A little Churchill woke up in Boris. LOL
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Mr T
Senior Member
That's not relevant to the point being made. China insists that it doesn't interfere in other countries' internal affairs. I don't mind if it says it does have a right to intefere, but then that means it can't play the same card when other nations start talking about exclusively "Chinese" matters.
Also if you advance the line of thinking I think you are, then you're encouraging democratic countries to bring in laws that specifically and automatically ban state media from countries with poor media freedoms - a sort of "you ban us, we ban you" rule. That's probably not what China would want. Having been freely able to spread its message in countries it is in strategic competition with for many years, the Chinese government can't complain if occasionally it falls foul of rules that have been published for a long time.
CGTN isn't being singled out. The rules apply to everyone - Press TV was banned in 2012. Russia Today continues to broadcast but has been fined. Al Jazeera appears to have navigated Ofcom rules successfully for quite some time.
Not really. This is a specific ruling about television broadcasting. As I said above, the rules apply to everyone, both UK and foreign TV channels. In this case, CGTV's editorial line is ultimately controlled by the CCP. Ofcom rules say political parties cannot have that sort of control over TV channels in the UK. This is not something, for example, the UK government has control of. If it did Ofcom would have probably been pushed to ban stations like Channel 4 that are heavily critical of the Conservative Party.
CGTV itself is not permanently banned from UK TV. The Ofcom decision says they can reapply. However, in order to have a new application accepted they'd probably have to undergo structural organisation that the China Media Group and Chinese officials may find difficult to accept. But how the Chinese government organises and controls state media isn't a reason to let CGTV continue broadcasting. This isn't like diplomatic immunity - state media have to follow local rules.
In the interim you can still watch CGTV on the internet and read Chinese state newspapers online as well, both in English and Chinese. Ofcom's ruling doesn't extend to the internet or print media.
"Al Jazeera is owned and funded by the state of Qatar. The founder and Chairman of the Board is Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, who is a member of Qatar’s ruling family, the House of Thani."
No state sponsored media guys! CGTN isn't being singled out! Ofcom is just following the rules!
No state sponsored media guys! CGTN isn't being singled out! Ofcom is just following the rules!
First of all I am unable to view the article due to a pay wall so I have answered based on other networks such as CNN... I am not sure how much difference there is but the facts shouldn’t be that different... if you can post the specific Bloomberg one then I can answer any other points not covered elsewhere... anyway I will play devil’s advocate
I think first we need to define interference of internal affairs... making a statement about its point of view on a matter that pertains to interests of a company/subsidiary of company operating abroad is can hardly be considered interference of internal affairs, since it literally affects an entity that is foreign in nature, especially when the matter at hand is view as a political matter.
As a matter of fact the BBC itself is partially funded by the British government direct via the TV license, which is imposed on all residence living in the UK, whether true or not, can arguably be defined as a state owned news media network, and the state can influence programming based on funding... the same as CGTN, although CGTN fully funded rather than partially... now we can argue whether it automatically mean it is under the direct control of the CCP due to the one-party system or merely excerpts influence over the programs the network produces, but that point is moot since on technicality both the BBC and the CGTN can be considered to be in a similar if not the same position and can also be argued that CGTN simply chooses to be positive on China. You, I or others may not believe it, but all prove is based on programs on the network or the fact that the network is state owned, therefore it is determined based on subjectively.
Now on to the ban itself... the ban was based on a technicality that the party holding the license was a distributor rather than an entity that hold ‘editorial control’ and recourse of transferring the license was rejected under the assumption/conclusion that the CGTN was controlled by the CCP, as I have explained above, as well as the fact that other similar networks that are arguably controlled by other state owned partner companies that are still authorises to have the license display obvious political bias in this case. They only difference is that the other networks produces programs that are in line with the overriding narrative of the UK Al Jazeera being a case in point, thus they were able to navigate as you say around the rules. The example of channel 4 is interesting as well... they are critical of conservative party, in fact I remember that they were also critical of the Labour Party when they are in power but in terms of foreign narratives I would presume they are completely in line as well...
Now additional reasonings by OFCOM also contributed to the ban, one of which was the broadcast of HK protest... where the found that the network overemphasised government authority without exploring the views and motivations of the protestors... however I ask if the network has stated facts about the protest for example what it is about and what the protestors are protesting against, I.e. the extradition laws, then that has already presented the views and motivation of the protestors... conversely the BBC and other foreign media overemphasis the view of the protestors while over making a passing mention of presenting the views of the government but that somehow become fair and not in violation of the rules on fairness, by the examples presented by OFCOM almost all western news media networks would be in violation of fairness rules... that again is a subjective and political bias
There was also mention of an investigation in 2016 on the reporting of the arrest of Peter Humphrey in 2013 and 2014... I find this details irrelevant as a cause or example of the delicensing, but shows a mark against OFCOM in the motivation of its decision. Since the investigation was conducted 4 years ago and no actions was thus taken given the findings, I can only assume that the conclusion was it was not in violation and this clear of the issue, however it was brought up against as evidence, it would be unfair to CGTN to use a cleared allegation as evidence, bolstering OFCOM’s position... this adds the additional point that the primary reason used in the delicensing was the fact that there was a technicality in ownership which OFCOM has known for almost a decade but chose this moment to act, after specifically the reporting concerning HK... which is a political motivation...
In terms of the freedom of speech and freedom of expression argument I will concede, as CGTN is still available online and in print... but the delicensing is certainly the UK going back on its own principles, which it constantly lambasts China for, using both double standards, in its ruling concerning the violations, and political bias, in the way it was considering the addressing and rejection of possible recourses, as the basis of their regulator’s decision. Since other news media have similar situations, the rules and violations should have applied equally based on principle of the rules as presented but because of the major difference is in the views they choose to put on their programs the channel are able to ‘navigate’ rules, so how can the ruling not be politically motivated?
I think first we need to define interference of internal affairs... making a statement about its point of view on a matter that pertains to interests of a company/subsidiary of company operating abroad is can hardly be considered interference of internal affairs, since it literally affects an entity that is foreign in nature, especially when the matter at hand is view as a political matter.
As a matter of fact the BBC itself is partially funded by the British government direct via the TV license, which is imposed on all residence living in the UK, whether true or not, can arguably be defined as a state owned news media network, and the state can influence programming based on funding... the same as CGTN, although CGTN fully funded rather than partially... now we can argue whether it automatically mean it is under the direct control of the CCP due to the one-party system or merely excerpts influence over the programs the network produces, but that point is moot since on technicality both the BBC and the CGTN can be considered to be in a similar if not the same position and can also be argued that CGTN simply chooses to be positive on China. You, I or others may not believe it, but all prove is based on programs on the network or the fact that the network is state owned, therefore it is determined based on subjectively.
Now on to the ban itself... the ban was based on a technicality that the party holding the license was a distributor rather than an entity that hold ‘editorial control’ and recourse of transferring the license was rejected under the assumption/conclusion that the CGTN was controlled by the CCP, as I have explained above, as well as the fact that other similar networks that are arguably controlled by other state owned partner companies that are still authorises to have the license display obvious political bias in this case. They only difference is that the other networks produces programs that are in line with the overriding narrative of the UK Al Jazeera being a case in point, thus they were able to navigate as you say around the rules. The example of channel 4 is interesting as well... they are critical of conservative party, in fact I remember that they were also critical of the Labour Party when they are in power but in terms of foreign narratives I would presume they are completely in line as well...
Now additional reasonings by OFCOM also contributed to the ban, one of which was the broadcast of HK protest... where the found that the network overemphasised government authority without exploring the views and motivations of the protestors... however I ask if the network has stated facts about the protest for example what it is about and what the protestors are protesting against, I.e. the extradition laws, then that has already presented the views and motivation of the protestors... conversely the BBC and other foreign media overemphasis the view of the protestors while over making a passing mention of presenting the views of the government but that somehow become fair and not in violation of the rules on fairness, by the examples presented by OFCOM almost all western news media networks would be in violation of fairness rules... that again is a subjective and political bias
There was also mention of an investigation in 2016 on the reporting of the arrest of Peter Humphrey in 2013 and 2014... I find this details irrelevant as a cause or example of the delicensing, but shows a mark against OFCOM in the motivation of its decision. Since the investigation was conducted 4 years ago and no actions was thus taken given the findings, I can only assume that the conclusion was it was not in violation and this clear of the issue, however it was brought up against as evidence, it would be unfair to CGTN to use a cleared allegation as evidence, bolstering OFCOM’s position... this adds the additional point that the primary reason used in the delicensing was the fact that there was a technicality in ownership which OFCOM has known for almost a decade but chose this moment to act, after specifically the reporting concerning HK... which is a political motivation...
In terms of the freedom of speech and freedom of expression argument I will concede, as CGTN is still available online and in print... but the delicensing is certainly the UK going back on its own principles, which it constantly lambasts China for, using both double standards, in its ruling concerning the violations, and political bias, in the way it was considering the addressing and rejection of possible recourses, as the basis of their regulator’s decision. Since other news media have similar situations, the rules and violations should have applied equally based on principle of the rules as presented but because of the major difference is in the views they choose to put on their programs the channel are able to ‘navigate’ rules, so how can the ruling not be politically motivated?
Last edited:
If we want to get technical BBC is state sponsored news too. It is just better run than CGTN, which wants to be RT but ends up a second rate travel ad agency instead.
Guys. I really don't know why we bothered. The mind bending is way too strong. Twisting to suit his own little world.
He practice selective single-lens democratic sensitivity. The prejudicial kind based on Anglo supremacy.
As displayed by the CTGN ban, his kind needs to be against Chinese freedom of speech, Chinese freedom of thought, and Chinese freedom of expression to save their "Anglo-democracy" and their twisted and selective interpretation of rule-of-law.
Last edited:
That might be true but he is not at Indian or ‘analyst’ levels of argument and can still have a civilised discourse based on perceived logic, so why not give his arguments at least a fair shake...
I think its more laughable that the member chooses as an avatar of a upstanding member of the african community when he has never posted in support of BLM or any African-American pan-african causes. If he had any real backbone he would have chosen someone like Lou Dobbs or Ben Shapiro but hey, its like the Indians' pretending to be english.
solarz
Brigadier
Completely disagree. Have you seen their documentaries on China's poverty alleviation?