Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Bans Internet News Reporting As Media Crackdown Widens (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the bizarre-world dept.

Earlier this month we learned that China had banned the use of social media as a news source. The local government feared that if news outlets were to report using signals coming from social media, there was a chance that fake, non-credible, and rumors would slip through the filter. It was absurd, to say the least, considering the government itself has been reportedly caught of posting a copious amount of misleading information on domestic social media platforms. In the latest wrinkle to the whole situation, the world's largest nation is now banning internet news reporting. Long time reader schwit1 shares a Bloomberg report on the same: China's top internet regulator ordered major online companies including Sina Corp. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. to stop original news reporting, the latest effort by the government to tighten its grip over the country's web and information industries. The Cyberspace Administration of China imposed the ban on several major news portals, including Sohu.com Inc. and NetEase Inc., Chinese media reported in identically worded articles citing an unidentified official from the agency's Beijing office. The companies have "seriously violated" internet regulations by carrying plenty of news content obtained through original reporting, causing "huge negative effects," according to a report that appeared in The Paper on Sunday. The agency instructed the operators of mobile and online news services to dismantle "current-affairs news" operations on Friday, after earlier calling a halt to such activity at Tencent, according to people familiar with the situation. Like its peers, Asia's largest internet company had developed a news operation and grown its team. Henceforth, they and other services can only carry reports provided by government-controlled print or online media, the people said, asking not to be identified because the issue is politically sensitive.

48 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. That's Right by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >The local government feared that if news outlets were to report using signals coming from social media, there was a chance that fake, non-credible, and rumors would slip through the filter.

    That's exactly what happens in the West. Vast piles of BS gets propagated as news on social media, leading to large percentages of the population believing untrue things to be true, more than they already do.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:That's Right by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are correct.

      Also, the interesting thing is, back in the late 90s to early 2000s when large numbers of people in the US started getting online, the slowly emerging conventional wisdom was "don't believe everything you see/read/hear on the internet".

      I would say part of that is from the fact that at that time, many websites, blogs, email chains, etc looked pretty crude and not "professional" and slick like everything now is.

      Fast forward to today, where ultra slick "social" sites and apps have made the big lies more likely to be believed, and the truth harder to get to.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:That's Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. I'm sick of turning on the news to see what's going on... and instead of having reporters say, doing their fucking job, you have "Reports are coming in from Twitter...."

      Yeah... Twitter... there's a fucking reliable source of information. I'm not saying the news doesn't have bias or gets it right 100% of the time. But Twitter... seriously? WTF.

    3. Re:That's Right by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I hope you're not advocating censorship also.. When mass media becomes the emperor's lapdog we have a problem that needs a solution. If social media, even with all its blemishes, has to fill in, all the better. Now we just need a way to make the connection more robust, so that nobody can block anything.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China needs to solve this problem more urgently because of their chosen form of government (let's leave aside which is 'right' and 'wrong' for now, and concede them the right of self-determination). False news reports give an opening for unscrupulous men to build a following and oppose the government based on false reports. This causes chaos and death (look throughout history.....the worst part about having kings is when a war of succession happens......there's chaos, people die needlessly, then it goes back to about the same as it was before. The exception of course is when the king was really bad, but that won't be reported with false news reports).

      So that is the problem the Chinese government needs to solve. Keep order and harmony, because for the vast majority of people, it's better than chaos. (Look at what happened in Egypt recently when they had their new government.....lots of violence, then nothing really changed. Replacing Mubarak was probably a mistake, but some people paid for it with their lives).

      With a different form of government, unscrupulous men can start a campaign of lies, and build a following, and if he's convincing enough, even make it into power as president. But all this will happen without real violence (that is, violence does not lead to power and political enemies don't need to 'disappear'), and the system is designed with power balances to prevent things from getting too messed up, even with a lousy president.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:That's Right by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not advocating censorship also.. When mass media becomes the emperor's lapdog we have a problem that needs a solution. If social media, even with all its blemishes, has to fill in, all the better. Now we just need a way to make the connection more robust, so that nobody can block anything.

      I was not advocating anything. I was making an observation.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:That's Right by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just checking. Censorship is a big problem that requires a technical solution to render the philosophical BS moot. I would like to see more energy dedicated toward that end instead of the endless circle jerk that will fill the thread on whether we should.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      let's leave aside which is 'right' and 'wrong' for now, and concede them the right of self-determination

      No, let's not. Let's note instead that exercising the right of self-determination would require the sort of communication and social unrest that is supposedly bad under their "chosen" form of government.

      This is not accidental. An effective parasite is hard to eliminate from a host. And at the human level, we see plenty of examples of this, here, a variety of authoritarian governments that insert themselves into every aspect of life, creating both a dependent class of citizen who supports the government merely because that's where their benefits come from and a large cost to remove the government.

    8. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So what are you going to do, advocate for Bush to invade and change their form of government?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:That's Right by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It's a double-edges sword. On one hand, social media means that an establishment that controls the news media (e.g. the government, big corporations, etc) can be bypassed to get the truth out. On the other hand, it can be used to spread falsehoods around the world even faster.

      Social media (like anything on the Internet - or pretty much any other source of information) isn't total garbage which should be junked but neither is it a savior to be trusted all the time.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      Obviously not. Instead, I'd send in special operative, phantomfive to kick ass and restore democracy to the Far East. Assuming phantomfive is done with his emo moral relativism?

      Just because there are evils out there beyond our current ability to fix, doesn't mean that we need to pay them respect.

    11. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It also doesn't mean that you have to bring it up in every conversation. Sometimes you can talk about other things, which is what I was most interested in.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

    13. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      It also doesn't mean that you have to bring it up in every conversation.

      I disagree. The viewpoint you discussed doesn't actually exist except as a propaganda fabrication by an oppressive government to remain in power.

      Then you write the following:

      So that is the problem the Chinese government needs to solve. Keep order and harmony, because for the vast majority of people, it's better than chaos. (Look at what happened in Egypt recently when they had their new government.....lots of violence, then nothing really changed. Replacing Mubarak was probably a mistake, but some people paid for it with their lives).

      With a different form of government, unscrupulous men can start a campaign of lies, and build a following, and if he's convincing enough, even make it into power as president. But all this will happen without real violence (that is, violence does not lead to power and political enemies don't need to 'disappear'), and the system is designed with power balances to prevent things from getting too messed up, even with a lousy president.

      The very narrative you repeated (of being concerned about order versus chaos) is an example of a "campaign of lies". Funny, how this viewpoint is so concerned about rival parties causing trouble by spreading lies (or perhaps rather inconvenient truths). That's such a refined and elegant hypocrisy.

    14. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      That's ok, you don't have to be right.

      The very narrative you repeated (of being concerned about order versus chaos) is an example of a "campaign of lies".

      This is just historical fact. Europe spent a thousand years trying to figure out how to deal with succession. The Roman senate eventually gave up their autonomy willingly because they were tired of the civil wars.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Roman senate eventually gave up their autonomy willingly because they were tired of the civil wars.

      I think it more accurate to say that the members of the Senate who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic in expressing their tiredness (or whatever propaganda excuses they really used at the time), ended up on the wrong side of Augustus Caesar.

      And somehow I doubt the Chinese Communist Party will go gently into that good night for the sake of a calm succession (especially given their brutality while putting down the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989). The viewpoint you describe is only relevant while the Party is not threatened.

    16. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And somehow I doubt the Chinese Communist Party will go gently into that good night for the sake of a calm succession

      They've had calm successions ever since Deng

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not to a democracy. And two changes of leadership is not a long track record nor is 1989 a long time ago.

    18. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not to a democracy.

      Dang it dude, how can you possibly have read my previous posts and think that I was talking about a transition to democracy? Screw your head on straight.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1
      The key phrases:

      and concede them the right of self-determination

      and

      Keep order and harmony

      What is the only way to have both the "right of self-determination" and keep order and harmony? Why it's a democracy. First, there's no formal way to register approval of a government except via a fair election or something equivalent to that. China never has had that. "Right of self-determination" then is just a story governments like to tell to placate some portion of the oppressed population.

      And if your informal register of approval is "we haven't had a civil war yet" or even "disagreement with your leaders is treason", then you aren't really supporting order and harmony since there is no peaceful outlet for grievances or disagreement.

      The two concepts you mentioned here only have meaning together when the citizenry of a region have a say in the government and politics of the region.

    20. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Nah, the idea of self-determination here is applied to the country as a whole. Specifically meaning, outsiders (like the United States) should let them be, instead of trying to impose our own ideals of government on them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:That's Right by khallow · · Score: 1

      Nah, the idea of self-determination here is applied to the country as a whole. Specifically meaning, outsiders (like the United States) should let them be, instead of trying to impose our own ideals of government on them.

      Why? Will they do the same for us when they ascend to superpower status?

    22. Re:That's Right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Hopefully.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. The following is FIction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The below is fiction. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.

    In an effort to fully control the population China has banned online reporting of news.

    This above fiction. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.

  3. Okay, so what's the workaround? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    How can they get the news they want despite the attempted blockage? Our next big thing for the internet is going to be the "ability to route around the damage". I hope it makes the front page when it finally happens.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Okay, so what's the workaround? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      It's not the internet interconnection that is being damaged it's the terminals (the sites). there isn't a solution. Even a Tor can be peeled.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Okay, so what's the workaround? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      there isn't a solution

      That's why I'm hoping that sufficient resources are being applied to find one. The press could do its part by making a lot of noise over it, but for some reason I don't believe their heart is in it, because it would only cut into their business. And there is also a noticeable lack of concern on social media itself. The people who would break through these firewalls can make a name for themselves. C'mon Snowden and Assange, show us what you got besides hearsay and gossip on American politics. Let's get the techies stop singin' the blues and tunnel under or fly over the blockage and get these folks a connection that can't be cut.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Okay, so what's the workaround? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      140 is a waste. I think 4 is enough, 7 max

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Good for them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this is the unintended consequences of bad intentions, but have you read the BBC lately? Any current even will consists of 2 paragraphs of "reporting" followed by a selection of a dozen tweets hand picked to give the impression of an unbiased sample of public opinion.

    Well that, or just straight up "Top 10 things Buzzfeed Claimed Happened This Week"

  5. Maybe we should give them what they're asking for by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 2

    China wants the internet on their terms. Instead of finding ways to work around the firewall perhaps we should just block China completely. Let them choose between living in the free world or living behind an iron curtain. I'm guessing they want trade more than they want control.

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  6. Fake, non-credible, rumors by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...The local government feared that if news outlets were to report using signals coming from social media, there was a chance that fake, non-credible, and rumors would slip through the filter. It was absurd, to say the least...

    Was it? Not trying to support censorship of any kind, especially the kind that China practices, but "social media" is well known to spew "fake, non-credible, rumors..."

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Fake, non-credible, rumors by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but the Chinese government saying this is akin to Trump claiming new organizations are biased against him for calling out his lies.

    2. Re:Fake, non-credible, rumors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Citation needed on Trump's lies? Can you even provide a valid link to *your* fake, non-credible rumors.

      Thanks for proving Frosty Piss' point.

  7. Correcting a problem by making a worse problem by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >The local government feared that if news outlets were to report using signals coming from social media, there was a chance that fake, non-credible, and rumors would slip through the filter.

    That's exactly what happens in the West. Vast piles of BS gets propagated as news on social media, leading to large percentages of the population believing untrue things to be true, more than they already do.

    I think that they have indeed identified a problem. The solution, however, is worse than the problem. Vast piles of BS masquerading as news is bad, but government censorship is far worse.

  8. Is this really good or bad? by kbonin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Part of me wants to joke about China continuing to move to its own walled garden to control information flow. But then I think about the abysmal state of the media in the US, how most all major news organizations are now for-profit puppets pushing propaganda designed to enrich their owners, even to the point of demonstrating complicity in what would have been a major scandal (you see proof of election fraud and you fire the people collecting the data proving its occurring? really???), and I wonder if anything of value was lost. Media has gone from the "fourth branch of government", providing a historically critical check and balance, to yet another tool of those pulling the strings behind government. I wonder how many people realize the extent to which worldwide institutions are failing...

  9. Maybe there is something going on. by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    The Chinese government action cannot be for no reason. Maybe there is something going on that they don't want the people to know.

    1. Re:Maybe there is something going on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aliens have landed on the Chinese soil, against all wisdom from the American Sci-Fi films. This requires immediate action on South China Sea to gain the resources those starving aliens need to survive.

  10. there you go by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    It was absurd, to say the least,

    That's what unfree governments are: absurd. It doesn't matter whether they are theocratic, socialist, communist, fascist, or progressive.

  11. Well, that was fast... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    It looks like Roger Ailes has already found his next job.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  12. China bans news portals from original reporting by SB5407 · · Score: 1

    The article title confused me. Therefore, to summarize for anyone else wondering: the website operators may continue to report "news" but only "news" that the government gives to them through official channels. Website operators may not find and report on any other news.

    1. Re:China bans news portals from original reporting by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Yep - if they see the harbour going up in flames? That didn't happen (yet) so no reporting.
      Demonstration outside your office? Better not discuss it - it's officially not happening.
      Corrupt officials? Don't exist. Only when Beijing wants to set some examples, and you damn well better not report on Xi Yin Ping's family or you suffer the consequences.
      Poison in the water? Beijing reports it's very good to drink, better not do original research and actually drink it. Although you can drink it, you can't report the results.

      So basically we're partying like it's 1989: you're stuck with reports on Xi Yin Ping's visit to Zambia, the local weather (24/7 sunny, blue sky - and don't you dare complain about smog), and party meetings. Which is the standard fare on the official channels nobody bothers to watch. I predict even more business for VPN providers.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  13. America needs to wise up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reenact the laws forbidding opinion as news.
    It may already be to late to save our country.
    Anytime you show opinion you must let the other sides opposing point of view they way we had it before the likes of Faux news.
    Outlaw it once again.
    Propaganda and political agendas are not and never should be presented to the public as news.

    1. Re:America needs to wise up. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      What country do you live in? Because there has NEVER been a law 'forbidding opinion as news" in America.

      There was a tradition that journalists followed avoiding opinion, but that's it. Fox came along and discovered that if they broke that tradition, people would flock to hear their biased news.

      The US does have laws (first amendment to the constitution) that prevent censorship, particularly censuring political opinions. Your proposed law (that never previously existed) would most like fall on the wrong side of the first amendment.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  14. Nothing wrong with "original reporting" by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Nothing wrong with "original reporting," or witnessing, as long as it is documented and supported by contextual pictures and video, eyewitnesses willing to go on record, and alternative reports that happen to corroborate.

    This is essentially what news reporting is.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
  15. US MSM + left-wing elite fear the internet too by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    This was about the Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky scandal...

    http://www.spectacle.org/398/h...

    The scandal was two-sided...
    * Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (did she inhale?)
    * Newsweek spiked a well-researched story about Clinton/Lewinsky

    Hillary is quoted as saying...

    > As exciting as these new developments are.... there are a number of serious
    > issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function. What does it mean
    > to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says?

    From the other side of the political spectrum...

    > During a 2012 speech to online activists and citizen journalists, former
    > Alaska Governor Sarah Palin reminded them that "the new media rose up
    > precisely because the old media failed to tell the truth." And she also
    > discussed how much Drudge, who was fast becoming a de facto assignment
    > editor, upset the legacy press that ridiculed him and tried to diminish his
    > influence even though they were obsessively refreshing his home page.
    >
    > "That very first new media breakthrough was about 15 years ago when this
    > lowly little store clerk in a lowly little apartment equipped with his computer
    > and a modem broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. His name was
    > Matt Drudge and the rest is history," Palin said in 2012. "And in hindsight, we
    > see that the story he broke was more than just a president having an affair.
    > To me it was much, much more than that. It was about a major
    > old media publication that had spiked the story eleven times."
    >
    > She reminded today's citizen journalists that the mainstream press did not
    > spike the Lewinsky story to "check their facts" but "because as charter
    > members of that Democrat Media Complex they were protecting their guy."

    I'm old enough to remember the JFK "Camelot era". Back then the public didn't know, but Kennedy was screwing everything in a skirt. Bill Clinton was a choir boy in comparison. But the MSM suppressed the story, and JFK was the "all-American boy".

    The American lib-left love the MSM, because they control most of it, with the notable exception of Fox. Back in the JFK era, a president could do all sorts of wrongs, and get it hushed up, because the elite controlled the MSM. Today, not so much. Give me a wide-open internet, with different people pushing their different interpretations. I'll sort it out for myself. No thanks, I don't want Hillary editing/gatekeeping the news.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  16. Or... by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    or capitalist.

    1. Re:Or... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's a form of economic organization. The corresponding form of government is called liberal (Europe) or libertarian (US). Liberalism can't do anything about the absurdities of life in general, but it can and does minimize the absurdities due to government, by minimizing government.

  17. Do not compare the west with China by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Sure there are problems, but the mainstream news has proven to be fairly reliable over the years, most of the time. You would not believe rumours on social media that Bush was responsible for 9/11 because of that.

    The problem for China is that once they cripple official sources of news, rumours become much, much more credible. Denials or ignoring of them by state media is meaningless. They potentially make the problem much worse.

    Except that most Chinese, even more so than Americans, are sheep. With a few wolves among them.