What I read
In "China and Eurovision clash over an LGBT performance—and the value of diversity" (2018), The Economist criticizes China's repressive policy of censoring what the government dictates to be not "'appropriate' culture and norms," accusing the Chinese government and officials of lacking a sense of humour in their refusal to allow citizens to enjoy a rich cultural diversity, as a result of which the Eurovision Song Contest has withdrawn broadcast rights from the Chinese TV channel that censored gay and lesbian content from the Chinese audience. The Economist also praises the Eurovision Song Contest for being not so much a great musical event as a celebration of diversity in liberal multi-cultural acceptance, and also the ability to "laugh at oneself."
___________________________________
My response
Unusually, I thought of the title for this blog post even before I had finished reading the article in The Economist. It's a classic from modern opera by Stephen Sondheim. And after the effort of summarizing my chosen article, which was a bit more difficult than for a BBC News article, it took me some time to choose the best version from YouTube to include below. I like Barbara Streisand's version for her beautiful voice, but in the end, I opted for Dame Judi Dench's more earthy version: she had performed it in a production of Sondheim's A Little Light Music, and, still going strong, she's one of the great actors of the past century, whether doing Shakespeare or M in a James Bond movie. Listening to a few versions of Send in the Clowns on YouTube was a pleasant way to start the day with my morning coffee. It's the last line of the song that is important for my title.
Getting back to my chosen article, I have to admit that I'm not much interested in the Eurovision Song Contest, and was surprised to learn that it had such a long history, having started way back in 1950. I'd always thought it began around the late 1970s and had always been controversially liberal, but I was wrong. I really only learned of it over the last few years, when some acts, especially the women with a beard, made the news headlines, and even then I didn't actually listen to those songs. Reading the article, I was also surprised to learn that ABBA, who were a great favourite when I was in high school, had gotten their chance for fame in the Eurovision Song Contest. I obviously don't follow popular music trends very carefully.
But what really interested me in the article was the ugly censorship of the Chinese government, which is clearly intent on keeping Chinese citizens ignorant. And ignorance is always, without exception, the reason for all censorship: someone in power wants others to be ignorant of something, usually an inconvenient truth. China censors a lot: they do not want Chinese citizens to understand Chinese politics or history, so they censor; they do not want Chinese citizens to know about alternative approaches to human relationships and sexuality, so they censor; and they don't want corruption exposed, so they censor. Of course, other countries do the same, and I'm sure everyone can think of local Thai topics that are heavily censored to keep Thai people ignorant of their own national affairs. I'm sure that politicians and others in my country would like to do the same, but strong legal protection for free speech, an essential foundation not only for informed opinion on any topic, but also for democracy, leaves Australian politicians and others exposed to healthy truth speaking and laughter.
And as The Economist reminds us, it's good to laugh at ourselves, our leaders and our favourite beliefs: they are rarely so wonderfully perfect as we might think them.
Getting back to my chosen article, I have to admit that I'm not much interested in the Eurovision Song Contest, and was surprised to learn that it had such a long history, having started way back in 1950. I'd always thought it began around the late 1970s and had always been controversially liberal, but I was wrong. I really only learned of it over the last few years, when some acts, especially the women with a beard, made the news headlines, and even then I didn't actually listen to those songs. Reading the article, I was also surprised to learn that ABBA, who were a great favourite when I was in high school, had gotten their chance for fame in the Eurovision Song Contest. I obviously don't follow popular music trends very carefully.
But what really interested me in the article was the ugly censorship of the Chinese government, which is clearly intent on keeping Chinese citizens ignorant. And ignorance is always, without exception, the reason for all censorship: someone in power wants others to be ignorant of something, usually an inconvenient truth. China censors a lot: they do not want Chinese citizens to understand Chinese politics or history, so they censor; they do not want Chinese citizens to know about alternative approaches to human relationships and sexuality, so they censor; and they don't want corruption exposed, so they censor. Of course, other countries do the same, and I'm sure everyone can think of local Thai topics that are heavily censored to keep Thai people ignorant of their own national affairs. I'm sure that politicians and others in my country would like to do the same, but strong legal protection for free speech, an essential foundation not only for informed opinion on any topic, but also for democracy, leaves Australian politicians and others exposed to healthy truth speaking and laughter.
And as The Economist reminds us, it's good to laugh at ourselves, our leaders and our favourite beliefs: they are rarely so wonderfully perfect as we might think them.
___________________________________
My question
What may the law justly censor? That is, what is it OK for governments to keep people ignorant of?
___________________________________
Reference
- China and Eurovision clash over an LGBT performance—and the value of diversity. (2018, May 11). The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/blogs/openfuture/2018/05/open-society-0
I suggested that for our first summary and response writing you choose an article from the BBC News because the language is a bit easier than for the other sources on my "Something to Read?" list, but for your future blog posts practising our expanded version the writing task on Bixby and Scanlon's page 35, you might like to explore the other sources listed. I've arranged them roughly in order of the difficulty of their language. The BBC News is written in strong, formal English, but uses a simpler range of grammar and a less sophisticated vocabulary than The Economist and The New York Times, both of which are written in an academic style of English, with articles often contributed by academics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Bangkok Post is on the list, it's limited to their opinion pieces. The general reporting in the Bangkok Post is not always so well-written, except syndicated articles republished from sources such as Reuters, an international news agency. The opinion writers for the Post, both Thai and foreign, do write very well, providing good examples of English to read and respond to.
Censorship is not only a way to keep people ignorant, but also a way, in some very specific country, to show the worst of ego. The leader sincerely thinks they is morally better, smarter like they know everything better than every citizens and is enthusiast to act as if he is a hero who help and give the best to people, what good or what bad, he decide for you. What a horrible idea! The idea is incredibly innocence, as the same time is truly obnoxious, and more annoying than that to keep people ignorant and to control them. One may argue Internet censorship help stop fake news and help with national security but is it even worse when the news is from one source called government. Also the security is not for nation but for the government themselves. I cannot think of any that justify censorship by government.
ReplyDeleteThank you Kan. I agree that censorship to force the dictator's ideas on everyone shows great arrogance. And as you suggest, it is insulting to the citizens who are thereby treated as silly fools too stupid to think for themselves.
DeleteBut I suspect it is precisely because people can think that information is concealed by oppressive governments that hate the good morals of democracy.