Category: Modes of propaganda

Categories
Academic integrity Modes of propaganda Radicalisation Terror

ASPI demonstrates its allegiance to arms manufacturers and US and UK governments

On the 12th of April, ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) launched the annual report by the IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace). The report gives credible data on global terrorism, with its key publication being the ranking of countries according to the impact that terrorism has had on it.

One wonders why the IEP needs ASPI to launch its report, as IEP director Dr David Hammond did little more than simply highlight various elements of the report. Expert contributions were interesting but did not really add much to the report except, perhaps, to give perspectives from other countries; which, of course, does nothing to change the underlying facts of terrorism.

Based on the report and those before it (back to 2014), I asked a question at the launch which was completely relevant and addressed the successes and failures of counter-terrorism, as objectively shown in the data. This is the question.

In 2014, we find 4 countries in a comparable position on the GTI – US, UK, China, and Indonesia, at around rank 30. This indicates significant challenges in managing terrorism in those countries. Australia was ranked 95, an enviable position to be in.

If we consider the UK, we find that from 2014 to 2022, the rank stays stubbornly on 30 + or – 2. The US position drifts gradually down to rank 20, indicating that terrorism in this country increased. Only in the last 3 years has this improved, mostly in line with global trends.

Meanwhile, Australia plunged 36 places from 2014 to 2015, still much more favorable than both the US and UK but has, as with the UK and US, stayed stubbornly at around 60. Indonesia shows a steady rise until 2018 when it starts to drop in line with global trends.

The miraculous story is China. From a low 25 (below US, UK, and Indonesia), China has steadily risen, year on year, through the rankings to now be 67th place, passing Australia.

This represents a change of 42 positions over 8 years.

China’s record can only be described, objectively, as incredibly successful. Its program of clear intent, selective detention, surveillance, poverty alleviation, economic development and strong determination has produced results that are, surely, the envy of the world.

In view of the relentless campaign by western media, academics, and ASPI to discredit this achievement, can you reflect on why you think ASPI has taken such a negative line and whether, in the final assessment, their campaign against China has been grounded in poor research and lack of objectivity?

There was a mistake in the question that was a result of accidentally writing what I intended for an earlier paragraph. I should have written “Indonesia shows a steady rise until 2018 when it starts to drop, against global trends.” In any case, this was a minor point, included to show that other large Asian countries still face a challenge.

In graphic form, this looks like:

The question goes directly to the issue that is obvious. Despite incredible expenditure and political posturing, the UK and US have been singularly unsuccessful in combatting terrorism while China, in contrast, has been spectacularly successful. Time to celebrate that one country has found a way of keeping its citizens safe.

My question was the first to be put but Katja Theodorakis, Head of Counterterrorism Program made the decision to censor it on behalf of ASPI and its sponsors – US arms manufacturers and two foreign governments – UK and US. One wonders how the ASPI program can be labelled as ‘counterterrorism’ when those involved in the program demonstrate contempt for real discussion on major successes.

In line with the dishonesty and complete lack of integrity that ASPI displays as its normal mode of operation, this launch proved to be a complete farce. As global conflicts and climate change make ever increasing demands on populations, providing ample breeding grounds for terrorism, ignoring successes and failing to properly analyse the basis of their success will be at our own peril.

Categories
General Modes of propaganda

Anatomy of disinformation

April 5, 2022, Malachy Browne and Dmitriy Khavin, New York Times

Video Captures Russian Forces Firing on Ukrainian Cyclist in Bucha – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

This is the opening line of the New York Times piece on the events of Bucha, a fine example of how ‘atrocity’ propaganda works. I would like to take you through the way that this piece constructs misinformation, mentally preparing you to accept the ‘atrocity’ narrative.

One might  mistake this piece for an objective analysis. The passive “committed” gives a sense that we might attribute the atrocity to either the Ukrainian or Russian forces. We anticipate balanced journalism.

But the next paragraph makes it clear who is to ‘blame’.

An important aspect of deceit is to say something true, early. Nobody can argue with this account. It is true. We can see it, there on the screen. The reader is lured into believing that ‘these authors can be trusted’.

So, we are now where the authors would like us to be – believing whatever it is they say.

Watching the video affirms the authors’ narrative. But the video is not simply a visual record. We are assisted to interpret the event by ‘helpful’ boxes around the protagonists and with ‘even more helpful’ labels.

For maximum effect, what should we be shown first? The victim, of course.

A lonely figure riding towards danger. Shades of Tiananmen Square. Now, already, a pre-frontal cortex used to questioning should ask a simple question – which I will get to later.

Next, introduce a sinister element to raise the drama.

Keeping a sharp focus here is important to persuading us of the intent. Too much context might cast doubt on what we are seeing. It is ‘best’ to firm up in the viewers mind who will be the ‘goody’ and who is the ‘baddy’.

Of course, context matters, immensely. Once again, a properly developed pre-frontal cortex is asking questions to understand how this would come about. More about that later. For now, let’s stick with amygdalin fear. Empathise with the weaker party. Suspend critical thought. Magnify the fear. This is a movie.

The hero dismounts.

But a single tank or armoured car is not enough for dramatic effect. We must establish that this is a great force prepared to trample all before them. The tension rises. We already know the outcome. Our tiny David has collided with Goliath.

A wide shot reinforces our sense of a large force. Inadvertently, our editors show us something that adds context. Can you see it? Well, so far, the framing leads us to view this as the ‘tanks rolling in’. Is there more we should know or see? Certainly, but I’ll get to that a little later.

A quick cut to the action, with suitable labels, to keep our mind on the narrative. ‘Person on bicycle’ is almost certainly doomed.

By holding our focus on these two participants, a neat piece of misdirection masks some of the critical elements of events in the next few seconds. I invite you to zoom in and also to freeze frame to find what the ‘magicians’ would like you to miss.

Finally, a sequence of shots suggests that the armoured vehicles ‘finished him off’.

So, returning to the first frames, let’s ask a question. We can highlight something different, like this:

Note that houses in this street appear to have regular shapes, with similar fences. The circled area is chaotic and appears to show destruction.

The rider ignores the destruction that is obvious and which might signal a warzone. Why?

So, why is someone riding a bicycle into a warzone? What causes them to dismount? Caution? Clearly, the ‘innocent victim’ knows that there is danger, seen in the destruction that they could not avoid seeing and demonstrated by their cautious manner. Someone oblivious to the danger would simply continue riding ahead. This person is literally riding into danger. Or simply didn’t care.

And why, if the aim of Russian soldiers was to shoot civilians, did the other armoured, which actually had line of sight, not shoot?

Another armoured car, shown circled in orange, has line of sight on the cyclist, but does not shoot.

Returning to the wider shot. The NYT photo helpfully highlights the extent of the traffic, but zooming in shows that these vehicles are moving AWAY from the action (we see the rear of the vehicles). As would be normal, a rear guard is ensuring the column are not suddenly attacked from behind (the six vehicles on Yablonska Street). Almost certainly, they would be more likely to fire than any other vehicles in the column. Given the position of the drone, we can be certain that the column is moving away and that not far from the drone, Ukrainian forces are advancing or firing.

Column moves towards the top of the picture.

Now look closely. At 22 sec, the video cuts, so we have no continuity on the cyclist or tank and we must assume this is sequential. As we might with any good novel or movie, we are invited to join the dots.

Another cut at 26 sec returns us to the ‘action’.  But something interesting happens at 29 sec. Before the cyclist rounds the corner, the armoured car fires. Here’s a video clip of it.

Incontrovertible proof that something was drawing fire before the cyclist reached the corner. The cyclist literally, clearly steps out into the line of fire!

The cyclist rounds the corner at 34 – 35 sec.  Almost instantly, at 36 sec, there is another shot. Less than 1 second to identify and shoot – if indeed there is even line of sight, which is doubtful. At 38 sec, another shot – and then an unexplained pan at 39 sec returning the focus at 43 sec, once again, losing the continuity.

What happened in these 4 seconds? We simply don’t know. A cut at 48-49 sec once again throws the continuity in doubt. What might the second vehicle be shooting at now? We are simply meant to assume that it is the cyclist. But how could we possibly know?

Notably, during the passage of these events, we never see the cyclist go down.

Significantly, the NYT omits a shot that would have completed spoiled their ‘atrocity porn’. Look at this section of the video, showing clearly that the cyclist is riding directly towards a line of vehicles.

But note, having created the plot through the video, how confidently the authors can claim:

It’s a plot we are meant to swallow; hook, line and sinker. It’s clear. Russian forces brutally murdered an innocent cyclist in cold blood. From this, we can claim ‘atrocity’.

This is well crafted ‘atrocity’ propaganda, worthy of a war movie.

Now let us consider one more factor. Imagine that there was continuity and that the shot before the cyclist turned the corner did not occur. Imagine that the shot was aimed at the cyclist, perhaps by the second vehicle.

A shoulder carried anti-tank weapon can be aimed and fired inside 3 seconds. The projectile explodes above the vehicle. Everybody inside dies.

I leave you with this thought. If you suddenly saw a figure appear 50 metres away, with an ambiguous shape caused by a bicycle, and you have 3 seconds to respond before being blasted into oblivion, what would you do?

 

Categories
Academic integrity Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Terror

Occasional shorts – #4

In this edition, I will take a detour from the new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato.

Today, I return to Michael Clarke, whose scholarly work underpins much of the reports and articles regarding China and Xinjiang. Of particular interest is Clarke’s “Widening the net: China’s anti-terror laws and human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region“. The central thesis of this paper, written in 2010, is that China has sacrificed human rights for security in relation to terrorism. Throughout the paper, general references to global initiatives related to terrorism do not use the ironic indicators of single quotes. For example, he writes

Domestically, the ‘war on terror’ has permitted China to not only deploy significant repressive force, in political, legal and police/military terms, to confront the perceived threat to Xinjiang’s security posed by Uyghur terrorism but also to establish the political and legal framework through which to confront any future challenges to state power.

Note the acknowledgement of Uyghur terrorism – indicated by the simple unironic adjective. Quite ‘accidentally’, on many occasions, Clarke affirms that terrorism may in fact be just that. However, in a most confused way, as Clarke begins to talk about China’s response, he uses (on 14 instances – there are many other instances of usage in phrases or other forms) the ironic ‘terrorism’, indicating scepticism.

Indeed, by the end of the paper, a reasonable reader would conclude that Clarke does not believe any terrorism at all had occurred and that Beijing had simply adopted a repressive mode, seemingly towards nearly everything.

Notably absent from Clarke’s assessment is a comparative analysis of counter-terrorist modes and counter-terror theory, probably due to the fact that this is certainly not his area of expertise and he speaks with no more authority than a CNN journalist. In particular, he is silent on the insidious influence of Salafist extremism that spread throughout Central and South East Asia. This silence, in view of his historical expertise, is unforgivable, and puts a large question mark on what he might be intending with this paper.

Also absent is any attempt to ascertain what Uyghur people might actually think of the policy. Like so many of the white men who speak on behalf of those in developing countries, ignoring their agencies, Clarke is happy to posit, without evidence, some kind of universal Uyghur identity that conveniently supports separatism, Salafist extremism and violent independence movements. In this paternalistic endeavour, Clarke joins fellow academics purporting to speak on behalf of Uyghurs.

Of course, Clarke’s thesis was demonstrated, in the subsequent terror attacks in Xinjiang, to be completely misguided.

My suggestion to Michael is that he “pull is head in” and stick to subject matter over which he has some control and knowledge and avoid the trend in academia to signal one’s liberal views by China bashing.

Categories
Academic integrity Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Replacement theory

Occasional shorts – #2

@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks. Here’s another taster.

Reference 22

title = Settler colonialism and the path toward cultural genocide in Xinjiang,

context = International experts agree that Uyghur militants exist in Syria and Pakistan in small numbers, but argue that they pose little direct security threat to China.21 That view is widely rejected inside China, where a mix of racial discrimination, settler-colonialism and an irrational fear of instability has driven Xinjiang policy in recent times.22

note = Michael Clarke, ‘Settler colonialism and the path toward cultural genocide in Xinjiang’, in Adrian Gallagher, Charles T Hunt, Cecilia Jacob (eds), Global responsibility to protect, Brill, Leiden, 2021;

comment = It is interesting to note Clarke’s change in language from 2007 to the present. In China’s Internal Security Dilemma and the Great Western Development: The Dynamics of Integration, Ethnic Nationalism and Terrorism in Xinjiang , the situation in Xinjiang was described as a ‘dilemma‘ which now becomes ‘cultural genocide‘, ‘in-migration‘ (usually recognised as ‘internal migration’ by geographers) becomes ‘settler colonialism‘, ‘ inter-ethnic relations‘ becomes ‘cultural genocide‘.

Clearly, Clarke is attempting to align his language with the dominant culture of academia in general where anti-China sentiment is high. Notably, Clarke is entirely sceptical about terrorism claims by China, with the majority of the usage of the term ‘terrorism’ in inverted commas indicating irony.

Like many of his peers, Clarke is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the lived experience of those members of Islam majority countries which have experienced bullying, intimidation, physical violence or homicide at the hands of extremists.

Categories
Deradicalisation Modes of propaganda Terror

Occasional shorts – #1

@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu, Leibold & Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks. Here’s a taster.

Reference 21.
Context

International experts agree that Uyghur militants exist in Syria and Pakistan in small numbers, but argue that they pose little direct security threat to China. 21

Note

Michael Clarke, ‘China’s “war on terrorism”’, in Michael Clarke (ed.), Terrorism and counter-terrorism in China: domestic and foreign policy dimensions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.

Comment

Apart from the vague “international experts agree”, not appropriate for any kind of scholarly or serious report, Clarke is not a terrorism or counter-terrorism expert. His expertise is history, which does not necessarily lend itself to understanding the practical problems with implementation of anti-terror programs.

He has no experience in security issues, nor has he served in a police service. He is also not an expert in surveillance or deradicalisation. It is doubtful that he has engaged with the lived experience of moderate Muslims who have been silenced, bullied, harassed and killed by extremists. (See interview with K in Beyond deradicalisation centres – Beijing takes a holistic and rational approach to poverty alleviation in which this lived experience is described after an interview with K)

Thus, his opinion is irrelevant and can be disregarded.

Additionally, his recent article, quoted here, is contradicted by his own words in 2017

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/bloody-isis-video-puts-china-in-cross-hairs

“It appears to be the ISIS group’s “first direct threat” against China, Dr. Michael Clarke, an expert on Xinjiang at the National Security College of Australian National University, told AFP. “It is the first time that Uighur-speaking militants have claimed allegiance to IS,” he added, referring to the group by its other name.

 

The video showed China is now “very firmly a target of jihadist rhetoric,” Clarke said, marking a shift from years past when it rarely figured in statements by global militant groups.

 

But Clarke said it also could indicate a possible split among Uighur fighters, as it includes a warning to those fighting with the Al Qaeda-aligned Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in Syria.” Clarke said the hints of a Uighur split could “intensify the threat to China” as it indicates Uighur militants may be able to tap into the capabilities of both ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Like so many of the references in this document, the full work of the source author is not considered. Clarke has, in the past, completely contradicted the claim in the report, but, like so many academics, has changed his ‘tune’.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Western media bias against China

Gutless wonder? (A lesson on how to write for The Australian)

This is a story about Liam Mendes, of The Australian, who wrote a hit piece on my friend Jaq James and his retreat on Twitter when confronted with some of the facts that contradicted his story.

Let me take you through the events.

Ostensibly, the piece was about Drew Pavlou, a supposed “human rights activist” running for the Senate in Queensland. I know that Queensland has had some interesting characters attempting to make their way to Canberra, including the infamous “Joh for PM” which failed miserably. Every Queensland over 50 knows what a joke that was.

I am looking forward to Pavlou’s campaign receiving the equivalent disdain from intelligent Queenslanders. As a teetotaller, I will happily raise a glass to it flopping. Pavlou’s claim to fame is, as he will happily inform you, that he has an enormous QC, apparently at his disposal, to go after anyone who isn’t nice to him.

Truthfully, I pity Pavlou and his ilk. Just as I pity that sad little band of men in Australia bleating about a mythical Uyghur genocide and about their disappointment that China defeated their dream of a ETIM Caliphate.

I imagine Drew is pissed off by not being able to join all those good ETIM chaps in training camps, waving guns around. Perhaps it’s his night time dream.

No, I’m sorry Drew, you’re just not cut out to be a terrorist. For your enlightenment (and also for our mate Mendes), here’s a real ETIM Uyghur terrorist. I hope I see your very public condemnation of this kind of terrorist – after all, you are a candidate for my state for the Senate, so I’d like to see that REALLY clearly stated.

ETIM terrorists cry “We’ll kill you all”
Description of ETIM mission

Looking forward to Liam Mendes writing the piece where you utterly condemn these people. And his denunciation of the sentiments expressed in this ETIM publication by a Uyghur activist.

Translation:

“Chinese insulted the religion and culture of the Muslims of Xinjiang by permitting nightclubs, and that’s why Noor Mohamed attacked one of these clubs in Kashgar and killed two Chinese whores in 7/9/2012”

(Islamic Turkestan magazine 2013)

Naturally, Drew will quote the words of Bashir, Shaykh (1 July 2008). “Why Are We Fighting China?”. NEFA Foundation.

“We are fighting China… China is an enemy who has invaded Muslim countries and occupies Muslim East Turkestan. There is no greater obligation, aside from belief in Allah, than expelling the enemies of Muslims from our countries…. We are fighting China to make them testify that ‘there is no God but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah’ and make them convert to Islamabad Muslims could only fight with swords, spears, bows and arrows, they would fight with them. When they were able to fight with firearms, rockets and bombs, they would fight with them also, relying on Allah and doing their utmost… In every single battle with the infidels or the apostates.”

He will, no doubt, in the up-coming disapprobation piece for Liam, make clear that he, in no way, supports these sentiments.

But, I digress.

In fact, Liam Mendes article was actually an attack on Jaq and Milton James. Jaq and/or Milton will probably reply to the hit piece – but probably not any time soon, as they have other important things to do.

Mendes thinks that one requires a cyber security expert to uncover a rumour. Clearly, anyone, including me, who has seen the tweet below can be implicated in a glorious ‘CCP’ conspiracy.

Tweet from Vicky Xu that Mendes didn’t want you to know about, where Xu calls Robbie Barwick a “stupid bald old fuck”

It’s odd to me that Mendes seems happy to say that “The exact figure soon found its way into a social media post by a pro-Beijing activist group run by two Australians” but can’t seem to bring himself to put it in context, nor ask Jaq what her source was. It’s clear that, for Mendes, the slur is more important than the context or the truth.

Seems like, from the article Mendes has written, that emails were sent as traps. I’m not a legal expert, but this kind of entrapment doesn’t seem to be lawful. Come on, Mendes. Reveal who the emails were sent to. Give your story an ounce of credibility. Or will you hide behind the skirts of “commercial in confidence” or some other bullshit?

“One of the pair believes the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is a hoax”.

This refers to Milton James’ article in which he deconstructs the whole Tiananmen Square Massacre myth.  Mendes, along with his fellow gullible Australians seems impervious to facts. Naturally, Robbie Barwick tweeted the response below.

This refers to the laughable history of the event exposed by the ABC. But never mind that. Now this tweet is ‘safely’ behind:

Twitter message showing Mendes response to Robbie Barwick’s tweet.

Of course, Mendes seems mute about this issue. If he acknowledges the comedy that Robbie indicates, he will have to retract his criticism of Milton and thence throw in doubt his narrative on Jaq and Milton.

Despite making a public statement about Jaq and Milton, Mendes can’t seem to summon the intestinal fortitude to respond to those who might defend them. No, he runs behind the skirts of a Twitter facility.

It would be interesting to know, in the description of the activity of Internet 2.0 and Robert Potter described as:

Emails with fake contracts that included a monetary figure she was to be paid for a book she was writing were sent from a burner email account to each activist. Each figure was unique to each activist to track the flow of the information.

After a cyber campaign targeting the activist community within Australia, Internet 2.0 assessed the commentary of pro-China Twitter to identify what information might be interesting to them,” chief executive and founder of Internet 2.0 Robert Potter said. “After seeing much speculation on the value of the book contract received by Vicky Xu, Internet 2.0 placed fake information within activist emails.”

whether Internet 2.0, Potter or Mendes have committed a crime under Australia’s laws on fake identities on-line. I intend to find out by reporting this to the Federal Police. I will be asking them to investigate whether anyone was involved in hacking Jaq’s email and whether this statement from Internet 2.0 might constitute an admission to such. After all, the only activists named are Jaq and Milton.

This piece of deceit continues. Having just referred to Jaq and Milton, Mendes returns to the original hack and makes unsubstantiated claims that they were ‘state actors’. An unwitting reader might connect these two statements. Read these below and see whether you would readily discriminate between the sentences about Jaq and Milton and the alleged ‘hack’ on Pavlou.

Milton and Jaqueline James did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Mr Potter said the IP addresses linked to the hack originated from mainland China, but the attack could not be confirmed to have come from a state-sponsored actor. However, it had the sophistication, and fitted the profile, of an attack by a state actor.

Now, read also how he switches rapidly between speaking about the alleged “pro-China activists” and “the remote logins” supposed to be part of the Pavlou hack. To make this clear, I will put the references to Jaq and her ‘pro-China activists’ in red and the references to the ‘hacking’ in purple.

“The data fits what was placed on social media by pro-China activists. Based on the uniqueness of the number, it appears the information has been shared with pro-China activists in one way or another,” Mr Potter said.

“The remote logins were from multiple IP addresses which shows they had preset cyber infrastructure for an attack. They had robust infrastructure and they bypassed his two-factor authentication,” he said

So, Mendes wants you, as reader, to mistake the anti-China propaganda activists he calls “pro-China activists” (and yes, I am one of them) with some alleged hacking of Pavlou. Any reasonable person would make an inference between the activism and the hack. This is clearly Mendes cynical intent.

I invite Mendes to clarify what he thinks the last quote refers to:

““It says a lot about the nature of Chinese power and global influence that they are trying to interfere in Australia’s democracy to undermine and attack their critics in this country, and they’re possibly actually carrying out illegal crimes to do it.

“This is a very clear case of Chinese interference in Australian democracy. They’re deliberately trying to undermine the credibility and genuinely attack and smear anti-CCP critics in Australia,” Mr Pavlou said.

If this is a reference to either Jaq or Milton, I hope they sue the sorry arse off both Mendes and Pavlou. Potter might be safely in another jurisdiction, but I think Pavlou and Mendes might be in for a shock about the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live.

Of course, I doubt that Mendes will come forward to clarify anything.

 

Categories
Modes of propaganda

The age of ‘shouting at the telly’ is over – our ABC

This week, Leigh Sales wrote an on-line piece, Bullying on Twitter has become unhinged. It’s time to call out the personal, sexist attacks lamenting the toxic environment of Twitter for ABC journalists. It is an extensive piece and deserves a rebuttal.

Once upon a time, journalists could spout any kind of story, remote from the audience response and, hence, ‘cocooned’ against criticism. It must have been a pleasant reality. But something happened on the way to the present – journalism was forced to grow up. New technologies radically altered the relationship. Now, audiences, for better or worse, could ‘strike’ back.

Having cut her teeth on an aging format of ‘attack dog’ journalism with no real accountability, Sales is now critical of those who might, in less pleasant ways, emulate her intensity. Woe betide the plebs revolt against the elite. Call out the guard!

As was apparent from the comments on a YouTube video of a (very long) conversation I had with my friend Daniel Dumbrill, many Australians are frustrated with and feel betrayed by the current culture dominating the ABC. What they expect is factual, nuanced and balanced journalism. What they get is David Speers SkyNews style gotcha questions on Insiders.

Really, Leigh? What might you have been expecting from an audience who, after years of having watched the ABC, now rejects its culture of bias and dishonesty?

This is no longer about perceptions of left and right. This is about standards that can be objectively measured. This is not about whether you personally had to endure “a politician [who tore] shreds off [you]”, but about whether that shred-tearing is justified by the truth of the matter. If it wasn’t justified, go tell him to fuck himself. If it was, learn from it.

No amount of anecdotal pleading can create a general ‘rule of engagement’ – face the fact that humans are deeply emotional primates with not enough constraining neurons. Read Sapolsky’s Behaviour: The Best and Worst of Us.

Then, this. Really?

It is that the bullying and harassment now comes, not in an occasional phone call from a real person, but at a furious pace on social media from politicians’ acolytes, lackeys, fans and proxies, mostly — but not always — operating anonymously. It is non-stop, personal, often vile, frequently unhinged and regularly based on fabrications. It has the effect of an angry phone call from a politician magnified thousands of times over.

A quick guide to Twitter survival. Goad the trolls. This brings them out, en masse. This is convenient for you, as now you have the comprehensive list you need to block en masse. Done.

But am I really giving this advice to a renowned journalist?

You mention David Speers. How do you explain his flippant criticism of Annastacia Palaszczuk’s success in keeping Queensland COVID free, while scant mention is made of Berejiklian’s dsytopic decisions? How long have I been in lock down? 2 days. I’ll say that again. 2 days. I’ll say it a third time, so that it can penetrate the emotional amygdalian interception and enter your frontal cortex. 2 DAYS.

The success of Queensland in maintaining normal life is unparalleled globally. And he has the nerve. The nerve. The arrogant disdain. Well might we say, “David, go fuck yourself” because that, without filter and finesse, is precisely how we feel. We are no longer the ‘shadows behind the screen’. Yes, we are living, breathing, thinking human beings who journalists choose to treat contemptuously.

You want a clear picture of the pressure you are feeling? Get a very large mirror and get ABC journalists to look into it. What I have discovered would make the producers of ABC’s past blanch, cower and cry.

My absurdly religious parents, now passed away, would quote to me “Be sure your sin will find you out.” (Numbers 32:23) Despite my fierce conviction as an atheist, I commend this to you.

Because I cannot leave this one on the cutting floor, let me expose you, again, to heat you don’t want.

One would imagine that in a democracy, restrictions on citizens’ movements and freedoms should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. One might also assume all citizens would welcome journalists’ questioning of such policies and indeed, view it as not merely desirable but essential. Such extreme measures may well be needed during a pandemic. There could be solid answers to every query about every policy, but the idea that such restrictions should be accepted unquestioningly, even during a crisis, is chilling.

What errant, libertarian nonsense. First, examine your historical understanding. In ancient democracies, the role of a dictator was recognised in moments of crisis. Yes, you read that right. Democracies appointed dictators. Because, as this pandemic has made perfectly clear, political maneuvering in a time of crisis is as close to fiddling while Rome burns as you will ever get.

Second, questioning policies is not looking for gotcha answers from the polity. It is something that we all do (oh, does this surprise you that we are capable of thinking too?). We don’t need your commentary. We don’t need interpretation from politicians. We don’t need presumption. What we need is reporting – plain and simple.

Thirdly, to imagine that there are ‘solid answers’ to, well, anything, is typical of the grand delusion of libertarianism. Once again, I commend Sapolsky’s Behaviour: The Best and Worst of Us to you. I challenge you to read that and then imagine what a ‘solid answer’ could possibly be like. No, that’s not rhetorical. I actually challenge you.

And, just so you know. Get a male colleague to write “Fuck off with your dog-whistling” to any prominent female on Twitter. Since you now have my email address, let me know what you discovered (Maybe warn them about what Twitter suspension looks like).

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Western media bias against China

Paid to demonise – the ABC (Part 3)

In part 2 of this series, I demonstrated how ABC journalist Beverley O’Connor led Adam Turan through an anti-China narrative, demonstrating no inclination to challenge that narrative. In fact, she ‘led the witness’, posing questions such as “So in your mind this is ethnic cleansing?”

Determining exactly what drives the anti-China culture of the ABC is not simple, but analysing the outcomes in terms of reporting is straight forward. Therefore, the ABC’s complete lack of self-awareness is puzzling (but not surprising).

In this part I examine, in parallel, an analysis of some recent stories which give a clear picture of the blatant framing of China in negative terms.

Don’t talk about the war, except when it’s China

We begin with two stories from fairly recently, where authorities have moved against large tech companies to try to rein in their power and influence. The stories are:

China’s crackdown on ‘powerful’ tech giants may be a ‘terrible own goal’

and

ACCC vows to pursue Google’s ad dominance, as tech giant threatens to remove its search engine from Australia

The negative theme of the China story is there, right off the bat. China has stupidly shot itself in the foot. On the other hand, our saviour, the ACCC is keeping us safe from those giants who wish to tread all over us.

Let’s look to how the language generates the negative perspective on China. Here’s a breakdown of the negative language in the article (yes, there is positive language as well, but for the sake of brevity and contrast, we will look first at negatives)

Frequent words

regulation / regulatory / regulator 10 crackdown 8
competition / competitive 7 risk 7
power 4 complacent 3
impose 3 anti-competitive 2
banned / banning 2 CCP 2
control 2 crack 2
fire 2 penalised / penalty 2
plunged 2 rival 2
tank 2 warned 2

Note the language of oppression in purple. Remember, the topic here is a state that is exercising its right to regulate the practice of tech giants. Note that the topic itself attracts a relatively high 7 instances, as might be expected.

I wonder, when we turn to the ACCC story, whether this kind of language will be apparent. Well, no.

pay 7 journalism 5
power 5 competition / competitors 4
free 4 force 3
push 3 threat 3
argue 2 critics 2
endanger 2 protectionism 2

Here we have some evocative language, but little reference to oppression. Instead we have “concerns”, “unreasonable” or “one-sided”. “Regulate” (and its derivatives) goes from 10 instances (China story) to one. Conflict is “argue” or “threat”.

Less frequent words

Try picking which of these is about China?

wiped, worse, accused, activists, addictive, advantage, alleged, allowed, alternative, attack, battle, blistering, blocked, casualty, caught, causing, collapse, compliance / comply, controversial, copped / copping, debacle, delay, dissenting, eliminating, enemy, exposure, forced, foreign, illegally, implement, inequality, infuriated, litigious, meltdown, mistake, monopolistic, oligarch, punished, pushed, retribution, shock, shot, submissive, surged, surrender, suspected, suspended, takeover, tensions, terrible, unpredictability warn, absurd, compensation, concerns, confront, defender, demands, disrupt, dominance, fires, floodgates, idiocy, mandatory, misuse, one-sided, regulation, strike, unreasonable, watchdog

One person’s free expression is another’s aggression

To be sure, this is an isolated instance. Really? Let’s look at another set of stories, about controversial Chinese artists.

Australian artist Badiucao’s exhibition finally shown in Melbourne after China ‘threat’ ordeal – ABC News Chinese artist behind doctored image of Australian soldier says he’s ready to make more – ABC News
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/badiucao-new-melbourne-exhibition-street-art-festival/11995456 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-01/doctored-image-of-australian-soldier-tweeted-by-chinese-diplomat/12938244
In 2019, Badiucao was awarded the Robert Russell Courage in Cartooning Award by the Cartoonists Rights Network International. The Chinese artist behind a doctored image of an Australian soldier holding a knife to the throat of an Afghan child has taunted the Australian Prime Minister, saying that he would make another artwork in response to being “scolded”.
This month, the art of Chinese dissident Badiucao has finally seen the light of day in Melbourne — more than a year after the Australian artist’s Hong Kong exhibition was cancelled due to threats reportedly made by Chinese authorities. Prime Minister Scott Morrison labelled the post “repugnant“, demanding it be removed and Beijing issue an apology.
Originally titled Gongle, the exhibition was supposed to be the kick-off event for Freedom of Expression Week in 2018, organised by the Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP), Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders. The image — created to criticise Australia over the damning Brereton war crimes inquiry — was posted on Twitter by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian on Monday.
Now retitled Made in Hong Kong, Banned in China, the exhibition features 19 works and sits at the entrance of The Facility in Kensington, where 150 street artists have taken over the three-storey, red brick warehouse and a 22-wagon freight train as part of Melbourne’s inaugural 10-day urban art festival Can’t Do Tomorrow. Mr Fu’s artwork has echoed China’s aggressive diplomacy style in recent years.
Art for the voiceless
 Mr Fu has called himself a “wolf-warrior artist”, echoing China’s aggressive diplomacy style in recent years.
His portraits memorialise dissident figures and defenders of human rights, and his withering satirical cartoons lampoon Chinese leaders for censorship, rights violations and abuse of power, rendering an Orwellian portrait of life under the Communist Party regime. The ABC has approached Mr Fu for comment.
Badiucao is prolific, responding to global political affairs with his pen without missing a beat. His posts on Monday received over 1 million views on Weibo, and his followers doubled to 1 million in two days.
Badiucao’s signature bold woodcut aesthetic references Communist propaganda art, but in fact owes a debt to German expressionist artist Käthe Kollwitz, known for her portrayal of the downtrodden, including peasants and working class people affected by poverty and hunger during wartime. Mr Fu created the controversial computer graphic on the evening of November 22, according to China’s state-owned media Global Times.
IBadiucao says that in the 30s, writer Lu Xun (considered the father of modern Chinese literature) introduced Kollwitz’s work to a group of Chinese left-wing artists who believed “art should serve society” and be a “form of expression for the voiceless” — sentiments the artist feels were lost when the Chinese Communist Party came into power in 1949. He said he had a sense of “fury and trembling” after reading news articles about Australian soldiers’ “brutal killing of 39 civilians” in Afghanistan, including an unsubstantiated account that described how “soldiers cut the throat of two 14-year-old Afghan teenagers with knives”.

This table, summarising only part of the articles, speaks for itself. Clearly this breath-taking double standard does not trouble Ita Buttrose or Gaven Morris, always happy to defend the indefensible.

Consequences for Australia

In cultivating this culture of smearing China, the ABC is exacerbating the difficulties in the Australia – China relationship. If this was simply a matter of disagreement, then it might not matter to Australians. But currently, jobs and livelihoods are being lost as the tit-for-tat conflict continues.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of addressing sources Modes of propaganda Western media bias against China

Mechanisms of hate and propaganda – the ABC (Part 2)

Last month, I exposed three layers of bias that demonstrated the deep seated anti-China culture permeating the ABC. A simple search showed how the ABC inevitably takes an anti-China posture in on-line news stories. The same can easily be demonstrated on their YouTube channel. Although the ABC continues to deny this, it is so easy to demonstrate that one wonders whether they actually care about balance any more.

A deeper dive into a podcast story showed a willingness to support a conspiracy theory thoroughly debunked, over and over again, by experts. Once again, the statistics don’t lie. The number of words supporting the anti-China narrative as a ratio to those countering the narrative was a massive 100:1. Not to mention the framing with a sinister photo.

A further, even more forensic analysis of a 4Corners program on China indicated the depths to which the ABC has sunk in terms of fairness in reporting. Not only was 4Corners highly selective in sources, framed the entire story to evoke sympathy for Australians, but it also ignored oceans of context that could be brought to bear on any of the points being made.

Of course, maybe no-one really gives a shit. Maybe Australians just want a dishonest broadcaster. That would be fine, except that disinformation actually hurts Australia’s prosperity and may ultimately lead to Australia sinking into irrelevancy.

I guess, in the end, I care too much about Australia to let that happen.

But, in this article, I am going to analyse the mechanism by which the players in anti-China, including the ABC, conspire to make you believe that China is really, really bad.

Leading the witness

Beverley O’Connor can be said to have ‘form’ when it comes to China. She has had long interviews with several key anti-China players, such as Adrian Zenz. In her interview with Zenz, she essentially allowed Zenz to speak minutes on end with no challenge. Certainly, there were no tough questions.

O’Connor outdid herself in an interview with Adam Turan. Normally, journalists would maintain a kind of plausible deniability (the art of distancing yourself from a source so you can later deny you said such and such – “they said it, not me”)

But, oddly, C’Connor engages in what is called in TV court drama “leading the witness”. It’s obvious and should be embarrassing.

Turan is giving what might be titled ‘testimony’ about the experience in internment of his relatives. He brings to the narrative a ‘before and after’ set of photos. Now, such click-bait tactics should be enough to alert an astute journalist and a critical reader to this tactic. How many before and after photos have we seen in propaganda rags, carefully selected to give a sense of a ‘great fall’ in the fortunes of a celebrity?

Despite this amateurish technique by Turan, O’Connor leads Turan with “Is there any doubt in your mind that he died as a result of what happened in those camps?”

Now, keep in mind that Turan DID NOT OFFER this reason. He simply said, “There’s a big difference between two yeah and there we see that picture, he was released and then it wasn’t long after that before he passed away.” There are any number of reasons for Turan’s father’s death, but none are offered. Instead, O’Connor leads us to a proposition that internment killed Turan’s father.

Even when O’Connor asks about possible terror activities, it is she, not Turan, who rephrases Turan’s words to give a benign take on his family’s activities.

Turan

From my parents raised four of us we went to Uni, started in the university in Xinjiang is Turkestan and all of us work for the government sectors so we never been involved any terrorist activities.

O’Connor

Just going about your lives like ordinary citizen.

So, no question about ETIM? “Were you ever part of ETIM?” “Did you ever produce or pass on radicalisation materials from ETIM?” “Did any of your family ever train outside China with the ETIM?”

No real questions. Just a continuation of the narrative.

But O’Connor really outdoes herself. Not content to write Turan’s narrative for him, she now calls on a conspiracy theory to enhance the impact.

Turan

… that was my last don’t call me again because I won’t be able to pick up your phone and she said I’m at the, she didn’t say police station, but she said a local council office too. The very helpful young guys like you helping me so assisting me teaching me not to pick up the calls from overseas.

O’Connor

Was it almost like a coded message to you?

Right, so the helpful advice from the guy at the local council (not police – Turan’s words) becomes a “coded message”? What next Beverley? Well, let’s go for “ethnic cleansing”.

Turan

It could be jailed, could be sent to the internment camps. That’s some one of these reasons that China is excusing, you know if you have family members overseas or if you contact if you contact with the people from overseas will be jailed. So they could be jailed. So that’s why they can’t directly contact with them.

O’Connor

Do you see what is happening there is some form of ethnic cleansing?

Did you see that? Internment and jailing = ethnic cleansing.

Now, Turan, as a non-native speaker, might be excused for not quite taking on the connotations of “ethnic cleansing”. The slaughter in Rwanda comes to mind. This is where O’Connor is leading the audience. The horrors of the realities of “ethnic cleansing”.

But, sadly for O’Connor, Turan is a little less sensationalist than she might have hoped for. He moderates this to “cultural genocide”. But there’s no holding back O’Connor in ‘leading the witness’.

“So they’ve separated them from their families and they want to re-educate them to be Han Chinese?” Yes, it’s this little gem. Create a category ‘Han’ to represent all other Chinese people and then accuse China of trying to turn everyone into a Han? What does this even mean? It’s sufficiently vague to be a coverall for any activity that Beijing might do that has a cultural component. I mean, China can build a high speed railway to Xinjiang and the reason can be “Well, that just means Han Chinese can get to Xinjiang more readily and dilute the local population.”

When Turan makes the absolutely laughable claim that the Xinjiang is “The worst human rights violations in human history” O’Connor just let’s that sit, unchallenged. So, Beverley, none of these well documented and verified atrocities came to mind – The Holocaust, Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles, Cambodia, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide, Dzungar genocide, Genocide in Bangladesh, Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War, Romani genocide, Darfur genocide, Bosnia, Queensland Aboriginal genocide, Canadian native children genocide, Rohingyas, Haiti, genocide of Aboriginal Tasmanians?

Sadly, neither O’Connor nor the ABC seem able to reach a level of slef-reflection to recognise both their active part in generating anti-China sentiment and developing consent for conflict with China. The only loser in this is Australia.

Categories
Anti-China Narratives Modes of addressing sources Modes of propaganda Western media bias against China

The anatomy of deceit

Turan

I don’t know Adam Turan. He’s probably a nice guy. He probably does very ordinary things like the rest of us. What troubles me is the message he peddles.

Try this one, for example. It’s fairly characteristic of his consistent support for an independent state in Xinjiang.

Now, note the question marks. These are not questions for which he is polling Twitter for responses. They are rhetorical. The answer is both in the question and in the retweet.

Turan is is employing a propaganda technique called plausible deniability. He can say, “Well, I was just quoting Roth, that well known boss of HRW. How was I to know that the statistics were dodgy?”

Plausible deniability requires that the information be plausible. Of course, the numbers quoted in Roth’s tweet are accurate. So, there’s the plausibility. Except that, without context, these numbers are completely deceitful.

Is this Turan’s intention or is he just happy to retweet misinformation without fact checking? I don’t know. It could be just confirmation bias. The numbers ‘sound’ like they support his ETIM inspired narrative.

I suspect Turan doesn’t care whether the numbers are in context, so long as they have propaganda value. I suspect that he knows that most readers will simply not dig deep to find the truth. They will take the numbers on face value and make the completely absurd, conspiratorial link to Xi Jinping.

Roth

Like Turan, Roth deploys the plausible deniability technique as well. After all, it wasn’t him, but a ‘reputable’ journal that makes this claim. Roth seems to think that presenting facts so they are deceitful is fine. Does make you wonder whether this is also applied to the reports from the organisation he heads. Balance, fairness, integrity of sources? Who gives a shit?

The quote comes from this source:

Between 2012 and 2020 the annual number of asylum-seekers from China rose from 15,362 to 107,864, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This increase has coincided with the rule of Xi Jinping. (The Economist)

Roth has deniability by retweeting the Economist, and plausibility because he knows the numbers are right – or at least, a quick check of the UNHCR proves it correct. But one element of the story is complete conjecture and Roth almost certainly knows that – the connection with Xi.

Sure, the word used is “coincided”. There you go. Deniability again. “I didn’t say Xi caused it.” But, as every media expert will tell you, simply juxtaposing two unrelated items creates a connection in over-active, pattern seeking human brains.

As Sapolsky so aptly illustrates in Behave: The Best and Worst of Us, “Was that a gun or a phone in that man’s hand when I shot him dead? In the moment, I simply reacted.” Here’s the thing. The associations the brain makes happen in the first second. It takes no time at all for any human brain to create a straight line between asylum seeking skyrocketing and Xi, regardless of the clever use of “coinciding”. After that, it’s a lot of effort for the frontal cortex to undo that connection. We are, literally, wired for associations, many completely unjustified and irrational.

Given Roth’s oversight of reports that roundly condemn China, this straight line suits him just fine. Why question this when you have plausible deniability?

Note how closely to follows this article:

According to UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures, the annual number of asylum seekers from China increased from 15,362 to 107,864 between 2012 and 2020. 613,000 Chinese people have applied for asylum in another country since Xi Jinping gained power at the end of 2012.

You see. It wasn’t me who said it. It was Wion. No need to check it out, to see if it is in any way deceitful.

What actually is the situation? Here’s the UNHCR’s take.

68% originate from just five countries.

 

More than two thirds of all refugees under UNHCR’s mandate and Venezuelans displaced abroad come from just five countries (as of end-2020).

 

Syrian Arab Republic 6.7 million
Venezuela 4.0 million
Afghanistan 2.6 million
South Sudan 2.2 million
Myanmar 1.1 million

(UNHCR statistics)

I guess, like me, you’re wondering why there’s no mention of China. Oops, how embarrassing for the Economist, who didn’t check sources. How awkward for Roth, who didn’t bother to put up the figures in context. How painful for Turan, when his narrative is blown out of the water.

The smear against Xi is the real point for Turan, Roth, The Economist and Wion. How does their little accusation stack up? Sadly, it’s bullshit.

Sorry, but this graph, straight out of the UNHCR database, while affirming the asylum numbers given for plausible deniability, actually shows China, in 2013, at Xi’s ascendency, from a base of about 2.5% of the world’s asylum seekers (about 25000 of 1000000), stay on trend with 2.5% in 2020 (100000 of 4000000). More telling, refugee numbers have pretty much stayed constant since Xi took power.

Indeed, the rise is asylum-seekers globally is dramatic. And troubling. And a cause for concern. Nobody is going to deny that. But when you find this same trend across country after country, an intelligent person says, “This is a trend beyond China. It has nothing to do with Xi.”

To illustrate this, take the data for Germany. Look at that. Almost identical trend. So, tell me, can we attribute this to Xi?

But, if you really want to be fair, 0.007% of China’s population (yes, across the whole country) applied for asylum elsewhere. No, the idea that there is a great rush of discontented people out of China is just bullshit. At most, it’s a trickle. Maybe not a figure China wants to boast about, but also not a figure that makes China really stand out. The data says so. The UNHCR has identified the top spots for discontent. You don’t get to simply pluck those figures out of their website and then make up a narrative to suit.

And data without a context is just lies – a deliberate choice to deceive. It doesn’t reflect on the data – it reflects on the author and the ‘retweeter’. It’s their integrity which we need to doubt.

So, if you want to draw a line between Xi and asylum seekers, take one of these two roads – make it fair, in which case you find Xi has no case to answer, especially in Xinjiang (for which there are no statistics) and that the numbers, while not wonderful, are, in context, entirely unremarkable.

Or, take the road of plausible deniability and construct a deceitful picture in which a coincidence becomes a cause, and an opportunity to smear.

I think you can see which road Turan, Roth, The Economist and Wion took.