Share this:

Here’s a cool graphic showing China’s investment in the entire continent of Africa since 2010. China’s investing everywhere in Africa, especially in mineral-rich Southern Africa and Nigeria. The more trade, the better for these African countries. Dambiya Moyo, a Zambian economist who’s famous for writing Dead Aid, which I’m reading now, really believes so and she devotes a whole chapter on China.

Then a BBC writer explains the four Ts when it comes to reporting taboos in China. The first three are obvious but the last one might be a surprise. In reality, I saw the last one for real a few times in China, not the taboo, but the actual issue in question. It’s encouraging to know that government can be open to allowing reporting on social problems like rural poverty and even corruption.

In football, China faces Brazil in a friendly tomorrow on Monday, September 10. China lost to Sweden 1-0 on Friday in another friendly and in June had lost to Spain 1-0, which was quite good considering it was Spain, the world and European champions. China also drew with Ghana in a friendly in August. These results are good, but the question is whether China can continue this form when it comes to competitive matches and tournaments (they are already out of qualifying for the 2014 World Cup).

Questionable NY Times article on mainland students in Taiwan

The NY Times also ran an article on mainland students studying in Taiwan in late July. The article focused mostly on mainland students and their opinion of Taiwan. Not surprisingly, it was all mostly positive, with mainlanders praising everything from the Internet to political placards to the state of old buildings. When I first read it, I thought it was decent, but after reading it again, there were several issues that made it very biased and pro-Taiwan.

First off, the stated figure of over 1000 mainland students studying for degrees here is dead wrong, because it’s only 928, which leads to the second problem.

Second, the opinion that this policy is a success is not really accurate, because not only were the number of students low, but it was less than half that of the limit, which the article omitted to mention- 2000. From the mainland students’ and schools sides, it can be seen as a success because there were no major problems, such as misbehavior or conflicts. The low number of students, which the article fails to mention, also makes it hard for them to influence society in mainland China, which the writer describes and quotes people saying as being a possible benefit of the program.

Third, the article is chock-full of quotes from mainland students, mostly praising Taiwan’s politics. While the writer did a good job to get these students to make such bold statements, most of whom gave their names and ages, she didn’t do a good job of presenting any criticisms or negative opinions.

The last point is the main reason I didn’t like this article. It paints a picture of Taiwan being a paradise for the mainland students, awestruck over everything from the Internet to a politician “shouting his thanks” in a van at passersby, but there is not a single critical opinion from these students. Taiwan is so great and everything is an eyeopener for these students, is the subtle undertone of the article. The writer then states that students might not want to return to China, which is her own opinion and not backed up by any fact, and even if they can’t stay in Taiwan, they will go elsewhere. The last paragraph continues this subtle anti-China message, with a student talking about going overseas, then saying that his parents also want to move abroad.  I’m not saying that some of the things the students said about Taiwan are untrue, for instance- the Internet is faster and more open, and there is democracy, but the problem is the article is so onesided and omits any criticism of Taiwan or the policy that it presents a very biased view. Unfortunately, that’s how many stories in the media about China are these days.

China’s next?- Not so fast

The current series of public revolutions breaking out across the Middle East/Arab world against longtime leaders and regimes has captured the attention of a lot of Western media. So much, so that some Western media seem to be in a haste to find the next country and are happily applying this phenomenon to China. Momentous things are happening in the Arab world, don’t get me wrong, and I think it is mostly positive. But it is an incredible leap of imagination to think something similar will happen to China because the circumstances between China and Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia etc are very different. This “Jasmine Revolution” and its overblown (Western) media coverage is ludicrous. China’s Communist Party isn’t helping matters by being so paranoid and taking such forceful measures. I’ll have more to write but for now, read something coming directly from a Chinese person.

Rupert Murdoch biography review

Rupert Murdoch may be the ultimate global tycoon villain (so villainous that he was the bad guy in a James Bond film*), with his worldwide media empire, his supposed cold, brutish manner, and frighteningly, insatiable thirst to increase his media possessions even more. In the US, where his Fox News has carved up a sizable and notorious niche for amazingly popular right-wing demagoguery, his reputation is even more villainous such as when he pursued the Wall Street Journal and eventually got it. But he’s also a confused, reserved, bumbling and technology-illiterate old man, who was even “strikingly little idea about” Dow Jones (the WSJ’s parent company), as writer Michael Wolff says in The Man Who Owns The News-Inside The Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, a semi-authorized biography of the man and his successful purchase of the WSJ. But rather than make Murdoch seem like a joke or a fraud, this revelation of his flaws actually highlights how impressive his ascent has been and comlicates people’s feelings about him- that one who in some ways is so unimpressive is also so complex and successful.

Murdoch’s rise from an Australian newspaper heir maneuvered out of his newspaper inheritance after his father dies to his ownership of a multimedia empire spanning most of the major English-speaking world is charted, as well as his intriguing family dynamics, most notably his succession which has been complicated by his most recent marriage and resultant 2 little daughters. The key to his success is his determination to push forward and take risks, and the nerve to fight battles and not back down. The list of his opponents include British publishing unions, the Big 3 US networks of ABC, CBS and NBC, fellow media magnates such as Ted Turner and Richard Branson and even entire countries (though it must be said he did give in to China). The book has lots of interesting little anecdotes such as how Murdoch has met every US President since Harry Truman and that he doesn’t (and possible can’t) use email. In the end, the writer touches on Murdoch’s fight against the Internet, specifically his well-known desire to defeat the concept of reading news online for free and get people to start paying for newspaper website access with his setting up of paywalls on his Times website. The book makes a strong case for how much Murdoch feels for newspapers and journalism, he’s definitely not in it for the money, and that instead of a devourer, he is possibly the only and last savior of the news print industry.

*not exactly, but I think you get the point

Share this:

It’s very long but worth reading, if only to understand how beleaguered the newspaper industry is, at least in the Western English-speaking world, and why paying for access is a necessary choice. The writer shows how much of a newspaper’s expenditure printing a physical newspaper uses up, uses that to argue for a paperless newspaper and then presses for readers to pay. Paperless is the only way for a newspaper to offer a viable product, instead of a skimmed down one, which is worthy enough for readers to want to pay without question. I still find it hard to fathom not having a physical newspapers, but I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t say I don’t read most of my news online, and that I don’t pay.

Journalist tackles Harvard MBA- Ahead of the Curve

What if a British journalist, one who had a good career working for top British and American newspapers and was even a New York and Paris bureau chief, decided to do a 2-year MBA at Harvard Business School and then write about it? Ahead of the Curve [Two Years at Harvard Business School] is the result of exactly such an endeavor and it’s quite a revealing and poignant book. Rather than glamorizing or demonizing the business school and MBA experience, Philip Delves Broughton goes in with an open mind and tells it like it is. Not surprisingly, the book is a bit of both. Broughton is a journalist who after a respectable 10-year career in which he covered 9/11 and was a bureau chief in 2 world cities, senses the changing tides converging on the media industry and decides to take a chance by going to HBS. Broughton claims in the foreword he did not intend to write the book and I believe he really went to HBS intending to find a new career path, and not as a kind of experiment or deliberate book-writing venture. His detailed notes and observations though probably show that once inside the program, the idea to write a book came to him. And it’s good for us that he did, showing the pressures and expectations that HBS MBA students are exposed to. Only among Wall Street types could a US$200,000-a-year salary seem like a failure. Investment-banking is apparently considered a second-tier career, as hedge funds and private equity are the hot sh!t . One of the book’s strong points is that we get a mini-lesson out of reading it. Technical aspects of business and finance are described in detail and actually seem interesting. We learn a lot about such vital business topics as valuating a company or estimating the risk of a stock (beta). Famous personalities are brought in or appear in real-time via video-link to speak to the students like private equity giant Blackstone Group CEO Steve Scharzman and Hong Kong’s Victor Fung, a former head of logistics giant Li and Fung.

While the HBS MBA program seems really fascinating to be in, being a top-notch elite program where everyone is supposedly the cream of the crop in the US and overseas, Broughton seems less than thrilled about his experience, and rightfully so, it seems. Despite billing itself as a valuable tool with which to launch new careers, the program is unable to help Broughton with his non-business background get much opportunities, whether internships or jobs after graduation. Also, the way to succeed in finance or consulting, it seems, is to do exactly what successful people in the field don’t recommend, which is focusing solely on the job and not on your family or pursuits outside of work. Despite this, many of his classmates eagerly chase after these same demanding but well-paying jobs. Personally, however, he also expresses massive doubts about the program’s self-importance, urging HBS at the end to drop their claim to leadership in society until they figure out how to contribute to society beyond just personal enrichment. It’s good to see he wasn’t taken in by the “dark side” of the grand pursuit of money and status. Whether you agree with his stance or not, this is a good glimpse into an institution that considers itself the elite of the world of business.

Share this:

An ongoing furor over a proposed media tribunal in South Africa has spread to international circles as foreign media have picked up on the story and the potential threat to media freedom. As usual, the comparison with Zimbabwe is mentioned as some people feel that the more repressive that South Africa seems to be getting, the more it will become like Zimbabwe in the past decade under Robert Mugabe. The media tribunal issue comes after a South African journalist was arrested and then initially had his case dropped, then reinstated for alleged fraud concerning a piece of evidence in a story he had written. The arrest and the media tribunal idea seems to have raised a lot of fear and anger among SA media professionals, as this opinion piece states.

On another issue altogether, this comes as another blow to the World Cup stadiums whose financial and practical viability has been a big concern after the World Cup ended. Yes, most of them were definitely spectacular, but there was always the question of whether they were worth the big costs as it wasn’t and isn’t sure how they could be used. For me, what is the big problem is that they built so much new stadiums in addition to significantly upgrading several others. Something as major as the World Cup needs some spectacular stadiums but given South Africa already has a lot of decent, usable stadiums, did it make sense to build new stadiums in places like Polokwane and Nelspruit?

Share this:

Would it be crazy to think that some media companies are making their Web sites so crappy in an attempt to reduce their appeal for online freeloading readers, including myself, and so prevent people from becoming too dependent or satisfied with just browsing their Web site? Looking at the Toronto Star’s awful revamped site, which has been like this for several months now, and wondering why, this is the only plausible reason I could think of, as ridiculous as it seems. I also thought that Yahoo’s recent revamp was quite bad as well because the site looks pretty dreary compared to how it was before.

This is kind of old news by now, but this NY Times article on the woeful state of the media industry in New York makes for a good read. Despite the article’s title, I found it kind of depressing. There has been an unending stream of layoffs in the U.S. media industry, with the Toronto Star not immune either, and it seems that print media corporations and established brands are powerless. Online and/or social media seems to be hailed by many as the future, including in the Times article above. This vision does not seem to have a real place for current print media, with only vague calls for these media to change and adapt equally vague online strategies. Many newspapers have been forced to shut down,  with even major city dailies with proud histories that exceed 100 years not immune. The irony is that this is a time where with the world becoming more wired and technology becoming more prevalent and powerful, the audience, and need, for news is  more .

Share this:

A slightly oldish though not too much, but still relevant piece on the “fall” of American journalism, which states how the decline began over 20 years ago because the media missed out on the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union. The worst example of media culpability and ignorance has to be the virtual “cheerleading” when George W. Bush led the U.S. in invading Iraq in 2003 on false premises. Yet I strongly feel that the sheer amount of free news and other kinds of writing available online is still the main reason for the stunning decline in print journalism these couple of years. Still it’s not hard to agree that when it comes to the U.S. (and other countries’) mainstream media, ignoring the really important stories for the superficial and scandalous has become quite common.

The New Cold War review

The New Cold War

Mark MacKinnon
Vintage Canada

I recently finished reading this after starting it last August when I first came here. After beginning my job and getting other books, I stopped reading it and put it aside until January. It proved to be a very decent read with information that is quite relevant to current events in Russia and its neighbours, given last August’s brief conflict between Russia and Georgia and the gas crisis in January when Russia withheld gas transmissions to Europe during a spat with Ukraine.

The book is basically about the political contest in several former Soviet Union and Central Asian nations, especially Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia between Western-backed factions and Russia over the destiny of their nations. The outcomes have been successful revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia which brought pro-Western democratic leaders to power and ousted pro-Russian dictators and authoritarian regimes. On the other hand, less successful have been attempts in Belarus and in Central Asia. Furthermore the effect of the successful revolutions caused several Central Asian nations to intensify their oppressive rules and launch brutal crackdowns on democracy activists and NGOs, strengthening or at least tightening their rule.

Several American organizations including Open Society funded by billionaire George Soros, and the National Democratic Institute and National Endownment for Democracy which are part of or affiliated with the American Democrat and Republican parties, have spent loads of money funding, training and providing resources to various pro-democracy/Western organizations, as well as actually helping form new ones.
One understands how threatened Russia feels by this onset of pro-Western/ American regimes in nations that formerly were under its direct control. Russia has certainly tried to hit back with its own political support and manipulations which the book describes as well.

The New Cold War was published last year but in the current context of recent events, is especially relevant. It’s a good primer on understanding the politics in some of the former Soviet Republic countries and the geopolitical dynamics with the looming but declining presence of Russia.
One thing about the writing is the obvious and consistent portrayal of Russia as the villain and it’s only in the end where MacKinnon raises questions of the pro-democracy movements and potential manipulation by Western organizations. On the other hand, It is possible to determine that much of the emotion and impetus behind the pro-democracy movements in these nations were genuine, at least much too genuine to dismiss them as pure creations of the American organizations/ government.
The current tensions in Russia involving an opposition struggling against the government’s increasingly authoritarian measures seem to show some semblance of the same tensions the book describes, in Russia and in several of the former Soviet republics.