Friday, October 13, 2006

Post 7: Chinese Broadcasting System

What do you think is the most significant difference between China's broadcasting system and your own country's? Do you think new technology plays a very important role in this system?

13 comments:

Sandy Wang said...

Infact, they are the same. Because I am from China~~
I think the most significant difference between China's broadcasting system and the one of American is the ownership of the media. In china, nearly all the media are owned by government while in America there are praviet owned media as well as state owned media.
Some people may say the information or news report in china is totelly controled by government. There's no freedom in the media. But this situation is changing now. China is under a media system innovation. Indiviaul-owned media has been allowed in China. And there are more and more freedom in news report.
I think new technologies such as internet are playing an increasing more important role in China's media system.
Now, every province in China has their own satellite TV network. And internet has become one of the main channel through which people get their information, especially for the young generation. Blog mushroomed. Half of my friends has their own blog.
And There is a trend that different types of media worked together in order to achieve a better broadcasting effect. Traditional media begin to use new technology to reinforce their impact.
But the gap in new communcation technology between cities and some rural areas is still wide. More things should be done.

Susana Vidrio said...

In Mexico, de broadcast system is very different. For instance, there are two main telecommunication industries, Televisa and Televison Azteca. They are the companies that control the TV, radio and some editorial companies. The other company that has the control over the phone and internet services is Telmex, which is a major monopoly and that has pushed out the competition and other companies that have tryied to enter the Mexican market such as AT&T, Avantel and Nextel. Personally, I think that there is a monopoly, and it the governmental influence is not as open and clear, but definitively, governemnt has a lot of investment and influence qhen it comes to authorizing broadcasting services and permits. And, of course, there is the censorship issues. Mexican society is now more open an tolerant toward certain information, but when it comes to sexual content, homosexual and sexuallity information and advertizing, there is a lot cf constranints. There is also the political and international information blocking and censorship, since most of the news broadcasters (local news I mean) are really unaware and try to avoid most of the IMPORTANT international issues, such as hunger, violence crimes and local civil wars. I think the contents provided by local TV stations tend to be very local and very distracting from what are really the important issues and situations that have impact whitin the societies.
Most of the programs and contents are tailored to be entertaining, rather than informational. Most of the shows that have high investments are soap operas and game shows, or reality shows like Big Brother and Latin American Idol, which I find really interesting, but I really would love to have more cultural and literature programs.

Avril Adrianne de Guzman said...

I do not know very much about Chinese media but I would expect the main difference between that and Philippine media would be the amount and extent of control or censorship involved in news.

In my country, there is little censorship by the government of the two major privately owned broadcast corporations which can say pretty much what they want about the government. The government has its own TV station but there are not many people who watch it because of the initial idea of bias and focus on the positive things the government does and the neglect of the negative side.

With a smaller population, we have fewer networks and as I said earlier, the airwaves is dominated by two - ABS-CBN or GMA.

What's interesting about this though is that some people have said that each network is a supporter of either the majority party or the opposition. There have been talk of favoritism and partisan reporting from the two networks especially around election time. WHat adds fuel to this fire is also the fact that some senators in both parties or groups have worked for either networks in the past and have actually been endorsed by the companies and brought to power mainly by the publicity their regular programs had via the networks.

Poong Oh said...

In my opinion, technological advance in media environment of Korea have brought about several negative results, at least, to the news media.
Korea has four terrestrial broadcasting networks: KBS, MBC, SBS, and EBS. Of them, SBS is commercial broadcasting, although the government regulates it in indirect ways such as licensing, and the others are all public. Of course, there are more than 300 cable channels.
As the Internet plays a role in distributing news in faster ways, traditional news media have lost their competitiveness as the main news distributor. That is, many people do not wait for the evening news or the morning papers any more, which contain what they are not interested in. Instead, they actively search what they want to know through the Internet. Whenever they want to know what happened, they can immediately find information on that and more details on the Internet.
As a result, the broadcasting news media have transformed objective attitude toward the facts into subjective, even partisan attitude. In other words, they directly support one political party but censure the others, even though they should keep neutral viewpoint on both sides as public broadcasting networks.
Accordingly, those who uphold the particular party that the media support are willing to watch the programs provide by the media, while the others do not watch them at all. In other words, the broadcasting media can not play a role as public sphere in which diverse opinions are gathered and the public opinion is built. Rather, the media aggravating audience fragmentation, which is the most dangerous crisis of democracy.

Poong Oh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom said...

As far as my knowledge of the Chinese broadcasting system goes, the difference between it and the broadcasting here in the USA is in the degree of government ownership (versus private), and the degree to which censorship takes place. Further, I think that you can view the government ownership as simply an extension of the degree of censorship when it comes to television broadcasting.

The Chinese government has also enacted laws that regulate the usage of the internet (as far as websites hosted within China's borders, internet access providers, etc...), and has policies that block (or attempt to block) certain sites from outside sources that the government does not want its citizens to read.

In the US media, the goverment only censors to protect a 'standard of decency' - which is a far cry from censoring content that is politically controversial. Additionally, the censorship that protects the 'standard of decency' only applies to public media (broadcast TV). Content that would be otherwise indecent or geared towards mature audiences can be found through other television providers (cable or satellite).

Overall, the Chinese govt. has a much higher degree of control over the content of the broadcast media.

Chen, Ko-Jung said...

As far as I’m concerned, the broadcasting system in Taiwan is different from the China’s. The significant difference is the content of the news and the programs.
However, there are two stage of broadcasting system in my country. The first stage is the authoritarian stage and the second stage is democratic stage. In he first stage, the broad casting system in my country in similar to China, in which the TV and Radio is owned by the government, and the content of the news or programs is controlled and censored by the ruling party. The information office filters, inspects, amends, and deletes the inappropriate content of broadcasting system, which may threaten the leadership of the government or president. Not only would be the content of the new and programs censored but songs, articles, talks, and speech would be monitored by the information office.
In the second stage, Taiwan’s broadcasting system has significant difference from first stage. The broadcasting system is broadly owned by private company and the decrease the finance from the government of ruling party. For example, the TV station rapidly grew up from three major TV station to nine 24 hours news TV stations and other many TV stations. Moreover, the power of the information office to censor the content of broadcasting system had been take away. In addition, the government established the National Communication commission which is composed of scholars and consulters to replace the function of information office.
In Nowadays, technology plays an important role in the broadcasting system and change the way of communication. For example the satellite and the SNG deeply affect the broadcasting system in Taiwan. The satellite and SNG promotes the globalization, in which makes people able to watch the real-time news from any place of the world in any time. By this effect, the information office of government or the National Communication Commission could not control the content of the news of broadcasting system which means that the audience would watch the real-time, unselected, unedited, and true news event through the TV or Radio.

Soonok said...

Like Sandy mentioned earlier, China's media system used to be controlled by Chinese govenrment. Even though China is in the process of changing the social systems from communism-oriented into capitalism-oriented, it is in the beginning right now. Therefore, much of the social intra-structure is used by the government to manage (even manipulate) the country. One good example is the media ownership. Media ownership is pretty much vital for its impacts on the public. The public, nowadays, are more vulnerable to the mass media. In many cases, the government easily take advantage of its media ownership in a negative or a positive way.

In the case of Korea, the media also used to be controlled by the government a long time ago. Even though, the government owns only one or two of the media channels, the government's control was heavy in the past. Therefore, all the news or reports regarding the sensitive issues are filtered by the government officials. However, Korea has been changed a lot. Right now, even the channels owned by the government have felxibility and freedom to choose their programs and its contents. It can criticize some government issues, which were not allowed in the past. The media and newspaper industry have enough freedom to express their opinions.

The new technology such as internet actually enhanced this kind of freedom even though the freedom of the press began before the internet was really popular. The internet, definitely, strengthened this freedom. Nobody can controll this spread of the internet, which any individual can have an access to. The information expansion and its speed is now enormous. Any information can be reached by the individual if he or she wants to pursue. I think the internet will have this power to people as much as possible in the future. Nobody can be really isolated like the past. It's a matter of time for an isolated country or society to be exposed to outside world since I guess the use of computer and internet will be so natural.

john thomas said...

The main difference I see between China and US broadcasting is freedom of the press vs. state control of the media.

This being the difference, I do not really believe improvement made in technology is a factor, it comes down to government attitude and control of media.

There are a couple of interesting comparisons of the two systems though. First, our media is somewhat controlled too. In our case the media itself has an agenda, not unlike that of a governement. There is a definate media bias, just as there is a government bias, both systems really do work or are managed the same, in the US, we are not as rigid, but a certain level of control is still in place.

The second point of interest is Economics. Economics allways wins! In today's presentation, it was pointed out how media in China was changing primarily due to commercialization, marketing and business. Whatever the differences are between China and the Western World, economics seems to bring us together and even out the playing field.

I really believe that for all the differences that exist between countries, that trade, business enterprise tend to rule, break down barriers and borders. Eventually we will become a world-wide economy, more trade dependent on each other and more at peace. Media and diffusion of same are a key factor in world trade and public commerce.

john thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Helen said...

I would second everything John and Tom said about there being less government censorship here in the US, with the exception of "decency" standards (i.e., any public figure is fair game for character assassination, almost any level of violence is okay as long as a "rating" appears, but nudity, sexuality, and profanity are right out, unless it's a 100% subscription service, such as HBO.) I would also like to expand on John's point about economics and commercialism driving broadcast media here, and beginning to drive China's media industry. Media sources that obtain their funding from corporations in the form of advertising (as opposed to public broadcast media, which derive ~50% from average listeners, some from donations from corporations, and very little from the government) are quite circumspect in their treatment of their patrons. Additionally, American companies, especially in the media and entertainment industry, are much more concerned with intellectual property ownership and control than in almost any other country, but especially China. Big media companies here frequently bemoan the "rampant piracy" in Asia. However, the average American who is actually informed on the subject finds the controls imposed on media overly restrictive -- of course, the truly average American isn't very informed on the subject.

karenlee said...

I think the current situation of the Korean broadcasting news threatened by news on the Internet is the greatest difference between the current environment of the Chinese and Korean broadcasting system. Because Korean terrestrial broadcasting system networks are indirectly influenced by the government, mistrust for the news content has resulted in steeply rising popularity of on-line news, especially the Internet portal news (news that appears on Internet portals such as Yahoo or Google). Due to the easy accessibility and widespread belief that the news content hasn’t been politically manipulated in some way, people are more trusting of on-line news. In addition, progressive Korean on-line newspapers such as ‘Oh My News’ has gained widespread popularity among the younger generation as an alternative to the three conservative leading dailies in Korea.

Susu Qin said...

Thanks for the participation in this topic's discussion. I find that the most key issue for the Chinese broadcasting system is the censorship. And this issue exists in all different countries from different extents. Some countries release more freedom to the media, some regulate the operating system of the media. Meanwhile, some governments have the rights to control the media system directly, some might limit them indirectly.

However, when the technology develops more and more nowadays. The trend of internationalization and conglomeration for media will inevitably come up. If we have more and more online news, satellites, mobile news device, definitely, the news resource can be up dated and diffussed faster and faster. Especially, the broadcasting speed will be accelerated much more with less and less constraints. Even though we have the censorship problem form the media and press, this problem can be resolved to some extent after the continously increasing applications of high technology. Maybe the government can have the regulation or policies to control the press rights, but just at the moment the internet began to appear in our daily life, we had already found it became more complex to absolutely control the media freedom. The high technolgy can help the news go fast with our any responsibilities. Even we still can sort of restrain the media freedom, evidences show that it already become impossible to hold back the news freedom in terms of the existence of high technology.