Three women who are standing up to dictators are featured in a new documentary “Forbidden Voices” by Swiss director Barbara Miller.
Seems to be a film worth watching.
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.
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)
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.
Looks as if the Syrian and Iranian governments are dead set against allowing their people express their opinions. Two stories in recent days make it very clear.
The Syrian action makes it more dangerous each day for professional and citizen journalists to report on the government’s attacks on demonstrators.
Now, journalists documenting the uprising are prime targets of the security forces, said Mohamed Abdel Dayem of the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York.
“They are snatched from their homes, off the street or place of employment and held incommunicado,” he said. Although the contributors to Syria Wants Freedom and Hurriyat have not been arrested, all kinds of media workers have been detained, including those who worked as reporters before the revolution, bloggers such as the activist Razan Ghazzawi, and people who are not journalists in the traditional sense but have documented protests on mobile phones and uploaded the footage online, he said.
In Iran, the government is taking a page out of China’s book and tightening control of the Internet, including placing cameras in Internet cafes.
In the most sweeping move, Iran issued regulations giving Internet cafes 15 days to install security cameras, start collecting detailed personal information on customers and document users’ online footprints.
Until now, Iran’s cybercafes have been a youth-culture mainstay of most towns and neighborhoods, used not only by activists but also by other Iranians who believe the security of their home computers is already compromised.
None of this is surprising or unexpected. But it is clear — in both countries — that there is plenty of pushing back against the threats and intimidation from the governments.
What is clear is that like most dictatorships the Syrian and Iranian leadership are most fearful of their own people.
Interesting piece by Roy Greenslade in the Guardian.
This email serves as a formal invitation to you to participate in our occasional satellite/phone interviews mainly focusing on British domestic or international affairs.
Press TV is a 24-hour English-language global news network. It carries news analysis, documentary talk shows and sports news worldwide. The channel is available in most parts of the world via 14 satellites, as well as cable and internet in the United Kingdom (Sky channel 515).
The letter was sent by Press TV assistant producer Sara Alambeigi.
Then Greenslade makes his point:
What the email does not say is that Press TV is funded by the state of Iran and is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
It does not say that Press TV “was inaugurated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” in 2007. It does not say that Press TV broadcasts news reports and analyses which are close to the official position of the Iranian government (see Press TV pantomime).
It also fails to mention that its programmes are monitored and regulated by the Iranian state and that the 1979 constitution of the Islamic Republic mandates that “all broadcasting must exclusively be government-operated.”
Amazing how the forces working against freedom of press/speech keep using the same words as the real defenders.
Read the whole piece here: Dear Sir, would you like to broadcast on our impartial Iranian TV network?
Steve Buttry, Director of Student Media, LSU's Manship School of Mass Communication
Searching for Freedom via Social Media
blogs, the internet, and the new journalism