Britain's most tiresome newspaper the Daily Mail has a typically sober and balanced report on a new animal show in Xiamen, Fujian (presumably HaiCang Safari Park).
"Just when it seemed that the Chinese had plumbed the depths of animal humiliation, along comes something even worse"
it begins, before publishing a few photos of a Lion riding on the back of a Horse.
Whilst not advocating lion jockeys, we think it's strange that a supposedly mainstream national newspaper should adopt such a country-baiting, holier-than-thou tone.
Fortunately The (London) Times provides some respite from the China bashing, noting that:
"The little brown horse has a rug on its back to protect it from the lion’s claws"
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Animal shows should all be consigned to history's bin though. Being hypcritical doesn't make them wrong.
However, the Daily Mail's writing is pretty shocking. As for animal cruelty and taking equal stances regardless of country - I wonder what the Mail's stance on the UK fox hunting issue was when the Countryside Alliance marched on London against the ban.
Fox hunting indeed, why not just bring back witch burning, bear baiting , and even cat burning (oh yes, they did).
I don't understand how you can defend this or call it "nation-baiting." The fact is that there are no animal protection laws whatsoever in China (and certainly none enforced) and the routine, severe abuse of animals that one can witness on a daily basis in China is egregious, horrific and immoral and most certainly reflects the values of a lot of people there.
If you want to ruin your day, search YouTube for china fur, and maybe you'll stop defending the state of animal rights in China, which is just a stupid and indefensible position. Really, shame on you.
Let me add that even if this act does not appear cruel immediately ("there is a little brown rug," you've reassured yourself) in order to get animals to behave like this inevitably involves a great deal of cruelty.
Contrary to popular belief, the most dangerous animal is not the lion or tiger or even the elephant. The most dangerous animal is a shark riding on an elephant, just trampling and eating everything they see.
- Jack Handy
It was the venerable Times that pointed out the little brown rug, not me.
We all know that China is unlikely to win the St Francis Of Assisi Award For Kindness To Puppies And Kittens any time soon, that isn't news.
This story was about foreign press reporting on China.
Do I really need to find examples of animals being treated cruelly in other countries to show that the Mail is going a bit OTT?
No, you don't, James, because citing other examples in no way justifies it, whatsoever. This sort of relativism that says, "well, if I can find an example elsewhere, all criticism is invalid," is no defense and simply a bullshit way of arguing that can be used to rationalize anything. This breaks down quickly when you look at the details because there are inevitably a great many differences when you are examining issues like animal cruelty because the circumstances always differ.
Further, crimes exist everywhere, but acknowledging one crime does not somehow lower the bar to exonerate another. Nor is there some calculus of good and evil perpetrated by one nation, culture or another which should somehow 'balance' and which destroys the ability of an individual to acknowledge crimes. Crime is about specific instances and not erased by this sort of school yard finger pointing.
Arguing in this manner only serves to confuse the issue, which is to say it shifts the argument away from the 'criminal' act to a discussion of whether or not one people, culture, nation, group has at anytime in the past or present has been as 'bad' as another. Of course, by this flawed logic, you can find a vague historical analogy for anything and suggest that the original argument (the zoo is being cruel to animals) is wrong. But in fact this sort of transference is incorrect, and rather, crimes stand on their own.
I hear this kind of talk all the time and find it greatly frustrating.
Sure the zoo is being cruel to the animals- no argument here. But don't you agree that:
"Just when it seemed that the Chinese had plumbed the depths of animal humiliation, along comes something even worse"
is pretty far-out there as a statement?
I agree with you crime is about specific instances, and xenophobia is about tarring whole countries with one brush.
Yeah, I can agree with that, but also, the fact that there are no laws against animal cruelty (certainly nothing enforced) does nothing to dissuade such broad-brush sentiments.
"Just when it seemed that the Chinese had plumbed the depths of animal humiliation, along comes something even worse"
that's a far out statement?
wasn't there just a video of people strapping two cats to trees and skinning them alive?
right after a video of a school security guard mercilessly beating a small dog to death?
and kitten stomping and countless other acts ...
the only thing they got wrong is that this isn't close to as bad as the humiliation / mutilation gets here in China, where beating your dog till it shits itself 3 times daily is saintly behavior.
Yeah, my neighbor used to beat the shit out of his dogs. I won't go into detail, but suffice to say that it was horrific. Fed up, I resorted to good old fashioned intimidation to end it, and every time he beat his dogs (which was often), I'd bang on his door so loudly people 5 doors down the hall sometimes came outside. Of course, that should have been the work of the police, but this sort of vile behavior is completely legal and acceptable here. What's more: none of the other neighbors bothered to do anything at all.
You're completely missing the point. I personally find the lack of animal rights protection in China deplorable, but the issue here is actually the objectivity of journalism. A newspaper's responsibility is to report the facts and allow the readers to decide. The loaded and biased language can be reserved to columns and blogs. Unfortunately most readers become accustomed to the thinly veiled agendas and / or poor reporting that exists in most newsrooms today. The statement may be a perfectly acceptable conclusion by the reader, or anyone who has any sense of decency towards animal rights, but to come from a newspaper report, that is flat out irresponsible and poor journalism.
Statements like these from newspapers are really an insult to the reader in my opinion.
So you say the Daily Mail's point is correct, but in principle it is wrong because it did not present its (correct) point in a way that appeals to your sense of journalistic propriety? I suggest that you lower your expectations for the Daily Mail or read something else.
Anyway, if the point of this post is to discuss bad journalism and bias, firstly, you could start richly with the domestic rags, and secondly, if you must look to the foreign media, you could at least choose an article that is substantively wrong.
I'm shocked by the Daily Mail and its readers comments are disgraceful to refer to China as the cruelest country in the world based on this story. Even in Spain has nobody heard of bull fighting? In Saudi Arabia a woman is stoned to death for riding in a car with a man who's not her husband. And what about fox hunting? But of course, none of these are as bad as a lion riding on a horse. These people need to open their eyes a bit more to what's going on around the world.
I now understand your point, as your level of reasoning is exactly the same as the Daily Mail; unable to differentiate between objectivity and personal bias.
Yes Mr Callipers, what the Daily Mail is doing is shamelessly trying to incite outrage against China, manipulating the readers' minds rather than reporting objectively and I also think this is a disgrace.
You're contradicting your own reasoning by stating that the Chinese press is worse. You yourself said above that "citing other examples in no way justifies it". You can't have it both ways.
James' article is very clearly not a debate about animal rights and which country has a better record, if you read it carefully you'll see that.
I have no problem shaming China on this issue. I am not sure that James himself was entirely clear about the point of his post but that it was sensational.
As for claim that I am "contradicting" myself, you obviously didn't understand my comment, which was not to say that the poor reporting in China stamps out poor reporting elsewhere. Rather, it is to say that the message of the domestic media is so rigidly controlled -- "manipulating readers minds" -- that it presents a much greater and more relevant opportunity if you want to discuss standards in journalism with respect to China. Please don't be daft.
In an event, I think that a smear-job is well deserved on this issue. If that will positively affect the lot of China's animals, then that's fine with me.
As for claim that I am "contradicting" myself, you obviously didn't understand my comment, which was not to say that the poor reporting in China stamps out poor reporting elsewhere. Rather, it is to say that the message of the domestic media is so rigidly controlled -- "manipulating readers minds" -- that it presents a much greater and more relevant opportunity if you want to discuss standards in journalism with respect to China. Please don't be daft.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's article is just sensational journalism written with the intention of selling papers, but it's point happens to be correct in this case. And if a well-deserved "bad rap" is what it takes to positively affect the lot of China's animals, then that's fine with me.
But please do tell me how it should have been reported in order to better appeal to you.
"But please do tell me how it should have been reported in order to better appeal to you."
China is the first country to succeed in promoting harmony and mutually beneficial between two ancient enemies while the US repaired then burned to the ground another Iraqi mosque while loading a tree chipper with pork chops for the local crowd.
Xinhua
Callipers, you care about animals- I get that without question. All I'm saying is that things on that score have been the same since the year dot, but the way foreign press write about China, changes.
And it's important.
Again, callipers, you miss the point. I don't read news articles to "appeal" to me. In fact, that's not the point of news reporting. If you're fine with sensationalist reporting because it happens to match your own opinion, that's your biased right. But unless you're going to rewrite the standards of responsible journalism for the world, then it doesn't change the fact that this was an obviously biased piece.
Of course the smear job is ok with you, it's evident that using smear tactics and subjective and loaded language is perfectly ok with individuals such as those writing for the Daily Mail and yourself, as long as it's agreeable to your own beliefs. You're very open-minded and in good company obviously.
Callipers, how it SHOULD have been reported is without the sort of language that is designed to make up readers minds for them rather than letting them decide themselves. Not to appeal to me, but to be responsible journalists.
You are right when you point out that Chinese media is tightly controlled to affect how people think. And it's a pity. But I was hoping that in England, where the government doesn't have that kind of control, the media would be more responsible, otherwise maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing for the British government to start controlling the media.
I am Chinese. It worries me that the Mail reports in this manner to provoke comments such as "Chinese are cruel barbarians". I'd rather not have to wear that label when I wander the streets of London with people looking at me like some kind of monster. There are many animal lovers in China which is reflected in the increasing number of pet owners. Yes, some abuse their pets as they do in the US and Britain.
So if you really want to know how I think it should be reported, I would say without the "Just when it seemed that the Chinese had plumbed the depths of animal humiliation, along comes something even worse" kind of references.
@tsaojam
Oh, that's just so bitchy! I love it!
@chingiskhan
Well, the real crime here is the treatment of the animals and the lack of legal safeguards for animals in China, so if you want to work to change western perceptions, then I suggest you start at home.
and @chingiskhan, tsaojam
Unfortunately, it is naive to believe that the purpose of journalism is objective, responsible reporting. That is the purpose of SOME journalism and some publications, but certainly not all. While all media is more or less free to choose its agenda, most have an ideological slant. More importantly, different publications exist for different reasons: to inform, entertain, enlighten, manipulate, ideologies, agendas, specific issues, etc. In the case of the Daily Mail, I would suggest that the sole purpose is to sell newspapers and make money.
Now that's a constructive opinion! Many universities have journalism departments that teach a coherent ethical curriculum in news reporting. One of the most important precepts they promote is objectivity. That's what the post was about. Just because you want to redefine journalism to suit your principles, which I happen to agree with, as do James, chingis and tsao, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, humanely prepared of course!
@ Callipers
Then we simply disagree. In my opinion, you are focusing far too much on treatment of animals. I am more concerned with how the article affects humans and how the article affects how English readers will form an unfair and negative opinion of China and Chinese based on this. Maybe I am biased because I am human but I think humans and the human issue is more important than the horse who has a lion on his back.
And as for journalism, we're talking about one of the most widely read national newspapers not some gossip rag. You are correct that different publications exist for different purposes, and that is exactly why I expect a greater level of responsibility from publications that fall into this category than I would say, Hello magazine.