If I was Xi, I would be looking at Ruppert Murdoch as evidence par excellence of the corrosive effect of foreign investment in media.
China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
81–90 of 147 posts
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#82If 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?
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#83In 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
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.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#84In 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.
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...
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Wh…
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 intrinsi…
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.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
>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"?
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.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#88This 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.
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.
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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).
Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector
#90If 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?
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.