I was watching the news tonight on PBS and they were interviewing two idiots about the Olympic torch fiasco. One was from Human Rights Watch and is an idiot because of her childlike simplification of complex issues as is common of a zealout of any stripe. The other was some Chinese American who is an idiot because he is a traitor apologist.

The thing that struck me and has actually struck me several times over the past couple weeks is the obvious questions the reporters miss. Why do they do that? I would expect it of the sound byte constricted on the news networks but would have hoped for better on PBS Lehrer Report.

The traitor started about by saying how he supports people's rights to demonstrate and make their opinion known. So the obvious question is 'yet you don't support a similar right for Chinese? Why not? Then the traitor goes on to say that what the world needs to do is 'engage' China in quiet diplomacy. So the obvious reporter response is: 'I could show you an interview with someone like you for every year from 1989 till the present and their recommended prescription would be the same. What gain in political, not economic, rights have the Chinese people realized after 20 years of 'quiet engagement'?

Of course, since I'm not from Human Rights Watch, I understand the Realpolitik and economic factors that drive our government to act in the way it does. But it is the media's job to probe and question and yet time after time they seem to accept this notion of 'engagement' at face value.

Comments

[Matthew G. Saroff]

I have too disagree on your characterization of the Chinese-American activist as a "traitor".

If they are a citizen of the US, then that is where their loyalty lies, just as my loyalty is with the US though my ancestors came from Russia, Lithuania, Poland, and Germany.

As to the human rights situation in China, it stinks, but it was both foreseeable and likely that there would be protests like these when China bid on the Olympics.

Like the chicken said, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

[ShaMao]

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, while this is definitely true of 2nd generation Chinese Americans, my experience indicates that first generation very much identify themselves as Chinese first. This may very well have been the case with your ancestors as well as mine (Italian, French, English). I use the word traitor really because by their defense of some indefensible Chinese government policies they demonstrate they have not accepted the basic concept of freedom that pretty much unites Americans. Maybe it was an inappropriate word in this case. Usually I use it for the American businesspeople I know in China who will forgive and excuse any action as long as the can keep their villas, drivers, maids, and mistresses there.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

I think that hypocrite is a better term.