不能“爱之欲其生，恨之欲其死”。正因为我们和西方媒体的斗争是长期性的，所以完全的排斥是不可取的。

何况如果我们把CNN或者BBC看成一个大一统的，静态不变的整体，岂非是正好犯了西方看待我国的错误？比如CNN网站上这篇报道链接出处 还算比较公允，反而比我在楼上贴的花街日报文章公道多了。而花街日报又有对中国友善的作者，比如他们报道三番火炬传递的文章“Olympic-Torch Protesters Given Slip in San Francisco”就比较忠实地报道了我们的诉求。对于这种文章和作者，又应该鼓励。我就曾写信给作者感谢他们：

“Dear Mr. Kang, Mr. Carlton, and Mr. White,

I read your article “Olympic-Torch Protesters Given Slip in San Francisco” on WSJ today and think it is an unbiased and balanced report of the event.

Balance and fairness as the basic guideline of news report can rarely be found in the recent news report on Tibetan violent protesters and their effort to sabotage the spirit of Olympics. Renowned media such as CNN and BBC have been fabricating news to their convenience. I have long been disappointed with these media on their international news coverage, but have underestimated their willingness to distort the facts to serve the propaganda they want to broadcast. If you are interested, this website can provide some proof of the recent media distortion:链接出处 In such environment of one side biased opinion and total ignorance of facts, your report to honestly reflect what happened are really admirable. Even your criticism on students shoving the protesters of Darfur, which is regrettable, reflects the truth.

We, a group of Chinese Americans and Chinese students, will also held a protest against violence in Lasa, Tibet and media distortion Monday 4/14 when Dalai Lama visit University of Washington. I wish more truth could be told by our peaceful protest and wish media will no longer only reflect one-side of the view from now on.

Again, as a long time subscriber of WSJ and a teacher who use WSJ articles for class room discussion, I applause your report will continue to pay attention to more accurate articles from you.”

所以对待西方媒体，斗争也好，争取也罢，都是首先建立在了解对方的观点之上的。就算对付Jack Cafferty这样的人，我们总也要先知道他说了什么才能采取针对性的措施，或抗议，或投诉，或起诉。总之，了解对方的观点，了解对方对我们的“了解”，才是我们应该采取的正确方法和态度。当然，这种方法和态度不适合某些已经挑战正常人类承受界限的论坛和上面的发言者，但我认为，CNN也好，BBC也好，WSJ也好，还算不上此列。