Time China Blog Boycott Called Off Because Coal Matters
Fifteen days ago, I did a post calling for a boycott to begin in two weeks against Time's new China Blog, unless it did SOMETHING. I gave it some time because it was new.
I concluded that post with the following call out to the Time Blog:
So Time -- get bloglike or go home. More advice: if you want to tell people CLB has it all wrong about you, do a post entitled: Screw China Law Blog. I dare you.
Time completely ignored me, which, at least to a certain extent, confirms my accusation (and many of those who commented on my post) that Time ignores the Chinese blogosphere. My complaint on this was that its posts were written as though they were revelatory even though other bloggers had already written on the same thing.
Since I called for the prospective/potential boycott, Time's China blog has put out more posts like those I criticized in my initial post, including one on how nice the flowers are in Beijing in winter and a shockingly long piece on putting ginger in hot coke.
But, interspersed with the extreme fluff, there were also a number of really good posts by Simon Elegant and Susan Jakes on journalism in China and on recent events involving China's coal industry. These posts took full advantage of the kinds of sources one would expect Time to have in China and they were original and insightful. Most importantly, no olds appeared to have been barred.
So, no boycott necessary.
Time China Blog, welcome to the China blogosphere.
Comments (24)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endChris - January 28, 2007 9:30 AM
I've been thinking about this a lot since your original post a fortnight ago. Time's blog has gotten better, and I think it will continue to do so, with or without coal.
I think a boycott would have been the wrong approach, though, even if it hadn't improved. As you said on my blog, "My biggest fear is that it won't be ignored; it will be read by China neophytes who are not reading anything else and they will start to view China as a cute place with things like its own hot toadies (yes, this was a post)."
That got me thinking. If it were boycotted by the China blogosphere but treated as the valuable resource it isn't by everyone else, it would just continue doing exactly as you feared it would.
We should fix it, all of us out here, fretting and typing and figuring this country out. I'm not saying take it over, but certainly flood the comments and point out vagueness and errors, or just pose questions and try to tease out more life or enthusiasm or something from the posts.
If Time doesn't want to get into the blogosphere, the blogosphere ought to (peacefully) invade its China blog. Not out of spite, but out of absolute necessity. Time is a major news resource. It ought to be useful for someone.
Like I said before, there's more at stake here than Technorati rankings.
There is some evidence that they'll listen:
http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/01/keeping_us_real.html
China Law Blog - January 28, 2007 7:14 PM
Chris --
You raise some very good points. Let's do it. And let's get the other bloggers out there who know whereof they speak on China (and not just flowers and hot spiced drinks) to do the same. But, before we do that, ponder this: My PARENTS read this post, and then went back and read my initial post on this and then e-mailed me saying "I don't know why you were surprised that they had nothing of substance in their blog. Time magazine doesn't either."
So would trying to make them go straight be a hopeless cause? Or, might our comments have an impact even if Time's Blog remains the same?
People?
chriswaugh_bj - January 28, 2007 8:44 PM
Well, they have shown promise, and it may perhaps be worth trying, but....
The comment threads are worse than the blog itself.
And your parents are right.
China Law Blog - January 28, 2007 10:17 PM
chriswaugh --
You are right about the comments and my parents are pretty much right about Time Mag. So what do we as bloggers do?
Think I will do a post on this and see what people think. Think I will bring people like you and Chris (over at Eyes East) and others to assist.
This was not the case one I first called for the boycott, but I am starting to get pissed off at how many people are commenting. Yes, I am jealous that Time can put up such complete fluff and within weeks have a huge number of adoring readers when we all have to struggle to be heard. It's late, I've been working hard. Think I will sleep on this one.
chriswaugh_bj - January 29, 2007 6:53 PM
Well, I think Chris of Eyes East has a good idea, and on a couple of occasions I have considered leaving a comment or two there, but most of the time I just can't stomach the thought of wading through those threads.
I don't know how Time built up such worldwide credibility, it really is very second rate as a news source, but it's even worse that these guys are now using Time's credibility to foist this rubbish on us all. I'm just a foreign teacher with a habit of rambling incoherently and occasionally ranting about what I see around me, I long since gave up any hopes of fame or fortune, and I have no idea what we can really do about the Time blog or what we can realistically hope to achieve, but I'm interested in Chris' idea. Maybe, at the very least, we could drag some of Time's traffic away to better sources of information.
China Law Blog - January 29, 2007 9:04 PM
chriswaugh --
I beat you to it, and now I regret it. I read the most inane (and long) article on a Chinese fruit market (how many of these are they going to do) and I just couldn't take it any longer. I mean, it was as though they were explaining that China has fruits and vegetables and wonder of wonder, those little people have come so far they now have "two kinds of arugala." Gee, China is just like Scarsdale.
I had to say something. I just had to, so I said this:
"I just had no idea China had fruits and vegetables and even fish and I cannot thank you enough for proving it with pictures. And now even 'two different types of arugala.' Will wonders ever cease?"
But now I realize that I sound like an ass (probably because I was one) and I have sworn off the blog for a couple of weeks. I am actually feeling bad because (and I was shocked by this) it went right up there without moderation.
So sorry Time.com blog.
I'm no good with crusades and I'm no good at being patient either. I'm just going to let Time's blog exist in its own separate world.
Can you do better?
nh - January 30, 2007 9:36 AM
Yep, I think you just have to let this one be.
I think it says something about how the mainstream media are paying more and more attention to the blogosphere. And, its just inevitable that they will come in with this kind of rubbish. At the end of the day, no one has a monopoly over what gets put on the internet.
China Law Blog - January 30, 2007 10:16 AM
nh --
You are right. It reminds me of a few years ago when I went out to dinner with my wife and complained for about the first half hour about how a client of mine had referred another company to me and then that company had hired another lawyer before I even had a chance to talk with them. My wife finally said, "I have never seen you this way, you never talk about this stuff." I sat back and thought for a minute and then was able to enunciate why I was so mad. I was so mad because I had not lost out to a firm who knew what it was doing, I had lost out to a firm that had handled this sort of matter only once (the previous time my firm had a conflict) and had called me about ten times for help as the case was progressing AND had already botched this matter for the client. I realized that if the work had gone to a firm I respected, I would have said, "darn" or some other version of that word, and moved on seconds later.
It's the same thing with Time's China blog. It just frustrates the heck (or some other version of that word) out of me to see them coming into our space (and by our, I am including all the Chinese bloggers who work hard on their blogs and deeply care about their blogs) and just spew out nothingness to a huge audience.
But I have better things to do with my time than worry about Time's blog and I am proud to say that since leaving my snide inappropriate comment that reflected badly on me I have not gone back there and I have no plans to do so.
It is dead to me now. Dead, I tell you.
chriswaugh_bj - January 30, 2007 6:58 PM
I saw that fruit and veg market post, read the first two or three sentences, scanned enough to see the "And look! They've even got Western stuff now too! Clever little Chinese!" comment and immediately went elsewhere before I puked on my keyboard. I mean, the hassle of having to clean my keyboard just isn't worth the deep trauma of wading through such inanity. So, yeah, I too am doing the internet version of biting my tongue. I'm still going to keep glancing at it every now and then in the hope, however vain, that they'll actually throw up a post or two worth commenting on, but I'm not holding my breath.
Coree T. - January 31, 2007 12:11 AM
"It is dead to me now. Dead, I tell you."
- China Law Blog
Hmmm, then I suppose you don't want to see any of the scintillating, insightful, well-written follow-up comments to your post. In case you do, I've listed them below. If case you don't, stop reading now (if you can)!
"I just had no idea China had fruits and vegetables and even fish and I cannot thank you enough for proving it with pictures. And now even "two different types of arugala." Will wonders ever cease?
"Posted by: China Law Blog | January 29, 2007
"I thought all China veggies were red due to some state decree, but the many hues in evidence in your photos show China is really opening up. Pass me an eggplant, I say!
"Posted by: Wide-eyed Foreigner | January 30, 2007
"Please do tell where the market is located for those of us living in Beijing!
"Posted by: M Gourley | January 30, 2007
"Gourley,
"It's all cabbage. That's the magic of photoshop.
"Posted by: Wide-eyed Foreigner | January 31, 2007
By the way, Time is getting all the credit for this blog, when the Web site clearly shows CNN is a partner.
China Law Blog - January 31, 2007 10:28 PM
chriswaugh --
Thanks for checking in. Good to see I am not the only one going crazy on this.
China Law Blog - January 31, 2007 10:29 PM
Coree T -
Thanks for filling me in. I'm going to assume that the Red state comment was (like mine) meant as sarcasm, right? How bout the guy asking where the market is?
Coree T. - February 2, 2007 2:17 AM
Things are picking up on the Time / CNN blog.
Did you know that the English on some signs in China is not only inaccurate, but also quite funny? Like a sign at a park for ethnic groups which says "Racist Park"! Even Time's offices have wacky English signs, like one above the toilet that says, "Deposit blog," when it should say, "Deposit log" (wait, I think I got that backwards). Crazy, crazy signs and we are only noticing it now!
The most recent comments on the "there's more to a market in China than cabbage" story:
(1)
"Do they have cabbage or is it considered passe now?
"Posted by: Wide-eyed Foreigner | February 1, 2007
(2)
"How come no one from time ever answers the questions? Isn't interaction kind of the POINT of a blog?
"Posted by: Wide-eyed Foreigner | February 2, 2007
China Law Blog - February 2, 2007 8:32 AM
Coree T. --
Thanks for keeping me updated. I am definitely enjoying it, though it makes me feel like the guy who won't look at the car wreck, yet makes someone explain in graphic detail what is there.
That is fascinating news about English language signs in China. Not only did I not know that, but I would have thought that all signs would be perfectly translated. I am just surprised such a thought provoking and timely post has not made it into the magazine's hard copy.
And, here's something you didn't know, in Korea, one sometimes encounters Kanglish. Imagine that!
PS -- Since banning Time's blog from my repertoire, I am certain my blood pressure has declined.
Coree T. - February 3, 2007 5:10 AM
You already knew about the signs!?
Well, then, how about this? Did you know there are "fakes markets" in Beijing that sell everything from pearls to toys to shoes to DVD players, but not real ones, FAKE ONES!? Even, states the Time / CNN blog, "Rossignol ski jackets complete with authentic looking glossy printed cards that explain the virtues of their superior Gore Tex weather proof exterior and Thermic Comfort insulation that uses technology first developed for the Space Shuttle or whatever, all set off with detailed cutaway diagrams."
Even better, the poster writes about breaking the law by buying some fake Timberland boots. Guess what he found out? The fake ones aren't as good as the real ones!
The whole post gave me an idea: what if the Time / CNN blog is fake? I mean it *looks* like a blog but, like most fakes, when you look closely the quality is pretty crummy. Simon and Susan et al might not even exist as journalists, maybe those are just photos from some singles website, and maybe the posts are just taken from other blogs are pumped through babelfish a few times.
What would Ted Turner say?
China Law Blog - February 3, 2007 7:54 AM
Coree T.
Please, you are tempting me too much. Are you really saying China is out there producing fake products and there is even a market that sells them? I cannot believe any of us could claim to have known that without the help of the Time blog. I'm betting these findings are the result of a 3-6 month undercover investigation mounted by 2-3 of their best reporters. I see cover story material.
Interesting theory about the whole blog being a fake. Certainly warrants further investigations as every day I become more convinced that the people writing it cannot really be journalists. Their purported names do seem to come straight out of a Bond movie and since none of them have displayed any personality on the blog yet, the idea that none of them really exist is viable. And why do they never respond to any of the comments?
On the one hand, I'm thinking it is a CCP front. I mean, they are obviously trying to give us the softer side of China by trying to convince us one can buy fruits and vegetables there, including two kinds of arugala! But, if it is a CCP plot, why the post on fakes? Bring in tourists? Trick us into believing it is not a CCP backed front?
I just don't know anymore.
chriswaugh_bj - February 3, 2007 9:49 PM
I think we've stumbled across the perfect method for dealing with the Time China blog.
China Law Blog - February 4, 2007 3:09 PM
chriswaugh --
You think?
Coree T. - February 5, 2007 6:13 AM
Guess which revelation is made in the newest Time / CNN blog post?
1. China has 5,000 years of history
2. Where just a few years ago there were rice paddies, there now exists a science park
3. It sounds like Beijingers put an "r" at the end of many words
4. The Year of the Pig is just one of the 12 stages of the Chinese horoscope
5. If you start digging a hole in Beijing and keep going you won't end up in Minnesota, but instead will die a horrific fiery death when you hit the center of the earth, a death that many experts say is less painful than spending 15 minutes reading the Time / CNN blog.
Guess! C'mon! (Answer below)
By the way, I love the end of the Time / CNN post on Chinabounder:
"I may be overly cycnical, but to me it all is a little too deliberate and smacks of an attempt to rile up the brittle nationalism that recalls the Starbucks in the Forbidden City affair. [Pathetic / illogical attempt to make link to one of the Time blog's earlier posts]. At one point at the height of the Chinabounder controversy, someone claimed that the blog was actually an invention by some performance artists. This latest post makes me think that might be correct [Uh, why?]. Stay tuned for the inevitable (?) reaction. [Hmmmm, the question mark intrigues me and compels me to - as that under-worked phrase goes - "stay tuned.]
The answer to my initial question is: none of above. But you can bet these revelations are forthcoming (except for number 5).
China Law Blog - February 6, 2007 1:19 AM
Coree T.
I actually thought the answer would be all 5 were true. Silly me, I actually underestimated the blog.
That does sound like a good end to a post I refuse to read. The question mark is clearly the key. I get the sense it is a snobby, kind of all knowing question mark, meant to imply that the writer (as a world class journalist) has some sort of knowledge we regular folk don't have. A sort of wink-wink thing.
That Chinabounder thing is actually pretty intense and if anything, it makes me think it was not performance art. Somebody has some serious rightous anger there and that ain't a group art thing.
Coree T. - February 6, 2007 5:53 AM
CLB,
I was having fun with these exchanges, but now today's Time / CNN post - a 761 word follow up on a previous piece about wacky English signs in China - has destroyed my spirit and will to post on.
In responding to "a lot of commentary" (er, 10 comments) about her original post, the author somehow manages to alternatively come off as hokey, condescending and utterly incoherent. (Actually, if intentional, that would be an impressive feat.) I pulled out 30% of my hair and chewed off three fingernails. I've got to give up the Time / CNN blog for the sake of my health, I'm telling you!
China Law Blog - February 6, 2007 10:40 AM
Coree T. --
Do NOT go back. It is too dangerous and just not worth it. I should have realized you were slipping with your last comment with the five choices. That was not normal. Not at all.
I will note for the record, that I never asked you to keep reading the blog, either implicitly or explicitly. I will further note that you knew exactly what you were getting into by continually going back as I and many others had issued sufficient and clear warnings of the risks. You are over the age of 18 and you chose to assume any and all risks, express or implied.
I wish you well, but you are on your own on this one.
Coree T. - February 6, 2007 5:13 PM
Actually, I'm only 9 years old, but points well taken. Hate to break it to Time / CNN, but even us fifth graders could do a better job on that blog...
China Law Blog - February 6, 2007 11:21 PM
Coree T. --
Now now.