Author: David Bandurski

Now Executive Director of the China Media Project, leading the project’s research and partnerships, David originally joined the project in Hong Kong in 2004. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).

China's Grim Digger

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.


Following a tragic high-speed train collision in Wenzhou on July 23, China’s railway ministry was subjected to a wave of criticism for its mishandling of the rescue effort and the investigation into the cause of the crash. The ministry’s priority on July 24 seemed to be to clear away the wreckage as quickly as possible and get trains running again. To the shock of many Chinese, train cars from the crash were dumped into shallow pits by industrial diggers — in total disregard of the need to preserve the cars as evidence in the investigation the public clamored for. The diggers became symbolic of the government’s callousness and its apparent cover-up of the truth. Diggers are of course also representative to many Chinese of the forced demolition of property to make room for urban development. In several well-documented cases, Chinese protesting the demolition of their homes and/or appropriation of their land, have been crushed by diggers. In this cartoon, posted by artist Kuang Biao (邝飚) to his blog at QQ.com, personified Death (Grim Reaper) wields not his usual scythe but the scoop of a digging machine.

香港家書

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.

备忘录：
这封《香港家书》，2011年7月30日早晨在香港电台播出。就在播出时，笔者从互联网上得知，内地媒体在前一天晚上又受到严密管制，当局称“国内外舆论已经开始複杂化”，要求媒体对“7.23”事故的报导和评论立刻降温，许多报纸已经做好的版面，因此被临时取消，而新华社发表了对“铁道部负责人”的访谈，为铁道部评功摆好，对公众的质疑百般辩解。对此，我发了一条微博评论说：“新华社几天前N问铁道部是真的，新华社今天为虎作伥也是真的；昨天媒体的集体抗命是真的，今天管束收紧也是真的；我们真的没那麽强大，而他们真的心虚胆弱草木皆兵；我们不为毫釐的突破而雀跃，看到‘天还是那个天’也无须气馁；劫难中已显现公民、媒体和体制内有良知者携手的力量，真的，不必绝望！”

各位新聞界的同行朋友：
一周前，內地发生了極其嚴重的鐵路事故。我通過各種媒體，一直在關注著事態的進展。
有朋友問我，你如何評價香港媒體和內地媒體今次的表現？對“7.23”特大事故，兩地媒體的報導有什麼不同？
內地和香港，傳媒的環境不一樣。內地控制很嚴，香港相對自由。然而這一次報導，出現了複雜的景象：
事故發生後，兩地媒體的報導同樣迅速；稍後，香港媒體猛追事故原因，痛斥顢頇官員，內地媒體卻受到了來自宣傳管制部門的強大壓力，許多記者從前方被召回，媒體被要求宣傳好人好事，不能向鐵道部問責，有电视節目言辞尖锐，制片人被撤职。
前天發生的事，令我很氣憤。溫家寶總理趕赴溫州，慰問遇難者親屬和傷員，在事故現場召開中外記者會。我在香港收看了全過程，而內地的中央電視台卻沒有直播！
但到了昨天，內地媒體的表現再次變化。包括人民日報在內，傳媒對溫家寶的溫州之行和遇難者的“頭七”紀念，做了大幅報導和评论，溫家寶記者會的答問，一字不少全文報導，諸多報紙的頭版設計，表達了民眾的強烈悲憤。在我看來，昨天內地報紙對事故的追問、批評力度完全不亞於香港，而且比香港媒體做得更有深度。
為什麼會這樣？
其實，這正反映了三十多年改革開放後的中國現實。改革開放前，中國的傳媒很少，受到嚴密政治控制和計劃經濟體制的雙重束縛。今天，中國媒體星羅棋布，多數媒體實行了商業化運作，雖然仍有較強的政治控制，但自由的空間也在增加。
這是中國傳媒今天變化的大背景。在這个大背景下，至少有三个原因，導致內地媒體在“7.23”事件的報導中有新的突破。
首先是互聯網的快速發展和微博的出現。今天，越來越多內地人獲得資訊的第一渠道，是互聯網，特別是微博。許多香港朋友如今已經活躍在內地的微博上，熟悉了這種類似 Twitter的交流工具。這次事故，車上的乘客在災難發生後即可通過微博發出訊息，比新華社的正式報導早了40分钟。從那時到現在，微博求真、質疑、溝通、動員，是作用最大的媒體。當局雖然也想控制，但控制的難度大大高過控制電視和報紙。
第二個原因，是新聞專業主義的成長。今天的中國，權力和金錢正結合在一起，形成權貴資本主義。當局控制媒體的手段，除了政治高壓，還有金錢的利誘或處罰。然而有理想的傳媒人，立志做民眾的喉舌，社會的公器。他們在官方強大的控制下，固守“不說假話”的底線，抓住各種機會，說更多的真話。昨天的《南方都市報》，用整整一個版篇幅，發表社論《痛悼遇難者，叩問責任人》，正氣凜然，說出了老百姓的心裡話。
第三個原因很重要，那就是中共黨內始終存在著政治改革的進步力量。“7.23”事故發生後，管制部門要求媒體只能轉發新華社等黨媒體的資訊。然而黨媒體中也有許多有良知的人士。七月二十六日，新華社發表《“7·23”特別重大鐵路交通事故究竟是如何發生的?》，連問多个問題。這使得被宣傳禁令捆住手腳的媒體，有機會將尖銳的質問放到頭版。一向主張加快政治體制改革的溫家寶總理，趕赴溫州，直接回應公眾的質疑和訴求，更使得宣傳禁令頃刻瓦解，媒體趁勢而起，造成7月29日內地媒體罕見的局面。
溫州鐵路事故發生後的第二天，一位傳媒人士在他的微博寫下一段話，這段話已經傳遍世界：“中國，請停下你飛奔的腳步，等一等你的人民，等一等你的靈魂，等一等你的道德，等一等你的良知！不要讓列車脫軌，不要讓橋樑坍塌，不要讓道路成陷阱，不要讓房屋成危樓。慢點走，讓每一個生命都有自由和尊嚴，每一個人都不被‘時代’拋下，每一個人都順利平安地抵達終點。”
這是今天的中國：高速发展，危機深重，但公民在覺醒。經過一次次突發事件中媒體和公眾的抗爭，公眾的知情權、參與權、表達權和監督權，在一分一毫地擴大。我願中国的政治改革，就从这里起步。
祝大家
平安，幸福！
香港大學新聞及傳媒研究中心
錢鋼
2011年7月30號

Letter to Journalists in China and Hong Kong

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.

Friends and colleagues in the media:
One week ago, China suffered a serious railway disaster. All along, I watched these developments closely as they emerged in various media.
Some friends have asked me how I think Hong Kong and mainland media have performed this time around? What differences have I seen in reports from Hong Kong and mainland media?
Hong Kong and the mainland of course have very different media environments. Media on the mainland are subject to strict controls, and Hong Kong enjoys relative freedom. But we’ve seen a fairly complex situation over the past week:
After the accident happened, media on both sides reported the story quickly; on the heals of this initial coverage, Hong Kong media went aggressively after the causes of the accident, and thickly denounced government leaders. Meanwhile, mainland media had received directives from the Central Propaganda Department, the Information Office and others ratcheting up pressure. Many journalists were called back from the front lines. Media were instructed to report positive stories, and to avoid questioning of the Ministry of Railways and government responsibility more generally. Nevertheless even some programs from official state media were strongly worded in their criticism, resulting in the eventual firing of one CCTV producer, Wang Qinglei (王青雷).


But by July 29, there was another dramatic shift in mainland news coverage. Media, including even the official People’s Daily, did widespread reporting, and commented strongly, on Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s trip to Wenzhou and the memorial ceremony held by the relatives of victims of the crash. Full versions of Wen Jiabao’s responses to family members were reported, without omissions. The front pages of many Chinese newspapers conveyed the sadness and rage felt by ordinary Chinese. In my view, the level of reporting and criticism seen in China’s newspapers on July 29 was not at all short of what we saw from Hong Kong — and mainland media surpassed Hong Kong in terms of depth of reporting.
How is that possible?
Actually, this reflects a broader shift in the situation of Chinese media thirty years after reforms began. Before economic reforms, there were few media at all in China, and all were restrained by both ideological controls and by the system of the planned economy. Today, Chinese media are as numerous as stars in the sky, and many media now operate commercially. So even as political controls on the media remain relatively strong, the amount of free space has increased.
This is the larger background to changes in China’s media today. Against this backdrop, there are at least three reasons why media were able to make new breakthroughs in reporting of the July 23 collision and its aftermath.
The first factor is the rapid development of the internet and the emergence of microblogs. Today, the first channel for obtaining information for more and more mainland Chinese is the internet, and microblogs in particular. Many friends in Hong Kong’s media are already active on mainland microblog platforms, and they’re familiar with these Twitter-like tools for real-time interaction.
In the case of this disaster, passengers on the train were able to issue information through microblogs after the crash happened, at least 40 minutes before the first formal report from the official Xinhua News Agency. From that point on, microblogs were the most effective media in urgently pushing for the truth, raising questions, pulling people together and mobilizing them. While the authorities would like to control microblog platforms, this medium is far more difficult to control than, for example, television.
The second reason is the continued development of professionalism in China’s media. In China today, money and power work in concert, creating China’s own brand of crony capitalism. Aside from political controls, the authorities can use financial incentives and penalties to control the media. Nevertheless, there are media professionals who harbor idealism and see themselves as voices of the people, as tools of the public interest. Under the strong controls of the government, they defend “not speaking falsehoods” as their bottom line, and they grab all sorts of gaps and opportunities to say as much as they possibly can.
On July 29, Guangdong’s Southern Metropolis Daily devoted an entire page to an editorial called, “Deeply Mourning the Victims, With Questions for Those Responsible” (痛悼遇难者，叩问责任人). With a great sense of honor and dignity, the editorial spoke the hearts of many ordinary Chinese over this disaster.
The third factor is also very important, and that is that there exists within the Chinese Communist Party a force promoting the advancement of political reform. Immediately after the July 23 crash, propaganda authorities instructed Chinese media to use only official information released by Xinhua News Agency. But there are journalists with ideals within the official media as well. On July 26, Xinhua News Agency released a report called “How Did the Major Disaster on July 23 Happen?” (“7·23”特别重大铁路交通事故究竟是如何发生的?) asking many hard questions about the collision.
Xinhua’s coverage played a critical role in encouraging Chinese media — which are often said to “dance with their shackles on” — to push ahead with bolder reports questioning the causes of the accident on their front pages. A visit to the scene of the accident in Wenzhou by Premier Wen Jiabao, who has frequently come out in favor of a more concerted push for political reforms, instantly cancelled out propaganda directives against coverage. Wen responded directly to doubts and questions voiced by family members of victims, and this further encouraged media to push harder on coverage, and ultimately made July 29 a day of unprecedented openness for mainland Chinese media.
The day after the Wenzhou train collision, a Chinese journalist wrote on his microblog words that were eventually heard all around the world: “China, please slow your soaring strides, wait for your people, wait for your soul, wait for your moral, wait for your conscience! We don’t want derailed trains, collapsing bridges, roads that slide into pits or homes that collapse. Move more slowly. Let every life have freedom and dignity. Let no-one be cast aside by this age. Let every person reach their destination easily and in peace.”
This is today’s China: rapid development attended by deep crisis, but with citizens who are gradually awakening. Through each successive breaking event, media and the people have resisted and struggled, inch by inch expanding their right to know, right to participate, right to express and right to monitor. My hope is that, building on these changes, China can now push ahead with political reforms.
I wish everyone peace and prosperity!
Qian Gang
July 30, 2011
[CLICK HERE for a Chinese version of this letter.]

Chinese media muzzled after day of glory

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.

Yesterday morning, July 30, CMP Director Qian Gang (钱钢) delivered a “letter from home” on RTHK Radio. Addressed to the journalists of China and Hong Kong, the letter looked back on a tumultuous week of coverage of the July 23 train collision in Wenzhou, full of victories and setbacks. The message of the “letter” was largely positive, remarking how July 29 had marked a rare high point for mainland Chinese media in particular, with bold and broad coverage of the Wenzhou crash and its implications.
But just as Qian Gang’s message was hitting the airwaves, he was watching the weather change online. Strict controls on China’s media had been rolled into force just the night before, with authorities saying that “public opinion inside and outside China has begun to become complex.” A notice demanded that Chinese media immediately cool down their reporting and commentary on the July 23 Wenzhou train crash, and scores of Chinese media had to move frantically to fill the gaps as planned reports on the crash were suddenly off limits.


[ABOVE: This image, posted to Sina Microblog on July 30, was a silent protest against new and concerted controls on media coverage of the July 23 train crash in Wenzhou.]
The official Xinhua News Agency, which less than a week earlier had distinguished itself with a rare professional report asking hard questions about the train crash, now ran an interview with a top official from the embattled Ministry of Railways that was plainly a fluff piece.

Question: Are there serious safety problems with China’s high-speed rail and train system?
Answer: Through many years of development, we’ve made major technological progress in high-speed rail project construction, equipment manufacturing, operation and management and many other areas. But we still face many difficulties and challenges in the midst of this development. We are still full of confidence about the future of China’s high-speed rail system.”

One enlightening bit of coverage that did not see the light of day yesterday was an interview by The Beijing News with Wang Mengnu (王梦怒), a railway engineer and member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences who has long been on record as a major supporter of high-speed rail and was recently included — to the surprise of many — on the list of members of a special investigative team tasked with looking into the causes of the railway tragedy. Wang was plainly clueless about the nuts and bolts of the supposed investigation, raising further questions about credibility.

The Beijing News: Academician Wang, are you at the site [of the accident] now? Can you tell us, what is the preliminary situation with the investigation?
Wang Mengru (王梦ru): I’m not at the scene.
The Beijing News: Where are you? What are you doing?
Wang Mengru: I’m in the suburbs of Beijing. I’m on the road to Zhangjiakou right now. I’m busy dealing with some railway matters.
The Beijing News: Are you not an expert on the special investigative team? Don’t you have to go to the scene to investigate?
Wang Mengru: I’m busy. I don’t think I’ll be going. We’ll see how it goes.
The Beijing News: Well then, how is it you’re a member of the investigative team then?
Wang Mengru: About two or three days ago, I was in a meeting in Chengdu. I received a telephone notice from the State Administration of Work Safety asking me to go and participate as part of the investigative team.
The Beijing News: Do you not want to take part? Or is it something you can’t avoid?
Wang Mengru: I can’t be sure. If I can take part, I will. If I get a [formal] notice or not, either is OK. If I didn’t get a [formal] notice and didn’t go that would be better.
The Beijing News: Why would it be better not to get a notice?
Wang Mengru: Really soon I have to go to Japan for a meeting.
The Beijing News: When is that? Is it railway business too?
Wang Mengru: I have to go on August 3. It’s not this [railway business].
The Beijing News: So what happens if you get a [formal] notice to take part in the investigative team? If you can’t go to the scene you can’t possibly understand the situation, right?
Wang Mengru: Even if I don’t go to the scene I can analyze [the situation].
The Beijing News: Are other experts going to the scene?
Wang Mengru: I’m not really sure. I’m not really in touch with them.

The following are examples of three pages that were to be included in yesterday’s edition of Chinese Business View (华商报) but could not be because propaganda leaders were aggressively applying pressure. The spaces you see empty on these pages are not “sky windows,” or tian chuang (天窗), spaces left blank as a purposefull form of protest — something that happens on occasion in Chinese newspapers. The spaces were waiting for other content, in one case a cartoon, before they had to be pulled altogether.


[ABOVE: This page of Chinese Business View, dropped under pressure from censors, bears a main editorial at top that reads: “The Only Road to Rebuilding the Public’s Trust is to Seek Out the Truth.” The column to the right of the empty space (waiting for a cartoon for the caption, “When you lie, your nose grows.”) is a run-down of different views on the train crisis expressed in other media. The column at the bottom is a piece called, “Citizens Act on Microblogs: Asking Questions is Our Right.” The issue of citizen action, of course, is highly sensitive in and of itself. Finally, the vertical column at left includes a number of comments, quite bold, from web users posted on microblogs.]

[ABOVE: The column on the left-hand side of this second page never published in Chinese Business View is by Luqiu Luwei (路丘露微), a well-known journalist for Phoenix Television. The piece is called, “The Importance of an Independent Investigation.” At right is an interview with Zhang Qianfan (张千帆), a professor of law at Peking University, in which Zhang talks about the possibility of creating an “special investigative commission” within the National People’s Congress, as stipulated in China’s constitution. This move, suggested by a number of scholars, including He Weifang (何卫方), is regarded as highly sensitive by the leadership. The piece, called “Or There is the Constitutional Path to Seeking the Truth,” also mentions the 2003 Sun Zhigang case, which eventually overturned China’s law on detention and repatriation.]

[ABOVE: Finally, this censored editorial page reads: “Fixing the Problem at its Roots Requires ‘Major Surgery’. The piece is based on interviews with leading experts, and addresses the urgent need for institutional reform to avoid a repeat of tragedies like the July 23 train crash.]
Our hats go off to Chinese Business View, and to all Chinese media that pushed courageously on this story in recent days. July 29 was a day to remember, a new high point for China’s developing and professionalizing media.
Here is a collage of front pages from newspapers and magazines across the country — both commercial and Party — that show the degree of variety and professionalism that we saw. At the bottom there are also images from China Central Television and China National Radio, both state-run outfits.

CMP Director Qian Gang’s “Letter from Home,” which he delivered on Hong Kong’s RTHK on July 30, is available here in English and here in Chinese.

We’ll have to watch and see how China’s leaders handle the press in coming days.
Meanwhile, at China’s Ministry of Railways, it’s as though nothing ever happened. There is no news or information about the tragedy in Wenzhou on the ministry’s official website. Nary a mention of the issue of train safety.

As media see their space shrinking on this story, the ministry has stepped up. As Chinese lawyer Yuan Yulai (袁裕来) writes on Sina Microblog today: “The media have been gagged, and now the railway ministry has grabbed the microphone and is speaking all on its own.”
Yuan links to this article, in which a ministry official addresses a number of key concerns surrounding the July 23 collision in an “interview.” He explains, against a sea of evidence previously given by Chinese media, that the rescue effort was never halted before the discovery of a young girl survivor.


Images of disaster on social media: 2

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.


[ABOVE: On July 29, 2011, a social media user in China posted this photo of an empty car on the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Rail, noting: “Comrades, this is Car Two on the high-speed train departing at 4pm today.” Twenty percent of seats were reportedly vacant on the high-speed rail before the July 23 crash. Now, confidence in the system has apparently plummeted.]




[ABOVE: Audio of relatives of July 23 crash victims voice their frustrations to Premier Wen Jiabao when he visits the crash site on July 28.]




[ABOVE: Citizens plead for justice during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to the crash site in Wenzhou.]




[ABOVE: Chinese social media users pay tribute to Wang Qinglei (王青雷), the producer of China Central Television’s “24 Hours” program, who was fired this week for his outspokenness in coverage of the July 23 tragedy.]




[ABOVE: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao meets with relatives of victims on July 28 (see audio file above)].




[ABOVE: On July 29, relatives of victims place flowers at the scene of the July 23 crash.]




[ABOVE: Cartoonist Kuang Biao, a regular drawing for Southern Metropolis Daily, drew this chilling piece, in which death is depicted bearing the scoop from a digger rather than a scythe, a clear reference to the expedience and carelessness with which the rescue effort was handled.]




[ABOVE: A user on social media posted this animated image on July 29, in which they utter a highly impolite expletive. The caption reads: “For the railway ministry.”]




[ABOVE: Aggressive coverage by Chinese media has been one of the biggest subplots of this tragic story. Here, journalists rush out to cover the visit to the scene by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.]




[ABOVE: An expanse of fresh flowers left at the crash site on July 29 in memory of those who died in the July 23 crash.]




[ABOVE: Web users share photos of Xiang Yu’an (项余岸) and Shi Lihong (施李红), the father and mother of 2-year-old crash survivor Xiang Weiyi (项炜伊), both of whom died on July 23. Weiyi has been called the “miracle girl” in the midst of this disaster.]


Where to Now?

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.


China and the United States announced an agreement in July 2011 by which US law enforcement would assist China in repatriating officials facing corruption charges in China who have sought refuge in the US. People’s Daily Online quoted US Department of Commerce General Counsel Cameron Kerry, in Beijing on a five-day visit in July, as saying there is “good cooperation” between Chinese and US prosecutors “in finding ways to repatriate corrupt officials or ill-gotten assets.” In this cartoon, published in China’s Morning News, a commercial spin-off of Shanghai’s flagship Party newspaper, Liberation Daily, a corrupt official and his wife fly over the globe with a bag of embezzled assets labeled “corrupt”. As China and the US below reach across the Pacific in a handshake of cooperation, the wife says to the clearly concerned official: “Where to now, Dear Husband?”

People's Daily: We don't want "bloody GDP"

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.

In the midst of the ongoing crisis surrounding the July 23 train collision in Wenzhou, the Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper ran an editorial on its front page yesterday calling for more vigilance on the issue of “production safety.” The editorial said that while development must be a priority for China, “we do not want a GDP that comes with blood.”
The editorial raised some eyebrows both inside and outside China, but it should be remarked that the editorial does not mark a major departure. With the exception of the phrasing about “bloody GDP,” the piece offers little in the way of original ideas or approaches.


[ABOVE: The front-page editorial on “bloody GDP” in yesterday’s edition of the People’s Daily, at right, just above the photograph of China’s new (recycled) aircraft carrier.]
The piece turns the finger of blame on “various local governments, agencies and companies” and says that “responsibility has not been implemented.” But responsibility is not, in the first place, something that can be “implemented.” It has to be enforced through meaningful reforms that allow for accountability. And whatever the political tensions behind the Party curtain, the central leadership remains culpable for not pushing harder on the essential issue of political reform.
I’ve had my say on this issue here. And on that note, I’ll turn to our partial translation of the People’s Daily editorial.

In Seeking Development, Safety Must Be Put First
People’s Daily
July 28, 2011
Up to now, 39 people have already died in the major “July 23” railway disaster in Wenzhou. These painful facts once again send a warning to us: nothing is more paramount than human life, and we cannot relax for one moment in seeking safety in production (安全生产).
China must develop, but we do not want a GDP that comes with blood. Let us mobilize all forces in society, resolutely pushing for victory in the war for safety in production, working hard to realize scientific development and safe development.
Safe production is an asset that concerns the lives of the people, that concerns the overall picture of reform, development and stability, that concerns the image and prestige of the Party and government. Prioritizing safe production is something that cannot be overemphasized. Grasping safe production is something we cannot neglect at any time.
In the recent period, a number of local areas have suffered a string of coal mine accidents and accidents at other non-coal mines, [major] traffic accidents, collapses of buildings and bridges, resulting in substantial loss of life and property for the people and at the same time exposing a weak consciousness of production safety among certain local governments, agencies and companies. Responsibility for safety has not been implemented, supervision and control have been inadequate, and there are still many gaps in systems and management. The lessons to be drawn are profound.
We must recognize clearly that the ultimate goal in seeking construction and development is to allow people to live good lives. Development is the overriding priority, but in seeking development we cannot fail to calculate the costs. Even less can we allow this [principle] to be twisted by a few into the idea that anything and everything can be set aside for the sake of development. In the process of development, we must secure the concepts of science, safety and sustainability, putting the safety of people in the first position; We must adhere to [the principle of] people first (以人为本), managing the relationship between speed, quality and efficiency well. We cannot superficially seek speed alone, “pursuing money but not seeking life”; We must resolutely establish the principle of “life above all else” through the entire process of production, business and management, holding the red line of production safety.

Bloody GDP

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Dictionary.

A disastrous high-speed train collision in the city of Wenzhou on July 23, 2011, which killed at least 39 people and injured more than 200 others, capped with tragedy two weeks of rising doubts in China about the safety of the country’s high-speed rail network. In the wake of the tragedy, as the government tried to keep public doubts from gathering speed. The Central Propaganda Department told media across the country to avoid hard questions and focus instead on “stories that are extremely moving, like people donating blood and taxi drivers refusing to accept fares.”
But anger swelled and million of Chinese vented their frustrations, asked hard questions and shared information through social media like Sina Weibo. Many Chinese media disregarded propaganda directives, doing harder-hitting coverage of the disaster. One repeated theme was whether safety concerns were recklessly overlooked as Chinese leaders sought quick results and high speeds. Finally, on July 28, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabo visited the scene of the July 23 collision and pledged to “punish those responsible.” An editorial on the front page of the Party’s official People’s Daily the same day said that “China wanted development, but did not want “bloody GDP”, or dai xie de GDP (带血的GDP). The editorial called for new and urgent measures and new laws and regulations to ensure greater safety across the country.

Speed Over Safety

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.


A disastrous high-speed train collision in the city of Wenzhou on July 23, which killed at least 39 people, capped with tragedy two weeks of rising doubts in China about the safety of the country’s high-speed rail network. Since the tragedy, many Chinese have asked whether safety was concerns were recklessly overlooked as Chinese leaders sought quick results and high speeds. In this cartoon, posted by artist Fan Jianping (范建平) on his blog at QQ.com, a high-speed train reaches the red-hot speed of 300 km/hr and flies through mid-air.

Images on social media chronicle days of disaster

Written by David Bandurski on . Posted in Headlines and Hashtags.


[ABOVE: This slideshow created by a Sina Weibo user shows press photos, including of 2-year-old survivor Yiyi and furious relative Yang Feng (杨峰), whose story is several photos down.]

[ABOVE: A slideshow of grief created by a Sina Weibo user.]

[ABOVE: Luggage recovered from the wreckage waits to be claimed.]

[ABOVE: A picture of page A29 in today’s The Beijing News contrasted with another headline in the paper. The headline circled at the top reads: “Look carefully, these are miracles.” Related coverage is of Uruguay’s victory in the Copa America. The headline circled at bottom reads: “Ministry of Railways: Discovery of Life After the Rescue Ended Was a Miracle.”]

[ABOVE: This photo collage contrasts US President Barack Obama visiting the memorial to 911 victims in 2009 (without umbrella) to a Wenzhou official visiting the train crash site (with an umbrella and an aide standing by with fresh water.]

[ABOVE: Yang Feng (杨峰), a relative of five victims of the train crash on July 23, appears in mourning garb and vents his anger before security and reporters at the temporary shelter in Wenzhou. He says he arrived at the crash site at 2am on July 24, hours after the crash, and was told that rescue efforts had been ceased. “They said there were no miracles of life.” But the bodies of his wife and mother-in-law were not located until the afternoon of July 24.]

[ABOVE: Shao Yerong (邵曳戎), head of the Special Weapons And Tactics division of the Wenzhou Public Security Bureau, who some say disregarded an order from superiors and continued the search and rescue, resulting in the discovery of a young girl survivor.]

[ABOVE: A mock film poster for a film called, “The Panicked Train Crew” (《惊魂动车组》), featuring some of the key players in the unfolding political drama since the July 23 crash. At center is Sheng Guangzu (盛光祖), China’s minister of railways. At left is the now-ousted Shanghai railway minister, Long Jing (龙京). At right is Ministry of Railways Spokesman Wang Yongping (王永平). The top of the poster reads, with bitter humor: “After the Founding of the Republic and The Beginning of the Great Revival, another epic film to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party!”]

[ABOVE: A photo of Ministry of Railways Spokesman Wang Yongping (王永平) smiling during a press conference following the disaster as he says, “Hold on, just ask your questions one at a time.” A microblogger writes: “Oh great official, you have a right to show your enchanting smile, but please don’t do so at this time!”]

[ABOVE: Screenshot of CCTV2 news anchor weeping as she expresses the hope that the railway ministry will earnestly reflect on its institutional problems and address four questions: 1. How was this accident again caused by lightning? 2. How did the train behind not know about the train ahead? 3. Did you stop the rescue effort to focus on getting the trains running? 4. Why has a list of victims not been made public?]

[ABOVE: Cover of Hong Kong’s Dongfang Daily posted by mainland microblog user. The headline reads: “Incompetent Rescue Effort, A Whole Nation Furious.”]

[ABOVE: Investigative reporter Zhao Shilong (赵世龙) posted this image of Zhang Shuguang (张曙光), the former deputy chief engineer of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Rail, and wrote: “Do you really suppose that that 2.8 billion US dollars collected by Zhang Shuguang just happened casually? In the train crash, the safety control system involves the corruption project led by Zhang. This is just just the tip of the iceberg of a whole series of corrupt projects linked to [now jailed former] railway minister Liu Zhijun (刘志军)!”]

ABOUT US

CONTACT US

FOLLOW US (X)

COOKIE & PRIVACY POLICY

LINGUA SINICA NEWSLETTER