This is disgusting. A news agency that is known for defending its own governments' dirty stuff, twisting truth, and manipulating public opinions, is now appreciating a freedom fighter and a human rights activist.
It's apparently not because what Snowden did matches their core values, or they want the same thing happen in China. Oh yes, they certainly like Snowden. It's because Snowden exposed some bad things done by US authorities, and they can use this as political tool; furthermore they can finally take this and say to Chinese people, hey, US does this too. You like the freedom in US? That's all bullshit.
If you are interested in what their reactions were when this kind of thing happened in China, back in 2010, this [1] (google translate: [2]) was xinhuanet's opinion on Chinese human rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Liu Xiaobo [3]. They described Liu Xiaobo as an evil man used by western countries to attack Chinese government, while the truth is Liu Xiaobo spent years striving for Chinese people's freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement in China.
Xinhuanet basically writes what the government tells them to write, and say what the government tells them to say.
A news agency that is known for defending its own governments' dirty stuff, twisting truth, and manipulating public opinions, is now appreciating a freedom fighter and a human rights activist.
Oh indeed, like the New York Times, say?
Obviously, the point isn't that China has democratic integrity.
Rather, it is that China is happy to push the theme that the US is not looking that much better than China given this scandal. And that's good for everyone, in the sense that it keeps Snowden safe and it puts pressure on the US to really prove that it takes democracy and transparency seriously.
Snowden's job is done. They will leave him alone as the US leaves alone dissidents once they have briefed the CIA and various other organizations and given testimony on how they have a secret, secret plan on the basis of which the US can start a war with the country.
>This is disgusting. A news agency that is known for defending its own governments' dirty stuff, twisting truth, and manipulating public opinions, is now appreciating a freedom fighter and a human rights activist.
So, exactly like the major US news outlets, from the Times to the Post to CNN? It's very hard, as a European, to find any news coverage of world affairs in the US that doesn't subscribe to the official Washington party line (with small diversions, according to which of the two parties the outlet/author supports).
>If you are interested in what their reactions were when this kind of thing happened in China, back in 2010, this [1] (google translate: [2]) was xinhuanet's opinion on Chinese human rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Liu Xiaobo [3]. They described Liu Xiaobo as an evil man used by western countries to attack Chinese government, while the truth is Liu Xiaobo spent years striving for Chinese people's freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement in China.
So?
There is a way to strive for your people's "freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement" that's in accordance to your countries and your people's needs (even if your government hates it) AND there is another way to fight for "freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement" that serves the agenda of foreign powers. The second way is mostly how you earn a "Nobel Prize" (which Obama also got, oh, the irony).
It's difficult to convey the above distinction to an American, not because they can't understand it, but because they haven't experienced it. See, the US is a world leader, so there's not another country that can even think of using people to influence American politics, topple politicians, grab it's resources, etc. Things that happen all the time in smaller countries -- and more often than not, those people ("freedom fighters", etc) are agents of US foreign policy (or French, or UK, etc -- it's what's called neo-colonialism).
Unfortunately, the idea that you'd compare Xinhua to CNN says more about your biases than it does about Xinhua or CNN. Xinhua is an instrument of the Chinese state.
In case you were confused, I've never compared Xinhua to CNN. In fact, I never even MENTIONED Xinhua. What I said was that CNN, NYT etc all conform to the official Washington party line.
But now that you brought it up, I can also say this: CNN is as much an instrument of the US state, as Xinhua is.
Of course CNN is privately run, and also pays lip service to journalistic independence and stuff, but that's just how this thing works over there. That's like Google saying "Don't be evil" or McDonalds touting the quality of it's products: i.e. only for very naive people.
You might like this:
"As Major Thomas Collins, of the U.S. Army Information Service acknowledged: "Psyops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our programme 'Training With Industry'. They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news.""
Or this:
"In an extraordinary directive to its staff, Cable News Network has instructed reporters and anchormen to tailor their coverage of the US war against Afghanistan to downplay the toll of death and destruction caused by American bombing, for fear that such coverage will undermine popular support for the US military effort".
Or this:
In a second memo leaked to the Post, CNN’s head of standards and practices, Rick Davis, expressed concern about reports on the bombing of Afghanistan filed by on-the-spot reporters. Davis noted that it “may be hard for the correspondent in these dangerous areas to make the points clearly” about the reasons for the US bombing. In other words, the CNN official feared that overseas correspondents might be intimidated by local opposition to the US military intervention and allow such sentiments to influence their reports.
To ensure that every CNN report always includes a justification of the war, Davis prescribed specific language for anchors to read after each account of civilian casualties and other bomb damage. He suggested three alternative formulations:
* “We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this from Taliban-controlled areas, that these US military actions are in response to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the US.”
* “We must keep in mind, after seeing reports like this, that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan continues to harbor terrorists who have praised the September 11 attacks that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the US.”
* “The Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the US.”
Davis concluded with an ultimatum to journalists concerned that they may sound like parrots for the White House: “Even though it may start sounding rote, it is important that we make this point each time.”
While it might be, this is not necessarily true. If Snowden were to win the Nobel peace prize, there would most likely be US newspapers describing him as an evil man and a traitor. The same newspapers would probably describe a Chinese whistleblower as a hero. All of that without government intervention. Just like in the US, a lot of people in China blindly support their government without having a gun pointed at their head. This might somehow be related to the Stockholm syndrom or simply a strong sense of nationalism.
Before anyone else does it, let me adapt the old joke:
An American and Chinese businessman are talking about their respective governments.
The American says, "See, you in China don't have the liberties that we do. Why, if someone exposed an unflattering truth about the US government, they would be lauded as heroes for standing up for our rights! You can't say that about your own country."
The Chinese responds, "Not true, not true. If someone exposed unflattering truths about the US government, they would be very welcome here too!"
I'd say what Snowden is doing fits fits their core values and goals perfectly. He's spreading gross misinformation and propaganda that's damaging to the US government and major US based technology companies. The fact that he may be doing it out of well-intentioned ignorance rather than willfully doesn't strike me as a big sticking point from their perspective.
[edit: I'm not surprised this is getting downmodded without any actual counterarguments. My comment is a bit too flippant, and the Snowden story really plays to the prevailing biases of the tech crowd. Still this whole episode does have me a little saddened by how otherwise intelligent people can behave so irrationally when something fits what they want to believe.]
We already know the majority of his claims are not true, or are grossly misrepresented. The latest bit of noise is a congressman with no background on intelligence who misunderstood a briefing he received and just made an ass of himself in public. Just like all the other articles on this, we'll get corrections and clarifications over the next several days that basically amount to a retraction, but I expect that's not what you'll remember.
>I'd say what Snowden is doing fits fits their core values and goals perfectly. He's spreading gross misinformation and propaganda that's damaging to the US government and major US based technology companies.
Err, what? Perhaps you haven't been following the news. Or 10,000 HN stories on this and related issues.
As for it being "damaging US government and major US based technology companies", OK, I get what your priorities are...
I expect I've been following it much more closely than you, and for much longer, because I have professional experience with much of what's being covered. That's why I'm distinguishing between the headlines and the actual underlying stories, and taking note of the major corrections that follow every unbelievable headline.
Just for some context, here's some of comments on the subject on HN six months ago:
While I agree it was a bit odd to read this coming from someone in China (given the state of their own internet), I'm as surprised as you are to have read this.
However, you have to read between the lines:
> How do we make sense of the fact that the market and the state colluded in the abuse of private information via what represents the backbone of many modern day infrastructures? [...] How do we understand the one-sided cyber attack accusations the U.S. has poured upon China in the past few months?
After I read those two questions, I realized, there was a difference. People in China know about the firewall. Sure, they have no choice, but the government isn't going behind their backs or allowing them unrestricted internet access and penalizing those who access "disallowed" content.
And I do, for one, agree with that last question; I hardly could believe that the US was just taking cyberattacks from China for years without at least attempting to get some revenge (and indeed, I know the US has the resources to fight back).
That being said, I admit I did laugh a bit to myself at this part:
> this force is acting in an unconstitutional manner and entirely contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
And that's when I started reading in-between the lines, because half of it's the truth, and half of it's probably state-ordered propaganda. The only difference this time is that this propaganda has some truth to it.
I realized, there was a difference. People in China know about the firewall.
That's the part they know about. Political dissenters in China are actively censored, suppressed, imprisoned, spied upon - systematic efforts to access overseas email accounts of dissidents and the personal computers of journalists outside of China have also been reported. So the government is most certainly 'going behind their backs' and doing a great deal more.
But my point wasn't really to discuss the ways in which China isn't actually an open democratic society - everyone knows that. I usually hesitate to use the word 'propaganda' since it tends to be broadly over-applied to things like 'US Congressperson says a stupid thing' which are just 'someone saying a stupid thing' rather than propaganda. But this particular item is clearly a piece of hypocritically indignant state-sponsored propaganda. There's a great deal to talk about regarding the NSA surveillance programs - I just have a really hard time imagining how this sort of piece is a useful or interesting starting point for any such discussion.
I highly doubt that. It's only anecdote but most of my Chinese friends tend to support their government (except on some issues like Internet censorship) and tend to dislike the US government (I live in China). In fact, it would be more accurate to say that they believe the government of China is just as bad as the US government. You could say that the author is a victim of propaganda but I think he genuinely meant what he wrote.
The only thing more terrifying than the great firewall is a construct with the same purpose that doesn't block internet access, but silently lets the government know when youre likely to be the kind of person who steps out of line.
I feel quite ashamed to admit this now, but when I was much younger and had less scruples, I had a consulting role with an elite private school in a well to do suburb of Melbourne in Australia that had chronic problems with students accessing material that violated the school's internet usage policy.
They had experimented with many, many blacklists and blocking solutions before, but with little success. The problem was that the kids were smart enough to know that they could just keep trying random sites until they got through the simplistic measures that flat blocklists were taking, and it was just a matter of time before they'd finally find something that wasn't in a list and get through.
I came up with the bright idea of turning the blocking off, and turning the blocklist into a honeypot regex matcher in the squid logs and deep packet inspection on accessed urls. Now any attempts to circumvent the rules would invisibly tripwire a sysadmin or staff member to take administrative and or disciplinary action on the students.
I'm told they had no more violations after that, I have my doubts mind you, but not about whether it was a more effective form of control. It forced them to self censor so big brother didn't have to do it for them, I think that's the real goal of pervasive permanent surveillance, even if you're not being watched, you can't be certain, so you'd best watch yourself.
I honestly think the method for defeating fascism, the blue meanies, is sustained whimsy and fantasy.
Block their rigid methodologies with simply enjoying life and giving them the middle finger as they sit in dark rooms poring over the details of our lives.
It depends on how numerous the threat is. Silently disappearing is useful for a small highly organized enemy, but for preventing large scale unorganized rioting, restricting the information flow is probably better.
Did anyone catch the dig against Chinese Internet freedom?
"For this reason China, despite the fact that it does not have a good reputation as far as Internet governance is concerned, should move boldly and grant Snowden asylum."
If this is official government propaganda, why are they saying China doesn't have a good reputation?
The article also calls for Google to withdraw from the United States on the same grounds it withdrew from China - hacking of Gmail and state surveillance.
Communist agitprop. They know that unless they address the bad reputation their article will lack credibility. They aren't stupid.
I think the article is hilarious and I'm glad China is sticking it to the US. Not because I support China, but because I hope this makes Americans uncomfortable with the prosecution of American whistleblowers to the point that something will actually change.
Mark my words: by 2041 china will be a freer country than the United States. It is already economically freer in the free economic zones such as Shenzhen.
Where by "economically free" we include such freedoms as "ability to deploy child labor", "ability to pay workers below subsistence", "ability to create the equivalent of company towns", "ability to dump toxic waste into rivers", "ability to blot out the sun with airborne waste", and "availability of vast pool of rural poor workers". And by "free" we specifically ignore "can be imprisoned indefinitely for belonging to the wrong religion", and "police officers can arrest and sentence you to a year in prison without the involvement of a court or even a prosecutor".
Every time someone says something like "China is [or will soon be] freer than the US", what they're really saying is "I don't read, but I'm happy to divide the whole world into two sides: whoever supports my current biases, and whoever doesn't".
> Where by "economically free" we include such freedoms as "ability to deploy child labor", "ability to pay workers below subsistence", "ability to create the equivalent of company towns", "ability to dump toxic waste into rivers", "ability to blot out the sun with airborne waste", and "availability of vast pool of rural poor workers".
You can't deny that this is indirectly partly due to America's demand for cheap goods that China provides. Look, United States has already passed this stage -- we have had dark spots in our history too, with crimes among the most heinous in world history: slavery, genocide, child labor. We've mostly improved... and I expect China will improve as well as its populace becomes more learned and starts demanding more freedoms.
But at any rate. I have one question for you tptacek: don't you agree that the extent of child labor, improper wages, toxic dumps, etc. taking place in China would be considerably less if Americans conscientiously chose to not fund these operations by essentially doing business with them? In other words, isn't America -- and the people of America -- culpable of these crimes that you make note of to a non-zero degree?
Sure. I just think China is much more culpable; they allow these actions as a considered and deliberate matter of public policy. I'm glad we agree that they're essentially criminal actions.
The US aggressively peruses "Free Trade" agreements on behalf of our manufacturing corporations, with the deliberate policy of only allowing tariff-free imports from nations who implement these criminal actions. (e.g. the NAFTA suit against California for banning that gasoline additive). Just trade policy would be opposite: large tariffs on countries who don't match our labor or environmental standards.
China is agreeing to play by the rules, but the US wrote the rules.
Are you suggesting that if the US's trade rules were neutral --- neither punishing nor incentivizing child labor, pollution, abuses --- China would no longer be doing these things/
You mean polluting rivers is a deliberate public policy in China? You have some proofs, I hope.
If not, your claims are just in the same vein as those a century ago telling the world about how those evil (pagan) Chinese hated babies and dropped them in the bins.
Well, I'm not agreeing with you and other yellow peril things at all.
Was just trying to show you that since the dawn of time the "other" has been considered dangerous, evil, etc. by many people. And you reflect very well this mentality.
As Chinese start demanding more social and human right freedoms, the economic anything-goes freedoms are honestly going to be diminished. The situation right now is downright toxic, and it's not clear that many Chinese will live long enough to see the expected "improvements."
Also, libertarians shouldn't come here expecting a libertarian paradise. There is plenty of unfairness and economic non-freedom to go around.
I think every idealist embracing that "corrupt West" and "noble savage" outlook on cultures should spend a year or two living in one of many shitholes of the world. It could bring some perspective.
Not sure about the date, but in time, China will be the leading free market democracy. What people totally fail to appreciate is the slow long term planning China can do, and no other large country can do that because of the democratic process. If you are out after 8 years, what is the motivation for a 50 year economic plan?
As the Chinese move more and more in to capitalism, and its people grow richer, they will want a say, and some power. As that happens, China will slowly feed in democratic mechanisms, as it has capitalist ones. It will have no choice, and it knows that. China will incresingly have more to lose and more international assets to protect, so its military will grow, as will it's navy. As Chinese influence and world investment grows, the likes of the USA will lose power and influence, and grow more an more concerned. As we have seen, that fear and paranoia will lead to more and more loss of freedom and democracy. So as China becomes more like America, America will become more like China is now.
The USA needs a long term plan to meet that challenge, and find a working equilibrium. I don't see one or where it will come from.
Not thought this through, just floated in to my head, but.....
Where might be a better place to host my web site or email? Both the US and China spy on me, that an equal given. But, so far, I dont see non Chinese citizens running scared of the Chinese authorities. Could be totally wrong, but are the Chinese, with allies, harassing any Kim Dotcoms or Assanges? Are they making any one launch massive raids on homes? Cant help feeling that China might be a safer place to host some services. Must be a problem there somewhere. Its an argument to be had though.
Iran has free elections too: just today they chose a new president out of six candidates. The ad-hominem speech that you exhibit has always been characteristic of communists: Lenin was a master of it for one. And that's where US is slowly going...
Keep in mind that US elections are generally between 2 candidates acceptable to the existing power structure, with a sideshow of more novel/progressive/interesting candidates who can't win because it's set up to be almost structurally impossible for them to.
How do we fix it :-/ I think a proportional voting system would open it up, but that conversation is so far from the one we have on the national stage that it seems ludicrous.
I don't know, it's so completely complicated. I would think we'd have to move to a parliamentary system to really break the duopoly. The media demonizes and marginalizes any other political parties in America, and Americans want to be "winners" so some even vote for a party based only on the perception that they will be the triumphant side.
The problem is that it seems like for most people, choosing between a few options is preferable than to have to carefully examine and choose from a wider array.
The ad-hominem speech that you exhibit has always been characteristic of communists: Lenin was a master of it for one. And that's where US is slowly going...
Don't you see the irony of accusing him of an ad hominem argument to try to win your argument? That's an ad hominem argument!
Free election is fine when the people know the truth. Not when people are gullible and easily manipulated. Not when people are selfish and think only for themselves. China is a country that thinks about the greater good. I've been to China. It's quite nice.
I too hate the hyperbolic bullshit in these political discussions, but it's perfectly possible to point strictly to the hyperbolic bullshit itself and call it what it is without getting personally offensive towards the author.
China will never be freer than the US. Even if the US may not be as free as it once was, and may continue becoming less free over time, and China may achieve a larger GDP (hard not to with 4x the US population), the US will never be less free than China.
Out of curiosity, what leads you to that conclusion? I have faith in certain parts of the US government to resist a decline too far, but what makes you so sure China won't one day decide to pass comprehensive freedom guarantees for their population that rival those present in the future of the US? It certainly doesn't seem terribly likely, but the world will eventually change and so will China. It isn't something I would ever claim couldn't happen.
You're right one should never say never, though by the same token one shouldn't assert with absolutely certainty something like China will be freer than the US in 30yrs.
I primarily had in mind the relative court systems of the two countries. As long as the Chinese court system is not fully independent and autonomous, has term limits rather than lifetime appointments, and replacement judges are appointed by the CCP, it will always be something of an instrument for the CCP, and I don't see them ever completely relinquishing that power.
US Judges are of course appointed by the political party in power at the time (except for lower level ones in elections), but that changes relatively frequently, and once the judges attain their lifetime appointment, all bets are off how their judicial views will evolve over time.
Sometimes we get politically partisan results like the 2000 election decision, but other times we get real surprises like Justice Roberts siding with the ACA in a tie-breaker.
But a completely independent and equal judiciary branch is the last resort of a free society, and the US has a 200yr+ tradition in that respect. China's court system was only reformed ~40yrs ago, and partially as an instrument of the CCP, rather than as a fully independent and equal branch of the Chinese government.
The U.S. is already far behind many European, and a few African countries on freedom of the press, economic freedom, and other rankings.
Based on trends, it will also soon exceeded by a few Asian countries such as South Korea.
Given that China has copied the same economic and political transition of other Asian countries such as South Korea, but is simply further behind chronologically, please tell be why it's completely inconceivable that China will exceed the U.S. in freedom.
The U.S. is already far behind many European, and a few African countries on freedom of the press, economic freedom, and other rankings.
I call baloney on this. (Your use of "far" to modify "behind" goes beyond the facts.) Where are the rankings you are referring to? Can you link to those rankings, please?
And, yes, as a matter of fact I do speak and read Chinese, and have lived in east Asia for years after university study of the history and language and culture of China.
Slightly off topic: China must be very happy about this revelation. We (US) have been criticizing their "great firewall" for so long, but now it's revealed that we have our own program with similar motivations, only a different execution. Rather than burying and censoring information, this surveils your usage of certain information and calls you a terror threat when you step outside the lines.
It takes an enormous amount of rationalizing to compare a system of overt and pervasive government censorship of the Internet --- a system run by the government that blocks access to things the government doesn't want its citizens to read --- to even the most egregiously editorialized assumptions Glenn Greenwald has come up with.
I'm certainly playing the devil's advocate to some degree and being hyperbolic, but fact is we, or should I speak for my self and say I, have been on high moral ground for quite some time, demonizing the "great firewall," applauding Google's circumventions, etc. Yet now we find out we're far closer than we would like to be, and have been for some time.
This is a slippery claim; anything the NSA does that you don't approve of would enable you to claim we're "far closer than we'd like to be" to China. It's a phrasing designed to end discussion, not encourage it.
I think the Chinese government would have preferred no such story, because in the long term it will reinforce awareness of privacy issues, increase the toolset, and it may give whistleblowing ideas to some Chinese.
Looks like Snow isn't being extradited. Xinhua is the official press agency of the state. Editorial or no, this didn't get posted without the state's nod.
Oh, you're a whistleblower against any Chinese policy? Say goodbye to your freedom and count yourself lucky if you don't end up in a stadium with a bullet in your head.
Your response is a non-sequitur. Tptacek was specifically referring to the first line of the comment, you addressed this one: "We've also started "disappearing" people and hunting them down, locking them in isolation without due process."
Without arguing in favor of Guantanamo, which is indeed a travesty that urgently needs a decisive fix, there is a difference between detaining foreigners captured in an active combat theater because the State earnestly believes them to be an immediate, violent threat to Americans and "disappearing" its own citizens.
Also, people in Guantanamo haven't been "disappeared". They're being detained indefinitely, which is a problem, but we know where they are, and they have access to courts and lawyers (albeit hard-won access).
The "disappeared" in Central and South America were more often than not murdered.
> Without arguing in favor of Guantanamo, which is indeed a travesty that urgently needs a decisive fix, there is a difference between detaining foreigners captured in an active combat theater because the State earnestly believes them to be an immediate, violent threat to Americans and "disappearing" its own citizens.
There's also, it must be noted, a fairly enormous difference between "detaining foreigners captured in an active combat theater because the State earnestly believes them to be an immediate, violent threat to Americans" and what the US government has been doing with the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, in which the government has detained many people who it never had any reasonable cause to believe were an "immediate, violent threat to Americans" and many of the prisoners were not captured in an active combat theater.
The process by which the USG selected people for detention in Guantanamo was obviously flawed, but it does not from that follow that the USG has endorsed "indefinite detention at Guantanamo" as a solution to arbitrary political problems.
Just because you can't keep a history of more than 2 comments back in your head doesn't mean I have the same limitation. If you follow the thread from the top, you'll see that it refers to the notion of the USG "disappearing" its citizens. Guantanamo is a travesty, but it isn't that travesty.
Yeah, but that's not the claim that the post you responded to was about. If you want to talk about that, respond to someone who is debating you about that.
Just because you have a drum you want to beat doesn't make it sensible to keep beating it when its not relevant.
Whistleblowers that serve US needs.
Oh, you're a whistleblower against any US policy? Say goodbye to your freedom and count yourself lucky if you don't end up in Guantanamo with a waterbucket around your head.
Interesting how beliveable this actually sounds...
Lesson learned: Don't throw with stones if you live in a glass house.
Xinhua is the official news outlet of China; they're China's Pravda. They aren't doing Snowden any favors in the US by writing this, but, of course, that's not the point.
I agree that they are not doing Snowden any favors by writing this piece. It makes him look more suspicious. They should just shut up and watch the show.
I don't intend on being too harsh on this article, but I must say that it seems about as skewed as a Fox "News" broadcast.
It is not too difficult to find less biased coverage - my favorite technique is to take a story I am interested in and then read two or three articles about it from different countries.
If Xinhua is taking a stand, it means the Chinese government decided they quite like the situation as it is. Looks like Snowden's bet paid off: he'll likely not face extradition from Hong Kong after all, and SEALs teams will be kept at bay.
1. Hypocrisy of those who preach about Internet . The USA might be spying but they don't aggressively remove anti-American content. Much unlike China where criticism of the lives of its political elite will get your foreign website blocked.
2. China has no tolerance for those that embody the courage to fight against the system. It has a military interest in learning what Snowden knows. We may even see Snowden go from wistleblower to traitor.
China's Internet policy is increasingly leading to cultural isolation, xenophobia and bellicose nationalism. I don't trust Fang Yang and other social engineers to control the feelings they cultivate.
It's apparently not because what Snowden did matches their core values, or they want the same thing happen in China. Oh yes, they certainly like Snowden. It's because Snowden exposed some bad things done by US authorities, and they can use this as political tool; furthermore they can finally take this and say to Chinese people, hey, US does this too. You like the freedom in US? That's all bullshit.
If you are interested in what their reactions were when this kind of thing happened in China, back in 2010, this [1] (google translate: [2]) was xinhuanet's opinion on Chinese human rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Liu Xiaobo [3]. They described Liu Xiaobo as an evil man used by western countries to attack Chinese government, while the truth is Liu Xiaobo spent years striving for Chinese people's freedom, human rights, and constitution enforcement in China.
Xinhuanet basically writes what the government tells them to write, and say what the government tells them to say.
[1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/15/c_12664760.htm
[2] http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http:...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Nobel_Peace_Prize
EDIT: typos