You mean the ccp is censoring free speech, so whats new? I have yet to get my 2 cents on the pages of the esteemed iht, awsj, feer, the japan times, etc. etc. mind u, the japan times has this slogan splashed across its front page “all the news without fear or favour” sic. Reminds me about the peking duck too, when u click on the comment button, this is what u see, “Note to commenters: All viewpoints are tolerated. Comments will never be deleted or edited except in cases of blatant disrespect or maliciousness as determined by the site owner” sound impressive eh,? I had hardly warmed my seat when the site owner banned my post, I don’t think I was “malicious” in any way, perhaps I had not shown proper respect to uncle scam eh? You might think that the west’s “free press” exemplify the spirit of free speech? Let me tell u something, I experience first hand what the free press is all about, its just a sham. But the internet is supposed to be different right, wrong again. I have been banned by the freerepublic, no surprise there. But I am also ex communicated by the “progressive” atimes and antiwar.com, and when curzon and Richard didn’t like what I said, they had no compunction to kick me out too, lol. When a Chinese editor or site owner censor the contents, at least he can say that if he doesn’t toe the line, he might get fined or jailed. When you guys practice self censorship without any one breathing down your neck, what excuse can you offer?
The last time when u googled for some craps from the net to support your partisan opinion, I said “ Its better to use our own judgement than to google for anything on the net that fits your opinions, there are lots of craps on the net, like the one u just linked to”
I see that you are still googling for all and sundry that happen to confirm to your bigotry over at your site, instead of engaging a dissenter in discussion. So this is your idea of a fair dialogue?
i do not see google as assisting censorship. they are just setting up another site to make money. that is all. for those who can access google.com (US site), they still have access to uncensored info.
i think it is unreasonable to require a business whose objective is to make money to fulfill or assist our ideal of freedom of speech. even cnn or fox are partisan and biase in their own way. i think setting up a competition site to baidu is very different from turning in an IP address to the authority. if even turning in the IP address (as requested by law) is controversial, i think setting up an additional site that complies with local govt regulation (even though it is ridiculous filtering/censorship) should be less "bad" than turning in an IP address like Yahoo China, or the ISPs in HK bowing to IFPI (and the court of HK).
If one day I outstay sun bin’s hospitality here, I have no complain, after all, this is HIS blog, he can damn well kick out anyone he doesn’t like.’ but these iht, awsj, feer, types, they are supposed to be icons of free speech for chrissake don’t they make a living out of bashing china’s censorship ? Yet they have no qualm dishing out their own variety, which is even worse, cuz they do it voluntarily unlike the Chinese editors who are usually forced to do so. “all the news without fear or favour” my ass.
I think a lot of people have difficulty with the concept of "free press." Free press does not mean "a press without biases." Everything is biased. So arguing that the Western media's biases somehow make the "free press" a sham makes no sense. The NYT, FOX, CNN, and the Japan Times are not the "free press" -- they are privately owned media outlets that operate in a free press environment. If you don't like what those outlets are saying, you are FREE criticize them or to find a different outlet -- or to start your own outlet, whether a blog or a newspaper. The issue is government control of speech -- not "objectivity."
Regarding Google, it is an American company, so their actions will be judged according to American values in the US. If Google were a Chinese company in bed with the Japanese government, they would be judged by Chinese values accordingly (read burned to the ground and labeled "traitors.")
Free speech and free press are two different things. If a news organization is preaching about free speech, they damn well should allow criticism from others to be published. If they censor the criticism, they are hypocrites. It's that simple.
On google, if google can't meet the Chinese standard, maybe they shouldn't be doing business overthere, right? No love lost if google "the American company" should decide to pack its bag and move back to the us. It is called freedom of choice.
google is an american company, and also aspiring to become a global company.
so here we are talking about google china, which is not too different from sina or netease or baidu. google's main site if uncensor and ti provides an alternative to whoever can access it. if you are a chinese surfing, what is the real difference other than a new source of information?
i do not like the censorship in china, i think it is unneccessary and does no good to china itself. i also think google has recently departed from the strategy that made it so successfully in the past. but i think it is unfair to ask google china to adhere to a higher standard than sina.
if you are selling your google share, you should also be selling sina, sohu, and tom.com shares. that would be fair.
--Free speech and free press are two different things.
Actually, they are intimately related, especially in an age of self-publishing. The "free" in both phrases means what? 1) Free from government control, and 2) Free to say what you please. Neither of those freedoms have any relation to media outlets being biased or hypocrites. If you want to say some media outlets are biased and are hypocrites, I surely agree with you, but that has little to do with a free press, other than the fact that they are free to be biased and hypocrites -- it is their money, their platform, and their right to be biased hypocrites. Just as it is your right to counter them and publish your thoughts on your own platform.
About Google again, I was merely pointing out a fact -- whether you like it or not (and whether Google likes it or not) it is an American company. Just as Nike was criticized for creating sweatshops overseas (i.e., not adhering to American or Western standards), Google will be criticized for censoring itself.
88 u said "If you want to say some media outlets are biased and are hypocrites, I surely agree with you" ------------- i just did that, those at the iht, awsj, feer, curzon, peking duck are hypocrites." since u agree, whats these fuss all about?
"You might think that the west’s “free press” exemplify the spirit of free speech? Let me tell u something, I experience first hand what the free press is all about, its just a sham."
I guess that is what the "fuss" is about. You are conflating and confusing two separate issues: 1) biases or hypocricy on the part of specific, privately-owned media outlets, and 2) freedom of the press.
Free press does not mean "Every privately-owned platform (newspaper or blog, etc.) should print what I want to say." Free press means the government can't stop you from publishing your views on YOUR OWN platform (newspaper or blog, etc.).
You may call people hypocrites for not publishing different viewpoints -- maybe they are -- but that has nothing to do with the free press.
i told daveinchina he might think that the free press practice free speech, i dont harbour such delusion.
i dont call people hypocrites merely cuz they dont allow dissenting voice, they damn well can censor whichever they dont like on their own domain, i only call them hypocrites when they wag their fingers at others (such as china) while they are doing it themselves.
Does the government control what they say? No. Therefore, they practice free speech.
> i only call them hypocrites when they wag their fingers at others (such as china)
So if I criticize a government for censoring the media, but I don't publish everything that anyone else might want to say in my newspaper, I am a hyporcrite and the "free press" is a sham?
I'll say this a last time and then I'll give up: free speech and free press does not mean that you need to give a platform to everyone in the world. It does not mean "objective press." It means ONE thing: the GOVERNMENT does not control what can be published or said. Period.
Free press and free speech concern the realtionship of GOVERNMENT to speech -- so unless Western governments are controlling and censoring the media, the 'free press' is not a sham.
17 comments:
孫臏先生：
祝您一路順風，新年快樂！
I miss your postings!
sorry for lack of posting recently.
1. thanks, liebigson
2. anon, will be back to posting soon
3. dave, which news are you referring to?
daveinchina,
You mean the ccp is censoring free speech, so whats new?
I have yet to get my 2 cents on the pages of the esteemed iht, awsj, feer, the japan times, etc. etc. mind u, the japan times has this slogan splashed across its front page “all the news without fear or favour” sic.
Reminds me about the peking duck too, when u click on the comment button, this is what u see, “Note to commenters: All viewpoints are tolerated. Comments will never be deleted or edited except in cases of blatant disrespect or maliciousness as determined by the site owner” sound impressive eh,? I had hardly warmed my seat when the site owner banned my post, I don’t think I was “malicious” in any way, perhaps I had not shown proper respect to uncle scam eh?
You might think that the west’s “free press” exemplify the spirit of free speech?
Let me tell u something, I experience first hand what the free press is all about, its just a sham.
But the internet is supposed to be different right, wrong again.
I have been banned by the freerepublic, no surprise there. But I am also ex communicated by the “progressive” atimes and antiwar.com, and when curzon and Richard didn’t like what I said, they had no compunction to kick me out too, lol.
When a Chinese editor or site owner censor the contents, at least he can say that if he doesn’t toe the line, he might get fined or jailed.
When you guys practice self censorship without any one breathing down your neck, what excuse can you offer?
Curzon,
The last time when u googled for some craps from the net to support your partisan opinion, I said “ Its better to use our own judgement than to google for anything on the net that fits your opinions, there are lots of craps on the net, like the one u just linked to”
I see that you are still googling for all and sundry that happen to confirm to your bigotry over at your site, instead of engaging a dissenter in discussion.
So this is your idea of a fair dialogue?
thanks curzon.
-----
dave,
i do not see google as assisting censorship. they are just setting up another site to make money. that is all. for those who can access google.com (US site), they still have access to uncensored info.
i think it is unreasonable to require a business whose objective is to make money to fulfill or assist our ideal of freedom of speech. even cnn or fox are partisan and biase in their own way.
i think setting up a competition site to baidu is very different from turning in an IP address to the authority. if even turning in the IP address (as requested by law) is controversial, i think setting up an additional site that complies with local govt regulation (even though it is ridiculous filtering/censorship) should be less "bad" than turning in an IP address like Yahoo China, or the ISPs in HK bowing to IFPI (and the court of HK).
but that is just my personal opinion.
denk,
You are not alone, seems like a lot of people have complained about peking duck's fairness in the past. Many people got blocked or banned etc etc.
Anon,
If one day I outstay sun bin’s hospitality here, I have no complain, after all, this is HIS blog, he can damn well kick out anyone he doesn’t like.’
but these iht, awsj, feer, types, they are supposed to be icons of free speech for chrissake
don’t they make a living out of bashing china’s censorship ?
Yet they have no qualm dishing out their own variety, which is even worse, cuz they do it voluntarily unlike the Chinese editors who are usually forced to do so.
“all the news without fear or favour” my ass.
I think a lot of people have difficulty with the concept of "free press." Free press does not mean "a press without biases." Everything is biased. So arguing that the Western media's biases somehow make the "free press" a sham makes no sense. The NYT, FOX, CNN, and the Japan Times are not the "free press" -- they are privately owned media outlets that operate in a free press environment. If you don't like what those outlets are saying, you are FREE criticize them or to find a different outlet -- or to start your own outlet, whether a blog or a newspaper. The issue is government control of speech -- not "objectivity."
Regarding Google, it is an American company, so their actions will be judged according to American values in the US. If Google were a Chinese company in bed with the Japanese government, they would be judged by Chinese values accordingly (read burned to the ground and labeled "traitors.")
SB, hope you'll be back blogging soon.
88,
Free speech and free press are two different things. If a news organization is preaching about free speech, they damn well should allow criticism from others to be published. If they censor the criticism, they are hypocrites. It's that simple.
On google, if google can't meet the Chinese standard, maybe they shouldn't be doing business overthere, right? No love lost if google "the American company" should decide to pack its bag and move back to the us. It is called freedom of choice.
google is an american company, and also aspiring to become a global company.
so here we are talking about google china, which is not too different from sina or netease or baidu. google's main site if uncensor and ti provides an alternative to whoever can access it. if you are a chinese surfing, what is the real difference other than a new source of information?
i do not like the censorship in china, i think it is unneccessary and does no good to china itself. i also think google has recently departed from the strategy that made it so successfully in the past. but i think it is unfair to ask google china to adhere to a higher standard than sina.
if you are selling your google share, you should also be selling sina, sohu, and tom.com shares. that would be fair.
--Free speech and free press are two different things.
Actually, they are intimately related, especially in an age of self-publishing. The "free" in both phrases means what? 1) Free from government control, and 2) Free to say what you please. Neither of those freedoms have any relation to media outlets being biased or hypocrites. If you want to say some media outlets are biased and are hypocrites, I surely agree with you, but that has little to do with a free press, other than the fact that they are free to be biased and hypocrites -- it is their money, their platform, and their right to be biased hypocrites. Just as it is your right to counter them and publish your thoughts on your own platform.
About Google again, I was merely pointing out a fact -- whether you like it or not (and whether Google likes it or not) it is an American company. Just as Nike was criticized for creating sweatshops overseas (i.e., not adhering to American or Western standards), Google will be criticized for censoring itself.
88
u said
"If you want to say some media outlets are biased and are hypocrites, I surely agree with you"
-------------
i just did that, those at the iht, awsj, feer, curzon, peking duck are hypocrites."
since u agree, whats these fuss all about?
denk,
You also said this:
"You might think that the west’s “free press” exemplify the spirit of free speech?
Let me tell u something, I experience first hand what the free press is all about, its just a sham."
I guess that is what the "fuss" is about. You are conflating and confusing two separate issues: 1) biases or hypocricy on the part of specific, privately-owned media outlets, and 2) freedom of the press.
Free press does not mean "Every privately-owned platform (newspaper or blog, etc.) should print what I want to say." Free press means the government can't stop you from publishing your views on YOUR OWN platform (newspaper or blog, etc.).
You may call people hypocrites for not publishing different viewpoints -- maybe they are -- but that has nothing to do with the free press.
88
i told daveinchina he might think that the free press practice free speech,
i dont harbour such delusion.
i dont call people hypocrites merely cuz they dont allow dissenting voice, they damn well can censor whichever they dont like on their own domain, i only call them hypocrites when they wag their fingers at others (such as china) while they are doing it themselves.
denk,
>the free press practice free speech
Does the government control what they say? No. Therefore, they practice free speech.
> i only call them hypocrites when they wag their fingers at others (such as china)
So if I criticize a government for censoring the media, but I don't publish everything that anyone else might want to say in my newspaper, I am a hyporcrite and the "free press" is a sham?
I'll say this a last time and then I'll give up: free speech and free press does not mean that you need to give a platform to everyone in the world. It does not mean "objective press." It means ONE thing: the GOVERNMENT does not control what can be published or said. Period.
Free press and free speech concern the realtionship of GOVERNMENT to speech -- so unless Western governments are controlling and censoring the media, the 'free press' is not a sham.
88
those who dont practice what they preach are hypocrites.
i rest my case.
Post a Comment