Maybe it goes without saying, but reliable and thorough information about world events–including the current situation in Burma–is hard to come by in China. The available media (published in English) seem far more concerned about economic issues than anything else. Other topics are mentioned, of course; the impending chaos of next week’s Chinese national holiday got some ink, as well as a collapsed bridge in Vietnam. But there’s hardly anything with substance on Burma’s… uh, well, revolution.
To be sure, the aforementioned stories are all worthy news items, especially the sixty or so Vietnamese who perished in the fallen bridge. But why so little on Burma in the Chinese press? I guess throngs of red-clad, pro-democracy Buddhist monks peacefully protesting an historically repressive military dictatorship just doesn’t have the “sex appeal” the locals are seeking. It’s certainly nowhere near as compelling as this image of a two-headed turtle that somehow made the front page on today’s online China Daily. Wow. Cute ‘lil fellers, aint they?!
This relative quiet from the press is strange given that China has recently been credited for trying to squash the unrest in Burma, a country with whom China is an ally and growing economic partner. Why not promote that at home? Are the Chinese really too enamored by stocks and bonds to care? Or perhaps it hits too close to home, with memories of the late 80s.
Who knows what’ll happen next. I’ll keep watching:
Shanghai Daily home page.
China Daily home page.
In any case, it’s a good thing I have consistent internet access and RSS feeds (video, etc.) from other news sources or I’d never know what the hell’s going on out in the world. And what is going on down in Burma, anyway?
It’s hard to say, exactly. In general, getting up-to-date information on the country and it’s goings-on is a difficult process. This is for a number of reasons, but mainly because Burma has been, for the most part, closed to foreign journalists, and for a very, very long time. The Committe to Protect Journalists lists Burma as number two among the world’s “Top 10 Most Censored Countries.” I’d like to further give you supporting data from the Reporters Without Borders website, but I can’t access it from China for more than 10 seconds, even through a proxy. Needless to say, they don’t paint a pretty picture either.
More recently, now that everything is boiling over, there is indication that email and phone lines in Burma have been cut-off by government forces, which further limits the data stream in and out of the country. And if that wasn’t bad enough, this week journalists are being targeted by Burmese security forces, which has lead to the death of at least one Japanese photographer.
Information has a difficult birth into the world, no doubt. So, why is everybody talking about Burma (except for the Chinese, I guess)? Why is it all over the web, despite numerous barriers to journalistic access?
Well, that’s where it gets interesting. What makes all this so intriguing actually has little to do (directly) with real politics or the story of a monk-led Burmese uprising. Not to sound flippant, and even though the protesters’ progressive message is significant, it’s still rather common in comparison to the method by which it was delivered to the global community. Digital technology and the Internet have been vital tools in the promulgation of this story. I mean, this was a citizen journalist’s dream-come-true!
A large portion of street-level knowledge about the civil unrest in Burma (imagery, first-hand accounts, etc.) originated not necessarily from professionals, but from amateurs. Apparently, several Burmese nationals, and a handful of monks, grabbed their cameras and cell phones and went about the business of documenting their struggle. They marched, shot pics and video, uploaded to the net, blogged, and then went back out into the street for more.
And now the whole world is privy to some pretty remarkable news. Just like that, and in real time; it’s almost instantaneous. It remains to be seen whether or not this high-tech spread of information will have an effect on the ruling powers of Burma. One can hope.
Some in the blogosphere and elsewhere are refering to this phenomenon as a “citizen journalism” success story. Overall I concur, but to a minor degree I also take issue with the label because, in my mind, a totalitarian state really doesn’t have citizens, it has subjects. Maybe even serfs. But in the sense that those participants in the protests (monk and every-day folk alike) were agentically voicing their opposition, I suppose “citizen” is the best way to describe them. Only these individuals are citizens of a future Burma, a Burma that has not yet been formed, not the Burma as it is today. They are globally minded and tech-savy, but they’re also state-owned. Let’s hope the nation catches up to its people… and soon.
POST SCRIPT:
Here’s an interesting academic article on “The Impact of the Internet…” in Burma. I stumbled upon this while researching for more news.
HaoHao This