by Thorsten J. Pattberg for The Saker Blog
NEW YORK – A media professional from China asks: “Why do the Western media always promote the same ‘China experts’ who preach China doom, over and over again?” The answer is quite simple: The game of ‘expert testimonials’ is rigged.
‘Expert testimonials’ is not a level playing field. Never was. It is no coincidence that you will always see the same China experts and the same Chinese dissidents paraded in the news. Our key media are collusive. It means they act in concert.
If they act in concert, they project power. Here’s a definition of power by Hannah Arendt: “Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.”[i]
Yes, our media are corrupt beyond hope. And society is largely to blame: We often feel intimidated by the manipulative press, and powerless. We condemn cronyism, misconduct, and cheating in business, politics, and sports. But exposing the rampant corruption in the media and education? That remains a taboo.
Nobody knows exactly why they get away with it. Of course, they won’t report their own corruption. Also, journalism is inherently feminine (not the gender, the characteristics!); so manipulative journalism is always defensible, is always right, is always the victim.
Expert testimonials in journalism are witnesses that support the argument or mouth-piece what the journalist wants to say. For example, the New York Times will not directly call for violent riots in Hong Kong; instead it will offer expert testimonials that violence is indeed justified.[ii]
The expert testimonials in journalism are not the same as the ‘expert testimony’ used in the legal system. The press is illegitimate; it is not a governmental institution; it is not under oath, and it is absolutely not required to be neutral.
Most persuasive pieces of journalism have at least two testimonials. There are three kinds of testimonials. The first and most vital one is the ‘expert testimonial’. Without quoting a real expert, the journalist, who is by definition a non-expert on anything except journalism, is simply not credible. The second kind of testimonial is ‘plain folks’. That’s the taxi driver, the man from the corner shop, ordinary people. This creates sympathy. The third kind of testimonial is what this author calls a ‘negative-positive’. It means that someone with an opposing view, negative, is quoted, but in such an manipulative way, that it actually helps the journalist, hence the “positive.”
Plain folks are almost always made-up. Negative-positives are a manner of writing. But the expert testimonials shouldn’t be fake. That “expert” should ideally be consulted by the journalist.
Here’s an example (you may want to skip this exercise, if in hurry, and continue in the main text below) of three testimonials in one article. See, if you can guess which kind of testimonials they are. It’s from a British Guardian propaganda piece,[iii] by a certain Adam Gabbatt. The Guardian rushes to the defense of Chris Buckley from the New York Times, who’s a notorious propagandist. Since this is the global Western anti-China coalition, if one of their press soldiers gets into trouble in China, the others will naturally close ranks:
A: “I regret that Chris Buckley has been forced to relocate outside of China despite our repeated requests to renew his journalist visa,” Abramson said. [Ms. Abraham, a Harvard graduate, is the chief executive editor of the New York Times.]
B: Lawyers for Wen Jiabao’s family denied reports of their riches as untrue in October. “Some of Wen Jiabao’s family members have not engaged in business activities. Some were engaged in business activities, but they did not carry out any illegal business activity. They do not hold shares of any companies,” the statement said.
C: Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the piece “smears China’s name and has ulterior motives”, later insisting that the China’s critics were attempting to destabilize the country and were “doomed to failure”.
As a general rule, for every New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Guardian, The Diplomat, or Forbes piece (etc.) there should be at least one expert testimonial in it! [Other testimonials are optional.] That said, you can image that there must be, in theory, a huge market for expert testimonials out there. Right?
Now, think: Does it not make perfect strategic sense, since tens of thousands of China articles must be mass-produced every year in the West, for the Western media to have a ‘ready-made’ stall of loyal experts to ask for phony testimonials any time they want? Better still, how about jointly fabricating EXACTLY the experts (and dissidents) we later want to see at the top!
So they fabricate experts. It’s not illegal, see. And not just any experts: Their buddies and friends and mutual benefactors. Those are the David Shambaugh, Ezra Vogel, Minxin Pei, Orville Schell (now out of favor, it seems), and Roderick Macfarquhar, to name a few.
Now, of those five experts mentioned, all of them are associated with Harvard University, and all were prominently featured in the New York Times. So, understandably, many readers get very upset every time they spot such obscene, shameless favoritism. For example when Harvard man and New York Times journalist Michael Forsythe prominently features a fellow Harvard man, Minxin Pei.[iv] Or when Evan Osnos, a Harvard man from The New Yorker, prominently features all of them Harvard experts in his book. So that he can get “conversations”[v] with them. And his buddies promote his book in The New York Times.[vi] Or the Guardian.[vii] Or Mr. Forsythe’s spouse, also Harvard, also New York Times, miraculously gets to promote her own book in the New York Times.[viii] Yes, the New York Times people are not stupid: they try to disguise cronyism. So NY Times Kirsten Didi Tatlow gets to write about NY Times Mr. Forsythe’s wife’s book.[ix] And NY Times Christ Buckley gets to interview David Shambaugh, alright.[x] NY Times Javier C. Hernandez, also Harvard, gets the Ezra Vogel interview.[xi] And NY Times Austin Ramzy interviews Evan Osnos, right![xii]
Journalists are un-elected. They enjoy relative low status in society in exchange for the privilege of fools. Some hang around with politicians and pose as ‘political analysts’. Others pose as ‘intellectuals’ by collaborating, say, with enough “Harvard” scholars: The journalists get artificial respectability, the scholars gets gratuitous media coverage. For them, it’s a win-win situation. The big loser, of course, is the global audiences to whom – not even talking about US colonialism – the vanity and the arrogance of these few privileged men is sold as “correct” information and news about China.
Remember when back in the old days the media set out to expose the corruption of the elites? Well, they didn’t. They joined the corrupt elites.
It gets worse. Think about this: Why would the New York Times EVER change the status quo? They have absolutely no incentives to do so. They would be stupid to reform. In fact, upon reading this, they will probably even tighten the status quo. Out of pure spite.
This all reminds your author of the following story from the Mahabharata: There’s this great guru, Drona, who promised prince Arjuna to make him “the greatest archer in the world.” Then one day they go into the forest and meet Eklavya, who trained all by himself under the idol of Drona. Eklavya is clearly the better archer! But Drona cannot tolerate this, because it would completely ruin the royal narrative. So they politely ask Eklavya to cut off the thumb of his right hand. Which he reluctantly does. To preserve the status quo. Uninterruptedly, Drona now goes on to fulfill his promise and make Arjuna “the greatest archer in the world.”
This is exactly how it is: The New York Times & Co act in concert and are systematically empowering their own buddies and protégées from Harvard as “the greatest China experts in the world.” And to the rest of the world, especially to the 1.3 million Chinese: cut your talented limbs off, will you!
The author is a German cultural critic and frequent commentator on Sino-Western affairs. He describes himself as “Thorsten J. Pattberg, Asia specialist, PhD comparative literature and linguistics, unbeknownst writer, polyglot, monster, idiot”.
[i] Hannah Arendt, On Violence (1970), Harcourt Brace & Company, New York
[ii] http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/why-the-ny-times-promotes-violence-in-hong-kong/
[iii] The Guardian, China forces New York Times reporter Chris Buckley to leave country, Dec 31, 2012, London
[iv] The New York Times, Q. and A.: Minxin Pei on the Future of Communist Rule in China, Feb. 29, 2016, New York
[v] http://www.livestream.com/roosevelthouse/evan-osnos-chasing-fortune
[vi] The New York Times, Q & A: Evan Osnos on the ‘Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China’, May 13, 2014, New York
[vii] The Guardian, Age of Ambition; The New Emperors reviews – two studies on modern China, July 6, 2014, London
[viii] The New York Times, China’s ‘Leftover’ Women, Oct. 11, 2012, New York
[ix] The New York Times, Rejecting the ‘Leftover Women’ label, April 24, 2013, New York
[x] The New York Times, Q. and A.: David Shambaugh on the Risks to Chinese Communist Rule, March 15, 2015, New York
[xi] The New York Times, Q. and A.: Ezra F. Vogel on China’s Shifting Relations With Japan and Taiwan, Nov 12, 2015, New York
[xii] The New York Times, Q & A: Evan Osnos on the ‘Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China’, May 13, 2014, New York
I have suspected for some time that mainland China has been selected to be the locus of efforts by the Power in the West to suborn or undermine It. It would be nice to see some of the views of the Chinese government be expressed on matters that are constantly talked about in the West, such as China’s antipathy to Western style ”Christianity”, that suggest in this Western propaganda that China is inherently a godless totalitarian monstrosity.
The PRC’s semi-official “Global Times” English language website, in addition to the up-to-date world and China news, posts various commentaries and editorials that often provide an interesting insight into Chinese government’s thinking.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/
Looks like a good resource, thanks! I always try to get a firm understanding of where people stand on the issues and why.
” “Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.”[i]”
Wow, that certainly is very relevant to how the Rothschilds gained and maintained their power over all of the monarchs of europe in the 19th Century and I expect into the 20th and beyond.
Staying together, sharing info fast, and maintaining one message.
Katherine
Yep. Mix in a dash of secrecy and you’ve got the recipe for conspiracy. And yet people foolishly insist all the time that conspiracies don’t exist and that people who say they do are crazy. Imagine: power conspires to maintain and increase its own power. Who’d of thunk?
The five Rothschild brothers were the original impenetrable, unbreakable power group. The patriarch, Mayer Rothschild, wrote in his will that only male descendants were to run the business. Daughters could (and did) marry “out.” The sons must marry “in.” Thus, James Rothschild married his niece, and others also married their nieces. It is like an Egyptian phanoanic dynasty.
I expect that the daughters marrying “out” might have provided enough genetic diversity for the male descendents to marry “in” without the whole line becoming genetically degraded (although when I look at photos of Baronne Philppine, I wonder—in none of the photos I have seen are the R’s an attractive family).
Main point, though, is that to such a dynasty can accrue enormous power over state actors by the combo of preserving secrecy, and credit, that is, being the state’s and also state officials’ debtor and by means of open and covert threats, to influence state policy. This is basically how the R’s swung the creation of the State of Israel. Why should anyone assume the state created at the behest of the Rs operates any differently from the family itself?
I would love to get more info (time! time!) on the relations between the Rs and the British East India Company. No info on that in William Dalrlymple’s The Anarchy.
Now with the advent of offshore tax havens, there is absolutely no way that I know of to calculate (1) how much of the earth’s wealth the R dynasty has accumulated (2) on whose behalf they hold/control a lot of this wealth.
The Rothschild bank/combination is AFAIK a private partnership. The list of shareholders is here:
https://www.rothschildandco.com/en/investor-relations/shareholders/shareholder-structure/
The primary shareholder(s) is “Enlarged family concert” Looks to me like no one else is allowed to have more than 1% of the shares.
Elsewhere at the site they state: “As a business controlled by certain members of the English and French Rothschild families, we have always been driven by the Rothschild family motto ‘Concordia, Integritas, Industria’. . . . Rothschild & Co is a global and family-controlled group. We provide M&A, strategy and financing advice, as well as investment and wealth management solutions to large institutions, families, individuals and governments, worldwide.’
The site makes interesting reading. It is pretty short.
The Rothschild “five arrows” (their logo, standing for the original five Rothschild brothers) is a kind of paradigm of an effective power construct (I am surprised Arendt didn’t write about it. Or perhaps she did?). Truly an extended family enterprise whose sole product is money that can conspire and pull strings effectively because the main players—and probably all of their employees also sign draconian agreements—are bound by family “omerta” and there are no public disclosure obligations (as far as I can see. I am an amateur. I am inferring this). All else(wine labels, etc.) is window dressing, except, I bet, the State of Israel.
This control of information harks back to the control that rabbis had over members of their communities in the shtetls and ghettos of Europe.
So when the naive say things like “if it were the result of a conspiracy” –e.g., 9/11—“someone would have said something, something would get out.” This is really illogical thinking: just you cannot imagine it, it cannot be!! In fact, the only logical explanation i can see for 9/11 is that it was the result of a conpsiracy whose architects are bound by some kind of omerta. And who have the power to punish, swiftly, any breaches in control of the info.
Same goes for Dallas 63.
Just sayin’ . . .
Katherine
Great information Katherine! I can tell you are passionate about this subject and your instincts are spot on.
Finally was able to get Gus Russo’s Supermob from the library. Started reading it right away (although not yet done with the Rs!) But there it is again: the five or six Korshak brothers emigrated from Kiev in the 1880s. And the family stuck together. All of the Korshaks are descended from these brothers. They became immensely powerful in Chicago, and from there, in the whole country.
(One of the main characters in this book is Abe Pritzker. That is the family that basically owns Obama, IMO. The Chicago Dem machine is dirty dirty dirty and very Zionist, IMO. Rahm Emanuel. )
Main point: These families and “families” develop information networks, including wire services, that give them the upper hand for all kinds of financial and other dealings. Same as the Rs. They controlled the news. They controlled who knew what, when. Taht means they can control markets. They could bring off all kinds of feints to drive markets the way they wanted, then drop a bombshell and buy up everything at low prices after they had sunk the price. Etc. Just like George Soros. Same kind of game. It is all feints and control and creating obligations via credit and other means and always inventing new ways to control the putatively powerful. Like blackmail ? Per Whitney Webb, sexual blackmail has a very long history in the Jewish mob. Can it be that this, not the drug trade, is actually the “business” where Marlon Brando the Godfather draws the line and doesn’t want to get involved in the Puzo books?
This is how our whole economy and country are being run today. By different “families” connected in a “network of families.”
The Russo book looks pretty interesting and promising (I mean, well written and documented) and reinforces my inferences about the R’s with his observations about the Korshaks and other Jewish Macher in Chicago. Russo sketches in some of the European social background. Of course he doesn’t really go into the reasons *why* Catherine might have confined the Jews to the Pale of Settlement. Anyhow, looking forward to learning more.
Katherine
PS.
Re sticking together to promote a solid front, the power of a powerful group that sticks together also offers a great deal of potential for devious dealings and pys ops and manipulations of “reality.” One part of the group can plant false info, put rumors into circulation, etc. while another part of the ‘team” provides the response(s) that putatively are “innocent” —spontaneous, true reactions—but in fact are also planned moves that prepare for th enext move. Only the power players know what the real game is.
Katherine
Yep. That’s the next level benefits – “synergies” as the business idiots like to call them – of such operations. They actually begin to echo-echo-echo their own false flag created artificial realities to heighten the effects and credibility. It must get hard to keep track of it all – even for the major players – after a while. Definitely some sophisticated stuff.
It is also worth noting various Western MSM reports referencing Adrian Zenz as a ‘China expert’ (his claims being the basis of accusations against the PRC). For example, refer to the report ‘Why do Muslim states stay silent over China’s abuse of the Uighurs?’, by Nick Cohen, Guardian 05/07.2020). From Wikipedia: Adrian Zenz,[text ]):
– “Zenz is a born-again Christian. He stated that he feels “led by God” in his mission…. In his book “Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation”, he predicts the fall of capitalism (identified as “Babylon”) and consequent rise to power of the Antichrist. Zenz links other aspects of modern society, such as decriminalizing homosexuality and non-violent parenting, to “power behind the Antichrist”
Abandoning concepts of journalism in preference to practices associated with propaganda, they either did not conduct even a basic online search of Adrian Zenz or chose to ignore such inconvenient broader beliefs (being harmful to their proposed narrative).
Western bloc mainstream media have repeatedly employed atrocity propaganda against strategic opponents as part of efforts to influence public beliefs (to be hostile towards targeted nations). This was also the basis of pre-war conditioning (as employed against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.). The PRC is a more recent target of the AngloZionists (with the developing conflict so far occurring predominantly in the hybrid warfare domain). It is evident much of Western bloc media are engaging in an information war as part of their efforts to create a new Cold War (to politically isolate and economically contain the PRC). But by engaging in propaganda rather than journalism, Western MSM continue to clarify their lack of credibility.
In regards to Chinese views on issues, CGTN the official Chinese news channel does a decent job. Not perfect, like RT, but decent enough. We get both here in Australia.
Why promote “semi official” Global Times?
It has been noted that Global Times is at times provocative with its statements. Im not saying they dont have good content or good web design, just noting that they are provocative and should not be misconstrued as official representatives of the Chinese government. Just as certain Russian news media due not represent either the Russian government or the interests and views of the Russian people.
Unfortunately most still listen to MSM in the west.
Maybe not directly but still as a backnoise setting a valid social reference that shape and manufacture the collective consent.
Personally my ear bleed each time I listen to MSM.
All and each sentences feel to me as agenda driven, devious, warped and evil.
The very definition of devil.
And whether or not you listen to and are influenced by it directly, you are still influenced by it indirectly by living in a culture shaped by it and interacting with all the other people who do. It’s in the very air you breathe. Propaganda and advertising (same thing) are the most pernicious influences in modern life by far.
“They joined the corrupt elites.”
A company cant join anything. They all(NYT, WP, etc) got bought as soon as the CCCP imploded.
During the cold war they do not need to control all the media because of the common enemy.
Here is my take on the US political system with the competing two groups (or are they competing) that remain together for exactly the same reasons described in the article above. It is a satire on Romeo and Juliet.
There are many patriots in this ancient play with a modern cast but they mostly end up on the point of a sword. How sad. The Montagues are the Reppublicans while the Capulets are the Democrats. ‘A curse on both their houses’ is Mercutio’s famous line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF0ToE8GN4
The more things change the more they essentially stay the same, eh John? As you note here, current events are really driving home many of the points I/we learned earlier in life by reading such classics, but my isn’t the realization so much sharper when you see it play out in real life? All standing in sharp contrast to the many among us who don’t yet make the connections and see it all as just “stupid people doing stupid shit.”
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815