Year: 2020

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced what it called “countermeasures” against actions by the Trump administration last month to designate five state-run Chinese media organizations in the United States as “foreign missions.” The measures announced by MOFA, which could seriously escalate tensions between the two countries, make clear that reporters in China for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post will no longer be permitted to work in China after March 22.

The measures also specify that “the China-based branches of Voice of America, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Time declare in written form information about their staff, finance, operation and real estate in China.” It is not clear exactly what such declarations would mean. Also unclear is the full import of language in the announcement specifying the the expelled reporters from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post will not be permitted to work as journalists for these media in Hong Kong and Macau.

So far there are few responses or other coverage in the Chinese media. The Global Times, however, posted a report including interviews with two Chinese experts at 2:06AM, suggesting the paper had prepared the report in advance of the MOFA announcement.

A partial translation of the Global Times piece follows.

_______________

“Friendship cannot stand always on one side.” Shen Yi, an assistant professor in the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, told the Global Times in an interview that the measures taken this time by Chinese side toward American media were entirely reciprocal in terms of the number of media affected and the concrete measures taken. This shows that in relations between nations, while it is important to maintain a friendly attitude, friendship must be built on a foundation of reciprocity, not on one-sided forbearance. “If the United States makes things such that it is impossible to play according to the normal rules of the game, then China will also in the future play according to the new rules of the game set by the United States.”

Shen Yi also said that compared to past Chinese responses, this response shows greater confidence on China’s part, and shows greater bluntness and directness. “This tells us that US-China relations have already entered a new phase: China will no longer accept compromise. If the United States is willing to move in the opposite direction, this would be good, but if the United States obstructs China, it will certainly fight back.”

Li Haidong (李海东), a professor at the Institute for International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University, said to the Global Times that China’s response does not seek to make new trouble, but rather hopes through these actions to warn the United States that its own actions are inappropriate, and to press the US to make amends. Only in this way can media dialogue between China and United States be smooth and normal. “This move is also a reminder to the United States that US-China exchanges cannot be made ideological, and cannot be viewed and handled with Cold War thinking.”

He said at the same time that this matter would not obstruct China’s opening to the world, including its opening toward the US. The space for US-China exchanges still exists, and in fact is extremely broad. The two sides should do everything in their power to create conditions, strengthen communication and promote cooperation.

[Featured image by Torrenegra available at Flickr.com under CC license.]

China’s headlines are full of triumph today. The country’s pending victory in the war against the coronavirus epidemic, they say, is a testament to the decisive leadership of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, and to the strength and unity of the people. Xi’s presence in Wuhan yesterday, his first visit to the center of the epidemic, was reportedly met with euphoria. The piece at the top of the official People’s Daily, which chronicles Xi’s tour through a residential community, finishes emotively:

As he left the community, the voices echoed for a long time in the spring sun: “Greetings, General Secretary!” “Go China!” “Go Wuhan!”

A report featured at the top of the newspaper’s website elevates Xi with the word “leader,” or lingxiu (领袖), an appellation dredged up from the shadows of China’s Maoist past: “The Party and the people are as one, the leader’s heart touches the hearts of the people.”

But beneath this towering wave of propaganda and positivity, another war has unfolded—a guerrilla war for greater openness, honesty and reflection about the tragic events of the past two months.

As Xi Jinping toured through Wuhan yesterday, a bombshell feature story by reporter Gong Jingqi (龚菁琦) in the latest edition of China’s People (人物) magazine made the rounds on social media. The story was based on an interview with Ai Fen, the director of the emergency department at Wuhan Central Hospital, one of the hospitals most directly affected by the epidemic in the provincial capital.

In her account Ai talks about her decision on December 30 last year to share with another health professional an image of a diagnostic report for a patient showing that they had “SARS coronavirus.” It was this image, passed between doctors in Wuhan, that resulted in eight doctors, including the now-deceased Li Wenliang, enduring harsh reprimands from local police. At the time, Ai was herself called in by the Disciplinary Office of her hospital and accused of “manufacturing rumors.”

Ai shares her sense of regret now that she did not choose to speak up loudly and repeatedly, most of all for the sake of her colleagues, several of whom have now died as a result of the virus.

The Gong Jingqi piece is one of the strongest to appear to date in the Chinese media, and it paints a damning picture of how the signs were wilfully ignored by officials at the start of the outbreak, when more might have been done. During her reprimand, Ai Fen is told by the hospital disciplinary official: “When we go out to take part in meetings we can’t even raise our heads. This or that director criticizes us and talks about how our hospital has that Ai Fen. As the head of the emergency unit at Wuhan Central Hospital you are a professional. How can you go and stir up a rumor like this without reason, without any organizational discipline?”

The story was called, “The One Who Handed Out the Whistles,” a reference to Ai Fen’s insistence in her interview that she is not a “whistleblower,” but that her sharing of the original diagnostic report had enabled others, including Li Wenliang, to blow the whistle.

But of course the publication of Gong’s piece was just the beginning of its own story. The article was shared feverishly on social media, and just as feverishly expunged by the authorities. For such a report to circulate on the day of Xi Jinping’s “front-line” visit to Wuhan was of course unacceptable.

The authorities pushed. And Chinese pushed back on social media, with a level of creative defiance that was all at once ingenious, mystifying, heartening and sad. For reference, here is the opening paragraph of the story, translated with the original Chinese.

It was at 5AM on March 1 that I received a text message from Ai Fen, the director of the emergency department of Wuhan Central Hospital, agreeing to an interview. About half an hour later, at 5:32AM on March 1, her colleague Jiang Xueqing, director of the Breast and Thyroid Center, passed away, having contracted Covid-19. Two days later came the death of Mei Zhongming, her hospital’s deputy director of ophthalmology. He and Li Wenliang had been in the same department.

接到武汉市中心医院急诊科主任艾芬同意采访的短信是3月1日凌晨5点，大约半小时后，3月1日凌晨5点32分，她的同事、甲状腺乳腺外科主任江学庆因感染新冠肺炎去世。两天后，该院眼科副主任梅仲明过世，他和李文亮是同一科室。

And here is one attempt a user made to share Gong Jingqi’s story as the original versions were being taken down one after the other. The top of the post reads: “That piece, ‘The One Who Handed Out the Whistles.’” But this is not in Chinese characters, readable by automated filters. Rather, it is in pinyin, a Chinese romanization system, with tonal marks over the words.

In this form, Gong’s article is of course still readable. A method like this may work for a period of time before censors grow wise and remove it, often when it is seen to attract a critical mass of attention.

And when this fails? What then? How do you share “that piece,” the one everyone is talking  about, the one that makes a farce of state propaganda?

Another internet user answered this challenge by posting the entire article in Korean, a language not recognized or prioritized by online censors. The story could then be copied by readers and put through a translation engine.

If Korean fails, the article can also be shared paragraph by paragraph through a series of QR codes. Try scanning this and you should see the story’s lede.

Still another reader chose to share and preserve this important story by reading it aloud in its entirely and recording it, then posting it to the audio site Ximalaya. He prefaces the piece by saying simply: “In this way I’ll voice my views and record history.”

But the prize for creativity goes perhaps to a WeChat post that reached back into the history of communication to find new inspiration. The post explains to readers what a telegram is, and its history in China, in which unique four-digit numbers were assigned to Chinese characters (list here), which could then be decrypted. The post follows with a long list of four-digit numbers:

What does this say when you decode it? The first four sets of characters spell out the beginning of Gong Jingqi’s story as provided above. Here are the codes highlighted with their corresponding Chinese characters.

This is just a taste of the ingenious workarounds that appeared this morning, and which still continue. Taken together they mark a determination not to be silenced, not to allow the truth to be swept away on Xi Jinping’s tide of “positive energy.”

A very brief portion of the People feature story is translated below, followed by the Chinese original in its entirety.

______________

It was at 5AM on March 1 that I received a text message from Ai Fen, the director of the emergency department of Wuhan Central Hospital, agreeing to an interview. About half an hour later, at 5:32AM on March 1, her colleague Jiang Xueqing, director of the Breast and Thyroid Center, passed away, having contracted Covid-19. Two days later came the death of Mei Zhongming, her hospital’s deputy director of ophthalmology. He and Li Wenliang had been in the same department.

As of March 9, 2020, four medical staff at the Wuhan Central Hospital had died of Covid-19. Since the coronavirus outbreak, this hospital, located just a few kilometers away from the Huanan Seafood Market, has become one of the hospitals in Wuhan with the largest number of medical staff to become infected by the virus. According to media reports, more than 200 people from the hospital have been infected, including three deputy hospital directors and multiple directors of various departments. Many department directors are currently undergoing ECMO treatment [for acute lung failure].

The shadow of death hangs over this, the largest of Wuhan’s three primary hospitals. One doctor tells People that almost no one among the medical staff speaks. They only mourn quietly and discuss privately.

There was at the start an opportunity to avoid this tragedy. On December 30, 2019, Ai Fen received a diagnostic report from a patient with an unknown form of pneumonia, and she drew a red circle around the words “SARS coronavirus.” When she was asked about the case by a college classmate, she took a photograph of the report and sent it to the fellow doctor. That night, this report made its way among doctors in Wuhan, and among those to share the report were the 8 doctors later taken in for questioning by the police.

This created problems for Ai Fen. As the source of the communication, she was called in for a chat with the Disciplinary Office of the hospital and received a “harsh and unprecedented reprimand,” told that she was manufacturing rumors as a professional.

On the afternoon of March 2, Ai Fen was interviewed by People at the Wuhan Central Hospital wing on Nanjing Road. She sat on her own in the emergency room office, and the emergency room that had over the past day received more than 1,500 [coronavirus] patients had now become quiet, with just a single vagrant loitering in the waiting room.

A number of previous reports have said, referring to Ai Fen, that “another female doctor who was questioned has surfaced.” And some have called her a “whistleblower.” Ai Fen corrects these accounts, insisting that she is not a whistleblower — rather, she is the “one who handed out the whistles.” In her interview, Ai Fen used the word “regret” many times. She regrets that after she was reprimanded that first time she did not continue to blow the whistle, especially for those colleagues who have already passed on. “Had I known this day would come, I would have cared nothing for their criticism, but would have spoken up wherever I could, right?”

______________

[FULL CHINESE VERSION]

“发哨子”的武汉中心医院女医生：约谈打击非常大 整个人都垮了

2020-03-10 10:54:49 热点

年12月30日，艾芬曾拿到过一份不明肺炎病人的病毒检测报告，她用红色圈出「SARS冠状病毒」字样，当大学同学问起时，她将这份报告拍下来传给了这位同是医生的同学。当晚，这份报告传遍了武汉的医生圈，转发这份报告的人就包括那8位被警方训诫的医生。

这给艾芬带来了麻烦，作为传播的源头，她被医院纪委约谈，遭受了「前所未有的、严厉的斥责」，称她是作为专业人士在造谣。

此前的一些报道，艾芬被称为「又一个被训诫的女医生浮出水面」，也有人将她称为「吹哨人」，艾芬纠正了这个说法，她说自己不是吹哨人，是那个「发哨子的人」。

这是《人物》3月刊封面《武汉医生》的第二篇报道。

文｜ 龚菁琦

编辑｜ 金石

摄影｜ 尹夕远

接到武汉市中心医院急诊科主任艾芬同意采访的短信是3月1日凌晨5点，大约半小时后，3月1日凌晨5点32分，她的同事、甲状腺乳腺外科主任江学庆因感染新冠肺炎去世。两天后，该院眼科副主任梅仲明过世，他和李文亮是同一科室。

截止2020年3月9日，武汉市中心医院已有4位医护人员因感染新冠肺炎去世——疫情发生以来，这家离华南海鲜市场只几公里的医院成为了武汉市职工感染人数最多的医院之一，据媒体报道医院超过200人被感染，其中包括三个副院长和多名职能部门主任，多个科室主任目前正在用ECMO维持。

死亡的阴影笼罩着这家武汉市最大的三甲医院，有医生告诉《人物》，在医院的大群里，几乎没有人说话，只在私下默默悼念、讨论。

悲剧原本有机会避免。2019年12月30日，艾芬曾拿到过一份不明肺炎病人的病毒检测报告，她用红色圈出「SARS冠状病毒」字样，当大学同学问起时，她将这份报告拍下来传给了这位同是医生的同学。当晚，这份报告传遍了武汉的医生圈，转发这份报告的人就包括那8位被警方训诫的医生。

这给艾芬带来了麻烦，作为传播的源头，她被医院纪委约谈，遭受了「前所未有的、严厉的斥责」，称她是作为专业人士在造谣。

3月2日下午，艾芬在武汉市中心医院南京路院区接受了《人物》的专访。她一个人坐在急诊室办公室中，曾经一天接诊超过1500位患者的急诊科此时已恢复了安静，急诊大厅里只躺着一名流浪汉。

此前的一些报道，艾芬被称为「又一个被训诫的女医生浮出水面」，也有人将她称为「吹哨人」，艾芬纠正了这个说法，她说自己不是吹哨人，是那个「发哨子的人」。采访中，艾芬数次提起「后悔」这个词，她后悔当初被约谈后没有继续吹响哨声，特别是对于过世的同事，「早知道有今天，我管他批评不批评，『老子』到处说，是不是？」

关于武汉市中心医院和艾芬本人在过去的两个多月中到底经历了什么？以下，是艾芬的讲述——

“发哨子”的武汉中心医院女医生：约谈打击非常大 整个人都垮了

艾芬

前所未有的训斥

去年12月16日，我们南京路院区急诊科接诊了一位病人。莫名其妙高烧，一直用药都不好，体温动都不动一下。22号就转到了呼吸科，做了纤维支气管镜取了肺泡灌洗液，送去外面做高通量测序，后来口头报出来是冠状病毒。当时，具体管床的同事在我耳边嚼了几遍：艾主任，那个人报的是冠状病毒。后来我们才知道那个病人是在华南海鲜做事的。

紧接着12月27日，南京路院区又来了一个病人，是我们科一位医生的侄儿，40多岁，没有任何基础疾病，肺部一塌糊涂，血氧饱和只有90%，在下面其他医院已经治疗了将近10天左右都没有任何好转，病人收到了呼吸科监护室住院。同样做了纤维支气管镜取了肺泡灌洗液送去检测。

12月30日那天中午，我在同济医院工作的同学发了一张微信对话截图给我，截图上写着：「最近不要去华南啊，那里蛮多人高烧……」他问我是不是真的，当时，我正在电脑上看一个很典型的肺部感染患者的CT，我就把CT录了一段11秒钟的视频传给他，告诉他这是上午来我们急诊的一个病人，也是华南海鲜市场的。

当天下午4点刚过，同事给我看了一份报告，上面写的是：SARS冠状病毒、绿脓假单胞菌、46种口腔/呼吸道定植菌。我仔细看了很多遍报告，下面的注释写着：SARS冠状病毒是一种单股正链RNA病毒。该病毒主要传播方式为近距离飞沫传播或接触患者呼吸道分泌物，可引起的一种具有明显传染性，可累及多个脏器系统的特殊肺炎，也称非典型肺炎。

当时，我吓出了一身冷汗，这是一个很可怕的东西。病人收在呼吸科，按道理应该呼吸科上报这个情况，但是为了保险和重视起见，我还是立刻打电话上报给了医院公共卫生科和院感科。当时我们医院呼吸科主任正好从我门口过，他是参加过非典的人，我把他抓住，说，我们有个病人收到你们科室，发现了这个东西。他当时一看就说，那就麻烦了。我就知道这个事情麻烦了。

给医院打完电话，我也给我同学传了这份报告，特意在「SARS冠状病毒、绿脓假单胞菌、46种口腔/呼吸道定植菌」这一排字上画了个红圈，目的是提醒他注意、重视。我也把报告发在了科室医生群里面，提醒大家注意防范。

当天晚上，这个东西就传遍了，各处传的截屏都是我画红圈的那个照片，包括后来知道李文亮传在群里的也是那份。我心里当时就想可能坏事儿了。10点20，医院发来了信息，是转市卫健委的通知，大意就是关于不明原因肺炎，不要随意对外发布，避免引起群众恐慌，如果因为信息泄露引发恐慌，要追责。

我当时心里就很害怕，立刻把这条信息转给了我同学。过了大概一个小时，医院又来了一份通知，再次强调群内的相关消息不能外传。一天后，1月1日晚上11点46分，医院监察科科长给我发了条消息，让我第二天早上过去一下。

那一晚都没有睡着，很担忧，翻来覆去地想，但又觉得凡事总有两面性，即便造成不良影响，但提醒武汉的医务人员注意防范也不一定是个坏事。第二天早上8点多一点，还没有等我交完班，催我过去的电话就打来了。

之后的约谈，我遭受了前所未有的、非常严厉的斥责。

当时，谈话的领导说，「我们出去开会都抬不起头，某某某主任批评我们医院那个艾芬，作为武汉市中心医院急诊科主任，你是专业人士，怎么能够没有原则没有组织纪律造谣生事？」这是原话。让我回去跟科室的200多号人一个个地口头传达到位，不能发微信、短信传达，只能当面聊或者打电话，不许说关于这个肺炎的任何事情，「连自己的老公都不能说」……

我整个人一下子就懵了，他不是批评你这个人工作不努力，而是好像整个武汉市发展的大好局面被我一个人破坏了。我当时有一种很绝望的感觉，我是一个平时认认真真、勤勤恳恳工作的人，我觉得自己做的事情都是按规矩来的，都是有道理的，我犯了什么错？我看到了这个报告，我也上报医院了，我和我的同学，同行之间对于某一个病人的情况进行交流，没有透露病人的任何私人信息，就相当于是医学生之间讨论一个病案，当你作为一个临床的医生，已经知道在病人身上发现了一种很重要的病毒，别的医生问起，你怎么可能不说呢？这是你当医生的本能，对不对？我做错什么了？我做了一个医生、一个人正常应该做的事情，换作是任何人我觉得都会这么做。

我当时的情绪也很激动，说，这个事是我做的，跟其余人都没有关系，你们干脆把我抓去坐牢吧。我说我现在这个状态不适合在这个岗位上继续工作了，想要休息一段时间。领导没有同意，说这个时候正是考验我的时候。

当天晚上回家，我记得蛮清楚，进门后就跟我老公讲，我要是出了什么事情，你就好好地把孩子带大。因为我的二宝还很小，才1岁多。他当时觉得莫名其妙，我没有跟他说自己被训话的事，1月20号，钟南山说了人传人之后，我才跟他说那天发生了什么。那期间，我只是提醒家人不要去人多的地方，出门要戴口罩。

外围科室

很多人担心我也是那8个人之一被叫去训诫。实际没有被公安局训诫，后来有好朋友问我，你是不是吹哨人？我说我不是吹哨人，我是那个发哨子的人。

但那次约谈对我的打击很大，非常大。回来后我感觉整个人心都垮了，真的是强打着精神，认真做事，后来所有的人再来问我，我就不能回答了。

我能做的就是先让急诊科重视防护。我们急诊科200多人，从1月1号开始，我就叫大家加强防护，所有的人必须戴口罩、戴帽子、用手快消。记得有一天交班有个男护士没戴口罩，我马上就当场骂他「以后不戴口罩就不要来上班了」。

1月9号，我下班时看见预检台一个病人对着大家咳，从那天后，我就要求他们必须给来看病的病人发口罩，一人发一个，这个时候不要节约钱，当时外面在说没有人传人，我又要在这里强调戴口罩加强防护，都是很矛盾的。

那段时间确实很压抑，非常痛苦。有医生提出来要把隔离衣穿外头，医院里开会说不让，说隔离衣穿外头会造成恐慌。我就让科室的人把隔离服穿白大褂里面，这是不符合规范的，很荒谬的。

我们眼睁睁地看着病人越来越多，传播区域的半径越来越大，先是华南海鲜市场附近可能跟它有关系，然后就传传传，半径越来越大。很多是家庭传染的，最先的7个人当中就有妈妈给儿子送饭得的病。有诊所的老板得病，也是来打针的病人传给他的，都是重得不得了。我就知道肯定有人传人。如果没有人传人，华南海鲜市场1月1日就关闭了，怎么病人会越来越多呢？

很多时候我都在想，如果他们当时不那样训斥我，心平气和地问一下这件事情的来龙去脉，再请别的呼吸科专家一起沟通一下，也许局面会好一些，我至少可以在医院内部多交流一下。如果是1月1号大家都这样引起警惕，就不会有那么多悲剧了。

1月3号下午，在南京路院区，泌尿外科的医生们聚集在一起回顾老主任的工作历程，参会的胡卫峰医生今年43岁，现在正在抢救；1月8号下午，南京路院区22楼，江学庆主任还组织了武汉市甲乳患者康复联欢会；1月11号早上，科室跟我汇报急诊科抢救室护士胡紫薇感染，她应该是中心医院第一个被感染的护士，我第一时间给医务科科长打电话汇报，然后医院紧急开了会，会上指示把「两下肺感染，病毒性肺炎？」的报告改成「两肺散在感染」；1月16号最后一次周会上，一位副院长还在说：「大家都要有一点医学常识，某些高年资的医生不要自己把自己搞得吓死人的。」另一位领导上台继续说：「没有人传人，可防可治可控。」一天后，1月17号，江学庆住院，10天后插管、上ECMO。

中心医院的代价这么大，就是跟我们的医务人员没有信息透明化有关。你看倒下的人，急诊科和呼吸科的倒是没有那么重的，因为我们有防护意识，并且一生病就赶紧休息治疗。重的都是外围科室，李文亮是眼科的，江学庆是甲乳科的。

江学庆真的非常好的一个人，医术很高，全院的两个中国医师奖之一。而且我们还是邻居，我们一个单元，我住四十几楼，他住三十几楼，关系都很好，但是平时因为工作太忙，就只能开会、搞医院活动时候见见面。他是个工作狂，要么就在手术室，要么就在看门诊。谁也不会特意跑去跟他说，江主任，你要注意，戴口罩。他也没有时间和精力打听这些事，他肯定就大意了：「有什么关系？就是个肺炎。」这个是他们科室的人告诉我的。

如果这些医生都能够得到及时的提醒，或许就不会有这一天。所以，作为当事人的我非常后悔，早知道有今天，我管他批评不批评我，「老子」到处说，是不是？

虽然和李文亮同在一个医院，一直到去世之前我都不认得他，因为医院4000多号人太多了，平时也忙。他去世前的那天晚上，ICU的主任跟我打电话借急诊科的心脏按压器，说李文亮要抢救，我一听这个消息大吃一惊，李文亮这个事整个过程我不了解，但是他的病情跟他受训斥之后心情不好有没有关系？这我要打个问号，因为受训的感觉我感同身受。

后来，事情发展到这一步，证明李文亮是对的时候，他的心情我非常能理解，可能跟我的心情一样，不是激动、高兴，而是后悔，后悔当初就应该继续大声疾呼，应该在所有的人问我们的时候，继续说。很多很多次我都在想，如果时间能够倒回来该多好。

“发哨子”的武汉中心医院女医生：约谈打击非常大 整个人都垮了

活着就是好的

在1月23日封城前一天的晚上，有相关部门的朋友打电话问我武汉市急诊病人的真实情况。我说你代表私人，还是代表公家。他说我代表私人。我说代表个人就告诉你真话，1月21号，我们急诊科接诊1523个病人，是往常最多时的3倍，其中发烧的有655个人。

那段时间急诊科的状况，经历过的人一辈子都忘不了，甚至会颠覆你的所有人生观。

如果说这是打仗，急诊科就在最前线。但当时的情况是，后面的病区已经饱和了，基本上一个病人都不收，ICU也坚决不收，说里面有干净的病人，一进去就污染了。病人不断地往急诊科涌，后面的路又不通，就全部堆在急诊科。病人来看病，一排队随便就是几个小时，我们也完全没法下班，发热门诊和急诊也都不分了，大厅里堆满了病人，抢救室输液室里到处都是病人。

还有的病人家属来了，说要一张床，我的爸爸在汽车里面不行了，因为那时候地下车库已封，他车子也堵着开不进来。我没办法，带着人和设备跑去汽车里去，一看，人已经死了，你说是什么感受，很难受很难受。这个人就死在汽车里，连下车的机会都没有。

还有一位老人，老伴刚在金银潭医院去世了，她的儿子、女儿都被感染了，在打针，照顾她的是女婿，一来我看她病得非常重，联系呼吸科给收进去住院，她女婿一看就是个有文化有素质的人，过来跟我说谢谢医生等等的，我心里一紧，说快去，根本耽误不了了。结果送去就去世了。一句谢谢虽然几秒钟，但也耽误了几秒。这句谢谢压得我很沉重。

还有很多人把自己的家人送到监护室的时候，就是他们见的最后一面，你永远见不着了。

我记得大年三十的早来交班，我说我们来照个相，纪念一下这个大年三十，还发了个朋友圈。那天，大家都没有说什么祝福，这种时候，活着就是好的。

以前，你如果有一点失误，比如没有及时打针，病人都可能还去闹，现在没人了，没有人跟你吵，没有人跟你闹了，所有人都被这种突然来的打击击垮了，搞蒙了。

病人死了，很少看到家属有很伤心地哭的，因为太多了，太多了。有些家属也不会说医生求求你救救我的家人，而是跟医生说，唉，那就快点解脱吧，已经到了这个地步。因为这时候每个人怕的都是自己被感染。

一天发热门诊门口的排队，要排5个小时。正排着一个女的倒下了，看她穿着皮衣，背着包包，穿着高跟鞋，应该是很讲究的一个中年女性，可是没有人敢上前去扶她，就在地上躺了很久。只得我去喊护士、医生来去扶她。

1月30号我早上来上班，一个白发老人的儿子32岁死了，他就盯着看医生给他开死亡证明。根本没有眼泪，怎么哭？没办法哭。看他的打扮，可能就是一个外来的打工的，没有任何渠道去反映。没有确诊，他的儿子，就变成了一张死亡证明。

这也是我想要去呼吁一下的。在急诊科死亡的病人都是没有诊断、没办法确诊的病例，等这个疫情过去之后，我希望能给他们一个交代，给他们的家庭一些安抚，我们的病人很可怜的，很可怜。

「幸运」

做了这么多年医生，我一直觉得没有什么困难能够打倒我，这也和我的经历、个性有关。

9岁那年我爸爸就胃癌去世了，那个时候我就想着长大了当个医生去救别人的命。后来高考的时候，我的志愿填的全部都是医学专业，最后考取了同济医学院。1997年我大学毕业，就到了中心医院，之前在心血管内科工作，2010年到急诊科当主任的。

我觉得急诊科就像我的一个孩子一样，我把它搞成这么大，搞得大家团结起来，做成这个局面不容易，所以很珍惜，非常珍惜这个集体。

前几天，我的一个护士发朋友圈说，好怀念以前忙碌的大急诊，那种忙跟这种忙完全是两个概念。

在这次疫情之前，心梗、脑梗、消化道出血、外伤等等这些才是我们急诊的范畴。那种忙是有成就感的忙，目的明确，针对各种类型的病人都有很通畅的流程，很成熟，下一步干什么，怎么做，出了问题找哪一个。而这一次是这么多危重病人没办法去处理，没办法收住院，而且我们医务人员还在这种风险之中，这种忙真的很无奈，很痛心。

有一天早上8点，我们科一个年轻医生跟我发微信，也是蛮有性格的，说我今天不来上班了，不舒服。因为我们这里都有规矩的，你不舒服要提前跟我说好安排，你到8点钟跟我说，我到哪里去找人。他在微信中对我发脾气，说大量的高度疑似病例被你领导的急诊科放回社会，我们这是作孽！我理解他是因为作为医生的良知，但我也急了，我说你可以去告我，如果你是急诊科主任，你该怎么办？

后来，这个医生休息了几天后，还是照样来工作。他不是说怕死怕累，而是遇到这种情况，一下子面对这么多病人感到很崩溃。

作为医生来说，特别是后面很多来支援的医生，根本心理上受不了，碰到这种情况懵了，有的医生、护士就哭。一个是哭别人，再一个也是哭自己，因为每个人都不知道什么时候就轮到自己感染。

大概在1月中下旬，医院的领导也陆陆续续地都病倒了，包括我们的门办主任，三位副院长。医务科科长的女儿也病了，他也在家里休息。所以基本上那一段时间是没有人管你，你就在那儿战斗吧，就是那种感觉。

我身边的人也开始一个接一个地倒掉。1月18日，早上8点半，我们倒的第一个医生，他说主任我中招了，不烧，只做了CT，肺部一大坨磨玻璃。不一会儿，隔离病房负责的一个责任护士，告诉我说他也倒了。晚上，我们的护士长也倒了。我当时非常真实的第一感觉是——幸运，因为倒得早，可以早点下战场。

这三个人我都密切接触过，我就是抱着必倒的信念每天在工作，结果一直没倒。全院的人都觉得我是个奇迹。我自己分析了一下，可能是因为我本身有哮喘，在用一些吸入性的激素，可能会抑制这些病毒在肺内沉积。

我总觉得我们做急诊的人都算是有情怀的人——在中国的医院，急诊科的地位在所有科室当中应该是比较低的，因为大家觉得急诊，无非就是个通道，把病人收进去就行了。这次抗疫中，这种忽视也一直都存在。

早期的时候，物资不够，有时候分给急诊科的防护服质量非常差，看到我们的护士竟然穿着这种衣服上班，我很生气，在周会群里面发脾气。后来还是好多主任把他们自己科室藏的衣服都给我了。

还有吃饭问题。病人多的时候管理混乱，他们根本想不到急诊科还差东西吃，很多科室下班了都有吃的喝的，摆一大排，我们这里什么都没有，发热门诊的微信群里，有医生抱怨，「我们急诊科只有纸尿裤……」我们在最前线战斗，结果是这样，有时候心里真的很气。

我们这个集体真的是很好，大家都是只有生病了才下火线。这次，我们急诊科有40多个人感染了。我把所有生病的人建了一个群，本来叫「急诊生病群」，护士长说不吉利，改成「急诊加油群」。就是生病的人也没有很悲伤、很绝望、很抱怨的心态，都是蛮积极的，就是大家互相帮助，共度难关那种心态。

这些孩子们、年轻人都非常好，就是跟着我受委屈了。我也希望这次疫情过后，国家能加大对急诊科的投入，在很多国家的医疗体系中，急诊专业都是非常受重视的。

“发哨子”的武汉中心医院女医生：约谈打击非常大 整个人都垮了

不能达到的幸福

2月17号，我收到了一条微信，是那个同济医院的同学发给我的，他跟我说「对不起」，我说：幸好你传出去了，及时提醒了一部分人。他如果不传出去的话，可能就没有李文亮他们这8个人，知道的人可能就会更少。

这次，我们有三个女医生全家感染。两个女医生的公公、婆婆加老公感染，一个女医生的爸爸、妈妈、姐姐、老公，加她自己5个人感染。大家都觉得这么早就发现这个病毒，结果却是这样，造成这么大的损失，代价太惨重了。

这种代价体现在方方面面。除了去世的人，患病的人也在承受。

我们「急诊加油群」里，大家经常会交流身体状况，有人问心率总在120次/分，要不要紧？那肯定要紧，一动就心慌，这对他们终身都会有影响的，以后年纪大了会不会心衰？这都不好说。以后别人可以去爬山，出去旅游，他们可能就不行，那都是有可能的。

还有武汉。你说我们武汉是个多热闹的地方，现在一路上都是安安静静的，很多东西买不到，还搞得全国都来支援。前几天广西的一个医疗队的护士在工作的时候突然昏迷了，抢救，后来人心跳有了，但还是在昏迷。她如果不来的话，在家里可以过得好好的，也不会出这种意外。所以，我觉得我们欠大家的人情，真的是。

经历过这次的疫情，对医院里很多人的打击都非常大。我下面好几个医务人员都有了辞职的想法，包括一些骨干。大家之前对于这个职业的那些观念、常识都难免有点动摇——就是你这么努力工作到底对不对？就像江学庆一样，他工作太认真，太对病人好，每一年的过年过节都在做手术。今天有人发一个江学庆女儿写的微信，说她爸爸的时间全部给了病人。

我自己也有过无数次的念头，是不是也回到家做个家庭主妇？疫情之后，我基本上没回家，和我老公住在外面，我妹妹在家帮我照顾孩子。我的二宝都不认得我了，他看视频对我没感觉，我很失落，我生这个二胎不容易，出生的时候他有10斤，妊娠糖尿病我也得了，原本我还一直喂奶的，这一次也断了奶——做这个决定的时候，我有点难过，我老公就跟我说，他说人的一生能够遇到一件这样的事情，并且你不光是参与者，你还要带一个团队去打这场仗，那也是一件很有意义的事情，等将来一切都恢复正常以后大家再去回忆，也是一个很宝贵的经历。

2月21号早上领导和我谈话，其实我想问几个问题，比如有没有觉得那天批评我批评错了？我希望能够给我一个道歉。但是我不敢问。没有人在任何场合跟我说表示抱歉这句话。但我依然觉得，这次的事情更加说明了每个人还是要坚持自己独立的思想，因为要有人站出来说真话，必须要有人，这个世界必须要有不同的声音，是吧？

作为武汉人，我们哪一个不热爱自己的城市？我们现在回想起来以前过得那种最普通的生活，是多么奢侈的幸福。我现在觉得把宝宝抱着，陪他出去玩一下滑梯或者跟老公出去看个电影，在以前再平常都不过，到现在来说都是一种幸福，都是不能达到的幸福。

(来源:今必看)

CMP reported yesterday on the firestorm that ensued online in China as news circulated that Wuhan’s top official, Wang Zhonglin (王忠林), said during an internal meeting that the city needed to “carry out gratitude education among the citizens of the whole city” so that they thank Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China for the response to the coronavirus epidemic.

Internal directives from press control officials now suggest this has been a full-blown public opinion crisis for the Party, and that the wound was self-inflicted. Media have been ordered not to share the original article, publish commentaries, or otherwise address the issue at all. The report on Wang’s remarks by Wuhan’s official Changjiang Daily has been withdrawn, but remains available online from certain sources.

Below is CMP’s translation of an announcement for an internal propaganda meeting held last night, with required attendance from key central Party media and local propaganda offices. The announcement clearly says that what it now calls the “’gratitude education’ incident” invited “raging public opinion,” and that it was comparable as a “public opinion incident” to the uproar that followed the death of Dr. Li Wenliang.

The coronavirus epidemic has been a serious test of the Chinese Communist Party’s capacity to “guide public opinion,” a phrase it uses to describe the work of controlling and redirecting information in order to maintain political stability and the Party’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Efforts by an often rigid and unresponsive Party-state media system to turn the tide of criticism away from the government have often backfired, encouraging anger and resentment with the leadership’s apparent interest in managing appearances over acknowledging and grappling with problems.

One of the most obvious cases in point came last Friday as footage emerged online and on social media of residents in Wuhan shouting from their high-rise apartments during an inspection visit by vice-premier Sun Chunlan: “Fake! Fake! Everything is fake!” It was possibly this embarrassing episode that prompted Wang Zhonglin, who was appointed in February to replace Ma Guoqiang (马国强) as Wuhan’s Party secretary in a leadership shake-up, to suggest the necessity of a campaign of “gratitude education.”

The internal announcement on the “’gratitude education’ incident” urges all media to “consider the feelings of the people of Wuhan” in news and propaganda reports. But the focus remains, unsurprisingly, on the end goal of “easing the emotions of the people”—as though public opinion itself is the primary challenge. The announcement stresses the importance, in this regard, of a special series called “Entering Communities, Listening to People’s Voices, Alleviating People’s Concerns” (进社区, 听民声, 解民忧).

We can find this phrase being deployed already in Wuhan, and it appears on the front page of today’s Changjiang Daily. The following image is from the lower right-hand corner, pointing readers to page 3.

Page 3 is a full page of more informational content about the coronavirus epidemic in the city, under the headline: “Where Do Non-Coronavirus Patients Seek Medical Care, and How.” The subhead seems almost pleading in light of the insistence in the internal announcement (below) that media focus on alleviating the concerns of the public: “Bearing Concern for Community Residents, We Asked 4 Hospitals.”  

A series of articles follows on the left-hand side explaining the situation at various local hospitals. Vertically across the right-hand side are questions from readers that are answered by the newspaper. One reader asks, for example, what to do if his annual vehicle inspection for his driver’s license is due but not possible owing to suspension of such services. The response explains that drivers in this situation will not be fined by transport authorities for such violations during the quarantine period.

These are certainly interesting times to observe the mechanics of press control and “public opinion guidance” in China.

____________

March 7, 2020

21:15-21:50

Host: State Council Information Office

Principal Participating Units: People’s Daily, Xinhua News Agency, Guangming Daily, China Central Television, The Paper, Economic Daily, China Youth Daily, Guangdong Propaganda Department, Hubei Propaganda Department, Propaganda Department of Wuhan City, and others.

1. Notice on the situation concerning the “gratitude education” incident, providing an internal grasp

Today Changjiang Daily’s report on “gratitude education” invited raging public opinion (舆情汹通), the intensity of the public opinion response being similar to that following the death of a certain doctor. Through communications between provincial and city leaders, and after a request to central authorities it was agreed: Changjiang Daily, [the WeChat account] Wuhan China (武汉发布)  and Wuhan Television will remove the article at its source, and no other media will be permitted to follow-up with reports or commentaries!

This matter is a classic case of public opinion created by our own work (自身工作), in particular an insufficiently strict hold at Changjiang Daily, and[we] must draw lessons from this, and reflect back seriously.

On this matter, Minister [Huang] Kunming (黄坤明) [of the Central Propaganda Department] especially made a phone call to stress: This matter fully shows that with Wuhan now having been shut down for more than 40 days, the lives of the ordinary people have been affected to such an extent that there is resentment and anger, and all reports must consider the feelings of the people of Wuhan. This matter also sounds a warning to all of our media, that they must definitely consider the particular situation facing Wuhan and the feelings of the people.

The immense reaction created by this incident again shows the significance and importance of our running the special series “Entering Communities, Listening to People’s Voices, Alleviating People’s Concerns,”easing the emotions of the people – not to teach the people gratitude, but to alleviate their concerns.

Here we warn particularly: all media, regardless of whether in internal reporting (内宣) or external propaganda (外宣), regardless of whether they are central or local media, regardless of whether they are online or offline, must heed the calls [of the CCP], must all be strategically aligned in their consciousness, forming a coordinated unit of struggle (战斗部队), and must not fight independently.

[Featured Image: Screenshot of video from Apple Daily on Wang Zhonglin touring Wuhan.]

Anger simmered on social media in China today as state media reported remarks made by Wang Zhonglin (王忠林), Wuhan’s new top official, during a video conference on the city’s response to the coronavirus epidemic. Wang, who was appointed in February to replace Ma Guoqiang (马国强) as Wuhan’s Party secretary, reportedly said that it was necessary to “carry out gratitude education among the citizens of the whole city, so that they thank the General Secretary [Xi Jinping], thank the Chinese Communist Party, heed the Party, walk with the Party, and create strong positive energy.”

A release reporting Wang’s speech reiterated Xi Jinping’s words earlier this month, in which he said, “Wuhan is a heroic city, and the people of Hubei, the people of Wuhan, are heroic people.” Xi referred to Wuhan as a key “battleground” in the “war” against the coronavirus, in keeping with the central propaganda themes the Chinese Communist Party has emphasized since February – of fierce struggle, personal sacrifice and unity, all under the stolid leadership of the CCP.

Wang Zhonglin said in his speech that the Party must employ various forms of propaganda and education campaigns to carry out “gratitude education” among the population of Wuhan. Echoing Xi, he said: “The people of Wuhan are heroic people, and they are also thankful people.” The story was reported in Changjiang Daily, the official newspaper under Wuhan’s Party committee, but was shared widely across social media.

The remarks, coming at a time when there is widespread concern about the real implications of the coronavirus epidemic and lingering anger over the government response, generated fury online, and were viewed by many Chinese as tasteless and disgusting. News of the remarks cameless than a day after video emerged online from Wuhan in which residents in a cluster of high-rise apartment buildings can be heard shouting, “Fake! Fake! Everything is fake!” as China’s vice-premier Sun Chunlan (孙春兰) makes a tour of the area.

In a post to WeChat called “Have a Bit of Conscience: It’s Not Time to Ask the People of Wuhan for their Thanks,” journalist Chu Zhaoxin (褚朝新) remarked on the release yesterday of the video taken during Sun Chunlan’s neighborhood tour, and suggested Wang Zhonglin’s timing was insensitive. “This is public opinion, this is reality,” Chu wrote of the video. “People who are not blind or deaf can see and hear, and those who are not blind can feel it.”

Chu did not know, he said, whether Wang Zhonglin’s words were a direct response to yesterday’s heckling of the inspection group led by the vice-premier, but in any case the suggestion that the Wuhan people required “gratitude education” was misplaced. “If this is Wang Zhonglin’s idea, I think he needs to educate himself. You are a public servant, and your job is to serve the people. Now the people you serve are broken, the dead are still cold, and the tears of the living have not yet dried. The sick have not yet recovered, and much of their dissatisfaction is completely reasonable. Rather than blaming the people in Wuhan you serve for not being grateful, you should reflect and be ashamed because you and your team are not working properly.”

Chu’s post was deleted by late morning on Saturday. But we have archived a version below.

[UPDATE: 8PM Hong Kong time]

A WeChat post on Wang Zhonglin’s remarks from the official account of the city of Wuhan, “Wuhan China” (武汉发布), has now been deleted. Clearly, there has been huge blowback on this, and the government fears a creating wave of negative opinion.

_____________

稍有良心，此时都不会要求惊魂未定的武汉人感恩

3月6日晚，武汉市委书记王忠林主持召开武汉市新冠肺炎疫情防控指挥部视频调度会时提出，要对武汉人民开展感恩教育。

稍微对武汉人有点感情的人，现在都不会出来说这种话。

武汉的局势，大家都看到了，截至3月6日，武汉确诊病例49871例，死亡2349例。因为前期准备不足，无力应对爆炸式传播的病毒，还有很多死亡的病例没有被统计进来。

前天，我听到了2月7日逆行进入武汉援助武汉的复旦大学附属医院副院长朱畴文的一段音频。讲到当时有很多感染的武汉人没有医院接收、不得不留在社区的时候，他哭了，哽咽得不能说话。

一家数口被病毒吞噬生命的惨剧，武汉不止一起，这是灭门惨剧啊。

2349条生命，2349次死亡，他们尸骨未寒，他们的家人、朋友、同学都还在悲痛之中，他们的家人、朋友、同学甚至自己都还在医院里躺着等着抢救，根本无力悲伤，此时却有人要对他们加强感恩教育，这是没有人性的行为。

除了普通的武汉人，武汉倒在一线的医护人员也有数十人。武汉市中心医院，因为感染病毒已经有3名医生病逝；同济医院、协和医院、武昌医院、武汉市急救中心、湖北长航总医院等十余家医院也都有医护人员倒在了抗疫一线。他们，也都尸骨未寒。

还有数千的重症患者在死亡线上挣扎，方仓医院里、定点隔离点里还有上万人有家不能回，仍活在被病毒威胁的恐惧之中。他们的家人，也跟着一起提心吊胆。

武汉封城，大几百万的武汉人困在城里，不能出门，吃喝都成了问题。对生活物资紧缺、高价菜等问题不满的声音，不绝于耳。就在3月6日，武汉的青山区一个小区里就有市民向中央指导组喊出了“假的假的、形式主义”的心声，那种愤懑、不满、委屈与不安迅速感染了其他武汉人，视频迅速满网传播。

这是民意，这是现实，眼睛没瞎、耳朵没聋的人都能看到听到，心没瞎的人也都能感受到。

武汉人刚经历了一场大难，而且目前大难未消、余祸尚在，武汉人还在继续面临病毒的威胁，仍然活在恐惧之中，惊魂未定。

此时，近千万仍在遭受病毒威胁的武汉人最需要的是帮助、抚慰和实打实的物资保障，而不是被教育去感恩；上万被隔离在医院、宾馆接受观察的武汉人需要的尽快恢复健康，数千重症患者最需要的是有效的医疗救助，不是被教育感恩；数十万流落在外的武汉人有家不能回，在外流浪甚至受到歧视，他们当下最需要的是回家，而不是接受感恩教育。

将心比心，此时武汉人真的还没有缓过劲来，还在恐惧与不安之中祈祷灾难早日结束，他们需要的是强有力的保障和帮助，还有那些需要对这场灾难负责的失职渎职官员的道歉，而不是被要求着去感恩。

要开展感恩教育的言下之意，是武汉人不感恩或者是还不够感恩。我不知道这话，是不是对“假的假的”的一种回应，是不是觉得武汉人对生活物资不足表达不满就是不感恩。

王忠林如果是这种想法，我觉得他才需要好好接受一下教育：你是人民的公仆，你的工作就是为人民服务，如今你所服务的人民家破人亡，逝去的人尸骨未寒，活着的人泪痕未干，病着的人病体未愈，他们有些不满完全是情理之中的事情，你应该因为你和你的团队工作不到位而反思和惭愧，而不是指责你所服务的武汉人民不懂感恩。

武汉人不懂感恩吗？我作为一个武汉人不接受王忠林这样的无端指控。

武汉人的感恩之心时刻都在，他们感恩三万多从外省市到湖北支援的外省医疗队，他们感恩兄弟省市无数捐钱捐物的好心人，他们感恩无数奋战在一线的本地医护人员，他们感恩武汉封城后坚守在岗位的武汉警察、环卫，他们感恩无数默默无闻的志愿者、社区工作人员。如果不知道感恩，那些赞美上述群体的文章不会动辄上百万的点击量。

除了点赞，他们也在做力所能及的事情。

黄陂区一个菜农，开着车数次给上海援汉医疗队所居住的酒店送菜，分文不取；无数的武汉市民和志愿者，知道武汉的医护人员吃不好饭甚至没饭吃，默默给武汉的医院送去盒饭等生活物资；很多武汉人深陷围城，也还在捐款捐物……

这些，不是感恩是什么？

王忠林从山东济南的市委书记调到武汉担任市委书记，到武汉已经快一个月了，从他这些冷酷无情的话可以看出，他目前对武汉人还没有什么感情。我相信，要武汉人接受这个市委书记恐怕也还需要很长一段时间。

褚朝新

2020年3月7日

On Wednesday this week, Li Zehua (李泽华), a journalist who recently resigned from his job as a news anchor at China’s state-run China Central Television to report as a citizen reporter on the front lines of the epidemic in Wuhan, was apparently detained by officers from state security. His whereabouts are currently unknown.

Li, who had managed to livestream his dispatches, and who also reported continued harassment from local police and security guards, arrived at Wuhan’s Baibuting Community, an area hit particularly hard by the epidemic, on February 16. He livestreamed a story on February 18 from a crematorium in the city about how porters were being hired at high wages in order to transport corpses. On February 25, he did a report in which he interviewed migrant workers who were forced to set up camp in the underground parking garage at Wuchang Railway Station.

Li’s citizen journalism in Wuhan followed in the footsteps of two other journalists, Fang Bin and Chen Qiushi, both of whom are now missing.

As state security officers caught up with him and prepared to detain him Wednesday, Li Zehua recorded a final message speaking to the men outside his door.

In this message, he talks about his belief in the importance of speaking up and the inspiration he took from Chai Jing (柴静), the celebrity CCTV anchor whose documentary “Under the Dome,” about serious air pollution in China, drew more than 300 million views online before being deleted by authorities.

Our translation of Li Zehua’s message follows.

_____________

OK, I’m getting ready to open the door. Can I say a few things?

First of all, I admire those of you who have hunted me down. I admire the diverse methods you employed under the light of day to track down my position so accurately. The way too that you managed to pressure my friends XX to come over.

Secondly, from the time I first arrived in Wuhan everything I have done has been in accord with the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and with its laws. I had full protective gear for all of the places I visited that were designated as danger areas – a protective jacket, goggles, disposable gloves, disinfectant. I had plenty of all of these things, a full supply of materials. This 3M mask, this was bought for me by a friend who supported me. So right now I’m physically fine. My body is strong and healthy. If you say I have a temperature, this can only be because it’s too stuffy inside all of this gear.

Of course, the third thing is that I realize at this point that it’s highly unlikely I won’t be taken away and won’t be quarantined. I just want to make it known, thought, that I have a clear conscience toward myself, a clear conscience toward my parents, a clear conscience toward my family, and also a clear conscience toward the Communication University of China from which I graduated, and toward the journalism field in which I did my studies. I also have a clear conscience toward my country, and I have done nothing to harm it. I, Li Zehua, 25  years of age, had hoped I could, like Chai Jing [the former CCTV journalist who made the documentary “Under the Dome”], work on the front lines, that I could make a film like the one she did in the environment of 2004 about the fight against SARS in Beijing. Or like “Under the Dome” in 2016, the one that was completely blocked online.

I think if you big guys outside the door went to middle school, which of course you did, and if your memories are good, you’ll definitely remember the essay we all had to read by Lu Xun, the one called, “Has China Lost It’s Confidence?” There’s a line I’ve always found inspiring where Lu Xun says: “In this China of ours there have always been those who speak for the people, who fight tenaciously, who abandon their bodies in search of the truth . . . . In these people we discover China’s spine.”

I’m not willing to disguise my voice, nor am I willing to shut my eyes and close my ears. That doesn’t mean that I can’t live a happy and comfortable life with a wife and kids. Of course I can do that. But why did I resign from CCTV? The reason is because – I hope more young people, more people like me, can stand up!

But this isn’t for the sake of uprising or anything like that, that’s not what I mean. It’s not as though we oppose the Party simply by saying a few words. I know that our idealism was already annihilated in spring and summer that year [1989], and sitting quietly [in protest] no longer accomplishes anything.

Today’s youth, who go onto Bilibili, Kuaishou and Douyin and swipe their way through social media, probably have no idea at all what happened in our past. They think the history they have now is the one they deserve.

I think everyone is like Truman, and when they discover that strange radio frequency, and when they find the exit door, they walk out and feel they can never go back.

The last thing I’ll say is, I’m sorry.

I’ll just say, I really understand you guys outside the door. I understand the mission you’ve been given. But I also sympathize with you, because when you support, without conditions and without reason, such a cruel order, the day will come when the same cruel order falls on your own heads.

OK, that’s it. I’m ready to open the door.

How do you ensure a story has a fairy tale ending? You write the ending yourself of course. In recent days, official state media in China have celebrated the publication of A Battle Against Epidemic: China Combatting Covid-19 in 2020, a book that compiles writing by official state media to paint a portrait of leadership resolve in the face of a major challenge.

So it seems that while we all wait to see how the Covid-19 fares in the rest of the world, the verdict is already out on the epidemic as a major show of resolve on the part of the Chinese Communist Party. The story has already been written.

According to the Xinhua News Agency release on the book, it “collectively reflects General Secretary Xi Jinping’s commitment to the people, his sense of mission, his far-reaching strategic vision and outstanding leadership as the leader of a major power.”

This is a narrative being pushed insistently in the People’s Daily and other Party-state media in recent days. The idea that the Chinese Communist Party, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite the broad undercurrent of popular anger on Chinese social media, has faced the epidemic with great wisdom and effectiveness from the start.

Just look at page three of today’s People’s Daily, on which an article with the headline, “’China Has Shown Stunning Collective Action and Cooperative Spirit,’” is accompanied by another called, “How Has America Done in the Face of the Epidemic?” While the former, manipulating the remarks of the WHO’s Bruce Aylward, praises China’s readiness and speed of response, the latter accuses the U.S. of being more focused on anti-China smear tactics than on action to prevent the spread of the virus. This piece even manages to justify China’s recent decision to expel reporters from the Wall Street Journal: “They must be made aware that the dignity of the Chinese people must not be compromised, and China’s bottom line must not be touched. A few days ago, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the suspension of the credentials of three journalists from the Wall Street Journal, delivering a loud slap.”

Yesterday, too, the newspaper ran a prominent front-page piece on China’s epidemic response that characterized the entire crisis as a “test” that the country and its leadership had essentially passed with flying colors: “The results obtained in the epidemic control and response work are no small feat,” it read, “and many sides have undertaken many arduous asks, putting in great efforts, once again making clear the obvious superiority of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

CMP co-director Qian Gang wrote recently about the puzzling and infuriating tone-deafness of the People’s Daily through January and much of this month, how they were committed to the point of absurdity to pre-arranged propaganda themes about the greatness of Xi Jinping and the realization of a “moderately wealthy society.” He described this inability to shift focus to the most clearly urgent matter at hand, the coronavirus epidemic, as systemic. “The system of the CCP is like a great big elephant,” he wrote. “It is difficult for the sudden and unexpected to force any change to its huge and lumbering gait.”

The elephant has now changed directions. It plods confidently forward with a revisionist narrative of competence and collective victory. And these themes can now return us to familiar tropes, like the notion that China offers an inspirational political model that can better instruct the world. So the Xinhua release reports that A Battle Against Epidemic will be published in English, French, Spanish, Russian and Arabic editions, “the first book to date both domestically and overseas to follow and introduce China’s epidemic prevention and control work.”

Where is this nonsense coming from? The book is published, we are told, by the Central Propaganda Department, the Information Office of the State Council and the China Intercontinental Communication Center (CICC). In fact, these three partners are essentially a single party. Trace CICC in China’s national enterprise credit system and you find that it is listed as being fully run by the “Central Propaganda Department (Information Office of the State Council).”

So of course, no surprise, this was a scheme that must have developed at the top of China’s propaganda apparatus at least a number of weeks ago, possibly from shortly after Xi commented publicly for the first time on the coronavirus epidemic.

Will this nonsense work? China has managed many times in the past to simply move on, brushing uncomfortable facts and even immense tragedies under the rug, and changing the topic of conversation. But there is still a great deal of anger being directed toward leaders, judging from activity on social media, and efforts like this new book to distract and redirect can themselves feed the embers.

Here is one image making the rounds today on WeChat, in which the cover of A Battle Against Epidemic is hemmed in on all sides by Chinese banners that read:

Shameless to the extreme.

Painting fine pictures on the bones of the dead.

Distilling essence from human blood.

Certainly, some Chinese may move on from this crisis and think it better to forget and to say nothing. Others, however, will no doubt remember the very real lives sacrificed for the sake of these political slogans, and these glorious fairy tales.

[Featured Image of Xi Jinping by Thierry Ehrmann available at Flickr.com under CC license.]

Czech writer Milan Kundera once wrote: “Kitsch causes two tears to flow in quick succession. The first tear says: How nice to see children running on the grass! The second tear says: How nice to be moved, together with all mankind, by children running on the grass.” Facing the enormous task of controlling and directing public opinion in the midst of widespread anger over the handling of the coronavirus epidemic, and serious questions about the priorities of the leadership, China’s Party-state media have turned to a tried-and-true formula: turning on the kitsch.

Kundera, as scholar Robert Solomon writes, is “concerned with a particular kind of political propaganda that intentionally eclipses harsh realities with emotion and uses sweet sentiments to preclude criticism.” This exploitation of human emotion, which strips it of the immediacy of felt experience and abstracts it as collective pathos, is an ancient art practiced by dictators. “In politics,” writes Thorsten Botz-Bornstein, “most dictators have attempted to reinforce their authority with the help of kitsch propaganda.”

In yesterday’s People’s Daily we can find a consummate piece of kitsch propaganda given position of prominence right below the masthead. The article, “Heroic City, Heroic People,” is an emotional hymn dedicated to front-line medical workers, officials and ordinary people. But the real objective of the article is to underscore the Chinese Communist Party as the enabler of miraculous human feats.

This is classic propaganda kitsch, and Kundera’s tears flow from the very first lines.

“Doctor, please deep further away from me.”

This statement from a [coronavirus] patient in Wuhan reddened the eyes of the doctor, and it brings tears to the eyes of countless people.

Even as Chinese medical workers from the epicentre of the crisis in Wuhan issued a call in one of the world’s most respected medical journals, The Lancet, for urgent assistance from colleagues around the world as they face physical and psychological exhaustion, the Party’s flagship newspaper transforms misery and desperation into tear-inducing sacrifice. Look, for example, at its description of Peng Yinhua, a 29 year-old doctor who died on February 20:

. . . . 29 year-old Peng Yinhua, a doctor in the Division of Pulmonary Care and Critical Medicine at the First People’s Hospital in Wuhan’s Jiangxia District, had originally prepared for a wedding with his wife on February 1. When the epidemic came, he threw himself onto the front lines. When the patients were greatest in number, this meant working two days and two nights straight, taking responsibility for as many as 40 patients. But who could imagine that this charge into battle would lead to his eternal departure . . . .

In this passage the very human Peng seems not to die with real humanity, but rather to fade, as though he is exiting the stage in a drama.

And of course kitsch propaganda must anneal the softness of personal tragedy into the hard steel of sacrifice. So we are told that “more than 40,000 medical staff from 29 provinces, autonomous regions and cities . . . . were deployed to assist Hubei and Wuhan,” that they “entered the battle as soon as possible, racing against time, testing their strength against the demon of disease, all to continue the relay of life!”

“In the history of the world’s fight against epidemic disease, to gather 40,000 medical personnel in one city over a few short days – this is to generate a miracle!”

But kitsch propaganda can backfire in the face of a public that is digitally connected, and far more savvy than in the past about the tropes used by the state-run media. Earlier this month, internet users responded with irritation to a video posted by the official Gansu Daily newspaper that showed nurses weeping as their heads were shaved before their deployment to treat patients in Hubei province. The video described the female nurses as “most beautiful warriors,” and made emotional fodder of their sacrifice.

As reported by Quartz, a writer named Chen Mashu remarked in a WeChat post since removed by authorities: “The coverage made me think: Why does our media always like to use the sacrifices females make as a tool for propaganda? …for women who don’t cut their hair, aren’t pregnant and are healthy, do they not deserve to be mentioned?”

Chen clearly does not appreciate the finer points of kitsch.

_______________

[partial translation]

Heroic City, Heroic People:

Dedicated to the People of Wuhan in the Midst of the Struggle for Epidemic Prevention and Control

People’s Daily

February 25, 2020

“Doctor, please deep further away from me.”

This statement from a [coronavirus] patient in Wuhan reddened the eyes of the doctor, and it brings tears to the eyes of countless people.

Keeping the doctor away is about the concern they might be infected, and it is the hope that “they can protect the lives of more Wuhan citizens.“

“A person holds up the sky, a heart warms a city . . . . “ Many people have left messages like this.

In this city, over these days, this kind of story has unfolded every day. This kind and respectable patient is just one of millions of ordinary people in this city.

An epidemic that suddenly came has changed this city, and it is changing the spirit of the people in this city.

This outbreak with such urgency, has made of the country one community (疫情催人急，家国共同体). Every day, white-clad and fearless warriors, the undaunted people’s police, community officials keeping watch day and night, all are fighting on the front lines; the people of this city come together as a city, keeping watch and rendering mutual aid, seeing the overall situation facing all, conscientiously cooperating with epidemic prevention and control [measures], showing perseverance and a stolid fighting spirit, all writing together a chapter of great unity!

We salute a heroic city, and a heroic people!

“Every second brings hope to more people!”

Were it not for this epidemic, the scene in Wuhan would be a different: Tourists weaving their way toward the Yellow Crane Tower, cars rushing across the Yangtze Bridge, busy scenes at the Hankou Station, laughter and applause rising from Chu River and Han Street, and bosses at the noodle shops along Hubu Lane greeting customers with a “Good Morning!”

Normal life has suddenly been interrupted by this epidemic.

On January 23, Wuhan’s streets were closed, and the city of Wuhan entered “wartime.”

This Virus is Dangerous, But Containment is Imminent

The epidemic is a command, and our hospitals have become the battlefield!

Liu Zhiming (刘智明), head of Wuchang Hospital in Wuhan, rushed to the fire. From January 21, to January 23, Liu Zhiming worked three consecutive nights transforming the Wuchang Hospital into a designated hospital, transferring the 499 patients originally under care there within just two days, and making 500 beds available. Today, more and more patients are being discharged from the hospital, but Liu Zhiming’s life has been fixed at 51 years of age. [NOTE: Liu Zhiming passed away from the coronavirus on February 17.]

. . . . 29 year-old Peng Yinhua (彭银华), a doctor in the Division of Pulmonary Care and Critical Medicine at the First People’s Hospital in Wuhan’s Jiangxia District, had originally prepared for a wedding with his wife on February 1. When the epidemic came, he threw himself onto the front lines. When the patients were greatest in number, this meant working two days and two nights straight, taking responsibility for as many as 40 patients. But who could imagine that this charge into battle would lead to his eternal departure . . . . [NOTE: Peng Yinhua passed away on February 20.]

The epidemic sounded a rally call for all to face a test of life and death. From January 23, medical staff from all over the country and from the army rushed to Wuhan, and the scope of support expanded to the whole of Hubei province. More than 40,000 medical staff from 29 provinces, autonomous regions and cities, as well as from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps and the entire military system were deployed to assist Hubei and Wuhan. They entered the battle as soon as possible, racing against time, testing their strength against the demon of disease, all to continue the relay of life!

In order to not impact the flow of their work, some doctors and nurses wore adult diapers. In order to save protective gear [which can only be worn once], some extended their shifts from 4 hours to 6 . . . . Their white outfits are war fatigues, and they are the most beautiful resisters, the most adorable people of the New Era!

In the history of the world’s fight against epidemic disease, to gather 40,000 medical personnel in one city over a few short days – this is to generate a miracle!

No one who knows the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, would turn through its pages expecting to find exclusive reporting on breaking stories, or to find incisive analysis. As the flag bearer of the top leadership, the paper points the way for all official media in following the Party line and achieving so-called “public opinion guidance.”

Over the past two months, however, as China has faced a health crisis of immense proportions, and as debate has raged over the role suppression of information played in the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak, the People’s Daily has managed astonishing feats of tone deafness, focusing on content so remote from public concerns that the result is a kind of dissonance that can only impact negatively on the Party’s image.

I’m talking specifically of the paper’s insistence on giving repeated prominence, even over major developments in the epidemic, to a special propaganda series called “The General Secretary Came to My Home” (总书记来过我的家). This series, with its feel-good reminiscences aggrandizing Xi Jinping as a man of the people, stands as a historical record of propaganda ugliness that cannot be whitewashed away.

Let us begin by backing up just a bit. We should remember that during the first 20 days of January, as the outbreak quietly raged, the People’s Daily reported not a single word about the crisis (which leaders had not yet properly recognized as such). It was only after Xi Jinping delivered his “important directions” (重要指示) concerning the epidemic on January 20 that coverage finally appeared on the front page of the next day’s edition. You can see an image of that page below. Look carefully at how the newspaper has visualized the Party’s priorities.  

The news of Xi’s instructions on the epidemic appear on the right-hand side, next to the masthead, in the small space we refer to as the “newspaper eye,” or baoyan (报眼). But the news that gets the greatest emphasis, with a larger headline and a prominent image, is below the masthead, about Xi Jinping meeting with People’s Liberation Army soldiers during an inspection tour.

One might expect this sort of downplaying and sidelining of the epidemic to fade as the full seriousness sinks in for the Party leadership. But this is not in fact what happened.  

From January 22 to January 25, for four straight days, the People’s Daily again had no front pages dealing with the epidemic. It was only on January 26, with the news that the Politburo Standing Committee had held a meeting on the epidemic, that related news took the most prominent position in the newspaper.

At this point, we might expect news and announcements on the epidemic to remain in primary position. After all, there was no doubt whatsoever by January 26 that the coronavirus was the most urgent and important matter for the country, that it would take long and concerted effort to deal with, and that it was the focus of public concern.

Generally speaking, when we the announcement of a major Party meeting on a crucial matter of policy or emergency, as we have in the front page above, we can anticipate the next day’s front page in the People’s Daily. One a central command (中央号令) has been issued by the Party leadership, it should lead in all official media, taking precedence over all other stories. In the People’s Daily, that would mean placement under the masthead, with a bold headline.

But is this what happened on January 27, the day after the meeting? No, in fact.

Here is the January 27 edition of the People’s Daily, on which news of the Politburo meeting and other news related to the epidemic appears on the right-hand side, again in the “eye” and the space below, with slightly smaller headlines than the main story. The main story, as the reader may guess, was something entirely unrelated – the pre-planned special series, “The General Secretary Came to My Home.”

By this point, the special series was nothing new. It had been running through January as the epidemic quietly raged in Wuhan. The first article in this series actually appeared on January 5, and there were five front pages dominated by the series up to January 20, the day that marked a key turning point in the epidemic with Xi Jinping’s first major statement on China’s response.

From a purely design standpoint, the series is unappealing. Every installment is designed in exactly the same way, with the series title against an orange banner, a bold vertical headline, and a gold-shaded box at the top including an inspirational quote from Xi. The series is pushed so densely and regularly it seems it can only fatigue the reader. But of course the more serious problem is that the series has little newsworthiness whatsoever – at a time when everyone knows there is plenty to report, plenty to talk about, plenty to decide and act upon.

“The General Secretary Came to My Home” is a retrospective series in which journalists look back on Xi Jinping’s visits with ordinary Chinese in their homes since coming to office at the end of 2012, the most recent visit dating to September 2019. The “retrospective,” or huifang (回访), means going back and digging out old news coverage by the paper, so in this case the focus is on digging out the instances where Xi visited various homes, and then highlighting the aspects of this dealing with key propaganda points – particularly the theme of prosperity and the realization of “moderately wealthy lifestyles.”

Is this really news? If we allow that it is news, is this really news that people should be focusing on? Or, brushing aside these questions and looking just at the CCP members likely to pick up copies of the People’s Daily, we might ask: Is this the news that the 90 million members of the CCP most care about at this moment?

If we look at the priorities of China’s leaders over past weeks, to say nothing of the crisis that has engulfed all Chinese, we know that the obvious answer is that the epidemic is what everyone cares about. Since January, the Politburo Standing Committee has held three meetings to deal with the epidemic – on January 25, February 3 and February 12. Even if nothing else did, this would tell us all too clearly that the epidemic has become a serious crisis for the leadership. And not surprisingly, all three of these Politburo meetings made the front page of the People’s Daily. Xi Jinping’s various directives on the epidemic, his speeches and his inspection tours, were all given fairly prominent positions on the front page of the newspaper.

But through this entire period, as the whole country has been engulfed by the crisis, only one story has reigned supreme above all others in the People’s Daily: “The General Secretary Came to My Home.”

The following are the People’s Daily front pages from January 31, February 2, February 3, February 5, February 7, February 8, February 9, February 10, February 12, February 14, February 17 and February 18. All are dominated by virtually identical treatment of variations of the same story about home visit by Xi Jinping.

Let’s take a look at another, more recent, front page, from last Friday, February 21. Notice how this page, like all the other pages included above, are structured around the same series, “The General Secretary Came to My Home,” with identical treatment and layout on the front page of the newspaper.

In the month since January 21, there have been 14 front pages dominated by the series, nearly one front page every other day.

Again, I would ask: Is this news? Do people care? But in fact, we don’t even need to judge these front page choices by the standards of journalistic professionalism. We can judge them instead on the basis of the mission and responsibility of the People’s Daily as defined by the CCP itself.

This series, “The General Secretary Came to My Home,” has clearly been in the works for some time. Very likely, the vast majority of these articles were written and prepared before the outbreak of the coronavirus. In my analysis of Party media coverage in January, I pointed out that 2020 has been defined as the year for China’s full realization of a “moderately wealthy society,” or xiaokang shehui (小康社会), and that this is a propaganda theme that Xi Jinping meant to trumpet loudly from the start of the year. The series on Xi Jinping’s home visits was clearly intended as a tribute to 2020 as the year of xiaokang achievement.

It’s not really important whether the families profiled in these stories from various regions in China are really representative of the lives of Chinese people (and all would undoubtedly have received special treatment and attention from local governments in preparation). The important takeaway of all the reports in the series is Xi Jinping’s presence, and his attentiveness to the needs and development of all Chinese. Careful preparation of this signature 2020 series was clearly a central political task of the Party media from late 2019.  

The problem now is context. In the light of the present context, these propaganda reports appear ugly and callous.   

Since the meeting of the Politburo took place on January 25, 2020, we have seen two very different Xi Jinping’s in the People’s Daily. The first is Xi Jinping personally leading the fight against the coronavirus epidemic, a crisis with a very tangible impact on people’s well-being and prosperity. The second is Xi Jinping busy harvesting the glorious results of xiaokang, and of China’s battle against poverty.

Since the official turnabout on January 20, when Xi Jinping signaled new public seriousness about the crisis, and throughout February, the epidemic situation in China has been extremely serious. The situation is now compounded by the economic impact of delays in getting people back to work after the Spring Festival, and so on. There can be no doubt that the overriding political task of the People’s Daily is to turn up the volume on propaganda about the leadership’s battle against the epidemic. We might suppose the paper would devote more headlines to the coronavirus epidemic given Xi’s emphasis on this as the Party’s “top task.”

So, let’s look at how the news was reported in the People’s Daily over a number of days, and what the newspaper’s front pages looked like.

The January 25 meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee decided to form a “central-level small leading group” on the response to the epidemic, and this “small leading group” was meant to provide unified direction of the epidemic response. On January 26, the head of the group, Premier Li Keqiang, led its first meeting, which quickly released an “important decision” (重要决策). Absent new instruction or activities by Xi Jinping to fight the epidemic, the news of the meeting led by Li Keqiang would be the undisputed choice for the top headline on the front page. The day after the meeting, however, news of the meeting was placed in the middle of the front page and to the right.

Which story gets top billing? Well, of course: “The General Secretary Came to My Home.” The moral of this particular article, which of course showcases Xi’s visit, is that sound environmental policies help to combat poverty.

This was not, however, a choice by the People’s Daily that we saw mirrored in other Party publications. The flagship newspaper was entirely unique in its choice of emphasis, and the situation was quite different in other Party newspapers. In the image below you can see the People’s Daily on the far left, with the Li Keqiang story at the middle-right, followed by Xinhua Daily, Hubei Daily and Liberation Daily. In all three of the latter cases, the Li Keqiang story is given precedence – not shoved aside by the home visit story. The news on the front pages of all three of these newspapers is dominated by reports about the coronavirus epidemic.

From the standpoint of CCP norms, this handling of the news by the People’s Daily should be hugely inappropriate. Here we have a small leading group that is serving at the Central Committee’s anti-epidemic command center. As head of the small leading group, Premier Li Keqiang is implementing the spirit of Xi Jinping’s directives on the epidemic from the Politburo Standing Committee meeting. How is this not the top story?

On January 30, Li Keqiang made an inspection tour of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC), issuing instructions on a range of areas from investigating the origin of the outbreak to stepping of vaccine development and improving diagnosis and treatment. The importance of these instructions goes without saying, and the People’s Daily should have an obligation to put this news in the most important position. But in the next day’s edition of the newspaper, this story once again is placed in the middle of the right-hand side. Which story gets top billing? You guessed it: “The General Secretary Came to My Home.” The story focuses on Xi’s visit, with a subtext about agricultural reforms.

On February 1, Li Keqiang made another important inspection tour of epidemic response facilities. The news again appeared in the middle of the right-hand side. The lead story was another in the home visit series, this time about a family visited by Xi Jinping that had been relocated due to ecological reasons, but was now doing well, the youngest son buying a car, and the oldest now earning a salary of 6,000 yuan a month – solidly xiaokang.

On February 2, there were two important news stories. The first was the opening of a new hospital in Wuhan with 1,400 military medical staff. The second was Li Keqiang’s leading of another meeting of the small leading group on increasing material support for prevention and treatment. The next day, the People’s Daily put the first story in the “eye” at the upper right-hand corner of the front page, and the second on the right-hand side below. The story given the most prominent treatment, however, was again about Xi Jinping and part of the home visits series. It was about a family that became rich after opening a brewery.

On February 3, the small leading group held its third meeting, which dealt with measures to raise the level of treatments in Wuhan and lower infection rates. The story appeared on the right-hand side the next day. The main story that day? It was called, “Pulling Out the Roots of Poverty, Achieving Rapid Development,” yet another story in the series on home visits by General Secretary Xi Jinping. One choice line in the article said that “the general secretary has prioritized a toilet revolution,” this referring to a campaign to improve sanitary conditions.

On February 6, the small leading group issued orders on the orderly return of production and guaranteeing supplies – dealing, in other words, with getting China’s economy up and running. Once again, this story was slotted to the side in favor of “Work Hard for a Better Life,” a story in the home visits series on a child from the countryside who had managed to attend university.

The fifth meeting of the small leading group was held on February 13, Li Keqiang again presiding. This dealt with changes to disease classification, and with other measures for the effective prevention and control of the epidemic. The classification issue was related to the “policy precision” requested by Xi Jinping. It was again the most important CCP news of the moment. But neither this story, nor another news item about the army ordering another 2,400 medical personnel to Wuhan, could compete with the marquis story: “The General Secretary Came to My Home.”

As the Spring Festival holiday came to an end, the key priorities remained the response to the epidemic and the return of people to work. The small leading group held its 7^th and 8^th meetings on February 17 and February 20. But the top front-page headlines on the days following these meetings were virtual copies of previous front pages. Pride of position was given on February 18 to a report in the home visit series called “The Change in Our Village is Huge,” and on February 21 to a home visit report called “The Road is Open and the People are Flowing.” This latter report, which dealt with the health of ordinary people in China, quoted Xi Jinping’s statement that “basic medical insurance, critical illness insurance, and medical assistance are important guarantees to prevent ordinary people from returning to poverty due to illness.”

One wonders, if the health of the people was indeed the top priority, why was news of the epidemic not given more prominent positioning?

Throughout the period I just covered, the focus in provincial and local-level Party newspapers was consistently on the epidemic, the front pages dominated by central-level policies and directives, local decisions and actions, and reports from local reporters. From January 27 to February 22, Beijing Daily, the local mouthpiece of the Beijing city leadership, ran 11 of its own reports on the epidemic. During the same period, we can find unique reports in a number of other central-level publications as well: eight in China Youth Daily; 11 in the Economic Daily; 12 in Guangming Daily. In fact, the People’s Daily sent a rather sizable reporting team to the front lines in Wuhan. Between January 27 and January 22, the paper ran close to a hundred reports. And yet, only one of these made the newspaper’s front page.

The conclusion we come to when reading through the pages of the CCP’s official People’s Daily is that no news on the ongoing epidemic, whether this means the decisions of the leading small group, or reporting on the epidemic by the paper’s own reporters (though much of this “coverage” is of course actually propaganda lauding the actions of the leadership), is more important than the series of propaganda articles on Xi Jinping’s visits to people’s homes.

Reports on Li Keqiang at the People’s Daily also appear to have been restrained by unspoken rules. After the January 25 meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee, Li Keqiang traveled to Wuhan, arriving there on the 26^th. This was a news story on which millions upon millions of people were focused. On January 27, the Beijing Evening Post, a commercial paper under Beijing Daily, placed this major news about Li Keqiang’s trip in the most prominent position on its front page, as did Hubei Daily, the official Party mouthpiece of Hubei province.

On the same day that Li Keqiang arrived in Wuhan, Xi Jinping issued another directive on the epidemic. His talk of “firming up confidence, helping one another, taking a scientific approach to prevention and control, and applying policy precisely” was actually a repeating of what had already been reported in the newspapers after the January 25 Standing Committee meeting. But as Xi cannot be surpassed in the People’s Daily headlines, the big news about the premier could only take second place – and the premier’s important visit in Hubei had to come with mention that he was “entrusted by General Secretary Xi Jinping.”

The arrangements we see on front pages like that on January 28 page above, such as the need to emphasize Xi Jinping first among Politburo Standing Committee members, are not decisions that can be made at the discretion of the editor-in-chief of the People’s Daily or his staff.

But the choices being made at the newspaper in regard to this series on the general secretary visiting people’s homes are incomprehensible to all – and perhaps even more so to those who understand how the Party’s approach to the news works. It’s difficult to imagine that this completely un-newsworthy series, so unsightly against the backdrop of the epidemic, is something Xi Jinping himself has insisted upon. After all, for weeks now as the country has faced a major health crisis, Xi Jinping has emphasized that “[we] must make the safety and physical health of the masses the top priority,” and that “[we] must define epidemic prevention and control as the most important work.”

Are the editors at the People’s Daily just not hearing it?

Of course we can’t be naïve in our expectations of the People’s Daily. Xi Jinping has stressed that the Party media “must be surnamed Party,” that they must serve the Party’s agenda alone. It would be unrealistic to imagine that the People’s Daily will simply change course and start doing investigative reporting, or look back critically on the handling of the epidemic. But at the very least, at such a difficult time, couldn’t the People’s Daily emphasize the epidemic, even if this only means shouting slogans?

For whatever reason, this has not been possible. “The General Secretary Came to My Home” has dominated 14 front pages of the People’s Daily in just over a month since January 25, with its tone triumphant and pleasant at turns, conveying a fulsome sense of happiness and gain. The tone deafness of the series is really quite incredible, treating Xi Jinping’s every step as a miracle.

Do the editors not understand that these choices will actually have an adverse impact on the image of the CCP and the image of Xi Jinping? Are they, to a fault, true believers? Are they simply confused?

I wish I knew the answer.

[Featured Image: A scanning electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2, also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19. Image from NIAID available at Flickr.com under CC license.]

The death of Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang (李文亮) earlier this month set off a wave of anger in China that has presented a major challenge to the leadership in its efforts to control public opinion. In coverage from Party-state media we have seen sometimes sharply contrasting visions of Li Wenliang and how his story relates to the question information control — a central point of contention for many Chinese commenting on social media.

Li, the ophthalmologist from Wuhan Central Hospital (武汉市中心医院) who was infected with the coronavirus while dealing with patients on the front lines of the epidemic, was questioned by his hospital and by police several weeks earlier for warning through social media about the emergence in Wuhan of cases of atypical pneumonia. Add to this the fact that Dr. Li was young, by all accounts amiable, well-educated and enthusiastic about life, and his death becomes for many Chinese, and particularly the networked middle-class, a highly relatable tragedy. On top of all of this, details about the circumstances facing Dr. Li’s family in the wake of his death have again prompted public concern.   

Li Wenliang’s death was closely tied with many of the aspects of the treatment of the coronavirus epidemic by the authorities that have left people infuriated: lack of transparency of information, slowness in revealing the situation to the public, and the neglectful treatment of medical personnel. The young doctor’s death came as a shock to many Chinese.

Li Wenliang Timeline

On the night of February 6, a doctor at Wuhan Union Hospital broke the news of Li Wenliang’s death on Weibo. Shortly after, the hashtag “DrLiWenliangPasses” (#李文亮医生去世#) was created on Weibo by the official account of the Global Times, a newspaper published under the umbrella of the People’s Daily. The account offered the following introduction:

A Global Times journalist learned on the night of February 6 from numerous information sources that Wuhan Central Hospital doctor Li Wenliang has passed away from pneumonia resulting from the coronavirus.

After this, there were purported refutations of the news, suggesting it was a rumor and that Li Wenliang was still being urgently treated. The exact time of Li Wenliang’s death became a topic hotly discussed by internet users, again prompted deep and widespread distrust of official Party and government information channels.

On the afternoon of February 7, the National Supervisory Commission, the country’s top anti-corruption body, announced its decision to dispatch a special investigative team to Wuhan, with approval from the Central Committee, to “conduct a full investigation into public complaints about problem relating to Dr. Li Wenliang.” This announcement, essentially signaling that the central leadership was aware of the serious repercussions of Li’s death, effectively gave Chinese news media a “protective amulet” (护身符) that would allow for related coverage, at least for a brief window of time.

The following is a basic timeline of the breaking of the news of Li Wenliang’s death and the official media response.

As Anger Rises, Central and Provincial Party Media Follow Suit

Looking at coverage of the death of Li Wenliang in newspapers across the country from February 7 to 9, we can find the following central Party media reporting on Li’s death: People’s Daily, People’s Daily (Overseas Edition), the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Journal, Economic Daily, Legal Daily, Procuratorate Daily, China Discipline Inspection Journal and Xinhua Daily Telegraph.

The story was not reported by People’s Liberation Army Daily or by Guangming Daily, the former published under the Political Department of the PLA and the latter by the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department.

Looking then at provincial-level CCP newspapers, those published directly by the Party committees of various provinces, we find most papers reporting in some way on the Li Wenliang story, with the exception of Shanxi Daily, Xinjiang Daily and Tibet Daily. The following table shows all provincial and municipal-level newspapers and their commercial spin-offs, including only those that did report the story of Li Wenliang’s death.

地区	报纸数（家）	刊发李文亮相关报道的报纸
北京	4	北京日报、北京晚报、新京报、北京青年报
上海	5	解放日报、新民晚报、新闻晨报、文汇报、青年报
天津	2	天津日报、今晚报
重庆	2	重庆日报、重庆晨报
广东	15	南方日报、广州日报、中山日报、梅州日报、潮州日报、佛山日报、湛江日报、宝安日报、南方都市报、珠海特区报、深圳晚报、深圳商报、深圳特区报、信息时报、羊城晚报
江苏	14	新华日报、南京日报、常州日报、徐州日报、泰州日报、无锡日报、吴江日报、丹阳日报、启东日报、如皋日报、扬子晚报、常州晚报、江南晚报、金陵晚报
湖南	10	湖南日报、湘潭日报、郴州日报、益阳日报、株洲日报、衡阳日报、衡阳晚报、潇湘晨报、三湘都市报、湘西团结报
浙江	9	浙江日报、杭州日报、绍兴日报、湖州日报、丽水日报、余姚日报、每日商报、绍兴晚报、都市快报
河南	8	河南日报、郑州日报、开封日报、洛阳日报、平顶山日报、洛阳晚报、汴梁晚报、京九晚报
山东	7	大众日报、青岛日报、潍坊日报、菏泽日报、淄博日报、联合日报、烟台晚报
广西	7	广西日报、桂林日报、梧州日报、右江日报、柳州日报、玉林日报、西江都市报
山西	5	山西晚报、长治日报、大同日报、太原日报、太原晚报
福建	5	福建日报、福州日报、闽北日报、厦门日报、湄洲日报
辽宁	5	辽宁日报、大连日报、大连晚报、辽沈晚报、沈阳晚报
四川	5	四川日报、德阳日报、南充日报、凉山日报、成都商报
贵州	5	贵州日报、遵义日报、黔南日报、贵州都市报、贵阳晚报
陕西	5	陕西日报、咸阳日报、榆林日报、华商报、文化艺术报
青海	5	青海日报、格尔木日报、西宁晚报、西海都市报、海东时报
安徽	4	安徽日报、合肥日报、安庆日报、安徽商报
宁夏	4	宁夏日报、银川日报、中卫日报、银川晚报
湖北	3	湖北日报、三峡日报、襄阳日报
甘肃	3	甘肃日报、兰州日报、兰州晨报
河北	2	河北日报、张家口晚报
吉林	2	吉林日报、长春日报
江西	2	江西日报、赣南日报
云南	2	云南日报、都市时报
海南	2	海南日报、南国都市报
内蒙古	1	内蒙古日报
黑龙江	1	黑龙江日报

Much coverage of Li Wenliang molded his story into the normative CCP narrative of heroism and personal sacrifice, sidestepping the uncomfortable issue of his mistreatment by local authorities, and the fact that his openness in addressing the coronavirus epidemic contrasted sharply with the Party’s own whitewashing of the story through much of January.

On February 8, CCTV-1 broadcast its “2020 Lantern Festival Special Program” (2020年元宵节特别节目) corresponding with the final day of the annual Spring Festival. As the anchor narrated a segment called “What You Look Like” (你的样子), the following black-and-white image of Dr. Li Wenliang’s flashed by on the screen, treated as a “white angel of sacrifice” laying down his life for the lives of others.  

On February 10, the People’s Daily, Xinhua Daily Telegraph and Guangming Daily all ran the same review of the CCTV-1 program two days earlier, mentioning that “Li Wenliang, Song Yingjie and other doctors, and the heroic group portrait of police officers such as He Jianhua, Li Xian, Cheng Jianyang, Yin Zuchuan and Liu Daqing . . . had flashed across the big screen, bringing countless audience members to tears.”

Outstanding Pages and Commentaries

But there were also notable articles and page designs that put Li Wenliang’s story in a different light, stressing his role as a “whistleblower,” and his remarks about the need for diverse voices in a healthy society.

Below is a “special report” that appeared in the February 8 edition of Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily, a commercial spin-off of the official Nanfang Daily newspaper. The cover includes a central image of flowers left in memory of Li, with a headline that read, alluding to Dr. Li’s posting on WeChat about the epidemic in early January: “Epidemic ‘Whistleblower’ Li Wenliang Passes Away.”

A number of front pages included the now famous image of Dr. Li wearing a protective face mask and staring straight into the camera. The February 7 front page of the Xinmin Evening News, a newspaper published in Shanghai under the state-owned Shanghai United Media Group (SUMG), included this photo in a black frame box, with the headline: “Farewell, Dr. Li Wenliang: So This is the Kind of Person He Was.” A commentary below, designed with commemorative burning candles below, was called, “Letting Openness, Transparency and Sunshine Break Through the Fog of Disease.”

A commentary in the Arts and Culture Journal (文化艺术报), “Remembering Dr. Li Wenliang is to Give Treatment to Ourselves,” included a pencil sketch of Dr. Li shared to various social media platforms in China. The commentary dealt directly with the issue of openness of information as a key component of a healthy society, even including a quote from Li Wenliang during a February 1 interview with Caixin Online: “A healthy society cannot have just one voice” (个健康的社会不该只有一种声音).

The following are pages from Yinchuan Evening News (银川晚报) and Shanxi Evening News (山西晚报). At left, the Yinchuan Evening News story is quite explicit in is rejection of overwrought notions of heroism, and emphasis on the “ordinary person.” The large headline reads: “There are No Heroes Who Drop Out of the Sky, Only Ordinary People Who Step Up.” Li is referred to on both pages as a “whistleblower,” or “’whistleblower’ Li Wenliang.”

The very notion here of the “whistleblower” – particularly in contrast to heroic narratives – is a slight provocation, a recognition that in order to uphold his professional responsibilities and basic conscience Li Wenliang had to act against the impulses of a system that worked to keep him quiet.

But one of the most evocative front pages came from the Economic Observer, a prominent business newspaper. The page was dominated by a dark image of Li Wenliang, rendered in grey and earthy tones, with a pair of bold, martial arts inspired characters that read: “Battling the Epidemic.” The sense was of Li as a popular hero, as opposed to the abstracted sacrificial character of CCP propaganda. The headline of the text below the image, against an oval design resembling the coronavirus, read: “Please Clear the Name of Wuhan’s ‘Rumor-Monger’”.  

The article referred to the now infamous letter of admonishment that Li Wenliang was forced to sign by local police in Wuhan confessing the error of his decision to shared information about the dangers of the coronavirus outbreak. The Economic Observer again shared the Li Wenliang quote from Caixin Online: “A healthy society cannot have just one voice.”

The following are translated portions of several articles, including the papers in which they appeared. They provide an interesting, if sometimes subtle, criticism of official narratives of abstracted “heroism” against genuine respect and protection of flesh-and-blood human beings committing simple acts of conscience.

“Forever Bearing in Mind the Weight of the World ‘People’” (永远牢记“人民”二字的分量)

Liberation Daily (Shanghai), February 8, 2020

Remembering Li Wenliang means a full and thorough investigation to respond to the most direct concerns and confusions of the public, letting the truth open the fog, using actions to provide answers – this is a consolation to Li Wenliang, and a consolation to all the good people who care for him and grieve for him. Remembering Li Wenliang also means respecting and protecting more Li Wenliangs, offering thanks and respect to the countless Li Wenliangs. This is not necessarily a tribute to “heroes,” but a tribute to the “people.”

“Remembering His Justice and Courage” (记住他的正义和勇气)

Nanfang Daily, February 8, 2020

Looking back now, his acts, whether from a medical perspective or from the standpoint of the interest of society, were doubtless acts of responsibility, warning signs given out of professionalism. He is a true hero. As a number of experts have said: “Commenting after the fact, we can give them the highest marks.” . . . . “The facts have shown that faced with an unknown and complicated epidemic disease, it is more responsible to treat small seedlings with an attitude of respect.”

“The ‘Whistleblower’ Has Gone: The Truth Should Remain” (“吹哨人”走了 真相应永驻)

Yangcheng Evening News, February 8, 2020

Those who embrace the public should not be left to freeze in the snow. Those who hold up a candle for the world should not be allowed to disappear into the night. Speaking truthfully, this is the basic ethics of any normally functioning society, and the cornerstone of maintaining fairness and justice. In the face of this epidemic, questions cannot be addressed only to this or that individual, or to certain [government] departments – we must all face them. In the swipe of the mobile era, grief and oblivion seem to come and go so quickly. But I hope we always remember him: Li Wenliang, the doctor and ‘whistleblower’ struck down so unfortunately by the epidemic.”

Two Embassies, Varying Opinions

The attitude toward the death of Li Wenliang in official circles, as glimpsed through media coverage on February 10, remained deeply divided, with an admixture of pragmatism.

On February 10, Shanghai’s Wenhui Daily ran a piece called, “Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Introduces China’s Epidemic Fight on PBS News Program, Says ‘This is a Tough Struggle We Are Confident We Will Win” (similar foreign ministry release). Perhaps with a thought to accommodate the feelings of his American audience, Cui Tiankai was actually quite moderate during his interview toward Dr. Li Wenliang, saying that “we encourage speaking the truth.” The story read at one point:

Cui Tiankai emphasized that we encourage speaking the truth. Perhaps at the start not everyone understands and accepts these people who speak the truth, and such things could happen in any place, but we encourage people to speak the truth, and to face challenges head on. Only those who don’t speak the truth and who don’t face challenges head on will be punished.

Cui Tiankai’s remarks, however, were quite different in tone to a piece released on February 9 through official WeChat account “Chinese Embassy In France.” The piece, called “Using Unity and Victory to Say Goodbye to Dr. Li Wenliang” (用团结和胜利告慰李文亮医生), was quite stern in its words for Chinese living in France who were voicing opposition in the wake of Li’s death. It said:

There are certain people with ulterior motives (别有用心的人) using the memory of Li Wenliang as an excuse to agitate overseas Chinese and overseas students in France who care about the epidemic and organize a so-called “Tonight, We Whistleblow for Truth” (今夜，我为真相吹哨) event. Everyone must know that “whistleblower” (吹哨者) was originally a derogatory term meaning someone who is an informer or undercover. When they use this word to describe Li Wenliang, this attaches to him a political label, with bad intentions, the goal being to divide Chinese opinion, and this spoils the reputation of Dr. Li Wenliang and it is immoral. . . . At this time, we need to think and decide cool-headedly, clearly separating those voices truly made out of a sense of justice and conscience, and those that are using our feelings of pity to obscure the facts and incite anger and hate in order to sow chaos in people’s hearts and destabilize the overall situation. Before our great enemies, we must prioritize the overall situation and not be self-defeating . . .

On February 10, the Study Times journal published a commentary called “Public Opinion Phenomenon of Skidding After Snow Deserves Study” (舆论雪后打滑现象值得研究), which expressed the view that the turbulent public opinion following Li Wenliang’s death was a treacherous (like an icy path) battle of ideas. It echoed the view expressed by the Chinese Embassy in France that unified calls around Li Wenliang’s death were a conspiracy to confuse and sow chaos:

In the battle for public opinion, the situation is far more complex, the enemy is often not even visible, and the front-lines cannot be made out clearly. If we do not maintain clear positions and rational thinking . . . . it will be difficult to avoid being engulfed in public opinion, becoming the passenger on the public bus skidding after the snow.

On social media, the talk of conspiracy was often even clearer. The views of a purported officer within the Public Security Bureau posted to WeChat (of unclear origin) and shared widely suggested that in view of the urgency of the epidemic and other problems facing China, public opinion had to be controlled, and sources of information must be centralized:

Right now the country faces an extremely complicated and severe situation, whether this is about facing domestic pressures or external pressures, or about facing the pressure in terms of the epidemic, production, food, supplies, public opinion, economy, finance, diplomacy, the military . . . . and so on. We can say the pressure is on all levels, and if any link experiences a problem this could have a serious chain reaction, creating a domino effect, and the consequences would be unimaginable! National security is the interest of the people. . . . .

The world is not so peaceful and harmonious as ordinary people generally think, and the more the country faces danger the more rumors fly, because the precision public opinion attacks from external forces begin, just as we’ve seen in Hong Kong. If the government loses its credibility and discourse power then it has taken irreversibly to the road of national decline! Why does public opinion choose Dr. Li? Because he is young, handsome, motivated and kind, and he is all the more capable of inspiring the sympathies of ordinary people, and more capable of stirring up public opinion . . . .

This post expressed concern at the intense criticism facing the police as a result of Li Wenliang’s treatment by police in Wuhan, and speculated that this could become a source of broader instability incited by vague “external forces”:

Fingers are now pointing at the Public Security Bureau over the epidemic, with criticism everywhere . . . . If they [the police] lose heart and forfeit their ability to maintain control, it is conceivable that the external forces will conduct their precision attacks with the intention of replicating the Hong Kong model!

These diverging views are of course not at all unfamiliar. On the one hand, the view that information openness is a crucial aspect in any society, and that the voices of professionals, journalists and all manner of ordinary people must be heard as a matter of basic health and social well-being. On the other hand, the view that public opinion is a toxic and destabilizing force, manipulated by hostile “external forces,” that must be controlled as an urgent matter of national security (overlaid, of course, with the question of regime security). The same divergence of views within the leadership and within official media emerged in the midst of the 2003 SARS epidemic.

In the light of the Li Wenliang case, many Chinese have noted the frustrating familiarities. It has been 17 years since the SARS epidemic, which at that time prompted soul-searching about the role of openness and information in dealing with issues of immediate public concern. And yet, some ask, have the costs of information secrecy and public opinion control changed?

One Chinese internet user commented on the frustrating lack of apparent progress between 2003 and 2020 by sharing side-by-side two covers of China Newsweekly, a leading news magazine. The first, dating back to 2003, bore the cover story: “SARS: What Price Must We Still Pay?” The second, from this month, bore the almost identical title: “Coronavirus: What Price Must We Pay?”