Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Bloggers vs. The BBC
Sandra writes "The BBC has an article about how chinese bloggers hate BBC interviews, as from their point of view all the Beeb cares about is censorship in China." From the article: "This being the internet, the conversation also involved various members of the community accusing each other of having ulterior business interests, being "trolls", or covertly blogging on behalf of the state. But overall, it looks as though mutual trust will be regained. And as well as the specific dynamics of talking about China, there's a new phenomenon here of what happens when bloggers are quoted. "
How do we know that the people who are 'speaking out against the BBC' aren't themselves being coerced into doing so in an attempt by the chinese govornment to negate the BBC's coverage of Chinese freedom of speech issues.
Damn I'm paranoid
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
I love the way the writer of the BBC article completely failed to notice that the issue was not 'whether China censors' but 'whether the BBC would shut up about censorship for five seconds please'.
The dialectic basically seems to be:
Some Chinese Bloggers: "Man, the BBC keeps harping on about this shit. And BBC interviewers tend to be excessively confrontational and persistent."
BBC Journalist: "Oho! You say there is no censorship in China?? Well I guess AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL must be wrong then, eh? Eh??"
If I were given to making mean, snide remarks, I would say that the BBC's remit is to be the voice of the British people, and if that means being arrogant, politically correct, and ever ready to force narrow definitions of acceptable behavior on the rest of the world, then... well...
But I am not given to such nasty remarks. No, I am an angel, a lovely angel
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Clearly, the BBC has tons of stories from China that aren't about censorship. For example, this story is not about Chinese censorship, it's about Microsoft's censorship, coincidentally in China. This story about political coersion doesn't even mention censorship. Frankly, with this range of topics, I don't see why these poor people, who are typically subject to such intolerable censorship, have anything to complain about.
HOWARD. Mr Marriot was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. I . . I . . was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis, and I did not instruct him.
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. The truth of the matter is that Mr Marriot was not suspended. I . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. . . . did not .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. I took advice on what I could or could not do . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him Mr Howard ?
HOWARD. . . and I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice, I did NOT overrule Derek Lewis . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. . . Mr Marriot was not suspended.
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. (pauses). I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. . . in great detail, before the House of Commons . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I note that you're not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.
HOWARD. Well, the important aspect of this which is very clear to bear in mind . .
PAXMAN. (Interrupting) I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude, I'm sorry, but it's a straight yes or no question which requires a straight yes or no answer. Did you threaten to overrule him ?
HOWARD. I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language. But I did not instruct him because I was not ENTITLED to instruct him, I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did.
PAXMAN. With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.
HOWARD. It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt in detail with this before the House of Commons and before the Select Committee.
PAXMAN. With respect, you haven't answered the question of whether you threatened to overrule him.
HOWARD. Well you see . . the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him, and I did not do that.
PAXMAN. Uh . . we'll leave that aspect there.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Well, that's the point. Blogs cover many different types of subjects. But the BBC apparently prefers to ask Chinese bloggers about censorship instead of the subjects of their blogs, such as (for example) the rapid industrialization in China, which affects people's everyday lives, or about Chinese historical and cultural preservation, which is of intense interest to certain segments of the population. In other words, the BBC only seems to care about one specific political football rather than about China itself.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
actually just wait a few minutes and there will be a ton of posts on this thread praising china. there is literally an army of chinese communist astroturfers out there and i think they are employed by the state. They tend to crawl out any time Taiwan, china or Tibet is mentioned.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
If I write a blog about Chinese pop stars, and someone from the BBC contacts me about an interview, I naturally assume they want to talk about a) the blog, and/or b) Chinese pop stars. I do *not* assume they are going to start probing me about how the government censors my blog, which they may or may not do. So, if they ask me these kinds of questions, is it unheard of that I would want to redirect the interview to the original purpose ?
The whole reason these people even give these interviews is to promote themselves and their blog. It is not to act as a political messenger. If they are anywhere near as apethetic toward politics as 99.99% of the western world, they likely give two shits about government censorship, since they don't have any radical ideas worth censoring.
Despite what you may or may not believe, the majority of middle-class Chinese are not much different from you ("you" being the average westerner), your'e both happy little consumer monkeys, who swallow whatever the press and big money market toward you, and is too busy obessing about the latest Teen Idol(tm) episode to worry about AIDS pandemics in Africa or anything else worth worrying about. (Seriously - WTF is with all this bird flu paranoia about something that may or may not happen, when thousands are dying daily in Africa from preventable diseases just because they can't afford the few bucks a day for treatment?)
Don't you think it's interesting that this guy and those who moderated him interesting all think western government is corrupt?
It is and so is the chinese government, we'll see who falls first I suppose.
Governments don't have to be corrupt, it's very 1984 that both the Chinese and the west think the other's government is corrupt and evil.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that there was nothing wrong with Paxman asking the question until he got a straight answer, and that Howard gave a classic performance as an evasive untrustworthy politician, and it all made for great TV.
Sort of reminds of the time time when Indy just shoots the guy with the sword, because Harrison Ford was ill for two days and they'd run out of time to film the big swordfight that was originally planned.
OK. I take the bait.
Slashdot is a blog. It is on the Internet. I am posting this from China.
Here is my blog entry:
1. Chinese people ought to have the same or more freedom as people in the West.
2. Taiwan IS an independent state, which all Chinese already know.
3. China should abolish the fanghuo changcheng (GFW) immediately, and let people use the Internet as freely as in the West (and it can be discussed how freely it can really be used in the West). I don't how many times I have argued this on Chinese state-owned BBS:s.
4. Mao Zedong was an asshole, a pervert and a mass murderer. He was renowned for his serious cases of VD after trying out guniangs in the villages on every one of hid goddamn trip. I have said this too on state-owned BBS:s.
I am now waiting for the gong'an to storm my apartment, transport me to a football field and give me the neck shot in front of a cheering audience...
Oh, before I die, let me just add that I, too, am fed up with the BBC, because they DON'T report the social and cultural context to the filtering in China, but see it all from a modern Western perspective (just back fifty years, and it would be different); they DON'T realize there is a process, and they CAN'T see that much has already gone in the right direction. Freedom IS gradually increasing in China, but you should NEVER expect China to be EXACTLY like the West.
OK, off to the football field...
Wow you are one idiotic troll. Who modded you interesting.
Disclaimer- I am Chinese.
What the fuck does those events has to do with the current situation. The difference is huge. Namely, the Chinese are complaining that everytime BBC interviews Chinese citizen, they try to force the interviewee to say "chinese censorship is bad."
Furthermore, you say that because of these events, every Chinese hates Brits. Compare to WWII, those incidents are nothing. How many Chinese people died in the hands of Japanese, compare to Europeans. So using your logic, I could say every Chinese hates Japanese. Is this true? No one remember hatres for that long- especially after the political, economical, and period state change radically. I don't see any "apparent agression" for Franchies toward Germany, or Americans toward Japan.
You made two fallacies- 1. assuming all chinese hates the Brits
Unless people in Hong Kong or Taiwan are not chinese, you are so wrong. And last I checked, people in Hong Kong didn't mind the Brits so much...especially after the economical meltdown that occurs 3 months after the transfer.
2. trying to link past historical events to current events.
There are some resentment, of course. But _every Chinese_? Where did you get the idea? The older generation hates the brits, that's for sure- just like how they hate the Japanese. But they are dying off, and the new gerneration are taking over. As time move on, past conflicts would be dampen and, hopefully, forgiven.
Which bring us to this question-why the hell are you spreading false information that does not help nor contribute to the current issue.