NYTimes blocked in China

[silentstriker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/china-blocks-web-access-to-new-york-times.html?_r=0

 

[andyc]

Meh. China gonna China.

 

[Spooony]

Now only if they could block the million chinese hackers....

 

[Quaggas]

Sure that the average Chinese citizen already knows more about their kleptocrat leadership than the NYT ever will. #tiltingatwindmills

 

[silentstriker]

Well there's a difference between rumors and proof. Especially for a premier that is seen as anti-corruption. Everyone may 'know' their politicans are corrupt, but it's still a scandal when it's proven.

 

[Spikey]

those communists at the times will be so disappointed

 

[Quaggas]

The ones that accept the NYT article as proof probably don't need more proof; the ones that don't, wouldn't be swayed by confession on state television. Unless followed by a swift bullet to the head for corruption.

 

[silentstriker]

That's a weird assertion to make - what do you base that on? Clearly media revelations such as this can have a huge impact on public opinion in most countries. It was certainly tracking very high before NYTimes was banned in China.

 

[Quaggas]

You seriously think that individuals in China following the NYT online need more "proof" that their leadership is corrupt? Or that an article there will change their mind from "it's propaganda" to "oh, I see it clearly now, like a red rubber ball?"

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, I think proof changes things, quite a bit, even if people already have a perception of something being true without it. Otherwise, there'd be no corruption scandals - and there are, even in China.

 

[Quaggas]

The NYT's is hardly proof, though. This ban's like trying to put the butterflies back in the box.

 

[silentstriker]

Sure it is. We'll see what happens - I bet you there'll be an impact - especially considering the timing.

 

[Spooony]

And TOR is probably still blocked

 

[Quaggas]

Sure it is. We'll see what happens - I bet you there'll be an impact - especially considering the timing.

Hope you're right, but I fear you overestimate the reach of the NYT. After all, they've been know to report on international events from inside their comfy Manhattan coops.

You don't overcome sexy calves that easily.

 

[smalishah84]

You seriously think that individuals in China following the NYT online need more "proof" that their leadership is corrupt? Or that an article there will change their mind from "it's propaganda" to "oh, I see it clearly now, like a red rubber ball?"

Yeah, agree with this.

At least in Pakistan so many corruption scandals come to light only to go off into the background with nothing heard about them afterwards. The people generally assume the leadership to be corrupt by default and would only sit and take notice if somebody with an extremely clean record is exposed badly through the media. And then people are like "oh, he turns out to be one of the crowd"

I doubt it really affects public perception.

And I won't be surprised if that is the case in China too.

 

[benchmark00]

China still cool.

 

[andyc]

Yes, I think proof changes things, quite a bit, even if people already have a perception of something being true without it. Otherwise, there'd be no corruption scandals - and there are, even in China.

The public in China are still very aware that the government is corrupt. Those corruption scandals that do occur tend to be because the person in question has fallen out of political favour.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

In China corruption doesn't exist, since everything is censored.

 

[smalishah84]

Agent, your statement is so fallacious it is not even funny

 

[Spooony]