A CNN news article sheds light on the issue of how the TV show ‘Super Girl’ (which is China’s versions of Pop Idol), has been dropped from television schedules due to the complaints of government officials that found audience voting as too closely resembling that of Western-style democracy. Although the show attracted 400 million viewers when it first aired back in 2004, it was repeatedly criticized and scrutinized by the government for being too profane and unhealthy for viewers. The show had been suspended once before, but the state media claims that the broadcaster was punished because the show ran over its allotted time slot, thus reflecting on the gravity of the situation at hand. Li Hao, the deputy editor and spokesman of Hunan Satellite TV, which was responsible for broadcasting the show, said the broadcaster would instead launch new programs pertaining to morals, security and housework. The program changes thus serve as a reminder of the country’s censorship regime.
The main issue that lies in this article is the debate between public opinion versus government laws. This particular article touches on certain issues like language, perception and reason, and the concern for ethics is also contested and debated. The issue of language comes into play here as officials demanded that broadcasters should adhere to “quality, responsibility and values”. But what exactly do these three words mean in the context of social media? How can one determine the extent to which these three words ring true if the government is primarily in charge of what is being played on television? Certainly, there remains the grey area of what these words may constitute. It is very probable that the government has also applied these words as means of censorship in order to bolster their reasons for removing certain television shows. Further evidence to support this claim is given by how television advertising in China has grown 13 percent this year to Rmb201bn, and is expected to rise another 14 percent to Rmb229bn in the year 2012. This emphasizes the role of perception and reason in this case, as censorship acts as an impediment for television viewers and hinders them from anything that the government deems as inappropriate and thus, will not interfere with their function. Does it make it right for them to reason that certain shows should be banned since they are tagged as inappropriate? In fact, how can they reason to support their proposal? The only conclusion that can be drawn suggests that social media in China is well-maintained and controlled by the communist party to ensure that everything is kept in check.
The issue that reigns prominent in this article pertains to ethics. Specifically, the right of an individual versus what the government deems as the ‘common good’. Firstly, one must consider that the removal of this show is simply just a response to the source of the actual problem which lies within new censorship demands. As a result, certain programs were modified and altered for them to be sanctioned by authorities. Certainly, there are also several instances in China where censorship has raised the question of what draws the line between an individual’s freedom of speech and the laws of the government. This can be applied to settings where the Chinese government has completely blocked ‘social’ websites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter from fear that it may provoke public outcry. However, is it right for the government to be able to put an end to what individuals have to say? And when is it okay for the government to completely disregard public opinion in order to promote and preserve the very nature of communism? Who can distinguish what is suitable for the greater good and what is not? In cases like the ones listed above, ethics becomes a rather debatable issue because it is either subjective or objective depending on perceptions. This raises the question of whether or not it is within the government’s control to be able to make such judgments to get rid of TV shows where winners are determined by the votes of the audience just because it signals certain characteristics of a democratic government. Perhaps censorship in this case promotes a specific perspective or bias that the government tries to instill within the citizens in attempt to extract any evidence of democracy in a communist country. This is why they continue to exert heavy control over social media and propaganda that may be detrimental to the protection of the communist party. However, when will this control cease to function in a globalizing world, where new ideas are constantly being produced and attract those by the millions?
The case of Liu Xiaobo is another notable real-life example that portrays how the same ethical issue that is debated in this article can be integrated by means of other measures. Liu Xiaobo is a Chinese human rights activist who attempted to call for political reforms in order to put an end to the rule of the Communist party in China. However, he is currently held captive as a political prisoner. Tried and sentenced to eleven years in prison, Liu Xiaobo nevertheless received a Nobel Peace Prize award in the year 2010 for his non-violent struggle for human rights in China. This makes him the first Chinese citizen to be honored with a Nobel Prize whilst living in China. However, ethical issues remain in question when all news about the award was immediately censored in China during the time that the award was announced. Many foreign news broadcasters like CNN and BBC were immediately blocked during this period of time, since the government placed a heavy emphasis on the weight of censorship to prevent personal communications. Also, celebrations that unfolded afterwards were immediately put to a stop, leaving many intellectuals at risk of being detained and placed under surveillance. Liu Xiaobo’s wife was placed under house arrest. Is it right for the government to be able to control and block out all social media connections in order to “save” the communist party? What does protection of the state and protection of the citizens mean, and how may they differ? Where can one really draw the line to distinguish between the two? Thus, this begs the question of whether or not the actions of the government can always be justified.
This is a highly interesting topic which reminded me of something 1984-esque, filtering the availability of the outside world so as not to promote rebellion or free thought amongst the citizens. It's hard to consider this specific incident without questioning China's attitude towards individual freedom and censorship itself. Because the concept of communism refers to the entire 'state', its citizens as a collective whole, instead of just 'the government'. But the truth is that there is a government of some sort who is authorizing these decisions, about what should and shouldn't be exposed to people. So when they try to defend their policies and explain how they're trying to protect the state, it doesn't seem as if they are only trying to protect that government, but rather China as a whole. You articulated the issue very well, especially the questions you raise at the end. How far can communism go with these policies while still under the justification of protecting its citizens? Can their behavior still be considered protection?
ReplyDeleteWhile this appears to be a good TOK topic, and censorship almost always is, when you are dealing with China, it's kind of a different story. China censors. Period. It has long-ago established the fact that it does what it feels it needs to do to maintain order. What the outside world thinks of this is largely irrelevant, not only to Chinese authorities, but also to TOK as the incident seems to have occurred without much controversy within China, as usual.
ReplyDeleteCould one argue that China ought not to censor? Sure, but where does that get us? The immutable fact, at least for now, is that they do censor. And because of this fact, there really is no controversial friction caused by one more example of this, and therefore, can only "serve as a reminder of the country’s censorship regime".
I don't mean to suggest that this type of Amnesty International-type consideration isn't valid, but it really fails to offer an issue if China simply refuses to engage in a debate on this topic. They know what is right and that is what they do...there is no attempt to seek a common global understanding on censorship so there is really no issue for China. They do what they do, regardless of what anyone says or thinks and that is pretty much it. It makes for a very one-sided, and therefore limited, TOK topic. Sorry.