an update on my research

Before continuing I wish to provide an update on the progress in my work.


In order to fully understand the choices China must make in the near future, one must understand how media censorship under the Communist Party works. In an online report from the non-governmental organization Freedom House, Ashley Esarey, a leading political analyst of China’s modernization, examines the current state of China’s media with the assistance of a report published in 2004 by Human Rights in China, another activist NGO. Esarey explains how the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) wields control over news reporting, describing in detail both the structures and procedures of propaganda and the self-censorship that becomes prevalent among all journalists as fear of persecution spreads. More importantly, Esarey adds that China’s movement towards globalization makes availability of information much easier: privatization, consumerism, and access to internet news sources all challenge the CCP dogma.

Anup Shah, an independent researcher involved with several online organizations, including the Institute for Economic Democracy, writes about the media in a post-9/11 United States using his educational experiences in both America and his home country of England. Acknowledging the dangers of an uninformed and oblivious public in an era of globalization, Shah asserts that attention to the news may not even be beneficial today, citing The New York Times’ 2005 investigation into government propagandistic and ersatz news stories. He mentions that both corporate and political powers have caused self-censorship as well, drawing connections to the current situation in China mentioned by Ashley Esarey cited above. Using recent studies on the economics of news media and both the Chomsky-Herman Propaganda Model and the monopoly techniques explained by political scientist Michael Parenti, Shah argues that the focus on advertising, money, and power negates honest and important public education, resulting only in propaganda.

Both links will be posted in the right column of my blog for easy access in the future.

"The Blog of War"

How does the U.S. military react to soldiers' blogs on the internet? Recently the Department of Defense started monitoring "warbloggers", servicemen and women who actively post pictures, stories, and videos from the front lines of America's War on Terror.

Two years ago, in 2006, Matthew Currier Burden, a former major in the US Army, published a collection of military blogs in his book, The Blog of War. I came across the book in my research, which I've started reading recently. It definitely raises the question of how this information affects national security and our nation's military strategy overseas--is this too much? Is it worth risking the lives of Americans to know every aspect of the War on Terror? If you're interested you can read more on Burden's website, www.blackfive.net, one of many military blogs online today.

Additionally, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) sued the Department of Defense in January of the following year (for a PDF copy of the actual lawsuit, click here), citing that the public had a right to know how the military had been investigating websites and blogs for possible classified information posted by servicemen and women, information protected by the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). The information was eventually released and were posted on the EFF's website.

What I also find quite interesting is the lack of coverage in American news sources. I found a lot about the EFF lawsuit from British news sources, like The Guardian, a UK-based technology news and opinion website (click here for an editorial written by a columnist). However, searches for American news stories on this lawsuit come up scant--was the DOD involved? How many stories have not been covered by our media networks for reasons of national security?

Modern American Journalism: A Cartoonist's Viewpoint

This 2006 political cartoon by David Horsey (found on the Facts.com/Issues and Controversies database online) confirms my thesis. The image speaks for itself. How much do we hear about Britney Spears (with her increasing health and familial problems) compared to news from Iraq? It is frighteningly unbalanced. Even with attention given to the 2008 election as American picks its next president (and politicians and pundits alike bring up the War in Iraq, among other hot topics related to America's future), little will change when it comes to the country's fixation with tabloid journalism. Has it become a permanent replacement for news?