Censoring Google
So Google is to leave China. But make no mistake. It is not pulling out. Instead it is being kicked out for not adhering to China’s rules on censorship. While the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Roman’s do,” may be applicable in this case. One can’t help but ask, why Rome, or in this case, Beijing does what it does. And for that matter, why Google made the decisions it did.
First, Beijing. China has always had its share of vague but very enforceable rules and regulations. Anyone familiar with the term “state secrets” knows people can get in big trouble for sharing them even though what they are has not been specifically defined. However, the hottest vague term nobody can define but everybody must adhere to is keeping “harmful” material out of society. What this means is that media of any type, be it music, movies, TV shows, advertisements, internet sites and so on can never be too violent, or too sexual because these things are deemed detrimental to a harmonious society. So what is too sexy or too violent? Well, just as a child looks for guidance as to what is good for them or not by their parents, we get similar guidance by the government who claims to know exactly what information is good and bad for us. Those that are good, we see every day, those that are bad never see the light of day.
This goes in the face of those who say it is Google who is politicizing this issue. Government censorship is, in itself, a political decision that can affect businesses involved with the media as it has with Google. By making decisions to censor the internet, a decision that it has previously denied, then rationalized, and finally defending, it is China, not Google that has politicized what we see online.
And here is where Google comes in. After a few years of blocking harmful information and profiting from doing business China’s way, it took one incident for Google to have a wakeup call. The incident of course was the hacking of human rights activist’s email accounts. The human rights part is important here because often, these people speak out against the politicizing of the internet by China. This, of course, does not make the government happy. Although after investigation it was found the hackers were not connected to the government, the fact that the targets of the attack all had something in common must have been too much for Google to keep on going as it had been. Google demanded that they stop censoring their content and Beijing said no. Saying that Google was in China so they must adhere to China’s way and that Google was being unfriendly, irresponsible and that Google would have to bear the consequences if it decided to unblock its searches. Anyways, China says, other countries censor, why can’t we?
China’s rationale that, “If other countries do it, why can’t they?” is the most important thing to pay attention to here. This is unique because when other conflicts arose in the past such as Tibet or Taiwan, we would only hear from China that these issues are “core interests” of China and that the West should stop meddling in China’s domestic affairs. On censorship, it is much different. Can you imagine hearing, “Censorship of the internet is one of China’s core beliefs.” or, “Censorship on the internet is an internal matter, butt out. “ being announced by a government spokesperson? This would never happen because it would force China to further defend censorship in the country. Something it has officially denied on numerous occasions. Google is not afraid to publicly defend what it believes in openly at the risk of losing profits in the China market. Why can’t those responsible for censorship be proud and stand up openly for what it believes in just as openly?
As Google prepares to leave China the media bias against Google will surely increase. After all, the same people who decide to censor the internet are friends with those that control the information we see every day in the news. They will flood the papers with anti-Google articles. But we know better. The truth is, after being attacked by hackers targeting human rights activists, Google’s eyes were opened. Google saw that China’s politicization of the internet through monitoring and censorship went against its core beliefs. Google forced censors, who previously could block information without accountability, to talk openly about what they do. They are not happy about this but now they have no choice. Now, it is time for censors to come out of the shadows, stop using vague terms, and learn from Google about being accountable and openly standing up for what it believes in.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Obama-Lama Rama!
When US President Barack Obama met with the Dalai Lama last week, I was expecting a backlash similar to the anti-French protests during the Olympic torch relay in 2008. I was expecting a call to boycott US goods, US businesses being vandalized and US made products such as cars destroyed. While I’m thankful I didn’t have to hide in my panic room and that cooler heads prevailed, the fact remains that US-China relations were still damaged by the meeting.
There are those in China who are very upset about the meeting and do not understand why President Obama would even think about meeting the Dalai Lama. To many Chinese, the Dalai Lama is not a spiritual leader as the U.S State Department describes him, but a terrorist, whose only goal is to make the Tibet Autonomous Region truly live up to its name. This is what Chinese have learned for decades in school and in society. He is the source of any trouble, unhappiness, and chaos that happens in the region.
It is hard for one to argue that this view is anything but dogma within China. This mentality is not unique to China however. The US obviously has its public enemy #1 not in the Dalai Lama, but in Osama Bin Laden. The difference however is while Bin Laden is a common enemy to most of the global community, including China. The Dalai Lama is anything but an enemy to most of the world. This is not to say that China is wrong in its views. On the contrary. Just because the majority of people believe something does not necessarily make them right. However, the fact that they do not see the Dalai Lama as China does, can least begin to allow us to see why other countries meet with the Dalai Lama despite his status within China.
One thing any rational person can agree on, no matter what their views or where they are from, is that there are always two sides to a story. However, in China, everything a typical Chinese person knows about the Dalai Lama comes from one official source. One side of the coin. In America, it is almost the same. Everything a typical American knows about Bin Laden is most likely coming not only from blatant examples such as terrorist attacks, but reinforced by the official dogma found in society.
Often however, these views are over simplistic. Rarely are conflicts as simple as, “We are good, they are bad.” Both sides have motives and goals. In the US, there is very little desire from the general public find out more information to better understand the terrorist’s side. In fact, incentives to not learn more about the other side far outweighs the benefits of learning more about it. Not only is it uncomfortable in the US to borrow a book or search online for more information on terrorism, but there is also an additional fear to be visited by the feds about why you are looking at such materials in the first place.
In China, it is almost the same. But in addition to the discomfort and the fear of being questioned, the biggest difference is censored information. You will never find a book of the Dalai Lama’s views in his own words in a Chinese library. Online is no better. The result of this for the everyday person living in China is a lack of perspective and understanding about the Dalai Lama issue. Here, there is only the one side and the Dalai Lama’s side told through the eyes of those against him. All on one side of the coin.
Again, this is not to say, the popular, official view is wrong. But the fact remains, those living abroad can see both the Chinese and Dalai Lama’s views straight from the camel’s (or Lama’s) mouth. And that is, what I believe the Obama-Dalai Lama meeting comes down to. Perspective.
When there is a dispute, a mediator won’t ask one side what happened, and then ask the same side what the other person’s view is. Instead, the mediator will learn from both people and then come to his own conclusion about the situation. This is what Obama is doing by going forward with the meeting. He knows the Chinese perspective, but also wants to hear the other side, not from China but from the mouths of those actually on the other side. And why not? It is only through knowledge, not ignorance that we can best deal with the problems we face.
There are those in China who are very upset about the meeting and do not understand why President Obama would even think about meeting the Dalai Lama. To many Chinese, the Dalai Lama is not a spiritual leader as the U.S State Department describes him, but a terrorist, whose only goal is to make the Tibet Autonomous Region truly live up to its name. This is what Chinese have learned for decades in school and in society. He is the source of any trouble, unhappiness, and chaos that happens in the region.
It is hard for one to argue that this view is anything but dogma within China. This mentality is not unique to China however. The US obviously has its public enemy #1 not in the Dalai Lama, but in Osama Bin Laden. The difference however is while Bin Laden is a common enemy to most of the global community, including China. The Dalai Lama is anything but an enemy to most of the world. This is not to say that China is wrong in its views. On the contrary. Just because the majority of people believe something does not necessarily make them right. However, the fact that they do not see the Dalai Lama as China does, can least begin to allow us to see why other countries meet with the Dalai Lama despite his status within China.
One thing any rational person can agree on, no matter what their views or where they are from, is that there are always two sides to a story. However, in China, everything a typical Chinese person knows about the Dalai Lama comes from one official source. One side of the coin. In America, it is almost the same. Everything a typical American knows about Bin Laden is most likely coming not only from blatant examples such as terrorist attacks, but reinforced by the official dogma found in society.
Often however, these views are over simplistic. Rarely are conflicts as simple as, “We are good, they are bad.” Both sides have motives and goals. In the US, there is very little desire from the general public find out more information to better understand the terrorist’s side. In fact, incentives to not learn more about the other side far outweighs the benefits of learning more about it. Not only is it uncomfortable in the US to borrow a book or search online for more information on terrorism, but there is also an additional fear to be visited by the feds about why you are looking at such materials in the first place.
In China, it is almost the same. But in addition to the discomfort and the fear of being questioned, the biggest difference is censored information. You will never find a book of the Dalai Lama’s views in his own words in a Chinese library. Online is no better. The result of this for the everyday person living in China is a lack of perspective and understanding about the Dalai Lama issue. Here, there is only the one side and the Dalai Lama’s side told through the eyes of those against him. All on one side of the coin.
Again, this is not to say, the popular, official view is wrong. But the fact remains, those living abroad can see both the Chinese and Dalai Lama’s views straight from the camel’s (or Lama’s) mouth. And that is, what I believe the Obama-Dalai Lama meeting comes down to. Perspective.
When there is a dispute, a mediator won’t ask one side what happened, and then ask the same side what the other person’s view is. Instead, the mediator will learn from both people and then come to his own conclusion about the situation. This is what Obama is doing by going forward with the meeting. He knows the Chinese perspective, but also wants to hear the other side, not from China but from the mouths of those actually on the other side. And why not? It is only through knowledge, not ignorance that we can best deal with the problems we face.
The Western Media Myth
A lot of major news events have happened in China over the last couple of years. Some are good and some...not so good. However, when news agencies from abroad report on the stories, they are often looked upon by many Chinese as biased and/or anti-Chinese labeling them as “Western”. But a closer look shows that nothing could be further from the truth.
One of the first mistakes that some Chinese make when criticizing a story is labeling the story as “Western.” In reality however, the story could be labeled as such so long as it is not from a Chinese source. Japanese, Korean, or Indian stories that displease some Chinese readers are immediately called “Western” when anybody who took 4th grade geography knows that they are not. So where does this label come from, and why are so many using it so freely?
One possibility could be China’s history. In schools, many Chinese learn that they have often been the victim and never the aggressor and that, far too often, the aggressor has been from the West. The lessons of the Opium War, French-Sino war, and the Unequal Treaties, China was forced to sign are just of the few humiliations the Imperial West brought upon China in the past. For some, despite all the prosperity that has come to China by and the West by cooperating, they believe Western countries still look to humiliate China today, no longer by treaties or the barrel of a gun, but by making it lose face in the media.
What many of these people don’t understand is that reporting something bad isn’t biased, but reality. The motive of a good reporter is to report the story as they see it, not to make China or any other person or place lose or gain face. Readers all over the world love to read happy things that make themselves feel good. But that isn’t reality. Sometimes bad things happen. Why should reporters, (Chinese and foreign alike) not report the story as they see it? When foreign reporters are “escorted” and or barred from an area where news happens, how much accuracy does those critical of non-Chinese reports expect? To its credit, more media freedom has been granted to journalists in China, but we have yet to see if they are effective at giving reporters access to areas news is happening in. This was not the case during the Xinjiang riots and it, no doubt, affected the accuracy of some news reports.
While they may still be living in the past, and be too extreme in their accusations, critics of non-Chinese news are right to be suspicious and question the news they watch and read. They are right to think about the motives of a story and question its legitimacy and whether it’s biased or not.
It amazes me, however, how these same people can completely avoid doing the same when it comes to the Chinese news they watch and read every day. Is it so unbelievable to think that Chinese news agencies might be just as flawed as those outside the country? Is it not possible that Chinese news agencies have motives and sometimes write stories that are slanted or false just as some Chinese claim foreign news agencies do?
There is no “West” in news. There are simply journalists from all over the world trying to report on a story. The companies and/or countries they report for may be biased but a smart reader never reads the news without questioning it anyways. If you are interested in a topic, you should read about it from many sources, no matter what country it comes from and then come to your own conclusions. Do not discredit an article because it is from a place outside your country. There are some truths even in the most offensive articles. Only by keeping an open mind will you truly get the whole story and in the end, you will be better informed and better off for it.
One of the first mistakes that some Chinese make when criticizing a story is labeling the story as “Western.” In reality however, the story could be labeled as such so long as it is not from a Chinese source. Japanese, Korean, or Indian stories that displease some Chinese readers are immediately called “Western” when anybody who took 4th grade geography knows that they are not. So where does this label come from, and why are so many using it so freely?
One possibility could be China’s history. In schools, many Chinese learn that they have often been the victim and never the aggressor and that, far too often, the aggressor has been from the West. The lessons of the Opium War, French-Sino war, and the Unequal Treaties, China was forced to sign are just of the few humiliations the Imperial West brought upon China in the past. For some, despite all the prosperity that has come to China by and the West by cooperating, they believe Western countries still look to humiliate China today, no longer by treaties or the barrel of a gun, but by making it lose face in the media.
What many of these people don’t understand is that reporting something bad isn’t biased, but reality. The motive of a good reporter is to report the story as they see it, not to make China or any other person or place lose or gain face. Readers all over the world love to read happy things that make themselves feel good. But that isn’t reality. Sometimes bad things happen. Why should reporters, (Chinese and foreign alike) not report the story as they see it? When foreign reporters are “escorted” and or barred from an area where news happens, how much accuracy does those critical of non-Chinese reports expect? To its credit, more media freedom has been granted to journalists in China, but we have yet to see if they are effective at giving reporters access to areas news is happening in. This was not the case during the Xinjiang riots and it, no doubt, affected the accuracy of some news reports.
While they may still be living in the past, and be too extreme in their accusations, critics of non-Chinese news are right to be suspicious and question the news they watch and read. They are right to think about the motives of a story and question its legitimacy and whether it’s biased or not.
It amazes me, however, how these same people can completely avoid doing the same when it comes to the Chinese news they watch and read every day. Is it so unbelievable to think that Chinese news agencies might be just as flawed as those outside the country? Is it not possible that Chinese news agencies have motives and sometimes write stories that are slanted or false just as some Chinese claim foreign news agencies do?
There is no “West” in news. There are simply journalists from all over the world trying to report on a story. The companies and/or countries they report for may be biased but a smart reader never reads the news without questioning it anyways. If you are interested in a topic, you should read about it from many sources, no matter what country it comes from and then come to your own conclusions. Do not discredit an article because it is from a place outside your country. There are some truths even in the most offensive articles. Only by keeping an open mind will you truly get the whole story and in the end, you will be better informed and better off for it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)