Kazakh protests against China - Talking about CCP's news and media control

A few days ago, a group of megalomaniacs in the country spread a lot of articles about the "desire to return to China" of many neighboring countries on the self-media, which was protested by the Kazakh officials. The Ministry came forward to clarify that it was said by the media and did not represent the position of the Chinese government, and then quickly cleaned up those articles. Fortunately, China-Kazakhstan relations are relatively stable and have not caused much turmoil.

To be honest, this type of article is also considered a "monthly scripture" in the domestic media. Normal people will laugh when they read it. No one will take it seriously, but why does Kazakh take it seriously?

It is true that the CCP's control over speech is very strict. Let us first clear up the CCP's thinking:

1. China has a vast territory and a large population. 1.4 billion people have 1.4 billion interests and 1.4 billion ideas, and there are definitely more than one voice. In order to "unify the mind" and avoid "arbitrarily discussing the central government" in order to "concentrate on major affairs", the CCP has implemented news and speech control. Both inside and outside the party.

2. News or announcements such as important events and sensitive events shall be published by official announcements, and any media shall not publish them without authorization.

The authenticity of the manuscript is guaranteed by the government's credit, and there is basically no fraud. Criticisms of the manuscript are mainly its selective reporting and control over the right to comment. Selective reporting is very important because it is directly about position, and the official purpose is only one: to cultivate your position to align with the CCP’s governance goals.

3. In addition to politically sensitive news, other news such as economics, sports, technology, society, entertainment, etc., have a considerable degree of freedom, both positive and negative. As far as the mainland people feel, "the state is responsible for major affairs of the country", "it's fine for me to live my life", and if you don't touch politics, you're still relatively free.

4. Like the rest of the world, China is also very rich in self-media content. Although it is difficult to visit abroad from home, it is easy to visit home from abroad. Most of the curiosity, negativity, and speculation about political trends in China come from self-media, such as Weibo and Moments.

Now know why Kazakhs take it seriously. It is because the CCP shot itself in the foot and exercised excessive speech control. The world's impression of China is one-party dictatorship and one voice, thinking that all information that appears on China's Internet is published and censored by the government. But in fact, there is no force in the world that can concentrate 1.4 billion voices into one, and it is impossible to stop everyone from speaking. Officials can only grasp the mainstream at most and control the excesses. Articles about "desiring to return to China" are all self-media people, in order to increase the click-through rate, use a very small side to distort and enlarge, and then release it after a short shot.

The above is the current state of news media in China. The reason why it is called "the bottom of the freedom of the press" and "suppression of freedom of speech" is because the core part of "major events" is monopolized by official reports. You can watch what they report, but these major events are often related to everyone interests and the right to know are closely related. The official selective reporting obscures the whole picture, causing everyone's perception and position to shift. Also, comments that don't meet the "guidelines" can get in trouble. (In most cases, the comments are closed or deleted, so as not to arrest people, it is not good to arrest too many. Everyone jokes that deleting you is to protect you.)

I personally think that in China before 2000, speech was still somewhat free, but after the WTO, all kinds of things poured in, and the CCP began to worry, and the public opinion environment in China began to slowly deteriorate (from the style of the Spring Festival Gala sketches). inferred). Especially in recent years, there has been a serious setback. But I don't think Xi Jinping deliberately reversed the car, but because of the vigorous development of the media, the dissemination of information broke the official monopoly and made the CCP feel more difficult, so it increased its control. The more you control, the more you resist, and the number of sensitive words has reached the point where it is difficult to communicate. The problem of sensitive words has been extended by the media to ordinary people.

In addition, here to evaluate the media of Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Whether it is domestic or foreign, or a media, it has a position. Absolutely neutral reports do not exist, and if they exist, no one likes to read them. Why? Because the attraction of the media is not only to report the facts, but what everyone is most interested in is how the media people interpret the truth, logic and trends behind the events, and these have a position.

The stance of the official media under the control of the CCP has been criticized by mainlanders (the official media selectively reports, and we also listen to the left and right, ignoring its credibility), but mainland netizens who often go over the wall can find that some The position of the media in Hong Kong and Taiwan is also very clear. Even if they are in a free area and the media is not controlled, the degree of selectivity in their reporting is no less than that of the CCP’s official media. The progress and goodwill of the mainland are often ignored; the failures and black spots of the mainland are all magnified. Once a person's position is solidified, it is difficult to believe and accept different sides. Even if the article is there, he is unwilling to read it, and he is immersed in one voice. If it is said that the mainland's official media is brainwashed, is this "selective belief" considered brainwashed?