China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector(bloombergquint.com)
bloombergquint.com
China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/china-s-negative-list-adds-entry-limits-to-news-service-sector
146 comments
In the West privately funded media has increased polarisation over the last 50 years, so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness. China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough. These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO.
A bit naive to assume there isn't quite a bit of centralized control of media in the West. Not only are the media largely owned by a scant few large conglomerates - the government itself also gets routinely involved in controlling the narrative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
The seemingly obvious middle ground is that there cannot be too much concentration of news station ownership.
Which used to be the rule, but the rules weren't quite bulletproof enough so now Sinclair and a handful of others own far more news outlets than they should by a better metric. I'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, but I think it should be fixed.
But I also think that if someone made their fortune in industry, they probably shouldn't own newspapers. It's so much conflict of interest... it seems like sometimes it can be okay, but only if there's a really well enforced legal firewall between the interests of the owner and the news reporting. That's hard to manage if the owner isn't disconnected from decisions about what to fund or whether to promote staff critical of them.
There could be a middle ground, but if we can't define what rules constitute a fair middle ground it seems to just get worked around until effectively a few private voices dictate an awful lot of the spin applied to stories.
Which used to be the rule, but the rules weren't quite bulletproof enough so now Sinclair and a handful of others own far more news outlets than they should by a better metric. I'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, but I think it should be fixed.
But I also think that if someone made their fortune in industry, they probably shouldn't own newspapers. It's so much conflict of interest... it seems like sometimes it can be okay, but only if there's a really well enforced legal firewall between the interests of the owner and the news reporting. That's hard to manage if the owner isn't disconnected from decisions about what to fund or whether to promote staff critical of them.
There could be a middle ground, but if we can't define what rules constitute a fair middle ground it seems to just get worked around until effectively a few private voices dictate an awful lot of the spin applied to stories.
The west increasingly has completely independent news sources via places like YouTube.
These are all corporate sources that openly brag about censoring content. My favorite is when they censored an academic conference on censorship. Straight out of a Monty Python skit.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
The HN discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217
https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
The HN discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217
A lot of these channels will have to leave the platform as anti fake news and disinformation laws get tougher
Maybe that's the silver lining.
Anyone who's opinion exists outside of the current groupthink is forced to leave these big platforms. It makes it harder for the average person within this group to express themselves because these platforms make it easy. But many will and new platforms will form outside of big tech. These new platforms will have time and space to rethink how they operate and perhaps they will bring in a new era of consumer control.
Anyone who's opinion exists outside of the current groupthink is forced to leave these big platforms. It makes it harder for the average person within this group to express themselves because these platforms make it easy. But many will and new platforms will form outside of big tech. These new platforms will have time and space to rethink how they operate and perhaps they will bring in a new era of consumer control.
I guess its already happening. Many channels were complaining of shadow bans & demonetization.
Thankfully we live in a society now where “the media” does not have carte Blanche on controlling the narrative.
Plenty of dissenting folks using non-traditional outlets like podcasts and YouTube that have an audience that rivals or is larger than legacy media.
Of course, this would not be possible in China where any dissenting voices would quickly be extinguished.
Plenty of dissenting folks using non-traditional outlets like podcasts and YouTube that have an audience that rivals or is larger than legacy media.
Of course, this would not be possible in China where any dissenting voices would quickly be extinguished.
It's not really opposites, though. Private media is highly centralized, and the people involved are also highly involved in politics (Rupert Murdoch, for instance). In China, high up party members are generally very wealthy, and wealthy people generally are highly involved in the party, so it's the same politically-well-connected elite that would be involved in media in the west in any case - it's just backed up by formal censorship, explicit government rule, etc.
China is more extreme, and more explicit about the link between politics and media, but it's broadly speaking the same system.
PS: this is especially true of countries like the UK, where extremely stringent and abusable libel laws regularly cause financial troubles for small presses that upset powerful people.
China is more extreme, and more explicit about the link between politics and media, but it's broadly speaking the same system.
PS: this is especially true of countries like the UK, where extremely stringent and abusable libel laws regularly cause financial troubles for small presses that upset powerful people.
I think news in west is starting to see some direction for news in the future, the weight of main stream media is going downwards. It has created some problem to force them moving towards the extreme of political spectrum to be honest. News is not about reporting the facts only, it has influence and education value, it is like literature, I don't think everyone should be a teacher, and I don't think everyone should be a journalist. Especially many independent journalists would actually need to make a living with their reports, they are more likely to bend facts to please their sponsors.
What do you think of France where the media is highly political, but politics no bi-polarized (13 parties in big elections, 5 large movement/ideologies)?
We even learn at school that no writing can be objective since humans write them but what matters is to identify ideological stances and read enough subjective angles to have at least an opinion on where stakeholders stand if not "the truth"?
We even learn at school that no writing can be objective since humans write them but what matters is to identify ideological stances and read enough subjective angles to have at least an opinion on where stakeholders stand if not "the truth"?
Sounds nice. One of the things I've been dwelling on recently is the degree to which economic geography creates the conditions for an effective press. Germany and France are both really regional, in the sense that you have loads of competing regional elites, each with their own take on things. In the UK, it's very centralized, so there's a much greater penalty to your career if you ruffle feathers, and the views expressed in the media are necessarily fairly narrow (for instance, Jeremy Corbyn, despite getting about 40% of the popular vote in 2017, had basically no positive media coverage throughout his tenure).
Sounds like a mature approach where many voices are heard and allowed to be shared and understood. France puts faith in citizens while other countries try to control those choices and voices.
In the west, governments collude with the media entities. This collusion is not discussed in the mainstream or in the academia that much, as the latter is part of that collusive cooperative. In China, CCP controls the media. The difference between China and the West is one level of indirection.
Right. That something is private is by itself meaningless. This is a major problem in the West that many don't seem to understand, that the lines between the private and public sector are worthless and blurred if the private sector is powerful enough to function as a de facto arm of the government. Raw power is what counts. In terms of the media, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo, Fox, etc, are all de facto regime media outlets (Google and Facebook fall broadly into the same camp because they control the flow of information). The same oligarchic milieu that influences or runs the government influences or runs the media. They all go to the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same parties, etc, etc. You don't need a Legion of Doom to orchestrate anything or any planning. Common interests and a similar lust for power causes a coincidental synthesis of mutually constructive arrangements that the same group finds beneficial. It happens naturally, as it were.
Another threat is foreign ownership of media. In Poland, where public media is explicitly controlled by whatever ruling party happens to be in power, there was recently a big media circus around introducing some media investment restrictions by foreign companies. Over 80% of Polish media are foreign owned, much of it in German hands, but not only. Best of all, it's not presented as representing the interests of those countries or groups. That's a huge problem for national security and a symptom of the neocolonial control the country is under (Piketty once described Poland as "foreign-owned"). Recent media brouhaha was triggered by an American media company (owned by Discovery). It's one thing to read about another POV. It's another to have foreign interests presented as your own and concealing their true nature. The Western media meanwhile routinely convince the Western public that anything against Western oligarchic interest in that region is fascist and other favorite epithets. They groom the public to view what's happening in a way that is untrue and benefits oligarchs. Colonialism still exists. We just call it other things now.
Also, divisiveness is not the primary problem, but downstream. If we focus on division, we risk throwing truth under the bus, especially in this climate of subjectivist "narratives". We are vulnerable to saying "to heal divisions, we must accept a common narrative". Heh, sorry, nope. That's the tyranny of the lie and the narrative makers (hence the foaming at the mouth by those who are losing control of the "official narrative"). The only thing worth uniting around is something true and something capable and worthy enough to function as a unifier. You need enough in common to create a workable society where coexistence and cooperation are possible. If we can't find something like that, then sorry, but you have no viable society.
Another threat is foreign ownership of media. In Poland, where public media is explicitly controlled by whatever ruling party happens to be in power, there was recently a big media circus around introducing some media investment restrictions by foreign companies. Over 80% of Polish media are foreign owned, much of it in German hands, but not only. Best of all, it's not presented as representing the interests of those countries or groups. That's a huge problem for national security and a symptom of the neocolonial control the country is under (Piketty once described Poland as "foreign-owned"). Recent media brouhaha was triggered by an American media company (owned by Discovery). It's one thing to read about another POV. It's another to have foreign interests presented as your own and concealing their true nature. The Western media meanwhile routinely convince the Western public that anything against Western oligarchic interest in that region is fascist and other favorite epithets. They groom the public to view what's happening in a way that is untrue and benefits oligarchs. Colonialism still exists. We just call it other things now.
Also, divisiveness is not the primary problem, but downstream. If we focus on division, we risk throwing truth under the bus, especially in this climate of subjectivist "narratives". We are vulnerable to saying "to heal divisions, we must accept a common narrative". Heh, sorry, nope. That's the tyranny of the lie and the narrative makers (hence the foaming at the mouth by those who are losing control of the "official narrative"). The only thing worth uniting around is something true and something capable and worthy enough to function as a unifier. You need enough in common to create a workable society where coexistence and cooperation are possible. If we can't find something like that, then sorry, but you have no viable society.
> Private media is highly centralized, and the people involved are also highly involved in politics
Do you really think that people who write about politics can ever resist the urge to try to shape politics?
Why would a government journalist be any better?
Do you really think that people who write about politics can ever resist the urge to try to shape politics?
Why would a government journalist be any better?
I’m not sure many in the west would see divisiveness as a negative, in so much that it seems necessary to reach an stable equilibrium. Yes, one side will find the other side’s position infuriating, but China is the result of what happens when one side completely wins over the other. Because there is no equilibrium to be had, they can only emphasize unity.
If you want to balance a system dynamically, you want negative, not positive feedback loops. The latter will just grow until they shake the system apart.
In other words: polarisation is useful when it's transient. Some issue causes people to divide and work out some consensus, and then divisions die down. A persistent divison that becomes its own end is destructive.
In other words: polarisation is useful when it's transient. Some issue causes people to divide and work out some consensus, and then divisions die down. A persistent divison that becomes its own end is destructive.
We basically have an efficient system where two sides constantly adjust their positions so that elections are won basically on a knife edge. The system demands competition, and if that competition doesn’t come from outside (eg there is a war), it won’t simply disappear.
Actually, doesn’t China do that? It paints it’s people’s struggles as them vs the rest of the world. Maybe they don’t need political competition because the CIA gets the blame for many of its domestic problems.
Actually, doesn’t China do that? It paints it’s people’s struggles as them vs the rest of the world. Maybe they don’t need political competition because the CIA gets the blame for many of its domestic problems.
> We basically have an efficient system where two sides constantly adjust their positions so that elections are won basically on a knife edge. The system demands competition, and if that competition doesn’t come from outside (eg there is a war), it won’t simply disappear.
Yeah, but what's the system efficient about? Not figuring out correct solutions - the internal competition demands both sides to define themselves in terms of doing/believing the opposite to what the other side does/believes, so the system is just doing a random walk. The way I see it, it's primarily efficient as a way to grow the market - ever-increasing campaign budgets and ongoing political shouting matches are just funding advertisers and news agencies.
Yeah, but what's the system efficient about? Not figuring out correct solutions - the internal competition demands both sides to define themselves in terms of doing/believing the opposite to what the other side does/believes, so the system is just doing a random walk. The way I see it, it's primarily efficient as a way to grow the market - ever-increasing campaign budgets and ongoing political shouting matches are just funding advertisers and news agencies.
It’s a question of degrees of divisiveness. If the population is divided enough to kill each other there probably needs to be some sort of regulations to temper the extremes.
Not defending China's idea at all, but with private media in this country having a financial motivation to knowingly lie is pretty reprehensible. They have the right to do it sure, and they should, but if a good portion of a populace lives in a fiction, that isn't great. And to be clear while leftist stuff can be extreme, sure, the current major problem is right wing extremist lies are clearly more detrimental just because of their popularity. It is not really a both sides issue.
> with private media in this country having a financial motivation to knowingly lie is pretty reprehensible.
That can be balanced-out with other media outlets voicing other side.
And... not attacking China's great political unification, having and using politics to censor out a lot of government corruption that ultimately hurts its own people... doesn't look great
(no 'political balance-of-power' + no freedom-of-speech/press + no-election: the government officials can de facto do whatever they want, from small things like accepting bribes for not noticing fake-food factories, to uh... ok I'll stop now.
That can be balanced-out with other media outlets voicing other side.
And... not attacking China's great political unification, having and using politics to censor out a lot of government corruption that ultimately hurts its own people... doesn't look great
(no 'political balance-of-power' + no freedom-of-speech/press + no-election: the government officials can de facto do whatever they want, from small things like accepting bribes for not noticing fake-food factories, to uh... ok I'll stop now.
>> with private media in this country having a financial motivation to knowingly lie is pretty reprehensible.
> That can be balanced-out with other media outlets voicing other side.
It's entirely possible to counter balance something with a lie, neither the original or response being the truth, which doesn't help inform the viewers either.
> That can be balanced-out with other media outlets voicing other side.
It's entirely possible to counter balance something with a lie, neither the original or response being the truth, which doesn't help inform the viewers either.
None of that is refuting what I am saying. I agree with all of that.
> These are both extremes that are undesirable IMO.
The problem with putting them in the same sentence is that it equates them, in the same way "very fine people on both sides" did.
Being sent to a reeducation camp, keeping a billion plus population exposed only to propaganda, a total lack of free speech, and openly disappearing people (like Gedhun Choekyi Nyima of Tibet) is not in the same bracket as any of the other ills you were mentioning.
The problem with putting them in the same sentence is that it equates them, in the same way "very fine people on both sides" did.
Being sent to a reeducation camp, keeping a billion plus population exposed only to propaganda, a total lack of free speech, and openly disappearing people (like Gedhun Choekyi Nyima of Tibet) is not in the same bracket as any of the other ills you were mentioning.
I don't think those things can be attributed to the media system.
The same things are present in both the chinese and American societies, under different names. Eg. The US prosecuted the "war on drugs" to house a ton of political prisoners and ensure they cant vote, and that their families cannot become wealthier without adopting the party line. The Facebook moderation team remove your direct message to a friend is not materially different from the government moderation team removing your wichat direct message to a friend. American society disappears people too; for an obvious example, you can look at the people painting red hands on their faces
The same things are present in both the chinese and American societies, under different names. Eg. The US prosecuted the "war on drugs" to house a ton of political prisoners and ensure they cant vote, and that their families cannot become wealthier without adopting the party line. The Facebook moderation team remove your direct message to a friend is not materially different from the government moderation team removing your wichat direct message to a friend. American society disappears people too; for an obvious example, you can look at the people painting red hands on their faces
Publicly funded media will present the views of those in power. That does not mean it will be any less self-serving than private media. Government newspapers have a sorry history.
The west just needs to reimplement the fairness doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
The current state of Western Media is not very nice, but it is far from 'extreme'.
I wish PBS was better funded and supported, maybe look to BBC as an example to emulate. Though BBC also has non-new programming (drag race!).
The problem is trusting government. I don't trust either parties here so I would lean toward a for-profit system with heavier regulation.
It looks like the Fairness Doctrine is no more? Anyone have better knowledge here than I do who can give some background?
From what I kind of know it used to require broadcasters to dedicate programming to actual factual news in order to use govt spectrum. Also dictated journalism ethics like letting subjects comment.
Also seems like this deregulation was the impetus for (what i consider dangerous and harmful) alt reality 'news' like the murdoch empire and Alex Jones characters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everyth...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47669.html
The problem is trusting government. I don't trust either parties here so I would lean toward a for-profit system with heavier regulation.
It looks like the Fairness Doctrine is no more? Anyone have better knowledge here than I do who can give some background?
From what I kind of know it used to require broadcasters to dedicate programming to actual factual news in order to use govt spectrum. Also dictated journalism ethics like letting subjects comment.
Also seems like this deregulation was the impetus for (what i consider dangerous and harmful) alt reality 'news' like the murdoch empire and Alex Jones characters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everyth...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47669.html
The Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to broadcast TV and radio because spectrum was a limited resource. It never applied to cable, satellite, or online services. Those were never really deregulated because they were hardly regulated in the first place.
Makes sense. Broadcast is a shell of what it was in viewership. Interestingly it seems Republicans might be the ones pushing government intervention on those new platforms (FB) since they feel censored.
BBC has shifted from being neutral in the recent years, and there are demands to stop public funding of BBC.
No, BBC today is a bad example. BBC 50 years ago, I don't know.
No, BBC today is a bad example. BBC 50 years ago, I don't know.
Interesting I didn't know people wanted to defund BBC
Some do https://www.defundbbc.uk/
I don’t pay for TV license (out of principles) and I’m annoyed I cannot legally watch SpaceX launches live on YouTube.
I don’t pay for TV license (out of principles) and I’m annoyed I cannot legally watch SpaceX launches live on YouTube.
I think a polarized society, means there is a big problem in that society that needs fixing. Like when a project is forked because people think it should have other goals/values. I don't think we can split society, so that problem needs to be found and addressed, so people can trust each other and the government again.
Meaning having all the correct facts, and information, will not fix polarization, only societal evolution
Meaning having all the correct facts, and information, will not fix polarization, only societal evolution
> over the last 50 years
This goes back to the Enlightenment, and has historically been considered a good thing when contrasted to state or church doctrines.
Happy to help.
This goes back to the Enlightenment, and has historically been considered a good thing when contrasted to state or church doctrines.
Happy to help.
> so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness.
Completely unsubstantiated nonsense claim.
> China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough.
Alarmist gobbledygook.
Completely unsubstantiated nonsense claim.
> China has the opposite configuration where the state controls all information and you'll be re-educated if you say the wrong thing loud enough.
Alarmist gobbledygook.
On the flip side China purchased most Chinese language media in Australia some time back.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-language-newspapers-...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-language-newspapers-...
Seems like China sees Australia as the front line in their battle with the West.
The recent nuclear submarine deal makes a lot more sense with that world view.
The recent nuclear submarine deal makes a lot more sense with that world view.
I have a feeling Australia will also get nukes reasonably soon. First nuke subs, then US bases with US nukes, then nuke subs with nukes. The Chinese pushed the Australians too far, they underestimated their obstinance. Australian attitudes are changing rapidly and in my view it won't take long until a nuclear deterrence becomes the obvious and only solution.
I too assumed this is why China was so upset by the subs decision. The strength of the reaction doesnt make sense on subs alone.
How has China ‘pushed’ Australia at all?
Essentially, circa 2015+, Australia began loudly pushing back on Chinese claims to the South China Sea & regarding Taiwan, and banned Huawei involvement in core telecom.
China, seeking to make an example in the region, escalated.
https://www.hudson.org/research/17228-how-china-overreached-...
"Since 2018, China has refused to accept cabinet-level meetings with Australian counterparts, and for the past year is refusing to even accept phone calls. Since 2020, Beijing has imposed punitive measures against Australian barley, coal, timber, beef, cotton, sugar, copper, wool, lobsters, wine, and liquefied natural gas. These export sectors bring in around $15 billion a year from China. State authorities have issued arbitrary travel and safety warnings to Chinese students hoping to study in Australia."
China, seeking to make an example in the region, escalated.
https://www.hudson.org/research/17228-how-china-overreached-...
"Since 2018, China has refused to accept cabinet-level meetings with Australian counterparts, and for the past year is refusing to even accept phone calls. Since 2020, Beijing has imposed punitive measures against Australian barley, coal, timber, beef, cotton, sugar, copper, wool, lobsters, wine, and liquefied natural gas. These export sectors bring in around $15 billion a year from China. State authorities have issued arbitrary travel and safety warnings to Chinese students hoping to study in Australia."
So if Australia was the instigator, how can China be blamed for their sanctions (“pushing” Australia)?
How do you read that comment and conclude that Australia was the instigator? Do you really believe that China's claims to the South China Sea are legitimate?
They have threatened Australia in military terms a bunch of times in the the last decade via politics, military leaders and CCP aligned media.
Most recently saying with these new subs we are a potential nuclear target now. Or the paper cat will soon learn its lesson type articles. Quite a few of these over recent years and while many are probably bluster, it's hard for people on the end of this to not think its best to prepare for them being more than empty words.
In very broad strokes I think China spent 30 years trying to align Australia politically to them, now this has push back they have moved to make an example, not helped that our current leaders seem to have equally encouraged this new relationship. I doubt it will ever be military action but at the same time we should prepare for the unlikely. Nukes make sense for Australia and other small nations where there is threat. As much as they are horrible things and it may lead to nuclear proliferation, it's the only self reliant way for a small nation to protect itself from a large nation if things go hot.
Id actually like to see a world where countries agreed to serious limits to military. Maximum # jets, ships, troops and tanks type thing so a build-up to war would be harder, more obvious and give time to deal with fractured relationships.
Most recently saying with these new subs we are a potential nuclear target now. Or the paper cat will soon learn its lesson type articles. Quite a few of these over recent years and while many are probably bluster, it's hard for people on the end of this to not think its best to prepare for them being more than empty words.
In very broad strokes I think China spent 30 years trying to align Australia politically to them, now this has push back they have moved to make an example, not helped that our current leaders seem to have equally encouraged this new relationship. I doubt it will ever be military action but at the same time we should prepare for the unlikely. Nukes make sense for Australia and other small nations where there is threat. As much as they are horrible things and it may lead to nuclear proliferation, it's the only self reliant way for a small nation to protect itself from a large nation if things go hot.
Id actually like to see a world where countries agreed to serious limits to military. Maximum # jets, ships, troops and tanks type thing so a build-up to war would be harder, more obvious and give time to deal with fractured relationships.
ANZAC are the only two European settled Western countries in Asia, so not surprising. Especially since Australia is so closely integrated into the Anglosphere.
ANZAC stands for Army corps, not for the countries. And the countries have themselves are not in Asia.
ANZAC stands for Army corps, not for the countries. And the countries have hemselves are not in Asia.
> ANZAC are the only two European settled Western countries in Asia
It wasn't for lack of trying.
It wasn't for lack of trying.
interesting perspective, i have not even considered that
Makes sense as AFAIK they are reliant on China with their economy
I thought so, too. But it seems it is more the other way around: Australia was doing fine (can sell its stuff elsewhere), but China needs the imports:
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3151549/c...
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3151549/c...
It's complicated. By proportion of trade, China is more important to Australia than Australia is to China.
But that only speaks to the total values, not substitutability or importance.
Given that most of what China imports from Australia are raw materials, and China is still a primarily manufacturing and construction economy (in dollar terms), it seems like a shortsighted move.
Especially since Australia generally has good relationships with the West (especially the UK and US) due to shared culture.
The proper time to try to bully Australia into line would have been 20 years from now, once China's economy has fully developed and Belt and Road has had time to play out.
But I imagine the Chinese were looking at Australia through the optics of (1) what the US was doing & (2) how a Chinese reaction to Australia's stubbornness would be read by other, smaller SE Asian countries.
But that only speaks to the total values, not substitutability or importance.
Given that most of what China imports from Australia are raw materials, and China is still a primarily manufacturing and construction economy (in dollar terms), it seems like a shortsighted move.
Especially since Australia generally has good relationships with the West (especially the UK and US) due to shared culture.
The proper time to try to bully Australia into line would have been 20 years from now, once China's economy has fully developed and Belt and Road has had time to play out.
But I imagine the Chinese were looking at Australia through the optics of (1) what the US was doing & (2) how a Chinese reaction to Australia's stubbornness would be read by other, smaller SE Asian countries.
As an immigrant in Canada, I always thought Canada is the entry door in the West for China. Canada's biggest city Toronto not only has a huge amount of Chinese population, a vast majority of them are new wealthy immigrants. Urban white Canadians also tend to be pro-China under woke ideology umbrella.
meh these days the important messages are delivered by WeChat.
This news story is off. Foreign entities have always been forbidden from engaging in media production and publishing in China. While the negative list is updated yearly, this isn't new.
This also removes domestic (Chinese) private capital from the possible investors/owners.
Bloomberg links to General Market Access (MA) Negative List for all players (domestic + foreign) versus Foreign Investment (FI) access list for just foreigners. Though it was pretty much forgone PRC openning domestic service industries won't include media considering how hard NGOs were cracked down.
https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzxDownload/sczrfmqd2021.pdf
https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzxDownload/sczrfmqd2021.pdf
This is not a story of foreign capital, but private capital.
Information is power, Xi wants 100% control over it. It's probably more important than controlling the Armed Forces in the long run.
If you put people in a bubble only let them see what you want to see, it's pretty easy to control them, it doesn't matter who they are.
Information is power, Xi wants 100% control over it. It's probably more important than controlling the Armed Forces in the long run.
If you put people in a bubble only let them see what you want to see, it's pretty easy to control them, it doesn't matter who they are.
Xi does not want power for himself. Xi wants power to remain in the hands of the party and CPC is laying the foundation of governance model for a robust state in the 21st century that also (TBD) does not inhibit economic and technological development. It is reasonable to argue against that goal (statist socialism) but imho superficial to frame this as yet another power grab by an individual. He is simply the tip of a consensus block in CPC. Historically, Xi represents the ‘adjustment of CPC to global conditions while maintaining continuity of the party’ post Nixon era re-engagement and re-evaluations.
You're right, I should have merely indicated the leader, not the individual, that's fair.
It's unlikely that anyone really knows what Xi wants. The narrative that 'he just wants what's best for China' plays directly into his potential megalomania, at the same time, I don't doubt that there is some truth to this as well. Nations can benefit from long-lived leaders.
That said, the whole thing does not look good. Actions further suppressing the spread of basic information are not going to be good for China in the long run. And Xi probably is just another kind of dictator, we have a very long run of world history that gives us innumerable examples. One thing he could have done when extending his term limits, was signal when he would leave, and making sure that the 'new rules' are just and equitable with respect to future leaders.
It's unlikely that anyone really knows what Xi wants. The narrative that 'he just wants what's best for China' plays directly into his potential megalomania, at the same time, I don't doubt that there is some truth to this as well. Nations can benefit from long-lived leaders.
That said, the whole thing does not look good. Actions further suppressing the spread of basic information are not going to be good for China in the long run. And Xi probably is just another kind of dictator, we have a very long run of world history that gives us innumerable examples. One thing he could have done when extending his term limits, was signal when he would leave, and making sure that the 'new rules' are just and equitable with respect to future leaders.
> what Xi wants
Highest priority: to stay in power. That China is his (he get to be the dictator) for all of his life.
Possibly thereafter: Make China stronger, economically, military, land area.
Destroying independent press damages and weakens China, but that's ok because a strong China is only 2nd priority for Xi (and his closest men I suppose).
Highest priority: to stay in power. That China is his (he get to be the dictator) for all of his life.
Possibly thereafter: Make China stronger, economically, military, land area.
Destroying independent press damages and weakens China, but that's ok because a strong China is only 2nd priority for Xi (and his closest men I suppose).
If Xi did not want power for himself he would not have removed the two-term limit to keep himself in power for life.
General Secretary of the CCP(no term limit) is the top leader, The president of the PRC is the ceremonial head of state of the PRC, So the president's two-term limit removed in 2018 is not important, just like the Queen of England(ceremonial head of state) has not term limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Re...
Because Communist countries tend to have very messy transfers of power, if not through continuity or annointment of a new leader by the old?
And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.
And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.
China has had a decent track record, they are well organized. If Xi truly believed in China, then he would make it a priority to facilitate a smooth transition of power, and to enable the leader after their ascension. I really don't think this is much of an excuse for him.
The story is really simple - CCP wants to forbid any private control of information, that's it. It's not a new concept.
The story is really simple - CCP wants to forbid any private control of information, that's it. It's not a new concept.
The Deng -> Zhao -> Jiang -> Hu years weren't very clean, and did have military involvement and civilian deaths.
Do you think people in China don't know how to use VPNs and find information on the broader Internet? They do. It seems like you may be the one living in a bubble.
Of course they do. Do you think the Chinese government can't figure out what you access via a VPN?
I find it hard to be confident that the US Security Apparatus couldn't figure out what I access via VPN if they chose to.
I'm not sure whether the US or the CCP would be more able to block all VPNs, but I have the feeling the answer is the latter (for legal, rather than technical reasons).
I find it hard to be confident that the US Security Apparatus couldn't figure out what I access via VPN if they chose to.
I'm not sure whether the US or the CCP would be more able to block all VPNs, but I have the feeling the answer is the latter (for legal, rather than technical reasons).
US has no technical ability to block mass numbers of connections on a selective basis. That's a 'scale' ability they don't have anything close to. I mean, possibly on some algorithmic basis, but there's no agency with the manpower to do that.
Crude operations to shut down certain parts of the web, yes. Ability to monitor individuals, yes.
But the only entity on earth that can do surveillance at scale is China. They've invented that in the modern sense.
Crude operations to shut down certain parts of the web, yes. Ability to monitor individuals, yes.
But the only entity on earth that can do surveillance at scale is China. They've invented that in the modern sense.
Makes sense, I'd hate to be targeted by either but am thankfully of little importance.
Maybe, but do you have any evidence that people are punished for using VPNs to view information that is officially banned on the Chinese Internet? Or is that just a personal fantasy
A VPN will get you a few research papers, and some insight into the world outside, but it won't change common attitudes within the country, which will be shaped by a controlled information system.
Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect.
Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.
When Xi bans any negative mention of him, or any mention at all of taboos subjects i.e. Tiananmen, or any material discussion at all of sensitive issues like Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong, anywhere, at any time - then he'll effectively convince the general population of his will on the subject.
The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
Xi could do anything he wants to the Uyghurs, he could subsequently justify it in the press irrespective of how truthful that information was, and the general public would be fine with it. The small number of dissenters would have no means to disagree.
When you combine information control with the fact that there's a lack of any right to organize or assemble, then you have total control. FYI - this is why 'freedom of assembly' is a primary right in all modern constitutions, it's mostly a means of organizing around information.
Finally, it would be incredibly naive to not grasp the implications of this regulatory movement which further entrenches total government control of information, without any oversight whatsoever.
Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect.
Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.
When Xi bans any negative mention of him, or any mention at all of taboos subjects i.e. Tiananmen, or any material discussion at all of sensitive issues like Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong, anywhere, at any time - then he'll effectively convince the general population of his will on the subject.
The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
Xi could do anything he wants to the Uyghurs, he could subsequently justify it in the press irrespective of how truthful that information was, and the general public would be fine with it. The small number of dissenters would have no means to disagree.
When you combine information control with the fact that there's a lack of any right to organize or assemble, then you have total control. FYI - this is why 'freedom of assembly' is a primary right in all modern constitutions, it's mostly a means of organizing around information.
Finally, it would be incredibly naive to not grasp the implications of this regulatory movement which further entrenches total government control of information, without any oversight whatsoever.
Just a comment on the following:
> Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong
These are not the types of issues that most Chinese people are upset about, when it comes to their government. These are the types of issues that play well to audiences outside of China.
There's a massive disconnect here. Most controversies, cultural trends, fads, etc. in China receive almost no coverage outside of China, not because it's intrinsically difficult to find out about them (all you need is an internet connection and Chinese language skills), but because the foreign media tends to focus almost exclusively on the types of issues you listed. The vast majority of people outside China simply have no idea what's going on in the country.
This isn't to excuse the lack of independent media in China, but just to point out that the foreign media is also doing the public a massive disservice on this count.
> Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong
These are not the types of issues that most Chinese people are upset about, when it comes to their government. These are the types of issues that play well to audiences outside of China.
There's a massive disconnect here. Most controversies, cultural trends, fads, etc. in China receive almost no coverage outside of China, not because it's intrinsically difficult to find out about them (all you need is an internet connection and Chinese language skills), but because the foreign media tends to focus almost exclusively on the types of issues you listed. The vast majority of people outside China simply have no idea what's going on in the country.
This isn't to excuse the lack of independent media in China, but just to point out that the foreign media is also doing the public a massive disservice on this count.
Thanks - but this is mostly my point - though I don't agree with your conclusion.
People within a 'closed system' (i.e. China) are going to have a view of an internal issue that the government wants them to have.
"There's nothing big happening here, just 'ABC' because 'XYZ', the Westerners a bit upset about it but that's their colonialist view, they should mind their own business"
So they justify their actions, don't allow debate, suppress the language of rhetoric, distract and use the 'foreigner' straw man, and make petty villains out of anyone challenging the authority.
That 'people don't care' is the result of that control.
The same thing is true in Russia. Putin has journalist and political opponents killed, and he's totally corrupt. And yet, he has an 80% approval rating.
If you can control the press and the narrative, you can convince people that your actions 'were necessary for the promulgation of the state', the plebes won't be able to make an informed consensus as to any situation.
Likewise, Russians seem to have an indifference to a lot of state corruption.
So I don't agree that 'The West' is doing a 'big disservice' by talking about issues that the average Chinese doesn't care about, or by highlighting how corrupt and murderous Putin is.
The whole point of the exercise is to contemplate that 'rights' are a material part of the equation - and, ironically - probably going to make them much wealthier in the long run anyhow. Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.
The Tiananmen protests were a very powerful and visceral display of where the power really lies in China, and the true consequences of challenging that power. It's an important bit of history.
Finally, we're all victims of this to some extent, western press has a number of potent institutional biases, and now we have the problem of completely fabricated news, which is another thing altogether.
People within a 'closed system' (i.e. China) are going to have a view of an internal issue that the government wants them to have.
"There's nothing big happening here, just 'ABC' because 'XYZ', the Westerners a bit upset about it but that's their colonialist view, they should mind their own business"
So they justify their actions, don't allow debate, suppress the language of rhetoric, distract and use the 'foreigner' straw man, and make petty villains out of anyone challenging the authority.
That 'people don't care' is the result of that control.
The same thing is true in Russia. Putin has journalist and political opponents killed, and he's totally corrupt. And yet, he has an 80% approval rating.
If you can control the press and the narrative, you can convince people that your actions 'were necessary for the promulgation of the state', the plebes won't be able to make an informed consensus as to any situation.
Likewise, Russians seem to have an indifference to a lot of state corruption.
So I don't agree that 'The West' is doing a 'big disservice' by talking about issues that the average Chinese doesn't care about, or by highlighting how corrupt and murderous Putin is.
The whole point of the exercise is to contemplate that 'rights' are a material part of the equation - and, ironically - probably going to make them much wealthier in the long run anyhow. Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.
The Tiananmen protests were a very powerful and visceral display of where the power really lies in China, and the true consequences of challenging that power. It's an important bit of history.
Finally, we're all victims of this to some extent, western press has a number of potent institutional biases, and now we have the problem of completely fabricated news, which is another thing altogether.
The reason why most Chinese people care about completely different issues is not because they are uninformed. The average person in Chinese is much better informed about China and its domestic issues (including Tiananmen) than most people outside of China. After all, they actually live in the country and experience it every day. Many people personally lived through the events of Tiananmen, or know people who did. But frankly, after 30 years of massive societal change and (for people in the developed world unimaginable) improvements in living conditions, it isn't on the top of people's minds. There are other issues - issues that are rarely covered in the foreign press - that are much more pressing.
I find that many Westerners believe that because they can read the New York Times or Washington Post, they know more about what's going on in China than people in China do. The problem is that those newspapers only cover a tiny sliver of what goes on in China, and they focus almost exclusively on a small set of negative stories (and very often, this reporting is extremely inaccurate, partial or exaggerated). Imagine if you didn't speak English and had never been to the US, and all you ever read about the US was how terribly prisoners are treated and all the wars it fights around the world. You would have an incredibly skewed picture of the country.
What do people actually care about? Things like the corrupt local officials who may be colluding with property developers (and consequently, the ongoing anti-corruption campaign is very popular), or the rat race to get ahead in an ultra-competitive society.
> Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.
The gap between the more developed parts of the mainland and Taiwan is rapidly closing, and is not that large any more. Beijing and Shanghai are not far behind Taipei, and may catch up in the next few years. Hong Kong, on the other hand, is considerably wealthier than either Taiwan or mainland China.
I just think that most of the Western press does a terrible job of covering China, and is actually significantly misinforming its audience in this regard. The quality standards for China coverage are just incredibly low (and because the audience is mostly uninformed on the topic, they mostly can't tell), and the geopolitical rivalry seems to color and shape the reporting to a huge extent.
I find that many Westerners believe that because they can read the New York Times or Washington Post, they know more about what's going on in China than people in China do. The problem is that those newspapers only cover a tiny sliver of what goes on in China, and they focus almost exclusively on a small set of negative stories (and very often, this reporting is extremely inaccurate, partial or exaggerated). Imagine if you didn't speak English and had never been to the US, and all you ever read about the US was how terribly prisoners are treated and all the wars it fights around the world. You would have an incredibly skewed picture of the country.
What do people actually care about? Things like the corrupt local officials who may be colluding with property developers (and consequently, the ongoing anti-corruption campaign is very popular), or the rat race to get ahead in an ultra-competitive society.
> Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.
The gap between the more developed parts of the mainland and Taiwan is rapidly closing, and is not that large any more. Beijing and Shanghai are not far behind Taipei, and may catch up in the next few years. Hong Kong, on the other hand, is considerably wealthier than either Taiwan or mainland China.
I just think that most of the Western press does a terrible job of covering China, and is actually significantly misinforming its audience in this regard. The quality standards for China coverage are just incredibly low (and because the audience is mostly uninformed on the topic, they mostly can't tell), and the geopolitical rivalry seems to color and shape the reporting to a huge extent.
> Imagine if you didn't speak English and had never been to the US, and all you ever read about the US was how terribly prisoners are treated and all the wars it fights around the world. You would have an incredibly skewed picture of the country.
So in other words... literally people all over the world, not in the US. Because that's exactly what happens in China, hell even in Europe where they speak English...
So in other words... literally people all over the world, not in the US. Because that's exactly what happens in China, hell even in Europe where they speak English...
English is much more widely spoken (as a second language) around the world than Chinese, and people are exposed to plenty of positive media about the US (e.g., Hollywood movies, TV shows). Even in China, people are exposed to a ton of positive media about the US. Until Trump, I would even say the US was widely admired within China.
> Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.
> […]
> The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
> There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
The more effective approach by far is to condition people from childhood into believing that the ability to select from one of a few impotent political identities, all of which lead to the slightest variations of policy conclusions within the field of pre-determined acceptability, represents the universal best possible form of governance and the purest instantiation of such high-minded ideals as Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.
This way you can mollify a population into accepting almost anything as normal: endless wars, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, lifelong debt, a constant struggle to afford housing, education, and medical care, etc. You can convince them at will that any rival is a tyrannical regime under a capricious, childish, genocidal maniac, and that any evidence to the contrary should be dismissed with self-satisfied smugness as coerced or compensated state propaganda.
> […]
> The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
> There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
The more effective approach by far is to condition people from childhood into believing that the ability to select from one of a few impotent political identities, all of which lead to the slightest variations of policy conclusions within the field of pre-determined acceptability, represents the universal best possible form of governance and the purest instantiation of such high-minded ideals as Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.
This way you can mollify a population into accepting almost anything as normal: endless wars, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, lifelong debt, a constant struggle to afford housing, education, and medical care, etc. You can convince them at will that any rival is a tyrannical regime under a capricious, childish, genocidal maniac, and that any evidence to the contrary should be dismissed with self-satisfied smugness as coerced or compensated state propaganda.
> Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.
Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought.
F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy?
Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept.
Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation.
Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.
Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought.
F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy?
Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept.
Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation.
Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.
I wonder why people don't demand more non-profit news or why articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are. Why should people trust articles written by NyT over articles written by Google?
Google writes news articles?
The issue is freedom of expression. If individuals are allowed to speak, write and disseminate information and opinion freely and own businesses, why can't they charge for it? Well, that's a news organisation. It's not that you necessarily trust any one individual publisher, it's that a range of views are freely represented in the press generally.
The Chinese constitution used to guarantee free speech, but the massive disconnect between what the constitution said and what was actually allowed was so gargantuan it became a bit of an embarrassment in the post-Tiananmen era. Since then the constitution has been revised extensively to be less blatantly contrary to reality.
Totally incidental aside, but one of the inciting incidents for constitutional revision was a court case brought by a person fired from their job for being short, where the actual job had no real requirement for them being any particular height. They won the case based on the constitution's barring discrimination, but the fact that a court had granted a right to someone based on the constitution was so novel and unheard of that it caused massive conniptions in the CCP.
The issue is freedom of expression. If individuals are allowed to speak, write and disseminate information and opinion freely and own businesses, why can't they charge for it? Well, that's a news organisation. It's not that you necessarily trust any one individual publisher, it's that a range of views are freely represented in the press generally.
The Chinese constitution used to guarantee free speech, but the massive disconnect between what the constitution said and what was actually allowed was so gargantuan it became a bit of an embarrassment in the post-Tiananmen era. Since then the constitution has been revised extensively to be less blatantly contrary to reality.
Totally incidental aside, but one of the inciting incidents for constitutional revision was a court case brought by a person fired from their job for being short, where the actual job had no real requirement for them being any particular height. They won the case based on the constitution's barring discrimination, but the fact that a court had granted a right to someone based on the constitution was so novel and unheard of that it caused massive conniptions in the CCP.
Well, that's a news organisation
No, that's a publisher. "News" describes the product, not the method of operation. Has the war on words been so successful that Americans univerally consider e.g. Cosmo "news" now?
No, that's a publisher. "News" describes the product, not the method of operation. Has the war on words been so successful that Americans univerally consider e.g. Cosmo "news" now?
That seems unnecessarily pedantic and argumentative, to be honest. News is information, right? Anyway I'm a Brit.
> Google writes news articles?
Google writes PR pieces. I don't see why you should trust news articles more than PR pieces, except as links to other sources that you can check yourself like scientific articles or government agencies with data.
> The issue is freedom of expression. If individuals are allowed to speak, write and disseminate information and opinion freely and own businesses, why can't they charge for it?
You can make legally protected news organizations, and that anyone who doesn't follow those rules isn't allowed to call themselves a news site with journalists. Instead they'd be forced to call themselves opinion writers or bloggers. That way you still have the freedom of expression but lets the public clearly see who follows the basic rules of independent reporting.
Google writes PR pieces. I don't see why you should trust news articles more than PR pieces, except as links to other sources that you can check yourself like scientific articles or government agencies with data.
> The issue is freedom of expression. If individuals are allowed to speak, write and disseminate information and opinion freely and own businesses, why can't they charge for it?
You can make legally protected news organizations, and that anyone who doesn't follow those rules isn't allowed to call themselves a news site with journalists. Instead they'd be forced to call themselves opinion writers or bloggers. That way you still have the freedom of expression but lets the public clearly see who follows the basic rules of independent reporting.
So now you need to define independent, and that definition is made by lawmakers, who are politicians. So news now comes under direct political control. Lovely.
What does non-profit news look like? A few rich people starting non-profit and making news might not be very trustworthy. I guess you mean a wide group of donors. But non-profits have a lot of trouble raising money without controversy. Imagine trying to solicit donations when every other story alienates half the donors.
And it doesn't really answer a lot of the hard questions. Who is going to actually write the articles, what's their political angle, and what are their career objectives? And how do you handle delicate topics with evolving information in a neutral way?
And it doesn't really answer a lot of the hard questions. Who is going to actually write the articles, what's their political angle, and what are their career objectives? And how do you handle delicate topics with evolving information in a neutral way?
A better evolution would probably be similar to Spotify royalties.
Create one "donations to non-profit news" bucket, that people could freely contribute to (with tax advantages, like the election fund).
Then apportion that money out to all non-profit news organizations, according to some (readership) + (journalistic awards by their peers) weighting.
It removes the direct connection between donor and output, which is what we seem to want in news.
Create one "donations to non-profit news" bucket, that people could freely contribute to (with tax advantages, like the election fund).
Then apportion that money out to all non-profit news organizations, according to some (readership) + (journalistic awards by their peers) weighting.
It removes the direct connection between donor and output, which is what we seem to want in news.
An example of non-profit news in the US is PBS Newshour and in Canada, The Agenda with Steve Paikin on TVO. Both have broadcast pieces as well as accompanying online articles.
PBS is funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is tax money. So it's more like NPR or the BBC.
Also, PBS has a variety of content and I don't think I know anyone who watches their news. Scarcely any of their content, but they have a few good things. I don't think they are taken very seriously as a news organization -- much less than NPR, for instance.
Also, PBS has a variety of content and I don't think I know anyone who watches their news. Scarcely any of their content, but they have a few good things. I don't think they are taken very seriously as a news organization -- much less than NPR, for instance.
I'm pretty sure they've repeatedly mentioned that they're also funded by viewers like me ;-)
Yes, they get government funding and have a public mission. But they also aren't entirely funded by tax dollars.
I do think they have a weird bias that they are very oblivious to, but I don't think it's exactly a pro-government bias. It seems more like a don't-be-controversial bias where the goalpost for that keeps shifting.
Yes, they get government funding and have a public mission. But they also aren't entirely funded by tax dollars.
I do think they have a weird bias that they are very oblivious to, but I don't think it's exactly a pro-government bias. It seems more like a don't-be-controversial bias where the goalpost for that keeps shifting.
Some of it may be tax money, but some of it is donations made by individuals and organizations. The credits of PBS Newshour front-load the show with names of the contributors.
There’s NPR/PBS and it’s fantastic.
[deleted]
I don't think that's what the parent post had in mind. Those are more like state-sponsored news. Technically non-profit, but usually considered a different category.
They need stable secure funding that's unaffected by what the publish (not the quality per see) and autonomoy. With that, you tend to get good news.
> What does non-profit news look like?
Subscriber owned, i.e. subscribing involves buying a voting share in the enterprise. Endowed. Donor-driven is just one among many non-profit models.
Subscriber owned, i.e. subscribing involves buying a voting share in the enterprise. Endowed. Donor-driven is just one among many non-profit models.
Having worked for non-profit news, I can tell you that they are in effect not that different from for-profit news. The majority of their revenue comes from wealthy donors, often in the form of "major gifts". Granted, this is usually done because it becomes a tax break but that doesn't mean that certain folks with enough money don't have unsaid influence. The frequent pledge drives are somewhat of a charade in that they create the perception that they will run out of money if they don't get donations from average joes right now. Depending on the outlet, this may or may not be the case. In big cities, non-profit media would be unlikely to go away even if most of their audience stopped donating.
In terms of journalistic ethics, non-profit is somewhat better but by design isn't necessarily free of the same crockery that occurs in for-profit news. Non-profits are more likely to get people who take journalistic ethic seriously, but non-profit orgs are also seen as career leap-pads to the big name for-profit outlets, thus you end up with a lot of the same people and similar practices that end up at places like WaPo.
I don't know what the answer is to news, but I'm pessimistic that present models of non-profit news are the solution some believe them to be.
> I wonder why [...] articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are.
That's like asking "why do people believe propaganda?" The entire business model is built on creating the perception that they are authoritative when they may be nothing but lackeys playing dress-up. Sadly, the average person receives a generally poor education and is never taught about human psychology and how programmable the human brain is, and many of the messages they've received about the world came from parents whose views were shaped by a world that didn't have the internet in its current form. You could place the truth in front of them and it's a mixed bag as to whether they take that information and form an original opinion. But if you dress that information in a suit and tie, perhaps with the right letter and color next to their name, they become conditioned to accept that information from a place of subordinance.
EDIT: I want to clarify that I don't actually like shitting on public media. There was a lot that I learned during my time in it, there are some fantastic journalists in that arena, and overall I want to be believe in the concept. I've been highly critical of just about every single organization I've ever been affiliated with, so my intent isn't to single them out.
In terms of journalistic ethics, non-profit is somewhat better but by design isn't necessarily free of the same crockery that occurs in for-profit news. Non-profits are more likely to get people who take journalistic ethic seriously, but non-profit orgs are also seen as career leap-pads to the big name for-profit outlets, thus you end up with a lot of the same people and similar practices that end up at places like WaPo.
I don't know what the answer is to news, but I'm pessimistic that present models of non-profit news are the solution some believe them to be.
> I wonder why [...] articles written by for-profit organizations are as trusted as they are.
That's like asking "why do people believe propaganda?" The entire business model is built on creating the perception that they are authoritative when they may be nothing but lackeys playing dress-up. Sadly, the average person receives a generally poor education and is never taught about human psychology and how programmable the human brain is, and many of the messages they've received about the world came from parents whose views were shaped by a world that didn't have the internet in its current form. You could place the truth in front of them and it's a mixed bag as to whether they take that information and form an original opinion. But if you dress that information in a suit and tie, perhaps with the right letter and color next to their name, they become conditioned to accept that information from a place of subordinance.
EDIT: I want to clarify that I don't actually like shitting on public media. There was a lot that I learned during my time in it, there are some fantastic journalists in that arena, and overall I want to be believe in the concept. I've been highly critical of just about every single organization I've ever been affiliated with, so my intent isn't to single them out.
At least theoretically, if customers actually valued accuracy, they would punish news organizations that were not accurate. A for profit newspaper would need to respond to the changing market.
A not for profit newspaper could easily have a backer with other motivations, where they might be willing to sacrifice accuracy to push a particular agenda.
I am not sure that the problem is the news. I do not think people really care if they get accurate news.
A not for profit newspaper could easily have a backer with other motivations, where they might be willing to sacrifice accuracy to push a particular agenda.
I am not sure that the problem is the news. I do not think people really care if they get accurate news.
Do people not care about accuracy? Or have they just given up?
>Do people not care about accuracy?
Evidently not. When was the last time a mainstream news organization got heat from its own viewer base because of inaccurate reporting? I mean, it's fun to dunk on fox news because you think they're obviously spewing lies or whatever, but that doesn't really matter unless their viewership actually cares. Meanwhile outrage drives clicks, so journalists are strongly incentivized to stretch the truth.
Evidently not. When was the last time a mainstream news organization got heat from its own viewer base because of inaccurate reporting? I mean, it's fun to dunk on fox news because you think they're obviously spewing lies or whatever, but that doesn't really matter unless their viewership actually cares. Meanwhile outrage drives clicks, so journalists are strongly incentivized to stretch the truth.
The issue is that modern news (and the economic model that backs it) is a mix of entertainment, education, and investigation.
Even assuming all leads were pursued equally, and all stories were published, entertainment is still highly partisan.
Which, presumably, is why we saw partisanship jump when the entertainment component increased in revenue importance (90s talk radio, then 2000s competitive 24/7 news).
Fox News was objectively brilliant in that they saw this coming, which is why they went ahead and devoted a huge chunk of their airtime to entertainment-weighted programming.
Even assuming all leads were pursued equally, and all stories were published, entertainment is still highly partisan.
Which, presumably, is why we saw partisanship jump when the entertainment component increased in revenue importance (90s talk radio, then 2000s competitive 24/7 news).
Fox News was objectively brilliant in that they saw this coming, which is why they went ahead and devoted a huge chunk of their airtime to entertainment-weighted programming.
I think people care about accuracy. The problem being that the way our brains work, we perceive as accurate whatever matches our bias.
They would rather have news that aligns with their values.
By that token snake oil in any shape or form shouldn't exist. Theoretically.
In any case, the eyeballs are the product. The advertisers are increasingly the true customers of media outlets. They don't even theoretically care about accuracy.
In any case, the eyeballs are the product. The advertisers are increasingly the true customers of media outlets. They don't even theoretically care about accuracy.
Precisely. In that case people want hope/easy solutions rather than good solutions.
I agree, but Google is more in the news aggregation business, right?
I pay monthly donations to Democracy Now, PBS, and Matt Taibbi. For my tastes, I very much prefer these sources rather than MSNBC or Fox News, which I dislike (one reason is that they never seem to walk back major stories that we eventually find out that they initially got wrong - that seems either unprofessional or corrupt, or maybe both).
I pay monthly donations to Democracy Now, PBS, and Matt Taibbi. For my tastes, I very much prefer these sources rather than MSNBC or Fox News, which I dislike (one reason is that they never seem to walk back major stories that we eventually find out that they initially got wrong - that seems either unprofessional or corrupt, or maybe both).
Many "non-profit" agencies are actually funded by the wealthy or special interest groups. "Non-profit" is a tax status thing, not necessarily "in the public interest" label.
Because when people hear non-profit, they think NPR, which is wildly biased.
A true facts only news outlet is likely best, but provides little entertainment value.
A true facts only news outlet is likely best, but provides little entertainment value.
Wikipedia has a major recent events section which is the closest thing to this I’ve seen
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pbs-newshour
Seems centrist according to AllSides, but in my experience is has been Center-Left to Left.
Seems centrist according to AllSides, but in my experience is has been Center-Left to Left.
Shouldn’t we rather forbid the centralization of news? I wouldn’t know how to do it, but AFP belongs 60% to the French government and is as bad an example as CNN or BBC.
Shouldn’t news be parcelled like AT&T and centralization systematically unweeded, for it is far more dangerous than centralization in energy or internet providers. Then, when there are thousands of small information providers, we can see bottom-up what actually interests people, rather than beating up an idea from the top-down until people think it’s interesting.
Shouldn’t news be parcelled like AT&T and centralization systematically unweeded, for it is far more dangerous than centralization in energy or internet providers. Then, when there are thousands of small information providers, we can see bottom-up what actually interests people, rather than beating up an idea from the top-down until people think it’s interesting.
I'm not sure we should demand non-profit or government funded media, but I do like the idea of media outlets being legally required to disclose any conflicts of interest or funding sources which may bias content one way or the other.
Most Americans don't seem to trust the press. Faith in "Mass Media" has plummeted to levels appropriate to their reliability on important issues [0].
And the media is a strange place. Something like Joe Rogan's podcast is realistically more mainstream and probably more trusted than most news programs. There will be many examples like that.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-med...
And the media is a strange place. Something like Joe Rogan's podcast is realistically more mainstream and probably more trusted than most news programs. There will be many examples like that.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-med...
>Something like Joe Rogan's podcast is realistically more mainstream and probably more trusted than most news programs
How can you "trust" a podcast that just interviews everyone and takes them at face value? Do people seriously go "yeah I heard it on joe rogan so I think it's probably true"?
How can you "trust" a podcast that just interviews everyone and takes them at face value? Do people seriously go "yeah I heard it on joe rogan so I think it's probably true"?
Yeah as much as I like Joe Rogan's show (or at least I did before it moved to Spotify), I never thought of it as something I "trusted", or even something that would be comparable to a news program. Maybe I trusted that it was less fake and not as staged as most news, but it's comparing apples to oranges. Also, I dispute the idea that JRE is mainstream. It might be the most mainstream podcast, but almost everyone I know either hates the show or believes that Joe Rogan is a bad person, so I'm skeptical.
I like to think of there being different domains of trust. Trust to present accurate information to their best knowledge, trust to thoroughly vet information, trust to not construe facts to construct a false reality (ie a narrative), trust to tell it like it is, trust to not present a biased self interested story that omits important things purposefully, trust to be an expert on the subject matter, and so on.
Obviously any thinking individual will know Joe Rogan is worse at some of these aspects than mainstream media but they also recognize that mainstream media will willfully consistently violate other domains where Joe Rogan won't.
I trust Joe Rogan will tell me some stupid stuff about conspiracies and extra dimensionality trips, but I also trust that he won't tell me this stuff just to sell me on sponsors or his party's agenda, unlike the mainstream news.
Obviously any thinking individual will know Joe Rogan is worse at some of these aspects than mainstream media but they also recognize that mainstream media will willfully consistently violate other domains where Joe Rogan won't.
I trust Joe Rogan will tell me some stupid stuff about conspiracies and extra dimensionality trips, but I also trust that he won't tell me this stuff just to sell me on sponsors or his party's agenda, unlike the mainstream news.
How can you trust a news source that interviews everyone and selectively pushes back to construct a narrative, often in an artificially limited format that obscures nuance?
The media companies don't have any special domain experience, they've got no clear idea if what they are reporting on is true or not.
The media companies don't have any special domain experience, they've got no clear idea if what they are reporting on is true or not.
Unfortunately yes
Yes a bunch of people do unfortunately. Same with things like tucker carlson, alex jones, and a whole bunch of crazies creating an alternate reality that has lead to Trump, Jan 6 and more. There is some of this on the left but IMHO the 'reality' in that sphere is more having a worldview or political positions based mostly on facts.
In Canada media is controlled by a handful of private companies who are well connected to political factions. The public broadcaster while generally left tries to stay neutral. Small publications are ignored and usually shutout to the point of them needing to sue to ask a question.
Private or public if the media is controlled by a small club of wealthy and/or connected players you have an unhealthy and not very free press.
Private or public if the media is controlled by a small club of wealthy and/or connected players you have an unhealthy and not very free press.
The public broadcaster is "left" by US standards, but is pretty much bang in the center for the rest of the Anglophone countries.
It would be considered left by the Anglophone community in Canada but not necessarily left by Canada as a whole because Canada is an Anglophone/Francophone country with Anglophone majority with a strong Francophone minority.
If I was Xi, I would be looking at Ruppert Murdoch as evidence par excellence of the corrosive effect of foreign investment in media.
> so having stronger public investments in media could be helpful to stop this pervasive divisiveness.
The government can't invest in all media organizations equally. This will just be a new source of polarization in itself.
The government can't invest in all media organizations equally. This will just be a new source of polarization in itself.
If I’m a hardline Westerner and I feel like participating in a pro-Chinese Western Community, what are my options? HN isn’t the place for this. Basically, I’d like to praise China for the last handful of bold moves they’ve made, but the usual channels (FB, Twitter, Reddit, HN, …) are vehemently anti-China. I’d probably get shadowbanned or banned saying the three child policy is the way to go forward.
Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
Bill Maher praises China for being a 'serious country' and contrasts it to the non-serious US. That is pretty mainstream. There seem to be many people, both left and right, who see China's actions on clamping down unfettered capitalism and decadence as a good thing. In my view it's a mixed bag. I think the real driving force is in preparation of a US/China conflict which is starting to feel inevitable.
A communist party taking steps against private investment? What has the world come to /s
No it is taking steps against independent media.
Crude.
Why force it legally, when they could just have the private news sector de facto mirror what the establishment says (complete with a faux-choice between two parties), like in the US?
Why force it legally, when they could just have the private news sector de facto mirror what the establishment says (complete with a faux-choice between two parties), like in the US?
Americans be like "our media is owned by these two large companies, we are freedom brave".
US Gov doesn't prevent you from starting your own.
The US Gov is effectively Google Facebook and they will shut you down or shadowban you under some pretense. As well as the politically protected duopoly Visa, Mastercard refusing payment processing. If Cloudflare even allows your site to stay up. You survive that, you also have to dodge secret police assassins and top politicians calling for your murder as with Assange and Wikileaks.
But yes aside from that you are totally free to start your own media.
But yes aside from that you are totally free to start your own media.
Damn, you’re making me think about all this consolidation.
[deleted]