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.
"Please BBC, stop highlighting our plight for freedom on the internet."
Hmmm I wonder who could possibly be behind this...
Let's see... industrial pollution, government corruption (which Chinese can protest, BTW, just not basic goverment policy), environmental impact of rapid industrialization, Chinese historical and cultural preservation, the recent toxic slick in Harbin. But that's just off the top of my head. I think the problem is that most British journalists are about as ignorant, incompetent and sensationalistic as their American counterparts.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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.
In slashdot, we talk about stuff that matters, like whether this electric toilet seat can run Linux, is the recent act of MS/SCO/Sony/RIAA/Google.... violates the privacy of the user... It is fine to about that here. I understand what you mean, concern and worries... But, if one day slashdot becomes so powerful that it runs a cable tech news network and start interviewing some random guy in the local mall about the same issue, you can expect they will answer huh!?! It does not really mean privacy, online security etc are unimportant. It just means a large segment of the society has no interest in this in their daily life.
The Chinese bloggers being interviewed by BBC must be feeling the same as the joe sixpack in the local mall being interviewed by CowboyNeal. First, if that guy is a political activist, he or she probably won't have time hang around blogging for unrelated stuff. The other bloggers probably has an interest of travel, career, music, movie and porn. Asking them topics about politics is kind of out of context.
Second, sometimes, the journalists tend to ask questions which has an information content of close to zero. For example, ask if you can freely express about your opinion freely about some banned groups. Okay there are three scenarios. 1) that person answers along the line of "I don't want to talk about this/ I have no interest about this". The reporter reads that the blogger cannot express his opinion freely. 2) that person says no. The reporter reads that the blogger is controlled by the state. 3) that person says yes. The reporter says "yeah. I know the censorship is everywhere"...
While we all know censorship still prevalent in China, conducting such kind of interview is kind of meaningless. Many western reporters tend to have a mindset that there are only two groups of people in China: democratic activists and evil communists... The fact is the China has changed a lot. Most people just don't care about anything, or have an opinion quite different from the stereotype, just like anywhere in the world.