If there is a reason to boycott the 2008 Olympics in China it is not solely over Tibet - rather it is the fact that China has failed to meet its promises to the IOC to "cease its violent repression of dissent" to allow free media access to the Country and also a few other environmental promises that it has miserably failed to meet.

In short the Chineese Governemt has been shown to break agreements and are involved in violent oppression and State control of the media - just how hairymarx and his fellow socialsts like their Countries to operate.

.... your pre-occupation with state control of the media in the 'dictatorship' of China (and presumably some of the 'dictatorships' of the world such as Cuba, Venezuela and Sweden) that reject the prevailing neo-liberal capitalist orthodoxy, is quite revealing. In my previous post, I asserted that a disproportionate amount of media attention was given to the anti-Chinese demonstrations in London on sunday when compared to the demonstrations against the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. At the former demonstration 1,000 people attended and page after page of print and news media time was devoted to it.

Alternatively, at the latter demonstration, 2 million people attended but only a fraction of this space and time was devoted to it. Given the nature of the mainstream media here in the 'democractic' state we call Britain this comes as no surprise at all when one considers the interests of the powerful must be protected at all times.

A few years ago, two academic studies and analysis of mainstream media reporting were undertaken by Glasgow and Cardiff University respectively in relation to the conflicts in Iraq and Israel/Palestine. Both studies concluded that a systemmatic bias was prevalent in both conflicts. They noted for example that the BBC (the British state broadcaster) was institutionally biased in its reportage, particularly in relation to Iraq. They concluded that of all the BBC reports on the Iraq conflict only 2 per cent of them were critical of US/UK participation and the assumptions that underscored the invasion and occupation. Moreover, they found that of all Western news broadcast media, the BBC was the least critical, even when compared to Fox news for example. This is what is referred to as 'objective' or 'impartial' reportage. This may come as some surprise to all those who consider the BBC to be a 'left-leaning' organisation sympathetic to socialist ideals.

Furthermore, medialens.org oversaw a study in which media output in the former Soviet Union during the time of their intervention in Afghanistan during the late 1970s, and media output during the current Western invasion of that country were compared. They concluded that there was fundamentally no difference between the two - both were systematically biased in favour of the interventionists.

However, the main difference between the two, as pointed out by a Russian journalist, was that in Russia the people were under no illusions that they their media was not balanced and objective. Dissidents were thrown into Gulags and fingernails pulled out for comprehending this truism. But in the West we are sold the myth of objective reporting through the imposition of the methods I have described above.

Now, my point having said all that is this: State control of the media is not exclusively the monopoly of what apologists for neo-liberal capitalism call 'dictatorships'. State control of the media is part and parcel of both 'democracies' and 'dictatorshoips'. This involves to a large extent censorship by omission.

No I don't have a pre-occupation with state control of the media.

It was to "cease its violent repression of dissent" followed by the state control of the media. Maybe you wanted to avoid the subject?

But on the media control the 'Great-Firewall of China' is still intact and the poor people of that Country are unable to read your ramblings or my Political astuteness.

Why is it that the Countries with names like 'the people's republic' of this or the 'Socialist republic' of that place are the ones with brutal States that oppresses, enslave and deny their Citizens the right to free travel, media and the ability to change their leader through fair elections?

Or do you believe in a different form of Scocialism ?

We should let them complete construction of their Olympic stadium, and then move the games to like...Zulu or something. That'd tick em off.

__________________
"Duty is the most sublime word in our language. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less." - Robert E. Lee