Recently in Mindy Wang Category

Two weeks ago, China yet again banned YouTube to all of its 289 million Internet users. This was done in an attempt to block the circulation of footage of PRC police officers brutally beating Tibetan civilians last year. It was also banned when the riots occurred last year that killed as many as 140 Tibetan civilians (according to Tibetan records) or, only 18 civilians (according to PRC reports). 

This, of course, isn't the first time China has been in hot water by the international community for human rights violations. The U.S. State Department and organizations like Amnesty International conduct annual reports on human rights in China, and the findings are often startling. Anyone who advocates the independence of any of the Chinese territories that are under Han Chinese control (like Tibet) is subject to punishment under the law. It's also well known that these offenders are not given due process of law and can suffer in prisons for unknown periods of time. People like Hu Jia, who last year publicly criticized the Communist government, are still in prison for "inciting subversion of state power."

 Even with China on the world stage this summer as the host of the 2008 Olympics, events in the country still echo of its strict Communist past. The Chinese government still controls television broadcasts, and bias is obvious. When I visited this summer, footage of the horrific May earthquake that occurred in Sichuan province was still being shown--not the bloody, gruesome footage I saw in the U.S., but instead, footage of survivors being pulled and the country rallying together to heal the damage that occurred. This was a full two months after the earthquake. While I understand that the purpose of the footage was to try and move past the terrible event, I consider it propaganda nonetheless.

In short, the human rights violations and media censorship cannot continue with the economic growth of China. With advances in technology that make the actions of government more transparent, China will, sooner or later, have to come to terms that by welcoming Western goods, it is also subject to greater scrutiny of its governmental operations. So next time you log onto Yahoo!, YouTube, The New York Times, or Skype, be thankful that the government isn't closely monitoring what you're doing. These are all programs or sites that have, at one time, been censored or monitored by the Chinese government.  

I don't understand Twitter.

To start, I refer to Jon Stewart and his recent "Old Man Stewart Shakes His Fist at (fill in the blank)" segment on his March 2^nd show. And I quote directly: "Here's how Twitter works: I have no fucking idea. I have no idea how it works. Or why it is." Later in the segment, tech correspondent Samantha Bee said this: "There's no surprise young people love it - according to reports of young people by middle aged people."

I wholeheartedly agree. These Tweets are not only baffling; I believe they are contributing to a nation-wide epidemic of "TMI"--too much information. Ashton Kutcher wants to share his enlightened opinion with me? Don't care. William Shatner wants to tell me about his latest attempt to resurrect his career? Still don't care.

This nation-wide epidemic of TMI is everywhere. Facebook's "25 Things" note, reality television, the Internet. Some things need to be kept private, and if you tell me any of these things, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

What I find more insightful is Bee's comment about young people liking Twitter. According to whom? That's right, old people. And if there's any age group that's more out of touch with what I want from the media, it is people who are my parent's age.

I liken Twittering to blogs. There may be good ones out there, but the alarming number of worthless blogs that I find every time I try to Google search blogs discourages me from searching any further. So there must be even more worthless twitterers out there.

Finally, what is most alarming is Twitter has recently become popular with legislators. These twitterers post their thoughts during sessions of Congress and ultimately feel that's more important than actually paying attention to things like the State of the Union. Great--my tax dollars are paying your salary so you can not do your job?

If I wanted to know the innermost thoughts of my favorite celebrities or anyone else, I would seek it out on my own time, not get these updates texted to my phone. Sadly, I have signed up for tweets for the purpose of researching my blog topic, but I won't be getting tweets anytime soon. Ashton, keep your thoughts to yourself, and senators, put down your phones and actually listen to President Obama--if it's rude for me to text my friends while I'm sitting in class, it's rude for you, too. 

Every time I hear that unmistakable tune coming from my TV set, I lunge across the couch, snatch the remote and press the "mute" button. Regardless of who I'm with, or whoever protests, I refuse to give up the remote until those pirate-hat wearing, silverware-clinking buffoons leave the screen. I will not listen to one of the most annoying commercials on TV. It's not just the catchy song, or the fact that the actor isn't actually playing the guitar, it's because I think it's shady advertising. 

The ad seems straightforward enough, but not everyone reads the fine print.  Several of my friends have been tricked into freecreditreport.com, and they've seen the bill on their credit card after not canceling their membership. In fact, if you don't cancel within 7 days of enrolling, you are billed $14.95 every month thereafter for credit monitoring. Never mind that you can get copies of your credit report for free from annualcreditreport.com or that freecreditreport.com settled a million-dollar lawsuit back in 2005 for misleading consumers.  Instead, most of America associates freecreditreport.com with, well, exactly that: a free credit report.

It all boils down to one thing: trust in advertising. That may be an oxymoronic phrase, but when America's trust in the media in general is slipping, I know the advertising industry is responsible for that as well.

Take Cash4Gold for an example. A hilarious Super Bowl spot, in my opinion, but after the spot aired, Cash4Gold got busted. After a blogger sent his gold in and only got 2/3 of its actual value back in cash, he protested and got a better offer, tripling the original amount. After chronicling the incident on his blog, the reputation manager for the company tried to bribe the blogger to take the story off his Web site. So why was Cash4Gold willing to spend millions of dollars on a Super Bowl ad to promote a shady business, and why would NBC air it?

I'd like to think that three years of journalism classes has put me above being tricked into remembering a brand, but unfortunately, it hasn't. The sad fact is that the advertising has worked. Everyone and their mom knows the jingle, and all its variations. Everyone in Lawrence knows "M-m-m-mudslide!" and those darn vanilla de mocha (vanilla of chocolate?) coffee drinks. 

So whether it's a commercial that's annoying me into remembering the brand, or a shady business that won't give me the actual value of my grammy's gold jewelry, all I have to say is: not cool. I'll keep the mute button handy.