Will Evans, courtesy Liz Thomas, via MSNBC story

MSNBC has a China blog called “Behind the Wall,” and as the name might suggest, it targets an American audience that may not be as familiar with China as those of us here on the ground (“behind the wall” sounds a lot like “other side of the world,” i.e. a throwaway cliche one scribbles on the back of a postcard). There is a need for websites like Behind the Wall, I suppose, because I do sense a generally healthy interest in China from my friends back home. A problem arises, however, when the people covering China don’t know the country, and try to package stories into a neat, easy-to-consume “China Narrative.” You recognize it when you see it, even if it’s often more subtle than “pollution is bad” and “they eat dogs there!” (though it’s also often not more subtle than this, unfortunately). The China Narrative is the equivalent of media discrimination, or prejudice — journalists would prefer the softer word “bias,” but don’t be fooled: sometimes, editors just don’t care about representing reality; piquing a reader base is so much easier.

MSNBC’s latest post was about teaching English in China. It was exactly the car crash you’d expect. It begins:

Speak a little English and are willing to relocate? Well, you’re probably qualified to be an English-language instructor in China.

As long as you are white, that is.

Um.

The story centers around the experience of two prospective teachers, Mike Lee and Will Evans. Lee is the Asian one, fresh off the boat, apparently still unaware that China and America are, in fact, different. He got rejected for a teaching post because, as he was told, “Unfortunately, parents of our students don’t really want someone Asian to be teaching.”

Instead of feeling gratitude at being given an honest reason, his reaction was:

“I was shocked – back home this wouldn’t be acceptable,” Lee told NBC News. “I’ve never been discriminated (against) in that way.”

The story then quotes the Beijinger‘s forum… wait, let’s stop for a minute. The Beijinger’s forum! The same one featuring these people. Someone at MSNBC thought to do research for this article using the Beijinger’s forum.

A post by Vogue on a popular online forum and classifieds site, The Beijinger, explicitly spells out the phenomenon:

“In Beijing this is the general pecking order in terms of a company’s recruitment (by Chinese managers):

1. White Americans/Canadians

2. White British

3. White Australians/New Zealanders and South Africans

4. European Nonnatives/Black Americans/Black British

5. American Asians/Black Aussies (Australians) and Kiwis (New Zealanders)/Filipinos/Africans”

Oh, but what about white British who’ve lived in Nebraska and speak Standard American English, but also understand the difference between Doritos and chips? Would they bump White Canadians to 1b? And why is it that White Americans rank above White British but Black Americans and Black British are on the same level? Hmm, Vogue? Care to explain yourself?

MSNBC continues:

The discrimination comes, Evans said, because Chinese parents simply do not believe a non-white person can possibly be a native speaker.

Actually, they’re well aware that non-white people can be native speakers.

Will Evans, I’m going to go ahead and assume you know this. I’m going to assume the journalist who paraphrased you just doesn’t care that you’re being made to look like an idiot. Because you, Will Evans — like everyone in this type of story — are secondary to the almighty Narrative.

“It makes you feel like crap,” said Lee. “We all came here on the same boat, at the same time, looking for the same opportunity. I didn’t know the color of my skin was going to be an issue. I find it weird to be discriminated against for being Asian, while I’m in Asia.”

I’m going to ignore the ways in which that quote is askew and get on with it.

Despite all the above, what do you suppose the dumbest part of the article was?

In China, English teaching is a whites-only club

That’s right, the headline. Just had to be, didn’t it? It’s so nice to see MSNBC chose to avoid generalizations in its article about the negative effects of generalization.

If you're offended by Kate Winslet's nipple, you should not watch Heavenly Creatures, Jude, Titanic, Hideous Kinky, Holy Smoke, Quills, Iris, Little Children, or The Reader

Earlier this week I came across a story on Offbeat China about Kate Winslet’s breasts being censored in the Chinese theatrical release of Titanic 3D. Alia wrote, without citing a source (cite your sources, people; I’m looking at you too, Shanghaiist), that the reason they censored the breast was because,

“Considering the vivid 3D effects, we fear that viewers may reach out their hands for a touch and thus interrupt other people’s viewing. To avoid potential conflicts between viewers and out of consideration of building a harmonious ethical social environment, we’ve decided to cut off the nudity scenes,” according to an official at the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television.

Ministry of Tofu ran the same story a few hours later but pointed out that the above quote was satire. (I thought about — I really did — reaching out to Alia of Offbeat China about this. Turns out I really should have.) Quoting satire as fact would be like quoting from the China Daily Show, and if you were a “real” news agency with an express purpose of informing the public — instead of pushing pre- and misconceptions — it would make you, veritably, a fool.

Well, here are just some of the fools in the US and UK, as called out by Gawker‘s Caity Weaver:

MSNBC Entertainment: Peter Gicas writing for E! Online:

“Considering the vivid 3D effects, we fear that viewers may reach out their hands for a touch and thus interrupt other people’s viewing,” read a statement from China’s State Administration of Radio, Film and Television. “We’ve decided to cut off the nudity scenes.”

Mail Online:

An official at the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television said: ‘Considering the vivid 3D effects, we fear that viewers may reach out their hands for a touch and thus interrupt other people’s viewing.

Hollywood Reporter:

By way of explanation for the cuts, a spokesman for SARFT offered this rationale:

“Considering the vivid 3D effects, we fear that viewers may reach out their hands for a touch and thus interrupt other people’s viewing. To avoid potential conflicts between viewers and out of consideration of building a harmonious ethical social environment, we’ve decided to cut off the nudity scenes.”

Entertainment Weekly actually had enough media ethics training to cite its source. It was unfortunate that they cited Offbeat China, but we can almost let them off the hook for doing the bare minimum.

The lesson here? Check your facts, people. And if you’re not Entertainment Weekly: CITE YOUR SOURCES. It’s the least you could do, and if you’re a blog, it’s not just a gesture of courtesy (an important gesture): it’s a way of covering your own stupid ass.

Some reporters got “assaulted” in Panhe, Guangdong, and though we don’t know the extent of anyone’s injuries (just a minor detail, right guys?), MSNBC’s “Behind the Wall” China blog decided to “report” on the incident, using a Foreign Correspondents Club of China email as its primary source (they don’t mention it’s an email; just a minor detail, right guys?). The title of the post? “Journalist beatings ease Wukan optimism.”

Huh. That’s quite an extrapolation.

But you know what other detail MSNBC chose to ignore? Oh, just that, according to the Shanghaiist, a couple of those journalists WERE COMPENSATED WITH 45,000 RMB.

The Shanghaiist doesn’t explicate, but we’re led to believe the journalists took the money. Maybe we shouldn’t assume that, but no one denies they did. But why would they have been offered so much in the first place? And by whom? What’s going on?

Forget about finding answers in the MSNBC story, which doesn’t even acknowledge that the Shanghaiist broke this news five days earlier.

Here, I need to remind everyone that this isn’t Jerry’s Travel Blog or Susie In The Middle Kingdom we’re talking about. This is a news organization that sees fit to lead off its blog posts with fancy, stylized bylines such as:

By Ed Flanagan, NBC News

Hey, guys: perhaps it’s time to get off your journalistic high horses. Just because you fancy yourself as “established” and old school doesn’t mean you’re above informing readers you ripped info from an email, and you’re certainly not above linking to other websites. Or you could have maybe at least tried to put in a call to some of the actors in this drama. Instead, we get the following graf of manure because you feel the print-world need to fit text to space:

To be sure, press restrictions in China have been relaxed considerably in recent years, but since last year’s anonymous calls for a “Jasmine Revolution,” local municipal and provincial governments appear especially sensitive to negative press and foreign reporting on so-called “mass incidents.”

It’s unclear whether the Panhe attacks represent a government-driven reversal in strategy for dealing with foreign press coverage of mass incidents. It is nevertheless a stark reminder of the dangers of reporting local disturbances despite the optimism inspired by the peaceful resolution of the Wukan rebellion.