China censorship: case study of Tibet blackout & propoganda

What has happened/is happening in Tibet? What are information streams and reactions to this week's violence in the Tibet Autonomous Region under China?

My previous post elicited some of the peculiar tones of international journalism--by necessity, because of China's iron-fisted censorship--covering "what has happened"; but here I would just like to point out two jarring case studies of direct media censorship & propaganda, currently being carried out by the state of China, that can be directly observed and experienced by anyone this moment, thanks to our new-media technological era. In essence, China's censorship and propoganda reach extends to you and me, whether we are in New York, Miami, San Francisco, Nashville, or London.

***

1) This morning I saw this news article: "Tibet chairman: Police exercised 'great restraint'". It starts off,

Police showed great restraint and used no lethal force in dealing with the riots in Lhasa last Friday, the chairman of the Tibet autonomous regional government said yesterday.

"The riots caused heavy loss of life and property, and seriously disturbed social order," Qiangba Puncog told a news briefing in Beijing.

Qiangba Puncog

Thirteen innocent civilians were burned or stabbed to death, he said, adding that calm had returned to Lhasa.

On Friday, violence involving physical assault, destruction of property, looting and arson broke out in urban Lhasa. Rioters set fires at more than 300 locations, including 214 homes and shops, and smashed and burned 56 vehicles.

In one case, a civilian was doused with gasoline and burned to death by rioters.

Sixty-one members of the armed police were injured, including six critically. Rioters beat a police officer into a coma and cut a fist-size piece of flesh out of his buttock, he said.

Yet "public security personnel and police showed maximum restraint during law enforcement" and "throughout the process, (security forces) did not carry or use any destructive weapons. Only tear gas and water cannons were employed," Qiangba Puncog said...

Have you ever heard of the China Daily? I hadn't, and hadn't ever come across it before, but wow, at first I was confused at the paraphrase as the first sentence; then quotation; immediately followed by paraphrase, and truly so on and so forth till the end. And every single sentence and phrase from all sources vehemently condemned the rioters and praised the government. And then, in conformity, even every single one of the many links listed under "Related readings"..

Related readings:
Government chief ensures safety in Tibet
Dalai's 'rule of terror' remarks refuted
Lhasa riot out of conspiracy
Religious leader, locals chide lawless riot in Lhasa
We fired no gunshots - Tibetan government chairman
Tibet separatists doomed to fail: Party chief

I thought for a second I was reading The Onion's satire, but very dark humor. I guess the scary thing is that this China Times article appeared as the 3rd down the list this morning (sitting here in front of my laptop in an apartment in New York) when I simply Googled the Tibet issue. But anyways I looked on Wikipedia what China Times is and it's (according to Wikipedia entry, at least) a CCP State-run paper, so that explains that; though troubling that it's the widest circulating English-newspaper in China..

2) Examples like this abound, and if you have spoken with any friends or relatives who are expats working in China for the past years, you might have already been told about this surreal 1984-ish, propoganda-state aspect of regular access (or lack thereof) to information regarding any "sensitive" issues. But in any case here I would like to point all of us towards a poignant and depressingly intriguing post by a blogger in Beijing, who wrote today,

Tibet News Blackout -

My site is still blocked (I am using an industrial-strength proxy if any on you need one, way stronger than Anonymous and much faster than Tor), and I was called about it yesterday by a "real media." You can find my quote buried in this article.

I've had CNN playing in the background the past few nights, and it's downright comical how often the screen just goes dark shortly after mention of the T word. Once again I ask my friends over at the ministry of propaganda if they sincerely believe with all their heart that this kind of ham-fisted tactic makes China look better, and if they sincerely believe it achieves their goal of keeping CNN viewers ignorant of what's happening in Tibet. If something ugly happens at the Olympic Games in August, are they just going to blackout the media broadcasts? And do they think they will be admired for it?

***

Conclusion of my own sense on all of this, the past few days...

This blogger of the popular blog, The Peking Duck, his name is Richard Burger, and incidentally the article that he was quoted in in Business Week, also had a few quotes and statements that really ring true to me.

Since riots broke out in Tibet last week, authorities have imposed martial law and tried to control the flow of information into and out of the region. The government has banned journalists and tourists from entering Tibet. And officials have imposed strict controls over the Internet in an effort to spin what happened in Tibet and neighboring provinces to conform with Beijing's version of events...
With the censoring of Chinese blog and BBC postings that do not reflect the government's position, most of the Chinese postings left standing tend to present an overwhelming resentful attitude towards Tibetans.

And lastly, Rebecca Mackinnon, assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism & Media Studies Center, is quoted as saying,

"There are a lot of people that think the Internet is going to bring information and democracy and pluralism in China just by existing. I think what we're seeing with this situation in Tibet is while the Chinese government's system of Internet censorship controls and propaganda is not infallible by any means, it works well enough in times of crisis like this."

Tibet According to Tibetans, Chinese, and China government

There has been a significant silence--or more accurately, state prohibition from accessing information and therefore few substantive mainstream media accounts (except for Chinese state-run media and video clips)--about what happened during, immediately after, and in the days following the Tibetan monk protests on 3/10. I think it is very chilling & telling: China's state policies of censorship, media control, and how this manipulation--in essence, propoganda--has truly affected the individual opinions and societal reactions of Chinese citizens to what was assumed to have happened in Tibet.

Now I will keep my comments to a minimal, and let some articles--most of which are eye-witness accounts "who wish to remain anonymous," or non-Tibetan Chinese understandings of and reactions to what has gone on--that I've pieced together, speak for themselves.

Narratives

3/12: "Monks under siege in monasteries as protest ends in a hail of gunfire" --UK Times Online

3/14: Eyewitness: Monk 'kicked to floor' --BBC Online
Sub-headline: "With tension rising in Tibet following a series of anti-China protests, the BBC spoke to an eyewitness who saw police on Wednesday beating monks at one of three monasteries which have been sealed. He wishes to be identified only as John."

3/16: Lhasa eyewitness: 'City in cinders'--BBC Online
Sub-headline: "After days of violent street protests, a Western tourist in Lhasa, who wishes to remain anonymous, describes a tense, deserted city firmly in the hands of the Chinese military."

3/17: Chinese react to violence in Tibet--BBC Online
Sub-headline: As the deadline for Tibetan protesters to surrender to the police passes, people elsewhere in China give their reaction to the protests and violence in Tibet.

ZHANG YI FAN, STUDENT, BEIJING

Zhang Yi Fan says the Dalai Lama should have called for restraint

I stand by my government on this issue.

The Dalai Lama is the main cause of the suffering of both Tibetans and Chinese in Tibet. He could stop the protesters but he doesn't.

He gave the people who remain loyal to him the wrong ideas and asked kind-hearted people to risk their lives for his political interests.

Our government has had to send in the troops and protect our people to make society stable.

People haven't paid enough attention to the suffering of the Chinese in Tibet. They were targeted by the rioters.

We can't get enough information because the government doesn't let us know what is happening in Tibet. All the information I get is from foreign websites. Many people here don't know there is a serious situation in Tibet. It's just people like me who care about politics.

But I think the government has done the right thing in this instance. Many of their claims can be proved by the footage we have seen of destruction in Lhasa.

YU FU-MING, COMPANY MANAGER, BEIJING

I think Tibet is a small problem that can be resolved. The Chinese economy and Chinese society is very stable now. The economy is growing fast.

Life for people all across China and all its regions is getting better and better.

We must remember that all over the world there are battles between people with differences. And these differences exist in China too.

I think China needs its stability and so I think it is fine for the army to go into Tibet. Every government should show its force and its ability to control troubled situations.

If things are proving difficult to control, the army is the best option.

We get a lot of criticism but the best way is to follow law and government. I think Buddhism is a very good religion and I don't think the monks should act so much against government.

JINJIE CHEN, LAWYER, SHANGHAI

The timing is very sensitive. China is due to have its Olympic Games this year.

Jinjie Chen says people have the right to demonstrate peacefully

I think this is why those people chose this time to riot. Many are unsatisfied with the Chinese government and the country. They want to cause riots, maybe even engage in some terrorist activities before, during or after the Olympic Games.

These people know that it is a huge thing for China to have the Olympics. The world's attention is on us. It is a good opportunity for them to take advantage.

Honestly, I think these are the actions of a small number of people.

But, I have to say, it makes me angry. I think it makes most Chinese people angry. Everyone has their own problems but I do not think that such violent acts are a good option.

We must make the distinction between a peaceful demonstration and violent anti-social acts. I fully understand people who want to make their voice heard and raise their ideas. That is their right.

But I saw evidence that young Tibetans had planned to act violently. They had bought bricks and stones with them. That can't be right.

3/17: Tibetans describe continuing unrest--BBC Online

Sub-headline: "Tibetans taking part in and affected by the continuing unrest have contacted the BBC News website to describe their experiences."

3/17: Tibet anti-China protests spread --BBC Online

Little public sympathy

In Lanzhou, ordinary people appear to know little of what is going on in Gansu's Tibetan regions and beyond.

I understand the disturbance has been organized by the Dalai Lama to target the Olympics Man in Lanzhou

In the Lanzhou Morning Post there was no mention of the trouble that had erupted just down the road in the province's Gannan Autonomous Tibetan prefecture.

The front-page headline in the Lanzhou Morning Post followed the lead of the previous night's news bulletins, reporting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's re-selection as the county's premier.

When asked about the protests, one woman told the BBC: "The price of consumer goods has gone up very rapidly so I think the demonstrations must be linked to that."

Ordinary people that wanted to comment on the protests had little sympathy with the Tibetans and their cause.

"I think they are causing a disturbance without reason. I understand it has been organised by the Dalai Lama to target the Olympics," said one man.

Obama vs. Clinton: strong endorsements to each healthplan, for differing reasons

If you're reading at 12:13am the day of casting your Super Tues. ballot, you are a very pragmatic shopper or procrastinator. Here is an endorsement each for ClintonCare (unfortunately, this weakly made argument is the best one I could find) and ObamaCare.

• Significantly, this has been the "most-emailed" NYTimes article today: Paul Krugman's ClintonCare endorsement: "new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost." He even spits at you these staggering numbers!: [a plan resembling Obama's] "would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year... An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."
  
  Paul Krugman is a tricky fellow, though. The "new estimates" that he bases these shocking estimates come solely from a paper by respected economist Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. However, note all the "plan resembling" and "Obama-type" and "Clinton-type" phraseology employed by Krugman. Obviously, the average reader (I missed his rhetorical slight-of-hand on the first read, and was convincingly shocked, the effect Krugman was no doubt going for) with little time (fortunately though, I am as of now sadly unemployed!) would have glossed over these. However, Gruber's paper does not specify Clinton or Obama's plans, and as for his simulation of a plan with or w/out mandates (which Clinton has), those numbers are based on the assumption "that 95% of those who would not voluntarily choose to insure" indeed become insured through the mandate." Harold Pinter's critique of Krugman's article points out, though, that the Massachusettes Universal mandate has so far enrolled just over 50% of its previously uninsured.
  

• Miles Mogulescu has been writing a series since October 10th entitled, "Why Not Single Payer," advocating for Single-Payer/Medicare for All, and has been blasting both Clinton and Obama (and previously, Edwards) for moderating, having no guts/foresight, incorporating the terrible private-insurance fiasco we currently have into their future plans, and for dropping the true universal healthcare policy that will also provide better medical care like an emberrassing step-child. In today's lukewarm endorsement of ObamaCare over ClintonCare, 2 points he makes resonate with me, especially the latter:
  1) ObamaCare will be "easier to run on against the Republicans in the fall, and to potentially gain enough popular support to get through Congress without too many crippling compromises." He explains,

  Here's what the Republicans will be saying in the fall: "If you're an uninsured family making over $40-$50,000 a year so you aren't poor enough for subsidies but can't afford insurance, Hillary will garnishee thousands of dollars of your wages since the average policy for a family of 4 is around $12,000." That should be enough to scare off millions of middle class families earning less than $100,000, and make them think twice about voting for a Democrat. The growing failure of Romney's Massachusetts plan will give ample evidence to back these Republican charges.

  2) He prefaces his endorsement of Obama as the closer-choice-to-"Medicare for All"-candidate with the pointed rebuke,

  Despite Obama's political calculation to the contrary, the combination of a President with Obama's extraordinary leadership skills and a budding mass movement already supporting [Medicare for All Bill] HR 676 (which includes over 235 union organizations in 40 states, including 60 Central Labor Councils, as well as many citizens and religious organizations) the American people can be convinced to support Medicare For All.

  He goes on to praise that under Obama as opposed to Clinton, the grassroots movement towards Medicare for All will gain even more momentum; if a state like CA tries to enact single-payer in their own state, Obama will be more likely not to block it; and lastly,
  

  Maybe I'm being naïve, but, in the long-run, the fact that Obama understands single payer and is not hostile to it as a concept, gives me hope that we might get there, or close to there, over the course of an 8 year Obama Presidency... A mass movement for single payer healthcare has already begun to take shape. My hope is that an Obama Presidency will help give it the space to flourish, and to push Universal Healthcare beyond the bounds of Obama's more modest proposals.

  Personally, as I stated before, I believe we as a country need single-payer/government/"Medicare for All"--whichever you want to call it--coverage, and Mogulescu's series, "Why Not Single Payer," as with other articles, conversations, books, reports, health care experiences, and observations I've come across, indeed convinces me so.
  

Edwards vs. Obama/Clinton: Why the Hell Is Single-Payer Healthcare Taboo? Stupid, It Ain't!

Possibly because John Edwards is hastily (and reluctantly) falling off the map of realistic presidential contenders, his interview with NYTimes (1/25/08)--in which he revealed stark leftist contrast to Obama/Clinton--has unfortunately been little-noted by the press & the public.

Although similar in healthcare plan as his Democratic opponents, in this interview he boldly blurted out the political explitives that Obama/Clinton have been avoiding like the plague:

Regarding his health plan ("Medicare-plus") which would allow all Americans to choose between private insurance options and new government insurance packages modeled on Medicare,

"American health consumers will decide which works best. It could continue to be divided. But it could go in one direction or the other and one of the directions is obviously government or single payer. And I'm not opposed to that."

Booyakashah! It warms the populist heart & the "Simplify health coverage!" mind like mine.

In Kevin Sack's coverage of Edwards' interview, he pointed out:

Republican candidates and policy strategists have raised the specter of “socialized medicine” and depicted the Democratic plans as a back-door route to a so-called single-payer government system.

Mr. Edwards brushed off that critique. “There is nothing back-door about it,” he said. “It’s right through the front door. We’re going to let America decide what health care system works for them.”

Yes, it's all about liguistical framing. While Republicans have continued to

1. champion the array of "choices" amongst our dozens of dense healthcare plans as a God-given American right (as always, free market competition will naturally and justly lead to healthy citizenry), and
   
2. demonize the god-forsaken "Socialized Medicine" that these Communists are stealthily seeking to ram up the arse,

Instead, for once a Democrat has framed the proposal right: the true "choice" sets up the single-payer (government) system as a market competitor. What the hell is there to be ashamed of, thou meek Democrats! (See The Frog's 1/25 post discussing David Moberg's article "Democratic candidates for president say they'll break sharply with Bush-era and Reagan-era policies, but avoid talking about expanding the role of the federal government") Maybe Moberg's article isn't as much of a whimper as I had called it; maybe Edwards actually took Moberg's advice..

As for the running topic question on Frog(the)Bulletin!: What are the differences between Democrat front-runners Obama vs. Clinton? Forget it, vote Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!(?)