From @UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue May 31 00:53:05 1994 Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 00:53:13 -0400 Reply-To: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Sender: China-Net From: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9428) Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Tuesday, May 31, 1994 (No. 9428) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is an e-journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= # of Table of Contents Author | Lines ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -*- Eye on CBS -*- 1. An Analysis of the CBS Transcript ......................Yulin Cao 56 2. Reporting Espionage: A Picture with Chinese in It ........Ji Wang 68 3. Join Effort for Justice ..............................Jienan Chen 78 4. Connie Chung, IFCSS, Chinese Government, and Chinese Community ..............................Mujian Chen 101 -*- Letters to the Editor -*- 5. A Comment on CCF's Edition on the CBS Report ............Kan Liao 16 6. When in America Do as the Americans Do ..................Andy Shi 107 7. A Letter to Chenjian Li: Some Comments ................Xuemin Liu 28 8. Comments on Chenjian Li's Article .......................A Reader 109 9. A Comment on Chenjian Li's Article .....................Wei Zhang 22 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- To emulate CNN's highly professional and efficient treatment of natural and man-made disasters such as the fire, earthquake and riot in Los Angeles area, we are picking up the "after-shock" of the CBS-quake in our community to update you on the latest "casualties" in the disaster area. The excavation effort is still going on. A "community emergency" is expected to be announced every minute now. Sorry, a community emergency has just been announced. Please stay tune. Like many controversial incidents in human history, the CBS special report on the intelligence network cast by the Chinese government in the largely unguarded waters of the US (as suggested by some understandably anxious about "national security") raises questions about interpretation and perception, its broader political, economic, social implications aside. Some were shrewd and quick to see the "insidious intent" coated in Connie Chung's seemingly neutral, documentary-style commentary, while some remained skeptical about and unconvinced by the conspiracy, anti-immigration, racism, etc. (you name it) hypothesis. Apparently there are ways, and there are ways to see the same event. Of course to see it merely as a matter of interpretation and disagreement therein is to de-politicize it, which amounts to a betrayal. Having talked, what action shall we take? What can we do to see to it that the atrocities, witch-hunts, unjustified and unwarranted persecutions in history do not repeat themselves? In his forceful, compelling appeal to Chinese students and scholars, Jienan Chen stresses the importance of organized effort in fighting for the justice that is our due. This recalls an article in our previous issue (CCF.9426) in which Liu Cheng drew up a concrete plan for actions beyond the immediate eye-for-eye expedience. As he pointed out, by demonstrating the contribution we are making to this society, by forming a dialogue with CBS to communicate our hopes and aspirations, we might be able to transform the rising hostility and suspicion against us into an opportunity for us to present an image of ourselves we would like to see. On the other hand, by helping us to see the CBS episode in the political climate of our time, thus raising the question of how one should interpret it, Ji Wang argues that we need not over-react to the "bias and discrimination" that we detect, or think we detect, in the report. Both Jienan Chen and Ji Wang de-emphasize the part Connie Chung plays in this controversy. However, Yulin Cao's close reading of the CBS transcript calls our attention to possible discrepancy, incongruity and intentional distortion of facts on the part of Connie Chung. Perhaps what the long drawn-out agony over China's MFN status and the unexpected CBS episode have in common is that they both signified crisis for our community and posed challenges to the strength, confidence, endurance, tolerance, and above all, the self-perception of this community. In addition, they also confront us with an identity crisis, agrues Mujia Chen, who sees the CBS incident as suggestive of some of the most agonizing problematics about our community as a whole, and about our economic status in particular. In his thoughtful exploration, Chen poses question after provocative question about our identity as individuals and as a community caught at a historical crossroad, in the encounter between China emerging out of a background bequeathed with and at the same time burdened by an ancient tradition and the modern, primarily Western, civilization. A question that would continue to haunt, and perhaps torment and divide, us is, where do we choose to place our royalty, our faith and our hope? CBS has made our day(s). This incident will have rippling effects across different sectors of the Chinese community. It is perhaps premature to assess its impact, both positive and negative, but the good that comes out of it that is unmistakable is that our community has grown more close-knit and that we have "surfaced" from our separate, individual cell to speak up about our common concerns. In the same way, a community journal such as CCF fully emerges and is uncompromisingly, and existentially, "realized" in its attempt to reflect the rupture caused by the "CBS Contra". Coming up soon is the fifth anniversary of the June 4th massacre in Beijing. Today, after five years, what is your view of this historical event? For the dead, and for the living, what do you have to say about this special date? CCF is planning to publish a special issue to commemorate June 4th. Your contributions are welcome. Please send your article to ccf-editor@ifcss.org before June 3rd. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. An Analysis of the CBS Transcript ......................Yulin Cao 56 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have read the transcript of CBS Evening News (May 19, 1994, 6:30PM). Here is my analysis. (1) How comes a spy? Mr. Nicholas Eftimiades (NE) (Defense Information Agency): (Quoted/paraphrased by MS. Connie Chung) "Eftimiades says the prospective spies are trained, paid and warned to stay in touch." MS. Connie Chung (CC): (Said by (CC)) "Every day, planeloads of Chinese citizens arrive legally in the United States, ordinary people. But to the Chinese government, some of them may be future spies, who a few years down the road, will be activated to steal American's military and technological secrets, whether they want to or not." Unidentified Man #1: "Never forget, you belong to our organization." (The Ministry of State Security?) "You were send by our organization." Unidentified Man #2 and #3: (Said nothing about this) ANALYSIS: One can see that all interviewees (including NE) mean that those who will steal American's military and technological secrets are trained, paid and send by spy organization. Therefore, these people, whether they are sleeper agents or active agents, are spies. They are not, as CC said, "ordinary people"! --- though they may look like ordinary people. Notice the difference between CC and the interviewees: (a) Interviewees said : trained spies may be send to the US to steal secrets. CC said: ordinary people, who entered the US as innocent Chinese, may become spies --- no matter they want to or not! (b) Interviewees said : spies are send by the organization. CC said: a Chinese student or businessperson applies for a Visa to go to the US by himself, and later is asked by the Ministry of State Security to become a spy. Analysis: CC means Chinese people enter the US without the help of the spy organization and later become spies! (c) Interviewees said: spies are trained and paid. CC said: the Ministry of State Security just asks ordinary Chinese students, scientists and businessperson, who already got visa to the US and have nothing to do with agents, some questions, like "What can you learn in the State? Will you be working with computers? Will you be loyal to China?" and most important, "Can you be patient?" Then these people become spies or "future spies"! (d) CC said: ordinary Chinese students, scientists and businesspersons, who are in the US and have nothing to do with spy, can always be forced to be spies just by the Ministry of State Security's threatening: "Remember, we'll be watching your family members in China." From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Reporting Espionage: A Picture with Chinese in It ........Ji Wang 68 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was also annoyed by Connie Chung's report about the Chinese spy ring in the United States, as I was watching the CBS News last week. It could be really disturbing if the US Government steps up its efforts to control the possible damages caused by the Chinese spies, which may create possible extra burden for us in the future, but this is not the first time that a national network covered and dealt with such a subject. I still remember that since earlier this year, I read reports from both NY Times and Washington Post about Chinese spies in the US. In one case, a guy in Virginia was trying to send night-seeing devices to the Chinese military. In another case, two Chinese engineers were arrested by police/FBI in a dispute involving possible illegal acquisition of technology. And, in the broader circle, the coverage of foreign spies burgalarizing US technology information has intensified in recent years, and the CIA/FBI are helping the US business to protect themselves from possible espionage. I still remember that the news coverage specifically pinpointed France and Germany for this kind practices. Also, two or three years ago, Ted Koppel, the Nightline anchor of ABC, reported that all the gas stations in the US were being monitored by the KGB systematically. It is understandable that due to some obvious reasons the coverage about spies from countries other than China did not draw our attention. Howevver, I was aware that South Korea and Taiwan were involved in the technology espionage more than once, though I do not know if there was a roaring of complaints in South Korea and Taiwan when the disparaging reports about them were publicized. There is no question that the CBS report did create an image problem for most of us, but sometimes it is out of our control. The CBS did not explicitely claim that all of us are agents of the CG; what they were asserting was that there are potential agents among us. Even though we are not comfortable with this, it is a fact we should admit. I personally knew some people who told me that many years back, before they left China, the Public Security Bureau showed special favor to their location and field, and hinted at possible further "cooperation," which was turned down firmly at the time. So, with the spread of news about espionage operations in the US, what can we do to convince the public that most Chinese are law-abiding residents? I don't think we need to do anything, since it is widely accepted that most Chinese are good residents. There are gangs in many Chinatowns, but the people I worked with and associated with did not doubt or implied that I am or could be one of them. Since there is no precise statement about the possible and potential espionage dangers from many Chinese students, and with no definite assertion, what we can do is very limited. Also we need to bear in mind that the term "Chen Di Yu (fish in the bottom of the sea)" was not invented by Connie Chung, but was quoted from the author she interviewed for current Chinese spying operations in the US. If someone tells me possibly there are CG agents among your students, I can only say it is definitely true. When Connie Chung said there could be some Chinese neighbors who are actually spies even though they came as innocent immigrants and are polite to everyone, I still think it is a factual and true statement. The annoying part is the possible interpretation and generalizations made by the general public, which could further incense the already high anti- immigrants sentiment around country. Weeks back, when I listened to NJ 101.5, a talk-show caller told the host that it was really difficult to control the Chinese gang because you could not simply send a red-head Scottish detective into the group since there was no Chinese with a red head. The call caused the breath-breaking laugh from the host which hurt me a lot. I know what they were saying was not merely a fact; their real purpose was to show their boredom and dislike to the Chinese through such a joke. Probably what we can do is to write to the CBS News President and both Dan Rather and Connie Chung to request them to report such a sensitive event in a more sensitive way with common sense in mind, which seems to be already missing from many national news networks. As for bias and discrimination, we need to wait and see. From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Join Effort for Justice ..............................Jienan Chen 78 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear fellow CSS, I missed the CBS report regarding "Chinese spies," but I'm with you to seek justice if the information I'm getting is correct. As pointed out by many concerned people, we Chinese as a group or a community in this country are faced with racial stereotype, bias, and injustice, which are not rare exceptions for any particular ethnic group or community. I see this as a problem involving eventually all ethnic communities in one way or another. The difference is, however, we Chinese as a community have not stood up and made our voices heard as forcefully as other ethnic communities have. I shall say that, as individuals, we are second to none in values, abilities and achievements; unfortunately, as a community, we have yet to demonstrate the cohesiveness and togetherness other communities have shown. It is not that we are unwilling or incapable; it is that we have not adaptd to the American system enough to know how to utilize public opinion and the administrative and legal means available to us to advance the interests of our community. Yet, fortunately, we are growing maturer everyday. This growing maturity is seeded in our realization of the importance of organization. IFCSS is a fine example of what organization means to our community. IFCSS' record on a range of issues, most noticeably on immigration and human rights issues, has been impressive. I hope, with immigration and human rights issues now firmly established on a stable plane, IFCSS can afford to take on more community oriented issues, as many activists have urged. I disagree with the notion that IFCSS no longer possesses a mandate for its existence because of the new political realities (the cooling of democracy movement, the "de-linking" of MFN from human rights, the fading of immigration agenda, etc.). I believe that the new realities present both challenges and opportunities for IFCSS to mature and become even stronger both as a political advocate and as a community representative. Let's again rally under the IFCSS flag for a better community and a better China. To paraphrase President Kennedy's words: Ask not what IFCSS can do for us; ask what we can do for IFCSS to help our homeland and ourselves. Those who work hard and sacrifice for our community and our country, regardless of their political views, deserve our respect, appreciation and support. United, we can be bigger than ourselves and do unimaginable things. This is the American way, and should be our Chinese way as well. I'm quite moved by the responses to the unjustifiable CBS news report. While we still have some homework to do as to what is the best way to achieve our goals, we must act as a group. Only through concerted action can we define ourselves rather than being defined by some uninformed or ill-motivated people. I'm encouraged by the organized effort in this regard. For this reason, I offer my support as an ordinary Chinese citizen and guest in this great but not perfect country. By and large, American people are reasonable, fair and decent. The trick is public opinion, which is often misled or manipulated by the media that are becoming increasingly sensational and by politicians who are growing inclined to pick on the weak to cover their own inability to tackle the real problems facing this nation and society. It's unfortunate that "only the strong will survive". But it's the reality we have to deal with. So, let's set our own agenda and counter the bad publicity with wisdom and determination. Fellows, the responsibility of fighting stereotype, bias and injustice rests on ourselves. Please do not vent our anger by blaming others who might choose or have indeed chosen to "de-link" themselves from the "Chinese identity" -- genetic or cultural. Our Chinese pride must be seen in our collective action and vision. When we stand up together for our community interest and image, we will win the respect and friendship not only of our fellow Chinese, but of Americans and others alike. Therefore, I urge refraining from targeting on individuals such as Ms. Connie Chung, the CBS anchorwoman. She was just performing her duty, I believe, regardless of what she stands for in her heart. We must think deeper than that. I in fact have sympathy for her having to say what she said in that news report. So, join our hands and support the Committee protesting the CBS news report. Yes, together, we can and will make a big difference! From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Connie Chung, IFCSS, Chinese Government, and Chinese Community .....................Mujia Chen 101 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have mixed feelings watching the debate over CBS's report on May 19th. First, as a member of "potential spy" Community, I feel threatened by the possibility of being further alienated by the already remote US society. Secondly, such a description about ordinary Chinese in the US announced by a Chinese Americanis extremely painful to me. Thirdly, when the Vice President of IFCSS sent a letter to CBS protesting the report, I felt a little comfortable at the beginning. However, when Mr. Shi Heping explained that we could not be spies because we value the freedom of the US, and because we are fighting against our own government at home, I felt extremely sad. Fourthly, I have not heard any commentary from the Chinese government; I am not surprised at all, but I do have a sour feeling of loss. It has been painful to watch this chaos. But I am not surprised. This is not a phenomenon created in a short time. It is a by-product of the modernization process of an ancient culture. Everybody connected with this culture background is trying to find his or her way to the modern world. Identity is the central problem. Are you a proud Chinese with traditional Confucius value? Are you a democratic fighter who believes democracy is the only way to bring modernization to China? Are you an authoritarian (or even "die-heart communist") who believes that powerful control or even suppression of different voices is the only way to achieve social stability that is a must for the modernization of China's economy? Are you a traitor of a traditional, poor or even "immoral" society who is trying hard to become a modern, human individual in the western society or international family? All these identity problems are not new for any societies undergoing transformations. However, not every society knows how to handle these discrepancies, some do not even have the opportunity to solve them properly. The result is that some societies survived and developed through successful transformation, some societies survived at the cost of abandoning their traditional values, some societies simply deteriorate and cease to exist. What is the reality of our Chinese society in the US? In the mainland, in Hong Kong or Taiwan? What is the general trend of the society as a whole? I guess we do not have survival problem. But can we transform China into a harmonic society that combine it's wealthy traditional culture with modern civilization? Is there a way that we can influence the trend and push it toward a positive direction which can benefit most people in the society, that can push our society toward a brighter future? The reality is that we have a community that is full of discrepancy, quarrel and distrust. Why did Ms. Connie Chung slap the face of ordinary Chinese people as if she had no relation with them at all? Why did the Chinese government suppress its dissident citizens so harshly without mercy? Why did so many Chinese Government cadres treat their own citizens so arrogantly as if they were trash? Why did the IFCSS block the MFN for China so effortlessly without considering its negative impact on China's economic development? Why did a lot of Taiwanese refuse to identify themselves as Chinese? Why do so many Hongkongnese stand by Chris Pattern, a governor from a colonizing empire against the Chinese government which supposedly represents the interest of all Chinese people? The only reason for these is that we lack a community that provide tolerance, confidence, mutual trust and respect for its members. Some believe that they are the only ones who knows how to save the Chinese, others are just evil selfish Commies or Hanjians; some are ashamed of being a member of this society and try their best to attack this society in anticipation of identifying themselves with the mainstream of a "civilized world". Then is there a way that we can get out of this dead lock to save this disintegrated society? My answer is yes, although the process will be slow and painful. The foundation for the reparation is the development of Chinese economy and improvement of the living standard of the Chinese people. For the ordinary Chinese, only when the society can provide them a decent living condition can they experience the pride of being a member of the society, can they recognize the traditional value of the society, can they have the confidence to contribute to the world civilization as a distinguished ethnic group. Fortunately, we have seen the positive trend of a developing economy, what we need to do is to promote this trend, which in return will definitely help to rebuild this society and satisfy the numerous requests of its members. However this does not necessarily mean that we can do nothing until China has achieved thorough economic development. Everybody should contribute to the society by doing what he thinks is positive. However, he should do it in a proper manner, in a constructive way. He should be aware of the reality and limitation of the society and try to approach his goal in a reasonable way; he should recognize that most people in the society have good wishes although they might have different approaches; he should also tolerate those who don't feel comfortable with the society and choose to leave without doing significant damage to it. Only in this way can we creat an environment of mutual trust, can we work together for better future for the Chinese community. In uniting our own community, we must not be narrow-minded. Our culture has experienced humiliation in the recent 150 years partly due to our own arrogance toward modern civilization. We will experience it again if we choose to be hostile toward the modern world. Tolerance in a society is the best way to strengthen the society; to be tolerant of and to learn from other cultures are the best ways to win in the competition for cultural survival. The debate on CBS news will continue. We will fight for our right, our dignity. We must understand we are fighting for mutual respect, mutual understanding. We are not creating hatred. We must be very careful to avoid being used by the people who want to create hatred against us. Whether you are Connie Chung, IFCSS, Chinese Government, American Chinese, Chinese from mainland, Taiwan or Hong Kong, you are the people with an indispensable common origin. Mutual defamation will not help to build up your dignity. At the aftermath of this event, let us start to build a community with mutual respect among its members. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 5. A comment on CCF's Edition on the CBS Report ............Kan Liao 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear editor: Glad to see your recent edition on the CBS report. I see hope. The Chinese community in this country is no longer silent, can no longer be stepped on. We do not want and will not allow to be judged by distorted, over- generalized, and prejudged stereotypes about our character and our image. For too long a time our community has lived like "a fish in the bottom of the pond". We were so afraid of making any waves; we saw all the other fish, even crabs, shrimps and turtles jump in the pond. We forgot that we were just the same as the rest of the living beings in the pond, no more humble and no less proud. When our feelings were hurt, too often we retreated into our private corner, swallowed our proud and nurture our wound in silence with the hope that next time we would be treated fairly. We have enough of that and we have learned enough from that. This time, we will not go down silently. We will speak out our feeling and fight for our rights. This is a PRINCIPLE. We may well likely not get the justice this time, but they will learn a lesson. Next time they will be a little bit more careful because in the eye of God/Buddha/Allah or any, CBS has sinned this time. From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. When in America Do as the Americans Do ..................Andy Shi 107 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor, I'd like to make some comments on CCF Issue 9426, which exclusively deals with issues arising from CBS's Chinese espionage report by Connie Chen. In my opinion, the CCF editorial is excellent in its resoundingly critical tone in the first half. But it's last two paragraphs are redundant and disappointing. Even more disappointing is the IFCSS President's letter to CBS, in which he expressed that he is "concerned". When a national network has dumped so much dirt on every Mainland Chinese in the U.S., and when everyone of them is so much hurt, saddened and outraged, he is only able to say that he is concerned? Why couldn't the President just tell CBS, and the American public, the truth about our feelings? The truth is that we are hurt, saddened and mad. The truth is also that everyone of us demands an apology from CBS. A national network like CBS sways the minds of millions of Americans whom collectively affect the life of the Chinese in the U.S. and possibly even in other countries, particularly Canada, where many watch the same channels. It is only ethical that the network is accountable for what it does. As an important part of the American media which scrutinize the American society in all respects, CBS itself must be scrutinized by the people. I should probably clarify that I am not especially disappointed at the CCF editorial or Mr. Lin Changsheng in particular. What I am a bit disappointed at is the fact that so many of us are doing so well on many other counts, but have never learned to do as the Americans do when in America. Many a time I, as a Chinese myself, am so impressed, amazed, and touched by the courtesy of my fellow Chinese. I am not saying that courtesy is no good. On the country, I regard courtesy as part of our national virtue. But too much courtesy in North America, or probably the whole Western world, not only is unnecessary, but at times can do a disservice to ourselves. We all know that "Moscow Doesn't Trust Tears", nor does America Chinese courtesy. When the time comes when our characteristic Chinese courtesy is not recognized and appreciated, the American alternative is warranted. It's a shame that things have to be in the "barbarians'" way. But it is the reality. In North America it is not only acceptable, but also often indispensable, to stand up for oneself and speak one's mind. Democracy is different interests groups competing for being heard. And it's often that the baby that cries loudly that gets the milk, as our own Chinese saying goes. It is on this basis that I cannot agree with Liu Cheng's opinion that we should be "cooperative and understanding" to CBS, although I do see the wisdom contained in that article in other respects. No, it is the people at CBS that should be sensitive and understanding to us. It is a moral imperative that they always bear in mind how many people they can hurt in their every day programming. To calmly "inquire the nature of that particular news report", which, in my opinion, is more tabloid sensationalism than decent news report, will not help build "a positive image of our community". Standing up and speaking out will do more. The very reason that Connie Chung and her CBS boss had the audacity to do this to the Chinese community was that the Chinese people traditionally have been too silently "cooperative". Early Chinese labourers and immigrants in North America had always showed more than understanding and cooperation. But the result was that they were treated as less than human. I can't imagine any television station in America dare to say that "every Jew is a potential spy". I also cannot espouse Chenjian Li's advocation to "Separate two things: the report and its impact." How could you separate them when in reality it's either the report and its impact are one, or the report is null but it's impact 100%? I doubt any of us Chinese, who are the subjects of Chung's report, would believe that what she said in her report was not a "twist of truth." Even if it were the truth, there are always ways of reporting the same truth, not to mention ways of reporting half-truth which is sometimes more detrimental than non-truth. I was really amazed by Li's sober, strictly academic analysis. The bottom line is, the real world does not operate according to the rules of impersonal academics. It runs on hormones, emotions, and subjective impressions which cannot be blamed or considered wrong. What is to blame is the cause of that impression which, in this case, happens to be Connie Chung's "marvelous" report. It's interesting that the last two paragraphs of the editorial are devoted to opinions of Liu's and Li's. I gather you were trying to stick to the media dogma of being "balanced". But it's really unnecessary. The very intent of writing an editorial is to serve a purpose that a report cannot serve; that is, to proclaim loudly what you believe in and what you stand for, to spell out the right and wrong as you believe them and the principles you adhere to. A balance of viewpoints is a requirement for a report, but not for an editorial which purports to represent the viewpoint(s) of your own on a particular issue; one sided, authoritative, no more B.S. of any sort. That's what I believe. I also find it's interesting that the first paragraph of the editorial contains a comment that "The network is no longer impersonal, no longer faceless, or free of agency." I'm not sure if I fully understand what that line means. But if it were talking about media neutrality and objectivity, they never exist, not in autocracies, nor in the so-called democracies. The philosophical notion of media neutrality and objectivity is, in reality, a misnomer. In contrast, the observation that CBS is in a somewhat desperate need of audience and therefore "resort to ... much despised practice of the tabloid" is probably more real and accurate. In his reflections of post-Watergate American journalism, Carl Bernstein, the investigative reporter who, 22 years ago with Bob Woodward, covered the Watergate story in The Washington Post, pointed out, "[f]or increasingly the America rendered today in the American media is illusionary and delusionary -- disfigured, unreal, disconnected from the true context of our lives. In covering actually existing American life, the media -- weekly, daily, hourly -- break new ground in getting it wrong. The coverage is distorted ... by the reduction of news to gossip, which is the lowest form of news; by sensationalism, which is always a turning away from a society's real condition ... (The New Republic, June 8, 1992)." Bernstein continues that "[s]ome good journalism is still being done today, to be sure, but it is the exception and not the rule." He concluded that Americans "are in the process of creating, in sum, what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot SUB-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself." I encourage everyone to read that article which is entitled "The idiot culture". From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. A Letter to Chenjian Li: Some Comments ................Xuemin Liu 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Chenjian Li, I read your piece in today's Forum (May 25, #9426) regarding the CBS mess. It strikes me that you are a man (or woman) of reason. That's cool. But I think that you may be too cool for most of us judging from the reactions others like myself have shown so far. I don't want to accuse you of being Connie Chung's fan, but you seemed to tell us that if some one drives a knife through your heart, you'd very much like to think that maybe s/he has a reason, a pretty darn good one, to do so to you. I can only imagine that only the ones with whom we are truly in love can hurt us for which we don't intend to fight back. All I am saying is this: wake up, man/woman, you gonna protect yourself by reacting quickly. Or, please, be prepared. There are more vicious ones out there than you thought. By the way, we know the main source of information Connie the lovely (what a distorted face!) relied on was a book written by, you guessed baby, a DIA agent (what's his name?). So what? You ask. This shows that Connie Chung believes in the right-wing anti-Communist/Asians school of thought, at least that particular night she spoke for them. Connie Chung is no friend of Chinese people, just as any Chinese who has lived here long enough knows. Back to your reasonableness. I still think it's cool to be reasonable (for the reason that Eye-to-Eye and Connie were not). But sometimes you have no chance to reason with those who do not have a faint sense of what reason is. Well, am I making myself too dislikable here? Best wishes still. From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Comments on Chenjian Li's Article .......................A Reader 109 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editors: Thank you for putting together the responses from readers on the CBS Eye to America report. After reading them, I do not have much of a comment on them except on the one written by Chenjian Li. Please post my comments on CCF if you can. Since I do not know Chenjian Li's gender, I will simply use the generic "he" and "his" for reference purposes. Li used his friend's comments about the discrepancy between Chinese students' GRE and TOEFL scores and their English proficiency to support his belief in the CBS report's correctness. But unfortunately he has a friend who seems to have a strong tendency to blow things out of proportion. Li reported that his friend told his school authority the truth that "so many Chinese students with startling high GRE and TOEFL score actually came here with not so impressive, sometimes even inadequate language ability", was because: "1. Most of us studied for the exams themselves so hard and so thoroughly that it [the study] enhanced our scores drastically." and, "2. At many exam places, cheating was very common; some either collaborated during the 10 minutes break, or even asked somebody to take the exam for them." The "truth" Li's friend was telling could not be farther away from the truth. Before and after I came to the US, I have talked with dozens and even hundreds of Chinese students and scholars about the two tests, but I never heard of any cheating going on. How could Li's friend say that "at many exam places, cheating was very common"? Using my judgment, I would say there is definitely cheating involved when Chinese students take the GRE and TOEFL, but never to the extent of "very common" and "at many places". Li's friend's assertion is, to say the least, an exaggeration of fact, and a lie, to say the worst. If his friend were actually sure that there was a large scale of cheating going on with the two tests, he should give more information to support his assertion, such as how many have actually cheated among all the test takers he actually knew, how many actually had others took the tests for them, and how on earth test takers collaborated during the 10 minutes' break (collaboration during the break in itself does not break the test rules). I doubt that Li's friend has such facts. In addition, I know that there are only a few test sites for either GRE or TOEFL in China, but how could Li's friend know that some of the test sites were closed because of the cheating, the collaboration or whatever? There is nothing wrong that we study hard and thoroughly before we take the GRE and TOEFL. Actually American universities should be happy about our attitude, because we take things seriously and we want to do a good job in whatever we do. In addition, studying for the tests does enhance one's English ability, such as reading, vocabulary, and, to a lesser extent, listening comprehension. Indeed, there are cases where Chinese students with high scores on the GRE and TOEFL do not speak English well, but in most of these cases this happens because of the measurement failure of the two tests. They test the reading (both GRE and TOEFL) and listening abilities (only TOEFL), but not the speaking ability, of a non-native speaker of English. People are not created equal in terms of learning a second language. Some people may never be able to speak good English no matter how smart they are or how long they stay in the US (Einstein was one example). There are Chinese students here in the US who do not speak up to standard English. If you meet one such student, ask him or her to see how much his or her TOEFL and GRE scores are (after a little conversation). And most probably, his or her TOEFL score is in the low 500. This is my experience. Returning to the CBS news report that have enraged many of us. To me, CBS, or any commercial TV stations in the US for that matter, have to stretch the fact a little bit just to increase the attractiveness of the story. Ask any Colombian schoolmate or colleague about the drug situation in this country and compare it with the impression you got from American media. On the other hand, don't believe every intelligent American will believe in whatever a prime time TV anchor says. If you are not a spy, don't be afraid of being accused of being one. If that does happen, you can always sue and you may win a favorable judgement and get rich! It is saddening sometimes to notice that some Chinese students tell their American friends or classmates about things, and things about China in particular, in pretty much the same way as a network television tells the American audience. Some things in China are low priced, but other things can be really expensive. There are attractive tourism spots, but they can be very crowded and uncomfortable. Some places have developed a lot, but many other places are still ill equipped. My fellow Chinese students, please tell them things about China as neutrally and accurately as possible. Tell what you actually know and never wild-guess things that you don't know. If you don't know how many flights there are between Shanghai and Beijing, don't assume automatically that there are very few, because in fact there are many. Put in another way, one lesson that we can learn from this incident is that we should never exaggerate things or blow things out of proportion, especially things of a sensitive nature. In the case of Li's friend, he could have told the school authority that some students may have cheated on the tests. He could then, for example, have explained that he knew two friends who cheated on the test, or one of his former classmates had somebody else take the test for him or her, or whatever facts he was aware of. It really would be a shame if his school changed the admission policy towards Chinese students based on his exaggerated information. But I don't think any intelligent American would make the decision to change based just on what he said. From ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. A Comment on Chenjian Li's Article .....................Wei Zhang 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In last week's CCF (#9426), Mr. Chenjian Li wrote: > ... >III. A true story of a friend of mine--Mr. X > ... > >If this is true (and I have no reason to suspect he told me a lie back at >that time!), then it seems the attempt for organizing spy network is true; >right or wrong, it is a fact. And as for the news media, revealing facts >is not a crime, but their job. Such kind of reasoning completely does not follow!!!!! (1) you don't really know if your friend's story is true or not. (2) can you really infer there is a spy network in US based on your friend's story, even suppose the story is true? (3) even there is such a net, do you think it involves many of ordinary CSS in US? (4) how can you say CBS's report is "revealing facts"? I don't know if you are a real Chinese. CBS is lying, which should be very obvious for every Chines, if he/she has basic common sense and basic knowledge about China. From +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Yingyin Xu + + Assistant Editor: Ming Chen + + Executive Moderator: Changqing Yang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For unsubscription: mail "UNSUB CHINA-NT" to the above e-address + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]: pub/community/CCF + + gopher to cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 13. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++