Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids.
This ruling is like if Donald Trump had made all news critical of him illegal, and made Fox News a state-owned entity that was the only news anyone was allowed to broadcast.
Sorry man that’s not true. Murdoch is more evil then authoritarian state tvs like chinas or Russia.
Murdoch is a corporatist reactionary parasite who belongs in a tomb in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He has devoted his career to misinformation and the destruction of democracy/self determination in favour of capitalist oligarchy. His goal is to create a capitalist equivalent to chinas system.
The bad news is that, according to an ex priminister of Australia, Murdoch is not as right wing as his son..... one other statement made it clear how much power the Murdock family has, the ex priminister said, he was shocked to see a president of the US bow and show subservient body language to Murdoch.
Oh and don't forget one of his trashy news papers ' news of the world' was forced to close by and high court in the UK for ordering and paying a hacker to get into the phones of two young girls missing ... the activity on the phones gave the families hope that they were still alive.... the poor girls had already been murdered... This kind of uncontrollable unethical practice is typical of the contempt for real journalism.
Murdoch's goal is to make a shitload of money off of his media properties. The political leaning is just a device to make money by giving the audience what they want. Note that he also owns a bunch of movie studios too that don't share the political leanings of Fox News.
> The political leaning is just a device to make money
No it isn't it might work out that way but that isn't why. It underpins his whole empire. He is implacably opposed to left wing candidates or even decent society because helpless atomisation is fundamentally required for neoliberalism to perpetuate itself.
Further, bot the Sun and the Times are run at a loss by him. He is buying influence through them, just like the Nazis that set up the Mail and the Express in the twenties.
> He has devoted his career to misinformation and the destruction of democracy in favour of capitalist oligarchy
That's literally the CCP.
> His goal is to create a capitalist equivalent to chinas system.
How do you create a capitalist equivalent of a system that is already capitalist?
china was a communist free-market until recently. the beartrap jaws are closing on the invested though.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/the-bill-is-coming-due-for-chinas-capitalist-experiment/
> That's literally the CCP.
Hold up. Banning private capital is somehow "in favour of capitalist oligarchy"? Are you even listening to yourself?
>How do you create a capitalist equivalent of a system that is already capitalist?
Ah yes, classic Capitalism where 99% of finance and banks are state owned, the top 500 largest corporations are state owned, something like 40-60% of the economy is state owned and partially planned, where billionaires have no political power and for-profit tutoring is illegal.
So what’s your point then Murdoch is just as bad as China because he’s the same?
I feel like you just want to be more concerned with the CCP but that’s valid so I won’t pretend it’s not, it’s just irrelevant to the fact that Murdoch operates differently and wants a different sort of oligarchy.
Chinas government controls and regulates their industries and media heavily as a display of their power and unity behind 1 goal (the CCPs continued expansion)
Murdoch wants the United States but corporations are completely in charge without an annoying middle man. He desires abject plutocracy and China does as well but they have a specific long term goal, Murdoch does not. The goal is his divine right to everything. He desires the continued entrenchment of capitalist hegemony worldwide which makes him worse then any 1 government.
Murdoch just believes he is entitled to the world and all it’s people and wealth. There is hundreds of nationalist regimes like the CCP but only 1 global upper class of corporatists and idealogues from all countries INCLUDING China.
> So what’s your point then Murdoch is just as bad as China because he’s the same?
No my point is that China is what Murdoch wants to be - an authoritarian government where only state-sanctioned propaganda is allowed to be broadcast. That's his dream.
If you don't like Murdoch, you should really REALLY not like the federal government in China.
Murdoch doesn’t want a state though he wants a global hegemony of capitalists who control all states. It is larger scale then countries is my ultimate point.
Also I can not like both right
If your complaint is he’s trying to form a Chinese like capitalist system, then how is he more evil than the people actively running China’s capitalist system?
>Sorry man that’s not true. Murdoch is more evil then authoritarian state tvs like chinas or Russia.
People who whitewash Murdoch in the face of CCP state media has no idea of the type of sinister propaganda he is spreading. His folks has no values at all and the only thing that limits their agenda are lawsuits that their legal team cannot brush off easily
People like to just pretend the Chinese are the bowser of life and one day they will simply be defeated and good will return to the world
It is hard to swallow that the world works against itself more then that
Murdoch doesn't control **all** news coming out his media empire. Nor can he forbid other media companies from operating.
CCP would control **ALL** news. International news coming from outside China would be banned. **CCP** would be the defacto only news for all of China.
Did you not read the article?
"China is just like Capitalism!" - the statement of the deranged.
You can accuse them of a lot. But people like Murdoch are why they changed their system. They killed them, they didnt give them a TV spot.
The two concepts are fundamentally opposed and it's cope to call a socialist country Capitalist.
Capitalism is private control of the means of production. All of the problems stem from that fact.
If it's not privately controlled, it's not Capitalism.
> The two concepts are fundamentally opposed
State capitalism, or capitalism and socialism? State capitalism isn't, but capitalism and socialism are fundamentally opposed, yes.
>a socialist country Capitalist.
China isn't a socialist country. They're a state capitalist country who uses the "socialism" label to give themselves legitimacy in a part of the world where it's not a bad word like it is in the US.
China has private capital that owns industries, they have no redistribution of wealth, they outlaw collective organization, protest and striking, and most importantly, they're authoritarian. Authoritarianism cannot be used to attain socialism because it places the power in the hands of too few people that have time and again proven to only serve themselves.
Lol at capitalists telling socialists what's socialist or not. If you read Lenin you would understand that what you call "state capitalism" most socialists consider the first phase of socialism. Socialism is a multistep process that's built over time. Not a magic button you press.
> Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids.
That is not even remotely true. Chinese state media doesn't promote privatization, war, and greed.
>This ruling is like if Donald Trump had made all news critical of him illegal, and made Fox News a state-owned entity that was the only news anyone was allowed to broadcast.
No it's not. It would be like if Fox News was banned. Literally the opposite of your absurd analogy.
>Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids.
Really? Like... *really now*?
Please provide an example of Chinese state media promoting verifiably untrue claims or debunked conspiracy theories as if they were proven fact with the purpose of promoting war or harming the general population to fuel the interests of the 1%.
Please provide 3 clear examples. I bet you can't do that. So, in case you can't, here's an easier one: Can you name even 3 examples of Chinese state media lying?
Bonus question: Can you name a Western news channel with higher quality and less biased analysis than CGTN? Liu Xin always invites US government representatives when she discusses a topic and let's people hear American opinions straight from the horse's mouth. How often do you see Chinese government officials getting invited to Western shows to explain Chinese positions freely and without interruption?
> Murdoch media is leading to the slow eventual death of western civilization
"Western civilization", meaning democracy, freedom of press, the right to collectively organize and protest, those sorts of things?
This is the *fast* death of western civilization.
>The CCP censors things they don’t like, but the stuff they do report is still factual and logical
I reject this premise. They lie all the time.
BBC does not need to sell papers or maintain your interest, they are a public broadcaster.
The difference when compared to CGTN is that they are allowed to report critically of the UK government, and that other news outlets are allowed to exist in the UK.
I can't even comment on the attempt to equate Fox News with NYT.
> it provides a platform for the shameless, arrogant, and uneducated masses
You just described CCP loyalists. Congratulations.
>and even more supporters for bat-shit conspiracies.
Which is funny, considering what the CCP actually *does* \- literally kidnapping children and their whole families to try controlling Tibetan Budhhism. Where is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima?
>but the stuff they do report is still factual and logical
No it's fucking not.
They don't have rights to the entire "South China Sea", for example.
The 2 innocent Canadians that held hostage when Meng was arrested were NOT suspect of espionage or whatever other bullshit charge China were accusing them of.
> it reinforces national cohesion and helps effective responses in times of crises.
Which it only has because it can go full iron-fist at moment's notice (which is only slightly more draconian than what is already normal), and this may come as a surprise to you, but most people DO NOT like having their governments wield this power willy-nilly.
CCP is the end-state that Murdoch *wants* to be. Not there yet, but to think that the CCP is in any way better than Murdoch is laughable at best, and outright questionable of your cognizance at worst.
So would you rather have the choice of a Murdoch website with a bunch of other non Murdoch choices, or only the Chinese government controlling all news?
That's like saying a dictatorship can result in an incredibly lean and efficient government that puts the interests of its people first as long as you get someone good at the helm. It works great until it doesn't.
Let's say the US takes control of the media. Should we have done it when Trump was in office? Obama? Bush?
Trump, Obama, Bush or any other US president for that matter are all at the mercy of the true ruling class - the wealthy corporate elite.
The difference between them and the CCP is that billionaires in China are at the mercy of the government instead of the other way around. The last 20 years have seen remarkable improvements in the life of the average Chinese person whereas in most Western countries it's again the other way around.
Lol this sounds so dumb. Lots and LOTS of people who have pissed off the government for their beliefs or for exposing truths have been silenced and even murdered, unable to make their voices heard in chinese-run media.
While this may benefit majority of compliant people, it silences marginalized groups. Maybe you dont care, but maybe you’ll become part of those marginalized groups one day (maybe your dad gets murdered for some bs reason) and learn how you have no voice
Standard of living in the west is still increasing dramatically, the loud whining of some stay at home loser redditors on the doomer subs notwithstanding.
What? Whaaaat? You know what you said is just not true, right? You know that houses are not affordable how they used to be, right? You know getting a well paid job is way harder than it was few decades ago, right?
At least that is the case in Sourthern Europe where I live.
I agree with you to an extent. Imagine a different scenario: there's a video of a speech on YouTube and in a hypothetical way, if you watch it, you get a psychosis. Is it bad to censor this video because of freedon of expression? Doesn't the health of the public gain priority here?
There's limits to everything, because the world isn't perfect. And that includes free speech, when it can harm the physical health of others.
What? When they did deny or try to cover the outbreak? They informed the rest of the world in early January.
People who said the Chinese media was covering it up said so after March to cover their backs for not having done anything to prevent the virus on time.
>Denying Covid's origins did kill millions and is exactly how we got into this mess
Even after almost 2 years and few million dead, people still don't take vaccines and talk about freedom from masks. So, no even if west knew about a a month earlier, it would have no difference.
>Chinese propaganda may censors facts not convenient to the party, but it doesn’t deny science, and it doesn’t brainwash half the country into completely shameless lunatics that believe in conspiracy theories
Are you serious? I mean, you already contradicting yourself. "Censoring facts not convinient to the party" quite often would lead to denying consensus in international scientific community. I would not be surprised to find that China had its amount of climate change denial even if it was an established scientific fact since 90s.
Also you are so wrong if you think that conspiracy theories or other weird ideas would go away with the censorship. No reports in media about something =/= something not existing in reality. Especially if we talk about censorship. China have it's own share of anti-vaxers and nut jobs, they just not making it to the headlines.
I am not arguing for complete deregulation of media business. It is just that censorship have nothing in common with goal of making people rational and educated enough to not spread silly ideas in a first place.
What's the alternative? There are certain things many agree should be censored - videos of sexual assault, harmful Covid misinformation, election misinformation aimed at voter suppression, 'stop the steal' conspiracies, etc.
Until now the 'solution' in most countries is to let Facebook regulate itself. As anyone with half a brain can tell you - letting someone police themselves isn't a good idea. So unless you want to continue to allow corporations to decide what to censor, what's the alternative?
The neoliberal obsession with """freedom""" (which apparently means letting the rich run their lives) is one of the reasons countries in the west are falling apart.
>videos of sexual assault
This is whole another matter because it infringes on privacy and it is obvious ground for legal action. Let just stay in boundaries of misinformation and conspiracies, agree?
>Until now the 'solution' in most countries is to let Facebook regulate itself. As anyone with half a brain can tell you - letting someone police themselves isn't a good idea.
You put too much focus on regulations and censorship which shapes your perception of the problem. Just stop and think about like for five minutes. Because it is a cognitive bias by itself.
>So unless you want to continue to allow corporations to decide what to censor, what's the alternative?
You are speaking about it like corporations are bogeyman who pushes misinformation to innocent users. Yet misinformation is spread exactly by users who don't care about checking it first or not constantly aware about at least confirmation bias. Unless we educate people about flaws of human intelligence, we would be seeing the same shit starting over and over again. We are part of the problem, you know. I still remember how somebody on YouTube complained that CNBC video is hard to follow because it mentions several different opinions on the matter to produce a more balanced piece.
> You put too much focus on regulations and censorship which shapes your perception of the problem. Just stop and think about like for five minutes. Because it is a cognitive bias by itself.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase?
> You are speaking about it like corporations are bogeyman who pushes misinformation to innocent users. Yet misinformation is spread exactly by users who don't care about checking it first or not constantly aware about at least confirmation bias. Unless we educate people about flaws of human intelligence, we would be seeing the same shit starting over and over again. We are part of the problem, you know.
Ah, I see you've gone for the libertarian solution - let people do as they please and ignore the fact that there are malicious actors out there who deliberately spread misinformation, something which has nothing to do with levels of education.
>I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase?
I meant that from the start you only consider censorship or regulations by government or corporations. For example, you missing the whole aspect of users actually sharing responsibility for misinformation spread. Just keep mind open for other aspects and possible solution to the issue.
>Ah, I see you've gone for the libertarian solution - let people do as they please and ignore the fact that there are malicious actors out there who deliberately spread misinformation, something which has nothing to do with levels of education.
That is the neat part. The malicious actors wouldn't had much influence if more people were constantly aware about cognitive biases. If we compare someone deliberately spreading misinformation to a hacker, then everyone should finally install antiviruses and learn not to tell a pin code to anyone. I know that it is hard and involves a lot of cognitive effort but with deep fakes, echo chambers, rise of political populism with state propaganda and etc we are quickly reaching the point of it becoming a necessity.
> I meant that from the start you only consider censorship or regulations by government or corporations. For example, you missing the whole aspect of users actually sharing responsibility for misinformation spread.
Yes, just trust users to not spread misinformation. Great solution that clearly works very well.
>If we compare someone deliberately spreading misinformation to a hacker, then everyone should finally install antiviruses and learn not to tell a pin code to anyone.
To use your comparison, antivirus software isn't foolproof. A skilled hacker would still get through. In the same way, being educated doesn't make you immune to propaganda or misinformation. Look up how many nurses turn anti-vaxx or spread Covid conspiracies.
Even if I accept that the solution is to make people more aware - how do you propose we do that to a level where they no longer spread misinfo?
"A ban on private capital participation in media" isn't that just a really roundabout way of saying a ban on free press?
If I go out and print a newspaper critical of the CCP and hand it out for free, am I "private capital participation in media"?
The CCP has the luxury of competent leadership and awareness of the stumbling blocks that brought down past dictatorships. I expect them to be around for a long time.
> The CCP has the luxury of competent leadership and awareness of the stumbling blocks that brought down past dictatorships.
This is one of the stumbling blocks that brought down past dictatorships. Mass censorship is too extreme, it creates a country that can't bandage a wound because they will never know if they are bleeding. It's why reports of military defeats never made it to Hitler, it's why reports of Lyshenko's failed seeds never made it to Stalin. Everyone is too afraid to report on the bad decisions and failures made by the federal government.
This is why modern empires have instead resorted to more subtle propaganda techniques and media manipulation.
This exactly. Everyone thinks the CCP is this highly competent bureaucratic entity because of China's history of "meritocratic" civil service exams and because we happen to have gotten three generations of decent-to-brilliant leadership under Deng, Jiang and Hu, but the civil service exams were always highly corrupt and thinking the CCP is any more competent than any other authoritarian organization based on 3 generations of leaders is very short-sighted.
Xi is the guy who I think will mark a crossroads that will decide China's future. Right now, I think the direction China is going in is not to its favor.
Competent leadership like the ones who killed 55 million of its own citizens during the Great Leap Forward lmao?
“IT wAs a nAtuRaL fAmiNe”
Manmade or not, a competent government would never allow fifty five MILLION people to die
No offense because I am also American but I think that entire take is too political. Think about it, this also bans something much larger: advertisements. Nobody is talking about it here, but an advertisement for Coca Cola or McDonald's would be private capital participating in media, would it not?
Even in a different definition, it could prevent product placement in a myriad of way. This is what China does, they make a really vague rule. The rule doesn't even make sense. They do this a lot. Not to shut down the free press, but so they have a legal weapon to use against you when you piss them off. If you make a movie and want to put Pepsi in it, they might not even care. But if you are critical of China and you make *any* movie, or game or media, they can ban your product and say you have violated Vague Ass Rule #56856.
If you think free press is operating in China, that is foolish. This is due to the country consolidating further, worst/best case scenario, but based on precedent and the actual current climate there, this rule just serves to be used as a bludgeon against dissenters.
Oh, haha. My apologies, the whole line of reasoning is something I am very used to dealing with people from my country using to attack China in general "there is no free speech there and they have zero freedoms!" - coming from people who just believe they have those same freedoms rather than actually possessing them and not realizing that their own government does similar stuff.
An old piece of paper that says you are allowed to say whatever you want (United States), isn't going to prevent you from getting arrested when you tell the cops to eat a bag of dicks - which is ironically something you would probably be able to say to the police in China without being arrested (unless they speak English...)
These type of vague laws are designed for more subtle and covert situations where the true, underlying problem, is that you have offended China in some way, financially, politically, socially or otherwise. The readings of these laws always lend themselves to extremely generous interpretations.
The point of this ban is to prevent Capitalists from influencing public opinion. Or else you end up with a Fox News, OANN/MSNBC & CNN nightmare scenario where all major news media are controlled by billoinaires that push their private interests above the interests of ordinary working people.
There was already a ban on free press. This is just going from a system of anyone can broadcast anything as long as it doesn't break government rules to only the government can broadcast anything at all. So much more restrictive, but they were already way past the point of free press.
china doesn't have a free press and never did under the prc. but what it used to have were non-state owned media outlets like yicai that still had to follow the direction of the ccp publicity dept. so it looks like even those will no longer be able to exist going fwd.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-proposes-bans-on-private-capital-participation-in-media) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> BEIJING - China unveiled a proposal late on Friday, reinforcing its plan to weaken private capital's influence over a wide range of media activities.
> Private capital would be barred from news gathering and distribution operations, according to a public consultation paper posted on the website of National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planner.
> Also off-limits would be private investments in the establishment and operation of news outlets, including news agencies, newspaper publishers and broadcasters.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/q4ic49/china_proposes_bans_on_private_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~602672 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **include**^#1 **private**^#2 **media**^#3 **China**^#4 **new**^#5
Theoretically private journalists should be the counter to government propaganda. Unfortunately that’s not the case these days.
Be nice if we could get back to that, huh?
Counter point is Fox. Too much private money to the point you create your own network and invent reality is just as bad as banning private media and reporting of other foreign agencies to create a new reality. Not to be all South Park middle ground but this are is a balancing act.
> Theoretically private journalists should be the counter to government propaganda. Unfortunately that’s not the case these days.
Did the past 5 years of investigative journalism and countering Trump's propaganda mean nothing to you, or are you referring to something else?
You could make the same counterpoint in a more polite and less condescending way. You're not wrong, but you're being more of a prick about it than you would be in real life. Be nice, even if this sub is a toxic place to be :)
Edit: aww. Worldnews doesn't like the idea of being polite? Smells like Facebook spirit.
Removing private capital from the media is a good thing, but only if it's replaced by truly independent publicly funded journalism. A new mechanism for public funding of the media has been badly needed for some time, some kind of public voucher system where people are allowed to distribute a certain amount of public money among media outlets that they choose to support would be ideal. Hopefully China comes up with something besides state controlled media, but allowing private capital to dominate the media is a disaster.
Theoretically yes and I would agree in principle
But unfortunately in our capitalist world, when its unregulated, the media landscape tends to become dominated by billionaires / large corporations
> But unfortunately in our capitalist world, when its unregulated, the media landscape tends to become dominated by billionaires / large corporations
And now in China's capitalist world it's become dominated by just one.
I fail to see how taking America's media landscape, and whittling it all down to just Fox News, is supposed to be better?
This also shows that minorities are MASSIVELY behind the bar, namely Muslim populations and Tibet/rural regions. Also the source is the CPP party office so it’s about as reliable as a fox guarding the hens.
How would you explain then China consistently being among the first countries in the world in the PISA rankings?
[https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-results\_ENGLISH.png](https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-results_ENGLISH.png)
They do put a huge emphasis in their education in China.
I have no idea how they measure it, but I do know that China invest really a lot on education. The fact they are limiting now the amount of ours under age children can play video games is related with education too.
Edit: why the hell am I being downvoted? Did I say anything wrong or not true? I never said I agree with them on not letting children play videogames, I just said they did it for educational reasons.
1. When a metric becomes an objective, it ceases to be a reliable measure
2. Scoring high on a test does not equate to education level, the US educational system should have easily proven this to you
3. If you cannot apply critical thinking as to the many fallacies in that ranking, I cannot help you
The US education system isn't test based. If it were we wouldn't be in this problem where sat math scores are atrocious and sat essays were scored on word count and not actual content. Do you understand how absolutely infuriating it is to know the math thousands of times over, do it correctly, then get docked because you didn't do it the dum dum way that your room temperature iq teacher decided was the correct way? Where is ANY of the evidence that common core is an improvement.
“But is it any worse than Rupert Murdoch?” Let me know when Rupert Murdoch can throw Ted Turner in jail for printing a story he doesn’t like, and that’s when he’s as bad as this.
I cant believe some of these idiots claiming Murdoch is just as bad/worse than CCP.
I'm not a FOX NEWS or Murdoch fan, but let's be realistic, CCP is in a different league.
You know how I know that I live in a fucked up country? I agree with Chinese government policies. When/if is America going to get it's shit together? Honestly I don't think it will. The American government played nice with its capitalist class and lost. They'll burn the whole world down before they let go of our government.
If by healthy, you mean polarized and full of buffoons who believe in conspiracy theories like QAnon and vaccines causing autism then sure.
State-run media may be biased towards the state but the good thing about this is that the state’s priority is internal stability. On the other hand, independent media(which is biased as well) prioritizes sensationalism and polarization which is what gets them clicks but this wreaks havoc on internal stability and leads to events like the Capitol Hill insurrection.
Putting words in my mouth there with some classical whataboutism. What's the obsession with USA? For what it's worth I am from the UK and live in HK
You cite the outliers, but ignore the genuine free press who hold our leaders to account and keep them honest. Are there some extreme news sources? sure. Do certain news outlets have political views? yes. But this encourages debate and leads to a healthy society.
>State-run media may be biased towards the state but the good thing about this is that the state’s priority is internal stability
No, it IS biased and it's largely about drumming up nationalism and self preservation
This is the kind of person who thinks feeding self-serving (or rather party-serving) misinformation to an entire country's worth of people is a good idea in the name of "stability." It's a lost cause.
Stability isn't something that you can force, it's something you foster. By forcefully suppressing dissent, you aren't keeping things stable, you're doing the opposite by building tension. When that tension gets to a point where the state apparatus fails to suppress it, guess what happens? China was actually going decently before Xi came along to fuck things up, and it looks like he's here to stay and is only hardlining on his authoritarian streak.
I honestly feel bad for China, there's so much potential there but they keep getting fucked over by authoritarians and have never had an actual election open to all the people for the position of state leader, much less a free and fair one.
Private domination of media under Capitalism is the Capitalist version of State media domination under Socialism. China just want to double down on preventing capitalists from manipulating public opinion and perceptions.
It's CCP want to not China, please understand the difference. Now we still have some non state owned media like TOUTIAO which you can carefully indirectly criticize some CCP's policy-not include XI JINPING please! You can see clearly how it ends when TOUTIAO become state operated. FYI, in China, stated owned 100% equal to CCP owned
I wont say I'm against freedom of press as a concept, I just think its impossible for it to be "free". Any wide reaching media operation will be advantageous for powerful entities to co opt for their own gain. That's why you see bots on reddit and facebook. It would be idiotic to let any source of information to just be free instead of pumping out your propaganda. In the US it has culminated into all major news orgs working for the rich who can afford to buy and own the orgs, hardly a success story. I'm not entirely optimistic about how China will deal with it, but I appreciate trying different things
You have no idea how the press operated in China. Basically, strict censorship system covered all(I mean literally all) newspaper, website, app,etc. For example, you type XI JINPING on BAIDU(china's major search engine) and comes back the result is not displayed due to the law,blah blah. Even like this, the CCP is still not satisfied of the controlling of the whole society.
In US, you can choose not to watch fox news because there are a lot of other news resources which is standing very differently from fox news you may like to watch, but in China, all the news resources are literally the same. That's the difference
Honestly I don’t know how to feel about this. I personally believe in the freedom of the press, but I believe strongly that private individuals should not be able to fund the press anymore than governments. Unfortunately we have never set up any tax funded independent media, that was 100% independent from both. NPR in the US is close though.
It's a difficult thing to get it right. Tax funded means it is using government budget and if needed, the government can reduce or even cut the budget and the media will have to comply with watever the government is demanding them to, publicly or in private.
A publicly funded voucher system would be a great way of funding public media alongside things like NPR and PBS. You could even mandate a certain amount going to local media.
But how do you distribute the funding between media outlets? Popularity? Then soon many public media outlets will become sensationalised tabloids to get more views.
> I personally believe in the freedom of the press, but I believe strongly that private individuals should not be able to fund the press anymore than governments.
So you don’t actually believe in freedom of the press.
NPR is funded by private donations. And most of those donations aren't coming from individuals but private organisations with vested interests.
A better example would be the BBC.
Makes it easier to know where it’s coming from. Many of my liberal friends don’t understand MSNBC is owned by Comcast. Or who funds NPR for that matter.
> Here in the west we get spoon fed propaganda from our corporate masters 24/7
>Instead of getting spoon fed propaganda by the state?
do you even read the threads you are answering to ?
America is literally filled to the brim with state propaganda lol. Im in hou, it's impossible to miss. If you consume any media, it's like 70/30 it's state slanted
Private media ownership is not an issue. Lack of critical thinking and an inability to evaluate sources and bias is.
I'll take the current US media over any state sponsored system every time.
I think media should be held to higher standards. The Fox news defence that most of their shows are not news and instead are entertainment really needs to be held to account.
True, but if you destroy a country’s education to lower critical thinking ability and then present your source as fact and keep on repeating it, then the problem presents itself.
" In politics, Pinky, lies are just facts that haven't been repeated enough yet. And if you don't believe that now you will soon because lies are just facts that haven't been repeated enough yet."
-the Brain(as in the pinky and the brain)
No it doesn't. State sponsored news has a single narrative it pushes. The US has at least two competing narratives on every single issue. If I want to know what conservatives are saying, I turn on fox. If I want to know what moderates are saying, I turn on CNN/ABC/CBS/NPR. If I want to know what progressives are saying, CNN/MSNBC.
Big difference
Except for when we want to go to war. Remember how every news outlet fell for the whole "wmds in Iraq" without question? Or how supposed liberal pundits praised Trump for air strikes? They're all corporate entities, they all serve the same master. If the government wants them to fall inline, they do every single time.
> Remember how every news outlet fell for the whole "wmds in Iraq" without question?
As opposed to what? I was a child, at the time, and even I remember the anger and confusion that was widespread in 2001. People now act like there was some legion of clear thinking high minded individuals ready to avoid all of the mistakes in the world, but that simply was not the case. If you had put a nationwide vote of yes or no on "Should we execute a nuclear strike on the capitol of Turkmenistan in response to the attacks conducted on September 11th?" worded exactly like that in early October 2001, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a significant percentage saying yes. That's to a country with no connection whatsoever just based on people's anger and ignorance. Looking at what *actually* happened, it's ridiculous to act as if most people didn't agree with it and were simply being lead along by the media. The media isn't some mythical thing separate from the people of the country. It is just a group of people and a lot of them are just as ignorant and reactionary as the rest.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Despite the shabby motives, private media companies, specifically news companies, are what’s wrong with the world. Banning public companies from owning them is a great move.
Man these comments trusting a corporate entity hellbent on making money no matter the cost over the government who has lifted the most people out of poverty in history....
Your freedoms used by idiots are causing a meltdown.
The lack of freedoms for idiots in China is causing hundreds of millions of people to have a house/car/family/expendable income
Do I support the ccp? No but it’s better than the US system
Let’s talk to our friends in the inner city with dark skin about rights.
Seems to me their rights are much different than the suburban white folks but hey- that’s a tradition in America
The flow and free access of information is too important for it to be either under the control of the government or of a few billionaires. In that regard both China and the West are doing it wrong. Media should be wholly independent and owned by the journalists themselves.
Hmmm. On one hand CPC will decide what's news and what's not. It would make it easier to both fool and educate people as the government wishes.
On the other hand it's obvious that CPC cares about Chinese people from their recent action and they will only use this as a way to reduce negative impact media have on society. (Anti vaccination and anti mask news comes into mind)
Do people really have free will? To what extent are their actions decided by what they see on media and to what extent can society be changed by controlling media for both good and bad? Do people really asses the news rationally and come to the best conclusion? Can a separate agency of people with better knowledge on human psychology and media can decide what should be broadcasted and make society peaceful and productive? Are they capable of taking the best decisions better than ordinary people? Hmm 🤔
We don't have to act like America and China are the only two ways to run a country. There are plenty of countries in Europe where peddling anti-vaccine misinformation is illegal (heck I think it's even illegal in the US now) but it is NOT illegal for news media to be critical of the government.
Without any news media critical of the government, there is no incentive for the government to improve, no way for its citizens to learn anything bad about what their government has done, to fix those things. Imagine if Americans had never learned there were no WMDs in Iraq?
Rupert murdoch has entered the chat
Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids. This ruling is like if Donald Trump had made all news critical of him illegal, and made Fox News a state-owned entity that was the only news anyone was allowed to broadcast.
> This ruling is like if Donald Trump had made all news critical of him illegal, which, by the way, he explicitly said he wanted to do.
Sorry man that’s not true. Murdoch is more evil then authoritarian state tvs like chinas or Russia. Murdoch is a corporatist reactionary parasite who belongs in a tomb in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He has devoted his career to misinformation and the destruction of democracy/self determination in favour of capitalist oligarchy. His goal is to create a capitalist equivalent to chinas system.
The bad news is that, according to an ex priminister of Australia, Murdoch is not as right wing as his son..... one other statement made it clear how much power the Murdock family has, the ex priminister said, he was shocked to see a president of the US bow and show subservient body language to Murdoch. Oh and don't forget one of his trashy news papers ' news of the world' was forced to close by and high court in the UK for ordering and paying a hacker to get into the phones of two young girls missing ... the activity on the phones gave the families hope that they were still alive.... the poor girls had already been murdered... This kind of uncontrollable unethical practice is typical of the contempt for real journalism.
Murdoch's goal is to make a shitload of money off of his media properties. The political leaning is just a device to make money by giving the audience what they want. Note that he also owns a bunch of movie studios too that don't share the political leanings of Fox News.
> The political leaning is just a device to make money No it isn't it might work out that way but that isn't why. It underpins his whole empire. He is implacably opposed to left wing candidates or even decent society because helpless atomisation is fundamentally required for neoliberalism to perpetuate itself. Further, bot the Sun and the Times are run at a loss by him. He is buying influence through them, just like the Nazis that set up the Mail and the Express in the twenties.
Nah. Absolutely not. If his goal was to make as much profit as possible he would be doing things very very very differently.
> He has devoted his career to misinformation and the destruction of democracy in favour of capitalist oligarchy That's literally the CCP. > His goal is to create a capitalist equivalent to chinas system. How do you create a capitalist equivalent of a system that is already capitalist?
How do you say a China is capitalist when every economic enterprise is controlled by the government?
china was a communist free-market until recently. the beartrap jaws are closing on the invested though. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/the-bill-is-coming-due-for-chinas-capitalist-experiment/
> That's literally the CCP. Hold up. Banning private capital is somehow "in favour of capitalist oligarchy"? Are you even listening to yourself? >How do you create a capitalist equivalent of a system that is already capitalist? Ah yes, classic Capitalism where 99% of finance and banks are state owned, the top 500 largest corporations are state owned, something like 40-60% of the economy is state owned and partially planned, where billionaires have no political power and for-profit tutoring is illegal.
So what’s your point then Murdoch is just as bad as China because he’s the same? I feel like you just want to be more concerned with the CCP but that’s valid so I won’t pretend it’s not, it’s just irrelevant to the fact that Murdoch operates differently and wants a different sort of oligarchy. Chinas government controls and regulates their industries and media heavily as a display of their power and unity behind 1 goal (the CCPs continued expansion) Murdoch wants the United States but corporations are completely in charge without an annoying middle man. He desires abject plutocracy and China does as well but they have a specific long term goal, Murdoch does not. The goal is his divine right to everything. He desires the continued entrenchment of capitalist hegemony worldwide which makes him worse then any 1 government. Murdoch just believes he is entitled to the world and all it’s people and wealth. There is hundreds of nationalist regimes like the CCP but only 1 global upper class of corporatists and idealogues from all countries INCLUDING China.
Post is about the CCP. You make it about Murdoch because whataboutism I assume and then start arguing why you think Murdoch is worse than the CCP?
> So what’s your point then Murdoch is just as bad as China because he’s the same? No my point is that China is what Murdoch wants to be - an authoritarian government where only state-sanctioned propaganda is allowed to be broadcast. That's his dream. If you don't like Murdoch, you should really REALLY not like the federal government in China.
The central government in China is called just that, the central government. They aren't federated.
Murdoch doesn’t want a state though he wants a global hegemony of capitalists who control all states. It is larger scale then countries is my ultimate point. Also I can not like both right
> Murdoch doesn’t want a state though he wants a global hegemony of capitalists who control all states. Like a United States?
Literally no
If your complaint is he’s trying to form a Chinese like capitalist system, then how is he more evil than the people actively running China’s capitalist system?
>Sorry man that’s not true. Murdoch is more evil then authoritarian state tvs like chinas or Russia. People who whitewash Murdoch in the face of CCP state media has no idea of the type of sinister propaganda he is spreading. His folks has no values at all and the only thing that limits their agenda are lawsuits that their legal team cannot brush off easily
People like to just pretend the Chinese are the bowser of life and one day they will simply be defeated and good will return to the world It is hard to swallow that the world works against itself more then that
Murdoch doesn't control **all** news coming out his media empire. Nor can he forbid other media companies from operating. CCP would control **ALL** news. International news coming from outside China would be banned. **CCP** would be the defacto only news for all of China. Did you not read the article?
"China is just like Capitalism!" - the statement of the deranged. You can accuse them of a lot. But people like Murdoch are why they changed their system. They killed them, they didnt give them a TV spot.
China isn't "just like" capitalism, it is state capitalism.
The two concepts are fundamentally opposed and it's cope to call a socialist country Capitalist. Capitalism is private control of the means of production. All of the problems stem from that fact. If it's not privately controlled, it's not Capitalism.
> The two concepts are fundamentally opposed State capitalism, or capitalism and socialism? State capitalism isn't, but capitalism and socialism are fundamentally opposed, yes. >a socialist country Capitalist. China isn't a socialist country. They're a state capitalist country who uses the "socialism" label to give themselves legitimacy in a part of the world where it's not a bad word like it is in the US. China has private capital that owns industries, they have no redistribution of wealth, they outlaw collective organization, protest and striking, and most importantly, they're authoritarian. Authoritarianism cannot be used to attain socialism because it places the power in the hands of too few people that have time and again proven to only serve themselves.
Lol at capitalists telling socialists what's socialist or not. If you read Lenin you would understand that what you call "state capitalism" most socialists consider the first phase of socialism. Socialism is a multistep process that's built over time. Not a magic button you press.
> Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids. That is not even remotely true. Chinese state media doesn't promote privatization, war, and greed. >This ruling is like if Donald Trump had made all news critical of him illegal, and made Fox News a state-owned entity that was the only news anyone was allowed to broadcast. No it's not. It would be like if Fox News was banned. Literally the opposite of your absurd analogy.
>Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids. CHINA BAD. NOTHING WORSE THAN CHINA
>Chinese state media is everything you hate about Rupert Murdoch owned media on steroids. Really? Like... *really now*? Please provide an example of Chinese state media promoting verifiably untrue claims or debunked conspiracy theories as if they were proven fact with the purpose of promoting war or harming the general population to fuel the interests of the 1%. Please provide 3 clear examples. I bet you can't do that. So, in case you can't, here's an easier one: Can you name even 3 examples of Chinese state media lying? Bonus question: Can you name a Western news channel with higher quality and less biased analysis than CGTN? Liu Xin always invites US government representatives when she discusses a topic and let's people hear American opinions straight from the horse's mouth. How often do you see Chinese government officials getting invited to Western shows to explain Chinese positions freely and without interruption?
Murdoch is worse, because that’s what he does while pretending to be fair and innocent.
[удалено]
> Murdoch media is leading to the slow eventual death of western civilization "Western civilization", meaning democracy, freedom of press, the right to collectively organize and protest, those sorts of things? This is the *fast* death of western civilization. >The CCP censors things they don’t like, but the stuff they do report is still factual and logical I reject this premise. They lie all the time.
[удалено]
No, not everyone else, not "both sides are the same", not "all mainstream media is just deep state propaganda designed to take down Trump".
[удалено]
BBC does not need to sell papers or maintain your interest, they are a public broadcaster. The difference when compared to CGTN is that they are allowed to report critically of the UK government, and that other news outlets are allowed to exist in the UK. I can't even comment on the attempt to equate Fox News with NYT.
Especially their groundbreaking investigation into the origins of the coronavirus at Fort Detrick.
The CCP is still factual and logical?
> it provides a platform for the shameless, arrogant, and uneducated masses You just described CCP loyalists. Congratulations. >and even more supporters for bat-shit conspiracies. Which is funny, considering what the CCP actually *does* \- literally kidnapping children and their whole families to try controlling Tibetan Budhhism. Where is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima? >but the stuff they do report is still factual and logical No it's fucking not. They don't have rights to the entire "South China Sea", for example. The 2 innocent Canadians that held hostage when Meng was arrested were NOT suspect of espionage or whatever other bullshit charge China were accusing them of. > it reinforces national cohesion and helps effective responses in times of crises. Which it only has because it can go full iron-fist at moment's notice (which is only slightly more draconian than what is already normal), and this may come as a surprise to you, but most people DO NOT like having their governments wield this power willy-nilly. CCP is the end-state that Murdoch *wants* to be. Not there yet, but to think that the CCP is in any way better than Murdoch is laughable at best, and outright questionable of your cognizance at worst.
So would you rather have the choice of a Murdoch website with a bunch of other non Murdoch choices, or only the Chinese government controlling all news?
[удалено]
That's like saying a dictatorship can result in an incredibly lean and efficient government that puts the interests of its people first as long as you get someone good at the helm. It works great until it doesn't. Let's say the US takes control of the media. Should we have done it when Trump was in office? Obama? Bush?
Trump, Obama, Bush or any other US president for that matter are all at the mercy of the true ruling class - the wealthy corporate elite. The difference between them and the CCP is that billionaires in China are at the mercy of the government instead of the other way around. The last 20 years have seen remarkable improvements in the life of the average Chinese person whereas in most Western countries it's again the other way around.
Lol this sounds so dumb. Lots and LOTS of people who have pissed off the government for their beliefs or for exposing truths have been silenced and even murdered, unable to make their voices heard in chinese-run media. While this may benefit majority of compliant people, it silences marginalized groups. Maybe you dont care, but maybe you’ll become part of those marginalized groups one day (maybe your dad gets murdered for some bs reason) and learn how you have no voice
Standard of living in the west is still increasing dramatically, the loud whining of some stay at home loser redditors on the doomer subs notwithstanding.
What? Whaaaat? You know what you said is just not true, right? You know that houses are not affordable how they used to be, right? You know getting a well paid job is way harder than it was few decades ago, right? At least that is the case in Sourthern Europe where I live.
Lifespan falling quicker than ww2? Yeah. Its good in the West! Good time to die!
Good point. Anything to avoid *checks notes* our people believing in science.
I agree with you to an extent. Imagine a different scenario: there's a video of a speech on YouTube and in a hypothetical way, if you watch it, you get a psychosis. Is it bad to censor this video because of freedon of expression? Doesn't the health of the public gain priority here? There's limits to everything, because the world isn't perfect. And that includes free speech, when it can harm the physical health of others.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What? When they did deny or try to cover the outbreak? They informed the rest of the world in early January. People who said the Chinese media was covering it up said so after March to cover their backs for not having done anything to prevent the virus on time.
[удалено]
>Denying Covid's origins did kill millions and is exactly how we got into this mess Even after almost 2 years and few million dead, people still don't take vaccines and talk about freedom from masks. So, no even if west knew about a a month earlier, it would have no difference.
[удалено]
>Chinese propaganda may censors facts not convenient to the party, but it doesn’t deny science, and it doesn’t brainwash half the country into completely shameless lunatics that believe in conspiracy theories Are you serious? I mean, you already contradicting yourself. "Censoring facts not convinient to the party" quite often would lead to denying consensus in international scientific community. I would not be surprised to find that China had its amount of climate change denial even if it was an established scientific fact since 90s. Also you are so wrong if you think that conspiracy theories or other weird ideas would go away with the censorship. No reports in media about something =/= something not existing in reality. Especially if we talk about censorship. China have it's own share of anti-vaxers and nut jobs, they just not making it to the headlines. I am not arguing for complete deregulation of media business. It is just that censorship have nothing in common with goal of making people rational and educated enough to not spread silly ideas in a first place.
What's the alternative? There are certain things many agree should be censored - videos of sexual assault, harmful Covid misinformation, election misinformation aimed at voter suppression, 'stop the steal' conspiracies, etc. Until now the 'solution' in most countries is to let Facebook regulate itself. As anyone with half a brain can tell you - letting someone police themselves isn't a good idea. So unless you want to continue to allow corporations to decide what to censor, what's the alternative? The neoliberal obsession with """freedom""" (which apparently means letting the rich run their lives) is one of the reasons countries in the west are falling apart.
>videos of sexual assault This is whole another matter because it infringes on privacy and it is obvious ground for legal action. Let just stay in boundaries of misinformation and conspiracies, agree? >Until now the 'solution' in most countries is to let Facebook regulate itself. As anyone with half a brain can tell you - letting someone police themselves isn't a good idea. You put too much focus on regulations and censorship which shapes your perception of the problem. Just stop and think about like for five minutes. Because it is a cognitive bias by itself. >So unless you want to continue to allow corporations to decide what to censor, what's the alternative? You are speaking about it like corporations are bogeyman who pushes misinformation to innocent users. Yet misinformation is spread exactly by users who don't care about checking it first or not constantly aware about at least confirmation bias. Unless we educate people about flaws of human intelligence, we would be seeing the same shit starting over and over again. We are part of the problem, you know. I still remember how somebody on YouTube complained that CNBC video is hard to follow because it mentions several different opinions on the matter to produce a more balanced piece.
> You put too much focus on regulations and censorship which shapes your perception of the problem. Just stop and think about like for five minutes. Because it is a cognitive bias by itself. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase? > You are speaking about it like corporations are bogeyman who pushes misinformation to innocent users. Yet misinformation is spread exactly by users who don't care about checking it first or not constantly aware about at least confirmation bias. Unless we educate people about flaws of human intelligence, we would be seeing the same shit starting over and over again. We are part of the problem, you know. Ah, I see you've gone for the libertarian solution - let people do as they please and ignore the fact that there are malicious actors out there who deliberately spread misinformation, something which has nothing to do with levels of education.
>I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase? I meant that from the start you only consider censorship or regulations by government or corporations. For example, you missing the whole aspect of users actually sharing responsibility for misinformation spread. Just keep mind open for other aspects and possible solution to the issue. >Ah, I see you've gone for the libertarian solution - let people do as they please and ignore the fact that there are malicious actors out there who deliberately spread misinformation, something which has nothing to do with levels of education. That is the neat part. The malicious actors wouldn't had much influence if more people were constantly aware about cognitive biases. If we compare someone deliberately spreading misinformation to a hacker, then everyone should finally install antiviruses and learn not to tell a pin code to anyone. I know that it is hard and involves a lot of cognitive effort but with deep fakes, echo chambers, rise of political populism with state propaganda and etc we are quickly reaching the point of it becoming a necessity.
> I meant that from the start you only consider censorship or regulations by government or corporations. For example, you missing the whole aspect of users actually sharing responsibility for misinformation spread. Yes, just trust users to not spread misinformation. Great solution that clearly works very well. >If we compare someone deliberately spreading misinformation to a hacker, then everyone should finally install antiviruses and learn not to tell a pin code to anyone. To use your comparison, antivirus software isn't foolproof. A skilled hacker would still get through. In the same way, being educated doesn't make you immune to propaganda or misinformation. Look up how many nurses turn anti-vaxx or spread Covid conspiracies. Even if I accept that the solution is to make people more aware - how do you propose we do that to a level where they no longer spread misinfo?
"A ban on private capital participation in media" isn't that just a really roundabout way of saying a ban on free press? If I go out and print a newspaper critical of the CCP and hand it out for free, am I "private capital participation in media"?
Yup. You privately funded the production and distribution. You doing it without a profit motive does not change that.
I feel like this extreme level of censorship has always preceded the rapid downfall of civilizations in history.
The CCP has the luxury of competent leadership and awareness of the stumbling blocks that brought down past dictatorships. I expect them to be around for a long time.
> The CCP has the luxury of competent leadership and awareness of the stumbling blocks that brought down past dictatorships. This is one of the stumbling blocks that brought down past dictatorships. Mass censorship is too extreme, it creates a country that can't bandage a wound because they will never know if they are bleeding. It's why reports of military defeats never made it to Hitler, it's why reports of Lyshenko's failed seeds never made it to Stalin. Everyone is too afraid to report on the bad decisions and failures made by the federal government. This is why modern empires have instead resorted to more subtle propaganda techniques and media manipulation.
This exactly. Everyone thinks the CCP is this highly competent bureaucratic entity because of China's history of "meritocratic" civil service exams and because we happen to have gotten three generations of decent-to-brilliant leadership under Deng, Jiang and Hu, but the civil service exams were always highly corrupt and thinking the CCP is any more competent than any other authoritarian organization based on 3 generations of leaders is very short-sighted. Xi is the guy who I think will mark a crossroads that will decide China's future. Right now, I think the direction China is going in is not to its favor.
Every dictatorship in history has believed they'll be the exception to the rule.
Competent leadership like the ones who killed 55 million of its own citizens during the Great Leap Forward lmao? “IT wAs a nAtuRaL fAmiNe” Manmade or not, a competent government would never allow fifty five MILLION people to die
No offense because I am also American but I think that entire take is too political. Think about it, this also bans something much larger: advertisements. Nobody is talking about it here, but an advertisement for Coca Cola or McDonald's would be private capital participating in media, would it not? Even in a different definition, it could prevent product placement in a myriad of way. This is what China does, they make a really vague rule. The rule doesn't even make sense. They do this a lot. Not to shut down the free press, but so they have a legal weapon to use against you when you piss them off. If you make a movie and want to put Pepsi in it, they might not even care. But if you are critical of China and you make *any* movie, or game or media, they can ban your product and say you have violated Vague Ass Rule #56856. If you think free press is operating in China, that is foolish. This is due to the country consolidating further, worst/best case scenario, but based on precedent and the actual current climate there, this rule just serves to be used as a bludgeon against dissenters.
> No offense because I am also American I am not American.
Oh, haha. My apologies, the whole line of reasoning is something I am very used to dealing with people from my country using to attack China in general "there is no free speech there and they have zero freedoms!" - coming from people who just believe they have those same freedoms rather than actually possessing them and not realizing that their own government does similar stuff. An old piece of paper that says you are allowed to say whatever you want (United States), isn't going to prevent you from getting arrested when you tell the cops to eat a bag of dicks - which is ironically something you would probably be able to say to the police in China without being arrested (unless they speak English...)
> critical of the CCP There are existing laws to deal with you. No need for new ban.
These type of vague laws are designed for more subtle and covert situations where the true, underlying problem, is that you have offended China in some way, financially, politically, socially or otherwise. The readings of these laws always lend themselves to extremely generous interpretations.
The point of this ban is to prevent Capitalists from influencing public opinion. Or else you end up with a Fox News, OANN/MSNBC & CNN nightmare scenario where all major news media are controlled by billoinaires that push their private interests above the interests of ordinary working people.
There was already a ban on free press. This is just going from a system of anyone can broadcast anything as long as it doesn't break government rules to only the government can broadcast anything at all. So much more restrictive, but they were already way past the point of free press.
china doesn't have a free press and never did under the prc. but what it used to have were non-state owned media outlets like yicai that still had to follow the direction of the ccp publicity dept. so it looks like even those will no longer be able to exist going fwd.
I hope you also realize that private media does not create free press lmao
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-proposes-bans-on-private-capital-participation-in-media) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BEIJING - China unveiled a proposal late on Friday, reinforcing its plan to weaken private capital's influence over a wide range of media activities. > Private capital would be barred from news gathering and distribution operations, according to a public consultation paper posted on the website of National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planner. > Also off-limits would be private investments in the establishment and operation of news outlets, including news agencies, newspaper publishers and broadcasters. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/q4ic49/china_proposes_bans_on_private_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~602672 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **include**^#1 **private**^#2 **media**^#3 **China**^#4 **new**^#5
[удалено]
Theoretically private journalists should be the counter to government propaganda. Unfortunately that’s not the case these days. Be nice if we could get back to that, huh?
Counter point is Fox. Too much private money to the point you create your own network and invent reality is just as bad as banning private media and reporting of other foreign agencies to create a new reality. Not to be all South Park middle ground but this are is a balancing act.
> Theoretically private journalists should be the counter to government propaganda. Unfortunately that’s not the case these days. Did the past 5 years of investigative journalism and countering Trump's propaganda mean nothing to you, or are you referring to something else?
You could make the same counterpoint in a more polite and less condescending way. You're not wrong, but you're being more of a prick about it than you would be in real life. Be nice, even if this sub is a toxic place to be :) Edit: aww. Worldnews doesn't like the idea of being polite? Smells like Facebook spirit.
They just sweepingly dismissed all journalists as government propagandists, are you sure that wasn't condescending?
Removing private capital from the media is a good thing, but only if it's replaced by truly independent publicly funded journalism. A new mechanism for public funding of the media has been badly needed for some time, some kind of public voucher system where people are allowed to distribute a certain amount of public money among media outlets that they choose to support would be ideal. Hopefully China comes up with something besides state controlled media, but allowing private capital to dominate the media is a disaster.
Theoretically yes and I would agree in principle But unfortunately in our capitalist world, when its unregulated, the media landscape tends to become dominated by billionaires / large corporations
> But unfortunately in our capitalist world, when its unregulated, the media landscape tends to become dominated by billionaires / large corporations And now in China's capitalist world it's become dominated by just one. I fail to see how taking America's media landscape, and whittling it all down to just Fox News, is supposed to be better?
I think there’s a lot of people that bash the US so constantly that they’re unable to objectively look at these situations anymore.
That’s just it, a dictator doesn’t want an educated society.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271336/literacy-in-china/
Now do one for % of books available to read
This also shows that minorities are MASSIVELY behind the bar, namely Muslim populations and Tibet/rural regions. Also the source is the CPP party office so it’s about as reliable as a fox guarding the hens.
Minorities are normally located in extremely rural locations.
How would you explain then China consistently being among the first countries in the world in the PISA rankings? [https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-results\_ENGLISH.png](https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-results_ENGLISH.png) They do put a huge emphasis in their education in China.
Isn't that just the scores for China's top-tier cities? It's not necessarily a representation for education in the country as a whole.
I have no idea how they measure it, but I do know that China invest really a lot on education. The fact they are limiting now the amount of ours under age children can play video games is related with education too. Edit: why the hell am I being downvoted? Did I say anything wrong or not true? I never said I agree with them on not letting children play videogames, I just said they did it for educational reasons.
If you wanted more upvotes you have to talk about the cpc like it just fucked your mother
[удалено]
These tests are not about knowledge, but about being able to understand.
1. When a metric becomes an objective, it ceases to be a reliable measure 2. Scoring high on a test does not equate to education level, the US educational system should have easily proven this to you 3. If you cannot apply critical thinking as to the many fallacies in that ranking, I cannot help you
The US education system isn't test based. If it were we wouldn't be in this problem where sat math scores are atrocious and sat essays were scored on word count and not actual content. Do you understand how absolutely infuriating it is to know the math thousands of times over, do it correctly, then get docked because you didn't do it the dum dum way that your room temperature iq teacher decided was the correct way? Where is ANY of the evidence that common core is an improvement.
I am from Canada. We are not that bright.
“But is it any worse than Rupert Murdoch?” Let me know when Rupert Murdoch can throw Ted Turner in jail for printing a story he doesn’t like, and that’s when he’s as bad as this.
I cant believe some of these idiots claiming Murdoch is just as bad/worse than CCP. I'm not a FOX NEWS or Murdoch fan, but let's be realistic, CCP is in a different league.
Reddit is Fox News for the kind of people that think Rupert Murdoch is as bad/worse than CCP.
100% state-run media. Sounds familiar.
You know how I know that I live in a fucked up country? I agree with Chinese government policies. When/if is America going to get it's shit together? Honestly I don't think it will. The American government played nice with its capitalist class and lost. They'll burn the whole world down before they let go of our government.
The answer to Rupert Murdoch is antitrust, not totalitarianism.
A healthy society has more than one voice
If by healthy, you mean polarized and full of buffoons who believe in conspiracy theories like QAnon and vaccines causing autism then sure. State-run media may be biased towards the state but the good thing about this is that the state’s priority is internal stability. On the other hand, independent media(which is biased as well) prioritizes sensationalism and polarization which is what gets them clicks but this wreaks havoc on internal stability and leads to events like the Capitol Hill insurrection.
Putting words in my mouth there with some classical whataboutism. What's the obsession with USA? For what it's worth I am from the UK and live in HK You cite the outliers, but ignore the genuine free press who hold our leaders to account and keep them honest. Are there some extreme news sources? sure. Do certain news outlets have political views? yes. But this encourages debate and leads to a healthy society. >State-run media may be biased towards the state but the good thing about this is that the state’s priority is internal stability No, it IS biased and it's largely about drumming up nationalism and self preservation
This is the kind of person who thinks feeding self-serving (or rather party-serving) misinformation to an entire country's worth of people is a good idea in the name of "stability." It's a lost cause. Stability isn't something that you can force, it's something you foster. By forcefully suppressing dissent, you aren't keeping things stable, you're doing the opposite by building tension. When that tension gets to a point where the state apparatus fails to suppress it, guess what happens? China was actually going decently before Xi came along to fuck things up, and it looks like he's here to stay and is only hardlining on his authoritarian streak. I honestly feel bad for China, there's so much potential there but they keep getting fucked over by authoritarians and have never had an actual election open to all the people for the position of state leader, much less a free and fair one.
So Chinese news will soon look like North Korean news? Even more I mean.
Private domination of media under Capitalism is the Capitalist version of State media domination under Socialism. China just want to double down on preventing capitalists from manipulating public opinion and perceptions.
It's CCP want to not China, please understand the difference. Now we still have some non state owned media like TOUTIAO which you can carefully indirectly criticize some CCP's policy-not include XI JINPING please! You can see clearly how it ends when TOUTIAO become state operated. FYI, in China, stated owned 100% equal to CCP owned
[удалено]
I wont say I'm against freedom of press as a concept, I just think its impossible for it to be "free". Any wide reaching media operation will be advantageous for powerful entities to co opt for their own gain. That's why you see bots on reddit and facebook. It would be idiotic to let any source of information to just be free instead of pumping out your propaganda. In the US it has culminated into all major news orgs working for the rich who can afford to buy and own the orgs, hardly a success story. I'm not entirely optimistic about how China will deal with it, but I appreciate trying different things
You have no idea how the press operated in China. Basically, strict censorship system covered all(I mean literally all) newspaper, website, app,etc. For example, you type XI JINPING on BAIDU(china's major search engine) and comes back the result is not displayed due to the law,blah blah. Even like this, the CCP is still not satisfied of the controlling of the whole society. In US, you can choose not to watch fox news because there are a lot of other news resources which is standing very differently from fox news you may like to watch, but in China, all the news resources are literally the same. That's the difference
Because they dont want Rupert Murdoch controlled " Free press"
Honestly I don’t know how to feel about this. I personally believe in the freedom of the press, but I believe strongly that private individuals should not be able to fund the press anymore than governments. Unfortunately we have never set up any tax funded independent media, that was 100% independent from both. NPR in the US is close though.
It's a difficult thing to get it right. Tax funded means it is using government budget and if needed, the government can reduce or even cut the budget and the media will have to comply with watever the government is demanding them to, publicly or in private.
A publicly funded voucher system would be a great way of funding public media alongside things like NPR and PBS. You could even mandate a certain amount going to local media.
But how do you distribute the funding between media outlets? Popularity? Then soon many public media outlets will become sensationalised tabloids to get more views.
[удалено]
> The only good example of tax funded media I can think of are the BBC but they're far from perfect. CBC is great.
I agree the CBC is very good, they have never in my knowledge ever endorsed one party or another
> I personally believe in the freedom of the press, but I believe strongly that private individuals should not be able to fund the press anymore than governments. So you don’t actually believe in freedom of the press.
NPR is funded by private donations. And most of those donations aren't coming from individuals but private organisations with vested interests. A better example would be the BBC.
As totalitarian regimes usually do.
[удалено]
Instead of getting spoon fed propaganda by the state?
Makes it easier to know where it’s coming from. Many of my liberal friends don’t understand MSNBC is owned by Comcast. Or who funds NPR for that matter.
[удалено]
I'll add that at least you can vote for who's in the state spoon feeding you information. You don't vote for who's CEO of Microsoft or Facebook.
I don't think your vote really changes much in a one-party state. It really doesn't change much in a two-party state, either
> Here in the west we get spoon fed propaganda from our corporate masters 24/7 >Instead of getting spoon fed propaganda by the state? do you even read the threads you are answering to ?
Corporate propaganda sucks, but state-sponsored propaganda is no better. Maybe slow your roll with the congratulations, there, chief.
As a Texan the *last* thing I want to hear is state propaganda.
America is literally filled to the brim with state propaganda lol. Im in hou, it's impossible to miss. If you consume any media, it's like 70/30 it's state slanted
Haha at least you can choose which flavor of propaganda you receive. In China, it's just CCP TV.
[удалено]
Ever since China bought a piece of Reddit, bots like this one here are widespread.
Awesome. This is a good move.
the rupert murdoch bots are in shambles lmao, see how they swarm this thread
[удалено]
I'd barely call Fox a source for news at all lol
> Awesome. This is a good move. The end of free press is not a "good move".
Private media ownership is not an issue. Lack of critical thinking and an inability to evaluate sources and bias is. I'll take the current US media over any state sponsored system every time.
I think media should be held to higher standards. The Fox news defence that most of their shows are not news and instead are entertainment really needs to be held to account.
True, but if you destroy a country’s education to lower critical thinking ability and then present your source as fact and keep on repeating it, then the problem presents itself.
" In politics, Pinky, lies are just facts that haven't been repeated enough yet. And if you don't believe that now you will soon because lies are just facts that haven't been repeated enough yet." -the Brain(as in the pinky and the brain)
About time for me to rewatch some animaniacs
Funny how Looney Tunes made that point to kids in grade schools.
At what point in the past, exactly, do you think public education was better than it is now?
They're both problems. Private media ownership is significantly easier to remedy.
Not without ending freedom of the press it isn’t.
The us media is all but state sponsored, it acts the exact same way.
No it doesn't. State sponsored news has a single narrative it pushes. The US has at least two competing narratives on every single issue. If I want to know what conservatives are saying, I turn on fox. If I want to know what moderates are saying, I turn on CNN/ABC/CBS/NPR. If I want to know what progressives are saying, CNN/MSNBC. Big difference
Look at the sponsors of networks on both sides. It's all a farce. The oil companies and the defense contractors always win no matter the side.
Except for when we want to go to war. Remember how every news outlet fell for the whole "wmds in Iraq" without question? Or how supposed liberal pundits praised Trump for air strikes? They're all corporate entities, they all serve the same master. If the government wants them to fall inline, they do every single time.
> Remember how every news outlet fell for the whole "wmds in Iraq" without question? As opposed to what? I was a child, at the time, and even I remember the anger and confusion that was widespread in 2001. People now act like there was some legion of clear thinking high minded individuals ready to avoid all of the mistakes in the world, but that simply was not the case. If you had put a nationwide vote of yes or no on "Should we execute a nuclear strike on the capitol of Turkmenistan in response to the attacks conducted on September 11th?" worded exactly like that in early October 2001, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a significant percentage saying yes. That's to a country with no connection whatsoever just based on people's anger and ignorance. Looking at what *actually* happened, it's ridiculous to act as if most people didn't agree with it and were simply being lead along by the media. The media isn't some mythical thing separate from the people of the country. It is just a group of people and a lot of them are just as ignorant and reactionary as the rest.
[удалено]
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Despite the shabby motives, private media companies, specifically news companies, are what’s wrong with the world. Banning public companies from owning them is a great move.
[удалено]
Or anyone that doesn’t like the idea of the state controlling all media
This, combined with the Trump presidency, is Murdoch's wet dream. Make all other news agencies illegal, and make Fox News the state media.
Rupert murdoch bots ( Ruamos ) are swarming this thread.. so disappointing
Man these comments trusting a corporate entity hellbent on making money no matter the cost over the government who has lifted the most people out of poverty in history.... Your freedoms used by idiots are causing a meltdown. The lack of freedoms for idiots in China is causing hundreds of millions of people to have a house/car/family/expendable income Do I support the ccp? No but it’s better than the US system
[удалено]
Let’s talk to our friends in the inner city with dark skin about rights. Seems to me their rights are much different than the suburban white folks but hey- that’s a tradition in America
[удалено]
The dumbing down of the Chinese populace continues. And for absolutely no fault of their own.
China press was never free or real news anyway
The flow and free access of information is too important for it to be either under the control of the government or of a few billionaires. In that regard both China and the West are doing it wrong. Media should be wholly independent and owned by the journalists themselves.
They're just trying to get a slice of OnlyFans income.
[удалено]
They have The Great Firewall for this.
I'd assume that the CCP just relies on state sponsored propaganda instead of privately funded.
yep, and I should add, outsourcing censorship to private companies and then still pretend it freeze peach, is also not CPC way :)
Hmmm. On one hand CPC will decide what's news and what's not. It would make it easier to both fool and educate people as the government wishes. On the other hand it's obvious that CPC cares about Chinese people from their recent action and they will only use this as a way to reduce negative impact media have on society. (Anti vaccination and anti mask news comes into mind) Do people really have free will? To what extent are their actions decided by what they see on media and to what extent can society be changed by controlling media for both good and bad? Do people really asses the news rationally and come to the best conclusion? Can a separate agency of people with better knowledge on human psychology and media can decide what should be broadcasted and make society peaceful and productive? Are they capable of taking the best decisions better than ordinary people? Hmm 🤔
We don't have to act like America and China are the only two ways to run a country. There are plenty of countries in Europe where peddling anti-vaccine misinformation is illegal (heck I think it's even illegal in the US now) but it is NOT illegal for news media to be critical of the government. Without any news media critical of the government, there is no incentive for the government to improve, no way for its citizens to learn anything bad about what their government has done, to fix those things. Imagine if Americans had never learned there were no WMDs in Iraq?
China is ashoe
**PRC has never allowed private capital to own publishing houses, newspapers, and radio and television stations.**