President Barack Obama has drawn basically positive reviews for his second inaugural address yesterday, but at least one person was not impressed. (Note: probably tens of millions were not impressed, but you can read the comments section to Hot Air and other sites devoted to the corpse of Ronald Reagan if you’re interested.) We’re talking about the wizard behind the curtains of Global Times, who penned this:
The US is standing at the commanding heights of development of human society. It can just bide its time for four years. However, if China were managed by similar methods, the result would be totally different.
China also has a super-sized management system which is less powerful than that of the US, but the US does not have as many contradictions within society as China.
These contradictions were buried previously, and they have gradually emerged. China is no longer a country where the government’s call is immediately taken up by all of society.
<Rubs temples>
Compared with the US, obviously China has changed more in the last four years.
Last year Internet was not free, and this year it is a little less free. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.
We have gotten used to the fact that the changes are growing larger and larger.
No one even bats an eye at eight-figure corruption anymore.
Almost all social policies are being adjusted to improve people’s livelihood and enhance equity.
How do we read the “almost” in this sentence? That there are ever social policies enacted to not improve people’s livelihood? Or some social policies are so perfect that they don’t need to be adjusted? Or are we saying “almost all” social policies are so flawed that they require adjustment?
The above three blockquotes form one paragraph — just one dazzling whopper fused together by the upchuck of a propagandist force-fed on party-line millet.
The author certainly has the right to allude to the failings of American politics, though to make a tortured comparison with the Chinese system and conclude that Obama has a governance lesson (the words are in the headline) for this country is patently absurd. In other words, it’s so Global Times.
Obama has governance lesson for China (Global Times)
Not sure what you are so angry about, because I read that excerpt several times and I still don’t have a clue what it says.
Obviously the Global Times piece was written in Chinese first and then translated literally, hence the two sentence paragraphs.
I especially like this line:
“Meanwhile, enthusiasm for debate has also been aroused in China and democracy is developing rapidly.”
Riiiight.
” [...] if we want to develop healthily in the 21st century, the most important rule is that this country should be gradually become democratic. But Chinese society cannot exist in a state of disunity.”
So, basically democracy without different opinions then. Interesting. Democracy with Chinese characteristics?
GT likes to pretend it is pro-democracy, but its bullshit.
They are pro-democracy in theory, but only on the Party’s terms.
And if you can square that circle, you really should be in another line of work…
Global Times political editorials are almost always in Chinese first. That’s why they’re frustratingly vague and make little sense.
Oh, also, the Chinese headline is far more insulting, as you would expect:
奥巴马交4年白卷，而知中国有多难
Fuck you Hu Xijin. Obama didn’t change the world but after 8 years of Bush I think it’s fair to say he didn’t 交4年白卷.
What exactly is the purpose of the English language Global Times? It seems to exist solely to give foriegn news agencies (and bloggers) an official translation of whatever the CCP wants to blather about on any particuar day.
-The quaility of the English is extremely (generally unreadably) poor so I can’t imagine it seriously exists as a language learning tool. Yet so jinoistic that I’ve never met any native speakers who read it other than for research or “only English thing to read in starbucks “purposes. Just seems like a gigantic waste of money to me.
The Metro section is pretty good. A lot of these Chinese-run English publications are just a vanity project though for a higher-up.
It exists solely because those in the propaganda department are so disconnected from the real world as to think that people actually swallow this shit. They published this, drank another cup of jasmine tea and thought to themselves: “I am such an amazing reporter. Once again I managed to bring the truth to these unlettered cunts who aren’t from China.”
The propaganda department is like that creepy uncle who wants to dance to Mr. Bombastic at every wedding. The only taking him seriously is he himself. And of course Bubba in prison after he gets convicted for sexual assault of a minor. The propaganda reps are just waiting for an ass pounding. Who will give it to them? Where’s our Chinese Bubba?!
I recall a poster here once saying their wife worked on readership survey for the peoples daily, has anyone actualy seen any honest readership figures for this rag?
Some of the media concerned NGOs must have looked into it.
When I was working in Shanghai a few years back, a colleague, also a party member, mentioned that the in-joke among party members was that there was only one thing in the People’s Daily that you could believe: the date!
C’mon guys, what about Chris Hawkes? Give the man a Pulitzer!