For 180-degree opposite views of the Google-China conflict, check out Gordon Crovitz's column in the Wall Street Journal this morning and a Bloomberg News piece masquerading as a news article. Mr. Crovitz portrays Google as the winner, in a "surprising victory":
Beijing compromised. It let Google continue to operate in China if it tweaked its mainland search box by asking users if they still want to be sent to the Hong Kong site. This is a minor inconvenience, and one that will constantly remind mainland Chinese they can choose between the censored and uncensored Internet, a marketing benefit to Google that advertising can't buy.
Bloomberg portrays Google rival Baidu as the winner, in an article headlined, "Baidu Emerges as Winner After Google Ends Conflict With China":
After winning permission from China's government to continue to operate in the country, Google Inc. must now fight for relevance as Baidu Inc. extends its dominance in the world's largest Internet market.
Uncertainty over whether Google would be forced out of China prompted some advertisers to switch to Beijing-based Baidu. Google had its license renewed last week after it stopped automatically sending Chinese users offshore.
The most amazing section of the Bloomberg article is this one:
"It won't be easy for Google because its service has been diminished in the past few months," said Jake Li, an Internet analyst at Guotai Junan Securities in Shenzhen. "Baidu is likely to stay ahead."
Wonder what Guotai Junan Securities is? I did, and checked the prospectus for a publicly traded subsidiary. It indicates (page 129 or 136 depending on how you count) that the top four shareholders of Guotai Junan, representing a 61.79% stake, are all state-owned companies. So you've got a state-owned "Internet analyst" being quoted by Bloomberg declaring Google the loser in its fight with the Chinese government, with Bloomberg not mentioning the analyst's company is owned by the government.
Disclosure: I own some Google stock and Gordon Crovitz is a friend.