Or most recently, when China decided to unveil Green Dam, the software that is theoretically designed to stop kids from seeing porn, but which critics have argued in fact is a political tool that blocks websites deemed sensitive. Meanwhile, Google is getting the blame for “corrupting” the country’s youth, even though Baidu has just as much access to porn. The big difference? On Google you have the option of a “Safe Search” function, which should weed out porn. On Baidu? Since China doesn’t acknowledge that porn could show up, there’s no way to opt out/in. A cynical person might say that blaming Google is an attempt to deflect attention away from Green Dam (incidentally, not the best timing to unroll a censorship tool called “Green” just as Iran’s revolution is symbolized by the same color. Not sure what to make of this, but it called be good. And while I’m getting off on a tangent, I always thought that porn was “yellow” in China, not green. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Back to the normal rant.)

So what is the solution to all of these butchered policies? Well, Cup of Cha has a cup of advice: China should hire one intern from any of the major public relations companies in Beijing. Every time the government comes up with a big initiative, it should ask Bobby the intern, “Hey, is this a good idea?” Think of him as the policeman of common sense. “Hey Bobby, think it’s a good idea to give a multi-million dollar contract to a censorship company that no one has ever heard of and is so clearly stealing the software from the US that it, in fact, looks for updates on a server in California? No? Hmmm…maybe we hire 10,000 internet police instead.”

Seriously, is there any first day PR intern who would not have recognized that, at the very least, Green Dam would need to be rolled out more carefully than it was?

This is a problem with a country without democracy. Officials never have to face the voters, so there is a certain lack of PR savvy that sets in. It’s hardly like democracy stops people from being idiots. See Rod Blagoevich, Elliot Spitzer, Michelle Bachman or any Italian official. However, normally people are a little more careful and at least have their PR disasters privately for as long as possible. In China, usually there is no recognition that perhaps foolish decisions should be kept out of the spotlight.

And that is why China needs Bobby the intern. Bobby, a sophomore at Emory who is interning at a Beijing PR firm for the summer is the answer to all of China’s public blunders.

From my distorted American point of view, it seems to me like YouTube is exactly what you want if there are any concerns about governmental legitimacy. Let’s look at the Bush years. Do you really think a guy who used to complain that people were ignoring his single great accomplishment (the supposedly strong economy), but left office in the midst of the biggest economic disaster since 20 years before his grandfather began to serve in the Senate really wanted people to examine him with highly focused concentration?

Of course not! It’s not a coincidence that Bush won election and re-election during a period of eight years when Friends, Survivor and American Idol were the top shows six of the years? On the contrary, I’m pretty sure Cheney created these shows (and 24!!) to distract and make the American population dumber. I’m pretty sure they were hoping Punk’d would become a bigger hit, as this would have furthered the cause quite well.

Meanwhile, on the internet,s YouTube and AmIHotorNot were taking off. But things changed. By the 2008 election, Politico and RealClearPolitics were big hits on the internet. Get it? AmIHotorNot.com=Bush in office. Politico=Obama. Safe to say people being more focused on an election than a newscaster fainting, is not good for leaders trying to hide things.

And this brings us back to China and YouTube. I understand that there are tough economic times now. And I know that there are plenty of delicate anniversaries this year. Leaders are cautious. They don’t know what might set people off. But I assure you, having people watching cats throwing up is definitely better than having them asking questions about difficult political matters.

So buck down China, and give us back our wonderfully inane clips. After all, the less time people spend at the FT site, the better for you.

When the National Congress meets, somehow it takes hours to load even text-heavy sites. Every time there is a Tibetan revolt, slow internet. And such is life a month before the Olympics. Presumably the cause is filtering programs scanning everything going through nation systems, but the result is infuriating. It’s not right that I should have to wait four minutes to find out that Obama is closing the gap in North Dakota four months ahead of the election. These are things I need to know! Now!

I feel the need to reiterate what has become my my motto for the Olympics: this is the chance to show the world how impressive and modern China has become. Turning the internet sporadically into a North Korean system is not the way to knock the ole chip off the shoulder. I know the government thinks that supplying Playboy to the Olympic Village is the way to show how international the country is, but in a modern society, the internet, not newstand, is for porn (forgot, that will take ten minutes to load). And we all know how athletes will need their fix.

China, as a country, has made great strides over the years, and many of the recent Olympics-related policies are good. Although the smoking ban didn’t stick in restaurants, the plastic bags law has had a noticeable effect, and it is great to see police enforcing the drunk driving laws. These all constitute positive changes that the leadership should be commended for.

Yet the way the visa restrictions are being enforced is sheer stupidity. Why? Not only is this strangling the local economy (ask anyone doing business here), but it also gives newcomers the impression that modern China is Soviet in its draconian policies. Does this mean I hate China? Of course not. It means I think the government should be trying to encourage foreigners,particularly those who have never been here before, to see the modern and more open China that this country has become. It should not go back in time, but take a step forward, or at least maintain its recent level of openness.

And yet when I make these outlandish comments–that no tourists in the country might hurt the tourism industry–people, including some in the foreign community here, seem to believe this reflects my view that everything Chinese is bad. I came to China as an adult, learned the language, put up with the nonsense, and love living here very much. But that doesn’t mean that I love the fact that the Beijing skies tend to be black (they are beautiful blue today), or that the PSB asks me to re-register when they can’t explain what the problem the first time was, or that the government blocks dangerous websites like Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

The backlash and sensitivity to any criticism reminds me of the Bush administration. Dubya’s folks dismiss critics who disagree with their ideas, no matter how obvious the conclusions are. They have done this in recent memory on the economy and the war planning to disastrous effect. The key is not to attack the messenger, it is to figure out if the message has any validity and adjust accordingly.

The biggest measure of strength is the ability to receive criticism and not cower in fear. Strong countries and leaders can accept that people may believe problems exist and counteract those claims through discussion and policy–making adjustments as necessary.

China is much stronger than it realizes, and it is much better equipped to absorb criticism than it now does. As this becomes clear, hopefully China, and its foreign defenders, will begin to accept thoughtful criticism as what it is: an effort to continue to improve a great country.

The key to Olympics success tends to be an international crowd. However, China seems not to be in a mood for foreigners just at the time when people are dying to blow huge amounts of money in the country. For 20 years China has promoted development at any cost, including the health of it citizenship from pollution in the air, water and food. But suddenly they are tightening the visa noose, aboslutely choking business as inflation shoots up and gas prices are unbearable. Why would you discourage tourism and money for nothing right when the economy is taking a downturn? Terrorism? I hardly think 60-year old businessmen from Hong Kong are looking to blow anything up.

Then there are the signs that they are clamping down on the internet. Anyone tried to get to Facebook recently? Is facebook really the great threat to social stability? Note to the government: usually people on Facebook just post comments on pictures things like, “We were so drunk that night! We should get drunk again soon!” Don’t worry, these people are not organized enough to lead a revolution.

And what’s the deal with police coming to all the foreigners’ apartment for the interogations? Okay, I made that up, but the fact that you were wondering for a moment proves my point.

The best way to show that China is not a Stalinist state is not to revert to one. Get it?

The highly anticipated Celine Dion show on April 13 in Beijing might be canceled because the singer is suffering from a throat infection, Chinese media reported on Tuesday…

According to the Beijing News, Dion’s husband, Rene Angelil, who is accompanying her on the tour, said doctors told Dion there was likely sandy weather in Beijing in April, and that she should avoid singing outdoors. Dion was set to play at the city’s Workers’ Stadium.

Yet the Western media is painting a completely different picture, saying that the problem stems from claims that organizers did not get the proper paper work in to perform at Beijing’s Workers Stadium:

Canadian pop superstar Celine Dion’s April 13 Beijing concert has been cancelled because the organizers failed to obtain a permit despite selling thousands of tickets, local media reported.

A spokesman for the singer denied media reports on Tuesday that quoted the concert organizer, Emma Ticketmaster, as saying Dion had postponed the concert at the 64,000-seat Workers Stadium due to concern that Beijing’s sandstorms could affect her recovery from a recent throat infection.

This, of course, leads one to wonder whether this is really retribution over the Bjork fiasco last month. Perhaps the government thinks there is some union among female singers from cold countries.

On the Celine fiasco, Norm MacDonald blames, you guessed it, Frank Stallone.

The heavy coverage is definitely more prevalent in the English language local papers than the Chinese ones, but it’s prominent in both. How prominent? The People’s Daily has a fixed banner at the top with the headline “Riots in Lasa” (spelling intentional). Hell, they even have a special section of the website dedicated to the situation. China Daily has a slightly more subtle banner for a special section called “Lasa Riots.” We all know that the coverage is completely biased, but let me give you the clearest example in my eyes. I’ll give you all the sentences with either the word “police” or “army” in one of the most prominent article in the People’s Daily:

On the temple roof, about a dozen monks stood and threw stones at police.

Damn dirty monks!

As the riot intensified, a group of people tipped over a police wagon, and then flipped a nearby car...

56 cars were damaged or burned. Dozens of public security officers and scores of armed police were injured, 10 in serious condition…

After the riots began, Party and government officials of the Tibet Autonomous Region reacted quickly. They deployed the police to disperse the violence, and firefighters to put out the fire and evacuate those trapped inside burning buildings…

Local authorities say more than 580 people have been rescued by the armed police, including three Japanese tourists, as well as teachers and students in a primary school and a middle school. There were no foreigners among the casualties…

In their handling of the incident, China’s public security and armed police have exerted the highest restraint. They did not use any deadly weapons, not even when their own lives were threatened. Some riot police were cornered and beaten. Others were stoned. Armed police on duty outside the gate of the Romache Temple were surrounded and attacked by rioters. None of them fired on their attackers…

By Wednesday, more than 150 rioters had turned themselves in to police, and handed over what they had looted.

Number of mentions of the army: zero. Number of mentions of soldiers: zero. [Update: This article may explain why there are so few police references. They weren't there.]

A look over the Chinese versions of the sites showed that they were saying basically the same thing, although the articles were much less prominent. The lead story on 人民日报 for example, was about economic and scientific development.

But the most important aspect of this coverage is that China has decided to blanket their media, particularly English-language media, with stories that give the narrative they want to convey. There were simply too many stories coming out of the West that portrayed the incident badly to allow that version to be the only one out there. So the Chinese put out their own account, and attacked the messenger. They said the problem was not the uprising, but rather the media’s bias (sounds like a certain candidate I know).

Will this new strategy work? Perhaps. To a degree anyway. It is important for them to put their version out there because it sews the seeds out doubt in people’s minds. While they are inclined to believe that China is acting irresponsibly and brutally, it is difficult to find reliable proof. Yet in the end the strategy is doomed to failure. Westerners simply have too much access to a wide variety of news sources, and the government’s misguided attempts to restrict access to websites only made people think think they have something to hide.

In the long-run this may be subtle but critical turning point. China seems to understand that it has miscalculated. Suddenly everything from YouTube to the hated BBC has been unblocked. It seems that they have realized winning an argument does not happen when you present the only opinion, but rather when it is the most convincing.

The coverage, and specifically the lack thereof, makes me wonder what’s really going on. My gut reaction is to believe that the Chinese are cracking down brutally. However, the admittedly limited, reports coming out of TWC seem to paint a different picture. It is not that I believe the Chinese are blameless–far from it. Instead, it appears that the Chinese are attempting to show restraint, but failing miserably to convey this message to the world.

Surely, were this one or two decades ago, all dissent would have long been crushed. And indeed, it appears that many TWCers have been killed, and probably most of these were needless. However, I get the nagging feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Chinese have been somewhat cornered here. What response, exactly, were they to have to a rebellion in TWC? Sure, they could have conceded the territory, but what country would do that at the first hint of an uprising? Condemning them for this is not assessment of the current policy, but rather a reflection of mistakes made in the past.

All of this makes me wonder if the Chinese Government’s biggest miscalculation was blocking out media. I’m sure many will accuse me of being naive or brainwashed, but I think my record of criticizing China when necessary speaks for itself. When I see a government, be it mine, or others, doing wrong, I speak out. Yet, in this case, it seems like China was so afraid about what might be reported, that they hid a truth that was less bad than reports would indicate.

From afar people expected the worst. And it’s entirely possible that things are really as bad as being portrayed. However, I wonder if foreign media would be reporting more favorably if they had access to the areas. There have been reports of guns being fired, but what else would you expect when people are looting and rioting? People have said that TWCers have been beaten, but there has not been any context. It is nearly impossible to get proper perspective on what is happening.

And if the Western media has been wrong, if the reports have incorrectly condemned China, I point a finger not at the journalists trying to get the story right, but instead at the Chinese Government, which has stopped reporters from seeing the truth, whatever it may be. I find the reports that China has responded responsibly credit. But without a proper means to verify them, I remain extremely skeptical.

It as almost as if China does not trust itself to act responsibly. The country is afraid of what it is capable of doing, because the leadership knows what has happened in the past all too well. And in this mistrust of itself, China is unable to escape from its past and embrace its future.

I am in no position to calculate the propriety of China’s response to the recent developments in TWC. However, I am certain that the country will never escape its past if it cannot trust itself to react responsibly under the watch of a concerned international community. How can a country expect the world to see China differently if it still sees itself through the same old lens?

What this means is that I wasn’t really “blocked” per se. Rather there appears to be a filter in place that stops you from accessing material that includes words that some people might be anxious about appearing on websites. That may explain why smaller newspapers like the LA Times and Washington Times were blocked yesterday, while the NY Times and Washington Post were not. The latter two sites would have caused outrage, so they manually opened them, while there were too many other smaller newspapers to handle on a case-by-case basis. Instead, they (i.e., the man) let an automated device check most sites for “inappropriate” content.

I supposed technical types already figured this stuff out, but for me it was pretty interesting to see it in action. It literally took about 30 seconds after putting up the block quotes before the site became inaccessible.

It appears that even the Chinese want to block the propaganda that they publish.

In Athens Athletes were not “sanctioned” to blog, but many did so anyway. In 2008, the IOC realized that there is not much they can do to stop Olympic athletes from blogging, so they decided to “allow” it, and laid out guidelines:

The IOC said blogs by athletes “should take the form of a diary or journal” and should not contain any interviews with other competitors at the games. They also should not write about other athletes.

“It is required that, when accredited persons at the games post any Olympic content, it be confined solely to their own personal Olympic-related experience,” the IOC said…

Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain…

Domain names for blogs should not include any word similar to “Olympic” or “Olympics.” Bloggers are, however, urged to link their blogs to official Olympic Web sites.

Only empty suits at the IOC should be allowed to profit from the Games! If you’ve actually put blood and sweat into your efforts then you should make sure you link to the official websites. This is so unbelievably shameless!

If I were an Olympic athlete–and mind you, I’m still considering getting into shape and joining this summer–I would simply set up a blog and say that I am a “track and field athlete” (or something equally vague)and write whatever the hell I want. Remember most of these athletes are winning medals anyway. What are they going to do once you put your name on the blog after your events? (In fairness this won’t work that well if you’re writing, in say, Cambodian. There’s a chance they might be able to figure which of the two team members are writing in that case.)

So here’s the Cup of Guidelines that I’m laying out for Olympic athlete blogs:

1. Don’t use blogspot. It is blocked in China
2. Don’t put your name on your blog, unless you’re someone really important with whom no IOC member will mess. I’m looking at you Gilbert Arenas, who has a great blog. (Ironically I just went to his blog where he has announced he won’t be at the Games! He says it’s because of [a team decision due in part to] an injury, but I demand an inquiry into whether this was blog-related!)
3. Write about anything you damn-well please! They say writing should “be confined solely to [athlete's] own personal Olympic-related experience.” Isn’t that anything that you experience or think about during the Games?
4. If you don’t want to do it anonymously, announce to media outlets that you are blogging, and let them know if you get blocked. Does the IOC really want to let the world know they are censoring speech in a host country famous for censoring speech?
5. If you don’t want to set up your own blog or want to the cloak of anonymity, I encourage you to contact me at Josh (at) cupofcha.com. I will happy give you a pseudonym and host your commentary on my site. I know the odds that any athletes are reading this are slim, but I’m putting this out there because the beauty of a blog is you can say whatever you damn well please!