issues that were once on the top of that relationship, like human rights, were no longer on the top any more. If you still remember last time when US President talked about human rights in China as a major issue between the two countries, that has been a long time ago. So I think it is true there are different standards applied to different places. In that case You could call that hypocrisy or whatever labels you thought fit most appropriately
Yong Tang: Since the standard is not applied equally in the world, it is damaging Bush's effort to promote the so -called democracy, isn't it?
Bennett: It depends upon what you are trying to achieve. I guess the question I would ask is: if you look around the world in strategically important places, is the US actively engaged there promoting democracy or not? I don't think there is much evidence that promoting democracy is what the US is doing. It is what it says it is doing.
What does this guy think we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq? Were the elections there meaningless? All of our blood and treasure spent for nothing.? Apparently our support of Lebanese independence is meaningless, too. Voting in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain? Yawn. Egyptian President Mubarak's recent concessions? Not worth mentioning. Everyone else on the planet is talking about the wonders that are occuring before our very eyes, and he seems oblivious to it all. Does he read his own paper?
Then there's the kicker, the part of the interview that has generated so much attention; Bennett does not believe that the US should lead the world:
Yong Tang: In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?
Bennett: No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex. There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don't think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen. I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that country.
That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and others, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period.
This is the type of stuff that you have to read twice to make sure your eyes didn't deceive you. So we shoudn't be leaders of the world, eh? The UN can do it better? Or is it that whatever we need to do needs to pass a "global test"?
Then there's the oh-it's-all-so-complex line. Actually it's not so complex, Mr. Bennett; we're the good guys, and you just handed the communist totalitarians a propaganda coup. Congratulations, idiot.
He also seems to be saying that not only are we an imperial power, but we're a pretty rotten one at that, only out for our own interests. This represents the worst leftist anti-Americanism. And printed in a Chinese newspaper. How nice.
Now, dear reader, if you've got any throwing objects still within arms reach, remove them now, before going on. After reading this next part you'll surely put something through the window.
Yong Tang: So the world order should be democratic?
Bennett: Democracy means many things. How do you define democracy? As a Chinese journalist, you may have your own definition of democracy which corresponds to your history and your way of seeing the world. I may have another definition. Someone else may have their own definitions. Democracy means a lot of different things.
"...you have your own definition of democracy..." ??? Uh, you mean like single-party rule, Mr. Bennett? Is that one of the definitions that you think corresponds to Chinese history?
He goes on to explain:
Funny, I can't think of any disadvantages. But maybe that's just me.Democracy in one sense means the majority decides, but it also means the rights of the minority are protected. As UK late Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, democracy is the least bad system that we have ever thught of. So democracy is never perfect. It always has problems. Our democracy here in the US has many contradictions, problems and challenges. So democracy is not a cure that could turn everything bad into good. It has its own advantages and its disadvantages.
Finally, an admission of sorts:
Yong Tang: Does it mean that American mainstream media no longer represent mainstream views?
Bennett: I think there will be some people on the right and conservatives who say that. In their eyes the mainstream media is too liberal while the whole country tends to be more and more conservative. Today American people are more conservative, nationalistic and religious and more closed off to foreign influence than the media. By and large, American mainstream media has been slow to appreciate how important the religion is in America. We don't cover it very deeply and extensively. So I think there are areas we are out of touch.
Thank you. Now do something about it. You accuse the Bush Administration of all talk and no action, look who's talking now.
Yong Tang: The Washington Post often describes China as a dictator communist regime without democracy and freedom. Why is the newspaper so fond of playing with such negative words?
Bennett: I disagree with that. First of all, Neither The Washington Post, nor the New York Times, nor any other big newspapers, refer to China today as a dictatorship regime. We don't use these words on the paper any more. Now we say China is a communist country only because it is a fact. China is ruled by the Communist party.
I give up. Reagan and Bush know the value of straight talk, even if journalists like Mr. Bennett don't.
We can mark Philip Bennett as a Useful Idiot. I'm quite sure that the editors of the People's Daily consider him one.
Update 3-17
Hugh Hewitt saw the interview but didn't trust the the Chinese translation. I should have been hesitant also, but wasn't. Hugh he contacted Mr. Bennett to get his side. Here's what happened, as posted on Hewitt's web site:
Washington Post Managing Editor Philip Bennett gave an interview to the People's Daily recently, and took some heat in the blogosphere. I am suspicious of transcripts from state-controlled presses, and asked Mr. Bennett via e-mail if the transcript was correct. Here is his response:
"Mr. Hewitt,
You wrote to me about comments attributed to me in an interview with the People’s Daily of China. I am responding to set the record straight.
The version published in the People’s Daily includes numerous and important inaccuracies. In many places words and sentences were removed to change the meaning of what I said. In some places words or sentences were invented that I did not say. In one typical example, where I said “China is not a democracy” the People’s Daily version quoted me as saying “China is not a democracy either by American standards.” At the same time, comments critical of China were deleted.
In several key places, my words were rearranged to express a different view than I had clearly intended. This is true of the sentence that produced the headline for the article, “I don’t think US should be the leader of the world.” Below you can compare the way that sentence appeared in People’s Daily with a transcript based on the actual tape recording.
People’s Daily version:
Yong Tang: In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?
Bennett: No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is
helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is
happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex.
There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don't think you can
imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead
everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen. I also think it is
unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other
countries don't want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have
good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that
country. That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone
through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and
shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of
imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its
interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and
others, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period.What was really said:
Yong Tang: Another question is that since the Washington Post is mainstream media in American how does the newspaper deal with the relations between America and the rest of the world? Do you think America should be the leader of the world?
Bennett: You know I don't ask myself that question. Again that would be to express a political view, an editorial view, and I ...
Yong Tang: How about personal opinion.
Bennett:You know, I don't...
Yong Tang:First of all I think that America should be the leader.
Bennett: I don't think in those terms. And I'm not trying to dodge the
question. It's just that my job is to help people try to understand what's
happening now. And what's happening now is very hard to understand. The world is very complex, there are very complex forces occurring in it. I
don't think you can imagine a world - given where we are with technology ,
culture, with economics - I don't think you could imagine a world where one
country, where one group of people, lead everybody else. I just can't
imagine that happening. And I think it would be unhealthy if one country -
whether or not it was this country or China or France or Great Britain -
would describe itself as the leader of the world. People in other countries
do not want to be led by a foreign country. They may want to have good
relations with them and they may want to share in what's good about that
other country. But that's almost sort of a colonial question. I feel like
we've been through an era of colonialism, of imperialism, and we've seen
the dangers and the shortcomings of those systems. If we are headed into
another period of imperialism where either the United States or China, for
example, thinks of itself as the leader of its area and where it's interests should prevail over all others interests of its neighbor or others then I think we are headed for an unhappy period. So I guess that's how I would answer that question. Maybe the answer is then no I don't think the United States should be the world leader. But what I really mean to say that I don't think we are headed into a period of history where one country or one set of ideas is going to dominate all others."
Two points: First, I let my guard down and believed what I wanted to believe regarding Mr Bennett. I should have let the story go for a day or two to see what developed. Second, however, Mr Bennett's correction really doesn't change anything of substance. What he did actually say is bad enough and still reason for me not to read the Washington Post.
Posted by Tom at March 14, 2005 9:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/327
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I don't read the Washington Post:
» Why I don't read the Washington Post from The Last Blog
Look at my page for more info... [Read More]
Tracked on July 2, 2005 5:21 PM
