“Chinese officials remain committed to controlling the flow of information into and within the country. Censorship, Internet police who monitor and guide online discussions, new regulations for the registration of Internet Protocols, and arrests of Internet dissidents are all designed to prevent the Chinese people from straying too far outside acceptable political boundaries. Moreover, foreign media companies have been largely unsuccessful in capturing significant market share in China, and some — such as Google and the media magnate Rupert Murdoch — have scaled back their efforts or pulled out in the face of highly restrictive policies.”
— from “The Game Changer: Coping With China’s Foreign Policy Revolution,” by Elizabeth C. Economy, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2010
Why have China’s “highly restrictive policies” dampened the enthusiasm of Google and Rupert Murdoch — but not of National Geographic? Why did we agree, after years of delicate negotiations, to play by China’s rules, especially when those rules damage our Society’s most precious legacy? Why doesn’t our Society’s official journal shed light on China’s authoritarian challenge to democracy?
We’d love to pose these questions to Editor Chris Johns & EVP Terry Adamson, who appear delighted about our Magazine’s publishing partnership in the People’s Republic of China: