The other day I was pretty hard on Phillip Bennett about what the Washington Post editor allegedly said in an interview with China’s People’s Daily. Now Bennett has responded to a query from Hugh Hewitt with his own transcription of that interview which does not entirely comport with the one published by the Chinese. I leave it to you to decide what you think of Bennett’s real statements, but I am curious about what the editor of the Washington Post expected. I have been interviewed on several occasions by the controled press – by the Chinese themselves in 1978 and four or five times by Soviet publications between 1986-1990. In every case my words were distorted to one degree or another (they have been here too!). I was not surprised in any of the cases and back in the ‘78 interview it didn’t even bother me (I was in synch with the Chinese in those days, to some extent anyway). But I was a private citizen — a left-leaning novelist/screenwriter and fully aware of what was happening. The Managing Editor of the Washington Post is someone rather different. He speaks for one of the most important newspapers in America. I am amazed he could have been so naive, but then maybe I shouldn’t be. I believed the interview was accurate.
UPDATE: Several people have emailed to say the differences between Bennett’s version and the Chinese version to be small. I am in between.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. yama-arashi:It appears that the People’s Daily has been taking journalism lessons from Dana Milbank.
Mar 15, 2005 - 6:34 pm 2. richard mcenroe:Ah-ha! Now it comes out! Roger Simon, sinister Chinese agent! I’ll bet your copy of the Little Red Book had the Yangtze River centerfold pullout…
Hmm, as someone who used to shop in the Red Star bookshop on Broadway, it’s just possible I shouldn’t ne copping a ‘tude here,,,
Mar 15, 2005 - 7:09 pm 3. Baron Bodissey:I’m shocked — shocked! — to find out that an official of the People’s Republic distorts and misrepresents a man’s words!
Round up the usual suspects…
Mar 15, 2005 - 7:37 pm 4. CJ:He had plenty of time to bring out the mischaracterization but it took a question from Hugh Hewitt? I ain’t buying his story! He just doesn’t want to be “Jordan’d”
Mar 15, 2005 - 9:04 pm 5. Terrye:likely story
Mar 15, 2005 - 9:14 pm 6. yama-arashi:While I do think Bennett’s thoughts were taken out of context, by definition that is what reporting does, as opposed to say publishing complete transcripts, and on the whole this bit of reporting doesn’t seem to be more egregious in its mischaracterization than most of the stuff I come across in the foreign MSM, not to mention America’s MSM, with regards to Iraq, the war on terror, or anything else Bush does. A million C-SPANs and the like and millions and millions of bloggers–my dream world.
Mar 15, 2005 - 9:18 pm 7. Harry:Roger
I live in Hong Kong. Americans, as matter of course, talk to the Chinese every day in various media outlets across China and this is a standard interview.
Of course the Chinese censor it and change its meaning, but astonishingly you use the Chinese version as a basis of your ever so hackneyed attack on Bennett (using the now familiar Evil Liberal MSM frame.)
Well, yawn, yawn, Mr. Simon. Perhaps you might like to learn something about the Chinese or China and I’m afraid you earlier dalliance with Maoism doesn’t count.
BTW I was watching the Chinese state broadcaster and I saw an American politician talking about Beijing and Tianamen Square to a Chinese interviewer. Not once were the events of 1989 mentioned by the American, not even a hint.
No need for censorship there, no edits.
Mar 15, 2005 - 10:05 pm 8. Gabriel Gonzalez:Roger,
I don’t see an issue, let alone a scandal here. I was not particularly shocked by the Bennett’s statements even in their first iteration since it was more the tone than the content (in particular, the one-sidedness and potential propaganda value) that might have been problematic and I had assumed that much of the context was missing. I frankly don’t see a problem at all with the statement actually made as corrected by Bennett. In fact, I agree with it.
What? Was he supposed to preface each sentence by saying “of course, China is an evil dictatorship!”? Is there a now a litmus test for journalistic credibility requiring that the journalist include some minimum of condemnatory remarks when being interviewed by an authoritarian government, lest he be deemed a propaganda tool? (Useful idiot? ‘Objectively pro-fascist’?)
This sort of criticism of Bennett’s non-issue only serves to detract from legitimate criticism of journalists, such as in the Eason Jordan and Dan Rather cases.
Gabriel
Mar 16, 2005 - 3:12 am 9. kathianne:Well if Mr. Bennett had a problem with the way he was quoted, it seems to me that he had a mighty vehicle at his disposal to get the ‘truth out,’ he had no need to wait for Hugh’s question.
Mar 16, 2005 - 3:38 am 10. Matt Evans:*I’m shocked — shocked! — to find out that an official of the People’s Republic distorts and misrepresents a man’s words!*
Dan Rather has indicated he would like to break this story…
Mar 16, 2005 - 4:54 am 11. Joe Schmoe:Like most everyone here, I no longer read the Washington Post because of its biased reporting which on occasion comes perilously close to treason.
That said, it does seem as if Mr. Bennett was very, very badly misquoted. His original remarks are pretty tame, and not really objectionable. I do think that even though he is a journalist, as an American Mr. Bennett has a duty — a moral duty, if not a legal one — to refrain from willingly serving as a propaganda tool for a foreign dictatorship.
And based on the transcript, he didn’t do that. The People’s Daily butcherd his quotes and gave them an entirely different meaning.
Mar 16, 2005 - 5:22 am 12. mrp:It was a rather long interview, wasn’t it? And Mr. Bennett was a bit selective in his response.
If Mr. Bennett was responsible enough to record the interview for the Post’s archives (there seems to be some evidence for this based on his response to Hewitt), for the interests of history and the good name of the Washington Post, Mr. Bennet should release the tape to the public. The whole thing.
Mar 16, 2005 - 5:36 am 13. richard mcenroe:Now the interesting thing will be to see what effect this has on the WaPo’s acceptance of statements from totalitarian governments and state-run media…
Although I don’t think Jaques Cousteau could hold his breath that long…
Mar 16, 2005 - 6:31 am 14. Sun-Tzu:I don’t quite understand what the problem is. In comparing the Bennett and the People’s Daily versions, I conclude that, at worst, the PD version is “fake, but accurate.”
At a minimum, the Chinese did conduct a real interview, and even quoted directly from what the man said.
Is this somehow worse than the Dan Rather documents?
And on what basis did Bennett tape the interview? Did he request a release from his Chinese interlocutors? Did they grant such a release? If not, isn’t he acting in a manner that is worse than that of WEF/Davos, which said they couldn’t release the tapes unless all involved granted permission?
Mar 16, 2005 - 12:09 pm