How China Is Going Global With Its Censorship

from the art-of-persuasion dept

It is neither a secret nor much of a surprise that China keeps its media under tight control. But one knock-on consequence of its rise as a global power is that it is now seeking to extend that influence to those located outside China, including mainstream Western media. That trend is explored in a new report from The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), entitled "The Long Shadow of Chinese Censorship: How the Communist Party's Media Restrictions Affect News Outlets Around the World."

It's well researched, and contains plenty of documented examples of situations where China has applied pressure to media organizations in various ways -- subtle and not-so-subtle -- in order to re-frame discussions so that they are more favorable to itself and its agendas:

Since coming to power in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has constructed a multi-layered system for censoring unwanted news and stifling opposing viewpoints within China. Over the past two decades, this domestic apparatus has spawned mechanisms that extend some censorship to media outlets based outside China. Reflecting the adaptive nature of Chinese authoritarianism, such pressures are a complex mix of overt official actions and more discreet dynamics. They manifest themselves in four key ways:

Direct action by Chinese diplomats, local officials, security forces, and regulators both inside and outside China. These measures obstruct newsgathering, prevent the publication of undesirable content, and punish overseas media outlets that fail to heed restrictions.

Economic "carrots" and "sticks" to induce self-censorship among media owners and their outlets headquartered outside mainland China.

Indirect pressure applied via proxies -- including advertisers, satellite firms, and foreign governments -- who take action to prevent or punish the publication of content critical of Beijing.

Incidents such as cyberattacks and physical assaults that are not conclusively traceable to the central Chinese authorities but serve the party's aims and result from an atmosphere of impunity for those attacking independent media.

CIMA's report offers a fascinating snapshot of a development that is important for both the media and online worlds. Although the details may change over time, the basic methods are likely to remain the same, which makes this a valuable primer of what to watch out for in the future.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, china, media restrictions

Press Boycotts Indian Cricket Matches Over Restrictions On Digital Media

from the good-for-them dept

Last week, we wrote about how disappointing it was that American newspapers agreed to restrictions placed on them by Major League Baseball concerning how those newspapers could report on games online. You would think that newspapers reared on the idea of freedom of the press and editorial independence would not allow an organization they were covering to dictate the terms of coverage -- but they did. Luckily, it looks like reporters down in India are more willing to stand up for what they feel is right. Reader Bipin writes in to let us know of a very similar situation, where the Indian Premiere League put a number of restrictions on how the press could report online on its cricket competitions in India. Rather than agree to the restrictions, the press threatened to boycott IPL events entirely. Apparently the boycott threat has worked to get the league to back down a bit, though it may still end up with some restrictions. That still seems ridiculous, and hopefully the press will again point out that it needs to remain independent and cannot abide by any restrictions placed on it by the very organization it's covering.

Filed Under: bans, cricket, india, journalism, media restrictions, reporters

News Outlets Decide Not To Give Rugby World Cup Free Publicity

from the have-it-your-way dept

Just earlier today we had a post on how the NFL still thinks it can tell news organizations how they can do their job, in spite of fair use, and well, logic and reason. The Rugby World Cup kicks off Friday, and its organizers are involved in a similar spat with media groups covering the event. Back in April, organizers tried to put restrictions on the number of photos news outlets could publish online, and also how they were published (lest anything cover up a sponsor's logo). Major media outlets, including the AP, Reuters and AFP aren't playing ball, though, and are boycotting the event until the dispute is resolved. As much as the World Cup organizers would like to think they don't care, they depend on widespread media coverage and the free publicity it generates to drive their money machines. They say they're acting to protect companies that have paid for certain broadcasting rights, but what they're really trying to protect are the huge fees these companies have paid. They seem to think that letting news outlets print photos online threaten things like TV rights, but it would seem that the opposite is true. By reducing the amount of news coverage for the event -- which acts as publicity -- they're going to hurt the amount of interest people have in it. In turn, perhaps they won't be nearly as interested to follow it on TV or radio or anywhere else rightsholders have paid to deliver it. That's what really threatens their revenues, not the fact that people can go online and see photos from matches.

Filed Under: media, media restrictions, rugby
Companies: afp, ap, reuters