I’ve mostly stopped critiquing media reports but I couldn’t
help it this time, and since it comes within the flow of my latest stream...
The title of the
WaPo piece says “China's move to
establish air defense zone appears to backfire”, but what’s not to like for the
Chinese authorities about a report that begins with the sentence “It was
designed as a forceful response to Japanese assertiveness, and a robust
declaration of China’s maritime claims”, and later offers these stories?
“Japan, like numerous other countries, already has its own air
defense identification zone. The country increasingly has used the zone as an
excuse to warn or intercept Chinese planes in the area, according to military
experts in Beijing. In September, Japan threatened to shoot down Chinese drones
flying over the disputed islands; China warned that downing the drones would
constitute an act of war” (never mind
that a routine fact check would have shown that the Japanese authorities
carefully avoided any such commitment on the Senkakus or anywhere).
“’Japan has been acting
more and more confrontational with regards to the Diaoyu islands, so China had
to roll out its own measures to balance it out,’ said Zhou Yongsheng of the
Center for Japanese Studies at the University of International Relations in
Beijing. ‘Whenever Chinese aircraft entered Japan’s zone, they would dispatch
fighter jets to intercept us, which put us in a very passive position.’”
China is portrayed as the passive party, reacting to Japanese
“assertiveness,” a trope helped by a factual error, omission of the sovereign
overreach in the Chinese claim that is at the core of the complaints, and the
overall lack of Japanese voices.
“David
Nakamura in Washington, Chico Harlan in Seoul and Liu Liu, Li Qi and Guo Chen
in Beijing contributed to this report.”
Oh. Ooohh…
So I guess my question is: Do the Chinese even need pictures?
1 comment:
Good points.
Post a Comment