“Obama went into this trip saying beforehand that he planned to do things a bit differently, that he was going to try to establish some mutual confidence and trust with the Chinese and to work in the long range sense on achieving things on a variety of different issues. This was pretty much declared prior to the trip and made explicit and it’s consonant with a number of things that we know about Obama’s style in other areas. So then to see the trip having almost not even been completed and people becoming very excited that he ‘Didn’t say this’ or he ‘Didn’t do that,’ meaning that he didn’t say this or do that publicly, strikes me as being rather forgetful of the premise that the president himself had tried to establish for his approach in this aspect of his foreign policy.
“I find that the Washington reporters tend to be typically the most subject to this instant scorekeeping. This is part of the game of Washington reporting. They’re at the bleeding edge of this phenomenon that I think is distressing in terms of the approach of the press to serious questions. Everything is shot through this prism of short-term political calculation as opposed to thinking seriously about stuff. You can’t be an expert on every question, and so you’re part of the Washington press corps and if you’re really good and really diligent, you’re going to be expert maybe in a few things and one of those things might not be China.
“And now you’re in China on a three- or four-day trip and all of a sudden you’re having to weigh in on in important things and you don’t speak any Chinese and you don’t know any Chinese people and you’re in the security bubble of the president and you’re traveling from stop to stop on a stopwatch with the guy and being pumped all the time by the president’s aides—and this is true of all presidents—and subject to their spin and you’ve got these short deadlines and you’ve got to write these things. So they operate within those constraints. It’s a very difficult process, so I’m being critical of the press but I don’t see any obvious ways around that particular piece of things. “
In Part II, hear French’s analysis of common misperceptions about China, Chinese media image control, and the most overlooked story from the trip.
Interesting. This strangely reminds me of a foreign-produced science-fiction series I'm watching... where one commanding officer, having risen through the ranks and inherited a waged war for years against the long-heralded enemy of mankind, comes to the frightening realization that he knows absolutely nothing about the culture of the race he's trying to annihilate.
In other words, it can be scary how reliant we are on our own stupidness. A greedy little emphasis on results has the misfortune of generating a disregard for interpreting and understanding the conditions conducive to breeding said results, which is most unfortunate.
#1 Posted by Aaron H. Bynum, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 03:58 PM
"all of a sudden you’re having to weigh in on in important things and you don’t speak any Chinese and you don’t know any Chinese people"
This sounds like French is talking about his cousin Maggie from Arkansas who lost her tour guide. He's the POTUS, for God's sake!
I love how the NYT is now so full of empathy for Obama. This is the same rag that published (on page one) photos of GWB using the wrong door to leave a press conference in China.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 09:44 PM
This sounds like French is talking about his cousin Maggie from Arkansas who lost her tour guide. He's the POTUS, for God's sake!
He's talking about the Washington Press who don't understand China, not the POTUS.
Can you please read the article before entering the results of your rhetorical bulimia into your browser and clicking post?
It's a little thing to ask, but it's so very important when it comes to not being an idiot. I don't want you to be an idiot, I assume you don't want to be an idiot, so please read or have someone read to you.
kthxbye
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 01:36 AM
Campaign Desk — November 20, 2009 12:01 PM
“The piece that really relates directly to China, I think, and the signals I get from this coverage are equally distressing. The unstated element for me in all of this coverage of Obama’s visit is a kind of hysterical insecurity in the American mind about the possibility—or reality, depending on how you look at it—of American decline. China being the most obvious and immediate symbol of American vulnerability and decline. You put these two things together, the hysterical insta-pundit on the one hand and the hysterical anxiety on the other hand, you end up with this kind of coverage that says
"all of a sudden you’re having to weigh in on in important things and you don’t speak any Chinese and you don’t know any Chinese people"
This sounds like French is talking about his cousin Maggie from Arkansas who lost her tour guide. He's the POTUS, for God's sake!
I love how the NYT is now so full of empathy for Obama. This is the same rag that published (on page one) photos of GWB using the wrong door to leave a press conference in China.
Posted by JLD on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 09:44 PM
This sounds like French is talking about his cousin Maggie from Arkansas who lost her tour guide. He's the POTUS, for God's sake!
He's talking about the Washington Press who don't understand China, not the POTUS.
Can you please read the article before entering the results of your rhetorical bulimia into your browser and clicking post?
It's a little thing to ask, but it's so very important when it comes to not being an idiot. I don't want you to be an idiot, I assume you don't want to be an idiot, so please read or have someone read to you.
kthxbye
Posted by Thimbles on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 01:36 AM
Post a Comment
Howard makes a well thought out point. However, despite his knowledge of China, he is making a general point about US media coverage of the world, rather than a specifically China-oriented thrust. See Morth Rosenbloom's latest on the same subject
#4 Posted by robert elegant, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:46 AM
The White House Press Corps knows little or nothing about Asia so why are they the ones covering the President's trip? Do the on-the-ground foreign correspondents have any input into the story? Given the twisted picture we get back in the States I doubt if the real experts are having much input. What was your experience Mr. French?
#5 Posted by Jay Casey, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 09:32 PM
Krugman mentions an economic angle that we may be missing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html
America has a huge trade deficit to China and China owns huge piles of American currency. They also got burned pretty bad by investing in the mortgage market just before it cratered.
China has pegged it's currency to the American one so that it cannot rise and make the markets for domestic consumption too attractive, nor hurt the export market. Right now millions of migrant workers are out of work and factories are being closed down as real estate goes through a boom because of low interest bank lending.
China is lecturing the United States to be more frugal at a time when the US economy has just arrested its free fall from a collapsing house market and is about to feel the effects of a collapsing commercial real estate market plus alt-a loans.
China is giving bad advice at a time when China is a very big bind holder. This may explain why Obama is focusing on the deficit when he should be focusing on jobs:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/obama-administration-considering-giving-in-to-deficit-mania.php
Just a thought
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 11:58 PM
James Fallows also has an excellent series on the depressing failure of the American press, and particularly the White House Press Corps, on the failure of the press coverage on the Pacific trip. He's named the series, appropriately, "Manufactured Failure" and his latest is here Manufactured failure #3: insider's view of the Obama trip - James Fallows but don't miss the earlier posts either. Fallows spent five or so years living in China and so has a lot to contribute here, as does Mr. French. They both have a similar take on the coverage, and are quite critical of the overall coverage.
I am heartened by the rare harsh criticism of the WHPC particularly and I appreciate the analysis of the failure by both journalists and also for your post here, Ms. Fenwick. The failure of the Washington press, not just for the China trip, needs to be a wider conversation. Predictably, the prima donnas of the WHPC circle the wagons and hit out at their critics, but smart and intelligent criticism by respected peers like we see here and over at Fallows' blog are both constructive and illuminating.
Please, more like this.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 04:28 AM
I hail Obama's China trip as in right direction and successful. I'm less worried about the American Press bad coverage due to their short-sightedness and lack of critical analysis, than what will happen after four or eight years when Obama is out of White House. There is no way in United States you can have a long term foreign policy. Any policy, foreign or domestic, reflects the thinking of the leaders of that period, which in turn reflects the public opinion of that time. Obama's election to president, I would say, is rather a popular vote, especially of many first time black voters, than a vote of American people's endorsement of his ideas and philosophy, which I think a great deal of people even don't care to know. That's why I'm worried about the four or eight years later.
#8 Posted by Yongming Wang, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 12:10 PM
If we are that analytical, perhaps Barack Obama would not be in the White House.
#9 Posted by Jabli Izvesti, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 11:14 AM