http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-08/29/content_6980225.htm A Chinese woman working at Germany's DW-Radio has been suspended from her job following remarks she made in the media on human rights and other issues in China, the German press has reported. Four days before the opening of the Beijing Olympics, Zhang Danhong, an editor with the German broadcaster's Chinese program, reportedly said that "The Communist Party of China has more than any political force in the world implemented Article 3 of the Declaration of Human Rights", referring to the Chinese authorities pulling more than 400 million people out of poverty. Similarly, in a TV talk show in late July, Zhang reportedly said the Chinese government had done a lot to protect local culture in Tibet and criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel for sapping relations with Beijing. The German media is said to have reacted strongly to Zhang's remarks. On Aug 11, German magazine Focus attacked Zhang as someone who was "courting" China's Communist Party. On Aug 20, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper quoted parliamentary representative Dieter Wiefelsputz as saying that Zhang's performance was a "catastrophe". Two days later, the same newspaper confirmed Zhang's suspension from work. Zhang, 42, was born in Beijing, studied German in Peking University and in Cologne, Germany. She became an editor of DW-Radio's Chinese program in 1990 and was promoted deputy editorial director of the program in 2004, the broadcaster's website read. Many in China have voiced sympathy and concern for Zhang after the incident. "The case proves that those who chant human rights and freedom of speech everyday in the West are so hypocritical," a Chinese netizen wrote on major Chinese portal, Sina.com. "The Cold War mentality, ideological biases, political prejudice, and sense of racial superiority these things are deeply rooted in some parts of the Western world. Luckily, China is not bothered by these," wrote another netizen. "I have noticed related information and I have read the reports Zhang had done," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Thursday. "We hold that the media should report under an objective and just principle." Zhang and DW-Radio were not available for comment at press time.
First, let me state that I have absolutely no respect for China Daily, which I think is a piece of crap. But if the article is true, it doesn't say much for Germany as a country with much freedom. Then again, I kind of wish we can do the same thing to Limbaugh or Hannity for talking out of their ass all the time.
Maybe? Your instinct is to imagine a reason to legitimatize the controversy. You are too predictable, dude.
Ha - that's so ironic coming from you to be honest. Wow. If her job is to be objective, than clearly she was not that. I mean, taking a pro-China stance on your reporting isn't being objective. Just because you agree with her doesn't mean she's doing her job. It's one thing to be able to express what you think, it's entirely another when your job is to report in a way without bias, and you do that. She deserved a suspension.
Is she in jail? Was the suspension handed down by the Ministry of Information or another government agency? This is about freedom of speech like Clutch suspending Fatty is about freedom of speech. If you really actually wanted to understand what the difference is, you could. But most of you, apparently, are more interested in redressing perceived personal slights.
You have not established Deutsche Welle is non-biased media outlet, it's ironic to say the least how anti-China reporting can be construed as objective.
Or maybe she was just reporting the truth without bias, just that the Germans can't handle the truth.
At least I didn't try to pretend to be righteous and objective like you. I have said before in my post that everyone is biased to different extents. But the people like you who tries to act out being open-minded, objective and righteous when you have a rigid agenda in your mind make me puke. That <-- is the definition of hypocrisy.
Could you please explain how you get that from my post? My first amendment rights are very real and I thank the heavens for them every day of my waking life. Freedom of speech protects me from the government interfering with my ability to say what I want. Freedom of speech doesn't require individuals to listen to what I have to say if they don't want to, and it doesn't mean that if I own a private publishing medium like a radio station or a newspaper or a website, that I have to publish whatever is is that you and everybody else want to say, irrespective of whether I want to publish it or not. Nobody has told her that she can't say whatever she wants. They haven't sent her to a gulag for forced reeducation until she says what they want her to say. They just don't want to publish whatever message she is pushing. Since Duetche Welle is a private broadcasting corperation, this is their right. If she puts together some cash and buys a newspaper and publishes the same thing, she is perfectly within her rights to continue doing that as long as she could continue to pay to put the paper out and Duetche Welle couldn't shut her down. People wouldn't be required by law to read her paper, but she could publish whatever she wants. If I call up Rush Limbaugh and he hangs up on me because I am a liberal, I don't have a freedom of speech complaint. It is Limbaugh's show and he can provide whatever message he wants. If I really want my views aired, I can find a liberal talk show and air my views. Limbaugh can't suppress my message universally. He can only do it on his own show. Here is what freedom of speech means in the USA: [rquoter] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/rquoter] I'm sure the details are slightly different in Germany, but the American example is a suitable basis to start the discussion. So, if we assume that the exact details of the US rights apply in Germany, how exactly were this lady's first amendment rights to free speech infringed? That was a rhetorical question, BTW. The answer is that they weren't. The only way you don’t see that is if you are so wound up with anger at the western world that you can’t think straight. So that concludes today's lesson on Freedom of Speech. If you need lessons on the rest of your constitutional rights, I will be glad to provide them. This is the only free lesson, however. Suitable remuneration for additional lessons in the series, "Constitutional Rights 101: What They Do And Don't Mean." can be negotiated and provided to my PayPal account. Payment address available on request.
The German mindset of free speech is much different than the US's. They actively enforce the ban on Nazi propaganda and their efforts to suppress Scientology is well documented. Then again, it's not like the German government made her vanish into some reeducation camp. Private companies, American or European, hire and fire as they wish.... Is free speech really the issue here?
Without knowing more about this story, the principles involved, and what constitutes freedom of speech for now I agree with Otto's take. Freedom of speech under the US Constitution is is a check on the government and not private media. Private media as matter of practice should repsect all viewpoint but are under no legal obligation to do so. In this case I don't think its a good thing Zhang should've been fired for her views but I don't think you can tar Germany or the west over this one incident anymore than we can tar all of the US over Fox News.
Good. Let's hope the employers of some our friends here on the BBS have a similar hard look at virulent chinese nationalist outbursts.
