2008年01月15日
華盛頓郵報上有關立委選舉錯誤百出的報導
這篇文章一開始標題就將中國國民黨稱為台灣人民黨 (Taiwanese Party)，可見作者根本是個搞不清楚狀況的人。
文中還將國民黨得到超過70％的席次，搞錯成超過70％的選票，還由此推論出台灣人不支持陳總統追求台灣法理獨立的作法，卻忽略民進黨這次的得票率39％還比上次立委選舉增加。
另外，作者也忽略公投成案的高門檻，將兩個公投沒過的結果解讀為台灣人民不想公投，如果美國總統選舉也有必需投票率超過50％才成案的規定，美國根本選不出總統，只有笨蛋才會把這種結果解讀成美國人不想有總統選舉。
最後，文章將台灣與陳總統確保台灣獨立現狀的任何舉動都當成為對中國的挑釁，卻忽略台灣本來就不受中國統治與中國一再威脅以武力犯台的事實。
不過這個報導是一個非常值得台灣人民注意的警訊，國際媒體原本就不太瞭解台灣政治，就像大部分的台灣人不會瞭解日本或韓國的國內政治一樣，他們根本不會理會這次選舉結果深受新選制的影響，大部分媒體的解讀就是台灣人對獨立沒興趣，對公投沒興趣，對陳總統的挑釁感到厭煩，我相信在立委選舉前，像這樣錯誤百出立場一面倒的文章是不可能出現在華盛頓郵報上的。
下面是我寫給主編的信給各位做參考。
PS:圖片轉貼自華盛頓郵報。
文中還將國民黨得到超過70％的席次，搞錯成超過70％的選票，還由此推論出台灣人不支持陳總統追求台灣法理獨立的作法，卻忽略民進黨這次的得票率39％還比上次立委選舉增加。
另外，作者也忽略公投成案的高門檻，將兩個公投沒過的結果解讀為台灣人民不想公投，如果美國總統選舉也有必需投票率超過50％才成案的規定，美國根本選不出總統，只有笨蛋才會把這種結果解讀成美國人不想有總統選舉。
最後，文章將台灣與陳總統確保台灣獨立現狀的任何舉動都當成為對中國的挑釁，卻忽略台灣本來就不受中國統治與中國一再威脅以武力犯台的事實。
不過這個報導是一個非常值得台灣人民注意的警訊，國際媒體原本就不太瞭解台灣政治，就像大部分的台灣人不會瞭解日本或韓國的國內政治一樣，他們根本不會理會這次選舉結果深受新選制的影響，大部分媒體的解讀就是台灣人對獨立沒興趣，對公投沒興趣，對陳總統的挑釁感到厭煩，我相信在立委選舉前，像這樣錯誤百出立場一面倒的文章是不可能出現在華盛頓郵報上的。
下面是我寫給主編的信給各位做參考。
Dear Editor,
There are several mistakes in the article titled "Despite Victory, Taiwanese Party Urges Caution" by Edward Cody.
First, KMT only got 51% of the vote not 70%. But because of the new election law, they got more than 70% of the seats. DPP still got 39% of the vote. In fact, DPP got more votes than they did in the last legislative election in 2004.
Second, KMT's full name is Chinese Nationalist Party. It is an obvious mistake to refer it as Taiwanese Party.
Last, the status quo of Taiwan Straight as the author point out at the end of the article is that Taiwan is a self-ruled country. Any effort to maintain the independence is neither provoking nor changing the status quo but China's threat of using force is.
Please correct these mistakes. Thank you very much for your concern.
PS:圖片轉貼自華盛頓郵報。
引用URL
http://cgi.blog.roodo.com/trackback/4983479
回應文章 
結果不小心寄給他們主編了，沒關係吧？？
Posted by blahblah
at 2008年01月15日 10:20
您好！這裡是長昌的網路競選總部！
我們的幸福部落格地址：http://blog.vivataiwan.tv/
本文章為優質好文，我們將轉載於本站，分享給閱聽大眾。
如您不同意，懇請通知我們，我們將立即停止轉載。
萬分感謝您的好文創作，感謝您！
我們的幸福部落格地址：http://blog.vivataiwan.tv/
本文章為優質好文，我們將轉載於本站，分享給閱聽大眾。
如您不同意，懇請通知我們，我們將立即停止轉載。
萬分感謝您的好文創作，感謝您！
Posted by 長昌的網路競選總部
at 2008年01月15日 10:38
酥餅
感謝提供範文！！
有一點小問題：
the status quo of "Taiwan straight" 應否為 "Taiwan Strait"?
changing the "status quote" 應否為 "status quo"？
：）
感謝提供範文！！
有一點小問題：
the status quo of "Taiwan straight" 應否為 "Taiwan Strait"?
changing the "status quote" 應否為 "status quo"？
：）
Posted by 蕭艸梅
at 2008年01月15日 11:04
the status quo of "Taiwan straight" 應否為 "Taiwan Strait"?
changing the "status quote" 應否為 "status quo"？
changing the "status quote" 應否為 "status quo"？
酥餅：已經改了，果然不能一早寫東西。
Posted by 酥餅
at 2008年01月15日 11:24
結果不小心寄給他們主編了，沒關係吧？？
酥餅：本來就是要寄給主編的阿。
Posted by 酥餅
at 2008年01月15日 11:46
謝謝酥餅啊。
Posted by ysw
at 2008年01月15日 11:58
好文，推
台灣在國際上的宣傳，不大夠。
不過，中國不尊重國際商業智慧財產權的行為，倒是已經為該國作出最好的負面宣傳，所以小的堅決反對成立『兩岸共同仿冒黑心市場』，以免優質台灣商品跟MIC被歸類為同一種廉價貨，讓以出口為主的台灣經濟雪上加霜。
台灣在國際上的宣傳，不大夠。
不過，中國不尊重國際商業智慧財產權的行為，倒是已經為該國作出最好的負面宣傳，所以小的堅決反對成立『兩岸共同仿冒黑心市場』，以免優質台灣商品跟MIC被歸類為同一種廉價貨，讓以出口為主的台灣經濟雪上加霜。
Posted by 看不下去
at 2008年01月15日 13:10
信已寄出
有稍微修改一下
有稍微修改一下
Posted by Taihoku
at 2008年01月15日 14:18
酥餅:
--------------------------
Just some suggestions...
First, KMT got 51% of the "popular" vote not 70%. however, due to the change of election policy, they aquired more than 70% of the seats. DPP still got 39% of the popular vote. In fact, DPP received more votes than they did in the last legislative election in 2004.
------------------------
One more thing, do you have the email address that I can send them this mail to? Thank you!
--------------------------
Just some suggestions...
First, KMT got 51% of the "popular" vote not 70%. however, due to the change of election policy, they aquired more than 70% of the seats. DPP still got 39% of the popular vote. In fact, DPP received more votes than they did in the last legislative election in 2004.
------------------------
One more thing, do you have the email address that I can send them this mail to? Thank you!
酥餅:letters@washpost.com
Posted by Joe
at 2008年01月15日 21:42
我寄了，謝謝範本。
Posted by 妙子
at 2008年01月16日 02:07
我十分贊用版主最後那一段話, 別人報導錯誤固然是國外媒體沒有好好求證與認知台灣,但反過來說,台灣媒體在報導他國新聞給台灣民眾時有錯誤,是否台灣民眾也會發覺錯誤呢 ,台灣一向想擠進世界舞台,但民眾郤沒有把自己擠進世界一份子,很少人會關心國際情勢 ,還是停留在原地 ,這個多少也跟執政者能力與心態有關吧
Posted by Kevin
at 2008年01月16日 11:29
美國媒體與學者，根本都是看統媒長大的...
金蘭芳還寫信給紐約時報抗議，因為紐時說親中國的政黨贏了。
金蘭芳簡直睜眼說瞎話，真懷疑號稱東亞學者的她，整天看的是什麼消息來源？
金蘭芳還寫信給紐約時報抗議，因為紐時說親中國的政黨贏了。
金蘭芳簡直睜眼說瞎話，真懷疑號稱東亞學者的她，整天看的是什麼消息來源？
Posted by saw.o
at 2008年01月16日 18:55
寄了.
謝謝酥餅兄告訴.
謝謝酥餅兄告訴.
Posted by baleen
at 2008年01月16日 19:49
Will write my letter after work (tonight)...
Posted by Skylight
at 2008年01月17日 08:24
不認識你 不過謝謝你.
我將末段稍微修改如下後寄出了--希望對方能夠正視
Last but not least, the status quo of Taiwan Strait as the author point out at the end of the article is that Taiwan is a self-ruled country. That is, Taiwan's independence is de facto, as such, any effort to maintain the independence is neither provoking nor changing the status quo. In contrast, China's threat of using force is rather provoking.
我將末段稍微修改如下後寄出了--希望對方能夠正視
Last but not least, the status quo of Taiwan Strait as the author point out at the end of the article is that Taiwan is a self-ruled country. That is, Taiwan's independence is de facto, as such, any effort to maintain the independence is neither provoking nor changing the status quo. In contrast, China's threat of using force is rather provoking.
Posted by GG
at 2008年01月21日 12:22
以下是letters" 的回覆:
[Please do NOT reply to this e-mail, it will not be read.]
Thank you for sending us your letter to the editor. We read every letter that we receive (yes, we really do), and we appreciate and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments. Because of the volume of letters we receive, we cannot respond to the authors of letters we are unable to use. If we wish to publish your letter, we will contact you in advance of publication. While you are reading this, here are some other tips on how to increase the chances of having your letter published in The
Post:
1. Letters should be fewer than 200 words and exclusive to The Washington Post.
2. The letter may not have been submitted to or published by any other media or Internet outlet. This includes comments or feedback posted to Web sites. If you have posted similar comments to a Web site, your letter will not be considered.
3. The letter must include the writer's full name, home address, e-mail address, and home, business and cellular telephone numbers. Anonymous letters will not be considered, nor does The Post permit the use of pseudonyms.
4. Letters must disclose the writer’s involvement, affiliations or relationship with the subject matter of the letter.
5. All letters are subject to abridgment.
6. Do not send attachments; they will not be read.
7. We prefer letters that cite an article or item that has appeared in the print edition of The Post within the past three weeks; we do not publish letters that respond to Web site-only articles or items.
8. To make your e-mailed letter as easy for us to read as possible, do not send any graphics or digital letterhead, put the text of your letter in the body of the e-mail, and remember to cite the article or item you are writing about in the body or subject line.
Again, thank you for sending us your letter.
Sincerely,
The Letters Editor
[Please do NOT reply to this e-mail, it will not be read.]
Thank you for sending us your letter to the editor. We read every letter that we receive (yes, we really do), and we appreciate and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments. Because of the volume of letters we receive, we cannot respond to the authors of letters we are unable to use. If we wish to publish your letter, we will contact you in advance of publication. While you are reading this, here are some other tips on how to increase the chances of having your letter published in The
Post:
1. Letters should be fewer than 200 words and exclusive to The Washington Post.
2. The letter may not have been submitted to or published by any other media or Internet outlet. This includes comments or feedback posted to Web sites. If you have posted similar comments to a Web site, your letter will not be considered.
3. The letter must include the writer's full name, home address, e-mail address, and home, business and cellular telephone numbers. Anonymous letters will not be considered, nor does The Post permit the use of pseudonyms.
4. Letters must disclose the writer’s involvement, affiliations or relationship with the subject matter of the letter.
5. All letters are subject to abridgment.
6. Do not send attachments; they will not be read.
7. We prefer letters that cite an article or item that has appeared in the print edition of The Post within the past three weeks; we do not publish letters that respond to Web site-only articles or items.
8. To make your e-mailed letter as easy for us to read as possible, do not send any graphics or digital letterhead, put the text of your letter in the body of the e-mail, and remember to cite the article or item you are writing about in the body or subject line.
Again, thank you for sending us your letter.
Sincerely,
The Letters Editor
Posted by Rebecca
at 2008年03月5日 14:47
[URL=http://www.haroldini.cn/uscite-dvd] uscite dvd [/URL] uscite dvd [URL=http://www.haroldini.cn/strong] strong [/URL] strong [URL=http://www.haroldini.cn/infisso-scorrevoli] infisso scorrevoli [/URL] infisso scorrevoli
Posted by Johanna
at 2008年06月19日 08:05
![[Syndicate this site]](http://cdn.rimg.tw/images/blog/rss.gif "Syndicate RSS feed"){kind=small}
![[Syndicate this site]](http://cdn.rimg.tw/images/blog/atom.gif "Syndicate ATOM feed"){kind=small}
