I always read the Chinadaily (or globaltimes, the two big English newspapers in China) in a contrarian way. If Chinadaily denies something, then it must be true; e.g., when they denied that Beijing was going to start rationing car plates, I knew it was going to be happen (and indeed it did). That's just how things work here, why would the government work to refute a rumor that wasn't true?
NYT checked their sources and they are known for being factual (and when that is proven not the case, their is holy hell to pay and lots of people get fired). This story is probably true, all of the Chinese officials do this, no one is not corrupt; if their was someone who tried not to do this, they would be kicked out of the party on the principle that it would make everyone else look "bad" rather than "normal."
That's a completely illogical conclusion to make. Whether it is true or not, blocking a page does not imply admission of guilt. If the article was complete bullshit, they still would have blocked it.
B (Admission of guilt) -> A (Truth) is not the same as A -> B.
Well put. On my way to read it now. More on the topic though, censorship at the pressure by the government is a slippery slope we've been on for some time. There is almost
no country( citation needed ) that can vouch to be free from it.
One of the differences between India and China seems to be that in India at least, there's a free 4th estate, and there is no way a Government would be able to block articles like this.
As a matter of fact, through the Right To Information Act, there's an activist who is currently raking up dirt on a whole bunch of politicians serially.
Makes me thankful of the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted!
So, combining these two statements, it seems that they blocked both sites 30 minutes before the article was posted in Chinese?
If that's true, it's disappointing the Times didn't do a simultaneous release in anticipation of the block.
"HONG KONG — The Chinese government swiftly blocked access Friday morning to the English-language and Chinese-language Web sites of The New York Times"
"By 7 a.m. Friday in China, access to both the English- and Chinese-language Web sites of The Times was blocked (...). The Times had posted the article in English at 4:34 p.m. on Thursday in New York (4:34 a.m. Friday in Beijing), and finished posting the article in Chinese three hours later after the translation of final edits to the English-language version."
> So, combining these two statements, it seems that they blocked both sites 30 minutes before the article was posted in Chinese?
Their censors probably read the English version and preemptively blocked the Chinese site as well, (correctly) assuming a translation would be posted.
> If that's true, it's disappointing the Times didn't do a simultaneous release in anticipation of the block.
I'm not sure how helpful that would've been. It would've still given them only a few hours in the early morning before the site was blocked. And posting the Chinese version at the same time probably would've resulted in the block coming faster too.
I'm not sure what's worse: People thinking that Chinese nationals do not care, that they are unaware, or perhaps both. Most of the people that I know in China, who are at all, remotely informed about anything knows not to get their news from regular news channels. Particularly anyone skilled enough to setup a Weibo account. Within minutes, most news gets out anyways via Weibo (Chinese Twitter)...
In fact it was two of my Chinese friends who told me about the article this morning....
Its hard to make generalizations about 1.2 billion people from 3 or 4 data points. It is even harder if these are educated middle class Chinese in a first-tier city like Beijing or Shanghai. I'm sure this topic was shutdown on Weibo already, and you would have to be in a special circle to understand any code used to talk about the subject.
Honestly, I didn't really see much wrongdoing on part of the leadership, namely Wen Jiabao, as described in the article. Its mostly relatives taking advantage of political connections. Its a broken system, where the state is too closely intertwined with business. Hopefully the rumors are true and the new ruling coalition will make some progress in liberalizing the economy modeling it after Singapore's.
The truly sad part of this is most Chinese people wouldn't really mind the site being blocked because of this, nor even be all that surprised to learn what the article said. They don't get offended and angered by their government hiding things from them or abusing their power in the same way people in Western countries do, nor do they have a strong desire to learn the truth. They just accept this as the way things are.
Yes, there are exceptions, but those who feel different are in the minority.
An influential Dutch researcher in cultural economics identified, in 1981, a cultural dimension he terms "power distance", defined as "the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally".
On PDI, scaled zero to one hundred, the U.S. scores 40 and China scores 80 (Russia scores 93).
Another dimension of significance is individualism, defined as "the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members".
On IDV the U.S. scores 91 and China 20 (Russia scores 39).
China (and Russia) value social cohesion along implicitly informative, i.e. highly contextual, information flows. Leaders are given tremendous leeway to do their jobs and are to be questioned only in cases of extreme breach of obligation, i.e. when they threaten social harmony.
Note that Russians, in surveys, explicitly prefer social stability to free speech and a free media. Chinese find the legalistic contortions American politicians have to go through to do something generally favoured as awkward and wasteful. We see allowing elites to enrich themselves off market reforms to help them buy into the idea of change as distasteful whereas from a social utilitarian perspective it's strategically kosher.
I think you are correct for the most part. When I lived in China, my experience was that most people felt the way that you describe or they simply were not going to embarrass their country by admitting to a foreigner that they felt that things were unjust in China. There were some persons with whom I became good enough friends for them to feel comfortable talking about politics, and among these people disappointment in their government was the dominant emotion. Some of them showed considerable shame about the treatment of Tibet, for example, though most of them had little concept of the history of the situation.
There is also a strong reaction among most Chinese people that while the Chinese themselves might not like the policies of the government, they will not stand to have an outsider -- good old waiguo guizi ("foreign devil") -- tell them their business nor criticize their country. They will handle their own problems, thank you very much. This is an attitude one finds no shortage of in the United States.
You also need to understand the general ignorance of the wider world among the populace in China.
There is the stereotypical case: Shanghai is a major tourist destination inside China. One of the many attractions in Shanghai are all the weird looking foreigners! Walk down the Bund, the main boardwalk, and you'll be stopped every ten meters for a picture. A friend of mine with a red beard was a huge hit.
Even university teachers were misinformed about the world. I would sometimes casually question them, having traveled a lot myself, on what they thought the world was like. They were certain that Beijing was as advanced as any other city in the world. Tokyo and New York were basically the same as any big city in China. They were not aware how strange the pollution is to outsiders. They did not know that in most large cities in other countries, you can see the sky.
I can remember when this was true of people in Taiwan, as I was living in Taiwan when it was still a dictatorship. But I also know people in China who have told me very explicitly, "If China had a free press, the Communist Party would only last a week." As information flows in, desire for freedom expands. The common people in China already do not enjoy "stability." By acknowledgement of the official Chinese press, instances of social instability (street protests and even riots) number in the many thousands each year, as peasants are displaced from their homes in land grabs by the local dictators, and as official corruption and party control of the police and the courts deny people recourse when their rights are violated. People I've met in China were embarrassed by the situation there already in 1982, the first time I was there, and they are losing hope that the current economic advancement is bringing with it political freedom. That is just what happened in Taiwan. People eventually gained the courage to demand their rights. I remember lots of people in both places who told me about their desire for freedom long, hard years before that freedom was won in Taiwan. Taiwan's example will point the way for people in China. They can have democracy and a free press if they stand up together.
Chinese social scientists are deeply frightened by the huge wealth disparities between the differing regions of China, which are greater than those that existed in Yugoslavia before Yugoslavia disintegrated. When you consider that barely more than half the population of China is even conversant in the standard national language,
there is plainly a lot of possibility that China will repeat its historical pattern (experienced during my mother's childhood) of being split into regions not really united by a national government with effective control of all the territory now labeled as "China."
You are the first Westerner I've read or come across that has noticed this! Most of them seem to think things like blocking internet sites matter??? To the Chinese... I don't think it does.
There also seems to be this conspiracy thinking going on as well. Chinese people see conspiracies EVERYWHERE. If an article like that is in the NY Times...
Then, to the Chinese mind... It must be the US Government "trying to keep China down."
Seriously. Whenever I'm in Ningbo these days, I just avoid talking about anything remotely political... it is an exercise in frustration.
Sigh...
I suppose we have a Tin Foil Hat crowd over here as well. However, even though in the States I will concede that that crowd is growing, I don't think it is as big percentage wise as in China.
It just blows my mind. I once discussed this issue with a tour guide in China, and his response was basically that censorship was ok, because people would just get all upset about things otherwise.
You are such an acute observer, sir. This is the most accurate description about the matter by someone not Chinese I ever read. For that you have my respect.
untog|13 years ago
seanmcdirmid|13 years ago
NYT checked their sources and they are known for being factual (and when that is proven not the case, their is holy hell to pay and lots of people get fired). This story is probably true, all of the Chinese officials do this, no one is not corrupt; if their was someone who tried not to do this, they would be kicked out of the party on the principle that it would make everyone else look "bad" rather than "normal."
Shenglong|13 years ago
B (Admission of guilt) -> A (Truth) is not the same as A -> B.
Claudus|13 years ago
starpilot|13 years ago
wildmXranat|13 years ago
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]
blrgeek|13 years ago
As a matter of fact, through the Right To Information Act, there's an activist who is currently raking up dirt on a whole bunch of politicians serially.
Makes me thankful of the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted!
Claudus|13 years ago
If that's true, it's disappointing the Times didn't do a simultaneous release in anticipation of the block.
"HONG KONG — The Chinese government swiftly blocked access Friday morning to the English-language and Chinese-language Web sites of The New York Times"
"By 7 a.m. Friday in China, access to both the English- and Chinese-language Web sites of The Times was blocked (...). The Times had posted the article in English at 4:34 p.m. on Thursday in New York (4:34 a.m. Friday in Beijing), and finished posting the article in Chinese three hours later after the translation of final edits to the English-language version."
w1ntermute|13 years ago
Their censors probably read the English version and preemptively blocked the Chinese site as well, (correctly) assuming a translation would be posted.
> If that's true, it's disappointing the Times didn't do a simultaneous release in anticipation of the block.
I'm not sure how helpful that would've been. It would've still given them only a few hours in the early morning before the site was blocked. And posting the Chinese version at the same time probably would've resulted in the block coming faster too.
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]
jcromartie|13 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/fal...
EDIT: mircocosm was a poor word choice
danielweber|13 years ago
FIRE and the Virginia ACLU both agree with Liberty's right to do so: http://thefire.org/article/10717.html
You are, of course, free to criticize LU for its policies.
secalex|13 years ago
spindritf|13 years ago
That's like a coffee shop blocking some domain on their WiFi -- not even remotely similar to state censorship.
mikeash|13 years ago
codyZ|13 years ago
In fact it was two of my Chinese friends who told me about the article this morning....
seanmcdirmid|13 years ago
kaptain|13 years ago
BCM43|13 years ago
Original: http://pastebin.com/Vaani5BE
wilfra|13 years ago
bluekite2000|13 years ago
zschallz|13 years ago
nikcub|13 years ago
thomasfl|13 years ago
unknown|13 years ago
[deleted]
bennyfreshness|13 years ago
duxup|13 years ago
arbuge|13 years ago
ethana|13 years ago
jonathanyc|13 years ago
udonmai|13 years ago
wilfra|13 years ago
Yes, there are exceptions, but those who feel different are in the minority.
JumpCrisscross|13 years ago
On PDI, scaled zero to one hundred, the U.S. scores 40 and China scores 80 (Russia scores 93).
Another dimension of significance is individualism, defined as "the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members".
On IDV the U.S. scores 91 and China 20 (Russia scores 39).
China (and Russia) value social cohesion along implicitly informative, i.e. highly contextual, information flows. Leaders are given tremendous leeway to do their jobs and are to be questioned only in cases of extreme breach of obligation, i.e. when they threaten social harmony.
Note that Russians, in surveys, explicitly prefer social stability to free speech and a free media. Chinese find the legalistic contortions American politicians have to go through to do something generally favoured as awkward and wasteful. We see allowing elites to enrich themselves off market reforms to help them buy into the idea of change as distasteful whereas from a social utilitarian perspective it's strategically kosher.
rohern|13 years ago
There is also a strong reaction among most Chinese people that while the Chinese themselves might not like the policies of the government, they will not stand to have an outsider -- good old waiguo guizi ("foreign devil") -- tell them their business nor criticize their country. They will handle their own problems, thank you very much. This is an attitude one finds no shortage of in the United States.
You also need to understand the general ignorance of the wider world among the populace in China.
There is the stereotypical case: Shanghai is a major tourist destination inside China. One of the many attractions in Shanghai are all the weird looking foreigners! Walk down the Bund, the main boardwalk, and you'll be stopped every ten meters for a picture. A friend of mine with a red beard was a huge hit.
Even university teachers were misinformed about the world. I would sometimes casually question them, having traveled a lot myself, on what they thought the world was like. They were certain that Beijing was as advanced as any other city in the world. Tokyo and New York were basically the same as any big city in China. They were not aware how strange the pollution is to outsiders. They did not know that in most large cities in other countries, you can see the sky.
tokenadult|13 years ago
I can remember when this was true of people in Taiwan, as I was living in Taiwan when it was still a dictatorship. But I also know people in China who have told me very explicitly, "If China had a free press, the Communist Party would only last a week." As information flows in, desire for freedom expands. The common people in China already do not enjoy "stability." By acknowledgement of the official Chinese press, instances of social instability (street protests and even riots) number in the many thousands each year, as peasants are displaced from their homes in land grabs by the local dictators, and as official corruption and party control of the police and the courts deny people recourse when their rights are violated. People I've met in China were embarrassed by the situation there already in 1982, the first time I was there, and they are losing hope that the current economic advancement is bringing with it political freedom. That is just what happened in Taiwan. People eventually gained the courage to demand their rights. I remember lots of people in both places who told me about their desire for freedom long, hard years before that freedom was won in Taiwan. Taiwan's example will point the way for people in China. They can have democracy and a free press if they stand up together.
Chinese social scientists are deeply frightened by the huge wealth disparities between the differing regions of China, which are greater than those that existed in Yugoslavia before Yugoslavia disintegrated. When you consider that barely more than half the population of China is even conversant in the standard national language,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/07/content_5812838...
there is plainly a lot of possibility that China will repeat its historical pattern (experienced during my mother's childhood) of being split into regions not really united by a national government with effective control of all the territory now labeled as "China."
bilbo0s|13 years ago
You are the first Westerner I've read or come across that has noticed this! Most of them seem to think things like blocking internet sites matter??? To the Chinese... I don't think it does.
There also seems to be this conspiracy thinking going on as well. Chinese people see conspiracies EVERYWHERE. If an article like that is in the NY Times...
Then, to the Chinese mind... It must be the US Government "trying to keep China down."
Seriously. Whenever I'm in Ningbo these days, I just avoid talking about anything remotely political... it is an exercise in frustration.
Sigh...
I suppose we have a Tin Foil Hat crowd over here as well. However, even though in the States I will concede that that crowd is growing, I don't think it is as big percentage wise as in China.
tokenizer|13 years ago
monochromatic|13 years ago
How do you even respond to that?
edwardw|13 years ago
ucee054|13 years ago
I get the impression the difference between the societies is only of degree, not quality.
kaitian521|13 years ago
[deleted]
hastur|13 years ago
[deleted]