Chinese Journalists Beat Censorship With Web 193
chris-chittleborough writes "When Beijing tried to make a journalist's pay at one newspaper depend on official reactions to their stories, a web-savvy reporter was able to create a groundswell of public opinion and reverse the move." From the article: "Just before the meeting, Li had posted a blistering letter on the newspaper's computer system attacking the Communist Party's propaganda czars and a plan by the editor in chief to dock reporters' pay if their stories upset party officials. No one told the editor in chief. For 90 minutes, he ran the meeting, oblivious to the political storm that was brewing. Then Li announced what he had done."
webcast (Score:2)
Let's get it out of the way. (Score:5, Funny)
"In Communist China, Web Journalist Censored, Beaten"
(Someone had to say it.)
Re:Let's get it out of the way. (Score:3, Funny)
This is china, you think he cant be tried? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is china, you think he cant be tried? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the US, you're fingered as a terrorist. (Score:2)
Re:In the US, you're fingered as a terrorist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In the US, you're fingered as a terrorist. (Score:2)
I thought they said he couldn't touch anything that ran on electricity. That would most definitely suck.
(Ohhhhh, now I'm XHTML compliant too!)
Re:In the US, you're fingered as a terrorist. (Score:2)
Should read:
Blah, Blah, Blah... (Lame joke about XHTML...it's not even worth it)
Re:In the US, you're fingered as a terrorist. (Score:2)
Re:This is china, you think he cant be tried? (Score:4, Informative)
-Rick
Re:This is china, you think he cant be tried? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is china, you think he cant be tried? (Score:2)
You are incorrect. You do not hear about such things because it is done within the color of law. Tax audits, no-fly lists, lawsuits, bogus criminal investigations, etc are all there to punish people who break with the official party line. Since you are "guilty" there is no outcry. I mean, how could it be those in power punishing you, right?
as much as i'd love it to be otherwise.
Did you really mean this? You wish
followup (Score:4, Funny)
im sure he'll be treated fairly now (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Anti-US sentiment is keeping him in charge, the people there hate the US (except for those who flee there to come to the US - but they don't affect Cuban politics after their gone), which is only 90 miles away, and believe attacking him would be supporting the US, and hence they don't.
That being said, without Castro, it will probably unravel fairly quickly, it is unlikely that his replacement will be as popular, and as able to hold things together, even with an
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
If the timeframe is 200 years, then it may as well be "forever" for the people that live through it.
Far too short (Score:3, Informative)
That's the First Century BC (I'll leave it to historians to quibble about whether the empire started with Caesar overstaying his term as Dictator or the crowning of Augustus), and it lasted the Fifth Century AD in the West--and another thousand years in the East.
That's a very long time to wait . . .
hawk
Re:Far too short (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Mmm, not really. Clinton performed warrantless physical searches, which were legal under FISA at the time, before the law was changed in 1995. If you have evidence that the Clinton administration actually violated wiretapping laws, as the Bush administration seems to have done, a lot of people would like to see it.
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people on Slashdot say this, and while I agree that it's very important to vigilantly guard civil liberties, I don't think this argument that "freedom given away 'temporarily' is impossible to get back easily" really flies. Also, the electorate usually doesn't "say" something timid like "might we have some more." It's usually a firmer "back off!" For example, look at the Alien and Sedition Acts that were passed under John Adams' administration; under our modern interpretation of the 1st Amendment, the laws were clearly unconstitutional, and a lot of Americans at the time thought so too. What happened? In 1800, the electorate threw John Adams and his Federalists out of power and voted in the Democratic-Republicans with Jefferson, who strongly opposed the acts. A similar episode came when Ford was kicked out when Americans voted after Watergate was exposed. The point here is that the American voters tend to tolerate relatively small transgressions on their freedoms, but if politicians take a real serious chunk, they'll let them know.
The irony is that in America, anyone who votes for the two major parties is voting for the rise of Fascism.
There is a slippery slope here, but you're turning it into a vertical cliff. The only censorship advocated by American political parties today is censorship of "obscene material" containing violence, sex, expletives, etc. While I completely agree that this ought to be covered under free speech, let's look at this honestly: this isn't political speech. Alberto Gonzales would like to could get rid of porn not because it's critical of Bush, but out of genuine (from his perspective) concern about "corrupting" children. The slope is slippery, but there is still a very significant bump that any politician wanting to do political censorship would have to overcome. However, even if political censorship is acceptable, that doesn't mean that all semblance of free speech disappears immediately. Look at many European countries, where denial of Holocaust or "hate" speech is prohibited. Such speech is banned for truly political reasons, and yet (nearly) free political discourse still survives in Europe.
Again, I think that any censorship is silly and unethical. It's both futile and unnecessary; people will always get around it, and with free speech stupid ideas will die without logical underpinnings. But freedom is not quite as fragile as you think, and you completely exaggerate the political climate in America. Saying that censoring curse words by law on TV is the "rise of Fascism" would be like pointing at someone who just got a ticket for speeding and saying that they will turn into a serial killer. Yeah, the censorship of "obscene material" is wrong, but it's not the end of the world.
A nation that won't even tell private security officers at stores like Best Buy to leave them alone when they're harrassing them, won't stay free long.
Why do you see things through such a black and white lense? Some people don't mind if Best Buy takes steps to prevent shop-lifting, even if it's a bit of a bother sometimes. Many Slashdotters seem to think that if authorities even dare to check on whether or not you're breaking the law, whether through surveillance cameras at the Olympics, checking IDs at airports, or DRM on music, that is the end of the free world. The government can't be constantly watching because there is a danger of abuse, not because we're supposed to always presume that no one would ever violate the law when given the chance. Best Buy can't just lock you up because you look guilty, but you also cannot expect them to not do anything to prevent shoplifting.
In short, there is a lot of gray area between not letting minors buy Grand Theft Auto and totalitarian political censorship that you are completely ignoring. It's not good, but it's not fascism.
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot about people who got censured and supressed for complaining about Bush's foray into Iraq "It's unamerican to criticize the president in a time of war".
The thing is that this so-called war isn't like WWII where the start, end and opponents could be clearly deliniated by declarations of war and peace treaties. This 'war on terror' has no specific start date, and not prospective end time. The civil rights that dissapear in the name of 'The War On Terror' are not likely to be recovered anytime in the forseeable future.
"The enemy" is the ephemeral 'terrorist', but terrorism has been so generically defined, at times, that organizing a general strike to signal opposition to an impugned government policy could classify as 'terrorism' and thus get the organizers quietly taken into custody with no notification to anybody (other than a body count a year later) and precious little in the way of civil rights.
News organizations and reporters that portray Bush in a negative light are quietly frozen out of briefings, so they learn to be silent unless 'everybody else' is also criticizing him. The result is that public debate is quietly squashed.
Similar things can be said about criticizing large corporations that media organizations rely on for advertising revenue.
I've talked to the photo editor of a large daily who pointed to one of my images as an especially good news photo, "... But we'd never print it", because it would have promoted the viewpoint of the wrong side.
She talked to me of how one well-respected photographer's images couldn't be used because he was 'to biased' (i.e. he was with the anti-logging protestors). That day, her paper back-paged the story of a large local protest against then-current logging practices. A couple of days later, the paper printed on the front page an image that was credited to the logging company that the protests were aimed at. It was an image of a smaller pro-logging rally that the company had orginized in another city.
This is a local example that I was directly involved in, but there are examples elsewhere. Censorship is alive and well and living at a news source near you. It's just not official.. As Li Datong said in TFA: "A newspaper can evaluate reporters that way, and many do, but it can't be so blatant about it."
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
September 11, 2001
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
You forgot about people who got censured and supressed for complaining about Bush's foray into Iraq "It's unamerican to criticize the president in a time of war".
Speech offered to shame or belittle the President's critics is neither censorship nor suppression. It is simply more free speech. True censorship would manifest itself either as laws making it illegal to criticize the President, or as overt arrests of the President's critics. In fact, the example you give above proves that we have free speech,
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
No, you forgot that the people who say that are entitled to just as much free speech as opponents of the war.
The thing is that this so-called war isn't like WWII where the start, end and opponents could be clearly deliniated by declarations of war and peace treaties. This 'war on terror' has no specific start date, and not prospective end tim
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
Arrested for a political T-shirt [mercurynews.com]
Arrested and prosecuted for a political sign [scpronet.com]
Three years in prison for a political cartoon [newsday.com]
Grounds for concern, I hope you'll agreee, even if you don't consider it Fascism [themodernword.com].
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:2)
The Capitol police has apologized for the incident, so it appears that this was a result of unprepared police officers, not a policy. In any case, your right to wear a political T-shirt and march through town with it is as certain today as it has always been (in fact more so than at other times in our history).
Arrested and prosecuted for a political sign
I wish Bush wasn't so shielded from criticism, but this is more of a "it would be good for him" than "OMG he's a ty
Two parties are enough (Score:2)
The irony is that in America, anyone who votes for the two major parties is voting for the rise of Fascism.
No, the two party system is simply the byproduct of the need for a elected majority to make law and control the US government. The republicans and democrats ones simply exchange members from the political center in long period cycles. I see the purity of Reagan's party (smaller government, fewer taxes, strong defense, moral clarity) has been sorely compromised in the present by moderates. Today's r
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:5, Insightful)
so... after "Terrorism" has surrendered in this current "War", legislation that curtails the freedoms of americans will probably also be reversed? Oh well, that won't take long..
Mod Parent up (Score:2)
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a bit more insidious in modern times, I think...
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:3, Insightful)
So, when will "The War on Terrorism®" end? Near as I can tell, the answer to that question is "Never.". That's a pretty gloomy schedule for getting back our freedom. In fact, it's positively Orwellian. Constant war as an excuse for limited freedom.
Re:Freedom fighters (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm still waiting for them to repeal the Income Tax.
In A Related Story (Score:5, Funny)
A cunning plan... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, there's a plan for defeating censorship... it only takes someone outside China with an IM client and a group of people willing to forward the messages.
Especially if the messages end with "... and Kwai Chang Caine, who taught his son wisdom in a Shaolin temple, forgot to forward this message. An evil force destroyed the temple. Father and son each believed the other had perished. Then Kwai Chang Caine found the message in his chat log and forwarded it to all the people on his contact list. Now they are reunited..."
The fall of the CPC? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The fall of the CPC? (Score:2)
Only if they are stupid (Score:2)
A. Some chinese people are doing very well financially. People with good pay checks don't riot unless they are under threath to loose them. The LA riots did not take place in the hills.
B. There are those who claim China is becoming more capatalist. Yeah right. Only those who do not have a clue as to what it means believe that. China very much has its own system and it isn't what you think it is.
C. They only got to look to the west. No not the US, Russia to see what happens when the communist leave. Do the
Re:The fall of the CPC? (Score:2)
When is a crackdown - a crackdown? (Score:5, Insightful)
It surprises me that they didn't just call the cops to come in there, arrest everyone and shut the whole thing down.
Or just lock the doors to the place and tell everyone to stay home and do some censored blogging.
New Policy From The Propaganda Czars (Score:5, Funny)
Do not hire any more journalists with noticeable bulges in their pant crotches caused by a case of having massive balls.
Not exactly fresh... (Score:2)
Li Datong, the author of the memo (I can't help but be reminded of Jerry Maguire), was basically fired for this.
"They are being transferred to work in the paper's news research department, which they jokingly referred to in their letter as 'the warehouse.'"
from "Radio Free Asia" [rfa.org]
Li Datong's Letter (Score:5, Informative)
good bye old red (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom Fighters (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom Fighters (Score:3, Insightful)
which is more insideous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Li didn't seem all that worried about either, to be honest. I think you're romanticizing things a tad.
In America journalists are afraid to ask politicians questions about their crimes.
So, which is more insideous? The blatant "don't go against the groupthink, or we'll kill you"?
Or, the subtle "don't go against the groupthink, because we give nothing useful in a public press conference, and you won't be given the good stuff anymore like your colleagues. You'll be labelled a 'biased liberal', and because nobody in the administration will speak to you, you'll be unemployable"?
Study the White House press core situation, and tell me that isn't censorship in full force. The press secretary refutes any serious question with almost every trick in the logical-fallacy handbook. Unless you play along, you don't get the "government official, speaking on condition of anonymity" or "after the press conference, Scott McClellan said privately..." tidbits. Remember the days when presidents would be the ones speaking at a press conference, not a guy who keeps saying, "The President feels..."?
I recall reading recently how the WH press core got all bent out of shape about getting the news late about Cheney's little shooting incident. Where was the outrage over something that matters, like domestic spying? And if they were truly so angry, why didn't they just all get up and leave?
The White House press core are like crack whores. They rely on yet despise their pimps, occasionally developing some backbone or attitude. But at the end of the day, they're still just puppet addicts.
Re:which is more insideous? (Score:2)
Scotty McLiar is the trick, the john - not the pimp. The pimps are the
Re:which is more insideous? (Score:2)
I wouldn't say he's romanticizing:
Li Zhi jailed. [rsf.org]
Shi Tao jailed [rsf.org]
For starters....
Meanwhile in holland (Score:2)
Because they survive partly on goverment grants they got to make responsible programming. So lots of boring talkie news programs and very little pure mindless entertainment to compete with the commercial stations.
This was thought
Re:Meanwhile in holland (Score:2)
That royalty you've got is a joke. But at least they're not as ugly as their German cousins across the Channel. Maybe that's why they're on TV. Though why Catholics worship Protestant royalty is worthy of further explanation, even if not on Slashdot.
Re:Freedom Fighters (Score:2)
Speed of Propogation (Score:4, Insightful)
The government's Internet censors scrambled, ordering one Web site after another to delete the letter. But two days later, in an embarrassing retreat, the party bowed to public outrage and scrapped the editor in chief's plan to muzzle his reporters.
This is a perfect example of both the promise and the peril of the Internet. The fact is Li, but moving quickly and quietly, was able to get his story out on the Web and probably global during the span of a 90-minute meeting. It took two days for the Communist Party in China to realize that the information had travelled beyong their reach and they had no choice but to back down.
It would be interesting to know the speed of propogation of any piece of information on the Internet, in other words, given that a piece of information is placed somewhere (blog, news site, etc.), how long would it take that piece of information to travel globally? I suppose you could figure out a rough approximation by how many times the information is linked to and from where. But even with no hard data, it goes to show that any information, reliable (in this case) or erroneous (possibly) can travel so far afield that authorities can do little to stop it without advanced warning.
Re:Speed of Propogation (Score:2)
Back down? How about "bide their time". The journalist, Mr. Li, has already been reassigned to a "news research" department which apparantly does neither news nor research. Their policy will be quietly reintroduced after the furor has died down.
Similar to the way things work in the U.S., when an unpopular bill gets defeated then all the nasty parts sho
Re:Speed of Propogation (Score:2)
It's called Fark.com, and I'd say about oh... 5 minutes?
pretty cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
The core of these regulations is that the standards for appraising the performance of the newspapers will not be on the basis of the media role according to Marxism. It is not based upon the basic principles of the Chinese Communist Party. It is not based upon the spirit of President Hu Jintao about how power, rights and sentiments should be tied to the people. It is not based upon whether the masses of readers will be satisfied. Instead, the appraisal standard will depend upon whether a small number of senior organizations or officials like it or not.
Article misses point (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems more of a loss than a victory to me.
Re:Article misses point (Score:2)
Re:Article misses point (Score:2, Insightful)
The news spread quickly anyway. "
I'm constantly impressed by the selflessness of Chinese people who risk their job and their freedom for the good of their country.
the right way to change is... (Score:2)
The Jouranlist was fired and Blacklisted (Score:2)
So it was a Phyrric victory at best.
would a censored google have helped? (Score:2)
Notice how the government had the ability to censor any web page it wanted, but that even so, word spread faster than the governement could stop it.
I'd say a general case was just made *for* the morality of companies offering censored internet services in China.
If email services were not a prevalent as they were, censored or not, Li might not have gotten away with it.
stick it to the man (Score:2)
If the USSR had to do it all over again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, right, China supplies us with cheap manufactured goods, and makes various U.S. companies richer.
Apparently, being a totalitarian, human-rights-suppressing government is *perfectly fine* with the United States as long as you supply us with lots of cheap goods. Oh, and buy up our debt so we can continue our fiscally irresponsible ways.
Re:If the USSR had to do it all over again... (Score:2)
Goddamnit, WHY doesn't Congress UNDERSTAND this! We HAVE to stop running up debt. Just like a stereotypical American, Congress is living beyond it's means, is buried up to it's eyes in
Re:If the USSR had to do it all over again... (Score:2)
Certainly China is doing much better these days than back when Mao starved 20 million Chinese to death with farm collectivism!
Isn't this why Google is in China??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I could be dead wrong.
-Nick
What China should learn from the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Play the same scenario in the story out in the US in your head, and imagine what would happen. Major media would ignore it. Mass populace would ignore it, writing it off as crackpottery, bolstered by the lack of media coverage. Most people would delete the message as an "obvious spam" or "liberal bullshit" or some such. Result effect: zero.
The Chinese people actually *care about* and *believe* these sorts of things. That's where the PRC has clearly failed. They have not properly desensitized and disinterested their public. They need a heavy dose of selfishness injected into their population. Then they could get away with an awful lot more.
Screwing US tech and CRM workers with offshoring? Who cares? Screwing the working poor with no benefits? Who cares? Screwing the poor with social service cuts? Who cares? Screwing the economy, international affairs, and budget with a poorly defensible war? Who cares?
Clearly, the Chinese people care far too much.
Re:What China should learn from the US (Score:2)
They're allowed to say what they want, but there's no guarantee that anyone will be listening. Most of the media is owned by a few big companies, and most people won't just believe random stuff they read on the internet written by someone they've never heard of.
OK, so Bush decides that he will do
Re:What China should learn from the US (Score:2)
You don't get out much.
You are insinuating that there is a concerted effort to discredit critics here in the US. I would submit that nowhere else in the world are people allowed to say whatever they want without being "ostracized".
No, that's a straw man you just made up. I never said any such thing. PRC's main error perhaps is in being direct instead of fomenting an environment that would accomodate their censorious and etcetera methods of populace control
Enough is enough (Score:2)
Am I the only one getting tired of seeing China copy all of our ideas? This is just getting out of control. Next thing you know, they'll be spying on their citizenry. Look, China: You guys need to become a democracy if you want to use our ideas. You're only allowed to quash minority opinion when it's done through an electorate.
Fools (Score:2)
Re:Fools (Score:2)
Yuan (RMB), not yen. Yen is Japan.
Re:Fools (Score:2)
Re:Fools (Score:2)
if its denominated in foriegn currency then they are pretty much stuck with it but if its denominated in dollars then hyperinflation will effectively wipe it out.
Re:Fools (Score:2)
Re:China bashing month (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree we should also take notice of other countries transgressions but that doesn't mean we can ignore major stories in other countries because their quota for the month has been met.
Re:China bashing month (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other stories that could have been discussed, like Swedish security police and state department shutting down a political party's web site for showing a picture of Muhammed (Sweden is supposedly a democracy), like Austria sentencing a British author to three years in prison for having non-conformant views (Austr
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
You mean for violating a law that was passed with the support of a majority of the population?
Austria sentencing a British author to three years in prison for having non-conformant views (Austria is supposedly a democracy)
You mean for violating a law that was passed with the support of a majority of the population?
I'm not saying that they were right (pri
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
-h-
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
In which case, it would be a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary Democracy (see Canada). Do a bit of research - constitutional monarchies generally exist alongside a parliamentary democracy which is most definitely not the same thing as a representative democracy. In a representative democracy (or republic), the government is responsible to the people (by dint of being directly elected b
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
In other words, your precious Chinese government got pwned. Majorly. Get over it, and take your astroturfing elsewhere, little minion.
Selective view is bashing (Score:2)
Re:China bashing month (Score:2, Insightful)
-- yeah, and they deserve it
how about posting about those too?
-- you see all those little columns on the left, like 'Apple', 'Hardware', 'Science'? Knock yourself out.
I'm critical of China
-- does not appear so
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
Of course that could just be because they're the biggest, so
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
CNN had a story on N Korea not too long ago. Part of the
Re:China bashing month (Score:2)
China's hosting the Olympics in 2 years too, so they are going to get some attention whether they like it or not, and if they don't like the attention they are getting they ought ot make real reforms.
I would be surprised (Score:2)
...if it took a year or two.
Re:grammar? spelling? sense? (Score:2)
Re:grammar? spelling? sense? (Score:2)