Two new documentaries shed light on the bigger-picture context and complexities surrounding the violence in northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous region.

The first, "Fighting Terrorism in Xinjiang," features never-before-seen footage and testimonies from people impacted by terrorism, including the Urumqi riots in July 2009, which killed 197 people, the Kunming railway station assault in March 2014, with 31 deaths, and the May 2014 Urumqi attack with a death toll of 43.

The second, "The Black Hand – The East Turkistan Islamic Movement and terrorism in Xinjiang," exposes how the group brainwashes people, including children, with extremist thoughts, inciting hatred between different ethnic groups and launching terrorist attacks. 

Released in English, both documentaries provide perspectives from people who live in Xinjiang and who've been impacted by terrorism and extremism.

But strangely enough, the very same media that have been so vocal about Xinjiang-related news seem to have gone silent when it comes to reporting on the documentaries and the ugly realities they reveal. Those that did simply dismissed the documentaries as Chinese government "propaganda" or avoided the point that the policies stem from a real threat – not just a crackdown on so-called "human rights."

For example, in its article "China claims detained Uygurs have been freed" published on December 9, The Guardian covers a press conference where Xinjiang's governor, Shohrat Zakir, spoke to reporters about the vocational education and training centers. He emphasized the program's focus on teaching Chinese language skills, law, and vocational skills to "eliminate extremism."

However, the article suggests that China's version of the story is suspect when it says that certain leaked documents undermine the governor's claims. It adds, "In recent days, Beijing has launched an aggressive propaganda campaign in response to criticism of its policies in Xinjiang."

The world wants to know what's going on in Xinjiang. But when Beijing goes out of its way to explain what's happening and why, it's automatically labeled "propaganda." The article mentions the documentaries but fails to dedicate even a few lines to what they are about. The article doesn't make one mention of the previous terror attacks in the region or why the program was launched in the first place. Why not?

The New York Times published the article "Facing Criticism Over Muslim Camps, China Says: What's the Problem?" on December 9. 

It says, "Chinese officials have released social media videos, blistering editorials and attacks on researchers in a push to counter evidence of its Muslim internment drive," adding that Beijing is using "slick videos" and "strident editorials" in its "aggressive media campaign" to defend its side of the story.

Why can't the article report just the facts without the fancy adjectives? Shouldn't readers be allowed to make up their own minds if the videos are "slick," if the editorials are "blistering" and if the media's approach is indeed "aggressive"?

I even make a cameo appearance in the article, presumably as one such "strident" example. I appreciate that the article includes my commentary as another voice speaking about the issue. But the piece still misses the bigger picture of Xinjiang. What about the background information on the region, the tremendous efforts made to lift the Xinjiang people out of poverty, the overall progress that's been achieved in the region in terms of tourism, education, and infrastructure? It's important to look at the issue from a holistic perspective instead of a series of tweets and posts.

I acknowledge that it's difficult for journalists to write about a place they've never lived and about such a complex issue with deep roots. But for the more than 24 million people who actually live in Xinjiang, safety and stability matter. For them, it's reassuring that no terrorist attacks have occurred in Xinjiang over the past three years. That's a big deal and a big victory for Xinjiang in the global war on terror and extremism.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)