Archive: Opinions

You, dear reader, do not need to be reminded that there's plenty to be concerned about 'out there'. I've tried in some columns to look at some of the positive and uplifting things that are going on in this crazy world of ours, but it seems my eyes and ears are being constantly drawn to the more worrisome side of current events. I also attempt to make some tenuous connections between what appear to be disparate headlines.

If you've been watching the Hong Kong situation (and I surely wish our so-called leaders were) you're aware that the tenuous freedoms of that island folk are being slowly and surely strangled. The headlines and photos of a few months ago were rife with the demonstrations, citizens being arrested, tear gassed beaten and harassed by Hong Kong police in military gear. Then the pandemic broke and the situation faded from our headlines, but not the repercussions. The new Hong Kong security law is now in effect cutting off much of the freedom that was promised to residents of Hong Kong under Beijing's lie of 'one country, two systems'.Well, the system is rapidly one huge trap for those who still believe in Hong Kong is right to political expression, and this repression is taking on some ominous shades, which I will soon connect to 'why America should worry'.

As of last week, three providers of virtual private networks have suspended their Hong Kong operations, thus depriving residents of an ability to use their Internet connection to avoid state censorship, as well as protect individual privacy. Thus a Hong Kong citizen literally takes his or her life in their hands going to many 'banned' Internet sites, which Beijing has deemed 'anti-state' or 'subversive'.

Also in the new security laws, which were the cause of the shutdown of the VPNs, as well as the demonstrations, are broad new police powers allowing authorities to search your electronic device -- including your phone or whatever they deem subversive or dangerous -- without a warrant. Imagine being stopped on an American street by an armed person in riot gear who demands to see your phone, or coming into your apartment and confiscating your computer with no warrant. This indirect contradiction with the treaty signed with Great Britain in 1999, guaranteeing Hong Kong's basic human rights. The VPN providers, I mentioned whose names are Private Internet Access, Tunnel Bear, and IP Vanish stating as a group that "with this legislative change, we unfortunately must consider Hong Kong and China as one". That sense of differentiation between totalitarian slaves of mainland China and the free citizens of Hong Kong apparently no longer exists.

You need to know that even such sites as YouTube and Twitter are blocked by the Chinese authorities, and this shows how the fear is spreading over censorship, citizen control, and surveillance in communist China.

A part of this security law known as Article 29 says an individual can be charged for cooperating "with a foreign country or institution, organization, or individual outside of China for engaging in hostile activities against Hong Kong or the people's Republic of China". Note the wide net here. If you as an individual of another country, perhaps a representative of an agent or an employer of an international company are suspected of 'hostile' acts (undefined in the law) you and your corporation have opened yourself up to the same abrogation of rights. The same violation of privacy that the Hong Kong citizen can be accused and jailed indefinitely for such anti-state hostility. And the VPNs as well as many multinational companies have taken note of this and are scaling back in Hong Kong to the inevitable and intentional detriment of the citizens of Hong Kong. The threat to freedom of expression is real, but our government is more interested in the developing trade war, soybean exports, rare earth imports, exchange students, and escalating tariff schedules, as well as rhetoric, which is wide of the Mark of the real issue, which is human rights in China.

But wait... our government has also been quietly eyeing this action by Beijing and possibly emulating it in our own uniquely American way.

Attorney general William Barr, that bastion of American civil rights, spoke in Grand Rapids, Michigan last week. He told manufacturers and representatives of businesses who do and desire to do business with the so-called people's Republic of China: "You might not think of yourselves as lobbyists cultivating a mutually beneficial relationship is just part of the system of influential social networks necessary to do business in the People's Republic, but you should be alert to how you might be used, and how your efforts on behalf of a foreign company or government could implicate the Foreign Agents Registration Act. FARA does not prohibit any speech or conduct, but it does require those who are acting as agents of foreign principals to publicly disclose that relationship by registering with the Justice Department."

Barr went on to say: "These requirements are designed not to stifle your right to free expression, which are protected, but rather to ensure that the American public can discern what or who is the true source of your speech on matters of public concern."

Register with the Justice Department? Who is the true source of speech on matters of public concern? Is this the American attorney general, the defender of the American Bill of Rights speaking? Or could I juxtapose those words underneath the video of Hong Kong's puppet mayor, or even a video of Xi Xing Ping speaking to the People's Congress? Am I going too far here? Or are we seeing in slow motion, a confluence of government figures from two different cultures, seeming to speak the same doublespeak that sounds almost, Orwellian in its implications?

And here I want to point out that I don't think it's conspiratorial. There is much more happening that doesn't need a hefty conspiracy theory to express an even more intrinsic threat to freedom of expression. Note the following, if you please:

Patience Haggin, of the Wall Street Journal, reports that Target, Incorporated told a leading online news publisher, name not revealed, not to run its ads in stories related to Black Lives Matter. Articles mentioning police brutality victims were 'off limits' as well as the word 'protests' if the word showed up in news stories. In other words, negative connotations or negative emotions associated with certain words, stories, names, or groups would rub off negatively on the sponsor or advertiser whose name or logo or goods showed up as an advertisement in or next to those stories or words perceived as negative.

Target, and many other corporations use these 'block lists' (note the similarity to blacklist, which I'm sure you've noticed) to burnish a positive image of not exploiting tragedy, much as airlines pulled their advertising for a short period after an airlineer crash. But online news publishers say these block lists effectively punish a media company for covering important issues since naturally advertising revenue is diminished when attempts are made to cover and write about those stories where ad blocking happens.

Here are a few more words on these block lists that appear to be prevalent among online news sources. Remember Google and the like are now reaping up to 75% of American advertising revenue: ' shooting', 'bomb', 'immigration', 'Trump', as well as 'COVID-19', 'coronavirus', and 'Black Lives Matter'. If this generates controversy the advertisers may be speaking with a louder voice than the readers wish to know, to be informed, to be educated. An American reader of news may very well be the victim of censorship that doesn't use that name or is even visible or obvious. It's a silent killer of news in an effort to make sure ad revenues don't dry up online the way they've dried up for the nation's newspapers, those bastions of freedom in bygone days.

Ever heard of Chatham Asset Management, LLC.? They just won the bidding (read lottery) for the McLatchey company, which filed for bankruptcy. Who is McClatchy? They publish 30 daily newspapers, including the Miami Herald, the Sacramento Bee, and the Kansas City Star. Veteran news junkies will recognize the above three newspapers as historic recipients of numerous Pulitzers and other honors over the years, reporting par excellence now owned by a hedge fund management company.

The newspaper industry has become the media equivalent of the buggy whip in the 21st century. I know... but this is serious stuff, folks.

This sale means, according to a syndicated story, that one third of all newspapers in the United States sold on a daily basis are published by companies controlled by financial institutions. Fortress Investment Group manages Gannett (also known as 'Engulf and Devour'). Alden Global Capital LLC owns Media Newsgroup, and publishes over 60 newspapers, including the Denver Post, the San Jose Mercury News. Two media giants in the reporting world whose stories are important to online sources for news.

Now as being blocked online, investment groups controlling newspapers and the reporting that is so intrinsic in an atmosphere of 'will this offend someone?', both communist leaders and free world leaders warning corporations and individuals to be careful what they say in public and online. Do I sound too much like Howard Beale these days? Or chicken little? Maybe we could use a crash course in the great American literature of Sinclair Lewis' 'It Can't Happen Here'. Sure. Or why not Orwell's '1984'? Then again, maybe I worry too much. Maybe. Thanks for listening.