 |
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/2...28_102232.shtml
another interesting article that I found there today.
quote:
Co-authored is a qualitative study by two overseas Chinese released August 21 on China Youth Daily as follows: Quantitative study into US media covering America's use of depleted uranium bomb reveals that news blackout by mainstream media on certain issues bearing on America's own national interests has been proved an indisputable fact and this has even been implemented to a most rigid extent.
Enforced "silence" over international news
Being a "liberal and diversified" Western country, the US has been stressing on the nature of news coverage as being "fair", "objective" and "diversified". However, as things are with every Western modern commercial society soaked in political and commercial interests, these beautiful slogans just represent no more than liberal ideals that can by no means be realized. In spite of all their boasting about "freedom of speech" there is no denial in these commercial societies that the spreading of public opinion is directly backed by money, the more money you have got the more influential your paper will be. If you only hawk your ideas to passers-by on a soapbox in London's Hyde Park or New York's Central Park, you would get nowhere expect being regarded as a lunatic.
The last past two decades have seen a three- to four-fold increase of expense canvassing for US presidency mainly for purchasing political advertisements on television and other media. A cold fact is that the mainstream media of Western countries, especially the US, relying on their huge property and other resources, take in hand the power of "setting news subjects". That is, through adoption and omission of news resources and contents, to "guide" or divert public attention on certain issues, and block public knowledge and concern over other issues through so-called "structural news tightening".
For a vying institutional setup and a rivalry of interests and partisanship between different political entities, groups and individuals the US authorities must be in a difficult position to block or hush up news for long, which give the rest of the world an impression of "freedom of news coverage".
But the case is totally different when it comes to international news and diplomatic policies. Because of special geographical and historical reasons, especially longtime "isolationism", the US public generally suffers from a dearth of knowledge and interests in international issues.
Under such circumstances there appeared an astonishing "harmony" between attitudes of mainstream media towards foreign issues and that of the US government towards diplomatic policies and so-called "national interests". As a Western saying goes, "Speech is silver, silence is gold". The "omission" policy on certain news topics turned out smarter than continuous babble.
News on China left out purposefully
Since Cold War began China-related news has been sacrificed under the "omission" policy. For example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had long been involved in splitting activities by former Tibetan Dalai Lama government, which were not at all conducted "in "peaceful" ways as described by Western media but bloody onslaughts and under great secrecy.
A case in point was that November 1961 New York Times journalists managed to learn that CIA were secretly training Tibetan "free soldiers" in Colorado. But the office of national defense secretary under the Kennedy administration interfered immediately and, under the name of "national security", "persuaded" the newspaper not to publish the report.
After disintegration of the former Soviet Union the US showed great interest in poking its nose into central-Asia areas, thus triggered off a new round of "Great Game" (which originally referred to long-term fighting between the United Kingdom and Tsarist Russia for central Asia). The US targeted not only the former Soviet Union and central Asian countries, but also China's Xinjiang and Tibet.
October 1998, professor Fuller with the University of Hawaii was dismissed by CIA for making a study on minority issues of China's Xinjiang. Later the professor, an expert in geography of Asian minorities, put the US government to court, and pointed out from the very beginning that he was dismissed because he disagreed with the policy of "China may split" made by CIA officials.
An open lawsuit between university professor and CIA might well hit headline. But in fact, expect for a Reuters report that came one year later, we practically got nothing but silence from mainstream US media showing their long-standing interest in Xinjiang " splittists", only because such an article would thoroughly expose CIA's policy towards China.
"Zero report" from major papers on depleted uranium bomb
China-related news reports are not the only case. After learning US use of depleted uranium bombs as a weapon of mass destruction in the Gulf and Balkan areas all major US media had kept a complete silence over all related news and facts to help their government escape responsibilities in politics, law, economy and morality.
But the issue roused interest in Ms Wu Mei from Macao University. According to her statistics, from January 1, 1991 to June 30, 1999, Western European media, though most of them not belonging to English world, carried at least 195 English-language reports about depleted uranium bomb, including 38 pieces from UK-based Routers and 22 from France-based AFP.
Meanwhile the three biggest US news media fell all mute. The Wall Street Journal ran no report at all. The New York Times published only a piece of AP news and three readers' letters, without a single report of its own. The Washington Post was more interesting, having been the first to boast depleted uranium weapons against Iraq in 1991, then put out only two related pieces during a period of nine successive years.
Quantitative study on US media covering depleted uranium bombs could prove that news blackout by mainstream media on certain issues involving America's own national interests has become an indisputable fact, which has even enforced to an astonishing extent of great rigidity, this is Ms Wu's conclusion.
Narrow-minded foreign policy stems from a big, affluent nation
It is necessary to point out that the US-led English-language media exert a deciding influence on Chinese-language media all over the world. Former British colony Hong Kong and "democratic" Taiwan have long been nose-led by English media on international issues. What's worse, in recent years many mainland papers also played into the hands of English media, with much online news directly translated from those of US news media. These facts have made the "structural" news blackout based on "US national interests" by mainstream media all the more worrying.
By PD Online Staff Member Li Heng
|
Could this be only the indication of issues that are omitted. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:22
|
|
Since I live here, I am particularly aware of the systematic distortions in American news coverage of China. I do not believe it is the result of any centrally-directed censorship, I think usually it is the result of lazy or sensationalized reporting, and editors not wanting to run "risky" stories that run counter to contemporary perceived "wisdom".
Example: it is big news in American papers when Internet bars are closed down in China. However, there is no follow-up story two weeks later when most of them are open again. Readers are left with a distinctly wrong impression.
Another example: when google.com recently became blocked by the government firewall, it was reported (perhaps widely) in the American press. Yet, when most of the firewall was lifted earlier this year - a much bigger story - I could not find a single mention of it anywhere in the American press.
One more: an American friend of mine over here pointed out that photos of China in the mainstream US press usually feature either a soldier or a policeman, even though neither are common sights here! There are far more - and much more heavily armed - policemen on the streets of US cities than here. These photos subtly re-inforce the popular (and quite mistaken) American opinion that today's China is an oppressive police state.
Again, I don't think this is the result of any kind of conspiracy. I strongly suspect that if I lived in some other part of the world I would see a similar effect, but since I live in China, this is where it is most apparent to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheStinger
|
 |
International crime fighting playboy
Apr 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye
Since I live here, I am particularly aware of the systematic distortions in American news coverage of China. I do not believe it is the result of any centrally-directed censorship, I think usually it is the result of lazy or sensationalized reporting, and editors not wanting to run "risky" stories that run counter to contemporary perceived "wisdom".
Example: it is big news in American papers when Internet bars are closed down in China. However, there is no follow-up story two weeks later when most of them are open again. Readers are left with a distinctly wrong impression.
Another example: when google.com recently became blocked by the government firewall, it was reported (perhaps widely) in the American press. Yet, when most of the firewall was lifted earlier this year - a much bigger story - I could not find a single mention of it anywhere in the American press.
One more: an American friend of mine over here pointed out that photos of China in the mainstream US press usually feature either a soldier or a policeman, even though neither are common sights here! There are far more - and much more heavily armed - policemen on the streets of US cities than here. These photos subtly re-inforce the popular (and quite mistaken) American opinion that today's China is an oppressive police state.
Again, I don't think this is the result of any kind of conspiracy. I strongly suspect that if I lived in some other part of the world I would see a similar effect, but since I live in China, this is where it is most apparent to me. |
So you would be left alone if you tried to start a new political party or published a newspaper criticising the government, or said Tibet should be left alone.
Countries which stop those things are police states
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
BBC online reported both the imposing and releasing of the firewall. |
Thank you, I feel a bit better now. Ironically, I have never been able to see that reporting because the BBC is one of the few news sites which remains blocked!  Still, no mention in the entire US media, eh?
quote:
Abscence of freedom of speach and right to protest are signs of a police state. |
I think it takes more than that. Many laws are not really enforced here, not by the police or any other agencies. You can speak freely over your phone. Email is no problem. Heck, no one but the little corner police station tracks where foreigners live, and even there it's on a little manually-filled in form in a big book. There is little if any of the kind of systematic surveillance that "police state" implies. And at the most basic level: there aren't many policemen here!
quote:
Lack of freedom of religion is as well |
Huh? China has Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Moslems, and Christians! I can see a Christian church from my apartment window. I visited a state Christian church, they were doing the Stations of the Cross or some other sort of processional while I was there. Didn't seem any different from the Catholic churches I remembered from the US. Heard the same from a friend who attended mass.
quote:
Could a non communist party member be elected to high office. |
Certainly not now. But you have to admit that the fact that there are now free elections at the local level is meaningful. Also the fact that open debate and criticism of policy now takes place in the People's Congress. That doesn't sound much like life in a "police state".
quote:
Would you prefer me to call it a repressive dictatorship rather than a police state. |
Now you're getting closer! It's rather hard to describe just what it is, as there has been nothing quite like it before, coupled with the fact that it's changing so quickly. I suppose you could call it an authoritarian single-party dictatorship. Repressive? Not really true for most Chinese anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
des-esseintes
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/2...28_102232.shtml
another interesting article that I found there today.
quote:
Co-authored is a qualitative study by two overseas Chinese released August 21 on China Youth Daily as follows: Quantitative study into US media covering America's use of depleted uranium bomb reveals that news blackout by mainstream media on certain issues bearing on America's own national interests has been proved an indisputable fact and this has even been implemented to a most rigid extent.
Enforced "silence" over international news
Being a "liberal and diversified" Western country, the US has been stressing on the nature of news coverage as being "fair", "objective" and "diversified". However, as things are with every Western modern commercial society soaked in political and commercial interests, these beautiful slogans just represent no more than liberal ideals that can by no means be realized. In spite of all their boasting about "freedom of speech" there is no denial in these commercial societies that the spreading of public opinion is directly backed by money, the more money you have got the more influential your paper will be. If you only hawk your ideas to passers-by on a soapbox in London's Hyde Park or New York's Central Park, you would get nowhere expect being regarded as a lunatic.
The last past two decades have seen a three- to four-fold increase of expense canvassing for US presidency mainly for purchasing political advertisements on television and other media. A cold fact is that the mainstream media of Western countries, especially the US, relying on their huge property and other resources, take in hand the power of "setting news subjects". That is, through adoption and omission of news resources and contents, to "guide" or divert public attention on certain issues, and block public knowledge and concern over other issues through so-called "structural news tightening".
For a vying institutional setup and a rivalry of interests and partisanship between different political entities, groups and individuals the US authorities must be in a difficult position to block or hush up news for long, which give the rest of the world an impression of "freedom of news coverage".
But the case is totally different when it comes to international news and diplomatic policies. Because of special geographical and historical reasons, especially longtime "isolationism", the US public generally suffers from a dearth of knowledge and interests in international issues.
Under such circumstances there appeared an astonishing "harmony" between attitudes of mainstream media towards foreign issues and that of the US government towards diplomatic policies and so-called "national interests". As a Western saying goes, "Speech is silver, silence is gold". The "omission" policy on certain news topics turned out smarter than continuous babble.
News on China left out purposefully
Since Cold War began China-related news has been sacrificed under the "omission" policy. For example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had long been involved in splitting activities by former Tibetan Dalai Lama government, which were not at all conducted "in "peaceful" ways as described by Western media but bloody onslaughts and under great secrecy.
A case in point was that November 1961 New York Times journalists managed to learn that CIA were secretly training Tibetan "free soldiers" in Colorado. But the office of national defense secretary under the Kennedy administration interfered immediately and, under the name of "national security", "persuaded" the newspaper not to publish the report.
After disintegration of the former Soviet Union the US showed great interest in poking its nose into central-Asia areas, thus triggered off a new round of "Great Game" (which originally referred to long-term fighting between the United Kingdom and Tsarist Russia for central Asia). The US targeted not only the former Soviet Union and central Asian countries, but also China's Xinjiang and Tibet.
October 1998, professor Fuller with the University of Hawaii was dismissed by CIA for making a study on minority issues of China's Xinjiang. Later the professor, an expert in geography of Asian minorities, put the US government to court, and pointed out from the very beginning that he was dismissed because he disagreed with the policy of "China may split" made by CIA officials.
An open lawsuit between university professor and CIA might well hit headline. But in fact, expect for a Reuters report that came one year later, we practically got nothing but silence from mainstream US media showing their long-standing interest in Xinjiang " splittists", only because such an article would thoroughly expose CIA's policy towards China.
"Zero report" from major papers on depleted uranium bomb
China-related news reports are not the only case. After learning US use of depleted uranium bombs as a weapon of mass destruction in the Gulf and Balkan areas all major US media had kept a complete silence over all related news and facts to help their government escape responsibilities in politics, law, economy and morality.
But the issue roused interest in Ms Wu Mei from Macao University. According to her statistics, from January 1, 1991 to June 30, 1999, Western European media, though most of them not belonging to English world, carried at least 195 English-language reports about depleted uranium bomb, including 38 pieces from UK-based Routers and 22 from France-based AFP.
Meanwhile the three biggest US news media fell all mute. The Wall Street Journal ran no report at all. The New York Times published only a piece of AP news and three readers' letters, without a single report of its own. The Washington Post was more interesting, having been the first to boast depleted uranium weapons against Iraq in 1991, then put out only two related pieces during a period of nine successive years.
Quantitative study on US media covering depleted uranium bombs could prove that news blackout by mainstream media on certain issues involving America's own national interests has become an indisputable fact, which has even enforced to an astonishing extent of great rigidity, this is Ms Wu's conclusion.
Narrow-minded foreign policy stems from a big, affluent nation
It is necessary to point out that the US-led English-language media exert a deciding influence on Chinese-language media all over the world. Former British colony Hong Kong and "democratic" Taiwan have long been nose-led by English media on international issues. What's worse, in recent years many mainland papers also played into the hands of English media, with much online news directly translated from those of US news media. These facts have made the "structural" news blackout based on "US national interests" by mainstream media all the more worrying.
By PD Online Staff Member Li Heng
|
Could this be only the indication of issues that are omitted. |
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
Mindseye. You might see a church. But trust me... there heavily censored and less to the point. Ive seen on a Dutch documentary and heard about these things. Your not aloud to teach the religon. You have to submit it to a committee who edits things on who can say what.
China is a police state. No matter how you dress it up. Its a police state. Tienemen Square? I didnt see that? Was it a misunderstand of some sorts?
Tibet????
The Falun Gong persicutions in Hong Kong??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
it takes more than that. Many laws are not really enforced here, not by the police or any other agencies. You can speak freely over your phone. Email is no problem. Heck, no one but the little corner police station tracks where foreigners live, and even there it's on a little manually-filled in form in a big book. There is little if any of the kind of systematic surveillance that "police state" implies. And at the most basic level: [i]there aren't many policemen here! |
So the laws are enforced selectively. That makes things better.
quote:
Huh? China has Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Moslems, and Christians! I can see a Christian church from my apartment window. I visited a state Christian church, they were doing the Stations of the Cross or some other sort of processional while I was there. Didn't seem any different from the Catholic churches I remembered from the US. Heard the same from a friend who attended mass. |
Find out what's been goinh on in Tibet. Then find out who the falun gong are. Although considering what china's done, maybe were is a better choice of words.
quote:
Now you're getting closer! It's rather hard to describe just what it is, as there has been nothing quite like it before, coupled with the fact that it's changing so quickly. I suppose you could call it an authoritarian single-party dictatorship. Repressive? Not really true for most Chinese anymore. |
But would it be repressive to someone from the west?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
Who would of thought China of all places would be the capitalists paradise for Slave labor for American/European factories that relocated??
Comrade Mao MUST be rolling in his grave
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
China loses grip on internet
By Rupert Wingfield-Hayes
In Beijing
The internet is changing China profoundly, breaking down the stranglehold on information held by China's communist rulers.
The Chinese are now the second biggest internet users in the world. Last year more than 56 million of them logged on from home, and that number is growing by 6% a month.
But the Chinese state will not give up its monopoly without a fight - and using the internet to express dissent in China is still a very dangerous game to play.
One man, Haung Qi found that out to his cost, as he explained in a rare interview.
In 1998 he set up a website in the western Chinese city of Cheng Du. The site rapidly became a magnet for discussion of everything from human rights to democracy.
"As the website developed it began to reveal more and more deep problems in China's society," he said. "Gradually we began to come under a lot of pressure from the government.
"First the police came to shut down the site, then agents from the state security bureau."
Web police
Not long after the interview was recorded the police came for Huang Qi. He posted a last message on the site.
"The police are here," he wrote. "Thanks to all of those who care about democracy in China. Goodbye."
Last August Huang Qi was found guilty of attempting to subvert state power. He will spend the next few years in a bare concrete cell.
Inside an imposing building in Beijing is the Ministry of Information Industry, where a hi-tech police force keeps watch over the internet 24 hours a day. It has been nicknamed "the great fire-wall of China".
Its job is to keep ordinary Chinese people from accessing unhealthy information. That could be anything from Playboy to the BBC.
The Chinese state is going to enormous lengths to control the web. But despite its best efforts, the internet is changing China.
Debate widens
At 0300 the printing presses at The People's Daily are in full flow. The newspaper is the mouthpiece of the Communist Party. Its stock in trade is industrial output figures and the latest Communist Party dogma.
It is not a good read.
But a few floors above at the offices of the People's Daily website, something very different is going on. The site has real news stories and its internet chat-rooms rage with debate - some of them quite racy.
The site is rather grandly named "the strong country forum".
There is one message group which is talking about patriotism.
"Today patriotism in China means loving the Party and loving Socialism," said one contributor. "You can destroy China's environment, but you can't criticise the Party."
For the first time ever the internet is allowing people from every corner of China to engage with each other in conversation and debate. And it is changing China in other ways too.
Spreading the word
China's state-run television recently reported on a huge mining disaster in the south-west of the country in which 81 miners were killed. But without the internet this report would probably never have happened.
"The local government used all kinds of measures to try and stop us reporting the disaster," said Zheng Sheng Feng, the bureau chief for the local Communist Party daily.
"They threatened lots of journalists and succeeded in stopping many of them from publishing their stories. The officials knew they would be in big trouble if the story got out."
Frustrated and angry, Mr Zheng and his colleagues took their stories and posted them on the web. Word began to spread. Soon journalists in other provinces picked up the story and finally news of the disaster reached Beijing.
"Without the internet the story may still have got out," said Mr Zheng. "With so many people killed it would have been hard to keep it a secret for ever, but it would have been much more difficult."
The internet is changing China in subtle but profound ways. Information is now being spread and exchanged in ways unthinkable just a few years ago.
The Chinese state's once total control on information has been broken and hard as it may try it has little hope of regaining that control. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:22
|
|
leftover_crack wrote:quote:
You might see a church (...) |
Uh no, I've been to a church with worship in progress. An American friend of mine attended an entire mass.
quote:
Ive seen on a Dutch documentary and heard about these things. |
So you watched a tv show and heard something from someone. I was there.
Sorry, but on this one, I'm going with my eyes and ears over a tv show.
quote:
China is a police state. No matter how you dress it up |
Maybe you should know what you are talking about before you post. Sure, China is not an open western-style democracy - but neither is it a police state.
You tell me, does this sound like a typical police state?
* most people largely supportive of their government, but not reluctant to criticize it
* an exploding middle class whose daily lives differs little from those of westerners
* many apartment residents have satellite tv
* tv stations openly defy rulings by Beijing censors (see my recent post on F4)
* easy anonymous access to the internet, including almost all western news sources
* unfettered domestic travel within the country
* tourists allowed to freely travel to many other countries, including some in Europe
* open debate in People's Congress
* can work for whatever company you want, even foreign firms, or start your own
* unfettered access to foreigners
* hoardes of young people allowed to study in the west
* growing numbers of political and environmental activists
* no public pro-Party political slogans anymore (not that I have seen, anyway)
* young pierced hipsters take ecstacy, smoke grass, dance to techno in crowded, modern nightclubs
* say anything you want over the phone
* prominent advertisements with scantily-clad women and sexy guys
* many openly gay bars (one of Shanghai's largest is next door to a police station)
* no interference with Chinese gay web sites
* easy access to virtually all new western movies
* many middle-class people drive new Buicks, Audis, BMWs and Mercedes Benz
* people openly criticize and make jokes about their leaders (Li Peng is a favorite target)
* newspapers criticize local gov't in print (caveat: criticism of central gov't still rare)
* election of local officials including some independant non-party members
* locals (friends, co-workers, students) laugh at notion they are "oppressed"
* and of course: not many policemen!
quote:
Tienemen Square? I didnt see that? Was it a misunderstand of some sorts? |
Jeez, that was over 20 years ago! I think you must be oblivious to the pace of change in contemporary China. Much of China is completely unrecognizable from that of 20 years ago. Here in Shanghai there are parts of town crowded with futuristic hirises on areas that were farmland and mudflats just ten years ago. Social and political life have changed at the same pace. I suspect you are under the imperssion that people here still wear Mao suits.
The reality of the stuation is a lot more complex than what you read in the US media. I'm not condoning the actions of Beijing - far from it - but you really need to get your information from a better source than Richard Gere movies.
quote:
The Falun Gong persicutions in Hong Kong?? |
Huh? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that Falun Gong operated openly in Hong Kong. Certainly they stage protests there. Maybe you really meant the mainland. Either way, I think maybe you don't know much about Falun Gong, or the people who have died from self-immolation or lack of medicine (Lee Hongzhi's teaching is that modern science is wrong and medicine is useless). I'll post another response with some samples of Falun Gong teaching for you.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2002 16:03
|