The introduction of reform for the good of the Chinese people has not been framed by the authorities, nor is it framed in the minds of most of the population, as the ability to disagree with the government. Thus "freedom of the media is more a lessening of Party control than any media liberalization in the Western sense" where the media operates independently of the ideas and interests of the state rulers (Winfield & Peng, 267). The locus of dissemination of propaganda has shifted to private rather than governmental entities, but the actual messages disseminated by such entities are not free. Pamela E. Oliver and Frank Johnson have criticized frame theory for being insufficiently attentive to the impact of ideology in influencing frame narratives, thus they might see the framing of capitalism through the Chinese lens of ideology as distinct from an unregulated and uncensored press as a concrete demonstration of their problems with frame theory. Contrary to the ideals of advocates of globalization, who see the apparently unregulated medium of television and the Internet as a way of breaking down power hierarchies, China remains regulated in its expression, if not in its expansion of commerce (Curtain 2005: 156-157) Michael Curtain counters: "the 'ambiguous gift of capitalist modernity' is not offered at the level of individual choice nor is it spread out buffet-style for societies to select among the elements that they might wish to incorporate into their own context," and cites the example of Satellite television as evidence (Curtain 2005: 158). But even while Curtain argues that Satellite brought freer expression to Chinese elections, it ironically benefited from state regulations, such as mandating Mandarin on all channels (Curtain 2005: 168). In short, even while consuming through...

Another, more recent example of how state control still exists, might be China's attempts to control the freedom of users to search with Google.
One last sobering reminder of this too fluid association with capitalism and freedom might be to look at our own free market. How free is a system of political discourse such as our own, so dependant upon the finances of candidates? How free are we to choose when we live in a world bombarded with capitalistic advertising of increasingly centralized corporations? Capitalism is framed in terms of the ability to be free to choose to buy or not to buy, but it is, at least in America, itself such a totalizing system of intellectual control through saturation, that we may also be victims of our own incomplete frame narratives, affected by the ideology of freedom at all costs that is woven into the patriotic rhetoric that we learn as children in the nation. Even we become blind to how our own freedoms are regulated and checked by the invisible hand of the market, just as ordinary Chinese people may accept government control of expression and the need for a free market place as their own government has packaged the ideology of modern capitalism in their society.

Works Cited

Curtin, Michael. (2005). "Murdoch's dilemma, or 'What's the price of TV in China?'" Media, Culture & Society. 27 (2) 155-175.

Oliver, Pamela E. & Frank Johnson. (2000). "What a Good Idea!" Mobilization: An International Journal. 4(1) 37-54.

Winfield, Betty Houchin & Zengjun Peng. (2005). "Market or Party Controls: Chinese

Media in…