Ever the Quiet Burier of Ledes, Global Times published a news item Monday that surely qualifies for Hideous China Story of the Year (Relationships Edition)… although GT went for the more casual “Mom jailed for covert contraceptive.”

It’s a Turducken of a tale – one that gradually reveals more unpleasant layers with every sentence until, eventually, everybody loses. The action begins in 2015 with a young graduate, Zhang Yang, whose girlfriend, “Yanzi,” is pregnant. Unfortunately, Zhang’s mother Zhang Xiuqin does not approve of the match, and not only pressures Yanzi into getting an abortion – she does the procedure herself. Medical ethics are clearly not an issue for Nurse Zhang, though:

Zhang Xiuqin was handed six months and a 5,000-yuan ($743) fine…for implanting [a] diaphragm while performing an abortion on the woman, CCTV news reported.

Yanzi only discovered the device years later while seeking treatment because she had been unable to conceive since.

Zhang told authorities she inserted the contraceptive device to sabotage their relationship and prevent them from marrying.

Zhang said she had disapproved of their relationship because at the time her son was a college-educated and Yanzi was working as a waitress.

Things then take a deeply amoral twist for the worse:

Zhang began encouraging Yanzi and Zhang Yang to get back together after learning the former waitress had made a fortune.

For some reason, Yanzi didn’t fancy another invasive Ob-Gyn procedure at the hands of her meddling mother-in-law and went somewhere else to figure out why she couldn’t get pregnant again. The plot unraveled and the sociopathic Nurse Zhang ended up in jail (whether she is allowed to practice nursing again is another story, but am gonna guess probably… yes). Last, quick twist of the knife:

The couple eventually broke up.

The story is filed under GT’s “Odd” section, but is frankly so WTF-awful, it could form one of the plotlines in Party Members and still come off as a little extreme.

h/t Isabella Steger

Residents gather next to burnt-out tanks in the aftermath of the crackdown (via CNN)

Last year was the 25th anniversary of the “June 4 Incident,” as it is officially known. State security went full bore over the ultra-sensitive date, harassing journalists and activists, detaining anyone who sneezed on the subject.

They succeeded in maintaining the collective amnesia in-house, earned their bonuses and overtime, but in doing so, trolled foreign media so hard that the blowback was intense. I don’t know how much coverage was originally intended, but several journalist friends indicated they’d been so royally pissed off with the constant intimidation, their editors were all but sounding the bugle on the topic. Coverage was wall to wall, with stories everywhere.

This year, of course, will be much quieter: 26 isn’t as catchy as 25. But Global Times hasn’t forgotten, and duly produces a bungled editorial on the subject, attacking – and casually libeling – a group of overseas students for writing an open letter, requesting transparency over the crackdown. Here’s the closing paragraph:

Chinese society has reached a consensus on not debating the 1989 incident. Students born in the 1980s and 1990s have become the new targets of overseas hostile forces. When China is moving forward, some are trying to drag up history in an attempt to tear apart society. It’s a meaningless attempt and is unlikely to be realized.

Frankly, the rest of the rant isn’t worth the click. Moreover, there is really little point to GT’s article (even less so than usual, that is). No mainstream outlet had even reported on the letter prior to the editorial. The first was the Guardian, which published its article shortly before midnight a day later, referencing GT in the third graf.

If Streisand Effect was the intention of the trolling, so be it. There aren’t any other logical reasons for flagging the date by turning the full glare of the Batshit Signal on this group of 11 Chinese students while accusing them, ad hominem, of being “brainwashed” by a “paranoid minority” in an “attempt to tear society apart.” (Just because they’re “paranoid,” GT, doesn’t mean the government isn’t out to get them.)

It’s telling how an authoritarian apparatus that has engineered a culture of amnesia and self-censorship is, itself, quite incapable of either. Like a sinner with a guilty conscience, GT can’t help running its own mouth. An annual hit-piece on Tiananmen has become almost as symbolic and ritualistic as the candlelit gathering in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park. Rather than memorializing the victims, though, it simply serves to shame the perpetrators.

UPDATE: The shambles continues with an order from the goon squad to “urgently delete the Global Times commentary.” So dignified.

A couple of years back, chinaSMACK reported on the qualifications for a “Chief Pornography Identification Officer.” Leave it to the clever folks of Global Times to whip up this handy infographic, published yesterday.

We especially like the section titled “What is considered pornographic?” A woman in a bikini outside the proper context — the bedroom and not the beach – could well be considered unacceptable.

Have a look at the rest. What do you think, could you do the job?

After listening to “Edge of Revolution,” a new song by the Candian band Nickelback, one can easily understand how clever the West is in expressing and propagating its views.

[sic]

Take a bow, Farman Nawaz. You belong to a rare class of adult on the Internet who admits to listening to Nickelback.

(H/T James Palmer)

John Ross (right), pictured in London

Last week, coverage of the embattled but peaceful pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong earned the unsolicited though controversial criticism of one John Ross.

Ross, a British academic who describes himself as a “Senior Fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University,” took to Weibo (a Chinese Twitter) to accuse foreign media of being “too hypocritical.”

“In 150 years of British colonial rule in Hong Kong, they never permitted its people to elect their own governor, and the United States didn’t criticize the UK about it,” Ross wrote. In erecting this particularly withered straw man, of course, Ross utterly ignores the actual catalyst for these protests: the promises, originally brokered by the British, then later arguably broken by Beijing, for universal suffrage, as per the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ template agreed in 1984 between the UK and China.

Ross is obviously far too concerned with the hypocrisy of foreign governments to have any time for his own.

He proposes, for example, that the suffrage system now on the table in HK – three candidates, hand-picked by Beijing: Any color you like, so long as it’s red – is “much more democratic than the United Kingdom.” That’s presumably the same UK where calls for a referendum on Scottish independence were ruthlessly censored, its leaders crushed, journalists and activists imprisoned, and where the streets of Dundee and Glasgow are now lined with friendly, tear-gas wielding soldiers to preserve Scotland’s freedoms. To put things in perspective, in 2013 the Economic Intelligence Unit used actual data to rank countries by democracy, placing Hong Kong at 65 out of 165, with a score of 6.42, making it a “flawed democracy” (the UK is 16. China? 143).

Ross doesn’t – yet – enjoy the profitable pro-Party punditry platforms of his fellow foreign cheerleaders, such as Martin Jacques or meritocratist Daniel Bell, but nevertheless is intent on filling the mould of “foreign stooge of a Chinese dictator… manipulated by those who found him useful,” like US constitutional scholar Frank Goodnow before him.  Clearly he believes there’s still gold up in those hills.

So when the “former director of London’s Economic and Business Policy to ex-Mayor Ken Livingstone,” was approached this summer by Chinese tabloid the Global Times (GT) for a profile about foreign China Watchers, he was, no doubt, expecting a nice soap-job.

After all, GT is a state-owned affiliate of People’s Daily, and its Chinese edition (whose bug-eyed editorials the English edition faithfully reproduces) is particularly known for its “nationalist” bent.

Ross, meanwhile, is a loyal toady of the new world order. The Marxist economist is so committed to serving the people that, back in 2004, he gracefully accepted a massive salary of £110,000 – more than the then-Mayor of New York – as one of “Red” Ken Livingstone’s closest crony-advisors. (The post was not advertised, which might have struck even Tony Blair as rather non-egalitarian.)*

Ross and GT would seem natural bedfellows.

Unfortunately, the paper’s reporter went off (Ross’s) script to deliver an actual piece of journalism: a long article about various overseas admirers of the Communist Party – often known as “Panda Huggers” – such as Ross and Martin Jacques, and entitled “Our Friends in the West.”

The cached article as it originally appeared

Within hours of this going online – and being enthusiastically shared among Twitter’s China hands – Ross was on the line to complain. Demonstrating his commitment to Party values by attempting to get the young journalist in trouble, Ross demanded immediate expunging of negative comments about himself. “I am well used to expect such articles by people such as the Southern Media Group,” Ross fumed, “but it was a great surprise to see it in Global Times.”

The reasons for Ross’s rage became abundantly clear: “This article attacks and attempts to discredit me by the typical methods of suppression of information and selective quotation,” he wrote (our emphases). Ross then demanded that several lines be removed – aka “suppression of information” – to make way for pre-approved remarks, supplied by him, inserted in their stead… a.k.a. “selective quotation” (!)

The article originally noted that – in Ross’s own words – he had been criticized by “British right wing [sic] writer Nick Cohen”:

Original text containing criticism of Ross as first written in the Guardian

This passage was excised at an unknown date, after publication, to be replaced with a glowing passage that displays a complete volte face in both facts and tone:

The new passage now features praise from former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies

Of Cohen, all reference had vanished like a dissident in the night (apparently, “Cohen has no knowledge of economics,” as Ross fumed in his e-mail). Also missing:

The original contained a scathing reference to Ross’ tireless work in the state-media sector, now deleted

Not content with neutering these small jabs, the overweening Ross then had an entire 90-word paragraph inserted, in which he demonstrates that he has, at least, apparently as much grasp of modern Chinese history as Cohen purportedly has of economics:

According to Ross, who simply ignores the entire periods of 1949-1976 and 1989-1992,  individual entrepreneurship is now the standard of measurement for a state’s human-rights record

Meanwhile, the fawning comments about Ross from his boss at the Chongyang Institute – a state-backed “think tank” run by a former hack from the Chinese edition of People’s Daily, Wang Wen – were unsurprisingly left untouched. The article, once a spiky piece of journalism, had effectively become a standard fluff piece larded with dripping encomia to Ross – all under the byline of a “senior reporter” who was powerless to prevent it.

Although he was indeed interviewed for the article, Ross concluded his email of complaint by remarking that he was “astonished that Global Times should publish such an attack on myself… without giving [me] any chance to reply to these attacks.”

Well, now we do have Ross’s reply:  In the form of the professional harassment of a female journalist at a state-owned paper, a shrill demand for heavy-handed censorship, and the wholesale manipulation of someone else’s work to further his own agenda. The difference is, we’re not the slightest bit astonished.

p.s.

@akaDashan Please learn colloquial Chinese idioms that even the State Grid understands as no such weibo exists

— John Ross (@JohnRoss43) October 8, 2014

*While in position under Livingstone, Ross enjoyed 12 foreign jamborees in just three years, according to WorkersLiberty.org. But his finest hour came after Livingstone was defeated by Tory candidate Boris Johnson in the bitterly contested 2012 London mayoral elections.

Ross lost his incumbency – a hazard of democracy to the humble public servant-crony – but threatened Johnson with the use of “m’learned friends.” The justification? Before rejoining the ranks of the common man, Mayor Livingstone had slipped a new “unfair dismissal” rule in, which allowed political appointees the same redundancy rights as, well, chimney sweeps and nurses. Well – almost the same. Ross got a thoroughly socialist settlement, in the region of £200,000. Bottles of Karl Marx champagne all round!

You can follow the author on Twitter @MrRFH

The pundit aftermath of the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 is now upon us and the Global Times’ recent opinion piece on the topic is full of actual words and letters that call allegations of Russia’s involvement “yet another example of the power of Western opinion as a political tool.” 

While their ability to cobble together phrases might indicate intelligent life, we must turn to experts like early 20th century mathematician Emile Borel for guidance without preconditions or preconceptions.

Emile Borel once famously wrote of what has since been termed the Infinite Monkey theorem. It can be succinctly summarized as such. Given enough time, a monkey randomly striking keys on a typewriter will end up producing a copy of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Indeed random chance when combined with finger-like appendages can theoretically produce any work. For example in this example certainly not ripped directly from Wikipedia:

Suppose [a] typewriter has 50 keys, and the word to be typed is banana. If the keys are pressed randomly and independently, it means that each key has an equal chance of being pressed. Then, the chance that the first letter typed is ‘b’ is 1/50, and the chance that the second letter typed is a is also 1/50, and so on. Therefore, the chance of the first six letters spelling banana is

(1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) = (1/50)6 = 1/15 625 000 000 ,

Less than one in 15 billion, but not zero, hence a possible outcome.

This being the case, we cannot eliminate the possibility that coverage by the Global Times and the insistence of several mainstream Chinese news sources that Russia is likely not to blame was not produced by a room of jabbering hominids throwing feces.

China’s rush to claim that the Global Times is written by Chinese people is not based on evidence or logic. The Global Times and state media more broadly is understood to be the mouthpiece of some of the least articulate members of the Communist Party, publishing such claims as Kim Jong Un’s election as the world’s sexiest man. Acknowledging that thinking people could produce such obvious drivel would only make China look foolish.

The truth is the most persuasive tool of all, and a fair investigation of the identity of the Global Times editorial board is in the interest of all sides. It must be clear of any political interference, as all investigations in China are. The truth must be made public once it is found out.

People need the truth rather than having to live in a reality where thinking people actually write articles like this in The Global Times.

I’m not saying green Hulk doesn’t resemble Pele, but did no one at the Global Times consider Brazil has a current player who’s actually named Hulk and looks like this?

If you haven’t been watching the World Cup, you’re missing out on the most exciting tournament since — maybe ever? Here’s a handy viewing guide for you China folks.

(Global Times, h/t Tom Phillips)

Chinese premier Li Keqiang just finished a four-country African tour on Sunday, so leave it to Global Times to summarize the trip in an unreadable “op-ed” featuring economic stats and sentences such as, “Such a robust momentum of development calls for higher standards in a myriad of cooperation projects.” At least the illustration — by Liu Rui — was, um, eye-catching. GT even tweeted it.

Li was quoted by Xinhua as saying, “I wish to assure our African friends in all seriousness that China will never pursue a colonialist path like some countries did, or allow colonialism, which belongs to the past, to reappear in Africa.” Looking at that picture, straight from the quill of a well-meaning but cloistered and ultimately clueless 19th century liberal, it seems like maybe Global Times missed the memo.

Excerpt:

Chou was taken into a vehicle near her home in New Taipei City for what would be a four-hour ordeal.

The kidnapper demanded NT$ 7 million ($231,730) from family members for her release, but his plans were thwarted by Chou’s knack for nagging and stalling.

After providing false contact information, Chou drove her kidnapper crazy with constant complaints about her illnesses and pain. The suspect stopped at a pharmacy to buy Chou medicine.

The kidnapper was then given a stern talking-to.

“This is not the right way to earn money,” Chou said. “You still have a long way to go, but I do not have much left.”

Chou apparently is the matriarch of rich family, so it’s not like she couldn’t afford the ransom. Instead, she remembered how old she was and played the situation beautifully. Kidnappers beware: age is inversely proportional to fucks given.

Granny nags her way out of kidnapping (Global Times)

Global Times is back with another reader contest, “What are your misconceptions?” Those who answer that question as it relates to China – with either short essay (150-250 words), photo, video, etc. (“the possibilities are endless!” Endless?) — can win a stay at the Grand Millennium Beijing. So, Global Times, mind if we get an example?

Reader Andy Li says:

“I’m surprised no one has touched upon the most pernicious lies spread by American propaganda (China committing “genocide” in Tibet or Xinjiang, China doing nothing but stealing/hacking the US’s tech, China’s government being super corrupt, and some other awful racist stereotypes) “

That’s via GT’s Facebook, which is (naturally) promoting the contest (hat tip to Eric Fish). And that’s glorious.

However… maybe not glorious enough. The winners will apparently be chosen by public vote. Is this amazing competition actually a popularity contest in which someone could write something akin to the opposite of Andy Li’s answer (maybe: “Pandas, contrary to popular misconception, taste more like beef than chicken”) and still win?

We’re not sure we want to find out. But if you do, here’s how to enter:

Post your entry as a comment on this Facebook post (http://on.fb.me/1oRsozJ), or email your entry to speakingofchina@globaltimes.com.cn. The closing date for entries is 4pm (Beijing time) on Thursday, April 24, 2014.

China is officially (politically, that is) an enthusiastic supporter of the Sochi Games, which is why Chinese athletes walked out at the opening ceremony waving both Chinese and Russian flags. To no one’s surprise, then, the pro-government media here is peeved by all the negative coverage in “Western media.” Speaking for them all, Global Times has just published an editorial headlined, “Booing Sochi only shows West’s bigotry.”

Sure, one tires, especially if one has lived abroad, of first-world complaints — particularly from media types who are prone to narrative-following and will invariably proclaim the Games a “surprising” success in about two weeks — but Global Times, per usual, takes it a bit too far, into sourceless sensationalism, confused truthiness, and outright lies:

Some say it is the journalistic nature of the Western media to be critical and ready to challenge authorities. But the excuse sounds so hypocritical when you look at the Western coverage of the 2012 London Summer Games, which was much more friendly and festive.

Critics called various aspects of the London Olympics a “waste of money,” “humiliating shambles,” and “disconcerting.” (That last one was from Mitt Romney.) Then they slammed the logo and mascots. The organizers were called a “closed oligarchy” — by the London Assembly! BBC published “10 reasons some people will dread the Olympics.” Ten days before the opening ceremony, the Guardian published this so-very-British headline (because it’s sarcastic) above a picture of a torchbearer grimacing in a downpour. During the Games, there was a protest featuring topless women. A year after the Olympics, Oliver Wainwright of the Guardian wrote, “At every junction of this roaring A-road sprouts a steroidal tower, each clad in ever more lurid colours, transforming the street into a gauntlet of competing ambitions. Looming over adjacent council estates, these brash totems are a monument to Olympian greed.” You know who cheered the London Olympics though? “The London Olympic Games were hailed a success by visiting journalists,” wrote Xinhua.

Excerpting a bit more from Global Times:

Since the ending of the Cold War, only the 2008 Beijing Games and the ongoing Sochi Games have experienced such criticism. It is surprising how much the Western media stick to their bigotry.

The “Western media,” if I may say, have gone easy on Russia. Most of the negative stories I’ve seen are about toilets, infrastructure, stray dogs, and un-homely hotel rooms. Very few articles have mentioned the Russian government’s targeting, sometimes murder, of journalists, or their systemic, massive corruption that is objectively much worse than China’s, or their lack of social cohesion, or the environment, or NSA-level surveillance… About as negative as the media has agreed to go is a snarky remark here and there about Vladimir Putin’s homophobia.

Russia is much smaller and weaker than the Soviet Union. No matter how “tough” Putin is, today’s Russia will no longer fall back to the Stalin or Brezhnev times. But the West’s endless criticism of Russia under Putin’s rule appears no different from the elder generations’ stances against the Kremlin decades ago.

Okay Global Times, if you’re such a tough guy, you tell Putin that he’s not so tough.

The aggressive political strategy of the Soviet Union used to make the West restless. But today, strategically the West has nothing to worry about besides fighting terrorism. The ruthless pressuring of Russia and the alert against China are pushing the West to the verge of another round of confrontation. Enthusiasts for a “New Cold War” could jeopardize a historic chance for a better world.

And so on.

But this post isn’t about yet another crazy Global Times editorial, because that’s low-hanging fruit. This post is about a comment by topolcats.

Before you read it, please understand how comment sections on pro-government editorials work: they often are frequented by harems of fifty-centers — people who get paid to post pro-China comments on stories — presumably because these people know their employers will come across them. Usually, one commenter will post something, and then someone else will try to one-up, and then someone else. But our man (or woman), topolcats, decided to do the work of four people by writing a four-paragraph paean to… the Russian resolve? It’s anti-West, so it has to be pro-China. It’s also batshit crazy.

The West since the time of the Czars have been trying to rape,control and plunder Russia, USSR, Russia from Napoleon to Clinton & beyond!!
These fascists will never stop but will never win either if history is an indication.

Someone should tap Bill Clinton on the shoulder and tell him he was just compared to Napoleon.

After 1917 Europe and the united states attacked the USSR. But only after 3 years,Trotsky defeated the combined forces of western Europe & America and then came the Nazis. The dream of Hitler and crew was to conquer western Europe, destroy Russia and hook up with the Japanese in Asia and jointly control the world. Yet again Russia/USSR destroyed the german Anti Christ.

Russians suffered greatly during World War II, and they should be rightfully proud of their victory over Nazi Germany. But only someone willfully ideological — i.e. the worst type of person — would confuse the people’s victory with the government’s, since Stalin’s five-year purge of everybody was interrupted only by the war effort. Stalin then rewarded his countrymen’s bravery and sacrifice with further purges until his death, leaving behind a brutal police state whose legacy survives today.

In Archangel lies the graves of the first Americans ever killed in the western invasion of 1917…standing as a monument to anyone (America), who dares try to invade again will be destroyed not to mention the million of graves of Italians and Germans fascist soldiers killed in the great patriotic war.

Don’t invade Russia. Especially during winter.

Today Russia still stands as a country without debt and armed to the teeth ready to do battle with the forces of evil to protect mankind whenever called for!…America,Europe cannot stand that two primary countries, China and Russia stands in the way of world domination…if we are lucky the spiritual guardians of mankind will always allow Russia & China to defeat American imperialism!

I like this, actually. Spiritual guardians of mankind. I mean, slightly theosophical, but poetic. To think of it, a little too poetic for the comment section of a Global Times article. So now we know: fifty-centers are actually unemployed Chinese writers. All of a sudden, I have a newfound respect for the work they do.

The Global Times recently published an editorial titled, “What if Chinese police beat a jaywalker?” covering the recent case of a Chinese man allegedly beaten by police for resisting arrest after jaywalking in New York. It’s a sad story, and it shows a brutal side of America’s police.

Unfortunately, and I do mean actual non-ironic unfortunately here, the nationalist mouthpiece that is The Global Times is not allowed to write this kind of editorial with this kind of title without sounding completely ridiculous.

However, things might be the other way around if the same incident happened in China. The local police would be charged with abuse of power, and the head of the local police department would have to apologize and the errant police officers could be punished or even sacked.

Bull.

Tell that to the Chengguan who beat fruit vendor Deng Zhengjia to death.

Tell that to the group of 50 or so Chengguan who attacked an entire village in Lianyugang in Jiangsu Province.

Tell that to the street peddler beaten by police while his nine year old daughter pleads, Stop beating my daddy,” “I’m begging you,” “We’re sorry,” and “You can go ahead and take the stuff.”

Whatever problems America’s police force has, they are nothing compared to the corrupt incompetence that is China’s Chengguan. I wish you could be a force checking America’s internal violence Global Times, but writing from China you just look ridiculous.

The Global Times has written the response to Thomas Friedman’s “Dear President of China” that none of us needed, asked for, or wants to see.

I was tempted to go through this line-by-line, but contrary to popular misconception, I have better things to do. Just know that “the West” or “the Western” is used eight times, including:

• “Their survival and influence in the West…”
• “…the West’s strategy in interfering China’s…” [sic]
• “Many storms the West created by the Interent…” [wtf?]

The story ends:

China should have its own judgment. The Western media will have an advantage in public discourse for a long time and would like to become a force that can influence China. But they will be challenged by our wisdom and determination.

I feel like we’re all victims of an elaborate office prank in which we return from lunch to find our desktop is now a stretched image of Thomas Friedman and the Global Times locked in unchaste concert, and we can’t do a damn thing about it without calling IT. My point is there are no winners.

China can’t cede agenda-setting to Western media (Global Times)

Global Times found a “scholar living in Japan” to write about Japan’s misplaced “Olympics fever” this week, presumably because Global Times writing that editorial itself would have been a bit too ironic, a bit too laughable for even Global Times. Quick excerpt from Jiao Kun’s piece, published yesterday:

Hosting the Olympics is generally believed to bring about positive effects and in particular spur economic development. It needs an enormous amount of investment in infrastructure including all sorts of sports venues as well as operational expenses, several times more than the proceeds gained from television relay and commercial sponsorship. The direct investment will create a good deal of indirect demand, thus stimulating the economic system as a whole and creating more jobs.

However, this view does not hold water, because the investment in organizing the Olympics is, in the final analysis, an input that cannot simply be translated into output.

Part of the investment is sponsored by enterprises and the rest comes from the fiscal budget of the government of the host country, so the Olympic Games, like other public services including unemployment insurance and investment in education, actually reallocates social resources instead of creating wealth.

That last line, the relocation of social resources bit, could well have been about Beijing’s efforts to dust itself off in the lead-up to the 2008 Games. And since we’re on the subject of Olympics fever, can I bring this up?

The fact is, the Olympics are always losing propositions for host countries in terms of money. And yet, despite surely knowing this, Beijing made two bids to grab the Games, both times making it to the final round of voting (in other words, the maximum amount of bribes were given). It was a price they were more than happy to pay, and the reason’s simple: it’s not about recouping every penny of investment, because that money buys a city the chance to stand front and center in the biggest pageant on Earth. How we arrive at this quadrennial event — the backdoor dealings, the corruption, the bureaucratic pissing contests – may repulse us and inspire withering editorials, but the essence of the event, the goal of it, has always remained pure. Unsurprisingly, it’s this aspect of the Games that host countries seize on and use to boast of their culture (London’s Anglocentric opening ceremony), or confidence (a “coming-out party,” in the case of China), or history (Greece), or beauty, or whatever.

Perhaps that’s why Jiao Kun’s feeling a little uneasy. Why Xinhua, subliminally, wished Istanbul had won the rights to the 2020 Games. A close rival just across a narrow sea is preparing to show off its thousands of years of history and culture. Global Times would be downright negligent to its nationalistic base if it didn’t at least try to dampen Japan’s enthusiasm, hypocrisy be damned.

Japanese Olympics fever may be misplaced (Global Times)

This week, the latest invaluable pensée from Global Times is “If you are the foreign one.” It’s about foreigners on the TV dating show Fei Cheng Wu Rao. “They are too frank and say things inappropriate for match-making talk, which makes them seem alien,” is one choice quote from a Chinese DJ in Beijing. Perhaps this is the reason why “the worship of foreigners has ebbed,” according the manager of a lubricant oil company in Qingdao (your go-to source for stories about frustrated love).

Meanwhile Zhou Xiaopeng, “chief marriage expert” at dating website baihe.com, reminds us that “foreigners have advantages in terms of the fact they don’t care as much about the age or job of prospective dates” (it’s true, we’ll shag anything that moves), before warning that “all they have learned is the old feudal culture, which says that women should stay at home raising children and doing housework.” Plus they don’t want the Chinese parents to stay over during Spring Festival.

I have little to add to this pinnacle of reporting and opinion, but I did dig up an interview I did a couple of months back with two of these heartless foreign monsters who were on the last series of Fei Cheng Wu Rao, Lauren Hallanan and Mark Pinner. Lauren’s last episode as one of the 24 female contestants on the show, who reject or vie for a date with a contender by switching off a light in front of them or not, is above if you’re curious (relevant bit starts at 48:40, no English subtitles).

I’ll let them give the laowai’s perspective.

Alec Ash: How did you both come to be contestants on FCWR?

LH It was actually the simplest thing ever. I was a big fan of the show, my Chinese friends would joke that I should go on it, and I’ve been single for a while, so I went along on a Saturday afternoon for an interview. I honestly didn’t think I would get on, I just wanted to see the process. The questions were about my personality, the ideal person I was looking for, and past relationships. It was a lot of fun.

MP For me, it was pretty similar. They were asking why I wanted to be on the show, what kind of girl I was interested in, my past experiences.

Alec Ash: Did you feel they look for a certain type of guy or girl?

MP I think they look for someone interesting. They were very explicit about who they don’t want. They don’t want people who are perfect. Because it’s boring. The dynamics of the show are designed to weed people out, and if you’re the perfect guy and [all] 24 girls want to go out with you, that’s not entertaining. On the application form, they ask if you have any weird pet peeves.

LH I think they do hope that the girls are good looking, but that isn’t by any means the main factor. A lot of the girls on there are extremely smart, with PhDs. Some of them have unique backgrounds or interesting jobs. There’s a girl contestant right now who’s a race car driver. They actively look for unique and interesting people. There are also a few who are there for their looks.

Alec Ash: Why do you think contestants go on the show? And why did you?

LH There are some who are just looking to be famous. But a lot more than you would expect are completely innocent and looking for a boyfriend. Some girls told me that their jobs are really busy and they don’t have time to meet people outside of their circle. There was one girl whose mum signed her up for the show. And when a girl [gets a date], the others will be really excited for her.

MP I went on because I was interested in the process of what it would be like to go on Chinese TV – and if I met the woman of my dreams, then that’s good too. Most of the guys are there to get a date with a girl. But when they prep you before the show, they ask you, what is the purpose of FCWR? And the purpose of FCWR is entertainment. You owe it to people not to screw it up badly by being fake. Just be yourself.

LH They say that to the girls too. If a girl goes on and doesn’t act like herself, they tell her we want the person that we interviewed. If you’re not that person, then we don’t want you. We assumed that the person in that interview was your natural self, and we want to see that person. Some girls are so much fun in the interview, and then just stand there.

Alec Ash: What’s it like behind the podium?

LH In general it’s pretty nerve-racking because you know that even if you’re not talking, they might still be filming you. And because there are so many other girls, you have to make an effort to make yourself heard. You have to be proactive and think of questions and raise your hand. It’s pretty exhausting. Also, we don’t get to sit, except for a tiny break [if a guy gets to the third round]. It can be several hours of standing, because once we start filming we just keep going and going. If we wear heels, we can put other shoes behind the podium and switch, but you have to stand on a higher foot block, so no-one notices the height differences. But some girls stand in heels for hours.

Alec Ash: How do you feel the experience is different for laowai contestants?

MP They’re curious about foreigners. From their point of view it’s just different, and they’re after different people. I do think they liked me because I fitted a stereotype of the English gentleman. One of the girls invited me to do a waltz on stage with her.

LH I felt that people had pre-conceived notions of what I should do or say, and that there was a give-and-take between what they wanted me to be like, and what I am like.

Alec Ash: What did they want you to be like?

LH I think it was difficult for them to figure out too. Because in a lot of Chinese people’s eyes, Americans are extremely outgoing. I’m outgoing, but not in a crazy party-going way. And I can be quite conservative in my dress and what I do on the weekend. That was a little difficult for them to get their minds around. On the show you can see I wear lots of different clothes all the time, because they couldn’t figure out what to do with me. They would say: “You’re so cute!” And I would say: “Please don’t make me wear bows in my hair.” So they would say: “OK, what about sexy?” And I would say I’m not super comfortable wearing sexy stuff either. You can also see it from some of the questions that I get asked on the show, especially from Le Jia [the resident “psychological analyst”]. He makes sexual references and asks me about past relationships, and I think he sometimes expects me to say one thing but I would say another thing. It’s all stuff that I’ve dealt with before, at a one-on-one level with Chinese people, but never on such a large scale.

Alec Ash: What have you learnt about Chinese attitudes to dating from your experiences?

LH Marriage is a lot more at the forefront. The girls are not just thinking about having a date.

MP Absolutely. A lot of them are thinking, will we get married in six months? Will we have a kid next year? That’s the kind of timescale you’re looking at. And that’s why there’s more of a tick-box thing.

LH That’s true about China in general, but it becomes a lot more evident on the show. Right through the interview process, and also on the show, they want to state clearly and exactly who you are looking for. You can’t just say, I don’t know, it depends on feeling. Back home it’s more about who you meet, and you know when you start talking to a person if you like them, then you find out slowly what his interests are. But on the show, it’s all laid out there. They want you to know who the exact person you are looking for is, and what your requirements are.

MP Tick, tick, tick, no, no, no, yes, yes.

Alec Ash: What are the key criteria, for both sexes?

MP The first thing guys are going to go for in a girl are her looks.

LH Whereas a lot of Chinese girls don’t like the really good-looking ones, because they have no anquangan [sense of security] – they’re afraid that if a guy is good-looking he’s definitely not going to be faithful to you. If a guy that is too good-looking comes out, he will likely get a few lights go out immediately, because they feel he’s going to have a million mistresses.

Alec Ash: So what are the positive criteria from the ladies’ perspective?

LH Money is always a big winner.

Alec Ash: That’s a long running criticism of the show, that it promotes money worship. Do you feel some of your fellow contestants are just looking for rich guys?

LH Oh, yeah. There’s a lot of subtle things that they look for. Because they’re never going to state how much money he actually makes. There’s a rule about that now, and it’s been toned down. But in the video spots [about the male contestant’s lifestyle], you notice how many guys are driving a car. It’s because they want to show you what kind of car they have. Or if there are scenes inside their house with friends, they can display things. Or a guy might say his favourite food is something ridiculously expensive.

MP Whereas in my video I was buying jianbing and riding a big scooter, so hardly a flashy lifestyle.

Alec Ash: Are there any other topics off limits for direct discussion?

LH There are definitely some topics you’re asked not to talk about – politically sensitive things, like if someone is from an ethnic minority, or anything superstition related. You’re not supposed to talk about your astrological sign, or which Chinese year you were born in, because there are pre-conceived notions that if you were born in this year, this is what your personality is like and you and I are a good fit together. Also, you’re not supposed to talk about religion.

Alec Ash: Is there anything else you feel viewers don’t know about FCWR?

LH People do give tips and suggestions, and the show is structured, but a lot of people assume that we know everything about the other contestants, or that we’ve been given lines to say. It’s really not fake like some people think. From beginning to end it’s all real – they don’t even take a break in between guys. They just cut out little bits and pieces.

MP For me, I felt they hardly cut anything. They also tell you, don’t get phased if girls turn their lights off. They say, there are all kinds of weird reasons for turning your light off. So when someone says why they don’t like you, the Chinese reaction is just to say xie xie and move on, which is a dynamic I suspect you would see less on Take Me Out [the British version of the show].

Alec Ash: Are you allowed to date outside the show?

LH You’re not supposed to. We had to sign something.

Alec Ash is a writer in Beijing. This interview also appears on his group blog the Anthill.