This Morey incident rekindled a curiosity about current affairs that I hadn’t felt for a long time.
My initial idea was just to be a bystander “eating melon seeds” (spectating), since I actually didn’t know much about the situation in Hong Kong at the time. I only gathered from various reports that Hong Kong seemed rather unstable.
By the time I came back to fill this “pit,” it was already 2020. The reasons I didn’t continue writing earlier: first, I wrote a beginning, then put it down for a while, and the emotional drive faded. Second, I didn’t really want overly sensitive topics to appear on my blog.
First of all, my basic stance is that I love my country. I oppose all kinds of foreign forces interfering in China’s internal affairs, and I oppose all kinds of self-righteous people who take the opportunity to make statements that are detrimental to stability.
Second, I do have some of my own views on how the public opinion around this developed.
- His remarks were definitely wrong.
As management for a team that relies quite heavily on the Chinese market, having such an idea within the constraints of his own public-opinion environment is understandable, but publicly posting it on social media is absolutely wrong.
- It was reasonable and correct for domestic media to express condemnation.
Domestic media have an obligation, in the international arena of public opinion, to correct his erroneous views, and an obligation and responsibility to present and explain our position on Hong Kong-related issues to the international community.
- It’s not completely unreasonable that there was extensive coverage domestically to guide public opinion.
Compared with direct reporting on Hong Kong-related situations, this incident might have been more attractive to some people. Using it to remind more members of the public to actively learn about Hong Kong-related issues does have its positive role.
- Then there is the extended “public sanction” by various sectors of society against his related business activities.
The most direct effect was that Rockets broadcasts were successively canceled on various platforms. After that, platforms stopped reporting Rockets-related news, and NBA-related games also introduced corresponding measures, applying special handling to Rockets players and jerseys.
This whole process no longer felt as easy to accept as the previous points, because some of the logic was very awkward.
First, the broadcasting issue: the Rockets’ GM made those remarks, so broadcasts of Rockets games were stopped. At first glance, this seems reasonable. But there’s another point: NBA commissioner Adam Silver’s comments in fact did not oppose Morey’s remarks. If we look at influence and degree of error, he’s no less than Morey. So why weren’t other NBA games also taken off the air? Is it because Morey sparked the incident and other teams are not as directly connected to him? Or is it simply that what lies in between is a larger interest bloc that cannot be cut off?
Second, people working in related industries are certainly, in their hearts, on the side of the motherland and hold Morey and others in contempt. But must they sacrifice their own economic interests in order to express what they feel inside? Going a step further: can we be tolerant enough to allow these people decision-making power over their own personal actions? In reality, it seems we cannot. Public opinion praises everyone who stands up loudly to announce they are cutting ties with him (and with their own economic interests). Public opinion then seeks out those who feel pained about their own economic interests. It’s not everyone, but there will always be some people who band together to cast doubt on those people’s feelings for their country. These “public sanctions” do indeed affect Morey and others’ income, but the losses to our fellow citizens working in related fields are much greater.
Third, these “public sanctions” are largely symbolic. On forums you can’t call the team by its name, but people still want to talk about it, and coming up with a nickname isn’t hard. In community-driven news reporting, if the team name can’t be used directly, there are always other ways to report. When official channels don’t broadcast, there are always other ways to watch. In games, the players’ jerseys are changed, the team name on the card is changed, but for the sake of making a living, the game is still running; for the sake of entertainment, players are still clicking on every card.
Summing up the whole process, I sincerely hope that when public media guide people in expressing patriotic feelings, they will think more carefully about the approaches and methods they use. The country should indeed be loved, but it should also try to be understanding of its own citizens. Sacrificing one’s own interests to express a stance should be regarded as an ordinary personal choice. It should not be promoted as a model in a way that invisibly coerces others. This would also help avoid the kind of purely formal “public sanctions” described above.