Similar to many countries today, China has been struggling with controlling pollution. A former Chines news anchor from a state run media outlet recently released a documentary focused on China’s battle with pollution. In particular, the 
movie focuses on smog, a toxic combination of smoke and other pollutants. The EPA says that smog can cause respiratory issues, aggravate asthma, and can potentially damage the lining of lungs. The documentary sheds light on this major issue that has been a focus of many Chinese leaders. However, the documentary “Under the Dome” has been met with criticism due to its strong bias. Not to my surprise, the documentary sparked controversy when many people began commenting on the video. Shortly after it’s publication, censors removed the documentary from Chinese streaming sites. Government officials realize that pollution is a real issue, but clearly they aren’t ok with their citizens knowing about it’s severity. Although the documentary may be biased, media censorship can lead to problems more severe than pollution.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/asia/china-bans-smog-doc/
Photo: https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/epa_china-air-pollution.jpg
Careful with your phrasing: “problems more severe than pollution” is a really strong claim. Censorship does not kill thousands of Chinese a month.
Even though documentary can be biased in a way, I don’t think that means the government are entitled to deprive viewer’s rights to discuss the problem openly and figure out what is being exaggerated and what is the facing problem. There were several posts about the government’s acknowledgement of the severity of the environmental issues, this article shows that their statement and execution is contradictory.
…and this film wasn’t taken down immediately. What’s the political economy of that? a buildup to policies that won’t be popular in some (powerful) circles, where preparation is needed to say “sorry, Mr. Coal Magnate” and make it stick?