BBC cooks up more nonsense about Chen recall bid

Babble without a byline

In a BBC article of Friday, November 10, 2006 titled "New recall bill tabled in Taiwan," someone (since there's no byline, we don't know who) was paid to cook up this dreck and pass it off as reporting:

Legislators in Taiwan have set the date for a third vote on a recall bill aimed at ousting President Chen Shui-bian.

The vote is scheduled for 24 November, and if the motion passes it will trigger a national referendum on whether to get rid of the president.

Mr Chen has survived two such votes before, and looks likely to again.

If it doesn't look like dreck, you're either not looking carefully enough, or you don't have the proper knowledge. You might also think that in three one-sentence paragraphs there couldn't be too many foul-ups there, huh? Not so fast! Let's see how many I can extract.

1) While all of the "[l]egislators" did indeed set the date for the recall vote, the ones who tabled it in the first place just happen to be comprised entirely of opposition legislators. Both the DPP and the TSU have said they'd back President Chen. Did the BBC not know this, or are they only reporting what CTiTV feeds them? Either way would reflect negatively on their trustworthiness.

2) Such a referendum would most certainly not read "Do you want to 'get rid of' President Chen?" (If you think that I'm being picky, thank your bleedin' lucky stars I'm ignoring the lack of a subjunctive case in that conditional crap.)

3) As Michael Turton has pointed out previously, Chen didn't merely "survive" the first two recalls. The fact is that both of those attempts failed miserably to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to make it past the legislature before a public referendum could even be held on the matter.

We've only just begun
Pushing forward, let's see what other muck the unidentified chef has thrown into the pot.

But this time the challenge will be tougher, in the light of prosecutors' claims that they have enough evidence to charge him with corruption.

Mr Chen cannot be prosecuted while in office, as he is protected by presidential immunity, but his wife, Wu Shu-chen, and three ex-aides have already been charged with the misuse of state funds.

Opposition supporters are continuing their demands for Mr Chen to step down over the crisis.

Three more one-sentence paragraphs, and I see at least as many distortions. Follow along, and see how hollow those words are.

4) Let's talk about "claims" first. Some people claim to be messiahs. A claim isn't necessarily the truth and shouldn't be judged as being so just because it comes from someone with the title of "prosecutor." I bet it would be pretty easy to track down someone to find a balancing quote. Oh, bugger! There's nobody available in the CTiTV studios? Darn. Maybe next time.

5) By the way, these claims have nothing to do with whether or not it will "be tougher" for Chen to avoid being recalled. Could it be the BBC's unstated goal to make it "tougher"?

6) President Chen said he would waive immunity and step down immediately if his wife, Wu Shu-jen (alternate spelling above) were found guilty. Don't forget that the prosecutor had agreed to do another interview of Wu on November 5 to allow her to clarify some things, but he went ahead with the indictment anyway before that date; thus the interview never happened.

7) Liars, thieves, and convicted criminals are among those leading the "[o]pposition supporters." Not surprisingly, some anti-Chen people in Hong Kong and China can hardly be distinguished from those oxymoronically-named folks.

Keeping up appearances of truthiness
Whoever is writing this finally gets around to mentioning some of the things that should have been presented simultaneously with the information above, but it does little to make up for the damage. Here we have a dash of subheading and five more scant paragraphs, only one of which exceeds a single sentence:

Keeping up the pressure

The opposition parties, which have a small majority in parliament, will need at least 14 ruling party members to back the recall motion in order for it to succeed.

The last two attempts - in June and October - failed as all Mr Chen's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) colleagues stood by him.

Analysts say the big question now is whether the prosecutors' conclusions last Friday will cause some DPP lawmakers to lose faith in their leader and vote in favour of the recall motion.

So far, correspondents say, it appears likely that the vote will again fail. Most DPP members seem to be loyal to their leader, and the party has said it will punish any legislators who vote against Mr Chen.

"The chances of [the bill] [<-that's the BBC's] passing are low," admitted opposition Nationalist Party legislator Tsai Cheng-yuan, but he added that even if it did not pass, his party would still keep up the pressure against Mr Chen.

Before you even think about taking even a tiny bite of what has just been served up, here are my closing arguments.

8) The chance of 14 DPP members voting for the recall is slim to none. If any do, it could only be people like Lin Cho-shui or Tuan Yi-kang who should have been kicked out of the DPP long ago for repeatedly kicking the party from within while it's being attacked from without. Those people seem to be in it for other reasons (spies?) and should probably not be painted as ever having had faith in Chen.

9) It wasn't just the DPP who "stood by" Chen. The TSU also showed their disapproval of the motion by casting null ballots in both the first and second votes. Although there is some strong disagreement between those two parties, both of them stand strongly for democracy.

10) "Analysts say..." (insert any claim here). Finish that with "the big question now is..." and what I see is a magician saying "Look at my hands!" Are you watching closely? Which analysts? Can the BBC name even one or tell the readers who they're affiliated with? Could these "analysts" be from places like CTiTV or TVBS? Perhaps it's Emile Sheng yet again. (Am I close?!) As I've mentioned, the DPP and TSU have already made formal statements saying they would oppose this recall motion. Can you feel the bullshit vapors wafting upward toward your nostrils yet?

11) "[C]orrespondents say..." (insert any claim here). Maddog says, "Bollocks!" You might as well type, "I'm making this up." Could this be "Caroline Gluck, distorting from Taipei"? Why do "[m]ost DPP members" merely "seem" to support "their leader." (Note to Ms. Gluck and everybody at the BBC: He's the democratically-elected president, not just a "leader." Stick that someplace where you can easily copy and paste it.)

12) The full name of the "Nationalist Party" to which our fully-unnamed writer refers is the "Chinese Nationalist Party," also known as the KMT or Kuomintang. Trying to make it harder to Google up their long history of murder and oppression, eh? Nice try.

Where do we go from here?
They distort, you decide. Is this the work of Caroline Gluck? Hers has been the only name appearing on any of the recent articles from Taiwan which do have a byline. Why no byline on this article and so many others (some of which contain Gluck's name within), and does this lack of bylines have anything to do with Michael's and my deconstruction of her so-called "journalism"? Could she be farming out the work to local pan-blue hacks? Is the BBC biased against Taiwan and/or Chen Shui-bian and/or the pan-greens?

Sound off!
If your thinking is anything like mine, drop them a line (via either e-mail or online form), and tell them why.

---

Pieces of the puzzle: Taiwan, 台灣, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, A-bian, 阿扁, Wu Shu-jen, Wu Shu-chen, 吳淑珍, media, 媒體, BBC, 英國廣播公司, Caroline Gluck, 凱若琳葛拉克, Kuomintang, 中國國民黨, KMT, 國民黨

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Voters of Taiwan: recall all the pan-blue legislators

Time for some political jujitsu

Six and a half years after losing Taiwan's presidency, the pan-blues are still wailing and gnashing their teeth about the "bane" of democracy which threatens their very existence. These days, the duties of hypocritically opposing "corruption" are being publicly handled by Taiwan's Charles Bronson lookalike and debt-ridden has-been, the overly-hyphenated buffoon, Shih Ming-teh

He's a partisan, and he'll cry if he wants to
An article on page 3 of today's Taipei Times says that the supposedly "non-partisan" Shih is preparing to launch a recall against all pan-green legislators who don't support his and the pan-blues' shrill drive to depose President Chen Shui-bian. His real goal, however, is to get the pan-greens to do his bidding. Here's the bait:

If pan-green legislators decide to support the second presidential recall motion and hand the future of the president over to the people to decide through a national referendum, the campaign will end its month-long protest, organizers said.

Doesn't that sound tasty -- an end to all the nonsense?

Not so fast! Remember the threat behind that bait.

Also remember this. Less than a month ago, I redundantly pointed out the partisan nature of Shih's rabble-rousing, and the subsequent behavior of his camp has consistently proven this to be correct. Here's the comment from Shih's spokesman (formerly-painted-as-neutral) which I criticized last month:

"We don't want any partisan support. We try to keep this as pure as possible, as a movement of the people," said Emile Sheng, professor of politics at Soochow University, who has joined the protest camp as a media spokesman.

Would you take bait from this man or the group he supports? I certainly hope not!

This latest "carrot-which-is-actually-a-stick" comes across exactly like the behavior of a spoiled child: "I'll stop crying as soon as you buy me the expensive gift which you can't afford and I shouldn't have anyway, and if you don't, I'll hold my breath until you can see that my face is already blue." It's just another in the series of tricks from the anti-Chen camp, and you know that if you give them what they want, they'll only ask for more.

Partial recall
These faux "opposers of corruption" fail to remember, though I do quite clearly, that less than 4 months ago, KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (erstwhile supporter of corrupt officials like Hsu Tsai-li and Wu Chun-li), referring to a soon-to-fail recall motion against President Chen, had these authoritarian-sounding words to say:

"It's time to load the gun, but not yet time to pull the trigger, because you only get one shot at recalling a president."

Did you read that? "[O]ne shot." But how soon they forget.

Henry Blackhand has a much longer memory
A letter to the editor, also in today's Taipei Times, gives readers a short lesson in history and law which speaks volumes:

[I]t must be hard for the KMT and its allies to adjust to a legal system where the burden of proof lies with the accuser, when for 40 years during the White Terror period they enjoyed the power of kangaroo courts, in which a mere accusation was often enough to get someone a long stretch in prison or even a death sentence.

A "kangaroo court" is exactly what this all is, and it's just another of the many ways that this non-democratic mess is like China's Cultural Revolution.

Turn the tactics of your opponents back on them
So what can the people of Taiwan do about this madness? Well, turnabout is fair play, so I simply suggest that a recall be initiated against all the pan-blue legislators -- sincerely, and not as a "bluff" -- since the KMT chairman himself said they only had "one shot" at recalling the president. They've played their hand. Call their bluff, and let them fall on their faces. What are they gonna do about it -- cry to their mommyland?

---

Things to remember: Taiwan, 台灣, Taipei Times, 台北時報, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, A-bian, 阿扁, Democratic Progressive Party, 民主進步黨, DPP, 民進黨, Taiwan Solidarity Union, 台灣團結聯盟, TSU, 台聯黨, pan-greens, democracy, 民主, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, pan-blues, 泛藍, China, 中國, PRC, 中華人民公和國, Cultural Revolution, 文化大革命, 文革

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

BBC angers all who care about Taiwan

They sure look like they're doing it on purpose

On Monday afternoon, I blogged (on both INDIAC and Taiwan Matters!) about a very one-sided BBC article which failed to challenge several blatant falsehoods spoon-fed to them by purely partisan participants of Shih Ming-teh's absurd campaign in Taipei to "depose" the democratically-elected president of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian. By unquestioningly dishing this poison back to its readers, the BBC has done a terrible disservice to the whole nation of Taiwan.

Let's look once more at one of the biggest spoonfuls:

"We don't want any partisan support. We try to keep this as pure as possible, as a movement of the people," said Emile Sheng, professor of politics at Soochow University, who has joined the protest camp as a media spokesman.

And let's look again and again at a photo from the actual event and see if we can spot any "partisan support" or anybody who looks excessively happy about getting such support lavished upon him:


"We're not partisans,
we just play 'em in our roles
as chairmen of the anti-Chen parties"
Doh! It's PFP chairman James Soong
and KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou
making a Shih Ming-teh sandwich!

Caught red-handed
I was but one among a throng of commenters who submitted our thoughts on the article, but strangely, none of our comments appeared below that post hours and even days later. The scenario grows worse below, but even at this relatively early stage, I knew that something was terribly amiss and that it was time for further action.
I submitted this feedback to the BBC:

I and several others have tried to add comments to the Caroline Gluck piece "Protests against Chen gain ground" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5323466.stm], yet not a single comment has appeared. I submitted my own comment over 24 hours ago. According to the socialforce.org web site in Taiwan, there are many complaints about the inaccuracy of the article. [http://www.socialforce.org/phpBB/topic_15415.html] Please let me know something, as I strive for accuracy in my own writings.

Tim

Here's the reply I got from the BBC Tuesday night:

Thank you for contacting us about the article. We are sorry that readers' comments were not added at the time the article appeared, as they should have been. Please send any complaints about the article to this address, and they will be forwarded to the relevant editor.

This was far from being satisfactory. I wrote back immediately:

What does this mean?:
- - -
>[...] Please send any complaints about the article to
>this address, and they will be forwarded to the relevant editor.
- - -

Which "this address"? The one I just wrote to? I still don't see any comments below the article I complained about? Is something preventing you from doing so now? Better late than never, but if you don't put any of those comments there, the many already-disappointed readers will only become even more so.

Please forward my comments (quoted below) [above, in this post] to "the relevant editor" at least once, and let's see if you can do something to counter the perception that the BBC is participating in a coordinated media effort to smear the Chen Shui-bian government. You need someone who's outside of Taipei to tell you about the feelings of the average Taiwanese toward Shih Ming-teh. You need to understand the opposition parties' hold on the media in Taiwan and the way it affects the public's perception of events. The pan-blue media is a 24-hour-a-day Chen-smearing machine.

You also really need someone who can read Mandarin to look at this:
http://www.socialforce.org/phpBB/topic_15415.html

That's just a sampling of the people who are closely watching what you're writing.

Attentively,
Tim

They're "sorry that readers' comments were not added at the time the article appeared." Does that mean that they'll do it now? Better think again!

More than 12 hours after receiving that mail, not one comment has yet been published, and it's pretty certain they won't ever be. How can I be sure? The comment submission form has been completely removed from the page. (I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong on this. BBC?) Are you suspicious yet?

Your turn
Give 'em your feedback on both the article [URL] and on their handling of the comments. You know the routine. Keep it polite, but be direct. Present your case in your own words. Don't expect them to change, but for sure, make them aware that you're paying close attention, that you know what they're up to, and that you're not buying the crap for one moment.

---

Feedback loops: Taiwan, 台灣, Taiwan Independence, 台灣獨立, Taidu, 台獨, Taipei, 台北, Shih Ming-teh, 施明德, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, James Soong, 宋楚瑜, BBC, 英國廣播公司, Caroline Gluck, 凱若琳葛拉克

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

BBC gets Taiwan all wrong

Is it on purpose?

A reader of [my personal blog] sent me a link yesterday afternoon to a very one-sided BBC article about Shih Ming-teh's inane protest in Taipei. Writer Caroline Gluck, despite being stationed right there in the capital, got so many things so glaringly wrong, I couldn't help but compose a long comment to the article.

An e-mail to fellow blogger Michael Turton revealed that both he and Jason of Wandering to Tamshui had submitted similar comments there, and all of us had done so independently of each other.

None of our comments has been published. In fact, no comments at all have.

Action, reaction
So Michael blogged it, Jason restated his own submission in comments to Michael's post, and I'm now going to reprint my own comment here [with two typos corrected, some links added so that anyone can verify the facts of the matter, and a bit of formatting]:

What the people quoted in this article say isn't necessarily true, and Ms. Gluck, you leave too many distortions unchallenged.

When Shih says "This whole island is angry," he implies that everyone is angry at President Chen. The fact is that many people in Taiwan are angry at Shih himself, as his own ethics are questionable. Shih's current connection with Chen Yu-hao, who is wanted internationally after fleeing justice with hundreds of millions of NT$ NT$60 billion in debt and who now holds a Chinese passport, goes unmentioned.

When you tell readers about President Chen's "public approval ratings falling to all-time lows," you fail to tell them that the polls which say so were done by opposition newspapers like the United Daily News and the China Times which are known for telling obvious lies in their front page headlines. Also, you could point out that 80 - 90% of the news media in Taiwan is run by opponents of Chen Shui-bian, remnants of the KMT's party-state. Again, this is unfair and unbalanced "coverage" of a complex story.

Emile Sheng is constantly portrayed in the English-language media as a "neutral observer." He's given the space here to deceive readers with quotes like "We don't want any partisan support," but he's been anti-Chen for as long as I can remember. Sheng's employer, Soochow University, is curiously named after a place in China. Shih's movement has exactly the same goals as the unelected authoritarians in China: to use extralegal means get rid of the democratically-elected president of Taiwan. Taiwan, you might remind your readers, is an independent country where Chen's title doesn't need to be put in scare quotes the way it is in Xinhua reports.

You unquestioningly say that the red clothing demonstrates the protesters' "anger at corruption." Did you think to look behind the curtain and see if you could find evidence of China's connection to this event? Lin Cheng-chieh, the chairman of a pro-unification party who recently beat a Chen supporter on live TV, supports the movement, and he's connected to gang leaders in China such as Chang An-le. Why no mention of this?

You say that there will be "no noisy horns," yet you fail to mention how the event is disturbing patients at the nearby Taiwan University Hospital. Again, this favors Shih and fails to present a clear picture of what's really happening.

Why is there no mention of any of this?

As for the title of this article, these so-called sit-ins (in Mandarin, "jìng zuò" or "quiet sit") aren't "gaining ground" they're merely getting noisier.

No wonder Michael said at the end of his post, "I can name two dozen bloggers who could come up with a better piece than that."

---

For the records: Taiwan, 台灣, Taiwan Independence, 台灣獨立, Taidu, 台獨, Taipei, 台北, China, 中國, Shih Ming-teh, 施明德, BBC, 英國廣播公司, Caroline Gluck, 凱若琳葛拉克

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!