Hacker News Reader

Comment by isomorphic | Hacker News Reader

Reading your phrase "controlled media" made me think of the 200-some news articles telegraphing the recent Fed rate increase, months ahead of the actual event. Controlled or not, the Fed knows how to use the media to achieve the Fed's goals.

Believing the proposition that one can control something as complex as an economy requires a certain amount of arrogance and/or hubris, neither of which are in short supply in the States. But from one naïve American's perspective, the Chinese leadership act like it's their divine right of nature.

View on HN

You have no idda how China controls media and press. Recent incident in Hong Kong revealed China abducted 5 bookstores staff because they publish book about political gossip of the communist party. Journalist and Newspaper were directly controlled by the Party in China. Media companies are required to have a Party Secretary in their board. Comparing that to Fed is vastly irrelevant.

"The Americans are so natural. Far superior to us,” - Joseph Goebbels [0]

The Yankee propaganda machine is smooth and suave so we hardly realize it exists. It makes the Chinese look heavy handed by comparison, and our Overton window is much wider than theirs. But don't confuse that suavity and width with the absence of propaganda.

[0] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/16/hitler-in-holly...

I don't think anyone is saying there isn't propaganda/spin/marketing in the US. But to compare it to Goebbels or China is irresponsible, unless you have some serious sources. China bullys reporters (Chinese and foreign) [1], refuses visas to foreign reporters of papers that publish things that contradict the party line [2], jails Chinese reporters that contradict whatever the Party wants at the moment [3], blocked nytimes.com ever since it published an expose of Hu Jintao's (the president of China at the time) financial affairs [4], has been bullying Hong Kong newspapers that do not tow Beijing's line despite a promise to not control Hong Kong until about 2046 [unfortunately, can't find sources on this, as it is a bit subtle, but, for example, the South China Morning Post was bought by Alibaba executive; think it's going to publish anything out of line?]

[1] http://www.poynter.org/2014/covering-china-for-foreign-and-d...

[2] https://cpj.org/blog/2015/03/how-china-uses-j-visas-to-punis...

[3] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/27/chinese-jour...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/china-blocks-we...

I agree the comparison is taking it too far. But the US model is fascinating. E.g. consider newspapers wishing to be able to report from the White House. Want your journalist to be able to get a good seat? Want them to have a shot at asking questions? Then behave.

Want to get access to high ranking officials? Same thing.

Instead of throwing anyone in jail it's a matter of strangling them of access so competitors gets important information first or gets to be the ones askin their questions.

Occasionally it doesn't work. Like when a newspaper gets hold of something important enough to be willing to risk their access (such as the Snowden documents). But for tilting the day to day reporting of politics these methods have been honed to a level where they are remarkably effective.

The funny thing is that this situation has bred an altogether different sort of organisation - think Wikileaks and The Intercept. In these cases they don't have to play nice, since people will volunteer even juicier news/disclosures than would otherwise be available through playing nice with the press office.

If you were the president, would you be inclined to answer questions from a journalist that was consistently antagonistic?

An American reporter can freely be critical of the government. They can even publish Snowden documents, which put the government in a very bad light. Nobody even considers harassing them, let alone jailing them. (In fact, legally, they can't.) This fact is huge; it is an essential difference.

GP here. Note that I personally am not comparing American propaganda to Goebbels; rather, Goebbels himself is and I am quoting him. In that light, it's perhaps less ridiculous.

By choosing to quote him in this discussion you kind of are making that comparison.

There's a difference between the government running a news outlet and the government actively shutting down other news outlets.

"divine right of nature":

I think I finally figured out how the Communist Party deals with information control. They simply state whatever they wish were actually true as if it were true, and then bully, punish, jail, block or otherwise try to stamp out any other perspective.

So, they say "Taiwan is part of China" when it manifestly is not part of China, and they encourage an angry response to anyone who says it is not true. But other than national messaging, it seems like the State media actually does their own stories, because you often see it run a story which then gets deleted off the web site a couple hours or a day later, after the government decides what the message should be.

But Taiwan refers to itself as "The Republic of China" while China refers to itself as "The People's Republic of China".

From the outside looking in, China and Taiwan are merely part of a long running civil Cold War.

North Korea and South Korea are obviously different countries but they are both called the "Republic of Korea" (one with various adjectives tacked on).

I don't think you should read too much into names. Taiwan is neither internationally recognized as part of China nor does it function as part of China in any way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com