> it also limits information and analysis for China’s decision makers
In China, the officials read Internal References(, which is not to be mistaken for the Reference News, which is openly published by Xinhua News Agency, and can be browsed at public bulletin for free as it usually publishes translated and selected articles from foreign news agencies to support the propaganda, IMHO). These 'Internal References' provides news from home and abroad for certain officials with respective clearances and the subjects discussed may be sensitive and critical. You can try to imagine a printed version of Bloomberg Service provided by the System. So it may be too naive to get the conclusion that decision makers have insufficient information.
That post is rather tone-deaf about the same circumstances in the USA. Yes, China is a lot less refined and advanced about how it controls message and impression, but it's behind in many aspects, one of which is propaganda and state control. The USA is the reigning master of propaganda and image fostering; it is, essentially, even an official technique of our foreign and domestic policy.
I can't stand people who blatantly and ignorantly lack anything even remotely like self-awareness.
As usual, any post about China is accompanied by a post saying "the US is even worse". One would think that the only difference between China and the US is that the US is even worse.
Again, context is everything. You're missing the point entirely. OP's point was regarding the hypocrisy of one government, criticising another government, for extremely similar policies/goals/implementation.
That said, I'm sure if we were in Russia, and an anti-US article was published, you'd see a few persons argue that it's nothing special as well, with "stop criticising my country" demagogues coming out of the wood work just like you have.
Jeff Bezos made a point when he said he wanted the Washington Post to survive as an independent voice. Bloomberg is subject to its customers, which is increasingly in China, which they have decided makes certain stories off-limits.
Due to the generosity of Jeff Bezos[1], the Washington Post does not need to worry about being beholden to its customers like that, at least not for the short-term future. We'll see how it turns out in the long term over time. This is not saying that if it were not for Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post would do similar things, because it's not like they have a lot of readers in China anyway. Just saying that thanks to Bezos, the Washington Post does not need to be beholden to its customers for now.
Ah but since their point was the US is even worse for the government controlling the media, what the Washington Post says is the Government saying it.
Of course this would make this simply government propaganda to stir up anti-Chinese feelings. But then that would mean that maybe the Chinese government isn't leading the media and therefore the US is worse at not controlling the media. Making this not one government criticizing another, but just the words of the Washington Post.
And I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
As an American who grew up during the Cold War, this article really isn't news. We were always accusing the Commies of hyper-sensitivity to international perception.
And yes, the US denies entry to "radical" figures.
Academics and political experts engage in self-censorship here also, lest their dreams of tenure slip away or they find themselves uninvited to the DC cocktail circuit.
Nothing surprising here either. Same thing happens in USA and everywhere else. The media plays to the tunes of whoever pays the most. In case of China no one else has actually bothered to pay the media to do the opposite. May be if India was not in the hell hole of self inflicted poverty and servitude they could have countered Chinese propoganda.
Even Google shows paid ads on the top of the search.
17 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 67.1 ms ] threadIn China, the officials read Internal References(, which is not to be mistaken for the Reference News, which is openly published by Xinhua News Agency, and can be browsed at public bulletin for free as it usually publishes translated and selected articles from foreign news agencies to support the propaganda, IMHO). These 'Internal References' provides news from home and abroad for certain officials with respective clearances and the subjects discussed may be sensitive and critical. You can try to imagine a printed version of Bloomberg Service provided by the System. So it may be too naive to get the conclusion that decision makers have insufficient information.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_News
2 https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/参考资料_(出版物)
I can't stand people who blatantly and ignorantly lack anything even remotely like self-awareness.
That said, I'm sure if we were in Russia, and an anti-US article was published, you'd see a few persons argue that it's nothing special as well, with "stop criticising my country" demagogues coming out of the wood work just like you have.
Jeff Bezos made a point when he said he wanted the Washington Post to survive as an independent voice. Bloomberg is subject to its customers, which is increasingly in China, which they have decided makes certain stories off-limits.
Due to the generosity of Jeff Bezos[1], the Washington Post does not need to worry about being beholden to its customers like that, at least not for the short-term future. We'll see how it turns out in the long term over time. This is not saying that if it were not for Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post would do similar things, because it's not like they have a lot of readers in China anyway. Just saying that thanks to Bezos, the Washington Post does not need to be beholden to its customers for now.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/jeff-bezos-on-post-pu...
Of course this would make this simply government propaganda to stir up anti-Chinese feelings. But then that would mean that maybe the Chinese government isn't leading the media and therefore the US is worse at not controlling the media. Making this not one government criticizing another, but just the words of the Washington Post.
And I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
This is exactly what the Reference News and Global Times have been trying to express in these years.
Besides, as one of the major publishes of the NSA leaks, it can hardly be said that the Post never criticizes the government.
And yes, the US denies entry to "radical" figures.
Academics and political experts engage in self-censorship here also, lest their dreams of tenure slip away or they find themselves uninvited to the DC cocktail circuit.
Even Google shows paid ads on the top of the search.