Here is an article about the Chinese media spin on the smog crisis, and the pursuit of possible solutions. What does this say about the state run media? What about the business opportunities created form this misfortune?
Monday, February 24, 2014
A different kind of threat in China
Largely because of it's rapid industrialization and economic growth, China has been battling pollution problems (to put it mildly). Do you think the economic benefits that come with economic growth outweigh the negative externalities (pollution, lower standards of health) that come with it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Certainly it make sense for China to work on its pollution problem, and the Chinese media's reluctance to admit to this pollution problem and demand that the situation be improved is reflective of the difference between a one-party state as it exists in China as opposed to the US, where environmental problems that are much less pressing receive much more attention. As always, such problems usually create business opportunities for those able to supply the demand of the time.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the economic advantages of this heavy industrialization outweigh the severe health risks that come with it. There's no point in being wealthy if yyor health is being threatened as a byproduct. China does need to continue growth because its per capita GDP is still low but it should slow growth down and ensure more green measures are taken. The economic growth should be more gradual because if its too rapid, problems such as these arise.
ReplyDeleteThe manipulation by the media suggests the extent that it controlled by the state and the fact that it does try to force that kind of propaganda on the people. The state might be doing this in order to repress any opposition of the economic growth. The state might also be bribed by conpanies that produce air filters for example and they benefit from this smog.
1. I don't think that the economic benefits outweigh the negative costs. If the workers are not healthy enough to work, then the economic gain is not even there. Also, the third article states that the major cities might potentially have to shut down, which would shut down the economy as well.
ReplyDeleteThis issue shows how much the state run media tries to hide the country's problems with a bunch of excuses that seem really silly, and even China's citizens have realized this and ridicule the articles to the point where they get removed. The citizens of China have always tried to defy the government. For example, on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, the government tried to block all photos taken of the date from being published on the Internet and social media, but people found many ways around it, including replicating images using rubber ducks and LEGOs. This shows that the citizens really disagree with the state and its media, and that the state run media cannot hide every problem of the country.
ReplyDeleteAs for business opportunities, companies that can provide the means to help clean the environment (for example, providing cleaner natural gases to burn) will definitely be profiting from this.
It shows that state run media is highly controlled because they are trying to put a positive spin on pollution. I think this will increase business opportunities in that people will start to research and implement new methods of generating power.
ReplyDelete2. This shows how strictly the government regulates the ideas that they put in the minds of the people. They create a false sense of reality and optimism in their population, and this is probably reflected in the businesses and ways that they deal with the crisis.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese run state media is trying to be optimistic about the situation in order to raise morale but it is a lost cause. The situation has become too severe for any joking and their levity is unwarranted. The business side is just unfortunate. The consequences of industrialization is vicious and China needs to follow the path of western countries in order to save face.
ReplyDelete1) The state run media only cares about keeping the people happy, regardless of whether the people continue to live healthy or not. If they can keep the people happy, then they have evidence to show other countries that their population thinks that their government is working properly.
ReplyDelete2) As far as business opportunities, I am sure that there is someone who will try to make a profit from this problem. If there are enough people to create a demand, and there are certainly a large number of people in China, then someone will make something to sell to them.
1.I don't think that the economic benefits of a rapid industrialization is worth threatening the health of a country's citizen. If the Chinese government is willing to sacrifice its peoples' health to make more money and become a world power, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that they govern- if a government does not protect its peoples' right to good health, how can it legitimately represent them? A better path would be to slow industrialization while also finding ways to decrease pollution, despite the low GDP per capita.
ReplyDelete2. The state run media demonstrates that it is exactly what we call it.. state run media. The contents of the media seem to be controlled by a government concerned primarily with the country's economic wealth, rather than its standard of living. The fact that some newspapers were even making jokes about the smog is a slap in the face to people suffering from its effects.
The effect the smog crisis may have on the business sector is ambivalent- on one hand, some coal-burning businesses may have to find an alternate source of energy. On the other hand, state funded projects may provide jobs and stimulate their already bustling economy.
1. Generally, the environment has always been second to economic growth. There seems to be an inverse relationship between both, since economy relies heavily on industry, and industry is still predominantly using energy sources that are dirty and harmful to the environment. Looking at it from a purely humanistic perspective, I don’t think economic benefits outweigh the negative health consequences that come from a poor environment. There are numerous health concerns, which will cause financial and other stresses on individuals and their families. Health is important, more so than anything else.
ReplyDelete2. Clearly, the Chinese media is running the company line, and their invalid attempt to put a positive spin on something undeniably negative is an insult to Chinese citizens. If anything, trying to validate something so wrong reveals a disregard of the people affected by the health crisis, and their struggle.
3. Business opportunities for companies offering cleaner energy alternative will increase after hate government puts more effort in trying to solve the pollution problem. There is a lot of profit to be made from this problem.
1. I don't think that the economic benefits outweigh the smogs, and lower standards of living that results from China's economic growth. I think it to be a little contradictory that economic growth and benefits results in a lower standards of living and health concerns? 2. When I read this article I literally said "Hahaha." The state run media just shows how the state is trying to make themselves look good even if it means making absurd comments about serious health concerns. But, at least their being optimistic right?
ReplyDelete3. I think this issue is actually good for business opportunities as they will increase the competition and the attempts to be a greener China. In this way, they can increase economic growth while still trying to keep the health and safety concerns of the people in mind
1.) Many people compare this situation to the Industrial Revolution in London, but a large difference is that there were less people as well as less methods of producing pollution. The pollution is so bad in China that they will have severe health problems raging as an epidemic for the next generation at least. For two videos, might I suggest the Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-24-2013/things-may-be-bad--but-at-least-we-can-t-chew-our-air) and (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-20-2013/things-may-be-bad--but-at-least-our-streets-don-t-burp-mystery-goo).
ReplyDelete2.) I believe that the Chinese media's spin will do little to change the opinions of the public, who has expressed displeasure at the environmental conditions. If your child starts hacking and wheezing, you don't really care about everyone being safe from missile strikes.
3.) I however believe that this problem has the potential to lead China into an environmental revolution, which would attract investors, consumers, and raise air quality. China certainly has the economic capital to open up such a venture, but the onus is on them to kickstart this industry.
1) I don't feel like the economic growth outweighs detriment to the environment and the detriment to the health of the people. Wealth is nice, but your health is more important - and having a bunch of money won't be all that useful when your health is too deteriorated to make use of it. Plus, all of those ill effects on the current generations health can be passed on to future generations. Economic stability may seem like the greatest thing at this point, but destruction of the city for that economy will ruin the economic stability for the future.
ReplyDelete2) It pretty much says that state-run media is... - wait for it-... state-run media *gasp* The media is being fairly optimistic which does mean they want the public to see this as more of a positive thing than something that is going to ruin everything; however, for the majority of people living in the center of the unhealthy conditions, I don't think the media will have much effect - if you're getting sick from this economic prosperity, then I don't think you'd care too much about the wealth, just the fact that it is killing you.
3) All I could think of was something from the movie "The Lorax" where they were selling O'Hare Air, which was just bottled, purified air (watch this short clip if you have no clue what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKVHBguZOBY).
As of now the economic growth associated with the economic benefits does outweigh the pollution problem because a beneficial economy can be an indirect solution to health problems in a region (necessary acts to pass, medical treatement for the health problems), but the solution to the pollution does not result in a solution for a bettered economy, which would lead to problematic situations in the country. In relation to what was read about china, the state run media relies more on the media part then state. There is of course the consideration of how the state plans to initiate ideas towards pollution and the fact that it is noticed shows particular interest by the state, but the majority of the information relies on how this pollution scenario gets peoples attention. The media also makes the side the state is choosing the “best” side to choose. Nobody would necessarily be for pollution, but for example with the interviews that took place, the only person who did not acknowledge the pollution seemed to not be reliable “mentally.” It is both humorous and interesting how the media can influence perceptions. Business opportunities would arise during the situation, and they would come in ways that would most likely take advantage of the public. I believe there was the mentioning of air purifiers in one of the articles. Something ridiculous like increasing the price of objects like this could take place.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in regard to the economic benefits, I do not think that they outweigh the negative effects on the environment because it will make life harder in China and people will increasingly dislike the place that they live in.
ReplyDeletethe state run media is trying to keep their large public under the idea that china is handling everything. they are convincing their people to remain calm. the business is probably hurt because now they are frowned upon and blamed, and they also cannot locate in big cities where its a problem because of the human rights issue
ReplyDelete1.) While the health citizens is obviously of primary importance, economic advancements can often serve greater advantages for a nation's people. Environmental issues such as smog can be reduced by putting air pollution regulations on big businesses, hence a government should not necessarily take its focus off of economic successes in favor of eliminating environmental concerns.
ReplyDelete2.) I found the media response particularly disturbing, especially in regards to the idea of smog increasing equality. We all breathe the same air whether its clean or not.
3.) I really like Desia's comment about the Lorax! Businesses may attempt to benefit from the public's misfortune (as they inevitably do) by selling air filters or claiming to have a "greener" way of producing energy.
Smog, while not good by any means, is an inevitable trapping of civilization. China is going through the same growing pains as England during the industrial revolution, and eventually they will fix their pollution problems as the nation's wealth increases, just as England has.
ReplyDeleteThe spin created by the state-media is just one example of an Authoritarian or Totalitarian regime trying to boost morale and reduce blame. The same thing can be seen in North Korea, or in the Pravda during the times of the CCCP. This would be fine, as long as there were other media outlets that could offer counter-opinions, but with censorship this is not an option. I doubt that China has any incentive to change their policies either, if they've learned anything from Glasnost.
1) Economic benefits mean little when people are afraid to go outside because the air is killing them. Yes, in any industrial city you will have pollution, that's unavoidable as of now... but when you reach the levels of Beijing it becomes flat-out ridiculous.
ReplyDelete2) Well, I think it pretty much sum up what state-run media is. Spin the stories to try to avoid admitting there's a problem,even if it means saying something ridiculous (smog helps us learn chemistry!)
3) Woo, let's create a problem and develop a business sector to fix it. To say that widespread pollution may actually be good because it provides business opportunities to clean up the air is like saying crime is good because it keeps police officers employed. Now, the question my not have made that assertion, but to argue for the business opportunities as a 'benefit' makes that assumption.
1. I do not feel that economic benefits outweigh the dangers it causes for human health. To a degree, population in a very industrialized city is to be expected. People are focused i making money and expanding their franchise. However, the standard of living should not be lowered or put on the back burner for the sake of maintaining, or promoting, industrialization. The safety of people in that city should be considered first, and if that is done well then, hopefully, an issue like the one in Beijing will not exist in the future, or at least not to the same degree.
ReplyDelete2. I found that article to be quite ridiculous. How can you make light out of an environmental situation like the one in China? To me, I was greatly disturbed, It sees as if the state run media's goal is to ease any public unrest that follows behind the smog issue. Their job is to find a silverling in situation that the Chinese government was not able to control from the get go, taking some of the heat off the Chinese government's lack of action regarding the matter.
3. Sure. Having a certain sector of business to deal with smog does not sound like a bad idea. China is in need of help, and if a group of people, whether their intentions of pure or not, can help fix the smog problem then I say go for it, However, they need to be careful that they do not fall victim to corruption, meaning they only release products or information when i benefits the investors/businessmen, The purpose if such a group is to focus on solving the smog problem to benefit all of China, not profit off of the misfortunes of the Chinese people.
The economic benefits benefit the state, but do harm to the people, as they are constantly breathing in harmful fumes and polluted air. My visit to India and dealing with their pollution was bad, I can only imagine how bad it is in China. The pictures in the links speak more about their pollution than I ever could. Economic growth and success monetarily seems to be China's main goal due to their strong emphasis on schooling, so I don't see them changing their mind about that. Also I believe state run media is being manipulated and is trying to convince the people that the smog is not actually as bad as it is.
ReplyDeleteThe economic benefits should not out way the negative effects that happen to the citizens. Although economic growth is important, the health of the people comes first.
ReplyDeleteThe is media spin implies that the information being portrayed to the public is unreliable and that the turmoil within the country will never be fully expressed. And that anything that happens within the country that is negative, the citizens and their well being will always be exploited for economic gain.
1. I don't think that economic growth justifies the pollution and other major problems that haunt China. I think that the safety of the Chinese citizens in a physical and medical level should be e administration's first priority.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the Chinese media's spin on the problems was comical for Western culture; but I don't think that the media spirited to necessarily trivialize the situation. I think that China's media was trying to alleviate some of the opposition by trying to calm down the population. Obviously, the Chinese people are not unconscientious about the issues at hand; leading to the criticism. But I think for this type of government, that euphemisms are the only means of relieving some of the tensions held by less educated populations.
ReplyDelete3. I think to some extent it provides business opportunities. Companies feel that they can make a difference by decreasing environmental issues, I think that for those invested in scientific exploration, that this is beneficial. Also, the rise of doctors who can combat disease, and engineers (environmental) is also important to note.
ReplyDelete1. The economic benefits that are a consequence of rapid industrialization and economic growth are large. As a result, the negative impacts of these advancements evident in the pollution and health issues that arise simultaneously are often ignored. However, these effects are detrimental to the well-being of citizens. For example, the air pollution in China is 20 times the limit of what is considered safe for human health. Fragments of unburned fuel that is prevalent in the frequent Beijing smog are actually small enough to enter the lungs causing respiratory problems and in extreme cases also enter the bloodstream. Daily life of Chinese citizens is also altered significantly due to the pollution. In one example, an international school forced children to remain indoors for 20 days. Even some adults decide not to venture outdoors on certain days. In fact, the effects have been so intense large cities such as Shanghai and Harbin were forced to shut down reflecting the pollution’s potential for economic harm. This demonstrates the expansive repercussions of the pollution that can threaten actual lives. I believe the purpose of economic growth and industrialization at its core is to improve the well-being of the country. Thus, the negative effects such as pollution cannot outweigh its benefits since, in a sense, it contradicts its actual purpose.
ReplyDelete2. The article on the smog crisis highlights the expansive influence of the state-run media as well as its susceptibility to becoming vehicles of government propaganda. Its spin on an actual crisis that threatened the well-being of its citizens is fairly ridiculous and suggests an inclination to ignore problems in favor of painting the government in a positive light. For instance, the agency’s article noted that the smog unites rich and poor. This is clearly absurd given that, as the BBC article states, the rich can afford air filters that shield them for the harmful effects while the poor are constantly exposed to it. Claims like this one underscore the extreme state of the propaganda but also a general lack of concern toward the issue. I thought it was interesting, however, that the original article was posted on a national news agency rather than a state-run agency demonstrating that even other news agency were vulnerable to propaganda efforts. Also fascinating was the fact that citizens were able to have an impact on the process as social media activity forced the agency to delete the article. This suggests that China is experiencing somewhat of an increase in openness towards allowing other views to be expressed. The smog does allow for the expansion of new economic opportunities. Only through technological innovation and the development of creative solutions can the problem of pollution be addressed. This is evidenced by the growth of green technology such as hybrid of fuel-efficient cars as well as renewable energy sources. The Chinese government seems to be willing to invest in these initiatives as the launch 1.7t Yuan effort signaling a golden opportunity for businesses.
ReplyDelete1.State run media is obviously biased in favor of the government, but these health risks are unacceptable. The fact that the media is not willing to show both sides of the environmental argument clearly shows the type of control that a single-party state can impose on its people. However, there is a great deal of business in ignoring these health and environmental risks, and China is trying to develop quickly. However, I think they need to slow down a little and try to focus on the safety of their people and the environment, otherwise these problems will just continue and get worse over time.
ReplyDelete