3 ms·

You're missing a big difference between biased news and authoritarian propaganda: independence from the government itself. This has all sorts of consequences, b

You're missing a big difference between biased news and authoritarian propaganda: independence from the government itself. This has all sorts of consequences, but one is the type of stories that can appear. North Korea's news is an extreme example of being laser-focused on inane activities of the leader and routine diplomacy, to the complete exclusion of anything about the daily life of civilians. Many people trust the political reporting on broadcast news about as much as they trust KCNA's take on US politics, but non-Alex Jones fans don't think they're covering it up when bad things happen, or that they pull punches on generally apolitical incidents of public or corporate malfeasance. Look at the headlines this week: lots of stuff about the Oroville Dam. In North Korea, public infrastructure issues like that would be completely blacked out to avoid embarrassing the government. My impression of the Chinese press is that it would be reported without criticizing officials for ignoring the dam's weaknesses. Even if people continue retreating into Facebook's bubbles for political news, non-political reporting by western mass media will continue to be widely read and trusted, while the purely political mission of authoritarian state media dooms it to the inanity of KCNA.

rdtsc 10y ago
The difference is more nuanced. The media in reality has never been un-biased. See Herman & Chomsky's Manufactured Consent work (sorry, I've been mentioning it very often). They did a great job proving how mass media has always been subservient to large corporation and governments. The mechanism of how it works is different for each case. > North Korea's news is an extreme example of being laser-focused on inane activities of the leader and routine diplomacy, to the complete exclusion of anything about the daily life of civilians. North Korean model is a more distilled and purified version, obviously to a ridiculous level. But you brought a good point that in some domains like entertainment, weather, non-political stuff, the news are still there. There is no payoff or threat, it does get through. Another thing I noticed that foreign news cover stuff better if they don't have a stake in it - like say Al Jazeera talking about South America for example.
paradite 10y ago
You got the wrong impression about Chinese politics and the press. If a dam fails, officials responsible for it would be sacked immediately before getting a chance to resign and the news will be reported. However if it's just "weakness" in dam, I don't think news media would be too quick to criticize officials, regardless of the country. It's not a disaster yet.
- resfirestar 10y ago
  You're probably right, I'm thinking more of China historically, when it was much more authoritarian. The Soviet Union would have been a better example, with their tendency to delay reporting or cover up famines and nuclear accidents.

rdtsc 10y ago

The difference is more nuanced. The media in reality has never been un-biased. See Herman & Chomsky's Manufactured Consent work (sorry, I've been mentioning it very often). They did a great job proving how mass media has always been subservient to large corporation and governments. The mechanism of how it works is different for each case. > North Korea's news is an extreme example of being laser-focused on inane activities of the leader and routine diplomacy, to the complete exclusion of anything about the daily life of civilians. North Korean model is a more distilled and purified version, obviously to a ridiculous level. But you brought a good point that in some domains like entertainment, weather, non-political stuff, the news are still there. There is no payoff or threat, it does get through. Another thing I noticed that foreign news cover stuff better if they don't have a stake in it - like say Al Jazeera talking about South America for example.

paradite 10y ago

You got the wrong impression about Chinese politics and the press. If a dam fails, officials responsible for it would be sacked immediately before getting a chance to resign and the news will be reported. However if it's just "weakness" in dam, I don't think news media would be too quick to criticize officials, regardless of the country. It's not a disaster yet.

resfirestar 10y ago
You're probably right, I'm thinking more of China historically, when it was much more authoritarian. The Soviet Union would have been a better example, with their tendency to delay reporting or cover up famines and nuclear accidents.