What wrong with the red parts?
Tibet riots which matched Tibetan monks against Chinese authorities had been a bone of contention to China and foreign media. Indeed, Western media denounced the Chinese government as repression. Ten civilians died during these riots and Western
medias : just how many kinds are you trying to suggest - the absolute lot-est?
'medium' = in the sense of one way in which something is communicated. 'media' = TV, newspapers, radio etc collectively - you've puralized a plural noun!
media covering the events often adopted a pro-Tibetan point of view. We can regard this position as being legitimate, because Tibet,
where human rights remain appalling: it is not 'human rights' which are appalling, (or the Tibetans might be happy that the Chinese aren't imposing those terrible Western human rights on them!) but the disregard for them.
with its appalling lack of human rights, is currently occupied by China.
But should we only judge the Lhasa events through western media eye ?
Firstly, the position of 'only' suggests we should do something more than just 'judge' - what? also participate first hand? What you actually mean is:
But should we judge the Lhasa events only through the eyes of Western media?
a wave of discontentment : are you sure you mean 'discontentment'? I could understand 'discontent' in the Tibetans (to put it mildly). But you seem to be referring to China's response to media coverage, so, somewhere between 'dissatisfaction' and 'outrage'
coming from China shook foreign media after Lhasa riots. China reproached media over Tibet coverage. They were accused of bias and distortion. Some initiatives not stemming from government but from Chinese people like the creation of the website anti CNN.com have underlined the mistakes and confusions made sometimes consciously by western media about Lhasa riots coverage.
The first article, “China reproaches foreign media over Tibet coverage”,
The title of the article was not capitalized in the original, so you are right to quote the title as is.
More red coming!
is an extract from the International Herald Tribune. David Barboza draws the reader’s attention on the war which has started between the foreign media and china.
The journalist recounts actions made by western media and government in order to impose their own opinion, their own vision of the events. The journalist starts his article avowing that China accuses foreign media of biased and distortion. He brings to the fore the censorship put in place by Chinese authorities since the Lhasa riots : websites which could have revealed troubling information on Lhasa riots have been censored. The government have started a propaganda campaign which shows the Dalai Lama as the responsible of the March 14 events and China as the victim of Tibetan violence. Then the journalist highlights the reaction of his colleagues : some association like reporters without borders used shock tactics to denounce China censure. In the second part of the article David Barboza tackle the issue of Chinese media coverage over Lhasa events. Media circulated pictures showing Tibetans attacking ethnic Han Chinese in Lhasa. The journalist adds that this opinion have been strengthened by various testimonies which confirmed the Chinese vision of the events whereas foreign journalist couldn’t come in Lhasa and so couldn’t gather Tibetan or Chinese testimonies. It was really difficult for foreign reporters to cover correctly the events. Certainly China doesn’t respect press freedom but I would like to comment on David Barboza’s ramblings : he denounced Chinese Media coverage which have shown only one side of Lhasa riots : those which concerns violence perpetrated by Tibetans against Chinese but I think that western media have act in the same manner. What westerners have retain about Lhasa events is the Chinese authorities repression measure counter to the Tibetans. I don’t want to side with China government but I think that westerners are in the same situation than Chinese who have only access to one side of the information. It could be understandable that media take a stand on Tibet issue but they have to give to the audience a global view of Lhasa events. On this point the accusation of information distortion could be true. David Barboza continues adding that criticism of foreign media coverage don’t come from Chinese government but from the Chinese themselves. They express their discontent in particular through internet. China complains that western media didn’t show Tibetans attacking ethnic Han Chinese. The journalist quote : “But how could they turn a blind eye to the killing and arson by rioters?” It’s exactly what Westerners reproach to China : a partial representation of the events. David Barbza underlines the incomprehension and the lack of communication which contributed to tense the relations between foreign media and China. China complains that foreign media don’t really understand the situation while media argue that China prevent them from obtaining information by blocking access to Lhasa. For of the Foreign correspondents Club in Beijing says “ we don’t even know why people rioted or what they want !” But should the lack of information be compensated by false information ? Should media inform at any price even when we don’t have the necessary information for establishing the reality of a situation ? As a conclusion the journalist explains that activism is currently impossible in China. The government stops all the attempt of rebellion or denunciation.