I am very confused by the events and timeline detailed in the article.
Bloomberg (Edit: Bloomberg News) published a story on the Xi family wealth in 2012 and were banned for it. But this article says they were still investigating and writing that story in 2013. And that they buried it. And that they did so to avoid upsetting the CCP etc.
They even have quotes:
"late Oct 2013":
>"It is for sure going to, you know, invite the Communist Party to, you know, completely shut us down and kick us out of the country," Winkler said. "So, I just don't see that as a story that is justified."
Except apparently Winkler, "founding editor in chief" didn't know that bloomberg news was already banned in China and had been for a year and for already publishing this story!?
Has someone just massively screwed up their dates?
* The extent that spouses' activities effect employee NDAs
* When and whether NDAs are appropriate both in Journalism and other industries
* The CCP and Chinese governments abuse of economic powers to silent dissent, in this case internationally and US and other governments compliance with that policy.
* Connections between wealth and political power, both in China and the world
* Whether being part of the larger Bloomberg entity strengthens BBG News or makes them more liable to external pressure
I also think Winklers position (assuming it was his position, since apparently all this happened after it had already happened?) was very sensible:
>Winkler alluded to that in his remarks. "There's a way to use the information you have in such a way that enables us to report, but not kill ourselves in the process and wipe out everything we've tried to build there," he told the reporting team. Bloomberg News and Winkler declined to comment for this story.
Aka: we can't publish this as we do too much business there, but we could leak it to someone else without the same exposure
Sadly the article seems to make a bad job of covering the basic facts and it's can't help but quote emotional projection instead of giving clear outlines of events. Good luck with this one (gender non-specific) guys!
Or that could just be retaliation for 'China Expels Three Wall Street Journal Reporters-WSJ`. Which was retaliation for an opinion piece written by the WSJ. But before that, for years, China has been culling western journalists by not renewing reporters press visas [1][2].
But more broadly, I think its interesting to examine the media access China and America have to each other's respective citizens.
When accessing American's citizens via the press, China is virtually unrestrained. China regularly places opinion articles in American Newspapers. Frequently in areas where they hope to change american political opinions[3]. No Chinese publications are banned in the USA. Including Chinese government propaganda outlets. And until recently, there were no restrictions on Chinese journalists in the US. And even now, Chinese journalists are free to report on whatever they want without prosecution.
Now the other side. When accessing China's citizens American press is blacklisted. No NYT, FOX, WSJ, etc. When American media is allowed its limited to a small range of approved topics. Reporting on politics, the Uyghurs, or Tibet? Forbidden. Banned. I could go on.
China and America are now equals on the world stage. But their media access is far from equal. That inequality means that America must fix the lop-sided media relationship with China.
Personally I'm saddened by this. I miss the China of 10 years ago when it seemed plausible China was on a path to liberalization, freedom, and the respect of the human individual regardless of race or creed.
The source is a politically-biased English-language Taiwanese tabloid known for spreading false information relating to the government of mainland China, especially regarding covid19. Doesn't pass the bullshit filter.
They also edited a headline for a #1 ranked story about Blizzard and the Hong Kong issue, removing Hong Kong from the headline entirely.
HN sort of reminds me of China -- a dictatorship with zero transparency and a penchant for manipulation.
Edit: Can't forget the spineless bootlickers who are hopelessly devoted to the state! You know you've struck a nerve when the best 'reply' they can offer is a silent downvote.
NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/world/asia/china-apple-nb...
Even the same organisation. Still not a conspiracy but as a non US citizen it's clear that a lot of the US media doesn't treat China the same as the US. I am sure it's like that in every country, but that makes it difficult to find objective news, or at least news that doesn't have an emotional charge to it.
Perhaps you'd prefer the South China Morning Post, which had 0 mentions of this incident in its article[0], although to be fair that paper is owned by the Alibaba group, whose CEO magically disappeared for months one time for speaking out against Xi.
It's a good thing we have numerous other sources on the matter[1][2][3].
But I suppose they're all owned by western corporations, so who can we trust? I myself wouldn't trust the paper that casually omitted a crucial detail about the controversy.
The OP was saying that the original English article was posted 3 hours before the Chinese version, giving the Chinese government time to block NYT before the Chinese language version was published.
Meta: it seems the New York Times really didn't appreciate getting blocked from China a few months ago. All the articles I read on HN that depict China negatively seem to come from the NYT. Or maybe other publications that aren't blocked in China actively avoid those topics?
"After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in.
"The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings."
As a student of the language, history, culture, current politics, and future prospects of China since 1975, I had better comment on how significant this is. The effort by operatives based in China (that much is indisputable from the computer forensics involved in this case) is deeply hostile to the press freedom that is a fundamental difference between China and the United States. Under usual principles of international law, China has the responsibility to keep actors on its territory from launching harmful attacks on the territory of another country, unless it is interested in declaring war. Prior restraint of news media is routine in China, and accounts for a great deal of the public ignorance in China that keeps the current dictatorial regime in power, but it is not at all a friendly act toward the United States. The United States government has everything to gain and essentially nothing to lose by every other government on the planet being exposed to more press coverage of national leaders and their possibly corrupt activities. In this regard, the current regime in China and any government of the United States under the Constitution have inherently differing interests.
The national interest of the common people of China, on the other hand, would be best served by freeing the news media there from the prior restraint and censorship that now exist there. If everyday people in China knew better what is really going on in the country, and what their leaders are doing, China could make greater progress in overcoming persistent poverty and enjoy more peaceful relations with countries all around the globe. Right now, the masses in China are not given the choice of knowing what's going on through uncensored mass media, nor are they given the choice of free and fair elections for choosing national leaders.
My best hope is that this effort to scare off the New York Times from honest reporting about China will fail as efforts by the Church of Scientology to frighten away investigative journalists are also increasingly failing.
A lot of journalists would like nothing better than to write even more tough stories about what is really going in China, based on unfettered reporting with Chinese-speaking sources in the country. One journalist from China I met long ago in a place far away commented well in advance of the Internet age that if the Communist Party of China ceased censoring mass media that its rule would be gone "in a week." The time will come when the Party can't shut down all the channels of information flowing into China and within China, and then the Party will have to face elections or face a revolution.
AFTER EDIT: The first reply asked a fair question, which is whether or not there is a basis for thinking that the Communist Party of China losing power in China would be a good thing. My answer is yes. I lived in Taiwan both under the KMT dictatorship and under its current democratic regime (which now again has the KMT as the ruling party, after an election). I have also been to Hong Kong. Chinese people can adapt well enough to democracy. In general, all around the world, freedom and democracy have their defects, but they are generally better for the people who live with them than the alternative. Precisely because Taiwan is available for an example, I think a transition to democracy in China could be especially smooth. It is regrettable that although there are Muslim democracies, the first attempts at specifically Arab democracies so far are nascent and struggling. The democratic transition in Arab countries will be harder in the short term for lack of culturally similar examples, but I think that too will be a long term benefit to the common people of the Arab lands.
AFTER ONE MORE EDIT: Anyway, it shouldn't be the censorship and armed force of the Party that restricts the people's right to choose their national leaders.
Please see a screenshot of the full article here:
https://imgur.com/a/uJxate0
For the data table, go here:
https://airtable.com/shrtyVQQG1DhaXIxx
It looks like this company is trying very hard to suppress this news. A media blackout might work in China, but not in America.
I am in contact with Medium to get the article restored. If anyone has a Medium contact, any help would be appreciated.
reply