A Press Conference for China

We got to see the difference between a country that controls the press and one that doesn't in the closing ceremonies of President Obama's trip to China.  The New York Times, most impacted by the event, has two stories today on it.  The first, Fruitful Visit by Obama Ends with a Lecture from Xi  and the second, In the Words of Xi Jinping:  Unraveling an Ancient Saying

Neither of these stories is really about a press conference, as much as the Chinese limiting access to their country to reporters who ask questions the government doesn't like.  The Ancient Saying is different in our culture than in China.  In the West the idea of "belling a cat" would be for a mouse to try to put a bell on a cat as a warning that it was approaching.  It means something is nearly impossible.  Unlike the Aesop version, the Chinese use it to mean the person who creates a problem should resolve it.  The person who puts a bell on the tiger's neck should be the one to remove it.

Xi was saying the New York Times created the problem of not getting visas because they would not follow Chinese rules about how the press behaves.  It is a kind of "when in Rome" saying that means submit questions in advance and you will get a scripted response.  He answered a question posed that way, and read his response.  Obama didn't.

It seems like there are really multiple issues here, none of which have anything to do with climate control, the reason for the press conference to being with.  The first is practical, the second emotional.
 
The New York Times should think a little bit before it speaks through one of its reporters to a head of State.  They only had one question to ask, and the one they asked was about their own passport restrictions and whether or not the U.S. interfered in Hong Kong.  There were a total of 3 questions asked, and none were answered.  If you are going to try to make a point about freedom of the press, this probably wasn't the best place or time.  The U.S. involvement or non-involvement in Hong Kong doesn't have anything to do with the first question and is typical of the press in the U.S. "You get one question" has no meaning to them, and it should. Common sense says this is not a good place to embarrass a national leader, but they got two for one on this one. Neither leader looked prepared for the question or the response.  Xi took his translation microphone out of his ear and asked for a question from the Chinese press.   Nobody wins here and he didn't look good.  Obama didn't either.

I would be one of the first to say the Chinese control their press to the point of repression.  It is certainly different.  They believe that the government has a right to decide what the people should know and control information accordingly.  They control what the press says about events, and carry that further on occasion.  In Singapore, they told the Rolling Stones not to sing Honky Tonk Woman.  I like that song, but if the Rolling Stones are going to sing in that country, they won't do it.  This is kind of like Pussy Riot singing about Putin in Russia.  It will not go well.

This kind of foreign policy, if that is what it was, will not be well received in China.  It is like Michelle Obama going over there and telling then how wonderful the Internet is for everyone.  They don't see it that way, and control their Internet like their press.  To them, information is important and controlling it is essential to the behavior of their people.  There will never be another press conference with the U.S. where reporters get to offer up questions.  Thank you New York Times.

You can guess they won't be getting any any visas after this, but that wasn't why they were there to begin with.  What was that press conference about?