CCTV "attacking" Baidu

The usual bias is there: calling a piece of investigative journalism by CCTV on a major corporation as an "attack".

Even disregarding that, the author seems to argue that because the harassment is coming from users of Baidu's forum, that Baidu has no responsibility in this matter. (With the implication that China is once again, being heavy-handed and/or unreasonable.)

That is, of course, complete bollocks. If the Pirate Bay can be prosecuted for hosting torrent files (which are user-uploaded) of copyrighted content, then why shouldn't Baidu be responsible for the kind of illegal actions that occur due to activity on their site?

The difficulty is that there is no Western equivalent to this phenomenon. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Chinese Netizens are far more likely to carry a grudge out of the virtual world and into the real world.

solarz said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The usual bias is there: calling a piece of investigative journalism by CCTV on a major corporation as an "attack".

Even disregarding that, the author seems to argue that because the harassment is coming from users of Baidu's forum, that Baidu has no responsibility in this matter. (With the implication that China is once again, being heavy-handed and/or unreasonable.)

That is, of course, complete bollocks. If the Pirate Bay can be prosecuted for hosting torrent files (which are user-uploaded) of copyrighted content, then why shouldn't Baidu be responsible for the kind of illegal actions that occur due to activity on their site?

The difficulty is that there is no Western equivalent to this phenomenon. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Chinese Netizens are far more likely to carry a grudge out of the virtual world and into the real world.

Click to expand...

uh oh... I'm watching the new "Journey to the West" on Baidu, which seems to be the only website showing the series. Does this mean they are going to block it? I happen to like the new show...

I think this is actually rather healthy. Having competing civil interests shows a healthy society at work, and can encourage political and social institutions to create mechanisms to resolve conflicts (good for stability).

I would be very wary of what you read in the Murdoch owned press regarding China. His fall out with Beijing is legendary, following their blocking of his attempts to significantly expand his media empire there.

SampanViking said:

I would be very wary of what you read in the Murdoch owned press regarding China. His fall out with Beijing is legendary, following their blocking of his attempts to significantly expand his media empire there.

Click to expand...

You know, that makes a lot of sense actually. Most people don't usually think about this, but all of the various so-called "free press" in the West are actually owned by a select few corporations. It's an oligarchy.

solarz said:

You know, that makes a lot of sense actually. Most people don't usually think about this, but all of the various so-called "free press" in the West are actually owned by a select few corporations. It's an oligarchy.

Click to expand...

Well, like I said in another thread...free press is not unbiased press. It just means you can have multiple sources to come to your own conclusions.

latenlazy said:

Well, like I said in another thread...free press is not unbiased press. It just means you can have multiple sources to come to your own conclusions.

Click to expand...

Free press works on the same idea as free speech: it's supposed to overcome bias and propaganda by giving a voice to all view points. However, if the "free press" is controlled by a small number of corporations with similar agendas, then you really can't call it "free press" anymore.

This is especially evident in western media. If we acknowledge the above: that all media sources are biased, and that a citizen is supposed to get a balanced view of the world by taking into consideration all the available view points, then that is evidently not happening.

On the contrary, Liberals and Conservatives stick to their own news sources, and both dismiss Xinhua as a "Communist Party Mouthpiece".

latenlazy said:

Well, like I said in another thread...free press is not unbiased press. It just means you can have multiple sources to come to your own conclusions.

Click to expand...

An illusion of multiple sources; fixed that for you.

Engineer said:

An illusion of multiple sources; fixed that for you.

Click to expand...

Well, whoever said you had to read the press of just one country

solarz said:

Free press works on the same idea as free speech: it's supposed to overcome bias and propaganda by giving a voice to all view points. However, if the "free press" is controlled by a small number of corporations with similar agendas, then you really can't call it "free press" anymore.

This is especially evident in western media. If we acknowledge the above: that all media sources are biased, and that a citizen is supposed to get a balanced view of the world by taking into consideration all the available view points, then that is evidently not happening.

On the contrary, Liberals and Conservatives stick to their own news sources, and both dismiss Xinhua as a "Communist Party Mouthpiece".

Click to expand...

The assumption that you could have enough viewpoints to know everything is a fallacy, as is the assumption that if you get all viewpoints you would be able to overcome bias. Also, the assumption that you would naturally go towards a balanced view of the world just because every viewpoint is available is also faulty (ie the Fox News MSNBC example, where the sides being presented are not simply created by the news industry, but by their audiences who choose those sources over the alternative). I'm not advocating that this notion of free press removes bias or will reveal all sides/provide balance. I'm just saying it's considerably better to have competing views than not. No matter how free or not your press is, one should never treat the news as the final say.

Also keep in mind, there's always going to be a tension between organized interest and open and free press. You can't have mass media without organized interests, but you can't incorporate or represent every viewpoint with organized interests either. Still, that does not invalidate the effect, just the scope. If we're talking about an ideal free press it wouldn't exist simple because to have the press is to have an organized interest. That does not mean one cannot have a media that's more or less freer than another.

latenlazy said:

Well, whoever said you had to read the press of just one country

Click to expand...

But most people do.

The assumption that you could have enough viewpoints to know everything is a fallacy, as is the assumption that if you get all viewpoints you would be able to overcome bias. Also, the assumption that you would naturally go towards a balanced view of the world just because every viewpoint is available is also faulty (ie the Fox News MSNBC example, where the sides being presented are not simply created by the news industry, but by their audiences who choose those sources over the alternative). I'm not advocating that this notion of free press removes bias or will reveal all sides/provide balance. I'm just saying it's considerably better to have competing views than not. No matter how free or not your press is, one should never treat the news as the final say.

Also keep in mind, there's always going to be a tension between organized interest and open and free press. You can't have mass media without organized interests, but you can't incorporate or represent every viewpoint with organized interests either. Still, that does not invalidate the effect, just the scope. If we're talking about an ideal free press it wouldn't exist simple because to have the press is to have an organized interest. That does not mean one cannot have a media that's more or less freer than another.

Click to expand...

What actually happens is that the main stream media constructs two manufactured goal posts in which opinions are allow but everything outside its shunned. Simply saying there are certain opinion differences in the media does not in any way demonstrate how "free" or truthful it is. Two people lying at the same time does not produce any truth.