Authorized censorship and the understanding gap

Click the title to read 'Olympic organizers agree China blocking 'senstive' internet sites' by Jane Macartney in Beijing on July 31, 2008 from Times Online, or click the following link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4431162.ece

Following is the excerpt I did from the original article to offer a brief summary:
A deal with Beijing has allowed the Chinese authorities to block sensitive internet sites, the International Olympic Committee has disclosed. Giselle Davies, of the IOC, said some sites would be unavailable to the 20,000 reporters covering the games. “We’re working with them to ensure the media face the minimum possible restrictions.” Chinese organisers said that the censorship would not hamper journalists in their job of reporting on the Games. Sun Weide, a Bocog official, said that the plan had always been to provide “sufficient” internet access for foreign reporters. Sites run by the Falun Gong religious sect remain inaccessible, as do most sites with the word Tibet in their internet address.

My thoughts:
1. 'sufficient' from Bocog official only make me feel hopeless and funny. Whenever there is a power to decide what is sufficient or appropriate, there exist the possibility of overusing the power. No one has the right to decide what is sufficient for the public.
2. I can not see any function expect for damaging the trust relationship between foreign reporter and Chinese government by blocking the access for the foreign reporters. I don't understand why Chinese government does this. The foreign reporters know the censorship in China and they need a demonstration about that? And think about that, they will get what they want to know anyway because they have people in foreign countries and they will go back their countries soon, so why not just make things easier for both them and the censorship workers? So confused!

But the more interesting thing which triggered my desire to write this post is reading the comments following, a mixture of Chinese and non-Chinese readers. Following is the excerpt I did from the comments to offer a brief summary:
From Chinese:
1. I'm sorry if I'm missing something here but I thought the west sent reporters here to report on the Olympics, obviously wrong. No, let's send a lot of reporters to see how much trouble they can make. Why do they need to go to these not athletics sites. Just to please the west?
2. Why are you westerners so concerned about China and its CCP govt.? It is the only Government China has and it is doing a fine job, maybe too fine that you find it hard to digest,eh? The Western educated Chinese will return to carry on with the fine job. OK!
From Non-Chinese:
1. The only way to effectively protest about the conditions in China is for the publicly funded BBC, politicians and the chosen athletic representatives of Great Britain not to attend theses games. The television licence paying public have never been asked by the BBC if I want them to cover the games, nor have the people been consulted about our politicians attending the opening ceremony. The athletes, who seem not to be concerned about the political censorship and oppression in China, should all withdraw from the games. As for the sponsors, need I say more?
2. "some IOC officials had agreed" - which officials? - the IOC should totally dissociate and sack them!! Again China gets away with anti-human rights, and censorship - totally contrary to the contracts and agreements they committed to as part of their awarding of the Olympics. Shame!!
3. Why is anyone surprised. The Chinese government isn't a legitimate one voted in by its people. Therefore it is terrified of any criticism which might undermine its authority. Our hope is that western educated Chinese will one day reform China and its people will get the freedom they deserve.

My thoughts:
1. Chinese people have a unusual standard and awareness to tell foreigners from Chinese. This is what Trent told me and as soon as I heard that, I know he is right. And since the historical reasons, Chinese like to link themselves to a bigger organization and analyze problems unnecessarily to a higher level of concepts without really analyzing the problem. These two comments from Chinese are a vivid show about this. Taking 'West' as a general enemy, which sounds not reasonable enough, and talking the fine job the government has done, which has nothing to do with the specific point of the article.
2. There are more comments from Non-Chinese people, mainly from UK, calling for the so called 'effective protest', as the first paragraph listed under 'From Non-Chinese'. Things in China can not work as people think in their country. Nothing is as simply as it appears. Everything is complex and people do things because they have their own valid reasons. But the problem is it is very very hard for people to understand the 'valid reasons' from the other side. World changes fast and seriously, it is very difficult to have the time to understand each other since so many things are going on and the hot issue changes from day to day. The information explosion makes things superficial and people just are busy with expressing their opinions without much understanding. As I wrote this, I know I am also one of the people I just criticized.
3. I don't know about the agreement of Olympics. But the second paragraph got a point, in my opinion.
4. I originally thought education can be the key to solve the understanding gaps. But now, from the Chinese students who came to US to study international studies but have the attitude of representative from central government and are so defensive that no reasonable discussion can be conducted with them, from the Americans who are in the international studies but don't show the cultural sensitivity and respect, I begin to think I was wrong. Maybe the ability and willingness to understand each other is just a natural property of people that doesn't require any outside education? And possibly it can be ruined by inproper education? No ideas.