8 ms·

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 ba

• 5trokerac3 8y 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 8y ago
    This was the "coded message" that also included "dethrone Chameleon Man" as its directives, right?
    • 5trokerac3 8y ago
      No, it was three very specific words in order that, if you typed them here, would result in you being investigated.
      • hannasanarion 8y ago
        Which is exactly the context they were in in the show: a NSA agent watching out for dangerous people online.
        • 5trokerac3 8y 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 8y ago
            [deleted]
          • hannasanarion 8y ago
            Yeah. TV shows where the bad guys are assassins or terrorists are not a new invention.
          • komali2 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
          [deleted]
    • ColanR 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    Interesting to observe how stating facts gets you downvoted.
    • drocer88 8y ago
      Welcome to HN.
      • thedaemon 8y ago
        Welcome to America.
        • kaolti 8y ago
          Welcome to the culture war.
        • spork12 8y 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 8y ago
            Yes, HN does tend to have a collective bias towards logic and reason, and against wild conspiracy theories.
            • spork12 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
      That context doesn't absolve CBS. It is wildly inappropriate to be doing such a thing.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        See my reply to your other comment down-thread.
• sandworm101 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
• hedora 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
          Native ads and subscriptions, the same thing that worked for 150 years.
          • Wowfunhappy 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
      It is possible, but capitalism often incentives the opposite.
      • wnoise 8y ago
        Life often incentivizes immoral actions. That's not usually considered a mitigating factor.
  • LeoNatan25 8y ago
    Why not hate everyone equally, game and players? It takes players to have a game.
• swebs 8y 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 8y ago
  This story is about the entertainment industry, not the press.
• rhcom2 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.