http://russia-insider.livejournal.com/25329.html

Tell me once more that the media is just fine.

I would like to try to make this a lucky day for Chinese people and for all of us by introducing the idea of praying for democracy in China.

Many Chinese people would regard the political system in China and respect of absence of respect for political human rights as an "internal affair". This is the favored language of those who would like to protect themselves from the critical eye of others in the international community.

But Martin Luther King, Jr., the great civil rights leader from the United States, wrote "A threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." (see link) China's economic power has been increasing at a dramatic rate, and with that economic power, political power is sure to follow. Some commentators are predicting that the Chinese economy will surpass the US economy in strength by the year 2025, in absolute terms. It may be even sooner if the value of the Chinese yuan continues to appreciate.

A person could argue that China has the right to choose to maintain a one party state, with censorship of the media, limitations on freedom of speech and expression, and control of groups and associations which are critical of the government, not to mention internet censorship. This argument would be easy to make in the case of a country like Zimbabwe, which is economically weak, and unlikely to have any real effect on other countries.

However, in the case of China, I think there is a fair argument that a government in China, which is as prohibitive on political freedoms as it currently is, could affect other countries in the world. The impact of China on other countries would be threefold- as an example in the world arena, by failing to encourage democracy and political rights in other countries, and by direct intervention in other countries.

On the first point, I would argue that there is a collective cognitive effect of governmental system worldwide, by which the existence, or lack of existence, of a certain governmental form in the world affects and constrains the choices leaders make. We can all easily surmise that dictators, or semi- dictators (who maintain power in a nominal democracy by curtailing the existing opposition), do not wish to let go of power, because power is intoxicating and actually leads to material profit in many cases. Even a young student can observe that dictators are often unwilling to let go of power. As such rulers and their parties look around the world, they inevitably compare their governance system to those of others. If they perceive that they are in large company, and that there are many others who conduct the same practice as their own, they will feel little pressure to change. And in fact from a practical perspective, the global community will find it difficult to bear pressure on them to reform or let go of power, since there are so many who hold onto power in that way. On the other hand, if such a leader looks around the world and sees that they are alone, they will feel increasingly isolated and will feel greater pressure to surrender to world opinion.

Thus I am arguing that the existence of China in its current form, and as a powerful country, will make dictators bolder, and less willing to reform or let go of power, as they will feel that they are not alone in this world.

Second, we can observe that many democratic countries in the world, as a normal part of diplomatic practice, undertake various strategies to encourage other regimes to respect political rights and undertake democratic practices. These are often controversial due to the perception of some people that there are hidden motives involved, or due to the specific strategies employed to bring about compliance. Yet we can predict, and observe in reality, that the Chinese government, in its relations with other countries, is not interested at all in democracy and political rights in other countries, and purely focuses on good diplomatic relations and accomplishing various economic objectives. Of course, this is highly welcome by those countries whose elites rule through authoritarian and unjust systems, as they would rather continue to rule without any challenge, whether internal or external. A mild conspiracy theory would hold that the Chinese government may even see it as in its own best interest to encourage dictatorial forms in other countries, to justify its own.

Third, and finally, as a growing power, and one which may eventually hold more power than any other country in the world, we must look to the future and wonder whether China at some point may begin to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries in order to engineer conditions which are in their favor. We have seen how the UK and the USA, and other powers such as France and the USSR, have conducted extensive activities in the past and the present with this objective. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Chinese government will conduct, and perhaps already is conducting, such activities.

The difference between China and, for example, the US, or other democratic countries, with political freedoms, is the role and existence of civil society and public opinion. While in the US, public opinion has been relatively weak in influencing US foreign policy, largely due to a relative ignorance of what the US government does overseas, there has nevertheless always been a small well informed minority which has questioned the foreign policy of the US, and in fact the opinions and viewpoints which they express may eventually be incorporated into the policy of the government. Individuals which are critical of the US policy may, in the environment of relative freedom of information, even be included in the government as an officer of the government, and influence policy in this way. (Some of the most critical voices of US policy often come from former US government officials, who may become a part of future governments under a different administration.)

The role of public opinion also limits what policies a democratic government will take, as they must always anticipate how the public will react. In any decision making calculus, the leadership must consider whether their actions will be accepted by the public. Thus, actions which are overtly ethically questionable are unlikely to be undertaken unless they can effectively be hidden from the populace.

Its hard to see how such a dynamic could exist in China with any effectiveness. The ability of Chinese citizens to question their government is largely curtailed. In the absence of elections with a truly independent opposition, there is no chance of a change in policy by a change in the party in power, and there are no opposition parties which can vocalize a criticism of the government's policies.

But the Chinese government is able to shape the very opinions of its populace, so that opposition, no matter how stifled and controlled, never comes to exist in the first place. By controlling access to certain types of information that it deems unfavorable (for example certain websites), and by controlling what can be written about in the press, it can effectively influence what Chinese people think. By preventing people from getting access to information or viewpoints which oppose their policy, they prevent people from being able to understand different perspectives and points of view on the issue. While no doubt there will always be a few independent minded dissidents, by preventing them from publishing their views in the media, the government can curtail their spread to other segments of the population. Most people, if they are never exposed to opposing viewpoints or information, will maintain positions which support the government.

This, in my view, makes China a potentially dangerous foreign policy actor. With little chance of internal opposition to its policies, the Chinese government will have a free hand to pursue the policies it chooses. Some have argued that, due to its Confucian ethic, and its inherent peaceful nature, that China will not interfere in other countries in the way that other powers, such as the US, have done. This seems like an entirely unlikely proposition. I see no reason to expect that China wold be any more peaceful than other countries, due to some cultural difference. Jesus Christ delivered a heavily pacifistic message to humanity, but this never prevented Christian nations from pursuing aggressive foreign policies.

I think the events in Tibet this year hold lessons for what we can expect from China. It should be noted that the Chinese government is most fond of blocking websites related to Tibet, Taiwan, Falun Gong, and the Tiananmen Square events in 1989. Amnesty International, for example, claims that its website is blocked in China.

I would like to think that if riots and demonstrations occurred in a democratic country, such as what occurred in Tibet earlier this year, that it would spark at least some public debate about the policies that the government had pursued, and questioning whether a different policy might not be better. Yet in relation to the events in Tibet, the Chinese government at first hid from the Chinese people that non- violent demonstrations were occurring, and then when full blown rioting started, they broadcast raw footage of the riots, with no commentary or interpretation about why this might be happening (and no mention of the previous days of non-violent demonstrations). The broadcasts focused on the "barbarity" of the rioters' actions. The Chinese people reacted with a roar of outrage at the human rights which had been violated by the killings and property destruction, with no mention or thought of potential human rights abuses of the Tibetan people which might have preceded the riots. The Chinese government media published heavily propagandized accounts of the events, blaming it all on the Dalai Lama, claiming that it had been organized by Tibetans in exile.

Of course, with no foreign media in Tibet, and a domestic media which is heavily controlled in its coverage of such sensitive issues, no one was in a position to question the official government line on the Tibet riots. A lone Chinese journalist, Chang Ping, who wrote a mildly critical account of the events and the backlash, lost his job a month later. (see link) Further, the Chinese government was able to engineer an angry backlash at foreign media coverage of the events in Tibet, so that the essential issue of whether the Chinese government's policy in Tibet is a good one, was essentially lost in a nationalistic fervor. To this day, the legacy of the event in China, is not a debate about whether the Chinese government is pursuing a good policy in Tibet, but rather a hardened perception on the part of Chinese people that the "Western" world has injured them, and that the "Western" media is eternally and unfairly biased against them.

I think this series of events is instructive of how foreign policy events in China might play out if the Chinese government remains as it is now, while maintaining the limits on political expression that it currently implements.

Chinese citizens whose positions I have read online typically assert that arguments for democracy must be tempered with a need for stability, and even question whether it is possible to achieve development within a democratic system. They argue that no country can change overnight, and that it will take time for China to become more democratic. Yet I note that most Western democratic countries are extremely stable, and I can't see how allowing more freedom of expression in China would lead to instability. It would, rather, allow people to express their views of the government freely, which would not be in the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. That is, the issue is not one of stability, but rather the policies are maintained to serve the interest of an elite which holds a monopoly on power. China may need time to change, yet in the last 6-7 years, the trend has been that the Chinese government has become more restrictive of political rights, rather than showing progress towards a gradual improvement.

The issue of democracy and political rights in China is not only an internal affair. It is something which may affect all of us. "A threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." Thus I feel no hesitation in encouraging others to pray for democracy in China on this day. Let it not only be a lucky day for the Chinese, but for all of us.

Some may wonder whether calling for prayer is not merely resorting to superstition. But even if one does not believe in God or prayer, praying for something is a way of channeling intention, of focusing and setting priorities. If it builds determination and focus, it may ultimately bring results.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Werbung: Paul Potts' CD "One Chance" bei Amazon.de bestellen

Die von Giacomo Puccini komponierte Arie rangiert derweil auf Platz drei der Media Control Charts - und erreicht damit die höchste Platzierung aller Zeiten eines "Download only"-Titels in den deutschen Single-Charts. Am 15. August wird "Nessun Dorma" schließlich auch als Single-CD veröffentlicht.

Zwei Tage zuvor, am 13. August, wird Paul Potts zu einem mehrtägigen Besuch in Deutschland erwartet. Neben zahlreichen TV-Interviews (u.a. im "SAT.1 Frühstücksfernsehen", "VIVA live") wird der 37-jährige Shootingstar auch beim Bundesligastart auftreten. Kurz vor der Partie FC Bayern München gegen den Hamburger SV, die live im Programm der ARD ausgestrahlt wird, präsentiert Potts in der Münchener "Allianz Arena" seine aktuelle Hitsingle "Nessun Dorma".

Scoopit!

Definitely election year, as see this comment by Anderton, in the DomPost, on whether we should have anti-siphoning laws:-

Mr Anderton told a Film Auckland event last night that a generation of young Kiwis was growing up without watching live cricket and rugby because they could not afford pay television.

Actually Adam doubts that.
This is more about an attitude towards business.

As noted here on more than one occasion, major sporting codes earn money from the sale of TV rights, consequently either they will lose some if not all of that money under 'anti-siphoning' rules - thus potentially causing them to lose players or taxpayers will have to top up the sports directly or via the public broadcaster.

Why?

Sports, professional sports, are a discretionary activity, why should the taxpayer pay for them.

Unless of course one subscribes to a world view where everything flows from the State.

Scoopit!

With a pattern clearly set what will National do to the already corporately owned media?

Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to increase government control over state TV yesterday sparked an outcry from his political opponents who accused him of tightening a Berlusconi-style grip on the airwaves and dragging France back into its dark age of postwar censorship and propaganda.

The French president's proposed "cultural revolution" for France's five state TV channels prompted an uproar when he announced that in future, he and his cabinet would appoint the head of French state TV, instead of an independent body.

Sarkozy, known as the Téléprésident, prides himself on his numerous TV appearances, carefully studies his own ratings and has privately confided that he would have liked to have been a TV executive. So it was no surprise that he took direct control of the project to overhaul French state TV. He argued that a government appointment of the head of France Televisions was more "democratic". This has reopened the festering row over the president's influence over the media and closeness to his press and TV baron friends who are willing to lean on, censor or even sack journalists who displease him.

Read more

In wenigen Tagen beginnt die Fußball-Europameisterschaft in Österreich und der Schweiz - die ersten wichtigen Entscheidungen sind allerdings bereits gefallen: Während Bundestrainer Jogi Löw in der vergangenen Woche die Kaderplanung für das Turnier abschloss, wurde in den Media Control der Wettbewerb um den erfolgreichsten Fußball-EM-Song ausgefochten. Einen Kantersieg konnte dabei die Hamburger Revolverheld landen: Ihre EM-Hyme "Helden 2008" sicherte sich vom Anstoß weg mit einem fulminanten Tempovorstoß einen Platz in der ersten Elf der deutschen Single-Charts und bescherte der Band mit einem New Entry auf Rang sechs den ersten Top-Ten-Hit der Karriere.

Helden 2008 - Premium CD hier bestellen

Helden 2008 - hier downloaden

Dabei verwiesen die Fünf mit dem offiziellen DFB-Fan-Song nicht nur die
komplette nationale als auch internationale Konkurrenz (bzw. deren Lieder) ins hintere Mittelfeld, sondern sichert sich für die kommenden Wochen einen Stammplatz in den Herzen und im Fankurven-Repertoire der Anhänger der deutschen Nationalmannschaft.

Am 6. Juni - ebenfalls rechtzeitig vor EM-Start - erscheint das letztjährige Top-3-Album der Band, "Chaostheorie", in einer Fussball-Edition. Der Longplayer enthält dann neben den bisherigen Hits „Ich werd’ die Welt verändern", "Du explodierst" und "Unzertrennlich" auch die neue Single "Helden 2008" sowie das bislang lediglich als B-Seite erhältliche Stück "Heimspiel". Eine limierte Auflage (CD+DVD) enthält überdies alle acht bisherigen Videoclips der Band, darunter "Freunde bleiben", "Ich werd’ die Welt verändern" und "Mit dir chilln".

Links
http://www.revolverheld.info/
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolverheld_(Band)
http://www.revolverheld-fanclub.de/

Interview mit den Jungs:
http://www.mister-wong.de/blog/revolverheld-im-spotlight-bei-mister-wong/2008/05/19/

Revolverheld live 2008

04.07. Tännesberg Radio Galaxy Sommer Open Air
01.08. Beratshausen Ccumpaxe Open Air
30.08. Haiger Jump to the Sun Festival
05.09. Hamburg Stadtpark
06.09. Hagen Seegeflüster Festival

Chaostheorie - CD hier bestellen

Chaostheorie - hier downloaden

Helden 2008 - Premium CD hier bestellen

Alle Downloads von Revolverheld hier

Mehr über Revolverheld, hier im Magazin

Ähnliche Artikel:

... und zwar VERDIENT! - Das „EM-Buch 2008“ ?!

Oliver Pocher: Vom Feeling her ein gutes Gefühl bei "Bringt ihn heim"

HEINZ – „Wunder von Wien“ - DAS GROSSE INTERVIEW IN 3 TEILEN (1)

Quelle: SonyBMG

Democracy Dying in South Korea - Media Control :: IReport.com

It is well-known that frequent searching index of Naver or Daum - Korean searching site - is cooked. Although peaceful candle assmebly is forcedly dismissed with violence, news from Korean media is small. Some internet media broadcast the real-time candle assembly news, but major broadcasting station didn't refer the violent dismissal. And Chosun, Joong-Ang and Dong-A Ilbo - three major Korean newspapers - emphasize 'unlawful assmebly' and 'punishment of leaders'. They are blocking and distorting true news.

President Lee and his goverment give pressure to media for blocking their faults. This may be 'press friendly', which they have told. Myeong-bak Lee is fighting with citizen by controlling media. Korean democracy is now going back.

YouTube Video:

What do you think - Truth or Lie? Comment responsibly below.

Director Robert Kane Pappas’ "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" is the consummate critical examination of the Fourth Estate, once the bastion of American democracy. Asking whether America has entered an Orwellian world of doublespeak where outright lies can pass for the truth, Pappas explores what the media doesn’t like to talk about: itself. Meticulously tracing the process by which media has distorted and often dismissed actual news events, Pappas presents a riveting and eloquent mix of media professionals and leading intellectual voices on the media. [...] "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" provides a vital forum for ideas that will never be heard in mainstream media. From Globalvision’s Danny Schecter: “We falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a mediacracy – where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse.” [...] From the very size of the media monopolies and how they got that way to who decides what gets on the air and what doesn’t, "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" moves through a troubling list of questions and news stories that go unanswered and unreported in the mainstream media. Are Americans being given the information a democracy needs to survive or have they been electronically lobotomized? Has the frenzy for media consolidation led to a dangerous irony where in an era of more news sources the majority of the population has actually become less informed? "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" reminds us that 1984 is no longer a date in the future. (text taken from here)

Download the movie using the link below or watch it online here:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.587469&w=425&h=350&fv=docId%3D-4467655342219448521%26playerMode%26hl%3Den]

Download the documentary

"Orwell Rolls In His Grave" @ IMDb

"Orwell Rolls In His Grave" @ Wikipedia

The official site