Fallows on Chinese Censorship of the Inaugural Address

I have always admired James Fallows' diverse interests and knowledge. He strikes me as a true 21st century renaissance man: degrees in History, Literature and Economics from Harvard and Oxford, well known Mac/PC expert, instrument-rated private pilot, etc.

In a post tonight on his Atlantic blog, Mr. Fallows speculates on the rationale behind the censorship of President Obama's inauguration speech, which I posted about yesterday with the reference to EastSouthWestNorth. With all due respect to Mr. Fallows, I find his assessment of the situation potentially flawed. He says:

"I have met a lot of Chinese people in the last few years, in lots of stations of life. Big shots, farmers, dissidents, factory workers, party bosses. And I cannot think of a single one of them who would have been put off his or her feed by hearing a new American president talk about the virtues of dissent or America's struggle against Communism. Even if they don't agree with those sentiments themselves (and many would agree), all of them know that this is the way Americans talk and think. How on earth could it seem threatening to hear an American president talk about basic American beliefs?"

Later in his discussion he continues:

"The people in charge of China's propaganda apparatus are among the least worldly and most rigid-minded people in the entire country, with absolutely the least feel for how people in other countries might react or think. So apparently some of these ignoramuses considered it a good and prudent idea to cut off Obama -- even if the vast majority of their fellow citizens would consider such paranoia to be extreme and bizarre. Also, within a part of the government where orthodoxy is everything, an official takes no risks by being too hard-line, but could get in trouble by being too permissive. Still, it is an incident whose importance may grow as time goes on. They couldn't even stand to hear Barack Obama speak!"

In these two paragraphs Fallows makes two assumptions, which I believe could be neglecting Chinese historical precedent and underestimating the sophistication of the Chinese governmental machine. In the first paragraph quoted above, Mr. Fallows' assumption is that Obama's talk was censored because viewers would not have agreed with his views. He comes closer to what I believe to be the reason for the censorship when he surmises in the second paragraph that perhaps it was government censors erring on the side of being too "hard-line" rather than risk letting something too controversial be broadcast live on state run television.

I believe that the censors knew exactly what they were doing. They were indeed being "hard-line" in their censorship. But they didn't do it because they were out of touch with what would appeal to Chinese television viewers. They were following strict orders to censor anything that might incite the masses with ideas contrary to the status quo in China. As the twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square democracy movement draws near (June 4th, 2009), the last thing the Chinese government wants its citizens thinking about is facing down communist or fascist regimes. Chinese government officials are too familiar with the social climate at the end of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911). Plagued with economic woes and the abuses of power by corrupt local government officials, the Qing saw all manner of numerous uprisings, large and small scale, across her domain--not unlike many of the problems facing the PRC today. I think that the Chinese government is keenly aware of the volatility of the current populace (especially in rural areas) and its censors knew exactly what they were censoring. They weren't worried about their viewers disliking or disagreeing with Obama's speech, they were worried about its potential to incite the masses.