
SCMP's online presence in mainland China completely wiped out - sharetea
http://shanghaiist.com/2016/03/09/south-china-morning-post.php
======
Animats
The South China Morning Post has had the best English-language reporting on
China for years. Both inside and outside China, that was what one read to get
some idea of what was really going on. For comparison, read Xinhua.[1] Today's
top story: "President Xi calls for structural reform, agricultural
modernization". Story #2: "Premier Li urges Guangdong to pioneer reform".
Story #3: "Top legislator delivers report on work of NPC Standing Committee".
You get the idea. China Daily [2] on China is a bit better. But not much.
"China to boost consumer goods quality: minister". "Top legislator lauds
enhanced legislation on China's national security". There's also the People's
Daily [3], which is the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China.
This is literally the party line. Good coverage of the 13th Five-Year Plan and
the 2016 National Party Congress.

This is a big loss for China. The USSR suffered from having all the press toe
the party line. Even the people running the country didn't have a good
overview of what was going on. The downfall of the USSR was a surprise to the
leadership of the USSR.

[1] [http://www.news.cn/english/](http://www.news.cn/english/) [2]
[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/) [3]
[http://en.people.cn/](http://en.people.cn/)

~~~
zghst
SCMP was already going down the tubes in regards to journalistic integrity. I
stopped reading more than a year ago due to the propaganda pieces they were
shipping.

------
FussyZeus
I wonder if China can fully enter the first world while still executing such a
thorough and complete control over the media? Would anyone like to weigh in on
if free speech is essential to what you'd consider a first world country, or
is it simply one of those luxuries that only some need?

~~~
gherkin0
What do you mean by "first world country?" The terms first/second/third world
were originally names used to distinguish countries aligned either with the
capitalist west, communist east, or neither (which typically were less
developed). Now it's used more as a synonym for "developed country," which is
a category that certainly included the Soviet Union (there wasn't a lot of
free speech there, to say the least).

I don't think the Chinese government cares about western political values, and
it'll probably be satisfied with whatever economic development it can get
without them.

~~~
FussyZeus
I was referring to development, I actually had no idea those terms were
originally political. Today I Learned.

------
lifeisstillgood
Note to moderators - please expand SCMP to South China Morning Post, it's not
clear they have shutdown a newspaper's online presence.

Note to Chinese Administration - oh come on guys.

~~~
Pyxl101
Yes. I briefly confused SCMP with SCTP and thought to myself, "I didn't
realize anyone used SCTP. What's the significance?"

~~~
Chirael
I read it quickly and said, "Why on Earth did the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police have a presence in mainland China anyway?"

Then I remembered, oh yeah, SCMP was that website I read several times a day,
for a couple of weeks straight, when the Snowden story broke.

------
jorgecurio
Who in their right minds would want China to be the global hegemony when they
censor free speech, treat people like they are disposable (Falun Gong body
organ harvesting by President Zemin), impose Han Chinese ethnocentric
ideologies as superior to the world as did Nazi Germany believed their blood
made them pure?

What country in their right mind that enjoys the security and economic
prosperity and trade with other democracies, uproot all of these perks in
favor of China?

Who thinks like this besides delusional Chinese ultra nationalists and
apologists?

United States is not perfect or all good either but fuck me if I'm going to
let China become the world hegemony and bully every country like they do in
the South China sea?

The world needs United States more than it needs the world.

edit: for those saying falun gong organ harvesting is a conspiracy.

Please refer to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China)

    
    
        Falun Gong is a Chinese qigong discipline involving 
        meditation and a moral philosophy rooted in Buddhist 
        tradition. The practice rose to popularity in the 1990s 
        in China, and by 1998, Chinese government sources 
        estimated that as many as 70 million people had taken up 
        the practice.[23][24] Perceiving that Falun Gong was a 
        potential threat to the Party’s authority and ideology, 
        Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin initiated a 
        nationwide campaign to eradicate the group in July 1999.
        [25]

~~~
analyst74
> Who in their right minds would want China to be the global hegemony when
> they censor free speech, treat people like they are disposable (Falun Gong
> body organ harvesting by President Zemin), impose Han Chinese ethnocentric
> ideologies as superior to the world as did Nazi Germany believed their blood
> made them pure?

I can't believe people actually think this way... organ harvesting by the
president?? Han Chinese ethnocentric ideologies??

~~~
nitrogen
I'm not sure that simply expressing astonishment will change anyone's mind.
Are these well-known ideas or something completely new? Can you refute them
directly or explain where they come from to someone not familiar with Chinese
history and current conspiracy theories?

~~~
analyst74
One does not need familiarity with Chinese history or conspiracy theories to
put those claims into the nonsense bin.

But in case it's not as obvious as I see it, here are my assumptions:

\- president of China is a public figure

\- he is probably not crazy

\- most Chinese people are not crazy

\- not-crazy people think organ harvesting is really bad

Based on those assumptions (feel free to prove me wrong), he is unlikely to
have ordered organ harvesting, and even if he did, it's unlikely he can cover
it up.

As to "Han Chinese ethnocentric ideologies", I have never heard of it. But if
I were to take a guess, he might be referring to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinocentrism),
and it has not been a thing for at least several hundred years.

~~~
Jtsummers
Organ harvesting from prisoners is apparently legal in China (per the
Wikipedia article, haven't followed through all the links yet). So apparently
some not-crazy people think it's not really bad or crazy people are running
the show. Let's assume not-crazy. They have a source of organs, people they
intend to execute, and they apparently make use of this. There's a lack (or
circa 2006 was) of a detailed registry showing the source of transplant
organs. There's _some_ evidence (but not conclusive) that some of those organs
were from Falun Gong members.

So China _is_ harvesting organs from prisoners. They have not maintained an
accountable record of which prisoners were used that could be offered as
verification. Torture and coercion of Falun Gong prisoners does happen. In an
environment of poor accountability and oversight with a willingness for
brutality, the potential abuse cannot be immediately discarded.

If you think I'm just bashing China, see the US and its various torture abuses
over the past 15 (in particular) years. Abu Ghraib is not something that most
people would have expected from the US Army, but it happened.

Bush was a public figure. Bush was probably not crazy. Most US people are not
crazy. Not-crazy people think that dehumanizing and torture of prisoners is
really bad. But it happened.

This is a different scale (thousands, not hundreds) and different issue
(killing and harvesting, not torture) but your assumptions are insufficient to
discard it out of hand. They do, however, provide a solid basis for
skepticism.

But had the Chinese officials and agencies involved done their due diligence
they should have had records demonstrating the source of organs. If for no
other reason than the medical knowledge for recipients. A closed examination
or audit of those records would have sufficed to put this case to rest (for
the vast majority of people).

~~~
analyst74
I think you make an excellent point, and my assumptions are probably not
sufficient to lead to my conclusions.

I'd like to point out though, organ harvesting death row prisoners is on a
vastly different scale of acceptance than organ harvesting less-informed cult
followers who has harmed nobody except themselves. The former is unethical
because it incentivizes unjust sentencing, but the wrong part is unjust
sentencing, not necessarily organ harvesting(although this is controversial
and can get philosophical); the later would affect many millions of people,
enraging orders of magnitude more.

Bottom line, did Jiang order the crackdown of falun gong and resulting in some
being tortured or even sentenced to die? Yes. Did he order organ harvesting of
falun gong members? Most definitely not.

