Tear down this firewall

Given my co-author's recent discussion of authoritarian capitalism, I found the NY Times' recent discussion of media coverage of the Olympics to be particularly interesting. Expecting a furious backlash from the international community over Chinese stances on human rights and political dissent , NBC's decision to broadcast the games was seen as an extremely risky move. The network met, and vastly exceeded, industry expectations.

What I think is interesting about this success is not the high TV ratings; the hype of these games plus their perfect translation into prime time was a recipe for success. More impressive is the network's deft handling of internet coverage. Vast media conglomerates have a poor track record when it comes to embracing web technology (think of any business deal revolving around a social networking site - virtually none have turned a profit).

I believe traditional business models partly explain this lack of success. They lack the inherent creativity of new internet ventures that cater to the individuality and tastes of their users. Personalization and customization are hallmarks of the web and NBC hit the nail on the head by allowing users to essentially construct their own content rather than be force-fed packaged network sob stories. It's an unnoticed (but seemingly significant) contrast that the Olympics held in the one of the most authoritarian, collectivized countries in the world also saw the most success for the most open and individual domain of our generation. 

It's too bad the Chinese populace was not able to celebrate this unexpected success. 

The year of the two-faced internet

I've written about the importance of internet transparency before. It's an issue that does not get nearly enough attention; unless of course international reporters find themselves blocked from websites in Beijing.

Should we really be surprised that the Chinese reneged on their promise to allow reporters unfettered use of the internet? These games have been plagued by contradictions and abuses on the part of Chinese officials before they have even begun. But to say that "banned topics were not part of the athletic events and should not be of interest to reporters anyway" is simply beyond ridiculous.

Chinese nationalism is gaining power with assertions of economic independence and political obstinacy. Neither of these are bad things in themselves but when they inspire autocratic party officials to say anything for gain only to later reverse course then action is needed. Ignoring international opinion is one thing; to spit in its face is another. Continuing coverage simply increases the Chinese officials sense of entitlement and invincability. Print and electronic journalists should pull out and let the games flop on their own images.

Who wants to see choking runners anyway?