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).

April 28 — May 4, 2008

May 1 – China formally implemented it’s national ordinance on openness of information, or zhengfu xinxi gongkai tiaoli (政府信息公开条例)。 In what some have called a break with China’s tradition of assumed secrecy of government information, the much-awaited and debated ordinance is meant to establish “active disclosure“ (主動公開) as the basic principle governing the handling of government information. The ordinance sets out categories of government information to be made available to the public, and specifies procedures by which citizens may apply for information. A lead editorial in The Beijing News said the ordinance was merely a “starting point” and pressed for more action toward achieving government transparency. “Especially important is that protecting the right to know is done in order to invigorate higher democratic rights like the right to participate and monitor. If we are to realize the ‘sustained effects’ of these democratic rights then the law cannot stop at the right to now, but should extend to the right to participate and monitor.” The following day, a editorial in China’s Legal Daily said that “public participation was the sustained impetus behind the ordinance on openness of government information.”
April 30 — Columnist Huang Fuping (皇甫平) wrote an editorial in Caijing, one of China’s leading business and current affairs magazines, discussing the politics of the international Olympic torch relay [article translated in full at ESWN]. “In our subconscious,” Huang wrote (translation courtesy of ESWN), “we were expecting the world to be awed by the modern construction projects for the Beijing Olympics so that the Chinese everywhere can feel proud. But we did not realize that the people, the mass media and the NGO’s of the world (including some with political powers) would use the Olympics to criticize our government’s governing and administrative styles as well as expect that we would make clear changes with respect democracy, human rights and rule of law during the Olympic period.
April 29 – China Youth Daily, a newspaper published by the Chinese Communist Youth League, ran an article by Lei Zhenyue (雷振岳) calling for the resignation of top leaders in the city of Fuyang (阜阳) in China’s central Anhui province for their local mishandling of an outbreak of the EV71 virus. [AFP coverage of eventual punishment of Fuyang officials and doctors]. [Danwei.org synopsis of early disease coverage].

Hu Jintao reform blueprint defines CCP media control as a key condition of "political reform"

By David Bandurski — It’s purportedly for sale on the Internet at the deal-stealing price of seven dollars. So why is it so impossible to track down a copy of Gongjian: A Report on Political Reform in China After the 17th Party Congress? For starters, the book, purported to be Hu Jintao’s blueprint for political reform, is in high demand among scholars, analysts and journalists. Rumors and conjecture about its existence have been flying ever since last fall’s congress, and everyone is eager to know what it says and what it signifies. [CORRECTION: The book is reportedly now available widely in Beijing bookstores].
A Reuters report last month made passing mention of the book, for which Central Party School vice-director Liu Junru wrote the preface, but offered no details and did not suggest it reflected Hu Jintao’s own views or plans. [CORRECTION: Reuters reporter Chris Buckley did the first detailed report of the study in a February report. See it here.]
The word on the street, though, is that it does.

political-reform-after-the-17th-party-congress-sm.JPG

[ABOVE: Cover of Gongjian: A Report on Political Reform in China After the 17th Party Congress, published by the Xinjiang Production and Building Corps Press in October 2007.]

The report, though circulating among China’s top leadership since last October, has been published by the little-known Xinjiang Production and Building Corps Press, an eccentric choice for such a significant work.
So what has all the quiet fuss been about?
Over the next few weeks, we’ll look more generally at the topic of political reform in China as glimpsed through Gongjian. What sort of path does it blaze? Where does it stand on electoral democracy, intraparty democracy, religious freedom and the growth of civil society?
For the moment, though, we’ll deal more specifically with the media-related portions of the document and how it envisions the role of the press in China.
The report, first of all, is prepared by Zhou Tianyong (周天勇) and Wang Changjiang (王长江), both scholars at China’s Central Party School we mentioned as key figures for journalists to interview in the run up to last year’s Party Congress.
Zhou Tianyong is vice-director of the Research Office of the Central Party School and one of several authors of the Party School’s “Political Reform Research Report” (政治体制改革研究报告), which was published in book form as Political Reform in China in 2004. The preface to Gongjian, written by Li Junru, makes specific mention of the 2004 book.
Wang Changjiang is director of the Central Party School’s Party Building Division (党建部). Wang wrote an essay in May last year called, “Answering a Few Misgivings About Issues Concerning Democracy” (辨析关于民主问题的几个疑虑). Published in Beijing Daily, the article argued that democratization could happen even under a one-party system.
While Gongjian does note in passing in chapter one that “freedom of speech is an inevitable development trend,” it argues that the CCP must continue to control media as a fundamental condition of political reform. Party control of the press, in other words, must remain intact even as the country moves toward so-called “political reform,” or zhengzhi tizhi gaige (政治体制改革).
One of the most revealing formulations employed at the outset of the report is the “three controls,” in which we may be witnessing the birth of a new party catchphrase for the conditions under which the CCP will allow political reform to move ahead, including media control.
Summing up the challenges that will attend efforts at political reform — for example, the party “must eliminate factors of instability that might emerge in the midst of the political reform process, and must ensure that political reform goes ahead step by step and in an orderly manner under the leadership of the CCP” — the authors write:

We must uphold the CCP’s leadership of the political reform process, and we must implement the three controls (三项原则), which are that the party controls the army (党管军队), the party controls cadres (党管干部), and the party controls the press (党管新闻).

Falling back again on the lessons of USSR disintegration, the authors write that “in the 1980s and early 1990s, as the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe underwent dramatic change, there were many reasons that the party of Socialism progressively lost hold of political power, but one important reason was that the ruling party gave up control of the military, with the result that in the moment of truth the army did not heed the words of the party and even stood on the side of the opposition.”
“The ‘control’ in party control of cadres,” the authors write, “should be understood as both control and leadership.” It essentially means that the role of party leaders is to carry out the policies and work of the party, and be obedient to the party line. “In this way, party control of cadres means that the party leads the work of cadres.” And: “For the Chinese Communist Party, party control of cadres is undebatable.”
Then comes the chapter one section on the press control aspect of the “three controls”:

Party control of the press. The press sytem is an important and integral part of the national political system. Freedom of speech is an inevitable development trend. But in the period of social and economic transition, the question of what function the press should have becomes for us a question that must be met with extreme caution. We believe that when a market economy system is not yet mature, and when the nation’s political culture and the democratic character [of the population] continue to show a marked gap with developed nations, a one-sided emphasis on freedom of speech could potentially create chaos in public opinion, which would be disadvantageous to the stable achievement of transition of the social and economic systems under a situation of centralized political control. Therefore, the party’s leadership and control of the press system is necessary for the stable transition of the social and economic systems, and an important integral component suited to a centralized political system.

The fear, an all-too-familiar one, is that political reform might unleash demands for greater political freedoms and bring the kind of social chaos we saw in the spring of 1989. Hence the imperative, from the CCP’s vantage point, of controlling or “guiding” public opinion by means of press control.
On pages 65 through 67 of the report, in a section called “Improving the Ruling Party’s Influence on the Media,” the authors write that “there are two primary avenues by which the ruling party can influence the media: the first is to control, the second is to use” (一是控制, 二是利用).
The second aspect of this formula is a testament to the priority the CCP now places on finding new ways to “use” and “influence” media as opposed to the old emphasis on “control” (for which “guidance” has been the operating term since 1989).
With a tinge of alarm, the report cites the recent history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia as urgent lessons in the growing power of media as a vehicle of popular participation in political affairs, a challenge to the party’s leadership:

Traditionally, political parties were the most important tools for the people to express their interests, hopes and expectations. Now, media have also emerged as a tool for political participation, and have played a role of ever-growing importance. This means that the things people accomplished in the past predominantly through political parties they can now accomplish through media channels. As a result, the influence of the ruling party faces [new] challenges. This is especially the case with the development of the Internet and technology, which has not only broken through the monopoly of information by restricted to certain levels of society, but has also broken through national boundaries as restrictions on the dissemination of information, actually usurping a number of roles political parties played in the past. Many members of society no longer view participation of political parties as the only channel for obtaining information . . . People have seen that when media play an independent role they can even have a substantial impact on politics. For example, while the ‘color revolutions’ occurring in Eastern Europe and Central Asia in recent years have complex causes, the control of the media and public opinion is a factor that cannot be overlooked. All of this has meant that the traditional mode of participating in politics via the political party faces many new problems. Faced with the immense utility of the media, nations across the world are all seeking policies for dealing with this issue, striving to enhance their influence on the media. Summed up, there are two primary avenues by which the ruling party can influence the media: the first is to control, the second is to use.

As many of our analyses at CMP attest, China’s media landscape has changed over the last two decades, the CCP’s regime of media control notwithstanding. The complexities of media commercialization, growing journalistic professionalism and the rise of the Internet and other new technologies have demanded the party change its approach to public opinion control.
An important part of this change in recent years has been an intensified focus on “using” media, including the Internet, to further the party’s interests rather than employing a one-dimensional control approach.
It’s not enough, in other words, to silence voices the party views as unfavorable — the party must find new ways to get its message out in an increasingly competitive, market-oriented media environment.
As we’ve written elsewhere, the CCP views media development as a critical factor in a global war for public opinion.
Likewise, many CCP leaders have come to regard “Western” media as pawns working for the interests of Western governments in spreading their ideology and influence — hence the party’s obsession with “color revolutions” and the role of the press.
This is a tactic and/or position we’ve seen frequently in recent weeks, as China has turned its own press apparatus against foreign media.
It was no surprise, therefore, as China’s foreign ministry turned on CNN for comments made by Jack Cafferty, that Chinese media coverage included comments from “famous American scholar” F. William Engdahl alleging that March chaos in Tibet was the “latest ‘color revolution’ cooked up by Washington.” [Xinhua News Agency: “CNN, Cafferty need to make a sincere apology to the Chinese people.”]
Most readers would probably think it fantastical to relate the controversial comments of a single pundit on one major news network to a supposed “color” conspiracy against China’s ruling party. But for China’s leadership this thesis has become a matter of faith and policy in the last few years.
For the authors of Gongjian, the recent history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is a lesson in the dangers of freer media, and it underpins the CCP’s determination to “control” and “use” the press.
The reform document suggests control will continue to be the party’s guiding principle for media policy for years to come, that a change in the role of the press is not in the cards even as the party pushes ahead with “political reform.”
Gongjian does make other statements about the need for media development, “supervision by public opinion” and the creation of a press law. Look for more about these topics in a future post.
[Posted by David Bandurski, April 18, 2008]

"The Joys and Misgivings of a Media Upstart": A lecture by editorial page editor Li Wenkai

The China Media Project is pleased to extend an invitation to our readers to attend a lecture on April 23 by Li Wenkai, a key figure in China’s newest generation of professional journalists and currently acting head of the editorial page of Southern Metropolis Daily. The title of Li’s talk will be: “The Joys and Misgivings of a Media Upstart: A young editorial writer’s observations on China’s media.”

copy-of-li-wenkai-01.jpg

———–
“The Joys and Misgivings of a Media Upstart: A young editorial writer’s observations on China’s media”
SPEAKER: Li Wenkai, head of editorial page at Southern Metropolis Daily
Lecture will be conducted in putonghua.
When: April 23, 2008 (Wednesday), 5:30pm to 7pm
Where: Foundation Chamber, Eliot Hall, the University of Hong Kong
What are current affairs editorials and why are they necessary? How does one set about writing them? This question is not just for this or that newspaper, but for the whole of Chinese society. Li Wenkai’s journey from the halls of Peking University to the top spot at Southern Metropolis Daily’s editorial page was a short one with few turns. His fellow journalists chided him for rocketing straight to the top without paying his dues. How could someone with so little life experience be put in charge of current affairs editorials at a leading newspaper? But is Li Wenkai’s experience an accident of fate, or does it tell us more about the state of China’s media today?
About the speaker:
One of the key figures in China’s newest generation of professional journalists, Li Wenkai is currently assistant to the editor-in-chief and acting head of the editorial page of Southern Metropolis Daily. From 1994 to 2001 Li studied in the School of International Relations at Peking University, earning a bachelor’s degree and a master’s in French Studies. From 2001 to 2004, Li served as a reporter and editor at Southern Weekly.
THERE IS NO NEED TO RSVP FOR THIS LECTURE.
For further questions, please contact Rain Li at (852) 2219-4001

“A Chinese Scholar-blogger Looks at Education Reform in China

The China Media Project is pleased to extend an invitation to our readers to attend a lecture on April 16 by Zhang Ming, a professor of political science at Renmin University of China. Zhang, an expert on political systems in China, will discuss the challenges facing China’s push to improve its higher education system.

copy-of-zhang-ming-01.jpg

———-
The Quagmire of China’s “Great Leap Forward” in Higher Education
WHEN: 5:30pm to 7pm, April 16, 2008 (Wednesday)
WHERE: Foundation Chamber, Eliot Hall, The University of Hong Kong
China’s “Great Leap Forward” in higher education originated as a reform project in the second half of the 1990s. The idea was to rapidly improve China’s universities by making major capital contributions, but officials gave little thought to the need for structural reforms. The result was the rapid bureaucratization of China’s higher education system, undermining the scholastic environment and encouraging academic corruption. In this lecture, Professor Zhang Ming, one of China’s most active scholar-bloggers, will analyze the root causes of the current predicament facing higher education reform in China, and discuss possible solutions.
About the speaker:
A professor in the political science department at Renmin University of China, Professor Zhang Ming is an expert on the history of political systems and rural politics in China. Professor Zhang is also well known for his commentaries for various Chinese media, and as an active blogger at http://blog.sina.com.cn/zhangming1.
Enquiries: Ms Rain Li (2219 4001/ [email protected])

Magazine editor says media development is key to economic and political reform

By David Bandurski – Media reform is an indispensable part of the overall process of economic and political reform in China, veteran magazine editor Hu Shuli (胡舒立) told a packed auditorium at the University of Hong Kong last week.
“What do we mean when we say media reforms and economic and political reforms go together? Broadly speaking, we mean the sharing of ideas,” said Hu, who launched Caijing magazine in April 1998 and helped craft it into one of China’s most respected business publications.

hu-shuli-talk-1.jpg

Hu’s talk, “Ten Years at Caijing,” was hosted by the China Media Project of the Journalism & Media Studies Centre, where Hu was recently a visiting fellow.
Tracing the development of what she called “relatively independent” and diverse media with a “popular hue” (民间色彩), Hu stressed that while China’s government has “accommodated” changes in the domestic media industry, it has not been a primary motivating factor.
She also disregarded the idea, which she called an “overseas thesis” (外国结论), that the reasons behind China’s growing media diversity were principally economic.
Included on Hu’s short list of relatively independent media dealing with business and the economy were weekly papers like 21st Century Economic Herald (21世纪经济报道) and The Economic Observer (经济观察报), and such magazines as Business Watch Magazine (商务周刊), New Fortune (新财富) and Business (商界).
Among the principle factors spurring the rise of more “independent” media in China, Hu included a strong “tradition of seeking independence” among journalists, the push for financial independence (freedom from government subsidies), the rise of the advertising sector, and Internet growth.
[Posted March 26, 2008, 12:06pm HK]

Pulling the Strings of China's Internet

Far Eastern Economic Review, December 2007 — When some of the world’s top technology companies, including Yahoo!, Intel, Nokia and Ericsson, formed the Beijing Association of Online Media three years ago, the group seemed to be a typical trade association, sponsoring social activities and facilitating networking. Even when its activities widened last year to include “self-policing” the Internet, it seemed to be benign, targeting content that “contradicts social morality and Chinese traditional virtues,” i.e. pornography. The message was that the companies were providing a public service in spaces used by Chinese teens, not helping the government maintain political control.
Yet today it is clear that BAOM has become an active agent of the Chinese government’s initiatives to stifle discussion of political issues . . .

Harsh words for Tibetans, a harmonious front for the Han

By David Bandurski — As Reuters and AFP reported today on the “life or death struggle” in Tibet, they touched unwittingly on one of the most noteworthy aspects of how Tibetan unrest has been handled and reported within China, where the basic formula has been: harsh words for the Tibetans, a harmonious front for the Han. [MAIN PAGE: Tibetan uprisings shown on the Chez Oimdu blog].
The English-language wire reports, which feed on the graphic language of Tibet’s top party leader, Zhang Qingli (张庆黎), will undoubtedly be a source of frustration for Chinese leaders as they attempt to manage the global blowback and present a face of tolerant resolution.
AFP and Reuters both report Zhang Qingli’s words as reflective of China’s official line (which of course they ultimately are as Zhang is Tibet’s top party party leader and enforcer). But the image of Tibet as a “life or death” struggle of “blood and fire” is not being pushed outside the party’s inner circle — nor is it the image top leaders wish to project to the world.
So what happened here?

life-or-death.JPG

[ABOVE: Screenshot of “life or death” wire stories as they top a Yahoo! News “China” search this afternoon.]

The source of Zhang’s comments, as quoted by Reuters and AFP, is China Tibet News, an official online news site based in the autonomous region, and the comments originate from an editorial appearing yesterday in Tibet’s official mouthpiece, Tibet Daily. Zhang reportedly made the comments in a closed telecast meeting with other top officials.
A portion of Zhang’s comments are as follows:

We are now fighting a bitter struggle of blood and fire against the Dalai clique, a struggle of life and death. The stability of Tibet concerns the stability of the whole nation, and the safety of Tibet concerns the safety of the whole country.
AFP: “We are currently in an intensely bloody and fiery struggle with the Dalai Lama clique, a life or death struggle with the enemy.”
REUTERS: “We are in the midst of a fierce struggle involving blood and fire, a life and death struggle with the Dalai clique.”

Interestingly, China Tibet News is one of just a few sources available online or anywhere else for Zhang’s comments. They have not appeared on major Web portals. Nor have they appeared in newspapers outside Tibet.

tibet.JPG

[ABOVE: Screenshot of Chinatibetnews.com, an official news portal for the autonomous region.]

A search on Baidu News for the phrase “life and death struggle with the enemy” (“你死我活的敌我斗争”), comes up with Zhang’s editorial from Tibet Daily via the Xinhua News Agency website, and the Phoenix TV website.
A search in the WiseNews database of Chinese language periodicals, covering over 130 major party and commercial newspapers, turns up no reference to “life and death struggle with the enemy” in coverage since the uprising. The database does not include Tibet Daily.
The important point to recognize is that while leaders in Tibet have resorted to the fiery vocabulary of Maoist-era jargon (“people’s war,” for example) to send the message that they will deal with protests with an iron hand, media across the country (party papers, commercial papers and websites) have used more restrained language.
Nowhere is the Maoist-era rhetoric more apparent than in the reference in Zhang Qingli’s editorial and related coverage to the need to “take a clear-cut stand against separatism” (旗帜鲜明地反对分裂). That phrase is of course redolent of Deng Xiaoping’s call in 1983 to “take a clear-cut stand against bourgeois liberalization” (旗帜鲜明地反对资产阶级自由化).
More poignantly, the phrase recalls the People’s Daily editorial of April 26, 1989, that presaged the crackdown on student demonstrators. The title of that editorial was, “We Must Take a Clear-Cut Stand Against Chaos” (旗帜鲜明地反对动乱).
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 19, 2008, 9:53pm]
MORE SOURCES:
Images and News of Tibet Riots Seep Onto Web, Despite Chinese Authorities’ Clampdown“, China Digital Times, March 19, 2008
Simmering Resentments Led to Tibetan Backlash,” New York Times, March 18, 2008
Links and roundup of Tibet coverage at Roland Soong’s ESWN.

Hu Shuli

March 2008 — Hu Shuli is the founding editor of Caijing, China’s leading finance and economics magazine. Ms. Hu started Caijing in April 1998. Under her leadership, Caijing has become one of China’s most respected business publications. Internationally recognized for her work in journalism, Ms. Hu was selected as one of BusinessWeek’s “50 Stars of Asia” in 2001 and named “International Editor of the Year” by the World Press Review in 2003. Ms. Hu was also recommended as the most powerful commentators in China by Financial Times in 2006. The Wall Street Journal listed her as one of the “Ten Women to Watch in Asia”. She was the winner of 2007 Louis Lyons Award for Conscience and Integrity in Journalism by Nieman Foundation at Harvard University.

"Ten Years at Caijing": A Lecture by Veteran Editor Hu Shuli

The China Media Project is pleased to extend an invitation to our readers to attend a lecture on March 19 by Caijing chief editor Hu Shuli, one of China’s top journalists. Hu Shuli is the founding editor of Caijing, China’s leading finance and economics magazine. In this lecture, Hu Shuli will address the question of what role an independent-minded news magazine can play in a changing China.

zzzzz2.JPG

———–

“Ten Years at Caijing: Glimpsing the development of China’s media through one of the country’s leading news magazines”
Speaker: Hu Shuli, chief editor of Caijing
Lecture will be in Putonghua.
When: March 19, 2008 (Wednesday), 5:30pm to 7pm
Where: Foundation Chamber, Eliot Hall, the University of Hong Kong
Caijing, one of the mainstays of professional journalism in China, has for ten years pushed openness of information, watchdog journalism and accurate, in-depth news through its editorial philosophy of “independent, exclusive and original.” The magazine has had a major influence as a documenter of social change in China. It has also pioneered commercial reforms in China’s media. In this lecture, Hu Shuli will address the question of what role an independent-minded news magazine can play in a changing China.
About the Speaker:
Hu Shuli is the founding editor of Caijing, China’s leading finance and economics magazine. Ms. Hu started Caijing in April 1998. Under her leadership, Caijing has become one of China’s most respected business publications. Internationally recognized for her work in journalism, Ms. Hu was selected as one of BusinessWeek’s “50 Stars of Asia” in 2001 and named “International Editor of the Year” by the World Press Review in 2003. Ms. Hu was also recommended as the most powerful commentators in China by Financial Times in 2006. The Wall Street Journal listed her as one of the “Ten Women to Watch in Asia”. She was the winner of 2007 Louis Lyons Award for Conscience and Integrity in Journalism by Nieman Foundation at Harvard University.
THERE IS NO NEED TO RSVP FOR THIS LECTURE.
For further questions, please contact Rain Li at (852) 2219-4001

March 4 — March 10, 2008

March 5 – Premier Wen Jiabao’s (温家宝) government work report to the Eleventh National People’s Congress (NPC) said continuing and deepening reforms of the cultural sector (文化体制) – encompassing media, publishing and the arts – would be one of the country’s priorities in 2008. Interviewed by reporters, General Administration of Press and Publication director Liu Binjie (柳斌杰) said CCP and government support for cultural development was a major reason behind the success of reforms. He said the government was mindful of the cultural rights and interests (文化权益) of the Chinese people. [More from People’s Daily Online here].
March 7 – A discussion forum devoted to China’s recent “South China Tiger Controversy” on the popular portal Huash.com.cn, a site operated by Shaanxi Province’s commercial Huashang Bao (华商报), was shut down by authorities. In a brief notice released on the closure, the website gave no explanation for the action, who made the decision, or why the forum was closed. Online commentators speculated the closure was made ahead of the NPC session in Beijing. [For more on the “South China Tiger Controversy” see ESWN].
March 7 – Tang Wei, the star of Director Ang Lee’s latest blockbuster Lust, Caution, http://movies.go.com/lust-caution/d872926/thriller was banned from making television appearances in any form, including television advertisements. No reason was given for the ban, issued by China’s State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, and Tang now stands as possibly the first Chinese actor to be singled out by SARFT for a ban. [For more on the case, see Danwei.org].
[Edited by Cheng Jinfu]