I think this article is pretty good because it brought a lot of various perspectives. Each one thinks differently, which allows comparisons and for us to think more deeply about things. Apparently some of you started comparing this to the West condemnation in another thread, so I'm not gonna post it there.
I think the article summed up a lot of views and they are almost all very valid. My thoughts regardless, is not an attempt to justify wrong action, but to see how they formulated. First of all I'll say we have to admit that yes there's a double-standard, which I'd think can be considered a form of discrimination. This also stems from a hard cold reality that it's true most of the First World don't like China and Russia or authoritarian states with questionable human rights record. The impression is in there, and as tragic as it is for violence to occur in these countries or countries elsewhere, those states will have more sympathy for countries more like them or endorse more common values than one with less. Again that's not to say what they're doing is right, but my theories on how/why this formulated. Second, the attacks in the West lately had been the relentless ISIS, which is probably the most evil organization to ever exist in human history. When you pit the worst evil to what the First World endorsed the most, which is freedom of speech or journalists, then the contrast is even bigger of evil slaughtering "the good". China's been seen as an oppressor of free speech media, human rights, cultures, ethnics, religions by the First World, so obviously the Western media don't like China. Combined with having a state-controlled media which produces essentially government-authorized messages, I'd also think the foreign press are very skeptical, if not nearly believe the opposite or not trust what was produced by a formal government mouthpiece. This is why I do think these kinda things, such as state-media and having a controlled outlet of information to only government-authorized messages, play a huge role to the hindrance of understanding between China and the outside world. However I do think the biggest factor being the mutual dislike and prejudice of each other, both by CCP and the foreign press, and how essentially is a war between both sides. They each contribute to one side of a story with minimal middle ground, not to mention there aren't really much independent reputable sources known for objectivity and inside stories. For example, the Western press will cover very partial content and often possessed writing style which are explicit in their bias, while from the Chinese side it's even more explicit that the views are sympathetic to government-approved canned viewpoints. It's also important to address the terrible journalism and discrimination and double standard displayed by the foreign press during the coverage of China, which contributes to growing Nationalism and need to protect the state by the Chinese public. One side's unfair treatment contributes to the even more sensationalized sympathy to their own country and nationalism. In a sense, I'm more sympathetic and understanding why the Chinese public feels that way in those times because I think what the West does is also very despicable too, but at the time same I'm very aware of the growing amount of irrational or overnationalistic, sinocentric sentiments within China, which sometimes are promoted by CCP as well. Regardless, I do think the First World carried more prejudice when judging China and continued to carry a strong belief of prioritizing oppression resulting violence as the reason rather than accepting China is just as equally vulnerable to terrorism as other First World states. This, I believe again, might be because they do believe the oppression in China towards minorities and ethnic groups and religion are ongoing and real, which in a sense is but probably not as massive and forefront as they believed.
As for the remaining of the article, I do believe that Charlie should be more careful/politically correct with their productions, as cultural respect and appropriation is very important, but using "why freedom of speech should be limited" is a very terrible way to put it. If Xinhua was intending to take a side attack of freedom of speech, then they obviously attempted to seize this opportunity to justify and express it, but to fail. This is not to mention the questionable intent that Xinhua would be genuinely concerned for the quality of freedom of speech, which is voiced by that editorial's conclusion of "limits" and even mocking "freedom" in the final statement . This, I feel, is why Hu is also right for saying Xinhua is not respected as much by counterparts. Also, Fan Zhongxin also expressed very well the distance between China and the rest of the world.
The last paragraph of the article is also quite right. The last time some major march occurred in China generally was very politically-slanted, such as anti-US or anti-Japan marches. As big as they can get, these are seen as very politically motivated to the interests of the state than a social movement of public welfare and sentiments. There is also again, by the West, that much of these movements would have been orchestrated officially, which does water down outside sympathy. This, imo, is how I think the outside sees how closely the Chinese public had been blended with the official party stances, or a lack of understanding/failure to distinguish the public from the official stances, or the plights/disadvantages when the public seemed to associate too closely to a regime known/stereotyped to be a great manipulator of public sentiments. And yes, it doesn't help when public sentiments voice opinions that sometimes rung too close to what the officials have to say. Even if what the public say is legitimate, I'd say the mere presence of a regime hated by the outside and seen as abuser of human rights and lies and what not, is enough to water down the opinions of public to be seen as independent thinking, even if they really are independent. Again this has to do with prejudice. I'd say it's quite similar to a son/daughter voicing an opinion said by the father with a history of abusive behaviors and lies and manipulation and coverup. Even if what they said are true and legitimate, because no one believed the father anymore, therefore for the sons/daughters to echo what the father said is almost ineffective. For such perception to change, the West would have to see CCP demonstrating positive actions of acting up to its past such as Tiananmen, making PR moves such as apologizing for past behaviours and oppression, and even being received by figures formerly known to be the victims of oppression. However of course since there's almost no way in hell will CCP do this sort of thing, therefore I'd say the perceptions and such are almost certain to be here to stay.
Finally, I'd say that there's an element of China and the public being too concerned with state development and interests, they either barely pay sufficient attention to the outside perception of themselves, or not care to change, or if even worse, demand an amount of entitled respect and attention from the outside world to their being simply for China's growth. While it's certainly legitimate to say that China is very important and shan't be ignored and should show greater attention to the country's development, it's even more important to understand PR matters and also that China, again, as neither is US, the center off the world. While it's easy to accept and understand that one's great devotion/emphasis, value, concern to their own country would make them put their home country at the forefront or think of it first and be reminded constantly, it's even more important to not be too ethnocentric. The spotlight doesn't always have to be shown at your place. Not everything has to be about China or China's well-being. Social bonding includes solidarity with others and genuine empathy without placing self-interests on the table. This is what I'd think that people need to be reminded of. Finally, even more important is the amount and type of publicity and PR the relevant image of an actor/state is associated with. This can influence the types of reactions, attitudes, stories, connections the actor is associated with. In other words it's stereotype. While again the world can do better than live off stereotype, it's a psychological function still prevalent in this world, therefore it can be used to one's advantage for great PR purposes. Countries such as Canada are perceived well or stereotyped for being nice and open, Japan for quality products and some other positive traits but more negative within East Asia, Russia as very hardlined, America as what it sells itself in addition to the negative bullying image for its foreign policy, and finally China for what we already know, but also as an economic powerhouse. This is why we will continue to see articles related to China to be usually negative unless it's about economic development. Sadly, that's also how the outside world perceives China; aside from the desire for the economic opportunities it provides, there's not enough likeable PR.
All of this, of course, is if we hold to constant the other variables and factors such as xenophobia, sinophobia, genuine dislike/hate that exists amongst certain groups outside of China. However it is important to be reminded it's not healthy to genuinely believe the world hates China to the guts for simply the purpose of hating, which is also unrealistic. And even if the outside world does dislike China for some reason (and not the unrealistic notion of blind hatred/jealousy that some ethnocentric, jingoists believe), question should also then be, why do they do so?
