The biggest advantage of being in Shanghai is being able to enjoy air conditioning; the second is being able, now and then, to watch the TV news.
I just saw two news items that were rather interesting. One was the “first blog lawsuit in China,” saying that an associate professor at some university had sued Blogcn because, in a certain blog post, someone had insulted him and attacked him personally by name……
In fact it was just a little log entry of three to five hundred characters, with a title like “Rubbish Book, Rubbish Person” or something of the sort. It said: today there’s an exam, so hurry up and study the textbook; that book is so awful; and sure enough, that professor is a sleazy person and his book is awful too. That’s all. Just a few casual complaints, the sort ordinary college students would mutter in passing. The problem was, first, that it named the person directly; second, that it used the so-called “universally recognized insulting words”: “rubbish,” “sleazy.” The professor was very angry, and the consequences were very serious……
But the professor wasn’t blaming the student much; instead, he sued Blogcn for failing to carry out its supervisory duties and so on, seeking 10,000 yuan for mental anguish and over 1,000 yuan in economic losses. Astonishingly, he won at first instance. Of course, the actual compensation could not possibly be that much, but Blogcn was also ordered to publish a public apology on its homepage for a week.
Alas, is there any need to go this far……? I actually feel that publicizing the fact that this professor sued and won does more damage to his reputation than leaving that post online, a post that hardly anyone would have read and, even if read, would not have taken seriously. The original blog post would mainly have been read only by the tiny number of college students familiar with online language habits; at most they would laugh it off. Now, though, this blog post is being promoted across the country through CCTV (without mosaic censorship).
Has society become too numb, or too sensitive? Perhaps “sleazy” really is an extremely insulting word, worth 10,000 yuan in mental damages, yet today’s college students have become so numb that they’ve long since taken it for granted; indeed, there are even people around me who call themselves the “Sleazebag Gang” or something like that, always trying to recruit me into their ranks. Or perhaps modern people are so sensitive that they will take a three-to-five-hundred-character harmless little complaint to court, and then broadcast it nationwide in the news just for that? Too numb, or too sensitive? Both, perhaps……
How, exactly, should one regulate this? If even little complaints like this are to be deleted by websites, then on the one hand it would be technically difficult; on the other hand, if one really made things that strict, people would surely flock to another blog site instead. But casually exposing others’ privacy, maliciously defaming people, spreading rumors, and so on are certainly not good things; how to view them, how to manage them—this is truly hard to handle. Internet ethics is a very complex issue, a major topic in applied ethics.
Another news item mentioned the popular online “character test machine,” which gives you a character score after you enter your name or other information. The reporter tried it and got 37 points; then entered “Lei Feng” and got only 2 points, Jiao Yulu 3 points…… In the end, the report said this kind of game might have a bad influence on young people who are inexperienced in life or something like that. In fact, anyone who can find the character test machine knows what it is about—it’s just a pointless bit of fun. Who would take it seriously?
Perhaps we college students or netizens really are too numb, but one thing can be confirmed: the media is truly too sensitive—much more sensitive than those young people they worry about, who seem to be in danger of being adversely affected at the drop of a hat! The media always says this will affect young people, that will affect children’s mental health, and so on. In fact, in modern society, the greatest influence on young people’s mental health is precisely the media! And at present, this greatest influence is not yet the internet; television and newspapers still occupy the absolute center.
In modern society, a child’s channels for contacting and understanding society are actually very limited. Anti-theft iron gates turn neighbors into the most distant of people; relatives also live far away; parents are busy with work; at school one comes into contact only with children just like oneself and teachers who are concerned only with imparting knowledge…… The television screen is the main window through which every child forms an impression of society (if not the only window).
Before the media denounces this as harmful and that as unhealthy, it should first reflect on itself; when the media urges this department to be self-disciplined and that agency to be self-disciplined, it should realize clearly: the media itself is what most needs self-discipline!
How much influence can a casually written, casually read log post or a “character test machine” really have? If one says that the popularity of this kind of spoof reflects certain anxieties and restlessness in modern society…… yes, that is indeed the case. Many things arise against the broader background of this “restlessness”—but can we say: “Hey, society, stop being restless; create a good environment for young people!”? Society is the “environment” itself. The environment itself cannot be controlled. We can adapt to it, or try to transform it; however, so-called transforming the environment still depends on ourselves, because the only thing one can “keep under control” is oneself. The trends of society cannot be controlled; people’s likes and dislikes cannot be controlled. The only thing one can do is to manage oneself and restrain oneself.
The media needs self-restraint.
Truly, the media needs self-discipline. It cannot just shift the blame this way: “There’s nothing I can do. Right now the audience just likes this stuff; only by catering to the audience can I get ratings. It’s not that I deliberately want to be so restless or spoofing—I’m merely going along with the audience.” The audience bears no responsibility. As individual viewers, people should of course be asked to discipline and respect themselves, but one cannot demand anything of the “audience” as a collective.
The audience’s fashions and preferences are produced by the trends of the age. But what kind of age is this? —The present age is precisely the “media age”! In this age, the media no longer merely reflects culture; rather, the media itself is culture, and the media in turn disseminates and shapes culture. Even people’s “needs” and “dreams” are guided by the media.
Of course the media is pulled along by the trends, and it also faces the difficulty of being in the world while not being able to do as it pleases; but demanding self-discipline from the media is far more realistic than demanding self-discipline from the masses. Of course, I am not saying that I hope we can learn from North Korea and strengthen government surveillance; what I am stressing is “self-discipline” — restraining oneself according to ethics and morality. Just as the media’s criticism of those behaviors “unhealthy for young people” goes, one only needs to apply that same value system back onto oneself, to reflect, examine, and restrain oneself, and that is enough.
Are the variety shows that are increasingly overflowing with spoofing really healthy?
August 24, 2006
Latest Comments
- unic
2009-06-12 19:51:50 Anonymous 115.155.143.90
Why do Japanese manga contain characters like Crayon Shin-chan and Master Roshi? Why have WS and the WS man series of online images become words and images that everyone likes and finds amusing? I think that fundamentally, this is the product of taking sex as something entertaining. Since it is entertainment, then from the standpoint of someone with an entertainment spirit, how can one say it is “serious”? In the world of entertainment, there is no “weight.”
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply