By David Bandurski — The murder in Beijing on Saturday of American Todd Bachman, the father-in-law of U.S. men’s volleyball coach Hugh McCutcheon, was a major story, particularly coming as it did at the end of the first day of Olympic competition. But while Chinese Web users had a reasonably good chance of running across the story, newspaper readers might have missed it altogether.
The morning after the attack, the brief Xinhua News Agency release on the story was available under the domestic news section of the main news page at QQ.com, one of China’s top Web portals.
The QQ headline clearly linked the murder to the U.S. Olympic team: “Relative of U.S. Men’s Volleyball Team Murdered at Drum Tower.”

[Screenshot of news page at QQ.com, August 10, 2008, 9am, article on murder circled in red.]

In China’s official party mouthpiece, People’s Daily, it was a very different story. As expected, the dominating meta-story was the Beijing Olympic Games as an unprecedentedly positive historical, political and sporting event.
Media have certainly been instructed to “emphasize positive news” during this key moment for China. And there is the further issue — pressure from propaganda authorities aside — of news choice among Chinese editors, who are likely avoid more unpleasant stories that seem to dampen the positive public mood surrounding the Games in Beijing.
The latter is of course partly a commercial choice, and also, no doubt for some editors, a personal inclination.
For the People’s Daily, the reason for de-emphasizing the Bachman story is clear — it damages the purely positive image China is trying to project for the Games. The story is therefore pushed to the very back of the paper, to page 19, the last page of news. Again, it is the official Xinhua release.
Why run the story at all? To demonstrate, of course, that China does not regard the incident as totally inconsequential.

[Above: Page 19 of the August 10 edition of People’s Daily, story of Bachman’s murder circled in red.]

How did commercial newspapers play the story?
Beijing Times, the commercial spin-off of the official People’s Daily, gave the story no front page coverage. But the paper did play it on page 10 with a slightly larger headline, right below a story about how train tickets in Beijing can now be purchased five days in advance, and right above a human interest story about a Chinese AIDS orphan visiting the capital to attend the Games.
The headline for the Beijing Times story, again the official Xinhua release, emphasized China’s diplomacy and made no reference to the U.S. Olympic team: “China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gives Top Priority to Murder of American Tourist.”

[Above: Page 11 of the August 10 edition of Beijing Times, with the murder story circled in red.]

In perhaps the best indication of the pressure coming down from the top for “positive news,” and of the potential risk involved for national newspapers that might consider running the Bachman murder story more prominently, Southern Metropolis Daily, one of the country’s leading commercial newspapers, gave the story no front page attention.
Southern Metropolis Daily buried the story on page 16, deep inside its rosy Olympics coverage. The headline similarly made no mention of the murder’s connection to the U.S. Olympic team, focusing instead on the actions of police: “Beijing Police Issue Release on Murder of American Tourist.”

[Above: Page 16 of the August 10 edition of Guangdong’s Southern Metropolis Daily, with murder story circled in red.]

So, did any of the ten or so mainland Chinese newspapers to run the Bachman murder story on August 10 give it relatively prominent play?
Yes, in fact. Just one.
Xi’an Daily, the official party newspaper of the city of Xi’an, ran the Bachman story at the bottom right-hand corner of the front page. The tiny headline was identical to that of Southern Metropolis Daily, focusing on the actions of police.

[Above: Front page of the August 10 edition of the official Xi’an Daily, with story on Bachman murder circled in red.]

In fact, if we were to offer awards for guts in the placement of the Bachman story in China, they would all go to party newspapers. Commercial papers, stuck between the official priority of “positive news” and the need to please readers with the right kind of Olympics coverage, were in no position to push.
The following is from the August 10 edition of the official Zhejiang Daily, which played the Bachman story on page 2.

[Above: Page 2 of August 10 edition of Zhejiang Daily, with murder story coverage circled in red.]

Zhejiang Daily‘s placement of the story was perhaps extra gutsy considering that Tang Yongming (唐永明), the man responsible for the murder of Todd Bachman, was one of the province’s own, a laid-off factory worker from Hangzhou.
The headline read: “Zhejiang Man Kills One Tourist and Injures Two in Attack at Beijing’s Drum Tower.”
FURTHER READING:
“The Chinese Censorship Foreigners Don’t See,” Rebecca MacKinnon for The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2008
“Beijing Olympics: Chinese Tanks Watch Over Media Centre,” The Telegraph, August 12, 2008
[NOTE: Richard Spencer mentions an order concerning the Bachman story, and calls it “unusually specific.” In fact, the text of this order (The Telegraph claims to have obtained a list of these orders) sounds very much like what we have seen of such orders, including specific instructions for media to use only Xinhua news or avoid a particular story altogether. It sounds like the newspaper got its hands on a page of routine orders given to various media from the propaganda department and giving instructions on coverage.]
“China’s Media Censored Over Stabbing,” The Age, August 12, 2008
“Unlike Athletes, China’s Media Held to Different Standards During Olympics,” OpenNet Initiative, August 12, 2008
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 12, 2008, 4:37pm HK]

By David Bandurski — There is only one story in China right now. Try to track down anything of substance in China’s media that is NOT about the Beijing Olympic Games and the “race for the gold” and you’ve really got your work cut out for you. But we stumbled on a worthwhile article today from China Business that discusses — low and behold — democracy. So of course we must share. [Homepage Image: Photo from a village election in China, from China’s Human Rights].
The article in question is an interview with Zi Zhongyun (资中筠), a researcher with the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who specializes in international relations and United States government. [English text of an old interview with Zi Zhongyun via Sina.com here].
In the interview, run on page B8 of today’s China Business, Zi talks about democracy as the “least bad” of political options available to check the misuse of power, and says China will have to address the inadequacies of its “current [political] superstructure” if it hopes to push ahead with its development. She also addresses some Chinese misconceptions about democracy.
A portion of the interview follows:

“We Should Recognize Universal Values: There is No Need Nit-Pick About Democratic Perfection”
An interview with Zi Zhongyun (资中筠)
China Business: As someone who has witnessed the course of economic reforms in China, how do you see the progress China has made in the last 30 years?
Zi Zhongyun: The most obvious achievement over the last 30 years has been China’s economic growth and its material abundance. I think attaining these achievements has owed largely to liberation of thought (思想的解放) and to reform and opening. Among these, “opening” was the most important, so the phrase “reform and opening” could also be called “opening and reform,” because had reforms gone ahead while China kept its doors closed, they would ultimately have been impossible and we wouldn’t see the results we see today.
Any time China has made progress since the Opium Wars, it has been inseparable from the act of opening, whether we’re talking about opening that is passive or self-initiated. This time around we’re talking about a self-initiated opening . . .
The liberation of thought that began 30 years ago can be seen on many levels, but I think the most important is the recognition of the market economy and property rights. When economic reform and opening began, there was deep division over whether we should recognize the market and the private economy. And now, as China’s Property Law is in its early stages of creation, we have a lot of lingering issues in the area of property protection. These are not just economic issues but social ones, and the issue of property right protection is at the heart.
Historically speaking, the question of whether property rights are effectively and systematically protected has been a focus in China for years . . . Once private property is protected under the law, the question is how to use specific measures to ensure that property rights are not stifled by the government, a question of bringing the legal system into play. In order to protect property rights you need rule of law, you need to build rule of law, and you must have democracy – and looking at it the other way around, you need rule of law to safeguard democracy, the two going together. Continuing along these lines, as we move forward step by step, we can see that our reform bottlenecks lie in our current [political] superstructure. According to classical Marxist theory, our current [political] superstructure is not suited to further development of production. Looking at this question in terms of reform, the bottlenecks are a question of system reform (体制的改革). The central party has come out with many good policies, but as soon as the question of implementation comes up, it is difficult to roll them out, and the [political] system itself is one of the major obstacles.
China Business: What will it take to break through these institutional obstacles?
Zi Zhongyun: Reform of the system concerns democracy and rule of law, and this concerns also the question of how we see democracy. Right now, there is an area of misunderstanding that imagines democracy should be able to cut right through any problem, creating equality and at the same time preserving various competing rights and interests. As soon as they see a problem in democratic countries, some people say, “Look, what’s so good about democracy?” as though democracy should necessarily be absolutely perfect. In fact, democracy is simply the system that up to now has proven least bad (比较不坏). There are two core points [about democracy]: the first is the need to check power (限权), which is to say the need to check those who have power (对公权的限制). Any person or group must be checked as long as they have power, and no one must be allowed to act with impunity. The second point [about democracy] is the monitoring and participation of the people. With these two cores you can use many different forms and concrete methods to bring about democracy. The United States uses a two-party system. A number of countries in Europe have many political parties. Japan has a single large party divided internally into several factions. Each country may have its own particular national characteristics, but they all have a common core, and that is the limiting of exercise of power. At the same time, the exercise of power must be transparent and open, and accept monitoring and participation by the public.
Right now, our decision-makers [including President Hu Jintao] have said that the public should have the right to know, the right to express their views and the right to participation (知情权, 表达权和参与权). On the level of vocabulary, this is major progress. If these are really put into effect, it doesn’t matter what form of democracy, there should be no problem pushing them forward. But there should also be specific measures to ensure [these rights]. I believe that [effectively] implementing citizens’ rights is crucial. Right now the two things the people criticize most are the contrast between rich and poor [in China] and corruption. But the root of these problems lies also in the misuse of power, which results in social inequality, and not in the market economy per se. We need to recognize that we are bound to see a certain gap between rich and poor in any society, even though this is indeed a kind of inequality. This is because every person’s level of contribution to society is different. But the serious gap between rich and poor we see now [in China] was to a great degree created under conditions that were unfair to begin with. In many cases, people aren’t clear about the roots of this inequality, and so disenchantment builds up, and this disenchantment is not necessarily vented where it should be. Add to this misuse of official power and we see cases of unrest like that in Weng’an [in late June].

[Posted by David Bandurski, August 11, 2008, 5:07pm HK]

By David Bandurski — Hong Kong’s Apple Daily reported at the tip-top of page one yesterday that the Tuesday edition of People’s Daily reported nothing whatsoever of the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang that left 16 police officers dead and 16 wounded on Monday. Commercial newspapers “like Southern Metropolis Daily, Beijing Times and The Beijing News,” said the Hong Kong paper, mentioned the Xinjiang attack only briefly in the inside pages.
But while Apple Daily‘s point that coverage of the incident was scant is basically sound, it is not true the People’s Daily ran no coverage, and not exactly true that commercial papers ran the story only inside.
So what did the pages look like?
For starters, everyone did use the official Xinhua News Agency release, or tonggao (通稿), so there were no breakthroughs so far as we can see. We recommend that readers visit the Newsweek blog for some relevant observations on breaking coverage of the bombing.
First off, People’s Daily‘s front page looked like this on Tuesday morning.

At top right there is a positive story about volunteers for the Beijing Olympics. Directly below is the leading official news story, about President Hu Jintao heading up a meeting of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The story to the left and below is again about the IOC meeting, this time with the text of Hu Jintao’s remarks.
There is nothing about the Xinjiang attack. That is, until we turn to page two. There we find a busy layout full of mostly snore-inducing official announcements, including a State Council notice concerning China’s anti-monopoly law.
Once you have trudged downhill through all of this stodgy matter, however, you can locate a tiny, timid headline announcing major news: “Severe Violent Attack Against Police in Xinjiang’s Kashgar.”

This burying of major news on page two of the People’s Daily is something that happens quite frequently in China, and something we’ve called attention to before.
Moving on to the Beijing Times, a commercial spin-off of the official People’s Daily, we see a slight change in treatment of the Xinjiang story, reminiscent of the way the two papers treated the Liu Zhihua corruption case in 2006.
Here is Tuesday’s front page at the Beijing Times.

The leading news stories are about the Beijing route to be taken by the Olympic torch, and the starting time for the opening ceremony in the “Bird’s Nest” (4 pm for those of you who are curious).
The larger headline toward the bottom of the page — the one circled in red — is about the Xinjiang attack. The headline reads: “16 Killed in Bomb Attack on Border Police in Kashgar.”
We are then referred to page 17 for the full article, presumably the Xinhua news release, but the page has, for some unknown reason, been removed from the newspaper’s electronic version.
Readers should notice, however, that aside from placement and headline size, the Beijing Times has reported the number of police who died in the attack directly in the front page headline.
And what about Southern Metropolis Daily, one of China’s leading commercial newspapers singled out by Apple Daily?
Southern Metropolis Daily does in fact give the Xinjiang story front page treatment, emphasizing again the number of dead and injured. “Bomb Attack on Police,” announces a bold yellow headline against a black background, “16 Dead, 16 Injured.”

We are then referred to page A23 for more coverage. There we find a great big headline again announcing 16 dead and 16 injured, but adding that two suspects are now in custody. At right, in the upper right-hand corner of the page, we find the Xinhua release.

The Oriental Morning Post, one of Shanghai’s leading commercial newspapers, gives the story even more prominent front page play.
The headline is less conspicuous, placed underneath a fatter banner headline for a story about the closure of stores in subway stations as an Olympic Games safety measure. The smaller headline reads: “16 Killed, 16 Injured in Bomb Attack on Border Police in Kashgar.”
But directly below this small headline is a dominating image, an artist reconstruction, of how the Xinjiang attack might have happened.

Oriental Morning Post coverage continues on page 3 with the Xinhua release on the Xinjiang attack, following immediately below by the paper’s own report on statements by Olympics officials about safety and anti-terrorism during the Games.

Like the Oriental Morning Post, the Metro Times, a commercial newspaper in China’s southwest Yunnan Province, augments the Xinjiang release on the terrorist attack with comments from the IOC on safety at the Games — this time a news release from China News Service.
Directly below the official wire story on the IOC is the paper’s own commentary, followed by comments from Web users taken from major Internet news sites.
The result at Metro Times is what looks like more comprehensive coverage. Look more closely, however, and you will realize that all of the coverage keeps tightly to party discipline — there is a clear emphasis on positive news.

That said, Metro Times does give us what is probably the boldest front page headline on the Xinjiang attack, spread right across the top of the page and giving us the number of dead and injured.

Clearly, given a propaganda department ban, no newspapers have gone out on a limb on this story, unlike the Liu Zhihua case two years ago, when the Oriental Morning Post made the gutsy move of augmenting the official news release with information on Liu given on the Beijing city government website.
That information, following Xinhua’s report of Liu’s “corrupt and degenerate” activities, pointed to his senior position in the Beijing city leadership — and also, we should remember, to the fact that he was responsible for overseeing the construction of sporting venues for this year’s Olympic Games.
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 7, 2008, 5:29pm]

By David Bandurski — As Chinese citizens attempt with little success to obtain access to government information whose release is mandated by the national ordinance on openness of government information, the new legislation is looking increasingly like an empty slogan. [Frontpage: Screenshot of information openness coverage on the Greatwall Broadband Network website. The “black box” of secrecy is dropped and the open box of “openness of government information” upheld.]
So what of the era of “sunshine government” that Chinese leaders promised when the ordinance was approved in 2007?
Realistically, of course, the legislation, which faces a recalcitrant political culture of secrecy, will need time to become effective.
But while China Newsweekly has argued repeatedly that realization of the ordinance’s promises will require pressure through repeated cases brought by citizens, cases have so far fizzled. China’s court system, which is often manipulated by party officials, seems utterly unable to push the government to live up to its promises.

[ABOVE: Want government information? It’s this easy in Weihai’s Yuancui District.]

An editorial in the Xi’an Evening Post added its own soft pressure on the issue of information openness on Monday, arguing that government decisions against releasing information should be made according to the law.
A translation of the editorial follows:

To Release or Not is a Question for Law
By Qiao Shan (乔杉)
Recently the Beijing city government issued a document stating that if government information cannot be made public, then the reason for this should be explained to the public. Just days ago the city government’s most recent communique included five documents concerning openness of government information, stating that administrative offices must set up information platforms (信息平台) in order to swiftly gather information from the public about false information.
The timely release of government information is of great importance to ensuring the public’s right to know (公众知情权). We should see that in recent years, from the central government right down to local governments, this issue has gotten a lot of attention, and the public’s right to know has been elevated to a level not previously seen. As we acknowledge this, however, we cannot deny that some local areas still make an empty show of openness. Others avoid the release of information if at all possible and decide to release information selectively only under pressure from superior officials and public opinion. This kind of selective openness is regrettable.
It is a positive development that the Beijing city government has issued a document saying that reasons should be given in cases where there is no way to make information public. But we must also realize that under the notion of there being “no way to make information public” (无法公开) we are shielded from much information that really can be made public. This leads us to a problem, and that is the question of who has the right to say whether government information can be made public or not? The public certainly feels that the more information that can be made public the better. As for those in positions of power, they harbor the sense that less public information is better. We should say that on the law can decide the question of whether information is made public or not.
The People’s Republic of China Ordinance on Openness of Government Information (中华人民共和国政府信息公开条例) that went into effect on May 1 ths year clearly lays out the nature of information that should be released public and the procedures for doing so. Governments at various levels should act in line with the spirit of the ordinance, “releasing [information] according to the law.” It is a fact that some government information will concern issues of national and commercial secrecy, and under specified circumstances there will be information that it is not convenient to release. As to what information cannot be released, this should be a question of law – [the government] must “release [information] according to law” and “not release [information] according to law.” Article 14 of the ordinance states clearly that, “before releasing government information administrative departments should conduct a review according to the PRC National Secrecy Law (中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法) and other relevant laws, statutes and national regulations of the information to be released. When administrative departments cannot determine whether or not information can be released, they should, according to laws, statutes and relevant national regulations, make a report to their [superior] administrative departments (主管部门) or work departments at the same administrative level which deal with issues of secrecy for their determination.” Looking at these stipulations [in the ordinance], only after they have gone through the proper legal procedures concerning a particular item of information can they determine that it cannot be released.
When the “legal release [of information]” (依法公开) is so difficult, and when it is even harder to [get governments to make] “legal determinations of non-release” (依法不公开), this reveals at a higher level the government’s [weak] sense of rule of law and transparency. Because only when information release is denied in accordance with the law can we ensure that national secrecy does not become a pretext for not making information public.
(The writer is a journalist)

[Posted by David Bandurski, August 6, 2008, 10:46am HK]

By David Bandurski — Since China’s National Ordinance on Openness of Government Information, or xinxi gongkai tiaoli (政府信息公开条例), took effect back on May 1 this year, domestic media say the government has faced a “wave” of formal information requests from aggrieved and inquisitive citizens. And as CMP noted earlier this month, Chinese media have been using the ordinance to push the topic of information openness as well as related issues like freedom of expression.
However, a report from last week’s China Newsweekly magazine, which has offered continued coverage of the ordinance since May, suggests party leaders are (as is to be expected) less than enthusiastic about the prospect of greater public scrutiny.

[ABOVE: Image of cover of publicly available version of China’s national openness of information ordinance.]

The article, “Information Openness Face-off: Citizens Are ‘Hot’ and the Government is ‘Cold,‘” begins by reiterating a point China Newsweekly has made repeatedly, that “the strongest force in pushing openness of information comes from various specific demands.”
But up to now, those demands have been getting the cold shoulder, and the net result is not encouraging.

[NOTE, August 1, 2008: When we posted this piece yesterday, we neglected to mention or translate one of the most revealing facts in the China Newsweekly report. Concerning Huang Tianyou’s request for release of information, discussed in the portion below, the article says: “On June 23, a judge from the intermediate court said to him, ‘This case of yours has a major impact, not just domestically but internationally, so the opinion of the provincial court and the supreme court must be sought before a decision is made.” This is a wonderful example of how court officials in China often render political rather than legal decisions.

A partial translation of the magazine’s report follows:

Up to now, Huang Youjian (黄由俭) has still not received notice of whether his case has been accepted by the superior court in Hunan province. As of July 14 it had already been 20 days since he first brought the case to court.
Upset at problems stemming from enterprise restructuring efforts, a number of retired workers from the water works in Hunan’s Rucheng County (汝城县) [including Huang] had continually attempted to voice their grievances through the petitions system. When they heard later that the Rucheng county government had carried out an investigation of problems in enterprise restructuring and had “produced an objective investigative report,” they demanded that the government make the report public.
Because they opted to bring their case at the first opportunity after the National Ordinance on Openness of Government Information took effect [on May 1], their case was widely viewed as a test case.
It was called China’s “first openness of information suit.” But so far no court has even agreed to hear the case, nor have they received any formal notification of denial.
The twists and turns of this case demonstrate the difficulties facing openness of information.
The materials under question in the case are readily available, so why won’t the courts accept it?
It is 11 o’clock in the evening before 67 year-old Huang Youjian returns home. The situation of the case has become “more and more critical,” and he must work night after night with more than 20 of his fellow retirees to work out a plan of action. It is July 13.
The consensus is that they should get in touch with the media and fish about for support.
They have decided to turn from the path of legal remediation and seek media support because Huang and his colleagues “already see no hope of resolving the problem” through the county, city or provincial courts.
When the banner advertising the national ordinance was hung over the entrance to the county government on May 1, Huang felt excited, but now, he says, he has “once again returned to that place of helplessness” . . .
In a series of requests made by Zhu Fuxiang (朱福祥), a resident of Si Ji Qing Township (四季青镇) in Beijing’s Haiding District, concerning land and environmental planning, you can see even more clearly the state of implementation of the “ordinance.”
On May 8, Zhu Fuxiang filed a request with the Beijing Municipal Planning Commission to obtain Si Ji Qing Township’s report on environmental planning for a building project by [developer] Chang Qing Tong Da (常青通达建设项目). The planning commission instead gave him a document explaining planning conditions for the project, and when he told government employees that this was not what he had requested, he was told: “Our bosses said to give you this response.”
When he applied to the Land Bureau for release of information about land use for the Mentou New Village project (门头新村建设项目) things played out in the same way. “What we asked them for was information about how much peasant land was used, and how much was used for development of marketable housing. What they gave us was an approval document for requisition of the land,” Zhu Fuxiang said.
When he applied with the township government for information about the mode of use of two buildings in Si Ji Xing Township’s jurisdiction, they responded: “The information you requested does not exist.”
On June 23, Zhu Fuxiang went again to the planning commission, this time to request information concerning the planning permit (规划许可证) for one of Chang Qing Tong Da’s commercial projects. A government employee told him that if he wanted to obtain the information, he first needed to track down the number of the document he required, otherwise they could not provide it. “We’ve never seen this document, so how could we possibly know what its number is?” Zhu Fuxiang said discouragedly . . .
In the space of two months, Zhu Fuxiang faced perhaps every excuse that could be given for not providing information: the answer to the wrong question, the information does not exist, and it is inconvenient to provide the information you ask . . .

[Posted by David Bandurski, July 31, 2008, 11:38am HK]

By David Bandurski — As Hong Kong’s Ming Pao reports today, The Beijing News, one of China’s leading professional newspapers, has committed what propaganda authorities will indeed regard as a very, very serious violation of propaganda discipline by printing a photo of injured Chinese being carted away during the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen crackdown. As one media insider exclaimed to us this morning: “This is a major deal!” (这是非常大的事件！). [See ESWN for a brief English summary of the Ming Pao report].
However, according to one CMP source still involved with the paper, The Beijing News does not yet face immediate pressure from the authorities. The source also said that not all copies of the paper had been pulled from Beijing newsstands.
CMP will watch this event closely as it unfolds, but the case certainly puts party leaders in a unwelcome bind.
By propaganda standards, the newspaper’s action is resolutely unacceptable. But the Beijing Olympics are just around the corner, and this could potentially turn into a firestorm more serious than the January 2006 Freezing Point affair — bringing the events of June 4 right back to the center of China’s international image.
The violation in question is a published photo by former Associated Press photographer Liu Heung Shing (刘香成) taken during the government crackdown on demonstrators in Beijing on June 4, 1989. The image shows two injured Chinese being rushed away on pedal carts.

[Image of the page from The Beijing News appearing in today’s Ming Pao, thanks to Roland Soong at ESWN.]

The photo reportedly appeared on page C15 of the newspaper beside an interview with Liu Heung Shing, part of an interview series on “30 Years of Reform in China.”
Mr. Liu is currently an executive with News Corporation (China) and lives in Beijing, where he has just refurbished a traditional courtyard house.
THIS JUST IN:
[August 1: See the Newsweek Blog for an excellent retelling of just what happened at The Beijing News.]
“Beijing paper in hot water for 1989 crackdown photo,” Reuters, July 25, 2008, 1:37pm HK
“China paper censored for Tiananmen photo,” Associated Press, July 25, 2008, 1:10pm HK
MORE SOURCES:
“In Beijing’s Ancient Alleys, Modern Comforts,” New York Times, July 24, 2008 [Liu has refurbished a traditional courtyard house in Beijing and now lives there.]
“The View From Here,” [About Liu’s photography and the Olympics] SCMP, July 25, 2008
“Liu Heung Shing: China stripped bare,” Times Online, July 13, 2008
“His Camera Captures the Essence of Country,” China Daily, January 16, 2008
“Liu Heung Shing Bio,” Asia2000 Publishing
[Liu Heung Shing on AP’s List of Pulitzer Prize winners]
“Star TV Selects VP of Comms for China,” [About Liu and News Corporation] PR Week, November 13, 2000
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 25, 2008, 10:52am HK]

By David Bandurski — The case against Yang Jia (杨佳), the 28 year-old Beijing man allegedly behind a July 1 stabbing spree in which six Shanghai police officers were killed, might have seemed cut-and-dried two weeks ago. But the case has been clouded with numerous questions in recent days, not least the whereabouts of Yang’s mother, who was reportedly carted away by Shanghai police in Beijing on the day of the attack to “cooperate with the investigation.”
Yet again, the critical question concerns information, transparency and accountability. The public wants answers. What did police do to make Yang so angry? Why can’t Yang be allowed to publicly state the reasons for his actions? What are the police hiding?
Authorities in Shanghai and Beijing want the case handled swiftly and quietly.
A China Daily report shortly after the stabbing spree noted that “the knife attack caused widespread anger in China, although some people expressed sympathy for Yang.” But the top editorial on QQ.com yesterday was begging a very different question. The headline read: “So, There Are Actually So Many Who Support Yang Jia, and Who Hate the Police.”

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Information Times July 20 coverage of the Yang Jia case.]

In fact, the top eight editorials on QQ.com yesterday were all related to the Yang Jia case.
Coming in at number eight was Chang Ping’s latest editorial. (Readers may wish to note that despite the May controversy that led to Chang’s “removal” as deputy editor at Southern Metropolis Weekly, he is listed here — and he has been for previous editorials this summer — as “deputy editor of Southern Metropolis Weekly.”)

[ABOVE: Screenshot of top QQ editorials listed for July 22, 2008, 4:19pm HK]

The second-ranking editorial on QQ, by CMP fellow Yan Lieshan (鄢烈山), argued that the only way justice can be ensured in the Yang Jia case — and, more to the point, the only way the public will accept the verdict — is if it is moved to a new court outside Shanghai and Beijing.
The editorial, printed in yesterday’s edition of the Pearl River Evening News (珠江晚报), had drawn more than 25,000 responses from Web users on QQ.com by late afternoon, the vast majority expressing praise for Yan Lieshan’s points.

[ABOVE: Screenshot of top of Yan Lieshan editorial listing number of posted comments at 4:21pm HK]

The more-or-less full text of Yan Lieshan’s editorial follows:

“If the Yang Jia Case is Not Held Openly in Another Location, it Will Be Difficult to Please the Public”
According to news reports, the Shanghai Municipal Procuratorate initiated public prosecution on July 17 against Yang Jia, the defendant in the Zhabei District attacks on police. The accusing side holds that the facts clearly show that Yang Jia committed murder with intent, that the evidence is entirely sufficient to show this, and that the death penalty should be sought in light of Yang’s intent. However, the question of how the case should be tried has now been entirely obscured.
Xinhua News Agency reports tell us that the Shanghai Lawyer’s Association said on July 19 that the defendant, Yang Jia, had already hired Mr. Xie Youming (谢有明) and Mr. Xie Pu (谢晋) of the Mingjiang Law Firm (名江律师事务所) to serve as his legal counsel during the trial proceedings. Nevertheless, as had already been reported elsewhere, Xie Youming serves as a legal adviser for the Zhabei District Government, which means he shares a “boss” with the Zhabei police. This throws Xie’s independence and impartiality in the public eye into question. Before this, Yang Jia had in writing entrusted the selection of his legal counsel to his mother. The two lawyers [from Minjiang] had gone to Beijing to see Yang Jia’s mother, and Yang agreed to their representation only after he saw his mother’s own signature on documents presented to him. But according to the Jinghua Times, Yang’s mother, Wang Jing (王静), was taken away by police [in Beijing] the day of the incident [of the attack on police officers in Shanghai], and relatives have been unable to make contact with her since. There is information suggesting that Wang Jing was taken to Shanghai to “cooperate with the investigation.” Many journalists have posed this question to Shanghai police for their confirmation, but they have remained silent. As the whereabouts of Yang’s mother remains a mystery, a lawyer retained by Yang Jia’s father has visited Shanghai from Beijing, and his requests to visit Yang in custody have been denied. A legal scholar writing in The Beijing News on July 17 criticized the situation, saying “suspense over Yang Jia’s legal representation did not bode well for a fair trial.”
Also on July 17, China Youth Daily ran a report called, “Does Damaging the Image of Public Security Organs Constitute Defamation?” The article criticized the detention of Suzhou male Jia Xiaoyin (郏啸寅), who was accused of “slandering police and disrupting social order under Article 246 of the Criminal Law” for an Internet post that said Yang Jia had sought revenge after a beating at the hands of Zhabei police had damaged his genitals. What I find strange is that, even supposing this Jia is guilty, why was he not arrested in cooperation with police in Jiangsu, but captured instead by Shanghai police who crossed jurisdictional boundaries? Can we not assume that upholding social order and fairness is the business of authorities in Jiangsu as well?
We should notice the fact that perhaps all of these reports on Yang Jia talk about him as a youth with a strong respect for laws and principles, who can’t even abide bad habits like tossing garbage or cutting corners. What happened at the police substation that would make this sort of young person so enraged? When media asked at a press conference to have a look at five hours of footage of Yang Jia’s questioning, their request was denied. If there is no open trial, and we have only the accusers saying his person was not violated, how can the public be reassured?
With this sort of public feeling, the Yang Jia murder case should be heard openly someplace other than Shanghai or Beijing, and this should be the case whether or not Yang Jia’s parents have, as news reports say, already made this request. Yang Jia’s abnormal behavior is a measure of abnormality in our own society. An expedient death for Yang Jia not only cannot “put the people’s anger to rest,” but will actually “stir the people’s doubts,” causing further damage to the Shanghai police and the law enforcement community generally. As the Olympic Games near, a quick death for Yang Jia in order to rouse the morale of the Shanghai police is a naive idea shared by only a few. It does not accord with the procedural fairness and extreme wariness about the death penalty that marks the age of rule of law. Acting with brutality will have exactly the opposite result. With the South China Tiger affair not far behind us, we must approach the credibility of law enforcement organs with great care.

A selection of Web postings for Yan Lieshan’s editorial on QQ.com follows:

[From 123.120.7]
Oh, brave Web editor, it’s probably pointless for you to raise these issues here. Only if you could say these things through People’s Daily, or draw the attention of CCTV’s “News Probe,” would they be of any use. Also, can’t Yang Jia’s appeal documents and e-mails be made public! They’re not state secrets, right? They should take care not to be too “Zhou Zhenglong” [of the South China Tiger controversy].
[From Xiamen]
Between Yang Gui and the Shanghai police, who was it that first got a rise out of the other? Who was guilty first? If what the lawyer says is true, that Yang Gui is of sound mind and has a strong sense of the law, then why did he defy death to go after the Shanghai police? If the Shanghai police hadn’t violated him, would he have gone after them like that? Why won’t the Shanghai police let Yang Gui come out himself and explain his reasons for commiting this crime? Where is Yang Gui’s mother?
[From 19.143.95.*]
Oh, well said! We strongly demand that the trial proceedings be held elsewhere!
[From Zhuhai]
I agree with the viewpoints expressed in this article.
[From Chaohu City]
Everyone around me disagrees with the way the Shanghai police have handled things!
[From Chengdu]
We invite foreign media to come and report on the case!
[From Beijing]
This article makes a really valid point.
[From Dongying City]
So I suppose you don’t think he should be sentenced to death?
[From Beijing]
The trial process is more important than the outcome.
[From Chongqing]
Right now I don’t care whether Little Yang dies or not. I just want to know the truth. Is it really that hard to find out the truth?
[From Nanning City]
I hope the trial can be fair, impartial and open, upholding the defendant’s legal rights.
[From Shenyang]
If the case against Yang Jia is so ironclad then why don’t they dare be open about it????????????????????
[From Kunming]
The trial should be held in Chongqing!
[From Shangqiu City]
It’s plain to see that there are ghosts infecting the hearts of the Shanghai police!
[From 117.80.115*]
The trial should be broadcast live on television. And Yang’s mother should be there.
[From Jiangsu]
I’m fully in support of trying the case outside of Shanghai.
[From Nanchang]
Have they still not found Yang Jia’s mother?

MORE SOURCES:
“Accused Police Killer Appoints Lawyers,” Shanghai Daily, July 20, 2008
“Now Stab Man’s Mum is Missing,” Shanghai Daily, July 19, 2008
“Man Charged with Murder of Six Shanghai Police: Officials,” AFP, July 17, 2008
“Cop Killer in Shanghai May Be ‘Mentally Unstable’,” China Daily, July 16, 2008
“In Cold Blood,” Danwei.org, July 3, 2008
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 23, 2008, 12:30pm HK]