|
A. China is our biggest economic rival, and it controls its press, giving it and other authoritarian nations an advantage in wielding their power vs. the West.
B. The U.S. press at times has shied away from coming right out and flatly mentioning China's press controls.
C. How China's economy is defeating the USA.
D. How long will USA world economic power continue?
E. If the ultimate happens ... economic or military war ... will the USA eventually just give up and accept domination?
SUMMARY
Our media seem to be attacking the USA and giving favorable publicity to enemy nations, or glossing over their flaws, even though these nations (like China) have a news media controlled by the government. The Far East may supplant the USA as an economic power because of our, and the press', failure to address key problems.
BLOOKERS: do you agree or disagree that the American press is much more likely to negatively report on the U.S. than it is about authoritarian nations? Is the USA going down the tubes economically? Make sure to post your opinion.
TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP
 A. A key factor in winning any war ... economic, political or military ... is the ability of the government to maintain the support of its population. We lost in Vietnam. Despite the 9-11 attacks and known risks to the USA, most media paint a negative picture of our involvements in the Middle East. They never cover the horrible possibilities of what might happen if we leave Iraq.
Our press knows there is no system without fault, but stories assigning blame attract audiences and profits. Perfection is not attainable, so the media have an endless supply of USA mistakes and faults which they repeat to create more stories.
In China, the government controls most media stories. The Chinese must accept the government position. China's many faults and harms receive little or no attention from the China or the USA press. There is never a USA vs. China comparison showing the difference between living in a democratic, free country like ours vs. living in an authoritarian, communist country like China.
As the result of mainly negative news coverage, we are losing confidence in our system. We will not "lose the war" with lslam fundamentalists, Russia and China. Instead, like Rome, we will commit suicide because the public does not have the will and commitment needed to defend against our more aggressive opponents.
Many countries have become a viable economic competitor now that they have found ways to penetrate the world's intellectual defense of its knowhow. Many people will agree that we are in an economic war. With our free press, though it helps make our democracy strong, the USA cannot control the thinking of its people. Does this put us at a serious disadvantage when competing with countries that do control their press?
PRESS AMNESIA LESSENS
B. The Sanlu contaminated baby milk powder scandal dashed hopes that China would ease up on its official censorship of the press after hosting the Summer Olympics.
The toxin-laced formula made 53,000 infants sick and killed four, resulting in the dismissal of the country's head of food and product safety, according to an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal by Phelim Kine of the Human Rights Watch, a group that has been critical of China's control of the media and Internet.
"On Aug. 2, China's dairy product giant Sanlu Group asked government officials in Hebel province to 'increase control and coordination of the media' " in reporting the situation, Kine wrote. "Sanlu's appeal worked. China's state-controlled media didn't break the story until Sept. 10" ... after New Zealand had demanded that China stop covering it up.
At least the Olympics forced, or at least prompted, some of the USA press to stop overlooking the common news control by China.
The Washington Post (Edward Cody) and New York Times (Andrew Jacobs) both reported, on July 31, that China had reneged ... surprise, surprise ... on its promise to allow open access to the Internet to visiting journalists covering the Games, which began Aug. 8.
Cody said sites considered politically sensitive by the Chinese would be blocked, such as those run by Amnesty International, the Falun Gong spiritual movement, Tibet independence sympathizers, etc. He said China "employs an extensive array of monitoring software to comb through whatever people call up on their screens" and blocks sites targeted by the ruling Communist Party's censorship equipment, "which is backed up by an estimated 30,000 monitors employed by the Public Security Bureau."
 At the Beijing International Media Center, reporters could access Wikipedia's home page but not search the site, Cody wrote. Major global news sites were available, but the BBC's Chinese-language site was blocked.
Sun Weide, a spokesman for the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games, said the banned sites aren't part of the athletic events and shouldn't be of interest to these reporters.
Jacobs noted that the restrictions "closely resemble the blocks that China places on the Internet for its citizens." He said the action undermines the argument by Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic committee president, "that one of the main benefits of awarding the Games to Beijing was that the event would make China more open."
However, as the Games went on, and in their aftermath, censorship proved a non-issue ... all the fuss about it beforehand disappeared as everyone focused on the athletic competition. It will be interesting to see if there was some change on this point in China or if the old ways will creep back.
A previous good reporting example: In an article March 8 in the New York Times on China planning to impose fuel economy standards on new cars, Keith Bradsher noted that "as yet, there has been no mention of the approval of the new rules in the government-controlled Chinese media."
The Wall Street Journal also showed a good effort on March 21 with a fairly extensive article by Jane Spencer and Kevin J. Delaney on foreign government press controls, the peg this time being China cutting off access to YouTube after the site hosted videos from Tibet including monks being dragged through the streets by Chinese soldiers. The story noted, "bans on Western web sites are routine in China, where the government has tightly controlled the flow of information." It went on to detail YouTube censorship disputes in Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Morocco.
This is exactly the type of coverage that should be given. It hasn't always been the case.
 In a story in the Washington Post on Feb. 29 from Shenyang, China, correspondent Cody reported at length on the nation's enthusiasm for the Summer Olympics but mentioned censorship only in passing. He noted that "managing China's image through the Olympics celebration is a major concern of party censors as well." His story did not mention how much censoring there might be and how it would be done.
Last year, reporting from Shanghai for the Los Angeles Times, Don Lee and Mark Magnier wrote of the suicide of the manager of a plant that manufactured Fisher-Price toys. Mattel recalled nearly a million of the toys because they were contaminated with lead paint. Not a word from the journalistic duo about whether news of this incident was censored in China.
One of our Blookers gives us a first-hand report of what goes on. He travels on business to China nearly monthly. He uses the "News" page on Google to get his news of the day. It's almost always available in China but occasionally that page "cannot be found" on his computer. "Sometimes it is blocked or censored ... Another example of China censorship was on my trip to Shanghai on March 20. This was near the beginning of the unrest in Tibet. In the hotel room, I was watching CNN. When the news feature became the Tibet unrest and demonstrations, I watched with interest. After a minute or so, the TV stopped broadcasting. The screen was black and there was no sound. Then, three or four minutes later, the TV resumed. CNN was already covering another subject." (See Kyle's full report under this topic in Member Postings.)
One tiny suspected restriction on media in the USA would be front page. In China, permanent restrictions have often been accepted by the U.S. press without complaint. Why?
Our media cannot change China policy. That is China's business. But our media have been wrong in reporting or accepting as truth any reports in China government-controlled media. Our journalists should tell the public about the press controls.
HOW CHINA'S ECONOMY IS DEFEATING THE USA
C. This section discusses the recent book “In the Jaws of the Dragon -- America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony.”
 The author, Eamonn Fingleton, is the former editor of Forbes and Financial Times and has many credentials. His main thrust is that USA leaders have misjudged the superiority and weaknesses of our democratic system.
The USA/Washington view has been betting that “sooner or later China's economic progress will create internal conditions for a democratic regime that will be more stable and less of an economic rival. This common view is a flattering regard for western culture.
“The second bet – that of Chinese leadership – is that China can be both rich and authoritarian.”
Anyone who studies the book must ask, “How do we know democracy will be the winner in the present competitive world?” Democracy has never been tested in a political or economic war against a Confucian system that has modern manufacturing and scientific knowledge ... as China does now. We just accept the unproven ideology that democracy is best regardless of world competition and the self- imposed handicaps we put on our success. For the last 50 years, our spotty success in warfare in the Middle East and Southeast Asia and our trade imbalance are not reassuring.
The more obvious features of the Chinese economic model:
-- A labyrinth of trade barriers. (The USA continues to reduce its protection of local business.)
-- An artificially undervalued currency.
-- An industrial policy that focuses on developing so-called pillar industries while using export subsidies and other unfair tactics to give them a competitive advantage in world markets.
-- Systematic pressure on foreign companies to transfer their most advanced production technology to China.
“A key difference is that authoritarian controls constitute a hindrance to the full efficiency of capitalism (but) such controls are essential to the functioning of the East Asian system. Therefore democracy has developed elaborate systems for dividing and breaking up power as a fact of life. It (Asia) has developed elaborate systems for insuring that power is used for the long-term national good."
Fingleton continues, “One way in which power is deployed to economic advantage in China -- as in other East Asian economies -- is in savings policy. China’s famously high savings rate is imposed on the nation from above."
How is this done?
Fingleton thinks westerners "suffer a crucial blind spot in that they assume that a nation's savings rate is determined by the millions of freely made decisions by individual savers. In reality, individual decision making has little to do with it. ... In their utterly un-western approach to savings and consumption, Chinese leaders boast a devastating secret weapon ... they established a highly ingenious, almost invisible administrative ability to force society to save."
He goes so far as to call it "one of the great turning points in world history. It is a fair bet that in its long-term geopolitical implications, it will prove the most consequential geopolitical change agent since Henry the Navigator launched the Age of Discovery in the Fifteenth Century."
The reason East Asians save is simple, he writes: "they are not allowed to consume." Various policies, many of them quite indirect, create this effect. They include trade barriers, credit controls, anti-consumer land policies, corporate price gouging and travel restrictions. To ensure the savings are invested productively, “Asian officials organize cartels and other devices to curb overcapacity and ensure that corporations' investment returns are adequate.” Presently USA bonds are doing this as the USA becomes more dependent on Chinese funds.
Selective enforcement is the main way China controls its people and businesses. The USA depends on known laws. Chinese laws are overly complete and detailed, but most are not enforceable or enforced ... until the government or Communist Party selects a target. Such action is absolutely illegal in the USA and prevented. Yet China’s control of its people and business depends on it. Most Chinese people understand there is no acceptance of opposition to the government, so they toe the line.
In China, there is no protection from public officials like we receive from the Fourth through Eighth amendments (protection from unreasonable search and seizure; protection of due process; criminal trial by jury and rights of the accused; civil trial by jury; prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment). China knows this is a huge advantage when competing, but our media and educators seldom discuss the advantages of our rule by known laws and penalties. Selective enforcement decided by the government of party is the opposite of democracy, but effective in most cases.
Our systems are directed to maximize freedom of the individual. Our press and people cannot visualize the extreme restrictions on individual freedom in China and the lack of restrictions on what the government can to the individual. Our press seldom mentions this because doing so would limit their future access to Chinese news sources. With such self-censoring, there is no way the American people can get a fair picture of our main opposition.
Without that government control, we may question if the Chinese people would accept the limitations on consumption. Certainly Americans would revolt before accepting consumption limitations, but we are so far in debt, that may be the only solution.
As a nation, we must recognize our weaknesses and shore them up. Only disaster will come if we continue to ignore our debt problem. Some say the solution can wait 20 years. But unless we soon move toward correction, the loss of confidence in the dollar could destroy our economy in a couple years,
China and similar authoritarian regimes are winning the economic and political wars now underway. Until recently, they did not have the technology or organization to fight us. Now they do ... partly as the result of our giving them our production and technological knowhow.
Why did so many top American corporations do so? Americans started out with an almost infinitely strong negotiating position, Fingleton says, "but nonetheless proceeded to give away the store." Boardrooms "hungry for huge short-term profits have hitherto been prepared to ignore long-term negatives such as weakened control or valuable production and engineering secrets and a damaged public relations image in the American heartland (but) in the absence of the excess profits currently generated by their Chinese factories, a much more sober view would prevail."
The gift to China was made without “attaching human rights or other conditions” or collecting adequate compensation for the knowhow given. This may have done more damage to our future than any other error. The press, public and politicians have not yet adjusted to the realities of the new competition and the scary results. Obama and McCain are in an ideal position to institute corrective measures (some suggestions appear later in this topic). We hope they have the courage and moxie to really make changes.
Disadvantages our democracy must overcome in competing on the world scene:
-- Any winner must have a team that pulls together – our system nurtures fragmenting.
-- Finding fault with self – not protecting self.
-- We are fighting our own press to protect the country. Most of our opposition controls the press.
-- The willingness of corporations to give away knowhow at low cost to increase profits and bonuses.
-- Political fighting (egged on by media) saps the country and prevents timely or tough decisions.
-- Our system fragments the country by stressing differences instead of similarities within the population.
-- Making life easy became a USA goal by deficit borrowing and few politicians have the courage to say it or stop it.
-- The fear of our political leaders to admit these truths is the greatest weakness of our system.
BLOOKERS: You don't see a list of disadvantages of democracy very often. How do you react to this? Be sure to post your opinion.
Below is a comparison of the two systems ... American and Chinese. It shows the Chinese system is hugely different, with much less freedom of public action and thinking, but many advantages when competing commercially, politically or militarily. Unfortunately, the global results in the last few years favor the Confucian system over democracy.
A Comparison of Democratic and Authoritarian Government Features
| CONTROL ISSUES |
DEMOCRACY’S WAY TO SOLVE PROBLEM |
AUTHORITARIAN SOLUTION |
| Control of marketing, business and banking system |
Minimum govt control with no govt policy for investing assets |
Max govt control including setting policies(even including govt approval) for investing assets |
| Visibility of govt to press and public |
Almost completely open |
Minimum possible visibility to all. Govt controls press directly or indirectly |
| Internet control |
Almost no govt control |
Max govt control -- with penalties for complaining about government |
| Legal system |
Rule by known laws* and systems |
Selective enforcement at choice of leaders |
| Private debt control* |
Market and individual’s choice |
“Forced savings” by limiting public access to product and cash and property |
| Public debt control* |
Politician and public decisions |
Govt planners |
| Control of news content |
Little control ... most by reporters and media. |
Govt censors, rulemakers and regulations. |
| Goal of govt and public. |
Perfection and public and media acceptance of actions |
Progress and world domination for the country. |
|
*To highlight the differences, none of the USA Bill of Rights protections are accepted in China. We quibble continually about tiny discrepancies from the Bill of Rights and enforcement of our laws, but the Chinese have almost no protections from government actions. Until reading "Jaws of the Dragon," I (the site founder) had no inkling of the handicaps that our democracyby its very natuare places on our business and military communities when they try to compete with the Chinese overseas.
|
THE USA's HIDDEN ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
D. Until the economic tumult of September, the news media and candidates didn't spend much time on fiscal policies most agree are ruining our country, like the national debt. The USA has been a spendthrift for 20 years and lived a soft life by borrowing more money. This option is available to all countries, but most reject it as dangerous. It is about to catch up with us as the interest we must pay goes up when lenders become more reluctant.
The USA is addicted to consumption. To pay for our borrowing, we must borrow $800 billion yearly. This adds to our present debt of $3 trillion. We consume 6 percent more than we produce. Increasingly, more of the world does not want dollars. Soon there will be a "flight from the dollar."
Much of the reporting on the recent crisis focused on bailouts ... bailout of Bear Stearns, bailout of American International Group, bailout of Fannie Mae, bailout of Freddie Mac, etc.
And much of the reporting made it clear who would be doing the bailing ... why, the federal government, of course.
But bailing from what? You need a source to bail from to bail out to.
Give the Wall Street Journal credit for a couple stories in its Sept. 20-21 edition (page B-16) that focused on the underreported problem of our national debt. David Reilly noted that if the government gives troubled banks full price on its bad loans, as some banks are now demanding, that will add to the national debt. Peter Eavis noted that the national debt will probably rise through the next several years, especially as enormous spending also will be needed to shore up Medicare and Social Security with baby boomers retiring.
A more typical example of the press' reluctance to examine our true problems came in the form of a Q&A by Tom Herman on the $1,200-per-family stimulus plan as President Bush was getting ready to sign it, on page D1 of the Feb. 13 Journal.
The reporter dutifully led off with "How much will I get?" as a question readers would ask, and proceeded to others like "Why did Congress impose income limits?" and "Will Uncle Sam tax these payments?" But he failed to ask "Where does this money come from?" or "How will the nation pay for this program?", as if the money were somehow just floating down from heaven.
COMPARING THE USA
The USA should be compared to other countries, not just to a standard of perfection ... and not a comparison with only the best of all other countries in a single category, but other countries across a diversified scale.
Although our news media paint many USA actions in a bad light, our attraction for immigrants from much of the world suggests we are the best place to live with unsurpassed freedom, democracy and standard of living.
Yet today we seldom hear the media saying anything favorable about America, but much unfavorable. This has damaged our spirit, confeidence and the future of all citizens. The USA is the world leader in acceptance of gender, race and religion diversity.
BLOOKERS: can you name one other country that is superior to the USA across the board, and if so, why?
IF THE ULTIMATE HAPPENS ... WILL THE USA JUST GIVE UP?
BLOOKERS: here's a rather dramatic point of view for you to look at and ponder. Is it too contrarian/libertarian/liberal/radical/conservative to be even brought up? Well, let us know ... it's intended to catch your attention and focus on this topic in the ultimate way.
E. The problem: our present USA democratic free press society cannot defend itself against authoritarian controlled-press opposition.
The USA, and most of the free democratic world, complains incessantly, but is so satisfied it will not struggle to save itself. We may not have the will or desire to fight or win a military, social, economic or political war. Much of the rest of the world has the will or desire to do it.
Here are the possible solutions.
1) Our best hope is that the authoritarian leaders voluntarily change to democracy and free press. What is your estimate of the odds this will occur? Zero chance. Why should they give up a winning hand?
2) The next best peaceful worldwide solution is that Chinese, Russian and Muslim fundamentalists people will force a free press on their own countries. If they did, all countries would then compete on an equal basis. The USA would compete as it has through its history. Chance of it occurring: little.
Why? The leaders in authoritarian countries will not voluntarily give up their almost absolute power. Their peoples will not force it as long as they are making their present economic progress. In a war, their leaders (with no free press) will have the public support and will to hang in ... long after the USA has committed suicide.
3) Another solution is for our press to start favoring the USA as it did before the Vietnam war. If our press supports our opponents, we cannot win any war (unless there's a tremendous military disparity).
Any war is terrible and full of mistakes. After the Sullivan Supreme Court decisions giving the press much more immunity, and the Vietnam war, the press started honestly telling of the war's problems. That overlooks the fact that no one has won a war if their population is given the opposition's view.
This Mideast war probably has been the most error-free and humane of all wars ...-- but that care is never mentioned in our press. Instead, old errors are rerun to make a story. In Abu Ghraib prison in 2003, seven soldiers subjected prisoners to inexcusable indecencies nude ... completely contrary to orders.
The press continues to use this event to make stories to prove USA tortures. The seven were sentenced in 2004 to up to 10 years in prison. Their action was against army rules and the soldiers knew it. It is still about the only example the press has to accuse our military of torture, but it is replayed continually even today after five years to condemn the USA.
Having to repeat the same case shows how few examples exist. There is no press comment that ours is probably the most atrocity free war ever fought. Our press ignores the daily atrocities in sectarian violence.
All wars are covered poorly, including WW I and II. However, after WWII, the coverage often included reporting (favoring) our opposition's viewpoint. Though much of that opposition reporting may have been accurate, we (no one) can win a war with such adverse continuous domestic reporting. A war is hell even if "winning." No country can overcome negative press. Doing so will destroy America and its almost free press.
4) Another peaceful solution is to have a worldwide public surge for democracy and free press elsewhere. Authoritarian leaders will not allow that.
5) The easiest (best?) solution is for the USA press to stop creating stories that favor our opposition. We then can win the wars and maintain peace. But journalists probably will not reduce their support of our opposition even if they agree it hurts the USA. We therefore will have to accept a collapse in USA world domination ... dollar, leadership and happy life.
6) Unless 1, 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 occur, we cannot defend against controlled press countries. We and they know they have a huge advantage in active military or economic warfare because they control their press and therefore the population's morale. This is about the first time since Rome when the "outsider" civilizations had the power to damage those in control.
In peace, a free press has many advantages for the public, but in wartime it is an anchor if it does not support the country. Many say the answer is simply to have no war, but that will turn the world over to non-free press countries without democracy. The non-democracy leaders want more, not less, power and have the power to get it. It will boil down to a completely free vs. controlled press conflict. They will not give up. We will.
This is not "conservative thinking," but facing facts history has already proven. Conservatives may want to fight. The liberal, libertarian, peace factions may ultimately get some sort of "peace," but that will not eliminate wars in the rest of the world or in the USA. Humans will be human -- despite logic. We will further be pressured to sacrifice our democracy and a free press to compete in an oil-dominated world.
Ultimately the USA will have to accept domination by some of the non-free countries. The open question is whether before that, the USA will fight a futile military or economic war to defend itself. Unless our press stops supporting our opponents, if we cannot win a war, we should not fight one. As a result, a large part of our life is destined to be ruined.
BLOOKERS: OK, pick yourselves up off the floor. Do you agree or disagree with this apocalyptic view? Be sure to post your opinion.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
