Huang Jianxiang continues to be China's most talked-about commentator - he recently put up his dukes on the cover of Sanlian Life Week. For its 25th edition of 2006, the magazine put together seven articles that are all loosely associated with Huang and his so-called "passionate commentary". The articles were a bit disappointing though - they failed to directly interview Huang, instead adopting the passive style of journalism that is common in the Chinese media.
The magazine did, however, pour cold water on the theory that Australians carrying anti-China placards were the cause of Huang's bias against Australia. At the start of the Australia vs. Italy match, two minutes of footage was censored and crowd shots of the previous game were shown instead. Some Chinese bloggers believed that the footage was censored because some Australian fans were holding anti-China placards. However, according to Sanlian Life Week, the footage was censored internationally because some Australian fans were holding anti-Adidas placards that criticised the company for making shoes out of kangaroo skin. Is this true? I'd be interested to find out whether footage was censored outside of China.
Huang Jianxiang on the cover of Sanlian Life Week
The most interesting article was titled Huang Jianxiang isn't Barkley, by Miao Wei. Most of the article talks about the outspokenness of NBA commentator Charles Barkley, especially making reference to the insults he has slung at Yao Ming. But it's the first part of the article that is really interesting, with the author recalling his interview with Huang in 2004. I reckon it proves that Huang is an egghead. Please refer to the following translation to see what I mean:
I interviewed Huang Jianxiang in 2004 for a book that I was writing for CCTV 5. In a teahouse in the Media Centre, he talked on and on for four hours. The first question I asked him was about the match on 7 September 2001 between China and Qatar, when he improperly criticised China's coach (Huang was suspended for six months). This question caused a big reaction.
Although that incident took place three years before the interview, Huang's answer still managed to shock me. He believed that the match in question featured his best-ever commentary. "During that commentary I made a mistake, but looking at it from the angle of a football and news professional, it was my best-ever commentary. Everything was in my grasp - I had predicted the events of the entire match. In terms of the language used, I probably should have been more careful. What I said wasn't excessive, but I overestimated our audience and our society. I don't know where the recording of my commentary is now, but people who want to work in this industry should use it as a learning tool.
The second thing that shocked me was Huang's assessment of Chinese soccer: "I commentated on China's last group match against Turkey in 2002 and it'll be the last World Cup match that China plays in the next 50 years. Our physical condition is better than that of Japan and Korea - we are taller, stronger and quicker than them. So why can't we play better than them? It is in the bones - our minds aren't good enough and our spirit isn't suitable for playing football. The football world can't accept this. Looking at it from a social and cultural perspective, Chinese people don't play football well because, unlike Japan and Korea, we don't have a culture of unity - a selfless and collective spirit. Compared to South America and Africa, we don't have a wild personality and a passionate freedom - we don't have anything like this.
On the surface, it seems like we don't have any individuals. But secretly, we don't have any unity. We don't suit this kind of collective sport - for a Chinese person, 11 people in a team is too many! If there are only three to five people in a team, then it's still possible to work together."
The third thing that shocked me was Huang's own self-assessment. "I reckon to work in this industry is actually to create art - totally different from being a journalist. You are a news reporter of the Party, but I'm like an artist. To be a sports commentator, you have to be half-mad. Even if you pretend to be half-mad, you can still appeal to the audience. Why is this an industry for artists? Because you need to have an artist's touch and appeal to people. When your face is on CCTV 5 during primetime for a year and a half and nobody is talking about you, then you might as well go to the toilet and slap yourself. Making television is art."
Why was I shocked? Firstly, I thought that after already experiencing controversy, he should be more tactful and optimistic. There was no need to once again discuss about who was wronged, but he still said: "In 2001, I experienced such a big controversy, but it was okay because I was a commentator for the 2002 World Cup. When I was commentating at the World Cup, I felt like I was victorious on a battlefield. My opponents were stupid and ignorant."
Secondly, I thought commentators from CCTV wouldn't have such a strong opinion about Chinese soccer. In the past, articles written by commentators were limited because management believes that commentators are only famous due to the prominence of CCTV and therefore articles should reflect the station's position.
Thirdly, I don't believe that commentators are artists. Artists are too fake, while commentators should be realistic, colourful and possess feeling.
| 