- 26 Nov 2014 17:20
#14491062
Actually the situation was pretty interesting because at some point we had :
* A powerful French communist party that under the pretense of internationalism was for a long time greatly affiliated and loyal to the USSR, with its dedicated and very popular newspaper, but that at the same time had electors (up to one fourth of citizens at its peak) that were only or mostly concerned about French problems and that, even when they imagined the USSR as some workers' heaven, were deeply French and cautious about foreign influences. Let's also mention that this party was, curiously enough, often using with a national rhetoric in order to warn their electors about the US influences.
* A Gaullist party that was concerned about maintaining our independence between the USA and the USSR, that refused NATO and such (we only joined it a few years ago under Sarkozy), but that would have chosen the USA over the USSR if they ever had to because of stronger ideological affinities (the right wing naturally opposed communism).
* Around those two alliance leaders there was a collection of significant parties that, for the most part, are rather annoyed by both the USA and the USSR, and only bother about French problems.
And you know what? All of the money that the USA and mostly the USSR (*) poured into the system didn't change the result a lot: in the end, elections were about France, about French problems and about ideological choices for France. People who voted for the communist party voted for communism in France. A minority would have supported a soviet invasion of France, but only because it would have led to communism. On the opposite, the fact that the communist party was affiliated to the USSR greatly harmed them and prevented them to rise. It is only soon after the left grew independent of the USSR that their ideas finally conquered the booths. Because the USSR strongly tried to manipulate us, they got the opposite result and communism was defeated in France thanks to their action. Finally, even if the communist party could have conquered the booths, the rest of their alliance would have rendered them unable to enforce a strong pro-Russian stance and they would have had to preserve some form of neutrality to respect the national consensus. This resilience to manipulation was the very consequence of the plurality of information, because people had neutral sources they could trust.
(*) The USA didn't have to manipulate us that much given that their ideological model was already similar to ours.
Aren't they middle-upper classes, mostly young? We have those in France, young men who tend to favor US news sites and value everything in English higher than what is written in French, as beta males who follow what they think the alpha male is. But if this is the same thing, then you should not worry about this: this occurs because they perceive the English world as superior. As your country grows, becomes more powerful and changes to address their critics, then they will see your country as superior.
However, of course, if you're unable to match their critics and desires, they will continue to follow US newssites. But then it will not be your bigger problem as this attraction is only a symptom rather than the disease itself.
For the freedom of association, of course. So that your citizens can freely gather and cooperate and make China better, so that your rich people craving for reputation and repentance can set up large charities to improve education, etc. A strong associative world (NGO pool) is a great asset to improve your country, fix its flaws and force your government and corporations to improve. The fact that a few NGO will be created by foreign forces for manipulation purposes is a small price to pay.
I meant the very kind of examples you provided. Again I never denied the existence of those manipulations, and of course you can list a hundred of such operations, I could as well. Yet I simply say that when it comes to the medias attitude in the world, most of them do not result from manipulations, covert operations, etc. They are simply the honest expression of those journalists' perception and interpretation of facts.
That being said, regarding US medias specifically (and to a lesser extent the Anglosphere), I also previously mentioned that they are far more subject to the CIA storytelling on foreign matters. In other words, the US medias tend to genuinely replicate the CIA propaganda on foreign matters. But outside of the US, the CIA influence over medias is globally loose. You can find a few corrupt journalists, opinion carriers, you can emphasize the role of press agencies, etc. Yet all of this is not nearly as effective outside of the US as you think it is.
The first part is true, the second is not. Many coups in the world have absolutely nothing to see with the CIA, from most of sub-Saharan coups to the start of the Arab summer. And even if the CIA pushes the Venezuelan opposition, it would be strong without them because personalities like Chavez who hold a weekly show on TV divide their countries and because Venezuela has been divided for a long time. Even the Ukraine coup was grounded into a powerful opposition against a very mediocre and egotistical leader.
benpenguin wrote:But the events unfolding in Hong Kong just demonstrates how vulnerable a society can be when free speeches are allowed. I don't know much about France, so I cannot comment. But I strongly suspect how effective your laws can be, defending against US and Soviets at the same time. I'd place my bets that the Americans won on that covert war, instead of being blocked out.
Actually the situation was pretty interesting because at some point we had :
* A powerful French communist party that under the pretense of internationalism was for a long time greatly affiliated and loyal to the USSR, with its dedicated and very popular newspaper, but that at the same time had electors (up to one fourth of citizens at its peak) that were only or mostly concerned about French problems and that, even when they imagined the USSR as some workers' heaven, were deeply French and cautious about foreign influences. Let's also mention that this party was, curiously enough, often using with a national rhetoric in order to warn their electors about the US influences.
* A Gaullist party that was concerned about maintaining our independence between the USA and the USSR, that refused NATO and such (we only joined it a few years ago under Sarkozy), but that would have chosen the USA over the USSR if they ever had to because of stronger ideological affinities (the right wing naturally opposed communism).
* Around those two alliance leaders there was a collection of significant parties that, for the most part, are rather annoyed by both the USA and the USSR, and only bother about French problems.
And you know what? All of the money that the USA and mostly the USSR (*) poured into the system didn't change the result a lot: in the end, elections were about France, about French problems and about ideological choices for France. People who voted for the communist party voted for communism in France. A minority would have supported a soviet invasion of France, but only because it would have led to communism. On the opposite, the fact that the communist party was affiliated to the USSR greatly harmed them and prevented them to rise. It is only soon after the left grew independent of the USSR that their ideas finally conquered the booths. Because the USSR strongly tried to manipulate us, they got the opposite result and communism was defeated in France thanks to their action. Finally, even if the communist party could have conquered the booths, the rest of their alliance would have rendered them unable to enforce a strong pro-Russian stance and they would have had to preserve some form of neutrality to respect the national consensus. This resilience to manipulation was the very consequence of the plurality of information, because people had neutral sources they could trust.
(*) The USA didn't have to manipulate us that much given that their ideological model was already similar to ours.
Many people I know, inside and outside of China, will reference CNN and BBC like it is already the final truth.
Aren't they middle-upper classes, mostly young? We have those in France, young men who tend to favor US news sites and value everything in English higher than what is written in French, as beta males who follow what they think the alpha male is. But if this is the same thing, then you should not worry about this: this occurs because they perceive the English world as superior. As your country grows, becomes more powerful and changes to address their critics, then they will see your country as superior.
However, of course, if you're unable to match their critics and desires, they will continue to follow US newssites. But then it will not be your bigger problem as this attraction is only a symptom rather than the disease itself.
Why allow these rodents around in the first place?
For the freedom of association, of course. So that your citizens can freely gather and cooperate and make China better, so that your rich people craving for reputation and repentance can set up large charities to improve education, etc. A strong associative world (NGO pool) is a great asset to improve your country, fix its flaws and force your government and corporations to improve. The fact that a few NGO will be created by foreign forces for manipulation purposes is a small price to pay.
Now that would depend on what you interpret as "conspiracy".
I meant the very kind of examples you provided. Again I never denied the existence of those manipulations, and of course you can list a hundred of such operations, I could as well. Yet I simply say that when it comes to the medias attitude in the world, most of them do not result from manipulations, covert operations, etc. They are simply the honest expression of those journalists' perception and interpretation of facts.
That being said, regarding US medias specifically (and to a lesser extent the Anglosphere), I also previously mentioned that they are far more subject to the CIA storytelling on foreign matters. In other words, the US medias tend to genuinely replicate the CIA propaganda on foreign matters. But outside of the US, the CIA influence over medias is globally loose. You can find a few corrupt journalists, opinion carriers, you can emphasize the role of press agencies, etc. Yet all of this is not nearly as effective outside of the US as you think it is.
The color revolutions, Venezula oppositions, and millions of covert operations are pushed by CIA, that much is clear. They are involved in almost every coup and social unrest in the world, and their own documents presents that much.
The first part is true, the second is not. Many coups in the world have absolutely nothing to see with the CIA, from most of sub-Saharan coups to the start of the Arab summer. And even if the CIA pushes the Venezuelan opposition, it would be strong without them because personalities like Chavez who hold a weekly show on TV divide their countries and because Venezuela has been divided for a long time. Even the Ukraine coup was grounded into a powerful opposition against a very mediocre and egotistical leader.