Irresponsible Scoundrel Media China Bashing
by Stephen Lendman
Media scoundrels march in lockstep with Washington's worst policies. They do it egregiously. They do it irresponsibly. They do it ad nauseam.
They're virtual government house organs. They twist vital truths to fit US policy.
They're bashing China. They're piling on. It followed reprehensible Justice Department charges. A separate article discussed them.
Washington never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to engage other nations responsibly.
Polar opposite polices substitute. They're standard practice. Washington rules alone apply. Other nations are pressured, bullied and threatened to comply.
Outliers are targeted. No-holds-barred tactics are used. Nothing too extreme is avoided. Rule of law principles don't matter.
Media scoundrels ignore what deserves headlines. Managed news misinformation rubbish substitutes. One-sided reporting follows.
The New York Times operates as a virtual US propaganda ministry. An earlier editorial claimed "little doubt that Chinese hackers have taken aim at a range of government and private systems in the United States…"
On May 19, The Times headlined "With Spy Charges, US Draws a Line That Few Others Recognize."
It charged China with "commercial, for-profit espionage…Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (claimed) we-don't-spy-for-corporate-America."
"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.
The Washington Post 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."
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."
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."
"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."
The Chicago Tribune 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…"
George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute head Frank Cilluffo was quoted, saying:
"…DOJ has 'smoking keyboards' and (is) willing to bring the evidence to a court of law and be more transparent."
He said nothing about lawless NSA spying. He ignored it altogether.
An unnamed FBI official was cited saying multiple cybersecurity-related indictments and arrests are coming. It's unclear if he means against China.
USA Today accused Beijing of "theft of business secrets…beyond espionage. It quoted Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst James Lewis.
He lied claiming "(t)he United States engages in cyber spying activities but does not penetrate commercial companies for the benefit of domestic firms."
The Wall Street Journal bashed China. It regurgitated Justice Department charges. It did so without challenge.
It reported them like gospel. "(O)ther cases relating to China are being prepared," it said.
"(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.
The Journal featured a "WANTED BY THE FBI" posting. It claimed "Conspiring to Commit Computer Fraud."
"Accessing a Computer Without Authorization for the Purpose of Commercial Advantage and Private Financial Gain."
"Damaging Computers Through the Transmission of Code and Commands."
"Aggravated Identity Theft."
"Theft of Trade Secrets."
Photos of indicted Chinese officials were shown. Alleged aliases were listed. Some disparaging.
Wang Dong's were Jack Wang and UglyGorilla.
Sun Kailiang was called Sun Kai Liang and Jack Sun.
Posted Wen Xinyu's alias were Wen Xin Yu, WinXYHappy, WinXY and Lao Wen.
Huang Ang Zhehyu was called Huang Zhen Yu and hzy lhx.
Gu Chi Nhui was called Gu Chun Hui and KandyGoo.
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.
Why instead of just reporting what happened? Why without challenging US accusations. Why without explaining lawless NSA spying?
"US officials privately acknowledge they spy on companies for foreign intelligence purposes" only, said the Journal.
"(B)ut they say they won't steal secrets to provide an advantage to US companies."
White House press secretary Jay Carney lied claiming "(w)e don't do what those Chinese national were indicted for."
"We don't gather intelligence for the benefit of US companies."
Fact: A separate article explains otherwise.
Fact: It does so in detail.
Fact: NSA spying targets everything and everyone of possible interest.
Fact: It does it domestically and abroad.
Fact: It does it globally.
Fact: No nation is left behind.
Fact: No officials Washington considers important.
Fact: No foreign government agencies it wants to monitor.
Fact: No administrations.
Fact: No parliaments.
Fact: No business sectors and companies it wants to steal proprietary information from.
Fact: Spies "R" us defines official US policy.
Fact: It's mostly unrelated to national security concerns.
Fact: It's for control.
Fact: For economic advantage.
Fact: For being one up on foreign competitors.
Fact: For information used advantageously in trade, political, and military relations.
Fact: Don't expect media scoundrels to explain.
A same day Journal editorial bashed China. "The vast extent of China's cyber spying against government and private US targets is well known," it said.
"(S)o the power of this case is its public specificity," it added.
"(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."
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."
"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."
"These hackers are as much agents of the Chinese state as the pilots of PLA warplanes."
"The proper way to respond to cyber war is to use the tools of statecraft to make China pay a political and economic price."
Journal editors want punitive measures imposed. Likely harsh sanctions targeting Chinese business sectors and specific companies.
Measures aimed at weakening Beijing politically. Similar ways Journal editors urge targeting Russia.
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."
They want Chinese firms punished. They want Sino/US military-to-military ties limited.
They want visas to children of "China's elites" for attending American colleges and universities denied.
They want lots more than indicting five Chinese officials. They barely stopped short of urging all-out cyberwar.
Perhaps a follow-up editorial will do so. Maybe other irresponsible US editors will do the same thing.
Expect voices urging good international relations to be silenced. Perhaps the worst of all possible outcomes will follow.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.