Analayze and answer questions . Case Study: Hiding “Under the ?dome By many meas

Question

Analayze and answer questions .

Case Study: Hiding “Under the ?dome

By many measures, China is a progressive nation. But as consumer-friendly and market-oriented as it may be, its government at times represses dissent and restricts dialogue.

In 2015, filmmaker Chai Jing made Under the Dome, a documentary film about China’s stifling air pollution. She was reportedly inspired to make the film when her unborn daughter developed a tumor in the womb, which had to be removed soon after her birth. Chai blamed the tumor on China’s stifling air pollution.

Under the Dome’s impact in the country stirred conversations about environmental protection on social media. Foreign media hailed the film as a breakthrough for its impact on citizens and the reaction it stimulated in the Chinese government.

Despite the fact the film openly criticized the state-owned industries and the inability of the Ministry of Environmental Protection to act against big polluters, the government gave the documentary a “vote of confidence.”

Then, two days after praising Under the Dome, the Chinese government changed its mind and disallowed further distribution of the film. At the same time, the Chinese government reinforced its environmental concerns and set specific goals for reducing vehicle and plant emissions.

Even though Under the Dome was stopped, the film’s message was heard and responded to by the Chinese people and their government.

1- Why do you think the Chinese government immediately endorsed Chai Jing’s film?

2- Why do you think the government reneged on its endorsement?

3-how would you assess the success or the failure in a public relation scenes, of under the dome?

Explanation / Answer

1.

Chinese government knew the worsening situation of the environment and the rising pollution level. It caused the government to acknowledge the facts shown in the documentary and issued faced by the people. The quick endorsement helped the government to prevent the development of anger among the people, foreign media and other activists against the government. It helped the government to maintain a positive image of the government among the people that it cares for them. For this purpose, the quick endorsement of the documentary was necessary.

2.

The government reneged because the government did not want the people, media and other groups to build pressure upon the government in the name of pollution control measures. Here the government took initiatives to control the pollution and it was done as per the government’s own agenda and policy. It sent a message that government cares for the people and it happened without affecting the economic growth.

If government lets the documentary to be seen by everyone then there will be excessive pressure upon the government to take actions against the culprits and there will be a sending of weak image of the government and it was not wanted by the government. So, the government reneged.

3.

The documentary helped the movie to spread the message regarding what is going on in the name of development and how the pollution can harm them. As a result, people became more aware and government was forced to take the action to control the pollution. So, it can be said that the documentary achieved a success in its PR drive even if the government put a restriction upon the spread of the documentary. Due to this documentary , people as well as government became more aware about environment care.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.