Slashdot Mirror
IOC Admits Internet Censorship Deal With China
Dave writes "BEIJING (Reuters) — Some International Olympic Committee officials cut a deal to let China block sensitive websites despite promises of unrestricted access, a senior IOC official admitted on Wednesday.
Persistent pollution fears and China's concerns about security in Tibet also remained problems for organizers nine days before the Games begin.
China had committed to providing media with the same freedom to report on the Games as they enjoyed at previous Olympics, but journalists have this week complained of finding access to sites deemed sensitive to its communist leadership blocked.
'I regret that it now appears BOCOG has announced that there will be limitations on website access during Games time,' IOC press chief Kevan Gosper said, referring to Beijing's Olympic organizers.
'I also now understand that some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered Games related,' he said." But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.
[sarcastic]Yeah, because Reuters is not at all associated with the mainstream media.[/sarcastic]
The only thing that would make a difference is if mainstream media, including NBC, threatened to boycott coverage of the Olympics, not just bitch and moan about Chinese censorship. The Chinese government would hop to right quick if their biggest PR stunt since the rise of Communism was going to get no coverage in the foreign media.
But it's not the "patriotic" element that will keep print and broadcast media chugging along. It's the money many press/media outlets have already invested in getting over there and positioning their people to get the best coverage. NBC Sports would continue Olympic coverage even if Chinese soldiers were making a public show of bludgeoning dissidents to death in the street. NBC News and Brian Williams would express shock and outrage, but you'd have someone from GE holding a gun to Bob Costas' head if necessary to keep him from walking off the air in disgust.
And if Costas did walk off, you'd have some wannabe ready and willing to fill in for him, thinking this was his/her big break.
The Olympics are a HUGE revenue source for a lot of people, and as we've seen quite often, economics will trump ethics 9 times in 10.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Giving China the Olympic games will go down as either an unconscionable endorsement of their prison state, or as an indictment of the same.
Anything and everything that can be done to undermine and destroy the police state that rules China should be done.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
This shouldn't really surprise anyone. Beijing has been way too tight-fisted about internet control to suddenly decide that everything is now fair game. I'm actually amazed they allowed as much as they did. Oh well, if you need to see Amnesty International then maybe encrypt your traffic or use a VPN.
Boycott the 2008 Olympics.
Everything i hear about the Olympics in China make me want nothing to do with it.
I'm boycotting it and wont watch any of the events.
MABASPLOOM!
Every site deemed sensitive to China's communist leadership should add something about the Olympics on their website to become "Games related".
I think they mean well, but they often make up their minds based on what the situation is, before getting any of the facts. And often they rely on few sources that present a very black and white biased view, when the real situation is shades of gray.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The IOC spokesperson said one of the blocked sites belonged to Faulun Gong. "I would remind you that Falun Gong is an evil, fake religion which has been banned by the Chinese government."
So its OK, then. I'm just surprised that the IOC has an official position on Faulun Gong. What other religions does it characterize officially? What does the IOC think about Scientology? Islam? Would they agree that Luther was holier than St. Augustine? Who would do better at the 100m freestyle, Jesus or Mohammad? Could the Hindu pantheon stand a chance against the Greek pantheon at water polo?
Since the IOC brought it up, they should at least provide reporters with the IOC's own official list of religions its OK to block. This should be no problem as the IOC is really thorough when it comes to official lists.
So, he knew a guy who had a company that had one big financial issue, and did 5 hours of work for him in the 6 years he was in office. And this suddenly makes him a huge criminal?
Borderline illegal is the way of saying "it is legal, but I don't like it"
Actual quote from the article: Watch Burns describe how Obama used the rules to his advantage
Real fair and unbiased. Really...
So he went out there and checked to make sure that their signitures on the ballots were taken in a legal method? This is somehow "dirty" or "underhanded"? Granted, one guy didn't get to run because he was 67 signitures away from having his required number, but then it was his fault for not double checking to make sure he was following the law. I have no problem with a potential president who wants rule by law.
How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?
"How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?"
Why aren't you upset that he's dirty in the first place, regardless of whether he's "dirtier" than anyone else?
The Chinese government would hop to right quick if their biggest PR stunt since the rise of Communism was going to get no coverage in the foreign media.
Not in the way you'd think. The massive attention they've been getting has apparently resulted in a surge of patriotism and xenophobia. We're seen as goodie-twoshoe, meddling complainers by many Chinese...and they're especially sensitive to criticism.
The Chinese government (and IOC) response would be to accuse said agencies of "politicizing The Games". Media would never do it anyway- the purpose of TV is to provide programming to attract eyeballs for advertisers. Advertisers have already signed contracts and paid money for ad space- and networks have already signed contracts and paid money for broadcast rights. A boycott would might not bankrupt them, but it would be an enormous financial blow.
Please help metamoderate.
You sound well-intentioned an all, but honestly, I don't think you understand how copyright lawsuits work. /. is just a forum, and it can't police what everyone posts. If someone posts a copyright-violating post, then the copyright owner can ask /. to take it down, but there's no way they can skip that request step and sue (and win) a big judgment. It's just not going to happen.
/. getting sued, or even getting a takedown notice? I think you're overreacting, and bordering on paranoid.
As you said, this happens here all the time and has for more than a decade. Have you ever heard of
everything in moderation
It makes him just as dirty. And you should, as the above responder mentions, instead be asking the question: why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
I don't know - maybe because it reminds them of FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and Clinton, to name a few from the last hundred years? I'm not saying the Republicans are angels by any stretch when it comes to campaign shenanigans - but then they aren't the ones trying to claim the moral high ground, generally.
> why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
A better question is how you got the idea that a major political party of a large country is going to be able to find and select an experienced, electable candidate who isn't dirty?
Personally, I find it safest to assume that anyone willingly participating in national level politics is probably a scumbag.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Of course. I should have uncritically accepted the allegations without proof. And my initial failure was compounded by critically examining the evidence presented and finding it wanting.
Ha. Well, then I guess there's no point in talking about it. You're so invested in thinking Obama a shady slimebag, you'll grasp at the thinnest of evidence as ironclad proof.