"Sharply raising the stakes in a dispute over Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing trawler captain, the Chinese government has blocked exports to Japan of a crucial category of minerals used in products like hybrid cars, wind turbines and guided missiles."
Its sources were unidentified "industry officials" and a minerals consultant in Australia. The Times admitted that the Chinese Commerce Ministry denied any ban, but that was easily explained: if the Chinese had an "official" ban, then Japan could run to the World Trade Organization and make a beef.
It all seemed perfectly plausible. China, after all, doesn't like being pushed around by other nations, least of all Japan, and they don't have the most stellar record of playing by WTO rules (if you're coming from an American perspective, of course).
But perhaps it was the Commerce Ministry's spokesman's quote on the subject that made the Reuters reporters wonder if something else was going on. "I don't know how the New York Times came up with this, but it's not true. There are no such measures," Chen Rongkai said. For a statement from a Chinese official, it does have a whiff of sincerity.
Reuters talked to some rare earth traders in China and Japan, none of whom had heard of the ban. One in Japan, however, had heard rumors.
Recapping: there's no "official" ban and no one directly affected by the ban knows that it exists. So is there a ban or not?
Reuters helps us out by explaining that there are quotas on exports of the rare minerals, but those were in place long before and fishing boat incident. Being that it's the end of the year, those quotas would naturally be tapping out. That might explain why customs officials are stopping exports of rare minerals - if, indeed, they are doing so, which is not clear. (Quotas on rare minerals that account for 93% of the world's supply may be a problem in their own right, but that's not the same thing as saying China is using quotas to retaliate against Japan.)
The mind-spinningly different accounts from the Times and Reuters could be explained in a couple of ways. The Reuters reporters naively accept the word of government ministries and don't dare to dig past a few questions to some Chinese and Japanese import-exporters. Or, the New York Times has an imagination. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
But, in the Times' defense, "imagination" is not a rare and fantastical thing; it's something we all do all of the time, but almost never are aware of. Our social psychologist and behavioral economist friends call it a host of things: confirmation bias, attributional bias, representative heuristic, auto-association.
Here's how it works. First, we get bits of information: China and Japan are engaged in a tiff about a captured fishing boat; China's prime minister makes some blustering statements about possible retaliation; and about that same time, crucial minerals stop being shipped to Japan (I'm assuming this last part is true to give the Times' the benefit of the doubt). If you're a journalist covering China, this set of data will set off a familiar pattern in your brain: "Ah, yes, I've seen this before - China uses trade as political bullying measure." Forget about whether there's any proof that the two events - prime minister bluster and trade drying up - are connected; in the mind, the link has already been primed. Then some "industry officials" (still unidentified) tell you that the Chinese custom's agency has stopped exports to Japan (but not other Asian countries). You talk to a consultant who confirms the story, and voila - case closed.
At this point, you're locked in. The pieces fit in so nicely, there's no sense in investigating further, maybe calling some of the trade companies in Japan and China to see if they knew of the ban.
What doesn't happen - for Times journalists or for you and me, by and large - is that we stop and wonder if our past impressions are setting us up to believe a certain version of a story. If we did, my might muck around for evidence to dis-prove our conclusions. But it's such a good story... how could it possibly not be true?
No comments:
Post a Comment