Teaching Comparative

A rebuttal of the New York Times

I picked up on the original New York Times report here because it sounded so dramatic and authoritative, although I did note that Xinhua reported on the speech very differently than the Times' reporter.

The next day, I noted that China Law Blog featured some differences of opinion about what the Times had reported.

Now, Dan Harris suggests I tell you that the New York Times got it all wrong!

And, it's important to teachers of comparative government and politics to take care in attributing accuracy to sources of information. I wish I'd gone looking for more reports of Luo Gan's speech.

This episode brings into sharp relief the problem of reporting that has unstated and unrecognizable intentions. It's easier to take into account the biases of Radio Free Europe, Xinjua, al Jazeera, and Fox News than it is to recognize the biases of traditionally-reliable media and in non-traditional, non-mainstream electronic publications (like the one you're reading).

Here's why Dan Harris thinks you should discount the New York Times' account of Luo Gan's speech. I agree with him. I think the "gray lady" of New York owes us an explanation, a clarification, and perhaps an apology about why and for whom she was playing the éminence grise.

---

Steve Dickinson is an American lawyer living in Shanghai, China. He is associated with the law firm Harris & Moure, and contributes to the China Law Blog with his colleague, Dan Harris.

He is fluent in Chinese and has taught law (in Chinese) at Beijing University School of Law.

After the exceptions taken by Joseph Wang and Hui Mao to the New York Times report on a speech by Politburo member Luo Gan, Dickinson read a transcript of the speech.

He wrote in the China Law Blog about his reading of the speech:

• As our readers have indicated in their comments, the NYT article completely misrepresents Luo Gan's speech
  
  1. The fundamental premise of Luo Gan's speech is that the legal system and rule by law play a fundamental role in the Party's goal of creating in China a harmonious socialist society...
     
  2. Luo Gan does not say that the legal system is used by China's enemies to undermine the power of the party... his intent is the exact opposite of what the NYT implies.
     
  3. Luo Gan does mention the labor reform program, but the NYT totally distorts his intent...
     
  4. Luo Gan never suggests that the law and the legal system are tools of the West designed to undermine China...
     
  
  
• The comments on various blogs based on the NYT article are mostly irrelevant since the Luo Gan article actually states the opposite of what the NYT claims...
  
  
• Some blog posts suggest Luo Gan is a conservative, out of step with the more progressive thinking of the younger members of the politburo. Actually, Luo Gan's speech represents the core thinking of the party and it is actually quite a progressive document...
  
  
• A review of the sections I have translated immediately shows how the NYT article fundamentally misrepresents Luo Gan's meaning and intent... [There is a link to those translations in The China Law Blog original of this article.]
  
  
• Note what the whole speech is about: the role of the legal system in the creation of a harmonious socialist society.  This is critical.  The theme is not freedom and protection of rights.  The theme is harmony and stability.  Harmony as social goal goes back 5,000 years in Chinese history and it is shared by virtually all Chinese, whether from the PRC, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore or Seattle, Washington.  This fundamental goal is also shared by countries influenced by Chinese civilization: Japan, Korea and Vietnam.  Personal freedom is not a goal in this cultural complex: harmony and stability are the main goals.  The surprising thing to me in Luo Gan's speech was his stress on the need to protect the rights of the people in order to achieve the goal of harmony and stability.  This is the first time I have seen a Party official go to such great lengths to point out that if the people's legitimate rights are not protected, the goal of achieving harmony will never be achieved...
  
  
• The NYT's article reveals the continuing inability of the U.S. to make progress on understanding what is really going on in China...

---

Labels: China, pedagogy, rule-of-law

posted by Ken Wedding @ 12:36 PM