🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DBsBqC.12p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> blr2w@mamba.cs.Virginia.EDU (Brian L. Robinson) writes:
>Harry Wu was trying to change a system that our country's foreign
>policy says must be changed.  He wasn't hurting anyone, and he was
>trying to help people.  Furthermore he is an American citizen.  We
>certainly should make efforts to have him released.  And it might be a
>good idea after this blows over for the President on whether or not we
>will provide such help in the future, if we think it's necessary to
>dissuade other lone ranger types who don't have either permission or
>mission from our government.
>-- 

He took pictures of ordinary (non-political prisoners) in China, and
    showed them to American public and leaders as they were pictures
    of political prisoners on labor camps.
He took pictures of ordinary medical treatment and operations in China,
    and showed  them to Americans as if they were forced prisoner
    organ transplant.
......

Yet, he did all these under the "human right" flag.
I used to support him and his alike; but after some years, I discovered
that they are simply doing a "political business". Wu is definitely
a political businessman using the name of noble "human right" cause.

Like any other business, he need to produce "products/results" to feed
his customers/donators; otherwise, he has no money to support his daily life.
He has no other skills. In the US, "Chinese human right abuse" is a very big
business. IN this business,  any thing that describes China as a bad
will be accepted, no verification, and no fact-checking.

Ironically, most of famous Chinese human right fighters residing
in the US were die-hard communists when they were in China. Ordinary Chinese
are always ordinary no matter where they are, in China or the US. These
ordinary folks have sincere concern about China's human right improvement,
but they never go to the extremity to misinform American public or
lie to the US congress.

Things I saw often in reporting things related to China:  
1) mixed 1% fact with  99% misinformation and distoration;
2) reported selective partial story that can enhance China's bad guy image;
3) used virtual indirect reference;
4) used story and events happened many many years ago(
   typically 30 to 50 years) and presented them
   as if they were the current reality;
5) misinterpretated things intentionally or due to ignorance;
6) used one-sided story without verification and analysis.