TED Conversations

Jaden Backman

This conversation is closed.

Are westerners biased in defining a terrorist act

It seems that any atrocity on innocent people on the west countries' ground is authentic terrorism, while it occurs in countries like China,apathy and schadenfreude appear in the western media,,instead of sympathy and unity. They intentionally turn a black eye on the victims,seem to justify the act as decent rant.
Why some westerners are this cold? Respect should be payed to the innocent victims,not negligence.Recent terrorist act in Beijing completely reveals some people's double-standards and hypocrisy. The reports on CNN really squeezed my heart,


why could not us all united, west and east, African and Asian,Christian and Muslim,etc,that is the way it should be.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 7 2013: Tolerance only gets you so far, that is, until confronted by intolerance. 'State Religions' discriminate and demoralize by implied virtue of their authority. As too, the suppression of dissent by oppressive governments only promotes illicit activities and the fostering of extremist acts.

    Suspicion is inevitable within a society accustomed to freedom of press, especially when events disrupt the strongest of normalcy bias' and/or conflict with established socially acceptable paradigms. Many westerners attribute a propensity for evil to everyone, even those thought to subscribe to the same allegiances. With the abundance of sources reporting and the resulting multitude of rational inferences, it's difficult for westerners to accept inconclusiveness. This is a common thread through out western media, and instances of irresponsible reporting only makes matters more confusing.

    Yet, even when the facts are clearly outlined, many deny the provided answers as a result of various defense mechanisms. Simply their emotional state and an inability to rationalize the events further serve to perpetuate suspicions.

    With regards to any examples of 'schadenfreude' exhibited by western media, I think you're mistaken as to the sentiment behind their coverage of events. Sympathy seemingly gets brushed aside while they focused on logical analysis' of the attack and in doing so ultimately negates empathy. Of course, individuals express their sympathies with in the media, but their primary concern is reporting information and attempting clarify the details of events.

    It's not the media's job to be the national harbinger of sympathy and instill a sense of unity into the masses. Many find a sense of unity through freedoms shared, for they acknowledge cultural differences and aim to protect an individual's civil liberties, as it serves to retain their own.

    Humanity will begin unifying once freedom reigns and oppressive governments fall.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2013: A biased medium has no gene for neutral reports. They intend to justify any group that is opposing Chinese government. This is obviously not a sign of neutral and responsible attitude. It is through piling up negative reports of China,that they succeed in portraying a country of notoriety. As a result,our mutual understandings and closeness discounted,people from different sides became negative about the other side. The evidence is you can hardly see a CNN article reporting China's positives. The media mislead the people.

      If the lack of expected sentiment is understandable, but the negligence of the victims, is not a responsible report. At least,respect should be payed to the dead and injured.

      I am not defending an oppressive government, freedom is a shared aspiration,but the angle to see it is that its own people have more say than the outsiders.

      Humanity won't be unifying when freedom being shared to every single one of us. Freedom reigns the US, apparently the Americans have not unified within,violence,discrimination still exist.

      If we all deepen our mutual respect and understanding, wiling to accept other people's culture and character,we will be more likely to be unified. So,break down prejudice, try to think as your 'enemy' thinks.
      • Nov 8 2013: I personally draw a thick line between the people and any governing bodies through out the world with regards to attaching any notoriety. Let me ask... Are people supposed to just brush off reports coming form the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that states:

        "The narrow protections for religious activity in China contravene international human rights standards. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes not only the right to "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion" but also the right to manifest religion or belief through "worship, observance, practice and teaching." 3 The government continued to legally recognize only five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, and Taoism.4 Groups wishing to practice these religions must register with the government and are subject to ongoing state controls.5"?

        Would it not support notions of mutual understandings and closeness when the western world advocates for the Chineese government to adopt a more tolerant stances on religion? If anything, these negative reports aim to support the people of China.

        "I am not defending an oppressive government, freedom is a shared aspiration,but the angle to see it is that its own people have more say than the outsiders."
        Under an oppressive government, one who practices the suppression of dissent and targets rights lawyers during the "annual inspection and assessment process" by denying professional license renewals, China's 'own people' are left with very little say. Then to consider the censorship and regulation of the media, it's a joke to suggest that the people have a say. It's easy enough just to toss around some "inciting subversion of state power" charges.

        I mean cmon, how many examples of violating or non-compliance with international human rights standards need be cited in order to acknowledge the obvious unification deterrents that are a product of the Chinese government's oppressive state?
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2013: What the 'reports coming form the Congressional-Executive Commission ' tells is only a lopsided info,we won't merely accept it,we would track down to test it,in the modern world we have so many access to info. I never trust the state-run media,especially in politics.

          But don't forget my purpose to start this talk is to talk about a fair attitude and reports to terrorism,and why CNN try to justify a terrorist attack. I think respect and sympathy should be payed,under no circumstance is an attack on the innocent tourists is justifiable.

          I think we could not avoid talking about politics. I recognize all your charges on the oppressive government honestly. But the effect of the prohibitions is so tiny for us,not like your media says. We Chinese dont believe in any religion,I never see lives of people around me being impeded because of the restriction. The number of dissents and protesters is acceptable, no government could guarantee its people 100% satisfied,even in the US, protests exist,Occupying Wallstreet is a case. The point is your media exaggerate the dissent,the lawyer case is a tool held by the US.

          Believe it or not, the overwhelmingly large Chinese are living happily and laboriously,we are free to pursue our happiness. This is a side your media won't show you.Also the people who benefit from this government is countless.,they are the people have more say than the outsiders.

          Actually the censorship does not block us from seeing the truth,we still have access to see the world,to listen to the views, even the views completely on the opposite of the government.

          I am not denying the faults of our government, just recommend all of us to open our mind and dont be misled by any government or media.
      • Nov 9 2013: The irony of whining about "bias" when speaking of the Chinese government...
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2013: You are the cynical commentator marginalize yourself from TED users.
      • Nov 9 2013: Sorry, I'm immune to that flavor of propagandization. Tienanmen Square massacre, 1989--what is the official Chinese government statement?
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2013: That was an inhuman massacre,history will tell us the truth. Btw, that happened before I was born, I recommend you to talk it to the witness and the people related to the event, because you won't get anything from my memory.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.