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.

9 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Not Patriotism... Money by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Not Patriotism... Money by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it would be financial suicide to actually carry out their threats.

      That's the problem with having everything revolving around money. Human rights? Who cares. Government censorship? Not our problem. Lose some money? We can't let THAT happen!

      "Financial suicide" would be having your newspaper go out of business. I can't see a paper going out of business because of lack of olympic coverage.

      The press seems to have completely forgotten its primary purpose, and that purpose is NOT "making a profit".

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Not Patriotism... Money by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, there's a HUGE amount of money in this. So what China wants, China gets.

      The sad thing isn't that it's in China's interest, or in the news corporations' interest, or in anyone you can call "them" interest. The sad thing is that it's actually in "our" interest, because ultimately it's "us" who benefit from what happens there. This comic charge I found the other day explains it better than I could (yes, it's safe for work):

      http://www.interfax-religion.com/img/527.jpg

      To fight something like this is almost impossible. It'd require millions of people all over most Western countries to chose suffering for the higher good. And we know it'd never happen, unfortunately.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  2. The conservative blogosphere isn't ignoring it by leereyno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. IOC: Its OK To Block Bad Religions by johnos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Only one thing left to do.. by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I started my Olympic boycott with the LA games, but that was because they had turned into a craptastic media-fueled 24 hr sob story/inspirational tale.

    There are enough sporting events going on to fill all 24 hours with "these are the competitors, and they're OFF!" instead of 5 minutes of some prepubescent mutant's gymnastics routine followed by 55 minutes of her stirring tale of anguish and triumph, afetr a word from these sponsors.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  5. Re:Obama's shady dealings? by CogDissident · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:Obama's shady dealings? by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

  7. Re:Wrong about Chinese reaction by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're seen as goodie-twoshoe, meddling complainers by many Chinese...and they're especially sensitive to criticism.

    So we shouldn't call out abuses of human rights because the people we are calling out are "especially sensitive to criticism"?

    If only the Russians had known this.... they could have started to whine very loudly when Reagan called them the "Evil Empire" and might have still won the Cold War.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.