| This analysis is whataboutism[1]. It is an attempt to create a false moral equivalency by drawing vague, factually inaccurate parallels between two radically different information dissemination structures, as a nationalistic apologetic for the PRC. Any means of propagating information is directly and heavily censored by the government itself in China, as you yourself readily acknowledge. There are well known, open, severe criminal penalties for failure to comply. This applies not only to media outlets, but even to ordinary people posting personal opinions on the internet. None of this is hidden or controversial. Categorically, nothing remotely similar to that use of "widespread coercive criminal penalties to control the spread of information, as a government sponsored social control apparatus" exists in the west. (This does not imply anything about the status of biases existing or not existing in western media. That is a logically unrelated issue.) It is not a question of different degrees or forms of what's basically the same thing; it is two totally different structures: one system uses the state's monopoly on the use of violence to directly and openly enforce and restrict the spread of information. The other system explicitly prohibits this. What the moral goodness of each structure may be is a seperate question. What is objectively clear, though, is that their respective moral analyses must necessarily be wholly differently conducted, since they are structurally different at the most basic level. There is no possible moral equivalency. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism |