These are such great write-ups. Whenever I think about the zero-COVID policy, it doesn't quite add up, and I wonder if the long-term disabling effects from COVID might be worse than we think. But your theory about the Chinese government wanting lockdowns to increase authoritarian control is a sensible one.
And on media, I hope the scanty coverage of protests isn't because they tend to prompt stock market declines and many media outlets are owned by big corporations. That's cynical, and I don't think reporters would be on board with that, but I've experienced the tension of, "Are you sure we need to run that story?" about an advertiser in the past. (We did run it. But the discussion was eye-opening.)
Thank you for the comment! I have a journalism background so I'm more coming from the perspective of being a disillusioned idealist rather than a cynic. Good journalism is incredibly difficult and often very dangerous - and needs a lot of elements to come into play for it all to work. Above all, editors need to have their reporters' backs and the publishing/business side needs to be hands-off of editorial. But, in practice, it's very difficult to maintain that level of editorial integrity. And, in certain very hostile reporting situations (like China, like Iran), it becomes easier on the whole for the media to just not bother properly covering a subject, especially if there isn't particular demand from the subscriber base. Where things get really morally unpleasant is in situations where editorial integrity runs counter to the interest of the advertisers or publishers. My experience has been that legacy publications tend to be fairly circumspect about which companies they accept advertising from and about maintaining editorial integrity, but one of the lessons of the pandemic - I've become convinced - is that biotech and Big Pharma was a real blindspot as far as journalism was concerned. The legacy publications tended to take Big Pharma at its word - and to accept abundant advertising revenue from the pharmaceuticals - and failed to probably scrutinize the industry's claims on the vaccines or on rival over-the-counter treatments. As for China, yes, I think that at this stage it would take a lot of naïveté to believe that the CCP's overriding concern with 'zero-Covid' is actually Covid transmission. Command-and-control is very important to the Chinese government, and the ability to regulate movement down to the level of apartment complexes - and to have the population go along with it for as long as they have - must strike party leadership as a real achievement on their part.
These are such great write-ups. Whenever I think about the zero-COVID policy, it doesn't quite add up, and I wonder if the long-term disabling effects from COVID might be worse than we think. But your theory about the Chinese government wanting lockdowns to increase authoritarian control is a sensible one.
And on media, I hope the scanty coverage of protests isn't because they tend to prompt stock market declines and many media outlets are owned by big corporations. That's cynical, and I don't think reporters would be on board with that, but I've experienced the tension of, "Are you sure we need to run that story?" about an advertiser in the past. (We did run it. But the discussion was eye-opening.)
Hi Stephanie,
Thank you for the comment! I have a journalism background so I'm more coming from the perspective of being a disillusioned idealist rather than a cynic. Good journalism is incredibly difficult and often very dangerous - and needs a lot of elements to come into play for it all to work. Above all, editors need to have their reporters' backs and the publishing/business side needs to be hands-off of editorial. But, in practice, it's very difficult to maintain that level of editorial integrity. And, in certain very hostile reporting situations (like China, like Iran), it becomes easier on the whole for the media to just not bother properly covering a subject, especially if there isn't particular demand from the subscriber base. Where things get really morally unpleasant is in situations where editorial integrity runs counter to the interest of the advertisers or publishers. My experience has been that legacy publications tend to be fairly circumspect about which companies they accept advertising from and about maintaining editorial integrity, but one of the lessons of the pandemic - I've become convinced - is that biotech and Big Pharma was a real blindspot as far as journalism was concerned. The legacy publications tended to take Big Pharma at its word - and to accept abundant advertising revenue from the pharmaceuticals - and failed to probably scrutinize the industry's claims on the vaccines or on rival over-the-counter treatments. As for China, yes, I think that at this stage it would take a lot of naïveté to believe that the CCP's overriding concern with 'zero-Covid' is actually Covid transmission. Command-and-control is very important to the Chinese government, and the ability to regulate movement down to the level of apartment complexes - and to have the population go along with it for as long as they have - must strike party leadership as a real achievement on their part.
Great to be in touch! Really enjoying your work.
- Sam