Prejudice: A Natural Outcome of Censorship

China Digital Times pulled a great item from an interview with Chinese publisher Bao Pu and writers Guo Xiaolu and Hao Qun (who goes by the pen name Murong Xuecun) from the June 3 issue of Foreign Policy.

The blockage of the Internet by the Chinese government means, said the authors and publisher, that people are not getting enough information to make rational decisions.

[R]elatively few people actually bypass censored information on the Internet. But why? Censorship in the long run breeds prejudice. Once you have this prejudice, you think you know everything, but you don’t. That’s why they’re not actively seeking — because they think there’s nothing out there. It’s a vicious cycle.

I have long argued that censorship means the people of a country will begin to rely more on rumors and prejudices than on cold hard facts. China’s rulers, however, say too much unregulated (censored) information leads to social instability.

What they really mean is that once people start thinking critically, the iron-heel rule of the Communist Party in China will be weakened.

And what goes for China goes for other dictatorships. Think Iran, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe. Even the leaders in proto-dictatorships such as Singapore and Malaysia want to control all forms of media to protect their hold on power.

Forbidden Voices: A film about women standing up to dictators

Three women who are standing up to dictators are featured in a new documentary “Forbidden Voices” by Swiss director Barbara Miller.

The women come from Cuba (Yoani Sánchez), Iran (Farnaz Seifi) and China (Zeng Jinyan)

Seems to be a film worth watching.

No one said dictators were stupid, just brutal

Fareed Zakaria brought to the forefront the real issue in dealing with dictatorships. (How dictators have evolved with the times)

It is just not possible anymore for the bosses in China or Iran or Cuba to pull off a good old fashion purge by killing hundreds or thousands of people. Too many people have access to mobile phones and the Internet.

So the dictators need to be more subtle. Instead of constant crack downs, the repression is focused.

Zakaria explains it best:

Consider China. There’s a new study out this week by three political scientists at Harvard. They’ve devised a way to analyze millions of social media posts in China. What’s special is that they claim to do this before the Chinese government gets to censor them – so it provides a unique insight not just into what the Chinese people think, but also what the government deems necessary to censor.

What do they find? Contrary to what you’d think, it turns out criticisms of the state are not more likely to get censored. Even vitriolic criticisms are allowed. Instead, the focus is on stopping mass mobilization. Last year Beijing blocked internet searches for Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution” to prevent discussions about the Arab Spring. Similarly last week searches for the numbers 4/6 were censored – the numbers represented June 4th, the anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

But for anyone following what the leadership in Beijing has done for the past few years, this is no surprise. It is nice to have it put in context.

Other ways, of course, are to follow the path of Hugo Chavez Venezuela. His government enacts laws that make it a crime to criticize the government in the media. And, at the same time, he sends out party loyalists to threaten and vandalize the independent media that is left.

Like I said: Just because they are dictators doesn’t mean they are stupid.

People’s Daily Admits: “Chinese media must sing the main theme”

No more hiding behind democracy with Chinese characteristics or “our own of version of press freedom.” The mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China said it straight out: There cannot be free press in China as long as the Communist Party rules.

Thanks to the China Media Project for Who is Beijing Daily speaking for?

CMP reports that an editorial in the paper criticized “commercial newspapers and magazines” in China of being infected with Western notions of journalism. (That would be things like asking questions instead of taking dictation and seeking out views other than the official version of a situation.)

The  editorial says Western concepts of the media’s role do not suit China’s unique “circumstances”.

 “Chinese media must sing the main theme,” the editorial said, a reference to the media’s role as propaganda vehicles for the CCP. “This is determined by China’s political system, and accords with the realities of China as a nation of 1.3 billion people. The fact is that for China to develop it must maintain social stability, and it must create a public opinion environment conducive to stability.”

So it is the same old meme that party/government must control the media to ensure stability.

They seem to keep missing the point that NO ONE in China trusts the state-controlled media. More people depend on word of mouth, text messages and Internet chatrooms/micro-blogs for news.

And we all know how reliable all those outlets are. (Ever play the game of “telephone” with 10 people? Try it with several hundreds of millions.)

Here is the bottom line for the folks at Zhongnanhai: Controlling the media leads to rumors. Rumors lead to inaccurate reports. Inaccurate reports lead to distrust in the government. Distrust of the government leads to instability.

The “Western” alternative: A free press dispels rumors with facts. With facts people see potential solutions to problems and tend not to panic. When people don’t panic stability is achieved.

Maybe these concepts are too simple for the party leadership to grasp.

Oh, and this goes for all dictatorships. You listening Syria, Cuba, Iran and Saudi Arabia? (Freedom House Press Freedom Index)

Top 10 Censored Countries.

CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney counts down the 10 countries where the press is most tightly restricted

China didn’t make the list but not from lack of trying.

China not most censored, but may be most ambitious