18 ms·

CBS censors a ‘Good Fight’ segment whose topic was Chinese censorship

494 points by leavjenn 7y ago

yumraj 7y ago
So US media censors US content, containing bits about China censors, due to financial and other unknown reasons, but when it comes to US happenings, good and bad, they want and have complete freedom of press and speech. Oh, the irony.
- 5trokerac3 7y ago
  It's even worse. The previous controversy this show caused was actual calls to violence, including a very overtly "coded" message to assassinate Trump. So, CBS will let that run, but will censor anything that offends the communist party of China. Edit: For everyone jumping on the downvote train: I don't think either should be censored, but what they do censor is very telling of their ethics.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    This was the "coded message" that also included "dethrone Chameleon Man" as its directives, right?
    - 5trokerac3 7y ago
      No, it was three very specific words in order that, if you typed them here, would result in you being investigated.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        Which is exactly the context they were in in the show: a NSA agent watching out for dangerous people online.
        5trokerac3 7y ago
        So, what you're saying is that if in 2010 a TV show put the same thing on screen but had Obama instead of Trump, that everyone would think it was ok?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        Yeah. TV shows where the bad guys are assassins or terrorists are not a new invention.
        komali2 7y ago
        Yes, because the context was "the NSA should be concerned about these words." I think the NSA is concerned about the assassination of any president.
        sonnyblarney 7y ago
        No, that doesn't absolve CBS. The words themselves are far too easily decontextualized by people, they have power on their own. CBS is hiding behind that, it's utterly inappropriate. The context would have to be glaringly and completely clear, basically explained, in order for it to be approaching 'ok'.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        But, in the show, that context is glaringly and completely clear! There are two NSA employees looking at their list of NSA-provided words to determine whether they have cause to spy on a citizen. How could it be more clear?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - ColanR 7y ago
      Technically it's an 'easter egg'. [1] It's hard to think that the phrase is accidental (see upper left corner). If you want to poke fun at the other phrases in the list, be my guest, but you're not disproving the ugly and intentional nature of the political message in that easter egg. [1] https://i.redd.it/nldbz62by4s21.jpg https://i.redd.it/nldbz62by4s21.jpg Edit: forgive the annotations on the image. It's what I found on reddit when I looked around for a source on what GP was talking about.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Your annotations are actually quite useful, as they certainly seem to deflate the point that they were intentionally providing a political message - "assassinate Trump" and "slay fake news" / "hit Mueller" are opposite sides of the political spectrum. As others have mentioned in the thread, it's just a plausible list of NSA watchlist words. (Unfortunately, my post here probably wound up in one of their datacenters now.)
  - kaolti 7y ago
    Interesting to observe how stating facts gets you downvoted.
    - drocer88 7y ago
      Welcome to HN.
      - thedaemon 7y ago
        Welcome to America.
        kaolti 7y ago
        Welcome to the culture war.
        spork12 7y ago
        Indeed, we are in a sort of cold civil war in western culture right now over core beliefs and culture. HN definitely seems to have a collective bias to one side of that.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        Yes, HN does tend to have a collective bias towards logic and reason, and against wild conspiracy theories.
        spork12 7y ago
        I would agree with your statement, most folks here use logic & statistics to backup their arguments. In my comment above I was talking about the 'conservative' vs 'liberal' cultural war going on right now. EDIT: Oh wait, after re-reading it's a tongue and cheek comment making fun of liberals. Let's try to be more civil in our discussion.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      "the show called for violence against Trump" is not a fact. The words "assassinate" and "President" appear on a NSA watch list in the show. That's not a call to violence any more than this comment is.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    May I ask if you've actually watched the show? In context, this was a list of the words that are being monitored by the NSA. It stands to reason that the NSA would want to track people who discuss assassinating the president. I don't understand why this is controversial.
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      That context doesn't absolve CBS. It is wildly inappropriate to be doing such a thing.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        See my reply to your other comment down-thread.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Who said they had complete freedom of the press on US matters? Individuals have a right to that total freedom, whether they choose to exercise that right it totally up to them. US news stations regularly "hold back" on things to appease the US government, choose not to exercise their total freedom. Why should we expect them to treat China's government any differently? There is a difference between government censorship and a corporation acting in its own best interests. The Chinese government never told them to drop the story, just as the US government never tells people to drop stories. News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. Profit means striking a balance between giving the viewers what they want today, and making sure you will be able to give them that tomorrow. Look at the US news landscape. Look at the access CNN gets as opposed to Fox. If you want the big interviews with the biggest players you have to remain on good terms with their leadership.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    > News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. This is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect out of a journalist. What good is all that "access" if you're just publishing approved content? Wasn't the relevant quote was something like "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations."
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      journalist /= a news corporation. Reporters act like reporters but often work for massive publicly-traded media companies (CBS). If you want perfect reporting you have to take profit out of the mix, which in turn brings other problems. Don't trust corporations to be the champions of democracy. That isn't their job. Their job is to make money for their owners and we shouldn't criticize them for doing so.
      - komali2 7y ago
- hedora 7y ago
  Add to that the fact that the NYT won’t let me read the story because my browser is in private mode, but regularly runs features about the Chinese surveillance state.
  - lancesells 7y ago
    It won't let you read it because you're not signed in correct? I haven't had an issue with private browsing and reading the 5 or so free articles a month that they offer.
    - hedora 7y ago
      http://tinypic.com/r/2u5dgyv/9 http://tinypic.com/r/2u5dgyv/9 Ironically, I had to turn off ad block to view it. Does anyone know of a better service like this? [edit: the screenshot is for a different article, but I get the same spy-wall on the one linked above]
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        Oh, so it was adblock that was the problem. I was confused, since I knew NYT works in incognito mode. Can you really blame them for blocking Adblock users? They're a business, if you're both not logged in (ie, not a subscriber) and blocking ads, you're preventing them from capturing any revenue. How do you suggest the New York Times stays in business?
        rhizome 7y ago
        Native ads and subscriptions, the same thing that worked for 150 years.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        If you’re not logged in, you’re not (verifiably) a subscriber, so I’m not sure how that’s relevent. I for one would much rather NYT block adblock users than increase their reliance on native ads. Also, native ads are relatively new, what do you mean “for 150 years”?
- save_ferris 7y ago
  Unfortunately, that's the cost of courting a massive market backed by an authoritarian regime. Personally, I don't agree with it, but Capitalism isn't inherently moral. China has such a massive trade presence globally that companies are willing to abandon domestic values to make them happy. The media certainly aren't the only party guilty of this (tech & military companies selling surveillance technology, etc.) It's easy to blame everything on the media because they market themselves as the purveyors of transparency and democracy in our society. But they're just businesses too, and businesses sacrifice ethics all the time to stay alive. As Ice-T once said: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
  - komali2 7y ago
    >Don't hate the player, hate the game." It's possible to be ethical in a capitalist system. I don't believe it's acceptable to give them a free pass because they chose the option that might be the most profitable (and that's arguable).
    - Miner49er 7y ago
      It is possible, but capitalism often incentives the opposite.
      - wnoise 7y ago
        Life often incentivizes immoral actions. That's not usually considered a mitigating factor.
  - LeoNatan25 7y ago
    Why not hate everyone equally, game and players? It takes players to have a game.
- swebs 7y ago
  >but when it comes to US happenings, good and bad, they want and have complete freedom of press and speech They've been engaging in mass censorship of right-leaning figures due to the nebulous excuse of "supporting hate".
- sureaboutthis 7y ago
  This story is about the entertainment industry, not the press.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  They want control of their own content and complete freedom from the US government, I don't see how those are competing ideas or ironic.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  How is different from companies which tout their the human rights stands, whether it based on sex, religion, or identity, but continue to manufacture product in China for sale in other countries. it doesn't and it never will till we hold our politicians accountable for not holding China accountable and the only way to do so is with trade restrictions. if not directly on China than any company which chooses to move their manufacturing there.
- smolder 7y ago
  The US is thankfully unaccepting of blatant censorship, at least by government bodies. It's far from immune to centralized manipulation of public discourse and opinion. My feeling is that CBS and other big media entities are compliant in both contexts, but in the US the way it works is subtler, because it needs to be to have the desired outcome.
iandanforth 7y ago
Failure to walk away from the show over this has lost the writers any moral high ground they might have once held.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Oh they lost that with the "Assassinate Trump" wink wink moment.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Do you seriously think they should've cancelled a series they've been working on for the past decade due to 120 seconds of content? Let me be the first to say I'm glad the writers didn't do that. If you watch the show, you'll quickly discover that the writers have been given an immense amount of creative freedom. The Good Fight makes a lot of strong political statements that I don't think would fly on many other platforms. Furthermore, the writers responded in a way that draws very clear, explicit attention to CBS's censorship, as opposed to sweeping it under the rug.
  - swebs 7y ago
    >The Good Fight makes a lot of strong political statements that I don't think would fly on many other platforms. Such as?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      Lots of stuff! Off the top of my head, for both The Good Fight and its predecessor show, there was: • A story on how large media companies use broad copyright laws to exploit independent artists. • Multiple stories on data surveillance and privacy. • Stories depicting injustices in the immigration court system. By the way, the episode containing the censored segment also had a woman explaining how she was tortured by the Chinese government. There's nothing on The Good Fight that would be off limits in, say, HBO's Last Week Tonight, but there's plenty I was surprised to see in a CBS drama.
hughuhb 7y ago
ORANGE MAN BAD
scohesc 7y ago
It's a bit telling when a media giant like CBS can't strike a happy medium by you know - both not censoring it in the US and censoring it in china - instead, choosing to censor the whole thing outright on the entire platform. It's almost like all these American companies are moving en masse to do business in China with the sole purpose of increasing profits every single quarter, irrespective of (and arguably, now encouraging) the numerous, controversial human rights and ethics violations that China is known for.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  Their decision to universally censor the content may have been contractually obligated by the Chinese. Not saying that's definitely the case, but it makes sense. If one version of the content appears on approved channels in China and another uncensored version can be seen via VPN, that certainly wouldn't make the government look good. As far as Americans using China as a means to increase profits, that's capitalism working exactly the way it was designed, unfortunately. The stock market doesn't care who was best-behaved last quarter, the market cares who made the most money last quarter. Our system is woefully incapable of factoring behavior and ethics into the equation.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    To be fair they should censor any content that would be subversive in India. Then why stop there? Make sure all media is vetted by all nations for moral and political purity.
    - derefr 7y ago
      They don’t care about fairness, they care about profit (or rather, they care about how much their share value would drop if they sacrificed a given source of profit.) If the American stock market would punish an American [public] corporation for reneging on being a lapdog to China, then said American corporation is basically constitutionally incapable of leaving China (if it’s structured in the usual way with a board whose positions are controlled by shareholder election.) And right now, it seems that China is the only market that traders see as large enough to make them short the stock when you do anything to mess with it. Private corporations, public corporations that are still founder-controlled, and “public-benefit” corporations might be immune to this effect, but your average traded C-Corp or S-Corp won’t be.
agbell 7y ago
I really am loving this show, and I thought the "censored by CBS" was some sort of joke. The animated shorts they mix into the show are great fun. The good wife had interesting takes on tech issues of the day and The Good Fight has really taken the format into some interesting political directions.
nickysielicki 7y ago
I feel like free speech has never been under such attack. Culturally, we don't care about it, we find offensive content more offensive than censorship of offensive content. Politically, they can censor you completely if they want to by hitting you with an NSL. EFF says that happens 60 times a day. The most hard hitting journalist in the west, Julian Assange, was just put in jail. I'm scared about the future. It's not any particular point, it's just the movement overall.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >I feel like free speech has never been under such attack. Culturally, we don't care about it, we find offensive content more offensive than censorship of offensive content. Speak for your own filter bubble. Most people in my filter bubble seem to be coming around to the fact that the way things are going they might have to "get off the porch" (metaphorically and maybe literally too in a few cases) in the coming decade or three.
- youarewrongstfu 7y ago
  Julian Assange is to journalism what Aaron Swartz was to civil disobedience. Nothing.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  I disagree with the notion that Julian Assange is a journalist. I don't find the way he goes about his activities to be commendable. I contrast his/Wikileak disclosures with the way the Snowden materials were disseminated and reported on as the the boundaries of proper and improper journalism of these subjects.
  - mduerksen 7y ago
    A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information to the public. [1] Check. You can argue about whether his style is commendable or not (for codes of conduct see [2]), but that does not change the fact that he is a journalist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...
caprese 7y ago
Maintaining a relationship is important. Woah woah woah guys I'm a RUSSIAN bot not a Chinese one, yeesh, can't I still have an opinion.
spacedog11 7y ago
A segment about Chinese censorship gets censored on a US network...the irony
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- komali2 7y ago
  China imprisons and engages in psychological torture of a peaceful religious group. There is strong evidence it engages in systematic organ harvesting of these people. China regularly threatens the sovereignty of Taiwan. It is not at all above criticism and I really am surprised to find your comment suggesting so. Were you being ironic?
uberman 7y ago
Before damming CBS you might want to hear their motive. According to them the 90 second segment was removed because "such a sequence would endanger CBS executives on the ground in China". If that is the true motive, I personally give them a pass. If this is about preserving safety of employees and not about profit, can anyone condemn them? This article written by a friend of one of the performers in the 90 second animated short that was cut out has what I think is the best coverage. It includes a good amount of detail including a play by play of the cut content: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-the-good-fight-for-a-musical-short-about-china https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-t...
- komali2 7y ago
  If they're concerned about the safety of employees in China over the content they produce, perhaps they should not station employees in China. Unfortunately it's such a big market it's apparent that companies are willing to forego ethics to do business with China, despite the numerous human rights violations.
  - Cthulhu_ 7y ago
    CBS is an American based company; given its blatant human rights violations, perhaps they should not station employees in their home country?
    - komali2 7y ago
      I didn't claim the United States is perfect, but it certainly isn't mass incarcerating members of a peaceful religious group and harvesting their organs, so I won't agree to your false equivalence.
      - glenneroo 7y ago
        > In September 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
slantyyz 7y ago
When I watched the show last week and that censored bit showed up, I thought it was actually a gag and not for real. The animated Jonathan Coulton bits on that show are my favorite part of the show, they're quite well done and funny. The show, however, is overly politicized. When compared to the Good Wife, it is much less about fighting interesting legal cases now than it is about US politics.
jobsinkansas 7y ago
It's great post.
jobsinkansas 7y ago
It's a great post.
gtfratteus 7y ago
What are the odds this will teach the American left that censorship is not a good thing and lead them to stop demanding Google, Twitter, and Facebook ban every user who wants to reduce immigration? 1%? 0%?
- lallysingh 7y ago
  Clearly this is all the same thing, with the same consequences.
- duxup 7y ago
  >ban every user who wants to reduce immigration? That's not even a thing.
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  You aren't trying to censor those lefties, are you?
- Miner49er 7y ago
  I don't think this is a good comparison. The bans you are talking about (ignoring the hyperbole) are for hate speech. This is censhorship of critisicm of an authoritarian government. I don't think the two are remotely comparable.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - golemiprague 7y ago
    The bans are because they criticise the left, the Chinese probably also calls criticism of themselves "hate speech".
zouhair 7y ago
I don't get why you are acting so surprised. In Capitalism the only point is to make money, that's all there is. If siding with human rights helps make money they will side with human rights, if genocide helps make even more money they will side with genocide. As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits. I disagree. It's a matter of priorities. It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I think the main issue here is that capitalist institutions and capitalist thinking are ascendent (in the US at least) while rival political and social institutions and modes of thought that could keep it in check are being hollowed out and weakened.
  - GalacticDomin8r 7y ago
    > It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway. No, it could also be the society's moral system. For instance, take a hypothetical capitalist society where the shame and stigma of violating human rights is very strong. A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.
quotz 7y ago
By tolerating China's censorship, The West too starts censoring.
kyleblarson 7y ago
'Ms. King said that she and her husband initially told CBS that they would quit the show if the song was pulled but that they eventually agreed on inserting a message saying that the company had censored it.' AKA they want to keep their paycheck.
- taobility 7y ago
  Lots of people saying they would leave US if Trump be voted, but none of them actually doing that. So, that's the reality.
duxup 7y ago
If they're willing to censor news. I wonder how long until China extends its social credit system (or a form of it) to people outside China... and what companies play along?
- taobility 7y ago
  are you saying US's credit score shouldn't apply to immigrant?
  - duxup 7y ago
    I'm wondering if CBS bows to pressure (real or imagined) from China over a news story, if a US company would do so as far as who they hire or fire when it comes to personnel decisions.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Do you think China's social credit system is the same as your payment history / financial risk factor credit score?
    - taobility 7y ago
      can u pls tell me what's the difference?
  - pzone 7y ago
    This account's entire comment history is nothing but anti-US propaganda.
    - taobility 7y ago
      how do you define propaganda? Speaking anything American not favored?
rhizome 7y ago
Next they should do an episode on Mohammed bin Salman and see what happens. Red-team US censorship standards.
- taobility 7y ago
  They would never think about that. Otherwise, Muslim would burn their office, shoot their employee and the other medias would say, the burning is for justice :)
mrobot 7y ago
Are there any Chinese people on hacker news who have opinions about Chinese censorship?
Animats 7y ago
Vanity Fair says the show runners threatened to quit. They got CBS to put “CBS HAS CENSORED THIS CONTENT" on screen for 8.5 seconds.[1][2] [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/the-good-fight-censorship-cbs https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/the-good-fight-... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-the-good-fight-for-a-musical-short-about-china https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-t...
- partiallypro 7y ago
  Censoring a bit about censorship is so meta, it almost hurts.
russellbeattie 7y ago
This isn't "ironic" or a "creative solution", this is straight up censorship. Wow. China has basically made it known they will go after a company's employees. I'm sure that CBS is very concerned about general access to the Chinese market and don't want their shows banned for purely economic reasons, but the subtle threat of their Chinese employees disappearing because of a cartoon is a real thing. Let's say this was my decision, pretend I'm a director or VP at CBS and I need to make the call about this cartoon, and whether the threat against my subordinates in country - or myself on my next business trip - is real. After Fan Bingbing's disappearance last year, I would take this very seriously and I'm not sure I would make a different call. That's censorship, full stop. I'm not sure what CBS alone can do about this - they're a single company against a sovereign nation. Not to let them off the hook, but I really feel the U.S. government has to step up here.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  From the New Yorker article on this: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-the-good-fight-for-a-musical-short-about-china https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-t... > Stanley Rosen, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California who also teaches courses on Chinese film, expressed doubt that airing such a cartoon would have exposed CBS employees to risk, although, he added, that might depend on whether network executives were seen as personally responsible for the segment.
- babypuncher 7y ago
  I'm going to call BS on CBS' excuse that the Chinese government would actually harm CBS employees in China over the companies production of content that isn't available in China.
  - helloindia 7y ago
    China did make Hongkong Bookstore owners disappear(some of them disappeared while visiting China), because they were selling books(banned in mainland china) in Hongkong. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/magazine/the-case-of-hong-kongs-missing-booksellers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/magazine/the-case-of-hong...
basetop 7y ago
Man, if only the nytimes and the media was more concerned about censorship here in the US. But then again, it's the nytimes and the media championing censorship at home.
erlangNewb 7y ago
Let's not forget that there are humans making these decisions, and their names are...?
basicplus2 7y ago
This a is about money being more important than morals
shard972 7y ago
This is the same show that promoting punching people to the right you disagree with? Can't say im incredibly shocked.

494 points by leavjenn 7y ago

So US media censors US content, containing bits about China censors, due to financial and other unknown reasons, but when it comes to US happenings, good and bad, they want and have complete freedom of press and speech. Oh, the irony.

5trokerac3 7y ago
It's even worse. The previous controversy this show caused was actual calls to violence, including a very overtly "coded" message to assassinate Trump. So, CBS will let that run, but will censor anything that offends the communist party of China. Edit: For everyone jumping on the downvote train: I don't think either should be censored, but what they do censor is very telling of their ethics.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  This was the "coded message" that also included "dethrone Chameleon Man" as its directives, right?
  - 5trokerac3 7y ago
    No, it was three very specific words in order that, if you typed them here, would result in you being investigated.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Which is exactly the context they were in in the show: a NSA agent watching out for dangerous people online.
      - 5trokerac3 7y ago
        So, what you're saying is that if in 2010 a TV show put the same thing on screen but had Obama instead of Trump, that everyone would think it was ok?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        Yeah. TV shows where the bad guys are assassins or terrorists are not a new invention.
        komali2 7y ago
        Yes, because the context was "the NSA should be concerned about these words." I think the NSA is concerned about the assassination of any president.
        sonnyblarney 7y ago
        No, that doesn't absolve CBS. The words themselves are far too easily decontextualized by people, they have power on their own. CBS is hiding behind that, it's utterly inappropriate. The context would have to be glaringly and completely clear, basically explained, in order for it to be approaching 'ok'.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        But, in the show, that context is glaringly and completely clear! There are two NSA employees looking at their list of NSA-provided words to determine whether they have cause to spy on a citizen. How could it be more clear?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - ColanR 7y ago
    Technically it's an 'easter egg'. [1] It's hard to think that the phrase is accidental (see upper left corner). If you want to poke fun at the other phrases in the list, be my guest, but you're not disproving the ugly and intentional nature of the political message in that easter egg. [1] https://i.redd.it/nldbz62by4s21.jpg https://i.redd.it/nldbz62by4s21.jpg Edit: forgive the annotations on the image. It's what I found on reddit when I looked around for a source on what GP was talking about.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Your annotations are actually quite useful, as they certainly seem to deflate the point that they were intentionally providing a political message - "assassinate Trump" and "slay fake news" / "hit Mueller" are opposite sides of the political spectrum. As others have mentioned in the thread, it's just a plausible list of NSA watchlist words. (Unfortunately, my post here probably wound up in one of their datacenters now.)
- kaolti 7y ago
  Interesting to observe how stating facts gets you downvoted.
  - drocer88 7y ago
    Welcome to HN.
    - thedaemon 7y ago
      Welcome to America.
      - kaolti 7y ago
        Welcome to the culture war.
      - spork12 7y ago
        Indeed, we are in a sort of cold civil war in western culture right now over core beliefs and culture. HN definitely seems to have a collective bias to one side of that.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        Yes, HN does tend to have a collective bias towards logic and reason, and against wild conspiracy theories.
        spork12 7y ago
        I would agree with your statement, most folks here use logic & statistics to backup their arguments. In my comment above I was talking about the 'conservative' vs 'liberal' cultural war going on right now. EDIT: Oh wait, after re-reading it's a tongue and cheek comment making fun of liberals. Let's try to be more civil in our discussion.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    "the show called for violence against Trump" is not a fact. The words "assassinate" and "President" appear on a NSA watch list in the show. That's not a call to violence any more than this comment is.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  May I ask if you've actually watched the show? In context, this was a list of the words that are being monitored by the NSA. It stands to reason that the NSA would want to track people who discuss assassinating the president. I don't understand why this is controversial.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    That context doesn't absolve CBS. It is wildly inappropriate to be doing such a thing.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      See my reply to your other comment down-thread.
sandworm101 7y ago
Who said they had complete freedom of the press on US matters? Individuals have a right to that total freedom, whether they choose to exercise that right it totally up to them. US news stations regularly "hold back" on things to appease the US government, choose not to exercise their total freedom. Why should we expect them to treat China's government any differently? There is a difference between government censorship and a corporation acting in its own best interests. The Chinese government never told them to drop the story, just as the US government never tells people to drop stories. News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. Profit means striking a balance between giving the viewers what they want today, and making sure you will be able to give them that tomorrow. Look at the US news landscape. Look at the access CNN gets as opposed to Fox. If you want the big interviews with the biggest players you have to remain on good terms with their leadership.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  > News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. This is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect out of a journalist. What good is all that "access" if you're just publishing approved content? Wasn't the relevant quote was something like "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations."
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    journalist /= a news corporation. Reporters act like reporters but often work for massive publicly-traded media companies (CBS). If you want perfect reporting you have to take profit out of the mix, which in turn brings other problems. Don't trust corporations to be the champions of democracy. That isn't their job. Their job is to make money for their owners and we shouldn't criticize them for doing so.
    - komali2 7y ago
hedora 7y ago
Add to that the fact that the NYT won’t let me read the story because my browser is in private mode, but regularly runs features about the Chinese surveillance state.
- lancesells 7y ago
  It won't let you read it because you're not signed in correct? I haven't had an issue with private browsing and reading the 5 or so free articles a month that they offer.
  - hedora 7y ago
    http://tinypic.com/r/2u5dgyv/9 http://tinypic.com/r/2u5dgyv/9 Ironically, I had to turn off ad block to view it. Does anyone know of a better service like this? [edit: the screenshot is for a different article, but I get the same spy-wall on the one linked above]
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      Oh, so it was adblock that was the problem. I was confused, since I knew NYT works in incognito mode. Can you really blame them for blocking Adblock users? They're a business, if you're both not logged in (ie, not a subscriber) and blocking ads, you're preventing them from capturing any revenue. How do you suggest the New York Times stays in business?
      - rhizome 7y ago
        Native ads and subscriptions, the same thing that worked for 150 years.
        Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        If you’re not logged in, you’re not (verifiably) a subscriber, so I’m not sure how that’s relevent. I for one would much rather NYT block adblock users than increase their reliance on native ads. Also, native ads are relatively new, what do you mean “for 150 years”?
save_ferris 7y ago
Unfortunately, that's the cost of courting a massive market backed by an authoritarian regime. Personally, I don't agree with it, but Capitalism isn't inherently moral. China has such a massive trade presence globally that companies are willing to abandon domestic values to make them happy. The media certainly aren't the only party guilty of this (tech & military companies selling surveillance technology, etc.) It's easy to blame everything on the media because they market themselves as the purveyors of transparency and democracy in our society. But they're just businesses too, and businesses sacrifice ethics all the time to stay alive. As Ice-T once said: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
- komali2 7y ago
  >Don't hate the player, hate the game." It's possible to be ethical in a capitalist system. I don't believe it's acceptable to give them a free pass because they chose the option that might be the most profitable (and that's arguable).
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    It is possible, but capitalism often incentives the opposite.
    - wnoise 7y ago
      Life often incentivizes immoral actions. That's not usually considered a mitigating factor.
- LeoNatan25 7y ago
  Why not hate everyone equally, game and players? It takes players to have a game.
swebs 7y ago
>but when it comes to US happenings, good and bad, they want and have complete freedom of press and speech They've been engaging in mass censorship of right-leaning figures due to the nebulous excuse of "supporting hate".
sureaboutthis 7y ago
This story is about the entertainment industry, not the press.
rhcom2 7y ago
They want control of their own content and complete freedom from the US government, I don't see how those are competing ideas or ironic.
Shivetya 7y ago
How is different from companies which tout their the human rights stands, whether it based on sex, religion, or identity, but continue to manufacture product in China for sale in other countries. it doesn't and it never will till we hold our politicians accountable for not holding China accountable and the only way to do so is with trade restrictions. if not directly on China than any company which chooses to move their manufacturing there.
smolder 7y ago
The US is thankfully unaccepting of blatant censorship, at least by government bodies. It's far from immune to centralized manipulation of public discourse and opinion. My feeling is that CBS and other big media entities are compliant in both contexts, but in the US the way it works is subtler, because it needs to be to have the desired outcome.

iandanforth 7y ago

Failure to walk away from the show over this has lost the writers any moral high ground they might have once held.

creaghpatr 7y ago
Oh they lost that with the "Assassinate Trump" wink wink moment.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Do you seriously think they should've cancelled a series they've been working on for the past decade due to 120 seconds of content? Let me be the first to say I'm glad the writers didn't do that. If you watch the show, you'll quickly discover that the writers have been given an immense amount of creative freedom. The Good Fight makes a lot of strong political statements that I don't think would fly on many other platforms. Furthermore, the writers responded in a way that draws very clear, explicit attention to CBS's censorship, as opposed to sweeping it under the rug.
- swebs 7y ago
  >The Good Fight makes a lot of strong political statements that I don't think would fly on many other platforms. Such as?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Lots of stuff! Off the top of my head, for both The Good Fight and its predecessor show, there was: • A story on how large media companies use broad copyright laws to exploit independent artists. • Multiple stories on data surveillance and privacy. • Stories depicting injustices in the immigration court system. By the way, the episode containing the censored segment also had a woman explaining how she was tortured by the Chinese government. There's nothing on The Good Fight that would be off limits in, say, HBO's Last Week Tonight, but there's plenty I was surprised to see in a CBS drama.

hughuhb 7y ago

ORANGE MAN BAD

scohesc 7y ago

It's a bit telling when a media giant like CBS can't strike a happy medium by you know - both not censoring it in the US and censoring it in china - instead, choosing to censor the whole thing outright on the entire platform. It's almost like all these American companies are moving en masse to do business in China with the sole purpose of increasing profits every single quarter, irrespective of (and arguably, now encouraging) the numerous, controversial human rights and ethics violations that China is known for.

save_ferris 7y ago
Their decision to universally censor the content may have been contractually obligated by the Chinese. Not saying that's definitely the case, but it makes sense. If one version of the content appears on approved channels in China and another uncensored version can be seen via VPN, that certainly wouldn't make the government look good. As far as Americans using China as a means to increase profits, that's capitalism working exactly the way it was designed, unfortunately. The stock market doesn't care who was best-behaved last quarter, the market cares who made the most money last quarter. Our system is woefully incapable of factoring behavior and ethics into the equation.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  To be fair they should censor any content that would be subversive in India. Then why stop there? Make sure all media is vetted by all nations for moral and political purity.
  - derefr 7y ago
    They don’t care about fairness, they care about profit (or rather, they care about how much their share value would drop if they sacrificed a given source of profit.) If the American stock market would punish an American [public] corporation for reneging on being a lapdog to China, then said American corporation is basically constitutionally incapable of leaving China (if it’s structured in the usual way with a board whose positions are controlled by shareholder election.) And right now, it seems that China is the only market that traders see as large enough to make them short the stock when you do anything to mess with it. Private corporations, public corporations that are still founder-controlled, and “public-benefit” corporations might be immune to this effect, but your average traded C-Corp or S-Corp won’t be.

agbell 7y ago

I really am loving this show, and I thought the "censored by CBS" was some sort of joke. The animated shorts they mix into the show are great fun. The good wife had interesting takes on tech issues of the day and The Good Fight has really taken the format into some interesting political directions.

nickysielicki 7y ago

I feel like free speech has never been under such attack. Culturally, we don't care about it, we find offensive content more offensive than censorship of offensive content. Politically, they can censor you completely if they want to by hitting you with an NSL. EFF says that happens 60 times a day. The most hard hitting journalist in the west, Julian Assange, was just put in jail. I'm scared about the future. It's not any particular point, it's just the movement overall.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I feel like free speech has never been under such attack. Culturally, we don't care about it, we find offensive content more offensive than censorship of offensive content. Speak for your own filter bubble. Most people in my filter bubble seem to be coming around to the fact that the way things are going they might have to "get off the porch" (metaphorically and maybe literally too in a few cases) in the coming decade or three.
youarewrongstfu 7y ago
Julian Assange is to journalism what Aaron Swartz was to civil disobedience. Nothing.
wavefunction 7y ago
I disagree with the notion that Julian Assange is a journalist. I don't find the way he goes about his activities to be commendable. I contrast his/Wikileak disclosures with the way the Snowden materials were disseminated and reported on as the the boundaries of proper and improper journalism of these subjects.
- mduerksen 7y ago
  A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information to the public. [1] Check. You can argue about whether his style is commendable or not (for codes of conduct see [2]), but that does not change the fact that he is a journalist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...

caprese 7y ago

Maintaining a relationship is important. Woah woah woah guys I'm a RUSSIAN bot not a Chinese one, yeesh, can't I still have an opinion.

spacedog11 7y ago

A segment about Chinese censorship gets censored on a US network...the irony

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

komali2 7y ago
China imprisons and engages in psychological torture of a peaceful religious group. There is strong evidence it engages in systematic organ harvesting of these people. China regularly threatens the sovereignty of Taiwan. It is not at all above criticism and I really am surprised to find your comment suggesting so. Were you being ironic?

uberman 7y ago

Before damming CBS you might want to hear their motive. According to them the 90 second segment was removed because "such a sequence would endanger CBS executives on the ground in China". If that is the true motive, I personally give them a pass. If this is about preserving safety of employees and not about profit, can anyone condemn them? This article written by a friend of one of the performers in the 90 second animated short that was cut out has what I think is the best coverage. It includes a good amount of detail including a play by play of the cut content: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-the-good-fight-for-a-musical-short-about-china https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-t...

komali2 7y ago
If they're concerned about the safety of employees in China over the content they produce, perhaps they should not station employees in China. Unfortunately it's such a big market it's apparent that companies are willing to forego ethics to do business with China, despite the numerous human rights violations.
- Cthulhu_ 7y ago
  CBS is an American based company; given its blatant human rights violations, perhaps they should not station employees in their home country?
  - komali2 7y ago
    I didn't claim the United States is perfect, but it certainly isn't mass incarcerating members of a peaceful religious group and harvesting their organs, so I won't agree to your false equivalence.
    - glenneroo 7y ago
      > In September 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...

slantyyz 7y ago

When I watched the show last week and that censored bit showed up, I thought it was actually a gag and not for real. The animated Jonathan Coulton bits on that show are my favorite part of the show, they're quite well done and funny. The show, however, is overly politicized. When compared to the Good Wife, it is much less about fighting interesting legal cases now than it is about US politics.

jobsinkansas 7y ago

It's great post.

jobsinkansas 7y ago

It's a great post.

gtfratteus 7y ago

What are the odds this will teach the American left that censorship is not a good thing and lead them to stop demanding Google, Twitter, and Facebook ban every user who wants to reduce immigration? 1%? 0%?

lallysingh 7y ago
Clearly this is all the same thing, with the same consequences.
duxup 7y ago
>ban every user who wants to reduce immigration? That's not even a thing.
amanaplanacanal 7y ago
You aren't trying to censor those lefties, are you?
Miner49er 7y ago
I don't think this is a good comparison. The bans you are talking about (ignoring the hyperbole) are for hate speech. This is censhorship of critisicm of an authoritarian government. I don't think the two are remotely comparable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- golemiprague 7y ago
  The bans are because they criticise the left, the Chinese probably also calls criticism of themselves "hate speech".

zouhair 7y ago

I don't get why you are acting so surprised. In Capitalism the only point is to make money, that's all there is. If siding with human rights helps make money they will side with human rights, if genocide helps make even more money they will side with genocide. As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits. I disagree. It's a matter of priorities. It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I think the main issue here is that capitalist institutions and capitalist thinking are ascendent (in the US at least) while rival political and social institutions and modes of thought that could keep it in check are being hollowed out and weakened.
- GalacticDomin8r 7y ago
  > It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway. No, it could also be the society's moral system. For instance, take a hypothetical capitalist society where the shame and stigma of violating human rights is very strong. A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.

quotz 7y ago

By tolerating China's censorship, The West too starts censoring.

kyleblarson 7y ago

'Ms. King said that she and her husband initially told CBS that they would quit the show if the song was pulled but that they eventually agreed on inserting a message saying that the company had censored it.' AKA they want to keep their paycheck.

taobility 7y ago
Lots of people saying they would leave US if Trump be voted, but none of them actually doing that. So, that's the reality.

duxup 7y ago

If they're willing to censor news. I wonder how long until China extends its social credit system (or a form of it) to people outside China... and what companies play along?

taobility 7y ago
are you saying US's credit score shouldn't apply to immigrant?
- duxup 7y ago
  I'm wondering if CBS bows to pressure (real or imagined) from China over a news story, if a US company would do so as far as who they hire or fire when it comes to personnel decisions.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Do you think China's social credit system is the same as your payment history / financial risk factor credit score?
  - taobility 7y ago
    can u pls tell me what's the difference?
- pzone 7y ago
  This account's entire comment history is nothing but anti-US propaganda.
  - taobility 7y ago
    how do you define propaganda? Speaking anything American not favored?

rhizome 7y ago

Next they should do an episode on Mohammed bin Salman and see what happens. Red-team US censorship standards.

taobility 7y ago
They would never think about that. Otherwise, Muslim would burn their office, shoot their employee and the other medias would say, the burning is for justice :)

mrobot 7y ago

Are there any Chinese people on hacker news who have opinions about Chinese censorship?

Animats 7y ago

Vanity Fair says the show runners threatened to quit. They got CBS to put “CBS HAS CENSORED THIS CONTENT" on screen for 8.5 seconds.[1][2] [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/the-good-fight-censorship-cbs https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/the-good-fight-... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-the-good-fight-for-a-musical-short-about-china https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-t...

partiallypro 7y ago
Censoring a bit about censorship is so meta, it almost hurts.

russellbeattie 7y ago

This isn't "ironic" or a "creative solution", this is straight up censorship. Wow. China has basically made it known they will go after a company's employees. I'm sure that CBS is very concerned about general access to the Chinese market and don't want their shows banned for purely economic reasons, but the subtle threat of their Chinese employees disappearing because of a cartoon is a real thing. Let's say this was my decision, pretend I'm a director or VP at CBS and I need to make the call about this cartoon, and whether the threat against my subordinates in country - or myself on my next business trip - is real. After Fan Bingbing's disappearance last year, I would take this very seriously and I'm not sure I would make a different call. That's censorship, full stop. I'm not sure what CBS alone can do about this - they're a single company against a sovereign nation. Not to let them off the hook, but I really feel the U.S. government has to step up here.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
From the New Yorker article on this: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-the-good-fight-for-a-musical-short-about-china https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cbs-censors-t... > Stanley Rosen, a professor of political science at the University of Southern California who also teaches courses on Chinese film, expressed doubt that airing such a cartoon would have exposed CBS employees to risk, although, he added, that might depend on whether network executives were seen as personally responsible for the segment.
babypuncher 7y ago
I'm going to call BS on CBS' excuse that the Chinese government would actually harm CBS employees in China over the companies production of content that isn't available in China.
- helloindia 7y ago
  China did make Hongkong Bookstore owners disappear(some of them disappeared while visiting China), because they were selling books(banned in mainland china) in Hongkong. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/magazine/the-case-of-hong-kongs-missing-booksellers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/magazine/the-case-of-hong...

basetop 7y ago

Man, if only the nytimes and the media was more concerned about censorship here in the US. But then again, it's the nytimes and the media championing censorship at home.

erlangNewb 7y ago

Let's not forget that there are humans making these decisions, and their names are...?

basicplus2 7y ago

This a is about money being more important than morals

shard972 7y ago

This is the same show that promoting punching people to the right you disagree with? Can't say im incredibly shocked.