> The omission of her predicament by the media isn't just an oversight—it's a signal suggesting that a significant portion of western media may be increasingly compromised by Beijing's influence, finding themselves unable to criticize foreign policy, lest they rile the tiger and negatively impact their business.
Compromised because they didn't provide coverage of a Youtuber in China getting silenced? You make sound as if western media have been dead silent on Uyghur matters, which they have not.
As for business interests, I would imagine foreign newspapers aren't carrying much hope of finally cracking the Chinese market.
Well, we got no coverage on Wu getting deplatformed, and a bit of coverage on Uyghur matters. Instead, we should have gotten a bit of coverage on the former, and a lot of coverage on the latter.
Isn't it fairly common to be not especially interested in what those other people over there are doing amongst themselves - even if it's genocide or censuring dissidents or whatever - and to care a lot more about important local news like which faction gets to impose their values on the public school curriculum and what color suit the president wore left week?
Perhaps. When I submitted a blurb about Naomi getting arrested it got flagged right quick despite the ample evidence that she was not trying to keep quiet about it in earnest. Make of that what you will.
Compromised because they didn't provide coverage of a Youtuber in China getting silenced? You make sound as if western media have been dead silent on Uyghur matters, which they have not.
As for business interests, I would imagine foreign newspapers aren't carrying much hope of finally cracking the Chinese market.