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).

A few more facts about China's "fake news" purge

By Qian Gang — Four publications in China are now being purged for supposed violations of propaganda discipline. As Xinhua News Agency reported on November 24: “In 2006, Shanghai Securities News ran a fake news report about the concentration of China’s wealth in the hands of a few super-wealthy sons and daughters of businesspeople and senior officials. In 2009, Time Weekly, CPPCC News and Youth Times continued to use this false information, seriously misleading readers and having a negative social impact.”
The Xinhua release said that “government offices of press and publications” were now dealing severely with these four media “in accordance with the law.”
The reports in question were branded as “false” on the basis of two sentences in particular.
The first was this one: “According to information in a joint research report by the Research Office of the State Council, the Research Office of the Central Party School, the Research Office of the Central Propaganda Department, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and other government offices, as of the end of March 2006 27,310 people [in China] had assets in excess of 50 million yuan, and 3,220 people had assets in excess of 100 million yuan. Among those with assets in excess of 100 million yuan, 2,932 were the sons and daughters of senior officials. They accounted for 91 percent of those with assets over 100 million, with assets totaling 2.04 trillion yuan.”
And the second: “A report by government authorities in China reveals that .4 percent of the population hold 70 percent of wealth, with concentration of wealth even higher than in the United States.”
The concentration of wealth in China has long been an issue that has concerned ordinary citizens. According to government authorities that have yet to be specified, these four media issued fake news reports. But what exactly is the truth here?
The whole affair started with a June 19 report by CPPCC News called “Adjusting income distribution is not about fighting the rich and relieving the poor“ (调整收入分配格局不是“杀富济贫”). [Link to article at Sohu.com].
“As richest lists continue to come out, the level of ‘wealth concentration’ in China is something that has received urgent attention from members and standing committee members at discussion forums held during the sixth standing committee meeting of the 11th CPPCC,” the report said. It quoted CPPCC member Cai Jiming (蔡继明) as saying at the forum: “A report from government authorities reveals that 0.4 percent of [China’s] population holds 70 percent of [China’s] wealth, and that concentration of wealth [in China] is higher than in the United States.”
In fact, CPPCC News was only reporting on a speech by a CPPCC member.
In a subsequent interview with People’s Daily Online, the website of the official party newspaper, Cai did not deny saying that “70 percent of [China’s] wealth was held by 0.4 percent of its population.” He did say in correction, however, that these figures were from “a research organization overseas” and that “he never said they were from Chinese government authorities.”
We can see clearly from this back and forth that the CPPCC News did not falsify its report. It should go without saying that the media’s responsibility is to report accurately what is said at such forums, even if the statements made by public figures at them are inaccurate. In any case, the newspaper accurately reported Cai’s views on the concentration of wealth in China. It is possible they misunderstood the source of his figures, but that in itself should not be regarded as a serious problem.
On June 25, Time Weekly, a magazine belonging to the Guangdong Provincial Publishing Group ran a report called, “The dangers of a growing rich-poor gap.” The report began with the Cai Jiming quote from the sixth meeting of the CPPCC, and made its own analysis on the basis of the numbers given in the first sentence quoted at the top of this article – about the “joint research report” by Chinese government offices. The Time Weekly report was subsequently re-run by Youth Times.
According to a search conducted by People’s Daily Online, the language about 91 percent of those with assets of over 100 million yuan being the sons and daughters of senior officials first appeared on an overseas website and never came from “a joint research report by the Research Office of the State Council, the Research Office of the Central Party School . . . and other government offices.”
The first use of the figures in mainland China was apparently on October 20, 2006, by Shanghai Securities News (上海证券报). The article was called, “Frank words: looking behind the numbers that have chilled people’s hearts”(盛世危言:一组组令人心惊的数字背后).
The recent report from China’s official Xinhua News Agency announcing the disciplinary actions against the four newspapers said that “some of the numbers used in the Shanghai Securities News article were manufactured by anti-China websites overseas.” The irony here is that Shanghai Securities News is published by Xinhua News Agency, and the newspaper’s report citing the numbers in question was, until scrubbed from the Web recently, carried on the agency’s official website.
There are a lot of important questions to ask here. First of all, why did government authorities make no effort to deny this “fake report” since it first appeared three years ago? Second, it is quite clear that Xinhua News Agency was one of the most important original sources of these “rumors.” So why is Xinhua not being penalized? In fact, why is Xinhua not being pinpointed and penalized as the most authoritative source of this information?
Yet another oddity in this case is the fact that the Xinhua News Agency release does not state explicitly that the disciplinary action comes from the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP). The release says only that “office(s) of press and publishing (新闻出版部门) have severely criticized these four publications for printing fake news,” and have issued warnings and ordered that involved persons be dealt with. GAPP’s official website bears no notice whatsoever, other than the same Xinhua News Agency release.
One portion of the Xinhua release reads: “China’s General Administration of Press and Publications said that truth is the life essence of journalism, and the publication or re-publication by these four media of fake news not only had unfavorable social consequences but also damaged the credibility of the news media and harmed the image of journalists.”
Ultimately, it is the government that bears responsibility for providing reliable information about “wealth concentration” and other issues the public cares deeply about. That the gap between rich and poor is widening in China is a fact that cannot be refuted.
On July 23, as Cai Jiming spoke with Deutsche Welle, he made clear that he was not the source of information about how “91 percent of those in China with wealth exceeding 100 million yuan are the sons and daughters of senior officials.” But he said at the same time that he did not believe the specific figures were so pertinent:

Whether it’s 91 percent or 50 percent is just a matter of scale. I don’t care a great deal about the specific numbers. As I see it, even if by the most conservative estimates, 10 percent of [people with assets over 100 million] are the sons and daughters of senior officials, this is still a number that the public cannot accept.

In China today, it is the government and not the news media that is most severely lacking in credibility. If leaders hope to refute this supposed fallacy about the wealth of the sons and daughters of senior leaders, the most effective means would be to release complete information about the assets of public officials and their family members.
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 30, 2009, 3:04pm HK]

Obama in China: an information war behind the scenes

By Ying Chan — President Obama’s town hall meeting with students in Shanghai was a highlight of his China trip. But more telling was the information war waged by the U.S. and the Chinese behind the scenes. Both sides tried to score points but both failed to win. In the end, it was technology that scored a small victory, offering a glimmer of hope for media openness in China.
The first salvo of the war was launched by the U.S. side on the eve of Obama’s arrival, when the US embassy invited a dozen noted bloggers from around China for a briefing about the visit. The unprecedented move immediately heightened vigilance on the Chinese side.

white house blog

[ABOVE: Screenshot from The White House Blog discussing Obama’s “town hall” with Chinese students in Shanghai.]

Then there was the bargain over the town hall meeting that the Obama team had wanted so badly. Negotiations over details of the meeting continued, down to the last hour. The U.S. team pushed for live television broadcast that would carry Obama’s face and words into the homes of the 1.3 billion people in China, where 97 percent of homes have TV. The Chinese side would not budge and decided that the meeting would be carried by Shanghai television to be aired in the city only. Xinhua.net, the online arm of China’s state news agency, would also “broadcast the meeting live.” That was the limit of how far the Chinese would go.
The Americans were not about to give up. They turned to the Internet which was then becoming a weapon in the media war. The White House hired ConnectSolutions, a California-based company, to stream live the Shanghai meeting on its own website. The CoNx team also unveiled a chat room, calling on all Chinese to submit questions for Obama on the occasion of his China visit. [Link to White House Live page.]
In the chat room, the anger over the censorship of the Internet in China was palpable. CoNx reported that “over 75 percent of the roughly 7,000 Chinese who submitted questions in the chat room cited internet censorship as their greatest concern.” Some compared the “Great Firewall of China” with the Berlin Wall, citing the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Wall. One of the questions submitted later became the famous Twitter question that reverberated from Shanghai to the United States.
Not be outdone, Xinhua started soliciting questions and received several thousand questions by the closing of the poll. Not one question asked about Internet censorship, according to Xinhua.
Amidst the wrangling, the meeting went forward. But unlike previous visits by former presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, the meeting was not held on university campuses where presidential visits would attract crowds and gawkers. Instead, it was held at the Shanghai Museum of Science and Technology, located in Pudong, opposite Shanghai’s city center across the river. Students from eight universities were bused in. The area around the museum was cordoned off from the public. The museum itself was closed to visitors for two days ahead of the Presidential visit.
Further disappointments followed. As the town hall meeting started rolling, no video streaming showed up at Xinhua.net, only transcripts. Savvy Internet users had to turn to the White House website, where high definition video was served. In Beijing, the U.S. officials hosted viewing meetings for students and guests. “Many thousands more young (and not so young) people throughout China attended the event virtually in classrooms, coffee houses, living rooms, and at ‘watch parties’ organized by the U.S. Embassy and Consulates,” according to The White House Blog.
Meanwhile, the dueling continued inside the meeting hall. As the students were asking mostly soft questions, the Obama team advanced in an attempt to crack the Chinese information blockade. At Obama’s invitation, U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman fielded the President the now famous question on Internet freedom “on behalf of Chinese netizens.” With the easy serve, Obama got the opportunity to deliver a mini-lecture on the need for openness on the Internet. The maneuver broke through the Chinese defense line and became headlines for the Western media that next day. The answer also helped Obama address his liberal constituency back home who has been egging him on to play tough with China on human rights issues.
Even though Xinhua made claims of broadcasting the event in a “global exclusive,” CNN, Bloomberg and many other non-Chinese television stations managed to air the event live, using pool feeds from the Associated Press. Bloomberg did a decent job with a live cablecast. CNN was disappointing. Instead of letting Obama talk, Ed Henry, CNN’s White House correspondent who was traveling with the president, interjected often with his own remarks on camera. The worst came when CNN cut away to Henry when Obama addressed the Internet issue, his proudest moment of the show. On the Internet, angry bloggers threw curses and profanities.
In the meeting’s aftermath, the White House bragged that the town hall event was an “historic” public dialogue. That was true in a perverse way. Among all previous U.S. presidents’ meeting with Chinese students, the Obama one was the most controlled and managed. From the encounter, a few lessons could be learned.
First, Chinese authorities can maintain a high level of control using traditional means. Every aspect of the town hall meeting was scripted and managed, from choice of the meeting venue, the drilling of participants, to the questions asked.
Secondly, in spite of the tight control, cracks are showing. As a foreign government, the U.S. showed how it could challenge Chinese control of the Internet by serving as an information distributor. For the first time, the White House collected Chinese public opinion on Chinese soil and distributed information, in text and video form, throughout China.
Thirdly: China’s vibrant community of bloggers is challenging the government’s highhandedness. Twitter was blocked in China, but bloggers were sharing information online about the Obama visit, and tweeting real time throughout the town hall meeting. Challenge to the Internet censorship will grow.
Finally, the hundreds of Shanghai students at the town hall meeting were the biggest losers. They were ridiculed for lack of energy, poor English and asking softball questions to pander to Obama. “They talked according to formulae, first greeting or paying respect (to Obama), followed by self-introduction and then the question” said a blogger. But it was not the students’ fault that they were treated as stage sets. Adults have to take the blame for programming the young minds.
But there’s a glimmer of hope, the ubiquitous Internet has rendered society more transparent and all government must become more transparent. There is no turning back.
FURTHER READING:
Obama Wades Into Internet Censorship in China Address,” By Helene Cooper and David Barboza, The New York Times, November 17, 2009
Barack Obama Meets Shanghai Students in China,” By Tania Branigan, The Guardian, November 16, 2009
Chinese students, netizens and shops welcome Obama to Shanghai,” By Jean Yung, LA Times, November 15, 2009

In Hebei, another sign of rising violence against journalists

By David Bandurski — Today, just over one week after Guangdong’s Southern Weekend published the results of an independent report by activist lawyer Zhou Ze (周泽) on rising violence against journalists in China, news comes of the vicious beating of a senior editor in the northern province of Hebei.
Le Qian (乐倩), deputy editor-in-chief of Hebei Youth Daily and a former editor at Beijing Youth Daily, was reportedly waiting for the elevator at her apartment complex in Shijiazhuang Saturday night when an unknown male assailed her from behind with a brick.

huaxi dushibao surgery

[ABOVE: Screenshot of coverage at Sichuan’s Huaxi Metropolis Daily of an attack on Hebei Youth Daily deputy editor-in-chief Le Qian. Photo is of Le receiving treatment in a Shijiazhuang hospital.]

Le, who is now in the hospital recovering, told reporters from her own newspaper that her assailant said, “This is for your report!” again and again as he struck her head and face. She believes the attack was in response to watchdog journalism (舆论监督) carried out by the paper.
Hebei Youth Daily also reported today that it received a threatening phone call on November 7, in which a woman said higher-ups at the paper would be held to account for an investigative report it had done.
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 23, 2009, 1:39pm HK]

How should we face Hu Shuli's departure from Caijing?

By Qian Gang — For more than a month now, rumors have flown back and forth about the problems facing Caijing magazine and its editor-in-chief, Hu Shuli (胡舒立), a former CMP fellow. Hu formally announced her resignation earlier this week. She will take up a position as head of the School of Communication and Design at Guangzhou’s Sun Yat-Sen University, and also work on her options for the launching of a new publication.
Caijing has long stood out as one of China’s finest professional publications, and troubles there have drawn attention from many quarters.
As could perhaps be expected, media outside China have leapt directly to speculation about the political factors behind Caijing‘s troubles. Some have positioned this as yet another story about a media crackdown in China.
But things are not so simple.
Anyone who has observed the ups and downs of Chinese media over the past decade will recognize that Caijing‘s troubles are very different in nature from explicit official moves in the past against such publications as Southern Weekend, Southern Metropolis Daily, and Freezing Point.
Based on what we know thus far, the Caijing affair arose primarily out of a row over ownership and interests between the editorial team led by Hu Shuli and the magazine’s bosses at the HK-listed SEEC Media, led by Wang Boming.
Beyond that, we are far from knowing the full story behind the upheaval at Caijing. But we can safely suppose – this is China, after all – that the story is a complicated knot of factors. It is about politics, yes. But it is also about profit, about dollars and cents. And further, it is about varying visions of how media reform in China should proceed.
For many Chinese journalists, this turn in Caijing‘s saga is cause for great emotion and agitation.
One observer wrote of the danger that the professional ideal and spirit in the media might “vanish into thin air.” China.com.cn, a website operated by the State Council Information Office, ran a special feature page about the story and tagged on a major headline that read: “Caijing is already without Hu Shuli.”



hu on China.com.cn

[ABOVE: Special page at China.com.cn aggregates content on Hu Shuli and Caijing.]

It is important to note that Hu Shuli’s departure from Caijing is not just a topic of conversation, but a topic of coverage too. The major points emerging from these discussions and comments are that people in China’s media industry generally have immense respect for Hu Shuli and what she represents, and that they are, at the same time, very concerned about the fate of journalism in China.
“To say people are deeply concerned about Hu Shuli prospects and those of Caijing is not so to the point as to say they are worried about whether [Chinese media] will make it through this thorny stretch of the path,” wrote blogger Chen Jibing (陈季冰), a former editor at Shanghai’s Oriental Daily.
By “thorny stretch of the path” Chen was referring, of course, to the present climate facing Chinese media and professional journalism in China – and this characterization is certainly more than fair.
Hu Shuli and Caijing traveled along this “thorny path” together for 11 years. As an editor, she held fiercely to the ideals of freedom of the press and journalistic professionalism.
From the earliest stages of Caijing‘s launch, she was crystal clear and steadfast about the need to produce independent news and conform with international journalism practices. She used the words “independent, exclusive and original” (独立、独家、独到) to encompass the magazine’s editorial goals.
Hu Shuli was fond of drawing analogies between the needs of the market and the importance of professional media. “Nothing can override the principles of ‘openness, fairness and equitability’ in the market,” she would say. “And of these three, openness has the first place. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to criticize offer the only guarantee of openness.”
Upholding these ideals, Caijing engaged in serious investigative reporting. The magazine courageously exposed corruption, challenged power and parsed the existing economic and political environment, becoming in the process one of China’s most trusted media.
News reports about the upheaval at Caijing, whether from party media or commercial media, have uniformly expressed enormous respect for Hu Shuli.
An article in the official Changjiang Daily (长江日报), “Ten Years of Hu Shuli’s Leadership at Caijing Re-defined the Image of Chinese Media,” spoke of the powerful example Hu’s magazine had set for the rest of China’s media.

With Hu Shuli’s departure, Caijing has no choice but to face “life after Hu Shuli.” Hu Shuli’s next step is a matter for her alone to decide, but the professional character and quality evinced by Caijing under her leadership over the past ten years, the intelligence and courage . . . should become resources from which all Chinese media draw lessons.

This article was also re-posted at People’s Daily Online.
For all the reasons cited in the Changjiang Daily editorial, Hu Shuli can be seen as a representative and role model for media reform in China.
Over the past 30 years, Chinese media have limped, slowly if not surely, toward the marketplace, and from a culture of overbearing control to one of greater diversity and openness. In this process, different media have chosen different paths.
Some media have fought bravely for freedom but had less success in the marketplace. Others have successfully entered the marketplace but remained narrow commercial ventures, interested only in leveraging political power for profit. Caijing was a rare example of a publication that had managed to achieve success in the marketplace while upholding its own ideal of independence.
Caijing’s market success was quite formidable, in fact. The magazine reportedly earned more than 60 million yuan in 2008. And Caijing Online, a separate business venture, was shaping up as a pioneering effort to combine the strengths of new and traditional media.
Most important of all, Caijing never restricted itself to a narrow field of financial reporting. It operated editorially with a larger sense of social responsibility, and it keenly observed public policy issues.
Hu Shuli has been a visiting fellow at the China Media Project, and a regular visitor to the Journalism & Media Studies Centre here at the University of Hong Kong.
In March last year Hu delivered a public lecture here in which, in retrospect, she glimpsed the events that would shake Caijing this year. “Whether it’s Caijing or Caijing Online, or Chinese media as a whole, all now face enormous challenges,” she told the audience. “These challenges arise from government controls and from commercial interests. There are a whole range of core problems and issues involved here. I have no doubt that independent media will be one of the most hopeful forces of China’s future. For now, however, media can only face the present.”
Hu Shuli and much of her editorial team have now left Caijing. Naturally, this has brought a fierce round of speculation. What will become of Hu Shuli without Caijing? What will become of Caijing without Hu Shuli?
That this lovely pair has been separated is certainly cause for remorse. But as for anxiety, I think people should be more in suspense about the fate of Caijing without Hu Shuli. We can look forward with confidence and anticipation to Hu Shuli without Caijing.
We hear that in the final days, Hu Shuli’s editorial team at Caijing kept their cool and went about their business producing the best issue they possibly could. Their coolness and precision are a reflection of confidence and ability, of their high level of professionalism.
We should not regard this as yet another “violent sacrifice” (壮烈牺牲), or necessarily as a solemn goodbye.
This marks a new chapter in the saga of change in China’s media. As we raise our heads, we see that “thorny stretch of path.” But I am confident that if we push on ahead, our feet will find the open road.
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 13, 2009, 1:54pm HK]

Is China's new communications worldview coming of age?

By David Bandurski — In China, the term “soft power” (软实力), coined by political scientist Joseph Nye in the late 1980s, took some time to gain traction. But since emerging in official party newspapers in late 2001, the idea — and the project — of “soft power” has become something of an obsession. This is true not only in the field of international relations but in the arena of journalism and mass communications as well.
The first use of “soft power” in China’s official party media came on November 15, 2001, in Guangming Daily, a newspaper published by the Central Propaganda Department.
The article in question celebrated China’s successful bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games, and concluded:

In sum, the true nature of the “humanistic Olympics” [a term China used during its bid] is, while emphasizing the “hard power” of our country, to place a stronger emphasis on improving and raising our nation’s “soft power” . . .

Since that early use of “soft power” the term has had a much more prominent place in mainland news coverage. Here are what the numbers looked like through the end of last year:



soft power in the papers

[ABOVE: Appearance by article of the term “soft power” in mainland print publications 1998-2008. Source: WiseNews.]

“Soft power” development now seems to be an area of particular interest for communications scholars in China. As well it should be. China’s leaders are now talking seriously about the need to raise the voice of Chinese news media internationally as part of a kind of centralized “soft power” strategy.
They are staking big money on this strategy as well (a boon possibly for strategic thinkers from China’s journalism schools), all of it focused on central party media that can be trusted to mind their propaganda P’s and Q’s. “China’s voice,” after all, is a matter of strategic national importance. And China’s only legitimate voice, from the standpoint of the CCP, is the party’s.
When China’s top propaganda leader, politburo member Li Changchun (李长春), delivered a speech on the occasion of Journalist’s Day on November 8, he placed heavy emphasis on the need for news media to “coordinate overall national interests on both the domestic and international fronts” (统筹国内国际两个大局).
This signaled the further maturation of the party’s new thinking on its media policy for the era of digital global communications, for what we have called Control 2.0.
Gone is the old way of thinking strategically about communications and their control, in which the domestic and international spheres could be conveniently compartmentalized. In the era of globalized communications, the “external,” or duiwai (对外) has a potentially profound effect on the “internal,” or duinei (对内).
The CCP’s old information worldview might have looked something like this:

old communications world view




It might now look something more like this . . .
new information world view

. . . in which China’s internal communications concerns — so crucial to its concerns about stability and national security — are inextricably linked with its external communications concerns and strategies.
As Zheng Baowei (郑保卫), a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Renmin University of China and director of the university’s Research Center of Journalism and Social Development, argues in a recent piece of official scholarship published in CCP media journal China Journalist:

Experience shows that now the relationship between externally directed and internally directed communications, domestic and international communications, are reciprocal and mutually influential in nature. We truly have a situation in which “I am in you, and you are in me” (你中有我,我中有你), in which domestic problems can very easily bring an international reaction, and international problems can very easily have an effect domestically . . .

Professor Zheng also writes about a “butterfly effect” (蝴蝶效应) in global communications and public opinion, in which “the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in the Atlantic can potentially create a seismic wave in the Pacific.”
The news and communications aspect of China’s global “soft power” push is an important strategic attempt to grapple with the domestic and international challenges emerging in the age of globalized information.
China’s media “soft power” is emerging, of course, as a centralized strategy underpinned by hard media controls at home, by the monopolization and manipulation of information.
Nye talks about “soft power” as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion and payment.” The CCP’s vision of “soft power” looks rather more like “attractive coercion.”
This is visible in Zheng’s definition of “soft power” as “[a nation’s] news transmission capacity, cultural influence and capacity to channel public opinion” (“以信息传播力、文化影响力和舆论引导力为主的’软实力'”]. The focus here is on the CCP’s “discourse power” internationally, which is of course reinforced by its domestic monopolization of media and culture.
Strategic media and communications thinkers in China understand Nye’s notion of attraction in authoritarian terms, and their primary concern is with how to make news/propaganda that serves the CCP’s objectives more attractive to global audiences.
It is about marketing and re-packaging propaganda.
This is of course why, in Zheng’s (and other’s) formulation, concepts like “objectivity” and factual reporting must work as tools serving the higher goal of fashioning a more favorable image of China overseas.
Take, for example, this darkly humorous passage on the need to report objectively and “speak the truth through facts”:

By “speaking through facts” one can . . make the audience willingly submit to and accept the ideas and opinions conveyed by the disseminator.
Journalists must learn to objectively, reliably and simply convey the facts they have seen and then imbed within these objective accounts the point they wish to explain, in order that when the audience receives the facts reported by the journalist they unknowingly accept various standpoints and viewpoints contained therein. This is the ideal to which news and communications must aspire, and it is one of the most important arts and techniques a news journalist must grasp.

China’s journalists should aspire, in other words, to think professionally and commercially about their role as propagandists.
Anyhow, it should also be pointed out that Zheng is a State Council expert under special government allowance. He is one of a number of communications scholars helping the CCP sharpen its thinking on its global information strategy. [More on the research objectives of his center here].
A more or less full translation of Zheng’s article in China Journalist follows:

Enhancing soft power, using ‘smart power’ to effect: thoughts on our country’s present strategy for external news transmission
China Journalist
By Zheng Baowei (郑保卫)
October 30, 2009
1. “Soft power,” “smart power” and news [or journalism] and communications
The concept of “soft power” comes from Joseph Nye, an American professor from Harvard University. He separates a country’s comprehensive national strength into “hard power” and “soft power.”
“Hard power” refers to the material conditions of a nation’s strength, including its military might, the strength of its economy and its technological prowess.
“Soft power” points to a nation’s influence in the areas of culture and ideology, including its capacity to transmit ideas and information (信息传播力), the influence of its culture, its capacity to channel [global] public opinion, and the level and capabilities it shows in its participation in international institutions.
The state and condition of a nation’s “soft power” decides and influences that country’s comprehensive strength [internationally] and has an important bearing on its existence and development.
In the news and communications sphere, the key to “soft power” competition lies in enhancing the information propagation force (信息传播力) and public opinion channeling capacity of news media, and through this means expanding the influence of news media themselves, ultimately reaching the objective of increasing the nation’s soft power.
The information propagation and public opinion channeling functions of the news media make them important methods and tools for increasing a nations “soft power.”
By reporting and commenting on the news, news media exert influence on the public and channel public opinion, which creates cohesiveness among the people, brings resolution and unity, joins forces for the building of the nation, and through these means manifests the strength and value of “soft power.”
Another concept from Joseph Nye is that of smart power. He says that a combination of soft power and hard power forms a national strategy called “smart power.” At America’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center called the Smart Power Commission has been established for the purpose of promoting the use of “smart power” in foreign policy planning in order to preserve America’s international image.
When Hilary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, she moved quickly to employ this concept [of “smart power”] in the foreign policy arena. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as she talked about the new foreign policy thinking and direction of the Obama administration, she said that America must make effective use of “smart power” in order to strengthen its foreign relations. This “smart power” encompassed foreign relations, economic, military, political, legal, cultural and other methods. She emphasized that “smart power” must be used as a bolster and support, and that foreign relations (and not military might) would be the centerpiece of American foreign policy in the future. This means that America sees “smart power” as the guiding force of its policies overseas in the future.
According to Joseph Nye, “smart power” should be separate from the “hard power” embodied in military, economic and technological strength. And it should be separate from the “soft power” embodied in [a nation’s] news transmission capacity, cultural influence and capacity to channel public opinion. It is a special sort of power resulting from the intertwining of “soft power” and “hard power.” [NOTE: In this passage Zhang defines “soft power” in uniquely Chinese terms, as: “以信息传播力、文化影响力和舆论引导力为主的“软实力”]. In this sense, we can understand “smart power” as an aiding intelligence (借助智慧) and technique by which [a country], through various means, can effectively exhibit and expand its vested power (or hard power) and its influence (or soft power).
The key to determining whether a nation has “smart power” or not lies in whether or not it is able to use various means in order to perfectly exercise, demonstrate and develop the reserves of hard and soft power it has at its disposal.
“Smart power” is both a technique and a kind of ability and capacity. Experience shows that it is insufficient for a nation to have only “strength” (hard power) and “influence” (soft power). It must also be able to apply this strength and influence cleverly, adeptly, and at the right time and place. Only through the adept use of “smart power” can one best one’s opponents and achieve success.
“Using smart power adeptly” (善用巧实力) in the area of news and communications means being skilled at using the right knowledge and techniques, and demonstrating and voicing through the medium of news and information your nation’s strength and influence. This means, at the same time, showing and realizing the transmission capacity and public opinion channeling capacity of the news media themselves. [NOTE: The assumption in this last sentence seems to be that news media work as a function of the state, and making these media strong and influential should itself be a core national strategy.] 同时要发挥和体现出传媒自身的信息传播力和舆论引导力 . . .
The basic task of our nation’s news media as they are directed overseas (我国的对外新闻传播) is to allow the world understand China and to allow China’s voice to be conveyed to the world. In this process, the news media have the important mission of raising our nation’s soft power.
The news media can employ timely, accurate and comprehensive news reports that are at the same time vivid, visual and concrete to show the reform achievements, constructive accomplishments and history and culture of our country, as well as the thoughts and customs of our people — and through this means influence viewers overseas.
Aside from this, the news media can use our country’s efforts to achieve economic growth and cultural progress, its efforts to fight poverty, achieve sustainable growth, to create a harmonious society and to thoroughly build a well-off society — and they can use our country’s honest, friendly and responsible attitude toward the international community and its concern about world piece and development . . . to win the trust and approval of international society, creating a favorable national image of China and enhancing China’s international influence.
When the international community is in the midst of quarrel or conflict, particularly when there are dramatic changes in international affairs, the news media can use the means of news and public opinion to emit China’s voice, to make clear China’s position, point of view and value judgements, and as much as possible to earn approval for these points of view and opinions by international public opinion.
In recent years, as the international position of our nation has been raised and interaction with the outside world has grown, the world has paid much more attention to China. People of many nations wish to better understand China’s principles, viewpoints and policies concerning major international issues. They want to understand China’s major decisions and changes in the areas of politics, the economy, military affairs, foreign policy, technology and culture. They want to understand China’s vast territory, its ancient history and resplendent culture. They want to understand the lives, thoughts and customs of China’s rich and varied population. Taking this content is transmitting to overseas audiences in a timely, accurate and comprehensive manner is the important task of overseas directed news and information in our country.
2. Enhancing the soft power and smart power of our nation’s news media in overseas directed communications
It is the author’s view that in order to strengthen soft power and adeptly use smart power, the following strategies and methods must be adopted by our nation in the area of overseas directed news and information.
1. Coordination of our overall national interests on both the domestic and international fronts
Hu Jintao said in his speech during the visit to People’s Daily last year that: “Along with changes in the international situation, along with the steady expansion of our nation’s opening to the outside world, China is more and more intimately connected with the world. In order to accomplish the work of the party and the nation we must coordinate our overall national interests on both the domestic and international fronts (必须统筹国内国际两个大局). In running the newspapers [or media] our comrades must also coordinate our overall national interests on both the domestic and international fronts. I hope our comrades maintain solid footing at home as they turn to the world, steadily raising the quality and effectiveness of People’s Daily‘s international news reports.”
This [statement] arises out of a macro-strategic consideration for the coordination of our overall national interests on both the domestic and international fronts, and emphasizes that news work must also coordinate domestic and international aspects . . .
As new technologies have emerged of late, particularly the emergence of the internet and other new media, these have broken through the original temporal and spacial limitations of information exchange and cultural dialogue. They have also broken through the original regional barriers and political barriers on news, information and public opinion, causing news, information and public opinion to develop in the direction of globalization.
Any particular regional public opinion flashpoint can by means of new communication technologies be quickly conveyed to other regions in the world, which means the influence of public opinion has been internationalized (舆论影响的国际化). This is very much like the “butterfly effect” (蝴蝶效应) talked about in communications studies — the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in the Atlantic can potentially create a seismic wave in the Pacific.
Given such a situation, contact and interconnectedness between various nations economically, culturally and politically is growing closer by the day. The mutual influence and interpenetration of ideas and culture, ideologies and value systems has grown ever deeper. It has become easier and easier for people to become influenced by the cultural ideas and ideologies lurking behind news and information, and this has brought a diversification of the patterns of public opinion in society. Moreover, the public opinion environment in society has grown more complex. Therefore, from the standpoint of the nation, news and information and public opinion are no longer independent and unidirectional, but are rather, to some extent, whether directly or indirectly, influenced by external information and international public opinion.
In this sort of information environment and public opinion environment, the news media’s discourse power (话语权) in the area of externally directed news and information and its capacity to regulate public opinion (舆论调控能力) concern not just the information security (信息安全) of the nation but also have a profound impact on the national dignity and self-confidence of the domestic population.
This [state of affairs] demands that externally directed news and information is timely and effective in responding to various important information, public sentiments and public opinion both domestically and internationally, in an effort to channel them. As much as possible, [our state media] must seize the discourse power (掌握 … 话语权) for externally directed and international communications, expressing our nation’s voice in news reports on major international events.
Amidst these modern trends of political multipolarity, economic integration and the globalization of information and communications, our nation must strengthen links and exchanges with the rest of the world, obtaining the optimal external environment for the building of a favorable national image.
The requires that the news media in our country actively grab the discourse power in externally directed and international news and information, and that they be adept at employing the most superb news and communication techniques and arts of public opinion channeling (舆论引导艺术) in order to positively, actively and effectively (积极/主动/有效) influence international public opinion, preserving the national interest and raising national influence.
Experience shows that now the relationship between externally directed and internally directed communications, domestic and international communications, are reciprocal and mutually influential in nature. We truly have a situation in which “I am in you, and you are in me” (你中有我,我中有你), in which domestic problems can very easily bring an international reaction, and international problems can very easily have an effect domestically . . .
2. Grasping the mood and demands of overseas audiences
“People oriented” (以人为本) is a new government concept introduced at the 16th National Congress [in 2002], and its core idea is that all work must consider the “human” factor, that we must take the “human” as the starting point and center of all work.
In news work the objective of “people orientation” is about the need to be “audience oriented,” taking the interests and demands of the audience as the starting point and end goal. The most basic standard and demand testing the results of news and communications is whether the audience accepts it or not, welcomes it or not, is satisfied or not.
Externally directed news and communications must have a thorough respect for the audience’s psychology of reading and accepted habits. All news content selection must be grounded in the interests and demands of overseas audiences.
To this end, we must strengthen research into overseas audiences, seeking to truly understand what information they would like to know and how kind of help they wish to receive; what they like and don’t like; what they are interested in and not interested in. And relying on this [knowledge] we must organize news reports, providing various necessary services.
Owing to cultural gaps, and differences in ideology and value systems, as well as differences in media concepts and habits, overseas audiences will have special demands toward our news and communications. If we cannot transmit clearly oriented content according to the interests and demands of overseas audiences, then naturally we will be avoided and excluded by them and will find it difficult to achieve our goals and results in news communication.
Therefore, overseas directed news communication must thoroughly consider the interests and real demands of overseas audiences. We must be adept at using factual reports that are concrete, visual, animated and lively, and that overseas audiences can enjoy, in order to achieve our communication objectives. As much as possible, we need to provide in a truthful, comprehensive, timely and active manner the information they hope to obtain about various aspects of China, not binding ourselves hand and foot by artificially creating “forbidden zones.”
Experience shows that in the context of globalized information exchange and the internet, artificial blocks on the transmission of content and delays in news reporting serve only to place one in a defensive position.
3. Openness of information must be timely, thorough, transparent and effective
When major and/or sudden-breaking incidents occurred in China in the past, particularly incidents concerning sensitive internal issues, our nation’s news media would respond slowly and hesitantly, and during this process of vacillation would lose the active advantage. In some cases, in consideration of various concerns, we would resort to outright suppression [of the story], presenting the active advantage to others in information release and public opinion channeling. There have been numerous cases in point. [NOTE: The handling of unrest in Tibet in 2008 would here be seen as a classic case of what the author is referring to. And low and behold, the Tibet example follows right on below.]
In the case of the “March 14 Incident” in Lhasa [Tibet] last year, delays and lack of information transparency by our nation’s news media — [NOTE: As a result, naturally, of propaganda controls] — generated the passive posture that followed. In contrast, during this year’s “July 5 Incident” in Urumqi [Xinjiang] our nation’s news media issued reports within hours. The response was rapid, the reports timely, information transparent, and in this way we achieved the active advantage and won a favorable result.
Overseas directed communications must give special care to techniques and art. They must be adept at employing smart power. They must achieve “clever exercise of power.” [NOTE: Here, “clever exercise of power” (巧使力), is a synonym of “smart power” (巧实力)].
The overseas communication concept summed up by our country’s British ambassador, Fu Ying (傅莹), deserves consideration and reference. She sums it up as: “Speak early, speak a lot, and speak clearly” (早说话,多说话,说明白话). As a diplomat who has spent a lot of time overseas, and who has had direct contact with people overseas, Fu Ying is familiar with the public opinion environment in the West. The [communication] concept and method she lays out is the product of personal experience.
According to the author’s understanding, “speak early” means speaking at the first available moment after an event has occurred. It means speak at the beginning, at the point when people are anxious for information and to understand the situation. If at such a moment you clam up and keep silent, this suggests contempt for the public’s right to know and indicates a disregard for the effect speaking can have.
From the standpoint of news and communications, this so-called “speak early” is about “reporting early and timely reporting” . . .
So-called “speak a lot” points to the need to speak regularly, with initiative and repeatedly. You need to make people feel your sincerity and candidness, to understand that you are willing to have candid dialogue and interaction, and that you will not intentionally bury or avoid something.
In the context of news and communications, this “speak a lot” means “reporting a lot, and reporting thoroughly,” that through the whole process during which the news event is occurring and being handled, the news media issue regular reports following changes and developments, giving the audience a comprehensive understanding of the situation . . .
To “speak clearly” is about speaking accurately, directly and clearly, allowing people to understand what you are saying and your true thoughts so that ambiguities do not emerge.
In the context of news and communications, “speaking clearly” is about “reporting accurately and clearly,” making clear the sequence of events in a news story and paying attention to truth, accuracy and relevant background information . . .
For overseas audiences, bringing them to understand what you are saying requires also attention to the use of language they can understand in their own linguistic context and broadcast concepts and formulated opinions that are generally accepted. Only in this way can you ensure that they can understand your speech and listen to what you have to say.
Analyzing overseas audiences, we understand that the reasons are complicated as to why they harbor an attitude of rejection and exclusion toward Chinese news and communications, creating misunderstanding and estrangement. But some general reasons are as follows:
One kind of person is antagonistic, and this sort of person always has an interest in blackening China’s image and spreading the “China Threat Theory” and such things.
Another kind of person is arrogant, and this sort of person always harbors an unaccountable sense of racial superiority, believing that China cannot do good and refusing to acknowledge the progress China has made.
Another kind of person suffers from prejudice, and this sort of person does not believe China can possibly do so well, and doubts China’s development and progress.
Another kind of person is conventional [or adheres to limited concepts], and this sort of person, having been influenced by cultural traditions and communication concepts (such as those in Western countries who hold that “the worst tidings are the best news”), believes the news media should expose problems and should not speak words of praise and encouragement.
Most people are simply ignorant, the principal problem being that they don’t sufficiently understand China, and that there are gaps and inaccuracies in the information they are exposed to. In these people’s eyes China is still the China of the past — women with bound feet, people dressed in cheongsams, impoverished and ignorant.
The above-mentioned factors take their toll on the effect of our nation’s overseas directed communications, and they present us with an extremely serious issue — how can our overseas directed communications make it through and reach their mark?
Only by thoroughly meeting the demands of overseas audiences and providing information they can accept can our nation’s news media make them better see and understand China and remove misunderstandings about our country.
4. Being adept at using the facts to speak (善于用事实说话)
Based upon our past experiences, the most effective method in getting audiences to quickly accept news and communications and to achieve maximum effect is to be adept at using the facts to speak.
According to basic human psychology, people accept with general ease facts that are specific, lively and inherently convincing. They tend not to accept messages that are hard and preachy, empty or dicey, stiff or inflexible or slogan-like in nature. This is because they prefer to understand the facts and come to their own conclusions rather than listen to posturing and postulation.
“Facts achieve victory over eloquence” (事实胜于雄辩). In prevailing over audiences, and particularly over overseas audiences, the most convincing things are without a doubt those real objective facts. Therefore, when news media are carrying out overseas directed news and communications they must uphold the principle of “speaking through facts,” using specific, lively, visual and convincing examples and models to arouse and guide the audience.
By “speaking through facts” one can . . make the audience willingly submit to and accept the ideas and opinions conveyed by the disseminator.
Journalists must learn to objectively, reliably and simply convey the facts they have seen and then imbed within these objective accounts the point they wish to explain, in order that when the audience receives the facts reported by the journalist they unknowingly accept various standpoints and viewpoints contained therein. This is the ideal to which news and communications must aspire, and it is one of the most important arts and techniques a news journalist must grasp.

Zhao Qizheng (赵启正), head of the School of Journalism and Communication at Renmin University of China, former head of the Information Office of the State Council, former head of the external affairs committee of the CPPCC, and one of our nation’s best known communications experts, not only introduced that communication concept of “explaining China to the world” (向世界说明中国), but also much experience with “speaking through facts.”
When, for example, he delivered a talk during “Chinese culture week” in Paris on September 2, 1999, while summing up China’s changes over the past century, he used many fact and figures. He used facts and figures on China’s annual GDP growth of around 9.2 percent over 20 years to explain the major changes brought on by economic reforms in China. In introducing changes to the situation for women in China over the past century, he contrasted a photo of a foot-bound woman at the outset of the 20th century with a photo of China’s World Cup-winning women’s soccer team. These [facts] were visual, lively, impactful and convincing, and they were used to great effect.

[Posted by David Bandurski, November 12, 2009, 9:58am HK]

On Journalist's Day in China, two warning bells

By David Bandurski — Tensions between professional values and the party line have quietly marked every Chinese Journalist’s Day since the holiday was inaugurated on November 8, 2000. Nine years ago, the November 8 issue of Guangdong’s Southern Weekend argued boldly that journalists should show “social conscience” by exposing the truth. On the same day, however, propaganda leaders stressed that journalists must “be firm and unshakeable in carrying out the news theory and policy direction of the ruling party.”
This year, Journalist’s Day has come and gone with little cause for celebration among journalists in China who harbor professional ideals. The holiday was marked, in fact, by two distinct warning bells.
The first warning bell came as recent troubles at Caijing magazine culminated in the resignation of editor-in-chief Hu Shuli (胡舒立).
Hu’s departure marked the end of Caijing as one of China’s most outspoken and professional media outlets, and as a key destination and training ground for top journalists. It also underscored the way the professional spirit in Chinese media is now being squeezed more tightly than ever between the priorities of government censorship on the one hand and the prerogative of commercial profit on the other.
The second warning bell came in the form of a speech by politburo member Li Changchun (李长春) to mark Journalist’s Day, in which the ideological chief laid stronger emphasis on media control and avoided all pretense of caring about the public’s “right to know.”
In a sobering analysis of this year’s speech, Song Zhibiao (宋志标), a journalist who works at Southern Metropolis Daily‘s editorial page, noted important changes from Li Changchun’s 2008 speech. Song’s post was quickly expunged from mainland-based websites.

baidu search

[ABOVE: A search for Song Zhibiao’s analysis of Li Changchun’s Journalist’s Day speech through Baidu.com comes up with a warning saying results cannot be shown because they do not comply with laws and regulations.]

As in last year’s speech, Li gave top priority to “the principle of party spirit [in journalism]” (党性原则), the notion that news media must adhere to the party’s propaganda discipline and to “correct guidance of public opinion.”
But this reiteration of the priority of media control was complemented in this year’s speech by clear changes in official language concerning citizen’s rights and information.
Song notes that in Li Changchun’s 2008 speech the term “truth in the news” (新闻真实) made an appearance. This year, the term made a rapid exit.
Perhaps more worryingly, Hu Jintao’s so-called “four rights” — the right to know (知情权), right to participate (参与权), right to express (表达权) and right to monitor (监督权) — which appeared in the political report to the last Party Congress in 2007 and made Li’s speech last year, were dropped altogether this year from the main portion of Li’s speech dealing with priority work for the future. The language appears only in Li’s preamble, which outlines “valuable experiences” in media policy over the past 60 years.
These rather conspicuous absences seem to indicate that top leaders would rather not stake out a position on the ethic of neutrality (中立价值) for the news media, and intend to emphasize the news media’s fealty to the party over any interest, however tentative, in social rights.
Li Changchun’s speech on Sunday also placed a great deal of emphasis on the idea of “discourse power” (话语权) — the CCP’s “discourse power,” that is. This underscores in particular an interest in strengthening the party’s capacity to make its voice heard both domestically and internationally.
This is also an important reason why the term “public opinion channeling,” or yulun yindao (舆论引导), rises in the ranks of Li’s speech this year. This further drives home what we have been arguing here at CMP for months — that the party is reworking its media control system to allow traditional controls and active agenda-setting (“grabbing the megaphone“) to work hand-in-hand.
This change, which we have called Control 2.0, sees the priorities and tactics of propaganda as transcending national boundaries and requiring much more clever and aggressive techniques of persuasion. It can be glimpsed again in Li Changchun’s language this year about the need to “coordinate overall national interests on both the domestic and international fronts” (统筹国内国际两个大局).
In other words, China’s is taking its propaganda campaign global, and the success of domestic controls hinges on China’s success or failure on the international battlefield of public opinion.
More on that in tomorrow’s post, which deals with China’s unique vision of “soft power” as what one might call “attractive coercion” — in apt distortion, of course, of Joseph Nye’s formulation of “soft power” as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion and payment.”
Getting back to Li Changchun’s speech, though. Song Zhibiao sums up both the 2008 and 2009 speeches with the phrase, “Light on citizen’s rights, heavy on official power” (轻民权重官权).
But unlike last year, this year’s speech makes no effort whatsoever to conceal this fact. It is a bald pronouncement of the way things will be, and the way they should remain for some time to come.
“This is the news we receive on this Journalist’s Day,” Song concluded balefully. “We can avoid this holiday, but we cannot avoid attack from these principles that have been newly packaged and presented. This is the situation we in the press must face.”
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 10, 2009, 2:30pm HK]

More official thoughts on re-branding propaganda

By David Bandurski — We wrote recently at CMP about how Xinhua News Agency is leading the charge as Chinese media go global. And we argued that this global push can be seen both as a commercial venture and as the international dimension of what we have termed “Control 2.0,” the CCP’s effort to improve “channeling” of what it calls “global public opinion.”
Today we offer as part of our expanding dossier of translations on Hu Jintao’s re-working of media policy, or “Control 2.0,” a portion of a piece from the most recent issue of the official media journal China Journalist dealing with changes at provincial-level television stations in China.
The article is written by Ma Laishun (马来顺), vice-chairman at the official Hebei Television and head of the station’s News Center. It offers an informative look at how local television stations are responding to Hu Jintao’s mandate to achieve more effective “public opinion channeling” — that is, staying on top of news and issues with a mind to more effectively managing and influencing them in the topsy turvy new media age.
Since Hu Jintao’s important speech on media policy on June 20, 2008, “public opinion channeling,” or yulun jindao (舆论引导), has joined the ranks of top CCP news and propaganda buzzwords. It is now an important complement to “guidance of public opinion,” or yulun daoxiang (舆论导向), which encompasses the notion of media control and censorship as a core priority of the CCP.
“Public opinion channeling” seems to encompass an ambitious nationwide project to re-package and modernize propaganda. The piece below refers explicitly to “all-around packaging” and “branding” even as it emphasizes serving the interests of party superiors.
It is crucial to understand that this modernization project seeks to take the boring and the boilerplate out of propaganda, not the propaganda out of news. The emphasis on discipline and the party line is still there. But there is a recognition too that traditional media control tactics, while still crucial, are no longer as effective in the age of modern communications.
So to all of you phoning to ask whether the Internet has made a difference. Yes. Of course. But be careful how you understand that change.
Chinese media are changing. And so are controls.
Interestingly, the China Journalist piece also gives us a glimpse into how major Chinese media corporations, like Shanghai’s SMG Group and China Central Television, are supporting the media modernization drive at home.
Technology upgrades and personnel training to improve “public opinion channeling” are now evidently big business for big players like SMG and CCTV.

Employing Innovation to Raise the Level of Public Opinion Channeling in Television
By Ma Laishun (马来顺)
Innovation is the inexhaustible motivating force of news and propaganda work, and is most critical in constantly increasing our capacity for public opinion channeling.
1. The concept of innovation, breaking through intellectual bottlenecks that inhibit our ability to raise our capacity for public opinion channeling
Since the end of last year, the News Center of Hebei Television has engaged in a “grand discussion of thought liberation” concerning the topic of “raising capacity for channeling of news and public opinion,” the objective being to transition everyone [involved in news production and control] from a “passive style” (被动式) of traditional thinking about communication concepts to an “active mode” (主动型) of modern communication concepts.
One issue is moving from “by the book application of rules” (照本背书) to active transmission [of information]. On December 15, 2008, we had the first direct links across the straits [between mainland China and Taiwan]. According to established protocol, provincial-level television stations would not have done timely reporting for this sort of news story of national importance. We felt, however, that giving this story adequate attention benefited the strengthening of Hebei’s dialogue and cooperation [with Taiwan] in economic, cultural and other terms, that this case had extraordinary importance and value.
So on that day “Hebei Headline News” (河北新闻联播) [the official newscast of top provincial leaders] did its own prominent report on this story, all at once satisfying the demands of television viewers, reenforcing Hebei’s uniqueness and diving due attention at the provincial level to a story of national importance. The results were very satisfactory.
Second, we need to move from simple “defense of one’s territory” (守土) to more active channeling [of information on breaking local news stories].
Along with the rapid expansion of new communication technologies, the field of public opinion (社会舆论场) has become more diversified. As a mainstream medium [of the party], television, if it wishes to maintain the “home field advantage” (成为新闻舆论的“主场”) in news and public opinion, cannot rely solely on “protection” (守土) and “defense” (防御), but must instead actively channel [public opinion] with the mainstream voice of the party and government. Only then can it gain the upper hand (主导权) in public opinion.
At the beginning of this year, as the international financial crisis was making waves, voices of “decay” (衰) the domestic and overseas media were heard constantly. A problem of confidence emerged in the public opinion sphere.
Faced with this [mood] of public opinion, in accordance with the policy spirit of “confidence is more precious than gold” conveyed by the central and provincial leadership, we gathered our strength and released a series of reports called “Confidence ’09” speaking of the rosy prospects of modern industry development in Hebei. With timeliness and strength, [these reports] restored the confidence of cadres and the people in our province.
Third, we must move from “standardized broadcasting” (本位传播) [NOTE: a reference to the drab, boilerplate official news coverage of the past, and present] to actively serving [the public]. We must respect “audience demand” and adhere to a popular orientation [in news coverage], actively seeking closeness [to viewers], channeling while providing service, providing better service while channeling [public opinion].
After H1N1 spread through Latin America, “Hebei Headline News” broadcast related stories in its morning, noon and evening editions, inviting experts to introduce the causes of infection and methods of prevention.
When the first homegrown case of H1N1 infection was discovered in Cangzhou, we reported news about the patient’s treatment and recovery at the first available moment and sought information about those who had been closely associated with the patient. In this way, we effectively stabilized the public mood.
2. Innovating content, steadily enhancing the focus (针对性) and (实效性) effectiveness of news and public opinion channeling
Innovation at the level of news content is core to raising our capacity for news and public opinion channeling. This means we must improve the focus and effectiveness of public opinion channeling.
First, we must adhere to a pulling together of our own news media focal points and the work impetus [and objectives] of the CCP, taking the promotion of scientific development as our first responsibility as a news media.
This year . . . [a whole series of programs and segments at Hebei Television] . . . have favorably brought out and represented new bright points in Hebei’s scientific development over the past year.
Second, we must adhere [in our work] to a pulling together of responsibility toward our [party] superiors above and toward our audiences below, serving as bridges and bonds between party and government leaders and the general public. In order to support this year’s “Year of Cadre Work Character Improvement” movement, we introduced large-scale series of interview programs in April . . . [Examples provided of programs, mostly interviews with local leaders] . . . The programs were interactive, creating a platform through which key leaders from various cities [in Hebei] could interact face-to-face with people at the grassroots . . . .
[The third point is about the need to improve social character by reporting on exemplars of good behavior, and the need to improve supervision by public opinion.]
3. Innovating methods, working hard to raise the attractiveness and infectiveness of public opinion channeling
In recent years, the News Center at Hebei Television has worked hard to break through old modes of news reporting, innovating program production methods, reforming operation processes for program production, and improving production resources for programming. [We have seen, as a result] a steady improvement in the attractiveness and infectiveness of public opinion channeling. Ratings for “Hebei Headline News” have gone up dramatically, and was listed in the top-20 for all programs on all channels in the Shijiazhuang area.
First, [we must work toward] particularizing the characteristics and positioning [of various programs] (特色化定位). [NOTE: perhaps this would be best translated as “branding and positioning”]. The branding and positioning (特色化) of news broadcasting means breaking through formalistic molds and abandoning attempts at program uniformity. We need to work creatively to generate programs with different content, of different types, with different styles, making them more personalized, more unique, with stronger branding (品牌化) . . .
[Skipping through the second, third and fourth points here. The fourth is about making programs that are “close” to the people, an invocation of Hu Jintao’s policy of the Three Closenesses.]
Fifth, we need to stress packaging [of information] in the round. In order to enhance the attractiveness and infectiveness of news programs, we must carry out an all-round, all-directional process of packaging of columns and programs.
Investing around 2.5 million yuan, we updated the sets of “Hebei Network News” and several other programs, replacing them with more modern, serious and lively electronic sets. We also reworked the opening themes for a number of programs, bringing them more in line with the unique positioning of these programs. We placed greater emphasis on the post-production process for programs, carefully handling cuts and transitions, adding explanations, voice-overs and dubbing sound so we could achieve the most optimal visual effect and draw viewers into the programs.
In addition, we spent 20 million yuan to install an advanced broadcast system from Shanghai’s SMG Group, carrying out a comprehensive digital upgrade of studio equipment for our news center employing state-of-the-art broadcast equipment and improving the broadcast quality of news programs.
4. Innovating [work and production] systems, stimulating news teams to produce great content, improving public opinion channeling to make it more active and innovative.
In recent years, the News Center at Hebei Television has worked hard to grab hold of the reins in carrying out system reforms, systematically building up its mechanisms for management and operations . . .

[Posted by David Bandurski, November 4, 2009, 2:17pm HK]

How the next ten years will decide China's future

By Qian Gang — On National Day this month, as the capital was swept up in waves of carefully contrived jubilation, my thoughts turned to China’s future. What would China be like on the 70th anniversary in 2019? On that day, just over the horizon, would we witness a replay of this pageantry? Would party leaders roll out another top-50 list of political slogans?
Would independent voices — “noise and static,” as the party calls them — still be suppressed? Would Beijing again be wound tight with security under the slogan of “stability before all else”?
Or would Chinese have something more to celebrate?
If I may be allowed a bit of simple prognosticating, let me say that the next ten years will decide China’s future.
2012 is the year that Hu Jintao will pass power to the next generation of leaders. While the CCP’s statutes do not place limits on the tenure of the general secretary, provisional rules on term limits issued in 2006 (党政领导幹部职务任期暂行规定) specify that party leaders should hold office for no more than two terms.
If during the coming ten years China’s political climate continues at its present tempo, if there are no dramatic political bumps, we can be fairly certain that the leader who takes the reins at the 18th Party Congress in 2012 will remain as China’s national leader when the 70th anniversary rolls around in 2019.
China cannot be allowed to slide into chaos. This is something all Chinese can basically agree on. But if the CCP continues to drag its feet on political reform, we should all be deeply concerned.
Ahead of the 50th anniversary of the P.R.C. in 1999, party elder Li Shenzhi (李慎之) wrote an open letter to then-President Jiang Zemin [Chinese here] calling on him to seek progress on political reform where Deng Xiaoping had been unable as a result of historical exigencies.
In 2009, on the eve of the 60th anniversary, a conversation with someone purported to be a high-level party elder was circulated widely on the internet. The article, “The ruling party must build a basic system of political ethics” (执政党要建立基本的政治伦理), urged the CCP to reflect on its past and move ahead with political reforms.
The article stirred the secret hopes of countless Chinese.
During Jiang Zemin’s tenure as general secretary, there was nothing whatsoever to signal an interest in pursuing political reforms. In the early days of the Hu Jintao-Wen Jiabao administration, there was some chatter about the “new politics of Hu-Wen” (胡温新政). This “new politics” was encompassed in the political catchphrase “people first and foremost” (以人为本).
During the past seven years, however, the topic (not to mention the project) of political reform has gathered dust on the back shelf. The corrupting force of crony capitalism has expanded unchecked. Party and commercial special interest groups have become more and more entrenched, and present an ever-graver challenge to social stability.
In the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Premier Wen Jiabao made a solemn pledge that responsibility would be sought for the death of schoolchildren as a result of shoddy school construction. This pledge came to nothing, however, fizzling out in behind-the-scenes power brokering.
The hopes Chinese had vested in Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao have slipped ever since the zenith of confidence reached during China’s fight against SARS in 2003.
China today is a cripple, one leg healthy and striding ahead, the other twisted and underdeveloped. Economic reforms surge ahead. Meanwhile, progress in China’s political system is thwarted.
The experience of June 4th, 1989, left deep traumas. China now suffers from a sickness that covets power, feeds and encourages corruption, and punishes goodness and honesty. The ripe atmosphere for political reform that existed in China in the 1980s is no longer there.
Politically confined, Chinese have been unable to explore and prepare for the possibilities of political reform. The conditions for implementing substantial political reforms do not exist in the short term in China. This will almost certainly remain true over the next decade. But nevertheless, the CCP can no longer avoid tough decisions on political reform.
For the remainder of their terms in office, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao can be expected to push economic development. But no one stakes any hope on the idea that Hu and Wen might offer a blueprint for political reform.
For the next three years, all eyes will turn on Hu Jintao and the question of succession. One of the key questions is whether his transfer of power will serve as a model for intra-party democracy (党内民主).
Who Hu Jintao’s successor will be is of lesser importance than how this successor will be determined. The most critical question is whether Hu Jintao, this leader designated as successor [to Jiang Zemin] by Deng Xiaoping himself, can set a precedent for “democratic, open, competitive and merit-based” (民主、公开、竞争、择优) leadership selection principles during his tenure in office, thereby breaking through the “old man politics,” or gerontocracy (老人政治), that has for so many years worked at odds with intra-party democratic principles.
If China’s top leader could be selected in such a manner, this would mark an important shift in the direction of more democratic politics.
It was at this time a century ago that the government of the Qing Dynasty was thrown into turmoil. Facing intense pressure from society, the Qing was forced to grapple with the question of political reform.
In 1906 the Qing government announced that it was preparing a constitution. Two years later it released the general outline of its constitution in a document called, “Imperial Decree on the Outline of the Constitution” (钦定宪法大纲), which allowed nine years for the drafting process.
The Qing’s was an extremely conservative blueprint for political reform, and yet it did manage to provide a timetable.
In the end, though, there was no time for such a process. The Empress Dowager Cixi and the Guangxu Emperor died in 1908, and the Qing government quickly descended into chaos.
Fifty years ago, as the People’s Republic of China was preparing to celebrate its 10th anniversary, army commander Peng Dehuai (彭德怀) criticized Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward as a dramatic policy mistake. At the Lushan Conference held in the summer of 1959, Peng, an ardent CCP supporter, was disgraced and branded an anti-CCP agitator.
Mao Zedong’s catastrophic missteps continued. Behind the shallow veneer of 10th anniversary celebrations that year, the horrors of China’s Great Famine were already becoming clear.
Forty years ago, in 1969, China’s national leader, Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇), who had been selected through a constitutional process, was absent from National Day celebrations. That year, at Mao’s behest, Liu was branded a traitor and expelled from the party.
Standing beside Mao Zedong on that National Day was Lin Biao (林彪), his designated heir. But within two years, Lin Biao too fell victim to Mao’s politics. He was branded a traitor and killed in an apparent attempt to flee the country that remains clouded with mystery.
There are so many lessons from our recent history that we Chinese must bear forcefully in mind. We must understand that without a better and fairer political system, we will have no peace and harmony in our country, and no hope for stability.
These next ten years will be critical.
The next generation of leaders will inherit many painful and difficult problems. It will be their responsibility and historical burden to act with political courage, seeking long-term solutions to problems from their root causes.
And what is the root of China’s social and political ills today? It is the monopolization of power and privilege.
We hope party leaders seek solutions to China’s predicament by “breaking through monopoly” (破除垄断); by breaking through the monopolization of politics, leading China toward a process of normalized political competition, whereby power is checked and monitored in accordance with the constitution; by breaking through monopolization of the economy by the state; by breaking through the monopolization of civil affairs, allowing the healthy development of a civil society; by breaking through the monopolization of culture, allowing Chinese to think and speak freely in an atmosphere of tolerance and openness, and ensuring the unfettered flow of information.
How might political reforms begin? They might begin with the relaxing of controls on speech.
The political system, an issue bearing directly on the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese — our next generation of leaders cannot expect the people to keep their mouths shut on this account. What direction China’s political system should head is a major question that should invite discussion, exploration, and experimentation.
This is the first thing. That China’s leaders must not monopolize the right to expression. That China’s leaders cannot simply muzzle society with simple declaratives like, “We will not copy the West” (我们绝不照搬西方).
The next ten years will determine China’s fate. Of course the great edifice of constitutional governance in China is not a project that can be completed in the space of ten years.
But we appeal to our leaders: do not delay. Tell the people what direction you intend to take us, and work with us to reform our system, building the foundations of constitutionalism in time for our 70th birthday celebrations.
[Posted by David Bandurski, October 29, 2009, 3:38pm HK]

In modern China, no place for totalitarian anthems

By Qian Gang — How should we best understand the extravagance that marked China’s recent National Day celebrations? In the wake of the pomp and circumstance, a good friend of mine summed it up with a single phrase: “Four portraits and four anthems.” By portraits he was referring of course to the four massive portraits of state leaders – Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao – that gazed over the celebration.
And four propaganda anthems blared out to reiterate the importance of these CCP lions – “The East is Red” (东方红), “A Story of Spring” (春天的故事), “Into the New Age” (走进新时代) and “Oh, Lovely Land” (江山).
This soundtrack was not an incidental choice. Rather, these songs were representative of each of the “four generations of leaders.” The official Xinhua News Agency even issued a special report called, “Four Anthems Sing of a China Bravely Advancing.”

hu motorcade national day

[ABOVE: Screenshot of online news coverage of National Day celebrations, showing President Hu and his motorcade.]

“The East is Red” was of course Chairman Mao’s personal political anthem. But when I was collecting folk songs for a project twenty years ago, I was surprised to discover that the “The East is Red” was originally a romantic ballad. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, it was rendered as the popular song “Riding White Horses”:

Riding white horses,
Armed with Western guns,
Three brothers with the Eighth Route Army
Living on its grain.
They’re thinking of girls back home again.
But fight on against Japan.

In 1944, Shaanxi farmer Li Youyuan (李有源) and a rural schoolteacher appropriated this tune to compose “Migration Song,” which contained the following verse:

The East is red,
The sun, it rises.
And in China, a Mao Zedong is born.

Through further alterations by CCP lyricists, “Migration Song” became “The East is Red.” After 1949 the song gradually became an indispensable part of the cult of Chairman Mao. With each successive round of song, the process of deification intensified. Meanwhile, the perfect and godlike Chairman orchestrated one revolutionary struggle after another, urging the nation deeper and deeper into turmoil.
The reform movement engendered by Deng Xiaoping had its origins in breaking through Mao’s cult of personality and throwing off the yoke of extreme over-concentration of power.
Through the entire decade of the 1980s, veneration of CCP leaders was repressed. There were no grand lyrical tributes to Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, and songs were rarely sung in praise of Deng Xiaoping at the time.
As an anthem of political praise, “A Story of Spring” was a song very unlike “The East is Red.” Its lyricist, Jiang Kairu (蒋开儒), was an old man who had lived a rough life. As a youth he had joined up with the People’s Liberation Army. But because he was found to have family in Hong Kong, and was therefore tied down by this alleged “overseas connection,” he was eventually forced out of the military and banished to the northeast, the “great northern wilderness” as it was called.
When the Cultural Revolution finally passed, Jiang felt as though Spring had returned. In 1979, Jiang was permitted to come to Hong Kong to reunite with his family. He saw with his own eyes the changes reforms brought to Shenzhen in the years that followed.
In 1992, as Deng Xiaoping made his “southern tour,” Jiang Kairu was moved by the wave of reports in China’s media urging further economic reforms. He was living in Shenzhen at the time, and toward the end of the year he composed “Spring Story”:

1979, a year of Spring
An old man marks out
A circle [of hope] in China’s south.

These are lyrics penned by an ordinary man moved by Deng Xiaoping and the reform movement he represented. But the song gained in popularity only after 1996, as Deng Xiaoping fell gravely ill. It is perhaps impossible to know whether the paramount leader ever even heard “A Story of Spring” before he passed away in February 1997.
By the time Deng passed away, Jiang Kairu was working for the literary and arts federation of Lo Wu, on the Hong Kong-Shenzhen border. In anticipation of Hong Kong’s return to China that year, he wrote a song called “China is Blessed.”
The composer later recalled: “Leaders in Lo Wu excitedly glimpsed an opportunity: a song about three generations of party leaders.”
Local cadres worked together on the song lyrics, and the result quickly drew the attention of top leaders in Shenzhen. Once China Central Television got wind of the song, it was appropriated for a television spot.
Ahead of the 15th National Party Congress held later that year, the song was reworked to become “Into the New Age,” layers of political propaganda thickening over it with each retouching. Even the folk rhythms of Jiang Zemin’s native northern Jiangsu province were incorporated.
By the time the fiftieth anniversary of the People’s Republic of China rolled around in 1999, the song had already become a propaganda anthem symbolic of Jiang Zemin’s leadership. The official People’s Daily praised the song, which it said “shaped the musical images of three generations of party leaders.”

“The East is Red,” we sing,
Standing up on our own.
We share a story of Spring,
We prosper under reform and opening.
He who leads us on the forward road,
Takes us into a bright new age.

“He who leads us on the forward road” was of course a reference to Jiang Zemin. During October 1 celebrations in 1999, “Into the New Age” was reserved for the climax of festivities. This was in fact the first clear instance of political hero worship (个人崇拜) since the onset of China’s economic reform policies, and it stepped way beyond the bounds that Deng Xiaoping had drawn.
Since becoming General Secretary of the CCP, Hu Jintao has invited caution in the assessments of him made by others. In Jiang’s day the media routinely used the phrase, “the central party the core of which is comrade Jiang Zemin.” When the torch passed to Hu Jintao, the language was a touch more cautious: “the central party of which comrade Hu Jintao is general secretary.”
The enthusiastic cheerleading for President Hu during the recent 60th anniversary celebrations was therefore all the more a surprise.
Mao, Deng, Jiang and Hu were all represented together during the festivities. And in fact, the ceremonies included two anthems symbolic of Hu Jintao’s leadership.
“Oh, Lovely Land,” which accompanied the massive portrait of Hu, is perhaps not an anthem in praise of him personally, but praises him indirectly as a leader who “governs for the people”:

The ordinary people are the earth;
The ordinary people are the sky.

“On the Sunny Road,” which Peng Liyuan (彭丽媛) sang over the grandiose fireworks display, was a clear and conscientious choice:

On the sunny road,
In the air the banners soar.
Scientific development and harmony,
Guide China to brighter shores.

“Scientific development” and the “harmonious society” are of course markers of Hu Jintao. They are his political banners.
These four songs — or five — all fall into China’s tradition of what can be called “song politics,” or gequ zhengzhi (歌曲政治). They mark the intersection of high-level power plays and political slogans with the realm of culture and popular entertainment.
They are also relics of the totalitarian era.
“Why have they decided to drag out even our most unsightly assets?” another friend of mine remarked during the celebrations.
In fact, the massive portraits and propaganda songs placed Hu Jintao in a precarious position. Perhaps those charged with crafting and massaging his public persona are still unsure. Perhaps they are testing the waters, and we shouldn’t read anything more into this.
But even if Hu Jintao had no intention of fueling his own cult of personality, that moment of high self-praise has been witnessed already by hundreds of millions of Chinese.
I have no interest in exploring the political machinations that might underlie the parading of these giant portraits and these anthems of political praise. For Chinese today, parsing our political environment is a tiresome exercise. We dwell more on the question of China’s future. We know China must not repeat the mistakes of its past.
And that is why it is time we say goodbye to these unbecoming political traditions.
FURTHER READING:
Four Songs Tell China Story Over Six Decades,” Xinhua News Agency, October 1, 2009
China’s National Day parade: public barred from celebrations,” The Guardian, September 30, 2009
[Posted by David Bandurski, October 27, 2009, 10:05am HK]

Xinhua News Agency steps out into the world

By David Bandurski — At the recent World Media Summit in Beijing, China’s official Xinhua News Agency placed itself at center stage with other international “media giants.” It was at once a symbolic enunciation of China’s coming of age as a global media superpower — whatever that means — and a reflection of China’s future ambitions in the arena of global information.
As we took pains to point out, Xinhua is far more than just another media organization, a fact that lent a strange asymmetry to the proceedings in Beijing.
For China, the summit was an act of statecraft. Xinhua was there representing not its own interests but those of the Chinese Communist Party as the embodiment of the nation’s voice. For the rest, the summit was about business. Rupert Murdoch was there, as he should have been, to represent his own interests and those of his shareholders — not our voices as Australians or Americans, Canadians or Indians.
Xinhua’s global information strategy is China’s global information strategy. But what exactly is that strategy?
We’ve been hearing for months now about how China is laying aside something like four billion US dollars to expand the presence overseas of core central media like China Central Television and Xinhua.
How is that global push — “going out,” as it is called in Chinese — going to take shape?
A recent article from the Media and Entertainment Industry Reporter offers some glimpses into developments at Xinhua this year and how the official news agency’s role globally is envisioned by CCP leaders.
The article’s chief source is Wu Jincai (吴锦才), deputy editor-in-chief of Xinhua News Agency and a key figure behind Xinhua’s push to develop television and online video content.
In an interview that follows the article Wu invokes a quote from Mao Zedong in the 1950s, in which he purportedly said, “Let Xinhua News Agency span the globe, let the whole world hear our voice.” Wu elaborates: “When we say international transmission, this is not about disseminating Chinese content overseas but about using Chinese voices and a Chinese perspective to view the news and view the world.”
Xinhua’s role is not just as a broadcaster, of course, but also as a mediator of content, as a kind of central political clearing house for global news. Xinhua is entrusted with China’s global media push because it can be trusted politically with “China’s voice.”
As one Chinese media scholar puts it rather euphemistically to the Media and Entertainment Industry Reporter:

Many local television stations are willing to use news from Xinhua News Agency. Right now that means text and image. In the future it will mean video material as well, because Xinhua News Agency is a news copy provider that “can maintain its grasp politically.” “There are a lot of people at Xinhua News Agency who really understand politics, who really understand [China’s] national circumstances. When these people produce news, it will be more grounded.”

The CCP’s determination to maintain “propaganda discipline” as central party media step out into the world is clear. But the article also hints at how “going out” — the primary goal of which is to change and influence “global public opinion” to the CCP’s advantage — might present realistic challenges to this objective.
Wu Jincai says, for example, that in the future Xinhua will “emphasize the localization of news bureaus, increasing the proportion of local hires.” How “grounded” in China’s political realities will those journalists be?
A partial translation of the Media and Entertainment Industry Reporter article follows:

Xinhua News Agency television sets off on a run in 2009, influencing the television news arena
[NOTE: “Xinhua News Agency TV” refers not to a television channel or station, but Xinhua’s audio and video content production and distribution business comprehensively.]
On March 1, 2009, Xinhua News Agency’s Chinese-language television channel was formally launched. On July 1, trial broadcasts began for Xinhua’s English-language news channel. On September 1, [Xinhua’s] Chinese-language television news channel was separated into [audiovisual] wire copy and programming channels. On the same day, Xinhua News Agency’s Mobile TV was launched through China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom, and Xinhua’s financial news channel, CFC, started broadcasting.
In late 2008, the news that Xinhua News Agency would launch its own television programming spread like wildfire. All of this stemmed from the July 2008 release by the agency’s leading party group of “Opinions on the Further Development of Xinhua News Agency Video Reports” (于进一步发展新华社视频报道的意见). In early 2009, Xinhua News Agency’s audio-visual department was restructured to form the Xinhua News Agency Audio and Video News Desk (新华社音视频新闻编辑部). At the same time, the Xinhua Audio-Visual Center (新华音像中心), originally an enterprise directly under Xinhua’s main office, was placed under the management of Audio and Video News Desk. All of these moves laid the foundation for the continued progress of “Xinhua News Agency TV” in 2009.
As it continues to launch television and new media products, the volume of original television news reports from Xinhua News Agency is continually increasing. “Right now Xinhua News Agency is offering between 600 and 700 minutes of original English-language television wire content and programming each day. The biggest advantage in the separating of channels is that the raw material and finished programming can be produced according to their own rules and specifications, and the duration of news can be further extended,” says Wu Jincai (吴锦才), Xinhua deputy editor-in-chief and head of the audio and video news desk. Originally, a goal of 480 minutes per day of original content was set for “Xinhua News Agency TV” in 2009 (and it was believed then that even something like 280 minutes per day would be difficult to manage), and 960 minutes per day for 2010. But the daily targets for this year have already been met. “Television equipment is now being provided to Xinhua News Agency bureaus at home and around the world, and we should start seeing a spike in news gathering this month. And once broadcast vehicles have been allocated, increasing the duration [of coverage] will not be a problem.” . . .
The Advantages of Xinhua News Agency TV
“The biggest advantage of Xinhua News Agency TV is [enhancing China’s] international communication capacity — the biggest stage and the biggest outlet is in taking part in the global competition for news,” says Wu Jincai.
Xinhua News Agency’s work strategy for 2008-2015 (新华社2008-2015年工作设想) points clearly to a three-step strategy for television development at Xinhua:
Step One — increasing the capacity for video content production, distributing the necessary equipment to overseas news bureaus.
Step Two — building up personnel, strengthening training, adding programs, and providing the necessary technologies.
Step Three — Building Xinhua News Agency as a standalone brand and developing a television broadcast platform reaching the consumer directly. (第三步,建立新华社独立品牌的、直接面向终端受众的电视播出平台)
As a state news wire, Xinhua News Agency has 31 bureaus domestically and more than 110 bureaus overseas, and these journalists provide the basic support for the production of television content for Xinhua. Li Xiguang (李希光), executive dean of Tsinghua University’s School of Journalism and Communication, says that the world’s top television reporters and commentators were all once leading print journalists. Xinhua News Agency has China’s best foreign correspondents. They are proficient in the local languages and are highly capable. These journalists are all graduates of various name-brand universities. In terms of talent, Xinhua News Agency’s advantages are clear.
Within the news industry Xinhua News Agency’s ability to get stories, carry out investigations and write internal reference documents (内参) [for the eyes of select officials, depending on the reference’s level of secrecy] is well regarded. It is felt that this owes to Xinhua’s longstanding reserve of talent, leadership and training. But Xinhua’s project of late is the creation of “television” not of a “television station.” How can “Xinhua News Agency TV” become known and accepted by more television viewers? Can its television news products be sold to more and more consumers? Concerning this, Wu Jincai says, “‘Xinhua News Agency TV’ is working to expand export [of its news products] in three ways. The first is the provision of video wire content to various media organizations. The second is using television programming at overseas television networks to interface with viewers. The third is to build Xinhua’s own television channels overseas to the extent this is financially possible.
Professor Liu Hong (刘宏) of the Television and News School of Communications University of China says it should be no problem for “Xinhua News Agency TV” to export [its news products]. Ever since the Yan’an period, [Xinhua] has been active as a news service and gatherer of information, so in terms of export [of information] overseas, as the state arranges the overall dissemination structure [of information export] it will extend to Xinhua News Agency a definite degree of authorization. For [information] distributed domestically, right now the trend of media convergence is becoming more and more obvious, and in the future video material will flow more freely. Many local television stations are willing to use news from Xinhua News Agency. Right now that means text and image. In the future it will mean video material as well, because Xinhua News Agency is a news copy provider that “can maintain its grasp politically” [NOTE: This means Xinhua is most directly subject to propaganda discipline, or controls, and careful in maintaining the party line]. “There are a lot of people at Xinhua News Agency who really understand politics, who really understand [China’s] national circumstances. When these people produce news, it will be more grounded.”
Zhao Guohui (赵国辉), Heilongjiang Satellite Television’s representative in Beijing, says that there are more and more new media channels [for video content] in addition to the demand for video news content at local television stations. Therefore, the demand for “Xinhua News Agency TV” content will be substantial. But television media rely largely on advertising, so there will not be sizable income from the simple provision of news products. If consumer and product information is used to support advertising products, however, simply posting online video content to Xinhua Online should yield substantial income.
Editorial Structure
For now Xinhua News Agency’s overseas bureaus are provisionally divided into three types. Seven main bureaus and the Tokyo, Paris and Rio De Janerio bureaus are already equipped with two to three professional television journalists each. These are designated as [Xinhua’s] professional television journalism teams. Ten bureaus, including the Washington and Berlin bureaus, have print journalists producing video programs and these constitute [Xinhua’s] informal television production workforce. Aside from these two categories, ten bureaus are training a large number of local reporters to take on the work of filming and editing, and they work with bureau reporters to send back reports. This group is known as [Xinhua’s] reporting team. “In the future we want to emphasize the localization of news bureaus, increasing the proportion of local hires,” says Wu Jincai.
According to expertise, professionalism and general hiring standards, Xinhua News Agency is hiring from local television stations and universities around the country. Up to July 8, 2009, Xinhua’s 31 domestic bureaus had already hired 96 television journalists. The Audio and Video News Desk has been actively hiring since its creation in 2009, going from under 100 personnel at the beginning of the year to close to 300 today. Moreover, two-thirds of personnel are under the age of 40, including many from local television stations.
Television is an industry combining many different skill sets, and the demand of combining various work skills grows in particular once live programming becomes the norm . . .
“In filming for television, you can’t just concentrate on the image and forget about ideas,” [says Wu Jincai]. Xinhua’s existing television team has a feel for how to film for television, then there are those who come from a writing background. One important task for the audio and video news division [of Xinhua] is drawing on the strengths of both groups . . .
[Long section here on various Xinhua columns, programs and reports taken on in recent years.]
On July 1, Xinhua News Agency’s English-language news channel was launched on a trial basis, with 90 minutes of content broadcast per day. In the Urumqi riots that shortly followed, Xinhua News Agency journalists on the front lines managed to get hard to obtain footage of the chaos, and this material was quickly relayed to users. Many media in China and overseas, including 20 well-known global media, have become clients of the service on a trial basis. The launch of the English-language service not only enhances Xinhua News Agency’s transmission capacity (传播能力) overseas, but at the same time increases the effectiveness of Chinese [state] media in influencing public opinion overseas. In the future, Xinhua News Agency will also actively encourage personnel at its various bureaus, according to their own needs, to get Chinese and English content into other local languages and broadcast it locally.
It is the hope of Xinhua News Agency President Li Congjun (李从军) that Xinhua’s English-language channel provides overseas not only Xinhua’s own content but also programs from various domestic television stations and other sources, becoming a global platform for the provision of Chinese television news content in order to achieve competitiveness on a much higher level. Many media groups, including CNN and Reuters, are already moving into this market . . .

[Posted by David Bandurski, October 22, 2009, 11:40am HK]