http://www.theworld.org/2012/09/china-future-top-leader/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=china-future-top-leader Global Perspectives for an American Audience Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:49:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://www.theworld.org/2012/09/china-future-top-leader/comment-page-1/#comment-25789 Gene T Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:00:00 +0000 http://www.theworld.org/?p=137296#comment-25789 I am surprised that an award-winning China hand like Magistad would tell her listeners that the coming Chinese leadership transition will only be the SECOND peaceful one in PRC history, the first one being from Deng Xiaoping to his successors. How could she have missed the transition between those successors (Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji) and the current (and actual second generation post-Deng) leadership team? Even more inexplicably, later during the program, she chose to lump together the current Senkaku/Diaoyu row with the South China Sea disputes, using the Filipino objections against Chinese claims over the Spratley Islands to argue that China's claims over the Diaoyu islets are equally unreasonable. She further asserts that these islets are closer to Japan than to China. In the former, she is using apples to put oranges in an unflattering light. In the latter, she is just plainly and obviously wrong (as a cursory perusal of any map of the region would have revealed)! Territorial disputes are never simple matters, and both sides of the dispute must be heard with an open mind if a third party wished to actually understand the conflict (instead of looking for excuses to cheer for one side or the other). Magistad had an opportunity to explore the historical background and context behind the dispute, in order to help NPR listeners to better understand what is fueling the anger and confrontation. Instead, her arguments appear to be based solely on personal gut feelings rather than research; the picture she has chosen to paint is one of absurdly simplistic black vs white, with zero depth, and showing about as much connection with reality as Paul Ryan's convention speech. Unfortunately, as a daily NPR listener for decades, I can't say that I expected a whole lot more from Ms Magistad. She undoubtedly knows China very well in her own ways, yet she consistently portrays it from a single narrow perspective, hewing to a very familiar narrative, without any hint of appreciating different views (in contrast to Rob Gifford's much more nuanced reports back in the days). Listening to a Magistad report on China feels exactly the same as listening to a slightly toned down version of a Hannity or Limbaugh commentary on Obama and the Democrats, and often about as informative. Is this the best "The World" can do on its China coverage? I am surprised that an award-winning China hand like Magistad would tell her listeners that the coming Chinese leadership transition will only be the SECOND peaceful one in PRC history, the first one being from Deng Xiaoping to his successors. How could she have missed the transition between those successors (Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji) and the current (and actual second generation post-Deng) leadership team?
Even more inexplicably, later during the program, she chose to lump together the current Senkaku/Diaoyu row with the South China Sea disputes, using the Filipino objections against Chinese claims over the Spratley Islands to argue that China’s claims over the Diaoyu islets are equally unreasonable. She further asserts that these islets are closer to Japan than to China. In the former, she is using apples to put oranges in an unflattering light. In the latter, she is just plainly and obviously wrong (as a cursory perusal of any map of the region would have revealed)!
Territorial disputes are never simple matters, and both sides of the dispute must be heard with an open mind if a third party wished to actually understand the conflict (instead of looking for excuses to cheer for one side or the other). Magistad had an opportunity to explore the historical background and context behind the dispute, in order to help NPR listeners to better understand what is fueling the anger and confrontation. Instead, her arguments appear to be based solely on personal gut feelings rather than research; the picture she has chosen to paint is one of absurdly simplistic black vs white, with zero depth, and showing about as much connection with reality as Paul Ryan’s convention speech.
Unfortunately, as a daily NPR listener for decades, I can’t say that I expected a whole lot more from Ms Magistad. She undoubtedly knows China very well in her own ways, yet she consistently portrays it from a single narrow perspective, hewing to a very familiar narrative, without any hint of appreciating different views (in contrast to Rob Gifford’s much more nuanced reports back in the days). Listening to a Magistad report on China feels exactly the same as listening to a slightly toned down version of a Hannity or Limbaugh commentary on Obama and the Democrats, and often about as informative.
Is this the best “The World” can do on its China coverage?

]]>