Word Count: 308
EDITORIAL
The Chinese government, in an effort to control the ideology of its people and ensure its future existence, is no stranger to manipulating, withholding or fabricating information to serve its needs. Nothing new, right? What is new, and has yet to be widely discussed or analyzed, is the adverse effects of China’s censorship will have on itself. Considered by many experts to be the world’s most effective propaganda machine, China’s state controlled media, including TV, the internet and publications, has a heavy-handed approach to directly and indirectly influencing all aspects of society. Advocates of censorship in China claim that it is analogous with Chinese values such as the common good over individual good, economic success as priority one, and social harmony is more important than the truth. While these values are not to be argued, it is the adverse consequences of censorship, which will eventually lead to the very issues of the government is attempting to avoid by means of censorship. The censorship of media by the Chinese government is a contradictory policy that does not serve in the best long-term interests of its people, government, or country as a whole, and will likely have negative consequences for the political system.
It is easy to criticize censorship. But there is no doubt that there are benefits to censorship. According to PBS, censorship is "the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons - individuals, groups or government official - find objectionable or dangerous." (PBS). A law dictionary defines it as the "denial of the freedom of speech or freedom of press". (PBS). This definition doesn’t seem to portray censorship in a good term. However, just as with every controversial issue, there are two sides, each with their perspective and supporting evidences. Regardless of moral or ethical significance of censorship, only the effects are discussed. In the society with censorship negative information does not spread, or the story is shed in a different light, then the status quo remains. Often the status quo is better than the alternative. After all, censoring information can be a very effective tool. According to author James Fallows, the Chinese government's censorship polices are effective in that most ordinary citizens will not make the effort to circumvent it and usually believe what is in the media more often than not (Stay).
Since censorship is the means by which the government retains the values of the Chinese people, it is easy to justify. Let's put it into perspective by illustrating a very possible scenario in modern day China. A large Chinese bank unexpectedly goes out of service, even surprising the government because bank executives skewed the internal audits. Word gets out and bank customers rush to withdraw their savings. The Chinese government quietly injects money into the bank, which allows the customers to withdraw the money, and prohibits any media from running the story. Such decisive action prevents bank customers from other banks, who also fear that this could be a chain reaction similar to the financial crisis in the West not long ago, from withdrawing all of their savings and causing a banking crisis. Thus, censorship prevents mass hysteria and avoids possible social unrests. It seems that the government acted for the common good of its people, economic catastrophe was avoided, and social harmony preserved. Perhaps censorship isn't so bad after all.
Now let's take a step back and look at human nature. If you lie to someone, perhaps that someone will never find out and life goes on under the premise of the supposed truth, which is really a lie of course. But what if they find it out? Trust is lost and that person might never believe what you tell them again, or at least think twice about accepting your words. The short term advantage is obvious and always tempting, but it's the long term disadvantage to lying that will affect you. This parallel is not so different from that of censorship. However, the Chinese government's approach to censorship is different in that it has a carefully planned and implemented strategy, under which censorship is practiced gradually and across a wide range of issues, but all with the same goals of acting for the common good, economic prosperity, and social stability (McKellogg). The trick with censorship is that mistakes could have huge consequences such as the end of the government itself. Going back to the long term disadvantage of lying, let's quickly look at the opposite situation. The truth can often bring immediate negative consequences, but has many long term benefits. After all, knowledge is the power to change, and knowledge is based on the truth.
A society that is absent of, or at least limited in its censorship, might not share the same values as Chinese society. But again, we are not questioning values, but rather the effects of censorship. The lack of censorship, by nature, means that information is not controlled. The result is a constant self-correction of society. Wrong doings, at least those deemed so by society, are quickly exposed and more difficult to commit a second time whether by means of a newly enacted law or just society's rejection. A lack of censorship also allows for all sides of a story to be heard, in effect creating a desensitized public that is more aware and informed to make decisions. Although a more messy, sometimes less effective process, open access to information in a society yields greater long term benefits than censorship without the risks that come with the lack of self-correcting mechanisms.
Censorship is nothing new, having been practiced by those in power since the beginning of history. The control of information can be the greatest force known to man. The problem is that it never works for long. It is easy to see the problems that come with, albeit extreme examples of censorship, book burning and the imprisonment of activists - dumb people cannot lead the next generation and martyrs cause revolutions. Censorship, as practiced by the Chinese government, is highly unlikely to prove a successful strategy - unless they defy the history of civilization, which is highly unlikely.
Word:1016
Citation
“China’s Internet Censorship Is Effective.” Censorship. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Jan. 2012.
"Culture Shock: Who Decides? How and Why?: Definitions of Censorship." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. PBS. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html>.
McKellogg, JulieAnn. "Freedom House: Internet Censorship Circumvention Tools Effective, Lack Security." News | English. Voice of America, 15 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Freedom-House-Internet-Censorship-Circumvention-Tools-Effective-Lack-Security-119738134.html>.
“What Is Censorship?” Global Internet Liberty Campaign Home Page. Web. 16 Sept. 2010. <http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/index.html>.