Holding Media Watch to Its Own Standards

Let it be known, up front, that I consider Linton Besser a national treasure. His work is frank, honest and compelling. That’s why I will give him the respect of holding a torch to his blathering condemnation of China’s jailing of Jimmy Lai. And that will make this article longer than usual.

First, let’s consider the emotionally charged expressions in Linton’s story. No less than 1.13 per sentence, which puts this over the threshold for opinion into propaganda. Persuasion, not analysis or informed opinion. Here they are:

outrage, harshest, draconian, bogus, death, iron fisted, crackdown, sham, darkening, despondent, panicked, tectonic, criminalized, raids, jailing, closure, axed, plunged, bounty, grim, resisting

Let’s just deal with each in turn.

”Outrage as one of China's most vocal critics…”

I guess Linton means we should be outraged, but I also think that I should be the judge of what I’m outraged by. Build the case and I might want to come along, but suggesting outrage before the argument? And being a vocal critic of China puts you in the set of thousands, so nothing significant about that.

“the harshest sentence ever under the draconian national security law”

This is an interesting sleight of hand. Only 45 people have been sentenced. And the usual metric applied to evaluating a sentence is whether it fits the crime – one expects longer sentences for more serious crimes. But, quite unhelpfully, Linton doesn’t make clear what the weight of the charge is and misses an opportunity to inform us what the ‘usual’ sentence might be.

As to “draconian”, apart from being a top-level cliche, we have to be convinced that this security law is remarkable. As it turns out, nearly every country in the world has laws that seek to prevent foreign interest from affecting democratic rights. Australia’s Foreign Interference Offences (Div 92 of the Criminal Code) can result in a penalty of up to 20 years. Does that “20 years” sound familiar. Failure to register communications under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (FITS) (Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018) carries a 5 year prison sentence. Draconian anyone?

But in the Sinophobic culture in the ABC, China must be singled out for even very ordinary laws. But wait, there’s more.

“after a bogus trial…”

I’m guessing Linton draws on his long experience with the Chinese legal system to make this call. And what exactly does bogus mean, except “I don’t like anything Chinese”? There was a law, so that’s not bogus, there was a trial and, unless Linton is fluent in Chinese and has followed the trial, one wonders where he might have found something inauthentic.

But to be honest, Linton isn’t making a comment about legality – he's just airing the kind of mindless prejudice that Pauline Hansen loves to gift to Australians. He should and could do better.

“almost certainly a death sentence”

Here, I’ll go slow, so my audience and Linton can appreciate the absurdity of this statement.

A "death sentence," in its literal sense (like a terminal cancer diagnosis), implies a dramatic and predictable shift from a state of likely survival to a state of almost certain death. For an elderly person, the baseline probability of death from any cause within a given timeframe (say, the next 1-5 years) is already significantly higher than for a younger person.

Therefore, to call a specific event (like an illness, a fall, or a move to a care home) a "death sentence," one must prove that it significantly and dramatically increases the risk above and beyond the already substantial risk they face simply by being alive at that age.

But logic aside, this statement only has rhetorical value. Since the purpose is to smear China, why not put the idea of “death sentences” into the viewer’s head?

“amid Xi Jinping's iron fisted crackdown…”

Ignoring the redundancy of calling a crackdown “iron fisted”, one needs to ask, “What does Linton actually know about crackdowns in China? Are crackdowns on corrupt officials moral? How about those, like Jack Ma, who channel hard earned capital out of the country? Was Indonesia’s crackdown on the Bali bombers, shooting some extremists, immoral? When is a crackdown justified and when is it menacing? Of course, Linton doesn't really want to answer these kinds of questions.

Essentially, a crackdown without context is as meaningful as saying ‘cup of tea’.

So, a little history, Linton.

In the original protests of 1956, the British colonial government deployed the military. Roughly 60 people were killed and over 500 were injured. Quite a crackdown. Maybe you missed that one.

Then there’s the 1967 riots put down by the British forces using tear gas, wooden bullets, and eventually live ammunition during street battles. 51 dead. Well, I’m guessing you might call that a crackdown. And of course, a crackdown was needed, Linton, because they were left wing or pro-Beijing.

Then in 2003, the government tried to pass "Article 23," a national security law that residents feared would mirror mainland China's laws on sedition and subversion. On July 1, 2003, an estimated 500,000 people marched in sweltering heat. The government was forced to shelve the bill for over 20 years. This event established the "July 1st March" as an annual tradition of protest. So, this sets the scene for future protests.

But wait a moment. Half a million people protest and there’s how many deaths? Well, that would be zero. Seems that the Chinese influenced Special Administrative Region authorities just didn’t have the blood lust of their Anglo predecessors.

I'll say that again. Under British rule, crackdown meant shooting people. Under Chinese rule it meant backing down by the governing body.

And so, to the Umbrella Movement. 79 days. Can you imagine any government in the Western world enduring protests of beyond 2 days, let alone 79? We know that this protest had a lot of popular support and some characterised it as a festival, rather than a protest, widely cited as one of the most peaceful large-scale occupations in modern history. Zero deaths. And the antagonists, Tai – 16 months, Kin-man – 16 months, Wong 6 months, Wong 8 months. Sounds like "death sentences"?

So, that’s two out of two crackdowns that looked more like a picnic than anything “iron fisted”. Indeed. China has a long tradition of protest where police just stand around chatting to the protestors.

So, to 2019. Here’s where Linton and the rest of the western media set the beginning of history, because, well, China is bad and we don’t want to include the good China.

Out of the two million who protested, how many died?

Before we answer that, let’s get another modern setting. New Caledonia, 2024, proposed constitutional amendment to change local voting rolls and 27000 people protest. 13 dead. That’s one person for every 2000 protesters. And for the year-long protest in Hong Kong? One person for every one million protestors. Two dead, one from pro-democracy protestors caving in the head of an old man.

I think you’re getting the picture here as to why Linton’s statements can only be described as rhetorical nonsense. You know, the stuff propaganda is made of.

And one wonders why Linton’s narrative seems to be missing demonstrators setting someone on fire, vandalism, physical assaults and attacks on police. “But,” I hear Linton splutter, “What of those PLA soldiers on the border?” Well, much to the chagrin of the assembled western press and right-wing politicians from Anglo countries, no bloodbath ensued, and those soldiers tidied up the mess.

But Linton isn’t quite finished with his apologetics for the US Empire.

Some though are fighting on at great personal risk, like Tom Grundy, a British journalist running an outlet called the Hong Kong Free Press, who in continuing to print hard-hitting stories, is among the very few willing to tread a very fine line.

You know, the white foreign guy holding the western ‘thin blue line’ against the ‘yellow peril’. What a hero. I wonder if Linton actually knows the HKFP was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy – read “US Congress". I wonder if he has read this quote from one of the key founders of NED, Allen Weinstein, who said in a 1991 Washington Post interview:

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

Yep. And we are all conversant with how liberal the CIA has been and hence, what its ‘lovechild’ might have as its agenda.

The NED funds National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), two organisations central to understanding how the National Endowment for Democracy operates.

And NDI’s leaders? Does the name Madeleine Albright ring a bell? You know, this Madeleine Albright.

1996. 60 Minutes interview. Correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Albright about the effects of the US led UN sanctions on Iraq, which were intended to pressure Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Tom Daschle - supported the authorisation for the use of military force in Iraq.

With the NED, you get the propaganda that sanitised the obscenities of US intervention across the globe.

I hope this isn’t going too deep for you, Linton. And the IRI? Well, let’s no labour the point. But, just to end on a positive note, one which might help Linton to do better next time, a quick canvas of the obligations of ABC reporters – seems to me to be relevant to a show called “Media Watch”.

ABC Editorial Policy Requirements

Impartiality and neutrality, ABC Editorial Policies, Section 4.1: Impartiality:

“The ABC must ensure that factual content is accurate and presented with due impartiality.”

Section 4.2: Avoid conveying personal bias

“The ABC must not unduly favour one perspective over another and must not present opinion as fact.”

Distinguishing fact from analysis or opinion

Section 4.3: “Analysis, commentary and opinion must be clearly distinguished from factual reporting.”

Use of language and tone

Section 2.1: Accuracy and precision

“Content must be presented in clear, precise and neutral language.”

Section 4.4: Avoid emotionally loaded or inflammatory language

“The ABC should avoid language that unnecessarily conveys judgement, exaggeration or emotional bias in factual reporting.”

Avoid exaggeration or alarmist framing

Section 2.2: “The ABC should not overstate or exaggerate claims and must ensure appropriate context.”

Here’s the list of sad breaches.

“the harshest sentence ever under the draconian national security law”

"draconian" is a value judgement, not a neutral descriptor. It violates “neutral language” and introduces editorial characterisation into factual reporting. The neutral equivalent would be “under the national security law” or “under the controversial national security law” (if attributed to critics).

“after a bogus trial convicted him”

“bogus” asserts illegitimacy as fact. This is a serious editorial judgement, not a neutral factual claim. ABC policy requires attribution and so the proper ABC-compliant phrasing would be “after a trial critics described as bogus”.

“amid Xiinping's ironfisted crackdown”

“ironfisted crackdown” is interpretive framing. ABC policy requires neutral language such as “amid increased government restrictions”, unless attributed.

“represents another darkening of the territory's once famous freedoms”

“darkening” is metaphorical emotional framing. This is commentary, not factual reporting.

“panicked response to these tectonic protests”

Two emotionally charged words, “panicked” and “tectonic” assign emotional interpretation and magnitude. The neutral equivalent would be “response to large protests”.

“the steady dismantling of democratic norms”

“dismantling” is interpretive and evaluative, not strictly factual. The neutral alternative would be “changes to democratic institutions”.

“Beijing's utter disregard for free speech and civil rights”

This is a direct assertion of moral judgement presented as fact. ABC policy requires attribution. The proper neutral version would be “critics say Beijing has disregarded free speech”

“the most frightening of cautionary tales”

This is explicitly emotional and persuasive language, not factual reporting. This clearly falls under editorial commentary or analysis which should be supported with substantial evidence, requiring substantial research and substantial contextualisation.

It is actually not very difficult to write something that falls within the guidelines. Here’s my advice, Linton. First, do your homework. Second, distinguish between facts and assertions. Third, if you are tempted to use hyperbole, run your story through any AI and ask it to review for clarity and expression and alignment to ABC guidelines.