As Managing Editor of
Oh, I can’t wait. Let’s
Yong Tang: According to the opinion polls, the image of America has been becoming less and less popular in the world today since after the Iraq war. As a top leader of a major American newspaper, how do you think of this growing anti-American sentiment?Wow, nice opener Philip! We throw out the Zionist boogeyman early; we beat the Iraq drum; and to get on your self-hating knees first you have to mention the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia during the Clinton Administration. TRIFECTA!!!
Bennett: The world image of US is so clearly linked to its foreign policy and particularly its policy toward Iraq and Middle East, say its support of Israel and its occupation of Iraq.
I was in China once shortly after the missile hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and of course there were demonstrations in Beijing before the US embassy and elsewhere. So I think it is easy to understand in many ways why the US image has decreased.
American movies are remarkably popular all over the world to the extent that you can buy them on the streets of all major Chinese cities.Ummmm, I guess we can expect a Post expose on the rampant movie piracy and assorted copy write violations practiced wholesale in China any day now. Philip? Philip?
The ideologues in the Bush administration are very influential in decisions made toward Iraq and other provocative moves by the administration.Provocative? To whom? Define “provocative?”
Yong Tang: In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?Arghhhhh!! I’m sorry, I have to put a vein back in my forehead. This needs a sub-Fisk.
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.
No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world.Philip you ignorant slut. You know power abhors a vacuum. If not the U.S., then whom? China?
I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world.Oh, the moral relativist swamp we find ourselves in. Of course things would be much better in a multi-polar world…..like
People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries.Like
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.Unhappy for what country? China?
Yong Tang: So the world order should be democratic?You spineless twit. As a
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.
We don't have any political point of view that we are trying to advance.Ask almost every Republican elected in the last 75 years or so if they think that is an accurate statement.
One of the jobs of our correspondents in Baghdad is to tell our readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide.Interesting concept and worldview. You sure aren’t interested in telling the truth about the good things going on over there, we know that.
… it is a big thing for the Washington Post to be the first major newspaper in America to publish the pictures about the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoners abuse scandal.
Major American newspapers endorse Democratic candidates every time. I think that endorsement means nothing. I don't think people will vote according to that endorsement. It is just an old tradition which really doesn't have lot of meaning any more today.Sorry, my mind is still boggling. Clueless arrogance wrapped in a package of condensation is just, well, hard to comment on. Just let it sit there and season in the sun. Oh, wait, it does have an impact;
Furthermore, there is a mood of great suspicion about the media. Every time when we publish a story about Iraq that suggests the war is not going well for America, I get lots of messages from people saying that we the Post are not patriotic and we are reporting negatively on the war only because of our political bias against the Bush administration. I think there is a perception among some of our readers that we are hostile to the Bush administration or representing our own political point of view in our news coverage.Those silly rubes out there. Where could they have gotten those ideas? Must be that lack of education compared to yours.
I think there are areas in which the mainstream media has ignored or not been as touch with the development of the society as we could have been. It is not so much about expressing the mainstream views. I think the primary job of the Post is to provide people with information, not views. The primary job of a newspaper is to inform people of what is going on in our community and the world in an impartial and fair way.Nice words Philip, now ACT ON IT. You’re not as bad as the NYT, but gee wiz you’re close.
Even before readers being our God, credibility is our God.Speaking of editing. May want to review the proper capitalization of the word “god.”
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?Of course not,
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.
Yong Tang: But it seems to me that the Washington Post stories about China are still focused on such things like political dissidents?This is almost too painful to read. Kowtow like a pro Philip. Your knees must be getting sore by now.
Bennett: No, it is not true. If You look at all the stories published on the major newspapers about China last year, you would find the widest variety of stories of any time since US journalists were allowed back in China…… We have only three correspondents in China, a country with a population of 1.3 billion. We are trying to do our best.
Yong Tang: Do your correspondents in China have difficulties in getting the access to the information?Sigh. Relativism again. This guy must have had NO lunch money at all growing up.
Bennett: Yes, but we have difficult in the access to the information here in Washington DC too.
Perhaps the good editor should spend more time trying to produce a quality product as opposed to
If he was doing his job, he probably would have caught
“At 5 o'clock no men have showed up at school to lug the fold-out tables around and set out the baskets of napkins and line up neat rows of cookies, arranged by type.”“…no men have showed up…” Nice Hanna. Too bad you weren’t homeschooled by
To the Wall of Shame with you!!!
UPDATE: I should have known it, but
UPDATE II-Electric Boogaloo: Via