Home > Analysis > The Guardian bitterly fights tarnished image from propagating Leonard’s lame accusation over Ye Shiwen

The Guardian bitterly fights tarnished image from propagating Leonard’s lame accusation over Ye Shiwen

Seeing Phelps and other Olympians defend Ye Shiwen against wild accusations by Leonard has given the Chinese hope that China and the West can see eye to eye on issues. While Leonard’s accusations were problematic, the true culprit in this whole affair are in fact the British and American media, for they were the ones to glorify and propagate that seemingly racist charge. For every single gold medal winner, there will bound to be sour grapes. If the media collectively cherry-picks only certain sour grapes targeting athletes of certain nationality, that is willful defamation. The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen, but instead gave credence to Leonard. Chinese on Weibo responded with anger. Chinese media have brought this ridiculous behavior on the Western media’s part to light. Now that this whole affair has back-fired, I’d like to share with our readers how the British paper, The Guardian, unrepentant, still tries to be on the offensive.

The Guardian reporters Tania Branigan and Peter Walker writes:

This, in microcosm, is the dilemma faced by China in the era of its Olympic success, fuelled by a vast and focused national production line of sporting talent, which in turn is a reflection of its increasing world status. Tuesday’s dramatic fall by 2004 Olympic champion Liu Xiang, who crashed out of the 110m hurdles in his first race, was a relatively rare loss by a Chinese medal hope.

For some Chinese fans and pundits the pleasure of another bumper crop of medals – 33 golds, 20 silvers and 14 bronzes at the time of writing – has been tempered by what they believe is foreign resentment and jealousy. They see this manifesting itself in speculative claims that the times posted by the teenage swimmer Ye Shiwen must have been achieved through illicit means, in the disqualification of the Chinese women’s doubles badminton top seeds for throwing a group match, even in the demotion of the victorious women’s track sprint team to silver for an illegal changeover, despite a similar fate befalling the British duo earlier in the contest.

What dilemma? The fact that China has a strong state sponsored Olympics program? British readers not critical will accept Branigan and Walker’s narrative that state sponsorship is illegitimate.

Should China’s state sponsorship of her Olympics be described as a “national production line?” I guess so, but that is just a pretty mean narrative. How are the poor Chinese supposed to afford swimming pools and coaches? The reason we don’t see African swimmers in the Olympics is because the continent is dirt poor. Britain has a “national production line” too if we want to be mean about it. They are the “soccer mom” production line. British society has the luxury to pay for private lessons and organize little leagues all the way up to major leagues to groom her athletes. China is trending that way too with gradual economic progress.

Fault the Chinese for being poor if you want. Fault the Chinese for wanting Olympic medals, but at the same time criticize the British for wanting medals too. Everyone wants to win. After-all, hooligans in Europe have killed one another over a single soccer match haven’t they? (For more, see my prior article on the politics of the Olympics.)

Branigan and Walker then offers the narrative of Chinese pleasure in “another bumper crop of medals” been “tempered” by the various controversies.

No, no, no! Wrong narrative. Here is Branigan and Walker’s chance to come clean on Ye Shiwen, for their very own paper has been all too happy to pimp up Leonard’s accusations.

And, no, the Ye Shiwen controversy has nothing to do with the overall medal count. See jxie‘s explanation why Leonard’s accusation and British media’s propagation of it is bad: “Ye Shiwen, the 16 year old dreamy girl superstar, and the ugly world.

Instead, Branigan and Walker tries to downplay Chinese criticism. They write:

Particularly with regards to Ye Shiwen, this disquiet has been expressed at the highest levels. Such suspicions, said a commentary this week in the People’s Daily, the official Communist party paper, indicated “double standards that have taken aim at the Chinese team and its athlete”.

For the British, the “Communist party paper” qualifier is an attempt to discredit what’s being quoted from Peopel’s Daily. In fact, the outrage is across the country. That criticism is all over Internet forums and Weibo.

They continued quoting Chinese media:

It added: “This, unfortunately, is hard to explain as inadvertent missteps – it might be closer to the truth to see it as deliberate attacking and interference.”

An editorial in the Global Times, a state-run populist tabloid, was blunter still: “Negative comments about her and Chinese athletes come from deep bias and reluctance from the western press to see Chinese people making breakthroughs. It shows that the unfriendliness of the west to China is spreading.”

Again, Branigan and Walker in dismissing the editorial at the Global Times, first discrediting it as a “state-run populist tabloid” and calling that criticism “blunter still.” In truth, the Western press is unfriendly towards China. Defaming Ye Shiwen is but only one of a very long chain of nonsense hurled at China or the Chinese. See melektaus‘s well researched article, “Collective Defamation,” where he makes clear how the Western press do it.

They went on:

In truth, whatever the wider tensions of global geo-politics you would have to search hard to locate openly anti-Chinese feeling at the London Games. While the support for home athletes is, inevitably, noisy and partisan, with an associated bias towards nations with British ties, such as New Zealand, Australia and the Caribbean islands, claps and cheers tend to otherwise be distributed fairly equally, with perhaps a tendency of bias towards perceived underdogs.

For the most part I agree with what Branigan and Walker said here. Given the outpouring of support from average British citizens for Ye Shiwen, I think it is fair to say they genuinely try to uphold the Olympics spirit. But if one was to pay attention to British citizen comments to articles where the BBC, Guardian, etc propagated Leonard’s accusations, there were plenty, too, spouting racist comments: “Chinese are cheats,” yada yada yada, and a long list of ugliness which Leonard’s accusation engenders.

So, what The Guardian is cleverly doing here is to use the British public to defend itself.

But, don’t forget, the Chinese indignation is at the British press!

  1. August 7th, 2012 at 19:09 | #1

    The western press often reminds me of children having tantrums when caught doing something wrong. The western press when they are found with indisputable proof of racism and bias respond with the automatic and often dramatized indignant cries. “No No No No! We are NOT IN ANY WAY BIASED! YOU ARE TOO NATIONALISTIC TO SEE WE HAVE HIGH JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS!” [while stomping feet and foaming at the mouth]

    The western press got caught. Again. They were caught telling defamatory lies or helping to spread them. This is an old story. Their reactions to the justifiable reactions are equally old and tiresome.

  2. August 7th, 2012 at 19:23 | #2

    To be honest, I’m quite HAPPY about the fact that the western media uses such obviously outrageous rhetoric against China during the Olympics, and I won’t bother hiding my cynical pleasure. While we’re at it, I hope to see MORE rhetoric of that kind, and I sincerely want more of the Mainland Chinese public to see it too.

    The more our public becomes aware of the western media’s rhetoric and mentality, the less credibility they have within the Chinese public. One of the great disguises of the western media (one that I think fools way too many Chinese) is the facade of a free and objective press, and the dogmatic notion that private, independent media = credible and truthful media.

  3. August 7th, 2012 at 19:49 | #3

    For what I have gathered… Through anybody else’s TV, e.g. South Africans’, Brazilians’, Indians’, Ye is a charming and pretty 16-year-old girl with a killer smile. In anybody else’s culture, there is also a sense of fairness, and embedded deeply within the is the appreciation for charm and grace. Quite frankly, if there was a battle of John Leonard vs. Ye Shiwen, with many of of the Western media outlets practically supporting Leonard, and we plus a handful of swimming greats such as Ian Thorpe and Michael Phelps supporting Ye, the battle wasn’t remotely a close one.

  4. August 7th, 2012 at 20:01 | #4

    For an extended, ill-tempered rant (by me) about the Guardian’s coverage of China, see this post:
    http://inpraiseofchina.blogspot.com/2012/07/china-and-western-media.html

  5. August 7th, 2012 at 20:19 | #5

    @Mister Unknown

    The problem I see with that is that most Chinese people are incredibly naive when it comes to western media. Even though almost all the major western news outlets are available to the Chinese public, few are in the Chinese language and even fewer English proficient Chinese visit English language western news sources. So almost all who are influenced by the western narrative are westerners who mindlessly believe whatever their media tells them about China.

    This is why I have certain disagreements with some other posters here in that I do not believe that the government of China should have jailed people like Liu Xiaobo for spreading western propaganda because Liu and his ilk are sockpuppets of the west. But they are sockpuppets that are readily available to the Chinese public offering a conduit for western propaganda. I think that the Chinese people will then see the true face of the western press as expressed through the mouths of people like Liu and see the disgusting bias and prejudice they display.

  6. August 7th, 2012 at 23:21 | #6

    Spot on, godfree.

    @melektaus

    I think many Chinese elites are sober about the Western media’s hostilities. m4.cn has millions of daily Chinese visitors just in their forums. They continue to document and expose the defamation.

  7. Zack
    August 8th, 2012 at 00:11 | #7

    welcome to hiddenharmonies, godfree; i’ve bookmarked your site for future perusal;)

  8. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 00:18 | #8

    @YinYang

    Just a point about this thread.

    ‘The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen’

    If I can provide proof that the British and American media did in fact voice a perspective defending Ye Shiwen, would you alter the above post to reflect this?

  9. Sigmar
    August 8th, 2012 at 00:25 | #9

    There are certainly some perspectives in the British and American media that defend Ye Shiwen, but are they consistent and not tempered with innuendos?

  10. August 8th, 2012 at 00:36 | #10

    JustHarry may find an occasional instance where the Western press indeed defends her. But I am going to make it infinitely harder for him, and I will accept criticism for perhaps some hyperbole on my part. I’d like to see him dig up any article from the mainstream Western press going against that propaganda bullshit, prior to the IOC coming out declaring Ye Shiwen is clean. Minus the innuendos as Sigmar pointed out.

    If there is, I will update the OP to point such instances out.

    Btw, JustHarry, aren’t your outraged at the Guardian at all?

  11. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 00:57 | #11

    @YinYang

    That was meant as a yes/no question.

    This is just one article. You may not like some of the wording, but the reporter defends Ye and criticises the media. At the end of the day it’s up to you if you want to change the OP.

    ‘The monstering of swimmer Ye Shiwen says much about declining superpowers’

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/02/swimmer-ye-shiwen-declining-superpowers

  12. August 8th, 2012 at 01:12 | #12

    This is where JustHarry is a bit dishonest. That Op-Ed was written by Anna Chen, in the Guardian’s Opinion column. But I’ll give The Guardian some credit for printing that defense article.

    Now find me a real article, not an opinion, that defended Ye.

  13. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 01:41 | #13

    Not dishonest in the least. I said I could find a ‘voice’, and I have done.

    ‘The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.’

    Just one article in defence of Ye, even if it is an editorial, disproves this statement.

  14. August 8th, 2012 at 02:05 | #14

    Okay, JustHarry, you got me.

    So, is it that hard for you to condemn the shenanigan from the British and American press?

  15. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 02:16 | #15

    @YinYang

    There is bias in the press. This is wrong and I’ll continue to draw attention to it and, of course, I condemn it.

    Will you alter the OP?

  16. August 8th, 2012 at 02:39 | #16

    @JustHarry
    No. Not an honest enough example for me. Branigan and Walker’s latest article shows how the Guardian in fact is a sly attempt at changing the narrative. Did you already forget that?

    Just how biased are you thinking?

  17. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 02:46 | #17

    @YinYang

    Go to bed yinyang, it’s almost 3am where you are. Read this conversation again in the morning and I’ll chat another day.

  18. August 8th, 2012 at 05:36 | #18

    I remember many years ago when the Chinese team first started having some success in swimming events, an american coach said in a public statement that the Chinese should be banned from the Olympics for doping. Many US swimmers leveled equally vicious verbal assaults on the Chinese swimmers.

    Perpetrators have always accused others of what they are guilty of to shift attention away from themselves. The US is by far the worst sports doping perp in the world. They must use these accusations in order to divert attention away from their own proven record of doping. Just as they must blame the Chinese for all sorts of other things such as military aggression and colonialism when it is really them that is projecting their own behavior on others.

  19. August 8th, 2012 at 05:37 | #19

    @JustHarry

    yinyang mentioned that it was hyperbole (actually only slightly hyperbole IMO) on his part in the specific wording used in the OP. But it seems petty to keep carping on this inconsequential aspect of the piece particularly when you seem to have nothing to say about the main argument.

  20. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 07:38 | #20

    @YinYang
    @melektaus

    yinyang, bias and untrue reporting (due to lack of research or intellectual dishonesty) in the media cause massive damage. All of us here are aware of this. If you are writing an OP about exposing these things in the media (a worthwhile goal and one I support) you have to make sure that your writing is 100% squeaky clean.

    Melektaus, I know you want to get on with the thread, but this is related to the theme of the OP. Anyway, since IYO the above quote is an example of hyperbole, let me give you MHO:

    Possible phrasing:

    ‘Some in the British and American media voiced a perspective defending Ye Shiwen.’

    Hyperbole:

    ‘An infinitesimally small number of reporters in the British and American media voiced a perspective which was only slightly in defence of Ye Shiwen.’

    OP:

    ‘The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.’

  21. Sigmar
    August 8th, 2012 at 07:38 | #21

    @YinYang

    No need to change the OP just yet.

    What JustHarry offered to do in #8 was to “provide proof that the British and American media did in fact voice a perspective defending Ye Shiwen”. Bear in mind this is different from them offering “a voice” defending her in their media, which they have already done on many occasions, by quoting condemnations against Ye’s accusers by Phelps and others. But the root concern, deliberate singling of an athlete from a particularly country for gratuitous bashing, is not addressed. The true “voice” from their media, the one that carries weight, is the official report.

    So an article from the Guardian’s “Comment is free” section was given. The thing is, the voice that speaks may not be pure or untempered.

    The terms of service (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service) that can be derived from Anna’s article clearly states that the Guardian, “or authorised third parties, reserve the right to refuse to publish, cut, crop or edit [her] content at … their sole discretion. How do we know that’s not already been done?

    But wait, doesn’t the fact that the Guardian publish an article that is “sympathetic” to China shows that it is unbiased? Except that it’s not her official voice. The terms of service exclaim that “the views expressed by [the writer] and other users in this content do not necessarily reflect the views of Guardian, and we do not support or endorse any user content.” What is official are news reports of Ye “doping” based on hearsay.

    Thus, as we can see, more muddying of the waters, insinuations and yes, innuendos.

  22. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 08:37 | #22

    @Sigmar

    This is ridiculous. A voice in the media, whether it is an editorial or an article, is still a voice. I said I’d find one and I did (if you read the above posts, yinyang notes this in post 14). I appreciate you spent time finding that stuff out about editorials, but anyone who knows anything about newspapers knows that stuff already. And if you want to know if and how the Guardian may have cut, cropped or edited her article, email her and ask.

    British Olympics chief: Ye Shiwen is clean, end of story

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9441123/British-Olympics-chief-Ye-Shiwen-is-clean-end-of-story.html

    Now, if you really don’t think that that particular sentence in the OP should be changed, then nothing else I say is going to convince you and you should just continue the thread. I don’t have any more time to chat right now.

  23. Sigmar
    August 8th, 2012 at 09:48 | #23

    @JustHarry

    Actually you said:

    “If I can provide proof that the British and American media did in fact voice a perspective defending Ye Shiwen, would you alter the above post to reflect this?”

    Which doesn’t mean anything, because it could be a perspective meant to be swallowed up by an overarching narrative. More importantly, you claimed that the perspective would be voiced by these media. We are still waiting for their official stand that does in fact defend Ye. In the link you’ve given above, the subtitles read:

    ‘Lord Moynihan, the Chairman of the British Olympic Authority, says speculation surrounding Chinese gold medalist Ye Shiwen is “regrettable”. ‘

    Why must the word regrettable be in inverted commas? Isn’t the speculation objectively regrettable? Don’t we already know the word is something Moynihan has said? I know the Telegraph is quoting from Lord Moynihan, but isn’t what he’s saying the truth? Why must the Telegraph lean on his quote for credence, unless otherwise it wants people to feel the word is not credible on its own? So yah, more innuendos.

    yinyang answered in #10:

    “I’d like to see him dig up any article from the mainstream Western press going against that propaganda bullshit, prior to the IOC coming out declaring Ye Shiwen is clean. Minus the innuendos as Sigmar pointed out.”

    Read: minus the innuendos

    Then you changed the parameters of your challenge by stating you said you could find “a ‘voice’”. No you didn’t, you said:
    “If I can provide proof that the British and American media did in fact voice a perspective defending Ye Shiwen, would you alter the above post to reflect this?”
    But the Guardian isn’t voicing anything, it’s allowing Anna Chen (who may not be a reporter as you claimed in #11) to write something but get this, it’s official stance is: “we do not support or endorse her statement”. So what is the Guardian really defending?

    You said: “I appreciate you spent time finding that stuff out about editorials, but anyone who knows anything about newspapers knows that stuff already.”
    Correct, and anyone who knows about newspapers knows that Anna Chen does not “voice” for the Guardian.

    You said: “Now, if you really don’t think that that particular sentence in the OP should be changed, then nothing else I say is going to convince you and you should just continue the thread.”

    Actually I think that there is an opportunity that the OP could be changed; it’s just that YOU haven’t provided the evidence.

    Here, let me help you provide a link to an official response to the shenanigans regarding Ye by a much more respectable representative of British media:

    Science journal apologises over Ye controversy
    After initially standing by article taken as backing doping accusation against swimming sensation, Nature admits data error Aug 08, 2012

    “Science journal Nature has apologised to Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen and its readers for a controversial article that some interpreted as supporting unproven doping accusations against her.
    In an editor’s note released on its website on Monday, Nature admitted an error in its data about Ye’s performance, and the “absence of a more detailed discussion” of statistics.

    “This article has drawn an extraordinary level of outraged response,” the note said. “The story’s intention as an Explainer was to examine how science can help resolve debates over extraordinary performances.”

    Nature explained why it had changed the subtitle of the story online from the original “‘Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats” to “‘Performance profiling’ could help dispel doubts”.

    “The original version of the title was unfair to the swimmer Ye Shiwen and did not reflect the substance of the story. We regret that the original appeared in the first place,” it said.

    “We also regret that the original story included an error about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012.”

    The note continued by saying the article “gave the impression that we were supporting accusations against her … This was emphatically not our intention. For that, we apologise to our readers and to Ye Shiwen.””

    Contrast this to Tania Branigan’s and Peter Walker’s unrepentant attitude. They, being reporters, give the official voice of the Guardian.

    You seem adamant about the journalistic integrity of the Guardian, but it just sucks when compared to the classy Nature journal, which unfortunately is not in the business of providing news in Britain.

    Finally, you say: “I don’t have any more time to chat right now.”
    We just have to take your word on this. We do not need more red herrings and erroneous representations.

  24. August 8th, 2012 at 10:20 | #24

    @Sigmar
    It just goes to show certain individuals will try their best to defend these shenanigans by making a mountain out of an ant hill.

    As melektaus has exposed – he won’t try to tackle the OP in substance. This is all a derailing tactic – same as that watcher (pretending to be nice) whom I banned.

  25. Charles Liu
    August 8th, 2012 at 10:47 | #25

    @JustHarry

    You provided one anecdotal example, which actually proves the exception rather than the norm.

    Look on HH, there are at least a dozen example. So until you can come up with 11 more articles, you are way behind on counts.

    Go ahead, find 11 more articles. Meanwhile here are some more articles perpetuating John Leonard’s doping accusation discredited by IOC anti-doping testing:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Ye+Shiwen+suspicious+John+Leonard

    Here are evidence of our supposedly objective media perpetuating John Leonard’s even more outlandish accusation Ye was genetically altered (17 years ago the human genome wasn’t even mapped):

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Ye+Shiwen+genetic+manipulation

    At a minimum, the MSM that jumped on this tabloid accusation clearly showed their lack of Olympic Spirit.

  26. Sigmar
    August 8th, 2012 at 11:00 | #26

    While it’s good that the western press have published reports on Ye’s innocence (they have no choice, this is the truth), we have to be vigilant in pointing out subtle insinuations in their reports that portray the Chinese negatively.

    I actually feel that watcher could be a legitimate contributor, a well-meaning but ultimately misled one, but I may be wrong.

  27. scl2
    August 8th, 2012 at 17:05 | #27

    Just change the sentence to “The British and American media in fact voiced little perspective defending Ye Shiwen”, it won’t change the fact that negative views about China is usually on the first page, then repeated and amplified by the Western media to ad nauseam, while positive perspective about China is often hidden inside, or never mentioned at all. For most Chinese who have the ability to read English and have sufficient exposure to the Western media, it is not difficult to recognize that they have engaged in a info war against China by spreading disinformation for quite sometime.

  28. August 8th, 2012 at 18:22 | #28

    @JustHarry

    I do not see how it is “related to the theme” of the OP. In any case, you have not shown how it is related. It seems inconsequential to me. You can simply make it literally true by adding one qualifier “almost” so that it becomes “The British and American media in fact voiced *almost* no perspective defending Ye Shiwen,…”

    Such rephrasing is not of great import. What is of importance is the main argument. Why spend so much energy focusing on such trivial phrasing especially after yinyang made not that it was hyperbole? What is important is the massive bias in the press, not individual instances of phrases such as the lack of one qualifier from a alternative voice.

  29. JustHarry
    August 8th, 2012 at 23:54 | #29

    @Sigmar
    @Charles Liu
    @YinYang

    yinyang,

    As for substance, the premise for the OP is that the Guardian has a tarnished image because of its reporting on Ye Shiwen. I expected you to expand on this in your opening paragraph. For the record, could you tell us where exactly you think their image has been tarnished (Britain, American, China?) and perhaps give us a few articles (or editorials) on this.

    Once that’s out of the way, we can discuss the rest of the OP.

    Charles, after conducting the following extensive google search, which got 1,220 hits, I think your opinions should come under stricter scrutiny:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Charles+Liu+doping

    Only joking, Charles, but really, you use this google search thing way too often and it really doesn’t prove jack. For example, in post 25 you suggest a google search to see how many articles are perpetuating Leonard’s accusation. I did the search and this was the first article that came up:

    John Leonard’s Public Doping Accusations Of Ye Shiwen Should Cost Him His Job

    Sigmar, I admire your vigilance, but have a look at the style guide for a newspaper or a media outlet: when you quote someone, you use quotation marks. It’s standard practice.

  30. ArchieJohnson
    August 9th, 2012 at 06:43 | #30

    @YinYang

    yinyang, what’s going on? A couple of years ago, if someone had pointed out something that was wrong in one of your posts, you would have corrected it and then thanked whoever it was.

    And what’s going on with your recent OPs? Compare this OP to some of your first ones on HH. Then, as now, if you have a good argument (which we all know you often do), all you need to do is stick to the facts. Compare the number of adjectives you use in this OP to some of your posts from years ago. Hyperbole is no excuse.

    A lot of people on this site don’t need hyperbole to be convinced by your arguments and will not be put off by facts that, although might diverge from a rigid stance, present a more balanced viewpoint.

    What would be a shame would be if new visitors to this site were put off by some of your recent decisions (editorial or otherwise).

  31. Sigmar
    August 9th, 2012 at 09:15 | #31

    @JustHarry
    ‘yinyang,

    As for substance, the premise for the OP is that the Guardian has a tarnished image because of its reporting on Ye Shiwen. I expected you to expand on this in your opening paragraph.’

    De Wang need not expand on this in his opening paragraph, other paragraphs would do just fine, as he has successfully demonstrated. In fact he has provided links in LATER paragraphs to substantiate his arguments. A cursory read of the OP would establish that.

    ‘Once that’s out of the way, we can discuss the rest of the OP.’

    That’s the already out of the way, and other people are already discussing the rest of the OP, thank you very much. You may think to control the parameters by pinpointing at nothing substantial, but you’re sadly mistaken.

    ‘Sigmar, I admire your vigilance, but have a look at the style guide for a newspaper or a media outlet: when you quote someone, you use quotation marks. It’s standard practice.’

    I know it’s standard practice. Until the media decides it’s not standard practice. Looking at the article you linked at #22.

    What Lord Moynihan said: “”And it is regrettable there is so much speculation out there. I don’t like it. I think it is wrong. That athlete or, indeed, any athlete that has never tested positive is an athlete who should be supported by her federation and, indeed, everybody in the Olympic movement,” he said.”

    There many words that he had said. Look at the subtitles of the article:

    Lord Moynihan, the Chairman of the British Olympic Authority, says speculation surrounding Chinese gold medalist Ye Shiwen is “regrettable”.

    Notice that the word “regrettable” is in inverted commas, but not “speculation”. So this shows that quotations by the British press are inconsistent. A subtitle consistent with the style guide would be:

    Lord Moynihan, the Chairman of the British Olympic Authority, says “speculation” surrounding Chinese gold medalist Ye Shiwen is “regrettable”.

    Also, like I said, the speculation concerning Ye should objectively be regrettable. We do not normally see headlines regarding crime such as: ‘Grisly “Murder” Found in Manchester’ because the crime has objectively happened, even though reporters might have obtained an official statement by a police spokesman that a murder had indeed taken place.

    @YinYang
    Some people are being pedantic about your choice of words, so I’ll encourage you to change the wording in the OP to something like ‘The British and American media in fact voiced little perspective defending Ye Shiwen’. I encourage you to do so because I have provided my reasoning and evidence in #23. Based on the sincerity of the Nature journal, perhaps you can refine your statement in the OP. You can thank me and perspectivehere at the end of the OP. Don’t worry, it wouldn’t detract from the force of your argument, nor, more importantly, the fairness and credibility of your stance. Just remember, it was perpectivehere and I who nudged you to edit your post, and not anybody else. Because we were the ones who provided relevant evidence. 😉

    Also, it seems we have some new forum members who are not interested in dialogue but who are instead intent on going around in circles and redefining the topic’s parameters (otherwise known as thread hijacking). I encourage the mods to do their duty and weed out these trolls.

  32. August 9th, 2012 at 09:44 | #32

    @Sigmar
    Look, I already knew about the Anna Chen Op-Ed while writing the OP. If Branigan and Walker didn’t do this spin article, I probably wouldn’t have come out to criticize it.

    My wording in the OP is fine, because the Guardian is not interested in apologizing, and in fact continued to smear on top of their propagating the Ye Shiwen accusations with the article.

    People like JustHarry and ArchieJones will always have their priority in defending the likes of the Guardian.

    They don’t have moral compass and measured view of the world. You and others have exposed what they are trying to do to the thread, and that’s your reward for the effort you put in to show everyone what these fools are up to.

    Learn to be at peace with that and take comfort in people able to comprehend what’s happening once you have point things out.

  33. Hodges
    August 9th, 2012 at 11:29 | #33

    @YinYang

    Look, nobody is trying to defend the Guardian and nobody is saying that the British and American media are not biased. They are biased. But a number of users have suggested that the wording of the OP be changed because the following sentence is simply not factually correct.

    ‘The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.’

    You only need one article to show this, and JustHarry has posted one.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9441123/British-Olympics-chief-Ye-Shiwen-is-clean-end-of-story.html

  34. Charles Liu
    August 9th, 2012 at 13:00 | #34

    @JustHarry

    Wow, looks like we have a history. Certain someone used to make the same “your Google is jack” criticism against me on Fool’s Mountain… Not getting enough love on your new blog, Steve?

    Well, here’s your problem, context:

    1) look at your google result, keywords “Charles” and “Liu” are lmost never together. Try putting the name in quotes and see what you get? Spoiler alert, it pulls this blogpost ONLY, proving google search works!

    2) Ye Shiwen is notable enough and search result provided does pull articles about her and the alleged doping, even weeks after IOC had cleared her.

    3) The articles from two Google searches provided also show a trend of the media narrative moving from doping to genetic manipulation to negative commentary on Chinese nationalistic reaction and Ye’s win being less worthy due to China’s communist athlete factory/gulag system (ignoring the fact Ye was trained in Australia by famed Olympics coach Ken Wood.)

    The continued smearing is obvious.

  35. Charles Liu
    August 9th, 2012 at 13:08 | #35

    @Hodges

    Again, Hodges, your one anecdotal example proves the exception rather than the norm. Look at the article archives on Hidden Harmonies, we have been documenting this bias for years.

    Check these Google News results:

    “Ye Shiwen Moynihan” – 727 hits
    “Ye Shiwen John Leonard” – 5,650

    The media mentioned Lord Moynihan in relations to Ye Shiwen significantly less than John Leonard in relations to Ye Shiwen, 7.8 times less on the official exoneration than baseless accusation.

  36. Hodges
    August 9th, 2012 at 13:24 | #36

    @Charles Liu

    There is bias in the media and you are right to document it.

    Charles, if that one article is the exception, and not the norm, this still means the quote is still factually incorrect.

    『The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.』

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9441123/British-Olympics-chief-Ye-Shiwen-is-clean-end-of-story.html

  37. Hodges
    August 9th, 2012 at 13:55 | #37

    @Charles Liu

    I had a look at your google search. Whatever it does show, it doesn’t show what you think it shows.

    「Ye Shiwen Moynihan」 – 727 hits
    「Ye Shiwen John Leonard」 – 5,650

    ‘The media mentioned Lord Moynihan in relations to Ye Shiwen significantly less than John Leonard in relations to Ye Shiwen, 7.8 times less on the official exoneration than baseless accusation.’

    You assume that all articles mentioning Ye and Moyniham are official exonerations, but they could just as well be articles saying that Moyniham’s statement is worthless.
    You assume that articles mentioning Ye and Leonard are full of baseless accusations, but they could just as well be articles saying how despicable he is and why he should be disgraced.

    I wasn’t saying that there hasn’t been bias in the media reporting of Ye Shiwen. There has been bias. I was just agreeing with some of the other users that that quote is factually incorrect and should be changed.

  38. Charles Liu
    August 9th, 2012 at 14:44 | #38

    @Hodges

    The laws of averages would suggest between the different POV being related, it’s a wash. But the 7.8 fold difference in counts IMHO is significant to give the context wrt how often the idea is provided to the public.

    If you want to scrutinize the context, scan or read the links provided. I have and I believe they reflect the fact our media outlets minimally covered Ye’s official exhilaration, they were far more interested in repeating John Leonard’s baseless accusation.

    Even weeks after IOC official verdict, there are still articles questioning Ye’s innocence (this one is even a combo defending Katie Ledecky by smearing Ye Shiwen):

    http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/USA/31652.asp?q=In-My-Mind:-American-Bias—Fact-or-Fiction?–Ye-Shiwen-vs.-Katie-Ledecky

    There’s no perspective focused on Ye’s innocence (compare Ye with article covering Ledecky), any exceptional voice in our free market media is being drowned out by the nearly 8 fold more voices in terms of perpetuating the controversy, to the detriment of Ye’s victory.

    The fact even you see the bias should prove existence of the “official narrative”. Some of us have been observing this bias for years.

  39. Hodges
    August 9th, 2012 at 15:41 | #39

    @Charles Liu

    Nothing short of reading all those articles will tell you conclusively what their POV is. You know this.

    If the OP acknowledged that there was a voice in the British and American media supporting Ye then nobody would have had questioned the OP. Now the OP could argue that this voice was in the minority and that it was drowned out. But what you can’t say is that it simply wasn’t there. A number of people have pointed this out and I agree with them.

    『The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.』

    It’s simple Charles, do you think this quote is factually accurate or not?

  40. Charles Liu
    August 9th, 2012 at 15:44 | #40

    I disagree with you. Even you disagree with you, that the media POV is biased.

    There’s no perspective focused on Ye’s innocence (compare Ye with articles covering Ledecky), any exceptional voice in our free market media is being drowned out by the nearly 8 fold more voices in terms of perpetuating the controversy, to the detriment of Ye’s victory. Even when stating IOC official exhonoration, majority of the article continue to implicate Ye by citing John Leonard.

    The fact even you see the bias should prove existence of the “official narrative”. Some of us have been observing this bias for years.

  41. Hodges
    August 9th, 2012 at 15:54 | #41

    @Charles Liu

    Charles, could you just please read this article and watch the video.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9441123/British-Olympics-chief-Ye-Shiwen-is-clean-end-of-story.html

    Can you state

    『The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.』

  42. August 9th, 2012 at 17:03 | #42

    I just realized there are few trolls above who may not have grasped this, so I thought I explain:

    Phase 1: When the Telegraph first cherry-picked Leonard’s ridiculous accusations for broadcast, then The Guardian, the BBC, followed by NYT, CNN, and other British and American media chiming in to propagate it, they are brewing a smearing storm.

    Phase 2: They didn’t anticipate a fall-out. So, the fall-out. Chinese on Weibo reacted. Chinese media reported indignation at the U.S. and British press. You then have Nature apologize. You then have IOC reported having cleared Ye Shiwen. You then have NBC reporting Phelps and other Olympians defending Ye.

    You also have the Guardian, the NYT, and still a list of U.S. and British media spinning, downplaying Chinese criticisms.

    To the trolls who are incessant in quoting my OP, who are foaming at the mouth as if there is a technicality to exploit:

    The British and American media in fact voiced no perspective defending Ye Shiwen.

    Think about Phase 1. That’s what got the Chinese upset. That’s what got the foul-mouth press into hot seat.

  43. Sigmar
    August 9th, 2012 at 21:50 | #43

    @YinYang

    Also, the article that contains the video http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9441123/British-Olympics-chief-Ye-Shiwen-is-clean-end-of-story.html, the one that is constantly being harped on, has already been patently proven to NOT voice an official perspective defending Ye Shiwen, and does in fact contain insinuations. And it is the exact same article that is being reiterated again and again. No matter how many times it is repeated, it just doesn’t work.

  44. Zack
    August 10th, 2012 at 00:37 | #44

    don’t andrew jacobs and all those western media reporters look like stupid little shits now that Phelps, the IOC and Co. have voiced their support for Ye. A pity about Nature, as a scientist, i’ve always considered NAture to be a reliable scientific source, but now i’m starting to see that its science is starting to become politicised.

    I fear it won’t be the end of it neither, as China continues to cement its rise, the Establishment caucasian powers will continue to scream all the more louder. Perhaps they fear the justice that is to come from what happened from the Opium Wars and colonisation.

  45. August 10th, 2012 at 02:51 | #45

    Yup, Sigmar.

    The same troll is coming back with different names to push Hodges #41 argument. The irony out of all this is his link above, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9441123/British-Olympics-chief-Ye-Shiwen-is-clean-end-of-story.html has Lord Moynihan saying:

    And it is regrettable there is so much speculation out there.

    Moynihan is being polite to the press.

    He is talking about Phase 1, trolls!

    Enough is enough. Folks, I am marking Hodges or whatever new name he comes back with with the same argument as spam. This thread has been derailed long enough.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.