Where to for ordinary Tibetans?

Most news watchers know that mudslinging in the media is about as common as tropical rain. This recent month, we've seen two regular targets for mudslinging – American Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama, and the leaders of China.

Both may soon be destined to helm superpower nations. Both have some fierce adversaries. And agree with it or not, both have a story to tell in response to the latest mudslinging.

The difference is that Senator Obama articulates his story well. China, at least from where I sit, appears to struggle. What are the keys to surviving attacks? From the viewpoint of a newswatcher, there seem to be three fundamentals:

• Be consistent and factual: React to each event once, and in a clear and unambiguous manner. When you are asked the same question again, give an answer consistent to what you said the first time. Don’t chop and change. Use facts in a sophisticated manner, and ensure that your facts are independently verifiable.

• Be articulate, unemotional and sympathetic: Explain the fundamentals of your argument. Ensure your official speaker is easily identifiable to the audience. Ensure your side of the story is heard in a clear, calm and reasoned manner. While not everyone will agree with you or be swayed by your argument, the way you deliver it is crucial. Don’t lose your cool, get outraged, say "poor me", or attack the messenger in an irrational way. This will only add extra heat to the debate. There will always be a non-emotive section of the audience who is eager to hear your argument. Focus on them.

• React quickly to new events: If the story or conditions shift, open your access to the media. If necessary, be willing to change your stance. But as ever, deliver it in strong yet calm fashion.

Before anyone accuses me - in heated fashion - of supporting China over Tibet, this is not the case. And while I have some sympathies for Obama, I can see merit in all the candidates.

My point is that essentially emotive arguments - like China in Tibet, or Obama over Reverend Wright - are the type that can escalate into more severe conflicts if they get out of hand. The type of conflicts where the players get increasingly isolated. And eventually, where those without the power often suffer even more than they are today.

I personally think China's human rights record in Tibet is despicable. But one has to acknowledge that correct or otherwise, there is an historical argument to them being there. Their argument is about one of sovereignty, and the right to self-determination. And given that it is extremely unlikely China would ever actually leave Tibet, is there a different way of improving the lives of Tibetans? Could we one day see some sort of regional autonomy for Tibet, similar to that of Hong Kong?

And in the meantime, exactly how is hijacking a torch relay in Paris actually helping the average hungry Tibetan?

Emotion aside, my point is that there is never a reason not to talk. This is Barack Obama's point too. His argument is that ethnically, we have all had different stories and experiences in arriving here. As a result, some of us may still hold grudges, and our spiritual leaders may lose their cool from time to time. But surely, our destiny is one best spent more often together than apart.

For a mixed-race presidential candidate, it is a potent and important argument - and one that needs to be heard.

Curiously, it is exactly the same argument we need to hear from China too - in a clear, balanced, non-shrill manner. As a balancing viewpoint, at the very least.

Once the mud clears, here's hoping some common sense talk replaces it.