Live data from Hacker News

China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

bloombergquint.com

111–120 of 147 posts

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#111

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.

> 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.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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."

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#114
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.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#115
post #76

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

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.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#117
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 refusin…

So if Australia was the instigator, how can China be blamed for their sanctions (“pushing” Australia)?

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

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"?

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).

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#119
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 refusin…

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?

Re: China proposes prohibiting private investment in news service sector

#120
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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.
Post reply on HN