Let’s be objective about this issue, about the nature of the "media war".
Yes, China and Chinese have not been winning over hearts and minds in the media war fought on western turf.
You’re saying that Chinese could do better. Probably. As with most endeavors it’d be self-defeating to say "but there’s no room for improvement".
But having said that, do you seriously think that this media war over the Tibet issue fought on western turf is winnable for China?
Why is the Tibetan side winning? And is that a surprise? Indeed, is the outcome not pre-determined? Does anyone think that Fidel Castro could have won the media war in the US if he had better PR? Or the Palestinians over Israel? Or Saddam over Bush in stopping the invasion of 2003?
The Tibetans got celebrities on their side, Gere, Mia Farrow, Tutu, and one could really count Spielburg and all of them too. Do you think any similar celebrities would sign up for China, going around American cities, holding mass rallies to make the case that Tibet is a part of China. If not, why?
CNN’s Cafferty lashed out at the Chinese as "goons and thugs". Do you think that better PR would turn a similarly famous western TV journalist to express a similar kind of indignance in defense of Chinese policies? If not, why not?
When you think about it, can China really argue its case for Tibet to a western audience? Try this experiment. Your child is going to debate an issue in his high school. The topic is "Should we support self-determination for Tibet"? Your child can get on the "pro" or the "con" side. His job is to win the debate, which will be determined by the vote of his fellow students, and his grade will be determined accordingly. If he had a choice, would you advice him to take the "pro" or "con" side, and why?