{"id":119866,"date":"2014-05-21T06:33:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-21T06:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?guid=ee91d36001a141ff5612bea0d172efae"},"modified":"2014-05-21T06:33:00","modified_gmt":"2014-05-21T06:33:00","slug":"irresponsible-scoundrel-media-china-bashing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/irresponsible-scoundrel-media-china-bashing\/","title":{"rendered":"Irresponsible Scoundrel Media China Bashing"},"content":{"rendered":"
Irresponsible Scoundrel Media China Bashing<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
by Stephen Lendman<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Media scoundrels march in lockstep with Washington’s worst policies. They do it egregiously. They do it irresponsibly. They do it ad nauseam.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They’re virtual government house organs. They twist vital truths to fit US policy. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They’re bashing China. They’re piling on. It followed reprehensible Justice Department charges. A separate article discussed them.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Washington never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to engage other nations responsibly. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Polar opposite polices substitute. They’re standard practice. Washington rules alone apply. Other nations are pressured, bullied and threatened to comply.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Outliers are targeted. No-holds-barred tactics are used. Nothing too extreme is avoided. Rule of law principles don’t matter. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Media scoundrels ignore what deserves headlines. Managed news misinformation rubbish substitutes. One-sided reporting follows.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The New York Times operates as a virtual US propaganda ministry. An earlier editorial <\/span><\/a>claimed “little doubt that Chinese hackers have taken aim at a range of government and private systems in the United States\u2026”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On May 19, The Times headlined<\/span><\/a> “With Spy Charges, US Draws a Line That Few Others Recognize.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It charged China with “commercial, for-profit espionage\u2026Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (claimed) we-don’t-spy-for-corporate-America.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“There is little doubt, based on the evidence published last year, that\u2026companies that compete directly with state-owned Chinese enterprises (are) targets of Chinese espionage,” said The Times.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Washington Post<\/span><\/a> said China spying is longstanding. “High-level executives at US firms frequently complain that they are targeted whether they are bickering with their Chinese counterparts or\u2026acting in concert.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center executive director Henry Sokolski was quoted, saying “(t)he Chinese want to know everything. What they can’t buy, they steal.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Brookings’ Kenneth Lieberthal lied, claiming “the US has been vigorous and vehement about drawing a clear distinction between espionage, cyber-intrusions for purposes of national security and for commercial advantage.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“I think that’s a distinction that the Chinese don’t make\u2026because to them the competitive health of their firms, especially the big state-owned enterprises, is part of their national security.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Chicago Tribune<\/span><\/a> bashes Beijing often. It said Chinese “hackers targeted US companies in the nuclear power, metals and solar products industries to steal information useful to competitors in China\u2026”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute head Frank Cilluffo was quoted, saying:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“\u2026DOJ has ‘smoking keyboards’ and (is) willing to bring the evidence to a court of law and be more transparent.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He said nothing about lawless NSA spying. He ignored it altogether.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
An unnamed FBI official was cited saying multiple cybersecurity-related indictments and arrests are coming. It’s unclear if he means against China.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
USA Today<\/a><\/span> accused Beijing of “theft of business secrets\u2026beyond espionage. It quoted Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst James Lewis.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He lied claiming “(t)he United States engages in cyber spying activities but does not penetrate commercial companies for the benefit of domestic firms.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Wall Street Journal<\/span><\/a> bashed China. It regurgitated Justice Department charges. It did so without challenge.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It reported them like gospel. “(O)ther cases relating to China are being prepared,” it said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(H)ackers in Russia are likely to be charged soon,” it added. “US agencies have also been investigating incidents with possible ties to Iran and Syria,” it said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Journal featured a “WANTED BY THE FBI” posting. It claimed “Conspiring to Commit Computer Fraud.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Accessing a Computer Without Authorization for the Purpose of Commercial Advantage and Private Financial Gain.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Damaging Computers Through the Transmission of Code and Commands.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Aggravated Identity Theft.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Economic Espionage.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Theft of Trade Secrets.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Photos of indicted Chinese officials were shown. Alleged aliases were listed. Some disparaging. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Wang Dong’s were Jack Wang and UglyGorilla.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Sun Kailiang was called Sun Kai Liang and Jack Sun.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Posted Wen Xinyu’s alias were Wen Xin Yu, WinXYHappy, WinXY and Lao Wen.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Huang Ang Zhehyu was called Huang Zhen Yu and hzy lhx.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Gu Chi Nhui was called Gu Chun Hui and KandyGoo.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Journal said posting their photos was “unusual.” It begs the question. Why did Journal editors do it? What they suggested was out-of-line.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Why instead of just reporting what happened? Why without challenging US accusations. Why without explaining lawless NSA spying? <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“US officials privately acknowledge they spy on companies for foreign intelligence purposes” only, said the Journal.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(B)ut they say they won’t steal secrets to provide an advantage to US companies.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
White House press secretary Jay Carney lied claiming “(w)e don’t do what those Chinese national were indicted for.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“We don’t gather intelligence for the benefit of US companies.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: A separate article explains otherwise.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It does so in detail.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: NSA spying targets everything and everyone of possible interest.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It does it domestically and abroad.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It does it globally.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No nation is left behind.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No officials Washington considers important.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No foreign government agencies it wants to monitor.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No administrations.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No parliaments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No business sectors and companies it wants to steal proprietary information from. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: Spies “R” us defines official US policy. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It’s mostly unrelated to national security concerns.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It’s for control.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: For economic advantage.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: For being one up on foreign competitors.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: For information used advantageously in trade, political, and military relations.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A same day Journal editorial<\/span><\/a> bashed China. “The vast extent of China’s cyber spying against government and private US targets is well known,” it said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(S)o the power of this case is its public specificity,” it added.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(M)uch of the American public still doesn’t comprehend the magnitude of the cyber assault against US private industry, and in that sense the indictment will be instructive.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It cited an unnamed intelligence source claiming “only two kinds of companies in the US today: Those who’ve been hacked and those who don’t know they’ve been hacked.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“This isn’t some rogue band of hackers,” it said. “The five named defendants are part of the Chinese military, which has a formal cyber arm that targets American secrets.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“These hackers are as much agents of the Chinese state as the pilots of PLA warplanes.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“The proper way to respond to cyber war is to use the tools of statecraft to make China pay a political and economic price.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Journal editors want punitive measures imposed. Likely harsh sanctions targeting Chinese business sectors and specific companies.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Measures aimed at weakening Beijing politically. Similar ways Journal editors urge targeting Russia.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In China’s case, they want a “cyber battle plan (attacking Beijing) targets and forc(ing) (it) to play defense rather than devot(ing) all its resources to hacking US targets.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They want Chinese firms punished. They want Sino\/US military-to-military ties limited.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They want visas to children of “China’s elites” for attending American colleges and universities denied.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They want lots more than indicting five Chinese officials. They barely stopped short of urging all-out cyberwar. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Perhaps a follow-up editorial will do so. Maybe other irresponsible US editors will do the same thing. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Expect voices urging good international relations to be silenced. Perhaps the worst of all possible outcomes will follow.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
http:\/\/www.claritypress.com\/LendmanIII.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.progressiveradionetwork.com\/the-progressive-news-hour <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Irresponsible Scoundrel Media China Bashing<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
by Stephen Lendman<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Media scoundrels march in lockstep with Washington’s worst policies. They do it egregiously. They do it irresponsibly. They do it ad nauseam.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They’re virtual government house organs. They twist vital truths to fit US policy. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They’re bashing China. They’re piling on. It followed reprehensible Justice Department charges. A separate article discussed them.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Washington never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to engage other nations responsibly. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Polar opposite polices substitute. They’re standard practice. Washington rules alone apply. Other nations are pressured, bullied and threatened to comply.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Outliers are targeted. No-holds-barred tactics are used. Nothing too extreme is avoided. Rule of law principles don’t matter. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Media scoundrels ignore what deserves headlines. Managed news misinformation rubbish substitutes. One-sided reporting follows.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The New York Times operates as a virtual US propaganda ministry. An earlier editorial <\/span><\/a>claimed “little doubt that Chinese hackers have taken aim at a range of government and private systems in the United States…”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On May 19, The Times headlined<\/span><\/a> “With Spy Charges, US Draws a Line That Few Others Recognize.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It charged China with “commercial, for-profit espionage…Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (claimed) we-don’t-spy-for-corporate-America.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“There is little doubt, based on the evidence published last year, that…companies that compete directly with state-owned Chinese enterprises (are) targets of Chinese espionage,” said The Times.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Washington Post<\/span><\/a> said China spying is longstanding. “High-level executives at US firms frequently complain that they are targeted whether they are bickering with their Chinese counterparts or…acting in concert.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center executive director Henry Sokolski was quoted, saying “(t)he Chinese want to know everything. What they can’t buy, they steal.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Brookings’ Kenneth Lieberthal lied, claiming “the US has been vigorous and vehement about drawing a clear distinction between espionage, cyber-intrusions for purposes of national security and for commercial advantage.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“I think that’s a distinction that the Chinese don’t make…because to them the competitive health of their firms, especially the big state-owned enterprises, is part of their national security.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Chicago Tribune<\/span><\/a> bashes Beijing often. It said Chinese “hackers targeted US companies in the nuclear power, metals and solar products industries to steal information useful to competitors in China…”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute head Frank Cilluffo was quoted, saying:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“…DOJ has ‘smoking keyboards’ and (is) willing to bring the evidence to a court of law and be more transparent.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He said nothing about lawless NSA spying. He ignored it altogether.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
An unnamed FBI official was cited saying multiple cybersecurity-related indictments and arrests are coming. It’s unclear if he means against China.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
USA Today<\/a><\/span> accused Beijing of “theft of business secrets…beyond espionage. It quoted Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst James Lewis.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He lied claiming “(t)he United States engages in cyber spying activities but does not penetrate commercial companies for the benefit of domestic firms.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Wall Street Journal<\/span><\/a> bashed China. It regurgitated Justice Department charges. It did so without challenge.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It reported them like gospel. “(O)ther cases relating to China are being prepared,” it said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(H)ackers in Russia are likely to be charged soon,” it added. “US agencies have also been investigating incidents with possible ties to Iran and Syria,” it said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Journal featured a “WANTED BY THE FBI” posting. It claimed “Conspiring to Commit Computer Fraud.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Accessing a Computer Without Authorization for the Purpose of Commercial Advantage and Private Financial Gain.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Damaging Computers Through the Transmission of Code and Commands.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Aggravated Identity Theft.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Economic Espionage.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Theft of Trade Secrets.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Photos of indicted Chinese officials were shown. Alleged aliases were listed. Some disparaging. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Wang Dong’s were Jack Wang and UglyGorilla.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Sun Kailiang was called Sun Kai Liang and Jack Sun.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Posted Wen Xinyu’s alias were Wen Xin Yu, WinXYHappy, WinXY and Lao Wen.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Huang Ang Zhehyu was called Huang Zhen Yu and hzy lhx.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Gu Chi Nhui was called Gu Chun Hui and KandyGoo.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Journal said posting their photos was “unusual.” It begs the question. Why did Journal editors do it? What they suggested was out-of-line.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Why instead of just reporting what happened? Why without challenging US accusations. Why without explaining lawless NSA spying? <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“US officials privately acknowledge they spy on companies for foreign intelligence purposes” only, said the Journal.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(B)ut they say they won’t steal secrets to provide an advantage to US companies.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
White House press secretary Jay Carney lied claiming “(w)e don’t do what those Chinese national were indicted for.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“We don’t gather intelligence for the benefit of US companies.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: A separate article explains otherwise.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It does so in detail.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: NSA spying targets everything and everyone of possible interest.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It does it domestically and abroad.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It does it globally.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No nation is left behind.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No officials Washington considers important.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No foreign government agencies it wants to monitor.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No administrations.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No parliaments.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: No business sectors and companies it wants to steal proprietary information from. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: Spies “R” us defines official US policy. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It’s mostly unrelated to national security concerns.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: It’s for control.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: For economic advantage.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: For being one up on foreign competitors.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: For information used advantageously in trade, political, and military relations.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Fact: Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A same day Journal editorial<\/span><\/a> bashed China. “The vast extent of China’s cyber spying against government and private US targets is well known,” it said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(S)o the power of this case is its public specificity,” it added.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“(M)uch of the American public still doesn’t comprehend the magnitude of the cyber assault against US private industry, and in that sense the indictment will be instructive.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It cited an unnamed intelligence source claiming “only two kinds of companies in the US today: Those who’ve been hacked and those who don’t know they’ve been hacked.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“This isn’t some rogue band of hackers,” it said. “The five named defendants are part of the Chinese military, which has a formal cyber arm that targets American secrets.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“These hackers are as much agents of the Chinese state as the pilots of PLA warplanes.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“The proper way to respond to cyber war is to use the tools of statecraft to make China pay a political and economic price.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Journal editors want punitive measures imposed. Likely harsh sanctions targeting Chinese business sectors and specific companies.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Measures aimed at weakening Beijing politically. Similar ways Journal editors urge targeting Russia.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In China’s case, they want a “cyber battle plan (attacking Beijing) targets and forc(ing) (it) to play defense rather than devot(ing) all its resources to hacking US targets.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They want Chinese firms punished. They want Sino\/US military-to-military ties limited.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They want visas to children of “China’s elites” for attending American colleges and universities denied.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They want lots more than indicting five Chinese officials. They barely stopped short of urging all-out cyberwar. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Perhaps a follow-up editorial will do so. Maybe other irresponsible US editors will do the same thing. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Expect voices urging good international relations to be silenced. Perhaps the worst of all possible outcomes will follow.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
http:\/\/www.claritypress.com\/LendmanIII.html<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.progressiveradionetwork.com\/the-progressive-news-hour <\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1217,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-119866","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-editorials"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1217"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}