While sitting in a model home in Stone Cliff,
where I practice real estate, I had a short conversation with an associate of
mine who, while talking of some recent travels to the wall of China, mentioned
current pro-democracy protests. I was
taken aback because I, being the newshound that I am, generally learn about
such things before anyone else. After
the conversation, I quickly pulled up a news article from Reuters. Reuters is, in my opinion, less biased than
other sites that claim to be news outlets, however as I read the article and
tried to be critical, I noticed a few things.
If I were neutral in the fact
that I favored neither a communist or democratic government, I would have at
least mentioned why the current communist government had placed in the
restrictions to the upcoming elections.
In its second paragraph, the article paints the police as ruthless in
the next the protesters are singing songs and chanting slogans. Rationally, I can’t think why police would
charge peaceful protests and the article failed to mention if there was
destruction of property or other issues of violence by the protesters. In such large groups there are seldom times
when they are free of violent instigators.
I have opinions on Chinese
censorship, but from a neutral position it seems odd that an article would not
state reasons for police aggression.
Contrasting this article to the recent protests in Ferguson, a Reuters
article indicated that the police used tear gas and stun grenades but the
article quickly pointed out that the reaction by the police was a response to
violent action from the protestors.
Reuters and those who it employees are largely from countries with high
emphasis on democracy and freedom of the press.
This fact certainly could influence the truth that if they were to
publish such a story in China, it would be immediately censored. In other words free press is the enemy of
Chinese government, does it make sense for the enemy to try to do a neutral
reporting on something occurring in that country that could ultimately benefit the
press itself?
I personally believe the Chinese
government be way over restrictive and believe that although the protests must
have some aggressive elements in them, the police response is over
reactive. I think it’s interesting
however to see this kind of argument from another angle even if subscribe to a
different point of view.
This is a great subject to discuss. Democracy does look different to those who live in it than to those who want it. China in the recent past has relaxed its iron grip with firm communist style rule, but they are still communist. The police are required by their laws to use force to subdue any sign of rebellion. They still strictly censor the internet and demand all foreigners living there to re-enter the country on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is difficult because the leaders have gotten fat off of the money that comes in from Hong Kong. They don't want to lose that. It will be interesting to see how this turns out and how the media will spin it.
I find it interesting that no matter where humans are or what limitations they have become compliant to, the human spirit seems to always long for freedom. I wonder if those in power over others would want to be subjected to the same restrictions themselves. I wonder if the people of North Korea have any awareness of the pro-democracy protests on that side of the globe. I say good for them for challenging the status quo!!
ReplyDelete