India's Nuclear Scientists Keep Dying Mysteriously (2013)

Among the state and non state actors, China is deeply disliked by global journalists too. It is also deeply disliked by Human Right Propagandists/Upholders, and the so called "global civil society on the internet". The problem is that these people have an ultra large impact on the perception because these are the people who control media, and a general person's access to information. They have abject monopoly over access to knowledge, and are deeply ideological. So much so that, these people are often found lobbying the United States and on the internet forums for policies that may harm the world. But they have huge power in Western discourse, and if they get pissed, they will start a whole ideological parade against their perceived nuisance. For US, it is simply their loss of influence that they are worried about.

The biggest people, and the most vocal, which leads to this perception, are the Global Civil Western Society, who just can't tolerate a state like China's to succeed. It is against their almost fanatically religious form of worship for some ideas, systems, and ideologies most of them tend to be under the guise of pro humanitarian but in reality is borderline jealousy and the fear of losing out. This also should be read in tandem with the fact that this is the very same society which supports the NRA, African American suffrage etc.

A similar phenomenon happened in the 1980s and 90s with Japan. The United States, not the world, was desperately concerned that Japan would not just pass over them in the future, but had already done so economically and culturally. The American mindset is extremely fickle, superficial, paranoid, and shortsighted when it comes to the possibility of foreign rivals. They just cant stand the very thought of competing in a global economy.

I find it really sad when some people think that the basic ideas of the Enlightenment are somehow "Western". They originated in the West, but they are absolutely and in no way linked to any notion of "Western culture".

As some that's mildly libertarian leaning, I'd say the core ideals of Enlightenment are universal moral principles that are objectively good, and workable for any human society.

For example, the principle of free speech boils down to this simple concept: Don't commit acts of violence against someone because they __said__ something you don't like (with emphasis on "said"). This is not a hard concept to grasp.

When some culture claims that such a principle (like free speech) is not "compatible" with their culture, it's a cop-out, and an excuse for some group of people to continue maintaining power, or something like it.

There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.

It does exert direct control in certain limited cases, through gag orders and "national security" secrecy laws. That practice has been expanding in the US for the past 16 years, and that's alarming, but still doesn't amount to anything comparable to China's control of the media.

Private groups and individuals with political agendas do control a significant fraction of the US media, however. But, they achieve and maintain this control through normal business means; by spending money and leveraging their resources to expand and consolidate.

We all know by now that Fox News (just the most famous example) is an organization created to disseminate propaganda on behalf of these private interests. However, this group does not align with "the government" -- as the US government changes in response to the tides of the electorate, organizations like Fox News find themselves basically in alignment with the government, then in opposition, then in alignment again.

These organizations by and large stay true to their core mission, which in the case of Fox News is to further the interests of the very rich by advancing a set of themes and grievances that together form a sociopolitical worldview that resonates with enough Americans — even those who aren't wealthy and won't actually benefit when/if that worldview is translated into policy — to give that worldview increased political clout.

So the US media is largely (but still not completely) controlled by a relatively small group of extremely wealthy individuals and interests. That may be harmful to the public interest and undesirable, but it's not the same thing as actual government control of the media as practiced in totalitarian regimes.