Translation machine says: “I can not eat as much as I want to puke.” Seems it is getting better and better, and keeps enriching its word power.

I enjoyed reading the above.

I believe there’s an online post both of you will enjoy, KT, Tai De, even if for different reasons:
Leash Train Your Cat in 7 Excruciating Steps.

Wie so oft, den alten Mitarbeitern wird es in der Seele wehtun, und die “jungen Fachkräfte”, die mal “was mit Medien” machen wollten, können dann versuchen, in den Werbeagenturen unterzukommen.

Die Zielgruppe der “young urban professionals” in Shenzhen rutscht schlimmstenfalls – aber das wäre dann wirklich der GAU – vor Lachen unter den IKEA-Couchtisch und schaltet wieder auf al-Jazeera oder CNN um.

Und all die anderen, die unabhängig informiert sein wollen, hören “Voice of America” oder “Stimme Russlands”.

Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte.

Anyway, the case that only shortwave is really unpredictable for censors has often been made, by Kim Elliott, for example:

Keep shortwave, for now. The BBG is correct that shortwave radio ownership and listening rates are very small in China. Even domestic FM and AM radio has been much less popular than television in the country. Nevertheless, because of the high cost of shortwave transmission, and the unpopularity of shortwave in China, there is incentive for a premature declaration of victory in internet censorship circumvention efforts. Shortwave arguably remains the medium most resistant to interdiction. It is the only medium with a physical resistance to jamming, because radio waves at shortwave frequencies often propagate better over long than short distances. When an objective, independent assessment determines that average internet users in China can conveniently work around government censorship, the shortwave transmitters can be turned off.

-
Another aspect: public diplomacy is no priority in the view of most tax-payers. That’s understandable to an extent, especially when looking at how ludicrous some PD approaches actually are (insiders seem to overestimate the impact their trade can have), but that shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that PD would be irrelevant. In fact, I’m wondering if it wasn’t above all the budget cuts which got the Welle into trouble during the past four years. They didn’t only have to explain to politics what they were doing (in the Chinese department, for example) – they also have to explain what they are here for.

In my view – but I think I said this before -, Deutsche Welle is useless if they only want to reach people who have internet access, and who know how to get over the GFW. If you are only there to reach Meinungsführer, and don’t consider people in rather rural areas (or migrant workers, for that matters) a worthy audience, too, you’ve probably become too aloof to make a difference anyway.

I know two countries whose people are particularly leery of anything that smells like manipulaton. One is China, and the other is Germany. That doesn’t mean that people can’t be manipulated, but such efforts are as unpredictable as shortwave. There can only one efficient answer to Chinese suspicions: plain, professional journalism which in itself would spell promotion of open-society concepts. Either that, or la muerte for Deutsche Welle.

Isn’t there an argument to be made for the inability of the state to censor broadcasts selectively, as opposed to web content which is more easily — and narrowly — blocked?