In the past, when you had to actually take the time to write a letter to the editor when a writer got his/her facts wrong (in your opinion) or when you disagreed with the position of the writer, there was actually pressure to craft a measured composition, and those who responded were typically those who felt especially strongly about a subject. Comment boxes have made it all to easy for the average armchair pundit to get instant gratification by publishing a snotty reply. Comments all too often devolve into the blog/online paper equivalent of flame e-mails.

The fact that there is an increasing number of Chinese internauts who have the same opinion about the Tibet issue actually reinforces the failure to reexamine history by reassuring many Chinese Internet users that the whole country sees the matter like they do and that they must therefore be correct. And any suggestion that Tibet/China history (or Taiwan/China history) be carefully evaluated is instantly shot down.

The same thing happens in the West when it comes to different controversial issues. Try explaining on a blog or in a newspaper article the successes of the Bush administration. There have been many, although they have been overshadowed by large problems. But the masses believe what they hear everyone else say and fail to examine the facts in a balanced way.

So I would say that what you are referring to regarding Tibet is indeed rooted in propaganda, but the problem is amplified by the fact that it is getting easier and easier for the masses in an authoritarian nationalistic country with an inferiority complex to let simple pride get in the way of rational analysis.

Some of the previous comments (and some to come) will probably be left without reading the article carefully, thus proving my point for me.

If only all commenters could be as thoughtful and informed as Kim. Comments like that make writing a blog worthwhile.

Worth repeating, I thought, in light of lei’s all too familiar comment above.