The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, February 23, 2006
News of the Day on Communist China
A feature of my blog is a daily summary (with running commentary) of the news in, on, and about Communist China. Stories or features involving the Great White North become the Canada file, as seen here:
Canada file: Jason Loftus, Epoch Times, notes and comments on the battle over nine Communist television propaganda channels in Canada (rejecting them would be an excellent way for the new government to ease some anxieties).
The entire News of the Day post can be seen here.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 23, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference News of the Day on Communist China:
Interesting. So the new guy is against free speech when it constitutes "communist propaganda"? A while back the issue of who should be allowed to broadcast in Canada came up when Al-Jazeera wanted to broadcast. The basis for the roadblock that was put up for them was the concern that their broadcasts would violate Canadian law.
But at the time the general issue came up of who should be allowed to broadcast and who not. The issue of Fox News not being allowed was one raised often. A lot of people (including myself and most of the WS crowd) thought that the Canadian government had no business deciding what was good for us to see on TV. Keeping Fox News out was just blatant censorship. But by the same token, keeping out "communist propaganda" would also be blatant censorship. A society that wants truly free speech should have restrictions on neither. When a broadcaster crosses the line from promoting ideas you don't like to inciting hatred, as Al-Jazeera has done at times, then the issue of restrictions is more complex and more reasonable.
But if you want free speech, you have to defend the right of people you disagree with to be allowed to speak. If you want to live in a world where Fox News broadcasts unhindered and where publishers have the right to print anti-Islamic cartoons, then you have to also be willing to let the commies in. What are you afraid of? That they will cast a mystical spell on us and subvert our political system?
In short: I vote YES for Fox News, YES for commie propaganda channels, and NO for Al-Jazeera.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-23 10:59:43 AM
What Mark said. Except, I want to be able to watch Al-Jazeera as well.
Where exactly do you stand on inherent rights, China Lobby?
We're supposed to be able to trade rights, based on what other countries do?
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-23 11:39:28 AM
It comes down to standards and decency in broadcasting in a democratic country.
Fox is broadcasting the news (albeit with a bias) as is CNN. Banning Fox was wrong.
Banning "propaganda" created by a non-freedom oriented society is not wrong.
I see no use in accepting programming from a Big-Brother dictatorship that is trying to influence people with no counter-balancing information coming out (which we get here by watching CNN vs. Fox or reading the Western Standard vs. the Toronto Star).
This is a country that has re-written the Bible to make Jesus into a good communist citizen. Accepting biased Chinese propaganda reeks to me of Liberal moral equivalency running rampant in Canada (like that's not happening now!).
When would we as viewers ever get a chance to see “the other side” of what is being broadcasted?
Perhaps, I would agree with the broadcasting as long as Taiwan and some Chinese dissidents get equal airtime.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-23 11:45:27 AM
I would have to agree with Mark's stand on the issue. Even though I qualify communisme with evil, I do not believe the government here has the right to tell me what I can watch or listen to. I would however draw the line on broadcasts calling for physical violence and attacks against law-abiding citizens. I am certain that Canadians of Chinese origin would prefer to see more non communist programing in Chinese, so why not encourage more opportunities for it. Taiwan can offer it.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-02-23 11:46:11 AM
Mark: Why no to al-Jazeera? Some might see that as a double standard. I vote yes to all. I think all one-side channels like Fox or Al-Jazeera should have a disclaimer or some designation attached. But then again who would decide which channels are on-side. Total free speech gets complicated doesn't it?
My partner is upstairs right now watching a Chinese channel. I don't understand a word they're saying, but some of the shows seem to be trying to show how much China has moved forward lately. Some of the tourist shows from Shanghai are visually spectactular. It looks like Japan has invested heavily in China. My partner still doesn't buy it. She watches for the cultural entertainment. I hope. Maybe I should sleep with one eye open.
I don't think the Chinese propaganda will affect anyone who left for political reasons. "Fool me once", but some younger immigrants might take the bait. I think your column is a good idea to keep some balance here.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 11:48:50 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only so many spaces for broadcasting to give out. If you weighted the priorities and values of the people in que to broadcast, communist should be pretty far down the list.
Why now let a Spanish or British or even a Japanese broadcaster have the space?
As far as people getting influenced. If all they every see are the bright sunny side of the good communist people and their commpasionate government leaders, they will slowly get 'brainwashed" and lose touch with the true evil of communism.
Look at what the CBC and Toronto Star have done to Ontario
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-23 12:03:12 PM
At the risk of seeming trite, allow me to answer these questions with another question: how many of you would have been OK with the airing of Soviet television in Canada?
If you're first response is "this isn't the same thing," then I'm afraid you haven't even begun to understand the danger facing the democratic world.
Posted by: China e-Lobby | 2006-02-23 12:49:13 PM
"how many of you would have been OK with the airing of Soviet television in Canada?"
So long as I'm not forced to pay for it or watch it - perfectly ok. Why not raid every used bookstore selling dog-eared copies of The Communist Manifesto? Do bad ideas terrify you that much?
With a click of mouse I can get stupid commie propaganda from the DPRK as well(http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm). Are you going to expand your e-Lobbying efforts to protect wayward internet surfers as well?
Posted by: Jay Jardine | 2006-02-23 1:09:55 PM
Ace - Spaces for broadcasting applies for actual radio tranmissions - assigning frequencies under license. In a digital world, the number of spaces is limited only by available technology.
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-23 1:19:56 PM
The issue isn't the dissemination of ideas, with which I have no quarrel. This isn't about free speech, either. The Communists can speak whenever they want through their mouthpieces in press conferences around the world.
The issue is allowing channels owned by a regime that seeks to do the democratic world harm, is allied with our enemies in the war on terror, and is even now commiting espionage damaging to both your country and mine, to have an extra voice in Canada, and profit from its role in the Canadian marketplace.
The Chinese "government" is more than fascist and censorship-happy. It is the enemy.
Posted by: China e-Lobby | 2006-02-23 1:47:38 PM
China-e-Lobby: "At the risk of seeming trite, allow me to answer these questions with another question: how many of you would have been OK with the airing of Soviet television in Canada?"
I would have been fine with it. In fact, I think the more we know about what the enemy of the day is saying (especially what they are saying to their people) the better. So not only would I have been for it, I would have watched it.
dan: "Mark: Why no to al-Jazeera? Some might see that as a double standard. I vote yes to all."
Well, I can be convinced on this one. The issue was that there was good reason to believe that if AJ had been allowed that they would have brodcast incitments to violence against Jews, as they had done so before. The further problem is that they would have been out of reach of law enforcement. So the CRTC *did* allow them in, provided a cable provider was willing to sign on as monitor/censor and would take legal responsibility for any offences they might make. Unsurprisingly, none was willing to do so.
ace: "It comes down to standards and decency in broadcasting in a democratic country. Fox is broadcasting the news (albeit with a bias) as is CNN. Banning Fox was wrong. Banning "propaganda" created by a non-freedom oriented society is not wrong."
That is the first step on the slippery slope to repressio of speech. One man's propaganda is another man's truth. Judging the truthfulness of a broadcaster's programs is not something I wan the government to be doing.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-23 2:10:46 PM
"The issue isn't the dissemination of ideas, with which I have no quarrel."
Er, yes you *do* have a problem with the dissemination of ideas if you're actively lobbying a government to forcibly prevent them.
Do a web search for "Al Jazeera" or go back to that DPRK link I referenced. Plenty of folks are of the mind that those entities are allied with "our enemies" and/or pose a threat to the democratic world. Yet the information is available to anyone with a web browser. Are you planning on lobbying to have that information firewalled or are you going to explain to me why the television broadcasting medium is a uniquely dangerous conveyance for subversive ideas?
Posted by: Jay Jardine | 2006-02-23 2:30:13 PM
No, I don't support a firewall. Yes, I do think letting the channels in is different, but, and perahps I could have been more precise, not because of their programming and such. My problem is, it's an arm of the Communist regime.
Another thing driving this is the fact that down here in the U.S., Phoenix TV - a television station owned in part by the regime and run by a former Communist military officer - just had two of its employees busted for spying. Granting these channels licenses would, in my view, make espionage such as this far easier.
Of course, that argument was missing from my previous comments, and for that I apologize: I tend to forget the espionage stuff is more prevalent, and as such a greater concern, down here than up there, and thus assumed it was common knowledge. Mea culpa.
Posted by: China e-Lobby | 2006-02-23 3:29:33 PM
Lobby: Can you clarify one thing please? Were the employees of Phoenix TV using their jobs to obtain information, or were their jobs coincidental to the charges.
We aren't quite as sensitive to espionage up here for several reasons. 1. We don't have many secrets worth stealing. 2. We haven't had a big scandal here since some politicians got caught screwing a Soviet spy in the 60s.
Here's hoping we start to take this stuff seriously, and soon.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 3:41:19 PM
China-e-Lobby: "No, I don't support a firewall. Yes, I do think letting the channels in is different, but, and perahps I could have been more precise, not because of their programming and such. My problem is, it's an arm of the Communist regime."
You just contradicted yourself. If your problem is that "it's an arm of the Communist regime", then your problem should be either *both* with TV channels that are arms of the Communist regime *and* with websites that are arms of the Communist regime or with *neither*. But Jay linked to a news site that *is* an arm of a Communist regime - it is a DPRK government run site. There also are many Chinese government run websites, too (like this: http://www.china.org.cn/english/). So if your problem *really* is with arms of the Communist regime, then you should support a firewall against these sites. That contradicts your claim to not support a firewall.
So which is it? Should we block both or neither? Or is there a *new* distinction between the two you want to now make?
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-23 3:51:37 PM
I'd rather see people spend more time fighting communism here in Canada and less time worrying about what foreign commies may be up to. Starting with our commie health care system, commie education system, commie broadcasting system, and commie broadcasting regulatory scheme. These are doing actual harm to the country, whereas the harm which you claim we will suffer from watching communist Chinese TV channels sounds pretty vague and hypothetical. In any case, Canadians' ideological views of capitalism versus socialism could hardly become more tarnished than they are now.
And if you're so hepped up about keeping communist propaganda out of Canada, shouldn't you be rooting out all Chinese publications from Canada's bookstores, blocking Chinese internet sites, and jamming all their shortwave radio frequencies? Or would that be too ... communistic.
Here's a good antidote to communist ideas:
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-02-23 5:19:32 PM
I still think that China e Lobby has a valid point. The Nazi's used propaganda to convince an entire generation of the evils of Jewish people.
If you let the Chinese use their propaganda techniques (they should be experts in this area), they will slowly, slowly start to influence the mass public.
It has worked for the gay lobby in convincing people that gay marriage is okay...it works for Michael Moore and his propaganda movies, and its worked in the entire Arab world in convining them that all their problems are due to a tiny country the size of NJ.
After awhile, people will start saying, "Hey its not that bad over their." cause they never see the dark side. Cuba uses this technique with tourist all the time.
Freedom of speech is vital to the surival of our democracy, but we have to have some standards on where it's coming from and what their intent is.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-23 6:01:15 PM
But, but if we’re going to block all commie networks from broadcasting in Canada does that mean we’d have to get rid of the CBC?
Have a look at this …
now Heather Mallick at the CBC thinks that PM SH’s idea of actually interviewing the judge for the job would …
“…At this point we become Americans, minus even any constitutional rules governing the committee. We will have a politicized court.”
Clearly the CBC does not want us to democratize the government with the checks and balances of elected officials. So doesn’t that mean that Mallick and the CBC are spewing out communist propaganda?
As this thread has warned, commie propaganda can lead to influencing the public, which might explain why we’ve had Liberals in power for … well, almost forever.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-23 6:34:32 PM
Heather Mallick looks very familiar. I think her dad was my doctor 20 years ago.
She was once interviewed, and badly abused by O'reilly on fox news. That event has probably scarred her for life.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 6:57:00 PM
Was that the interview where O'Reilly cited the "Paris Business Review" and denied Canada was the US's biggest trading partner?
Posted by: Otto | 2006-02-23 7:07:41 PM
Otto; I only saw bits of it on a Fifth Estate show. On that show Anne Coulter argued that Canada HAD sent troops to Vietnam. It's embarassing to see how stupid some of those people really are.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 7:13:29 PM
Hey, I just got tricked into defending the CBC. Come to think of it maybe we should keep them. Remember who exposed the truth when that teary eyed girl told stories of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwait? It turned out she was the daughter of some ambassador, and had never been inside the hospital in question. It was that story that gave Bush 1 enough votes to enter the first Gulf war. The CBC was first to run that one.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 7:29:29 PM
Aha! You do watch the CBC.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 7:50:15 PM
Dan actually it was right after that Mallick interview that O’Reilly seemed to turn on Bush.
Heather has her ways.
Hmm , you say her Dad is your Dr.?
And you don’t remember our troops in Vietnam ?
Now you want to keep the CBC because it helped start Gulf War 1.
Dan maybe you should switch Dr’s.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-23 7:52:51 PM
Time out: The CBC only exposed the story about the girl who said she saw Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubaters. That story was a fabrication. I must have rambled too much. It did not start the Gulf war. Anne Culter did in fact argue that combat troops were side by side with American troops.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 7:59:11 PM
By the way nomdenet, are you confusing Canadians in the US army with Canadian troops?
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 8:06:12 PM
Don’t feel bad Dan,
after John Kerry met Mallick, he thought he’d spent Christmas in Cambodia.
Actually that would be a lot better than Christmas with Mallick.
I’ve never liked her, I guess it shows.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-23 8:06:43 PM
I found the full transcript of the Coulter interview on this site... wwww.thisisrumorcontrol.org/node/1527
Actually Dr. Mallick was one of those doctors you could go to with "special" problems. A real Dr. Feelgood.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 8:29:09 PM
Speaking of Canadian troops,
before we kill the Communist Broadcasting Corp,
I hope Heather Mallick has a look at this before she turns in tonight …
And as to the BMD issue, this time Harper's actually going to tell Canadians what it’s all about in Parliament and put it to a vote. Just like a real democracy would do. Democracy, American-style, that’ll drive Heather crazy. The CBC says ...
“As for the contentious issue of missile defense, (Gordon) O'Connor (Minister of Defense) said the government is open to restarting talks with the U.S. But he said Washington would have to initiate those discussions.
O'Connor said before Canada signs on to any deal, the government will put it to a vote in the House of Commons.”
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-23 8:44:36 PM
I was surveying in the Saddle Hills northwest of Grande Prairie when the first cruise missile flew over, strapped to the wing of a B-52. It was quite a site to see.
A lot of people were up in arms over that, but Trudeau ignored the criticism. Lets hope Mr. Harper gets a chance to ignore the critics, and rebuild this nations military. We need more than ever to strenghen our ties to the US.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-23 8:55:24 PM
"The Nazi's used propaganda to convince an entire generation of the evils of Jewish people."
Fallacy of generalization.
Teach you children to think critically. Learn some critical thinking skills on your own so you can be free from propaganda of all statists and those who want power.
Pass on those critical thinking skills, and show others how their "thinking" is based on "emoting" or projection, and is insane thinking.
Don't tell me what I should watch, read, or listen to.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-23 9:57:26 PM
Just wondering when ebt and nomdenet are going to prove my igronance by pointing out where and when Canadian troops were in Vietnam. I'm waiting.
I'll check back this evening.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-24 7:37:25 AM
Dan, that's easy , Canadians in Cambodia at Christmas with sKerry.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-24 9:06:03 AM
ebt you raging homosexual, those were not combat troops.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-24 8:14:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.