Just a quick follow up for those who have yet to grasp that the Indian election — with its 850 million voters — is a big thing, visit the website of the Election Commission of India to see the when, how and where of the voting.
Just FYI: This is offered because so few US media outlets have thought it worthwhile to report on this election. To use Vice President Biden’s phrase: “This really is a big fucking deal!”
The online New York Times has a series of blog and news postings about news from around the world. Nida Najar from India posted a blistering (and well-deserved) attack on the US media’s lack of coverage of India’s election. And the attack was based on a bit done by former The Daily Show correspondent John Oliver: John Oliver on the American Media’s India Blind Spot
And sure enough, a quick Google Search of “Indian Election 2014” does not yield one U.S. media outlet reporting on the election.
In a way this is not surprising. Oliver points to the McLaughlin Group as the only news show that discussed the election, only to have it being dismissed by the host as irrelevant because “it’s not even in our hemisphere.” (For once I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan: “It’s 800 million voters! More than 1 billion people!”)
For the political and economic well being of the United States, India matters. (I can be snarky: The importance if India is well beyond tech support. Where do you think you are calling when your computer crashes?)
India is the 11th most important trading partner with the United States, accounting for 1.7 percent of all US trade. That puts it in the same neighborhood as France, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.
Most of what the US sell to India are not raw materials or agricultural products but finished goods that require good jobs:
- Misc. manufactured commodities
- Transportation equipment
- Computer and electronic products
So, yes, the US needs to be informed and aware of what is going on in India, if for no other reason, because our economic well being depends on it.
The ProPublica headline and story says it all:
Weibo IPO Reveals a Company Struggling With Censorship
Weibo, “China’s Twitter,” started offering shares on NASDAQ yesterday. Its regulatory disclosures reveal a company’s balancing act between censoring too much and too little.
As required under SEC regulations, the company must list for investors potential risks that might affect its share price. Weibo is up front about the risk the Chinese government’s regulation of content poses to its ability so succeed. “Failure to [censor] may subject us to liabilities and penalties and may even result in the temporary blockage or complete shutdown of our online operations.”
Under a section titled “Risks Relating to Doing Business in China,” the company cites as a material risk not being able to censor user content quickly enough for the Chinese government, and describes a three-day period in March 2012 when Weibo disabled commenting completely so censors could “clean up” all content regarding a topic. The company did not disclose the topic but the Wall Street Journal reported in March 2012 that China put temporary restrictions on Sina, Weibo’s parent company, as well as Tencent, a rival microblogging service, and that it was “detaining individuals that it accused of spreading rumors of a coup attempt in Beijing.” That week, according to the Journal story, Sina and Tencent placed identical notices on their web sites, warning users that the ability to comment on posts was being shut down for three days.
Rest of article.
And that does not even take into account the amount of money wasted dealing with rumors because no one trusts the state-run media to fairly report news.
Social media sites offer a chance for people to swap stories, but like the game of “Telephone,” what starts out at the beginning is not necessarily what comes out at the end. If the Chinese government were really serious about preventing social unrest, it would drop its censorship and let reporters freely and accurately report what is going on. It would also stop blocking open discussions among the people in China.
But then again, that might destabilize the iron grip the Communist party has on everything. They would have to give up power. And that — to them — is too destabilizing and dangerous.