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).

Chinese scholars and journalists call for more action on human rights in open letter to Hu Jintao

In a bold and rare show of domestic concern over China’s human rights record and its international image as the 2008 Olympic Games near, 39 Chinese lawyers, scholars and journalists signed an open letter to China’s top leaders today appealing for more action on human rights.
Signees to the public letter included pro-democracy activist Chen Ziming (闄堝瓙鏄�), former Zhao Ziyang aide Bao Tong, writer Yu Jie (浣欐澃), and lawyer and former CMP fellow Pu Zhiqiang (娴﹀織寮�).
Capitalizing on China’s official theme for the Beijing Olympics, “One World, One Dream,” the letter said the dream “all people share” should be no other than “to possess those human rights specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guaranteed in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.”
The letter, which outlined 9 specific demands regarding human rights in China and the 2008 Games, said the “exciting theme” for the Olympics “should be infused with real improvements in the area of human rights, more complete and more commensurate with the Olympic spirit.”
The letter adds to growing pressure on Chinese leaders to face up to the country’s human rights problems.
The 9 demands contained in the public letter are as follows:
1. A general amnesty for those making errors in good conscience, releasing all those Chinese citizens who have been imprisoned for expressing their views, for their religious beliefs, for association, rights defense and other political reasons, allowing them the right to join their families in enjoying the Olympics in an atmosphere of freedom;
2. Allow the return to their mother soil of Chinese citizens forced to live overseas due to political reasons or reasons of religion or faith, so that they may enjoy the Olympics from their own homeland and not in other countries;
3. Implement without exception the rules allowing foreign journalists to report freely, and apply these same rights to journalists from Chinese media;
4. Give fair compensation to all of those who have been removed and their properties demolished for the building of Olympic projects, and release all citizens who have been detained or convicted because of their opposition to forced demolition and removal. Apologize and provide compensation according to the law for those citizens treated inhumanely;
5. Take effective measures to ensure the legal rights of those rural workers who have expended great effort for the building of Olympic projects;
6. Immediately desist from the violent repatriation and detention of petitioners carried out in the name of the Olympic Games, and desist from the repatriation of those residents and workers coming from outside [Beijing];
7. We oppose particularly the closure of schools for the children of migrant workers, who should be allowed freedom of movement, whose right to express themselves and petition for redress should be protected, and whose children should enjoy the same right as city residents to participate in the Olympics.
8. In order that [China may ] serve as a role model in fighting sports corruption internationally, it should carry out sound and systematic monitoring of the spending of Olympic funds, publicizing the true costs of hosting the Olympic Games to Chinese taxpayers and the process of bidding for and disposal of funds, so that [China may] host an open an transparent Olympics.
9. In order that the abovementioned demands should be fairly implemented, non-governmental organizations, civic groups and rights defense workers must be allowed to establish and participate in an Olympic Oversight Committee to examine [progress in the above areas] and release regular reports.
The full text of the Chinese letter follows:
“同一个世界,同一个梦想”:同样的人权——我们对北京奥运的呼吁和建议
中华人民共和国主席胡锦涛先生,人大委员长吴邦国先生,国务院总理温家宝先生:
国际奥林匹克委员会, 联合国人权理事会,世界各国关注人权的民主政府首脑,国际非政府人权组织,国际社会关注人权民主的体育界、 商界、学术界、艺术界等各界人士:
鉴于《奥林匹克宪章》指出:”以种族、宗教、政治、性别或其他理由,对某 个国家或个人的任何形式的歧视,都与奥林匹克成员的身份不相容”。由此而来的奥运宗旨为”通过没有任何歧视、具有奥林匹克精神……的体育活动来教育青年 从而为建立一个和平的更美好的世界做出 贡献”;
鉴于中国政府为北京奥运提出的口号是:”同一个世界,同一个梦想”;
鉴于现在的国际社会基于普世人权标准而对北京奥运充满了疑虑和批评;
我们特向你们提出如下 呼吁和建议。
今天,是举世瞩目的 奥运倒计时一周年。在北京举行奥 运是中国的一件大事,也是世界的一件大事,北京奥组委上个月发布了 年奥运主题口号”同一 个世界,同一个梦想”。
我们,这些普通中国公民,对这样一个美好的口号,对能在自己的祖国举办 这样一个象征人类和平、友谊和公正的盛会,本应感到毫无保留,充满自豪和欢欣。令人遗憾的是,现实中的种种负面现象,包括奥运筹备中的一些现象 ,让我们不得不追问:这”同一个世界,同一个梦想”所倡导的,究竟是何种世界、谁的梦想?中国如何才能成功举办一届让世人赞美、国人同庆、真正发扬奥运精神的盛会?
我们生活在一个日益全球化的世界上,但这个世界并不平等和安宁,强权对贫弱的欺凌,专制对人权的剥夺,暴力对生命的屠戮,仍然是日所常见。从二十世纪的战争、贫穷和政治制度造成的灾难中挣脱出来的 人们,日渐清楚地意识到普世人权对促进自由、维系和平和实现公正的重要,一个美好而人道的”同一个世界”存在的前提,必然是全世界的人们都享有最基本的人权。而一个基本人 权得不到尊重和保障的世界,只会是一个分裂而破碎的世界,不可能有尊严、 平等与和睦。所以,那人人共享的”同一个梦想”不应该是别的 ,恰恰是《世界人权宣言》所规定的、《中华人民共和国宪法》所肯定的那些 人人应享有的普世人权。
正是基于此,我们 认为,北京奥组委这个激励人心的口号应加入改善人权的内容,以期更确切更完整,也更符合奥运精神。借此世界瞩目之机,中国政府应该向全世界展现其符合普世文明的良好形象,庄重地履行中国宪法中保障人权的规定,切实地兑现中国政府在申奥时就改善人权所作的承诺。所以,我们认为,北京奥运的口号应 该是:
“同一个世界,同一个梦想,同样的人权”。
这样一个更完整的口号,不仅可以更好地表达奥运精神 ,进一步推动奥运事业,也能够为我们中国提供检省发展道路的良好机会,为所有中国公民 提供支持奥运的激励,最终为中国的进步、为建设真正的社会和谐提供新的动力。难道还有比”同样的世界,同样的人权”更美好更宏伟的人类共有的梦想吗?!
正因为我们怀有这个共同梦想,我们才会对中国的人权现状充满疑虑。过去数年 ,尽管中国政府多次重申保护公民的基本人权,为申奥做过改善人权的承诺, 年作出过废除收容遣送的制度改革, 年把”国家尊重和保障人权”写进宪法,但迄今为止,我们还看不到中国政府拿出更实质性的 具体措施,以证明其在改善人权方面做出了切实的努力。相反,我们目睹的、听闻的、乃至亲历的,却 是对新闻和表达自由的更严厉的扼杀,对人权捍卫者的变本加厉的迫害,对国际公认的人权标准的任意践踏,对贫弱群体权益的肆无 忌惮的侵犯,甚至奥运筹备过程本身也成为一些政府部门及官员侵犯人权、盘剥弱势群体的堂皇口实。这一切,严重违背了奥运精神,正在使中国政府失信于世界,失信 于国民,以至于民怨日兹、危机日深,政治领导人的亲民形 象日损。
当然,政府并非没有认识到问题之严重,故有”以人为本”、”和谐社会”等政策的提出。但扬汤安能止沸。问题的关键不在于口 号的鲜亮,而在于行动的切实;不在于 “国家尊重和保障人权”入宪,而在于宪法早有规定的公民权利得不到应有的尊重和保障,无 法平等地落实到每个国民的身上,即使动用各种资源强行美化城市、修建壮观的场馆、夺得众多的奖牌,又怎能掩盖人权缺失这一国家发展上的 致命弱点?那庆祝奥运的焰火,又怎能掩饰矛盾激化的社会和污染严重的环境等严酷现实?如此政府作为,又怎能奢望国民会有 同一个梦想?
我们,作为热爱这片土地的国民,也作为全球化时代的世界公民,是多么希望上述人权问题能够通过政府和民众的共同努力而得到公正解决,让奥运能够在 一种自由、祥和、喜庆的氛围里举行,让各国的朋友见到一个以尊重人权而享誉世界的国度。但中国 的人权现状却让我们遗憾、失望、痛苦、愤怒。我们知道,在尊重人权上,中国政府本应、也能够做得更好,却一次又一次地丧失掉人们对其抱有的希望和信任,也让自己陷入执政合法性的危机中。
本着公民的良知和责任感,我们呼吁中国政府善用契机,使奥运真正成为中华 民族的一件盛事,由此开启社会和解之门;我们也呼吁国际社会为达成这样一个盛会做出努 力,让中国的崛起不再成为世界的疑虑。要知道,今日中国发生的一切也必将深刻地影响到人类的未 来。
为此,我们围绕”人权奥运 “提出以下几条具体建议:
——对良心犯实行大赦,释放那些因言论、信仰、结社、维权和其他政治原因 被判入狱的中国公民,使得他们能够在自由的氛围里享有与家人一起观赏奥运的权利;
——允许因政治、宗教和信仰等原因被迫流亡海外的中国公民回归故土,能在自己祖国而不是异乡观赏奥运;
——不打折扣地落实中国政府有关外国记者到 年 月 日可以自由采访的规定,并让中国媒体的记者享有同等权利;
——给与所有那些因奥运工程遭受拆迁的居民以公正的补偿;释放那些因反抗强制拆迁而被逮捕判刑的公 民;向其中受到非人道对待的公民道歉并依法赔偿;
——采取有效措施保障为奥运工程建设付出辛劳的工人和农民工的合法权益;
——立即停止以举办奥运为名强行甚至暴力遣返羁押上访访民,停止遣返那些来自外地的居民和农民工, 尤其不应该关闭民工子弟学校,让他们的迁徙自由、表达和申诉的权利得到保障,让农民工的孩子享有与城市居民同样的参与奥运的权利;
——为国际体育界反腐做出表率,应该对奥运资金的使用实行完善的制度化监督,向中国纳税人 公布真实的奥运建设的成本、招标和资金使用过程,办一个公开化透明化的奥运。
——为保证上述要求能够公正落实,让非政府组织、民间团体和维权工作者能够充分地参与,成立有国内外民间人士参加的奥运 监督委员会,检查并定期公布执行情况。
我们没有将奥运政治化的意图。这些建议符合”没有任何歧 视”的奥运宗旨,符合国际人权人道的原则,符合中国宪法规定的公民权利,符合中国政府的相关规定和政策乃至中国传统的人之常情,也是北京奥组委提倡的”开放、绿色、人文奥运”最应该体现的。如其得以落实,虽远不足以从根本上改善中国的人权状况,但起码可以作为中国 人权事业的进步的新起点,为国家与社会、政府与民间的良性互动奠定一个新的基础,也会成为中国 政府向世人展示其改善人权的诚意、以人为本的一个机会。
我们认为,上述建议具体可行。只要中国政府兑现改善人权的承诺,拿出切实的行动,与民间社会进行沟通合作,这些建议就能够实现。
如果连这些起码的举措都加以拒绝, 那么我们相信,这次奥运绝不会以”奥运历史上最好的一次奥运”载入史册,也不会让中国人和海外华人感到荣耀。因为,奥运的自由、平等、团结,公正、和平与友爱的精神并没有得到根本展现。相反,它将伴随巨大的怀疑和批评而进入历史。更重要的是,为了举办奥运而压制并积累下来的种种 社会矛盾,也会给中国的未来发展埋下严重的后患。我们切盼中国的领导人能做出明智的抉择,切盼中国公民拿出参与奥运公益的行动,切盼全世界的文明国家和良知人士 为弘扬奥运精神、推动奥运事业和人权事业在中国和世界的发展做出应有的贡献。
2007年8月7日
签名人(维权网授权发表国内人士就奥运发表的签名信,第一批签名名单以此为准):
丁子霖(北京 教授)
刘晓波(北京博士)
包遵信(北京历史学者)
于浩成(北京法学家)
鲍彤(北京 公民)
戴晴(北京作家)
沙叶新(上海 剧作家)
蒋培坤(北京 教授)
张先玲(北京 工程师)
江棋生(北京 学者)
陈子明(北京学者)
张祖桦(北京学者)
廖亦武(四川 作家)
王怡( 四川学者)
焦国标(北京 学者)
陈小雅(北京 学者)
刘军宁(北京学者)
徐友渔(北京 学者)
贺卫方(北京教授)
艾晓明(广东教授)
孙文广(山东 教授)
张闳(上海 教授)
余杰(北京 作家)
余世存(北京 作家)
马 波(北京 作家)
傅国涌(浙江 作家)
冉云飞(四川 作家)
高瑜(北京 记者)
昝爱宗(浙江 记者)
浦志强(北京 律师)
滕彪(北京 律师)
庄道鹤(浙江 律师)
夏霖(北京 律师)
胡佳(北京维权人士)
刘飞跃(湖北 维权人士)
温克坚(浙江 自由撰稿人)
赵达功(深圳 自由撰稿人)
秦耕(海南 自由撰稿人)
王德邦(北京 自由撰稿人 )
MORE SOURCES:
Olympic Charter
China Praises Its Progress Toward Olympics“, The New York Times, August 7, 2007
Olympics Can Speed Change in China“, CNN.com, August 7, 2007
China Breaks Promises on Media,” FT, August 6, 2007
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 7, 2007, 10:59am]

Broadcast minders attack lax advertising content controls at local television stations

In the latest salvo against local television stations in China following the “cardboard bun” affair, the government office charged with controlling broadcast media released an official notice yesterday demanding television networks broadcast advertisements “in strict accordance with laws and regulations.” The notice, issued by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT), went farther than past warnings, targeting ads with “subtle sexual connotations” as well as adds for “illegal” medications and those promising to enhance sexual performance. [IMAGE: Screenshot of SARFT headline topping the news at QQ.com].

get_img3.jpg

The notice directly criticized local television stations for lax controls and accused them of blindly seeking profit. It also said the appearance of such advertisements, including various ads for “fake” medicines, threatened to undermine “social credibility” (公信力).
While the SARFT notice presses local television stations across China to “broadcast advertisements in accord with laws and regulations,” the language is also charged with political buzzwords for media control. The first passage of the notice brings advertisements under the same category as other content, subject to the supreme party media control principle of “guidance of public opinion“:
1. The first priority being benefit to society, [media must] strictly grasp [correct] guidance [of public opinion]. Like other broadcast programs, broadcast advertisements have a powerful guidance character (导向性) and are closely connected to the interests and lives of the masses …
In echoes of the July 24 official response by propaganda authorities to the “cardboard bun” affair involving Beijing TV, yesterday’s notice called for the creation of a “responsibility system”.
The close of the SARFT notice also places this action solidly among a series of recent actions by party leaders to intensify media controls ahead of the 17th National Congress:
When receiving this notice, please transmit it immediately to all relevant offices under your jurisdiction. Broadcast administrating offices [local offices of SARFT, etc.] at various levels and television stations at various levels must effectively implement [these measures], in order to create a favorable social and cultural environment, and a favorable public opinion environment, for the 58th National Day and the victorious opening of the 17th National Congress.
The full Chinese text of the SARFT notice follows:
广电总局关于进一步加强广播电视广告播放管理工作的通知
2007年7月30日,广电总局向各省、自治区、直辖市广播影视局发出《广电总局关于进一步加强广播电视广告播放管理工作的通知》,通知说,近年来,广播电视广告播放秩序明显好转,社会反响良好。但一些广播电视播出机构为片面追求经济利益,仍存在违规播放广告的问题,主要有:一是有的电台、电视台大量播放内容虚假、格调低俗的医疗、药品、性保健品广告和各类性暗示广告;二是播放影视剧时违规超时、超次插播广告(有的电视台播出一部电影时,竟插播8次广告,时长达20多分钟);三是违规播放游动字幕广告、挂角广告及不良短信和声讯服务广告;四是有的转播机构在转播其他台节目时,违规遮盖、覆盖和替换他台的广告。这些问题已经严重影响到了广播电视的社会公信力,群众意见较大。为坚决纠正这些问题,现将有关进一步强化广告播放管理的事宜通知如下:
一、严格把握导向,始终把社会效益放在第一位。广播电视广告与其他广播电视节目一样,具有很强的导向性,并与人民群众的生活、利益密切相关。因此,各级广播电视播出机构要严格按照《广告法》、《广播电视管理条例》和《广播电视广告播放管理暂行办法》等法律、法规的规定,切实履行和加强对广告内容的审查职责,要确保广告宣传导向正确,内容格调健康向上,要提高广告的思想性、艺术性和观赏性,促进和服务国家经济发展,大力弘扬社会主义核心价值观,有利于和谐社会建设。
二、严格依法播放广告,坚决纠正违规行为。各级广播电视播出机构要严格依法、依规播放广告,凡属虚假违法、内容不良、格调低下的医疗、药品、性保健品广告和各类性暗示广告一律不得播出。要扇∏惺荡胧?坚决纠正播放影视剧时违规超时、超次插播广告,违规播放游动字幕广告、挂角广告及不良短信和声讯服务广告,转播节目时违规遮盖、覆盖和替换他台的广告等突出问题。各广播电视播出机构和转播机构应将自查自纠情况于8月15日前上报上一级广播电视行政部门。
各级广播电视行政部门要切实履行管理职责,完善监管手段和制度,保证各项管理规定的落实。要加强对辖区内各播出、转播、传输机构的日常监管,对存在的问题要及时严格依法查处,并要防止反弹。省级广电行政管理部门应于8月20日前将本辖区内各广播电视播出机构和转播机构的自查自纠情况汇总后上报总局社会管理司。总局将继续加强监看、监管,对屡教不改或违规情节严重的,将依法给予通报批评、诫勉谈话、直至停播商业广告等处罚,并向社会公开曝光。
三、建立责任追究机制,增强社会责任感。各级广播电视播出机构和行政部门要进一步明确广告经营和管理人员的职责和义务,做到分工明确,责任到人。要建立健全责任追究制度,凡出现严重违规问题的,要对直接责任人给予必要的行政处分,要追究播出机构及管理部门的分管领导和主要负责人的责任。
四、建立并完善投诉机制,强化社会监督。各级广播电视行政部门和播出机构都要设立并向社会公开广播电视广告投诉电话,及时处理群众反映的问题。对有联系方式的群众投诉,需及时反馈处理结果。对一时难以采纳的建议,要主动说明情况,积极研究解决办法。
五、进一步加强培训,提高广告经营和管理人员的素质。省级广播电视行政部门应有计划地开展对辖区内广播电视播出机构和转播机构有关负责人的培训,进一步提高从业人员的政治意识、大局意识和责任意识,进一步增强从业人员依法办台、播出节目、经营播放广告和按规定转播节目的自觉性,从根本上保证和促进广播电视事业的健康繁荣和可持续发展。
请接到本通知后立即传达、转发辖区内各有关单位。各级广播电视行政部门和各级播出机构、转播机构都必须切实贯彻落实,为庆祝建国58周年和党的十七大胜利召开营造良好的社会文化环境和舆论环境。
[Posted by David Bandurski, August 2, 2007, 11:57am]

CCTV’s freelancer purge corroborated/Henan newspaper explores growth in citizen journalism

CMP reported late last week on an internal order at China Central Television for across-the-board termination of non-contract journalists. That order, which came on the heels of the recent “cardboard bun” affair at Beijing TV, is now being confirmed in reports from Hong Kong’s Ta Kung Pao (picked up in turn by Reuters).
So what do we make of this move by China’s state-controlled television network? [IMAGE: A digital video enthusiast, or “DV observer,” reports on the streets of Zhengzhou, screenshot of QQ.com coverage].

get_img2.jpg

Here we have a rather radical response to the Beijing TV scandal reflecting one side (the party propaganda side, if you will) of the debate within China over journalism and freedom of expression, insofar as the latter is guaranteed in Chapter II, Article 35 of China’s constitution. The debate centers on the question of WHO has the “right to report” (采访权) — the right, in other words, to follow up news, make inquiries, conduct interviews and transmit the resulting “speech” to an audience.
The flip side of this question, as we saw in the aftermath of the Lan Chengzhang case earlier this year, is about who exactly can be a “journalist.” It is a question of rights (权利) and identities (身份).
Is a “journalist”, in other words, defined by his or her place within the bureaucratic ranks of the Chinese press, as a bearer of a “press card” issued by the General Administration of Press and Publications? Or is a “journalist” defined instead by his or her professional role in exercising the public’s right to know (知情权).
Can an ordinary citizen be a journalist?
“Why not?” might be the simple answer to such a question in the West, where the speech of the press is categorically, and constitutionally, identical to that of citizens, where journalists are citizens without having a strange split identity.
The party’s assumption behind the jettisoning of CCTV journalists not under official hire — an arrangement used increasingly under media commercialization in the last decade — is that the ethical problems facing Chinese media are necessarily the product of a careless licensing system. As though, in other words, a journalist who completes his obligatory training in the “Marxist view of journalism” and gets his GAPP-issued press card is going to be more “responsible” than an experienced freelancer.
The role of the freelancer in China’s media is a complicated question for another article. For now, CMP refers readers to a story appearing in the July 30 edition of Henan Commercial Daily, three days after CCTV’s deadline for the removal of all non-contract staff. The story, which offers fascinating insight into the world of freelance TV reporters in China, is about “ordinary citizens” using digital video (DV) to capture news stories for a local Henan TV program called “DV Observer.”
The story quotes the producer of the program as saying they have “close to a thousand” digital video enthusiasts gathering news from around Henan, 100 in the provincial capital of Zhengzhou. Once referred to as “correspondents” by the station, these citizen reporters are now, probably due to the sensitivity of the former term, called “DV observers.”
Some of the more regular contributors have reportedly been issued “interview cards” (采访证) by the station, which are not to be confused with GAPP press cards but nevertheless give bearers some added legitimacy when on the beat. In a further sign of their importance to the local network, the Henan Commercial Daily article tells how the TV station’s legal advisor arrived on the scene to help one DV observer out of a jam with local police.
The Henan Commercial Daily feature also explores the issue of free speech and the right to interview, teasing out the tough question of identities.
The story quotes a Henan TV legal consultant as saying “the journalist’s right to interview [or “report”] and the citizen’s right to interview come from the same source, Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution, which says: ‘citizens have citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, [and] of the press …”
Interestingly, the article also quotes a TV producer invoking Hu Jintao’s “Three Closenesses” [see first underlined portion], suggesting the local government-controlled network views its use of citizen video as part of its drive to keep stride with state-encouraged media commercialization [for more on commercialization policy see David Bandurski and Qian Gang on PG 39 of Spring 2007 Global Journalist].
Another question raised by the article is whether DV reporters violate others’ right to privacy in the process of gathering stories. A partial translation of the Henan Commercial Daily story follows:
——————
Citizens using digital video to film news are accused of privacy invasion
Henan Commercial Daily
The sadness of a suicide, the awkwardness of a drunken carouse, the anger and excitement of confrontation — when these aspects of human life are shoved into the lens of a digital video camera, they spark a controversy over the right to report (采访权) and the right to privacy (隐私权).
Two web users made posts in Dahe online forums lately venting their anger over and voicing their misgivings about digital video (DV) hobbyists going out on the streets to film and then taking their footage to television stations to be broadcast as news.
[Misgivings] DV of suicide jumper draws opposition on the Web
On July 22 a web user called Li-uhongmeizi posted a commnet on Dahe’s “Focus Discussion” forum taking issue with the airing on Henan TV’s “DV Observer” of video of a suicide jumper.
For such a video to be aired as news on television at a time when the family members of the victim faced extraordinary psychological distress, the web user wrote angrily, “this is a trampling on the personal privacy of others.”
At the same time, another web user said they felt it was a violation of privacy to film those on the scene who had not given their consent.
The postings from these two web users generated a debate about whether [these cases] constituted violations of privacy.
According to Cui Jianzhong (崔建中), producer of “DV Observer” on Henan TV’s public channel, the show was first broadcast on February 5, 2007, with a show time of 9:15 pm and length of 30 minutes. Owing to its lively footage and closeness to the lives of the people (贴近民生), the [“DV Observer”] show has already become one of the channel’s top brands.
The content aired on the show comes entirely from DV hobbyists around Henan.
“This program has an authentic flavor, and is basically about ordinary people filming the stories of the ordinary people. In the whole province there are probably close to a thousand DV hobbyists providing us with news. In Zhengzhou alone there are about 100,” Cui said.
[Current Situation] The identity of DV observers is an awkward question
Zhengzhou resident Wang Aiguo is a DV hobbyist who provides news to “DV Observer.” His business card identifies him with the title of “observer” for the “DV Observer” program.
Every day he takes to the streets with the DV camera he bought for 8,000 yuan and films all kinds of people. This has already become one of the principal joys of his life in retirement.
Concerning payment for filming, Wang Aiguo says: “The TV station gives a fee, but I’m not doing this for the money. I’ve got enough retirement to live on. This is my hobby. I find it interesting.”
The TV station does not pay a basic salary to its DV observers, but pays them according to each minute of broadcast footage, at a rate of about 100 yuan per minute.
Although they go out every day just like reporters and film news, and are similarly paid fees on the basis of what they get, these observers are not actually official or part-time employees for the TV stations. Before, the TV station called them “correspondents.” It now calls them “observers.”
But when they are carrying out interviews, these DV observers can only present themselves as DV enthusiasts, so their identities in the context of the interview are awkward.
Liu Zhiming (刘志明) is an observer who has already acquired his interview card (采访证). This card is useful in that he can rely on it when others ask to see his credentials. But it’s still not enough when he tries to reach government offices or businesses. He says: “As soon as people see that it’s an interview card they don’t want to accept [an interview] at all.”
According to Wang Aiguo, the TV station will issue interview cards to a number of core members who submit material with comparative regularity. This so-called interview card is not the standard press card issued by the General Administration of Press and Publications, but a document made by the TV station and rather more like a work permit.
[Debate] Do DV observers have the right to interview or not?
Owing to limitations of identity [in other words, not being an official journalist, having a GAPP-issued press card] the observers are often meet with opposition as they film, people cursing them, grabbing their lenses, taking their tapes, or even stealing their cameras.
One morning last winter, Wang Aiguo received a tip about a male body found in the jurisdiction of a certain police substation. But employees of the substation prevented him from entering the premises. An argument ensued, and police placed Wang in a vehicle, saying they were going to arrest him. Eventually, the legal consultant for “DV Observer” came and took care of the problem.
Wang Aiguo says there are a number of areas that are particularly difficult to film: one is traffic accidents, especially when they result from one-sided negligence and the side responsible doesn’t want to look bad and so avoids being filmed; then there are power outages at businesses and arguments between restaurant bosses and customers; third, there are government offices, which also spurn DV observers.
A lot of people say to them, “You’re not journalists, and so you have no right to come and report.” But when uncivilized things (不文明现象) and sudden-breaking events occur, who actually has the right to report (采访权)?
Yu Jianqiang, a PhD student and lecturer at Beijing Normal University, voices caution: “When media journalists report, they represent the public in carrying out their right to know news events. DV observers, though, are ordinary people (普通老百姓), and whether or not they have this right is something that needs to be explored. It’s tough to say.”
Chen Jieren (陈杰人), a well-known scholar and graduate of Tsinghua University who has principally researched constitutional law says that up to now there has been no law [in China] to specify that the right to interview is a special right exclusive to journalists. Every citizen has the right to record social phenomena. And particularly with the advent of the online blog and streaming video, perhaps anyone can play the role of a journalist.
On the question of where the journalist’s right to report [or “interview”] comes from, “DV Observer” legal consultant Zheng Xinzhi (郭新治), head of Henan Kaida Law Firm (河南开达律师事务所), says it comes from China’s constitution. He says the journalist’s right to interview [or “report”] and the citizen’s right to interview come from the same source, Article 35 [Chapter II] of the Chinese Constitution, which says: “citizens have citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press … [of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration].” According to his analysis, every citizen has an equal right to report”

[Posted by David Bandurski, August 1, 2007, 3:31pm]

Perplexing public apology from Guilin Daily caps summer of Chinese media woes

This summer, with its damaging revelations of fake news, has been one of discontent for the Chinese media. First came the “cardboard bun affair.” Next came the apocryphal news story of the “worst stepmother in history,” exposed as a “well-intentioned” hoax about domestic abuse aimed at drumming up financial support for a young girl suffering from hemophilia. [IMAGE: Screenshot of online coverage of New Express report on Guilin unrest].

get_img.jpg

While media were the focus of criticism in these and other cases, all begged deeper questions about media control and government transparency in China.
Today, the debate over the media and its social and political role is complicated by another story – a public apology by the official Guilin Daily, no doubt under party pressure, for a story about an official clean up of the local tourism industry. The paper now says the news report was “improper at points,” “having a negative impact.” [More from ESWN].
But wait, does that suggest the story was in any way untrue?
The “negative impact” cited in the Guilin Daily apology – and a companion apology from the reporter responsible, Liu Guidan (刘桂丹) – probably refers to local unrest following the July 26 publication of the story, which reportedly drew waves of petitioners from the local tourism industry to the Guilin office of the party committee.
Were they angry about the story itself, or about the government clean up campaign and its possible impact on their livelihoods? Local officials have so far kept the public in the dark.
We have, in fact, what looks like a piece of government-sanctioned watchdog journalism, or “supervision by public opinion,” carried out by the local party newspaper. This sort of party watchdog journalism, which generally deals with lower-level corruption issues, has often been criticized with the phrase, “swatting at flies and letting the tigers run free” — that is, going after small fry, such as corrupt businesses, while rotten party leaders are untouched.
The problem in Guilin, possibly, is that local officials never guessed as they set out to clean up the tourism industry that the flies would bite back. In recent days, authorities in Guilin have worked to quell unrest among angry tourism workers in the region, which relies heavily on tourism.
The bizarre situation, as many other Chinese media have pointed out today, is that local party officials seem to be pushing responsibility for the fallout of an official clean up campaign onto the shoulders of the local party newspaper. In fact, the authorities have not yet stepped forward to explain how exactly the news report in question was “improper.” There are only, so far, the two apologies.
The news from Guilin brought a flood of criticism from web users and major newspapers today.
An editorial in today’s Information Times questioned the motives behind the apology from Guilin Daily, which implied government censure. “So is this report in Guilin Daily a ‘cardboard bun’ story? Or is the real source of the problem is not necessarily something “improper”, but rather that it “had a negative impact” [causing social unrest]?
As to the apparent outcry against the article from tourism workers in Guilin, the editorial stressed that it was the journalist’s job to report the facts, and that it was impossible to expect everyone to accept those facts in the growing diversity of Chinese society:

Journalists must speak the truth, because this is their professional duty. To speak the truth you must speak, and this means facing the inevitability of making mistakes. Today’s society is a pluralistic one, and everyone has his or her own standpoint, views, ways of thinking and rights to uphold.

At Southern Metropolis Daily, columnist Liu Hongbo sought clarification of what exactly had been “improper” about the original news story. “We only see those issuing apologies saying the ‘article was improper at points’. But we don’t see exactly how and where the article was improper,” he wrote.
There was nothing in the Guilin Daily article attacking the local tourism industry as a whole, Liu Hongbo said. He suggested the newspaper had in fact “impartially” reported that the city of Guilin had begun a clean up of the tourism industry. The article had offered examples of the types of behavior that would (purportedly) be the focus of the government campaign.
In echoes of the public response to the Beijing government’s recent handling of the “cardboard bun affair”, Liu closed by appealing for more transparency in the case: “Who can give the public a response? Is Guilin carrying out a clean up of the tourism industry or not? What exactly were tourism workers petitioning about? Was the newspaper report truthful or falsified? What does this phrase ‘improper’ point to?”
A column from China News & Publishing Daily also wanted to know exactly what was meant by “improper” in the Guilin Daily apology:

The report [by Guilin Daily] said that the city of Guilin was launching a special investigation of the tourism market focusing on travel agencies and tour guides — was this the improper portion? The report said that party secretary Gao Xiong (高雄) had issued a written statement on two letters he received from travelers, and demanded the Municipal Tourism Authority “clean up the tourism industry, exposing what needed to be exposed” — was this the improper portion?

We’re not clear about what these “improper points” are, and the content of the apologies is not specific. This causes us to doubt whether the apologies were actually caused by improper points in the news report.
A separate editorial in Southern Metropolis Daily suggested the local newspaper was being scapegoated (by industry workers and officials) for lapses in local government regulation:

The tour guides have pointed the blame in the wrong direction. It is not the media that has made it tough for them to make a living lately, but the current tourism regulatory mechanisms and oversight offices that have not done sufficient oversight. The only thing the media report did is to shrink the tourism workers’ leeway to earn unofficial income.

The editorial speculated that the official handling of the affair had placed narrow notions of social stability before a realistic consideration of the various rights and interests involved:
Judging from the news released by the Guilin government, and the public apology issued by Guilin Daily and the reporter, the authorities have acted unfairly toward the paper and the reporter under the principle that stability comes before all else … (稳定压倒一切). Perhaps the rights of tourism workers in Guilin have been protected, but for those in the weakest position in the whole industry and most deserving of a voice, the tourists themselves, their rights, which should also be protected, have been overlooked.
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 31, 2007, 3:02pm]

July 23 – July 29, 2007

July 24 — High-level Party leaders responded to the recent “cardboard bun” controversy with an apparent tightening of media controls. The response came in the form of an official notice on June 23 stressing that media should report truthfully and accurately, “building a responsibility system for major lapses [in news coverage] and [setting up] an examination and approval system [for news products].” The notice was the first response from high-level Chinese officials on the cardboard bun controversy since the story began on July 8.
June 24 — CMP learned from sources within the Chinese media that China Central Television, responding to the cardboard bun story, issued an internal order that all non-contract journalists working with the network be dismissed by July 27. One CMP source referred to the move as the “massacre of the freelancers.”
July 27 — CMP fellow Zhan Jiang attacked the use by local law enforcement of China’s Law on Management of Public Security to target ordinary citizens transmitting information over the internet. Zhan’s editorial followed an upsurge in the number of relevant cases, including the arrest of a 23 year-old Web user in Jinan and the arrest in June 2007 of a Wuxi resident who claimed in a text message that cancer-causing agents in the polluted Taihu Lake were 200 times above acceptable standards.

Are police over-reaching in their application of China’s new law on management of public security?

Since the implementation of China’s Law on Management of Public Security on March 1, 2006, local Chinese law enforcement have, in an increasing number of cases, used the law to target ordinary citizens transmitting information on the Web or over mobile phone networks. Following a recent burst in such cases, including the recent arrest of a 23 year-old Web user in Jinan and the arrest in June of a Wuxi resident who claimed in a text message that cancer-causing agents in the polluted Taihu Lake were 200 times above acceptable standards, more independent voices in the Chinese media are asking whether the law is being used arbitrarily, in violation of citizens’ rights [Shanghai Daily coverage of Taihu pollution]. [See also “Pengshui SMS Case“].
For a bit of added context, this is the very same law local authorities in Changsha pledged this week to use “from this day forward” against any citizen “sitting quietly [as in meditation], kneeling down [as petitioners are wont to do], shouting slogans, carrying banners, or holding up portraits of the deceased [and the list goes on]” in public places.
According to Article 25 of the public security law, anyone spreading rumors, or making false reports of emergency situations with the “purpose of disturbing the public order” could face 5-10 days in jail and penalties of up to 500 yuan.
In a recent interview with Southern Metropolis Daily concerning the Jinan arrest, Tsinghua University law professor Yu Lingyun (余凌云) pointed out that “disseminating gossip” was not the same thing as spreading rumors to disturb the public order. The legal distinction, he said, was in the question of consequences — if the rumor did not directly cause a public disturbance, it could not be said to constitute a violation of the law. There also needed to be a much clearer understanding, he said, about the measures by which to determine “consequences” in such cases.
In an editorial today, CMP fellow Zhan Jiang attacked the use of the public security law to go after citizens engaging in what he called “normal human discourse.”
“Today, when the governing party and government are increasingly emphasizing the safeguarding of human rights,” he asked, “are citizens carrying on normal interaction via mobile phones to be free from fear, or not?”
Some of the most important human rights guaranteed in China’s constitution, said Zhan, were those in Chapter II, Article 35, specifying that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”
Zhan suggested that a rash of recent cases implicating Web and new technology users violated not only the spirit of Article 35 of China’s constitution, but the letter of the very law on which the arrests were made. The Law on Management of Public Security states, after all, that “the exercise of public security management should be open, impartial and respectful, safeguarding human rights and citizens’ human dignity.”
“Inasmuch as it is a constitutional right, those in power must first consider the protection of freedom of expression when exercising the lesser law [on management of public safety],” Zhan wrote. How, otherwise, can the government justify “heavily punishing” citizens in the name of “public order”?
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 27, 2007, 4:35pm]

High-level Party leaders respond to cardboard bun affair/CCTV orders removal of all freelancers

Signaling that top Party leaders intend to leverage the recent cardboard bun news controversy to tighten media controls ahead of the 17th National Congress and the Beijing Olympic Games next year, media censors demanded in an official notice yesterday that media report truthfully and accurately, “building a responsibility system for major lapses [in news coverage] and [setting up] an examination and approval system [for news products].” The notice was the first response from high-level Chinese officials on the cardboard bun controversy since the story began on July 8. [IMAGE: Screenshot of Xinhuanet coverage of yesterday’s official notice, including photo of Beijing TV apology]

get_img75.jpg

The notice’s mention of a “responsibility system” most probably refers to a general tightening of media controls and greater pressure to “self-discipline” (自律) at news media, as opposed to any reworking of the mechanisms of censorship.
In language reminiscent of the debate over “real” and “fake” reporters that attended the beating death in January of China Trade News journalist Lan Chengzhang, yesterday’s official notice – released by the Central Propaganda Department and the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) — said official “press cards” (记者证) must be presented during the reporting process. It said news media must “act in strict accordance with laws and regulations concerning freelance submissions from society at large and information on the Internet.”
In related news, CMP learned from sources within the Chinese media that China Central Television, responding to the cardboard bun story, recently issued an internal order that all non-contract journalists working with the network be dismissed by July 27. One CMP source referred to the move as the “massacre of the freelancers.”
Authorities have now named the freelance Beijing TV employee alleged to have manufactured the July 8 report for the network’s “Transparency” program, which showed footage of street vendors making steamed buns with a filling of waste cardboard and pork fat. The name, Zi Beigui (訾北桂), is sure to become one of the hot Chinese media buzzwords of 2007.
As CMP has noted repeatedly, there is no necessary relationship in China between the so-called “fake” reporter — one without a GAPP-issued press card — and press corruption. One of the best examples of corruption within the news media is the 2002 bribery and news extortion case exposed by China Youth Daily reporter and CMP fellow Liu Chang, in which four “journalists” from the official Xinhua News Agency were among those implicated.
Officials have demonstrated in the past that they are only too willing to use the news corruption label to attack legitimate reporters with real stories disadvantageous to local governments — this charge was, in fact, once leveled against Gao Qinrong, the reporter recently released after being jailed for eight years on trumped-up charges.
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 24, 2007, 12:19pm]

July 16 – July 22, 2007

July 17 — A top official in China’s Information Office, the government arm chiefly responsible for controlling China’s internet, called the cover-up of negative news by local officials “naive”. Appearing on a CCTV talk show on July 13, Wang Guoqing said some government offices were “relatively naive” in “covering up” negative news and preventing media reporting. Addressing the recent Shanxi Kiln Affair, the official said that if local officials had revealed the truth to begin with, “I think the public would have understood, and there wouldn’t have been the kind of irrational expressions on the Internet that we saw later.” Covering up negative news, Wang said, had become a matter of custom for many local government offices. The show of openness by the official was belied by the office’s continued efforts to control the Web in the run up to the 17th National Congress.
July 18 — Chinese Journalist, a monthly magazine published by Xinhua News Agency that, along with People’s Daily’s News Line, is responsible for conveying the “management spirit” of state propaganda ministers, ran a piece about how media can convey to the world the great achievements of the Chinese Communist Party — by employing “the facts”. The article was a further sign of the determination of party officials to intensify pressure on Chinese media in the run-up to the all-important 17th National Congress.
July 19 — Beijing authorities issued a report saying a Beijing TV news story claiming that some street vendors in the capital filled steamed buns with a mixture of cardboard and pork fat was manufactured by an unscrupulous freelance reporter. Beijing TV issued a public apology on June 18 for the report, but Web users remained skeptical.
July 20 — Guangdong’s Southern Metropolis Daily argued in its lead editorial that a public failure to believe the official version of the “cardboard bun” hoax underscored a lack of public trust in China in any and all sources of information. While problems like “fake news” are endemic to Chinese news media, the public has every reason to believe, given government controls on information, that officials — who argue the Beijing TV news story was manufactured — deliberately tried to discredit a real but embarrassing story.

Southern Metropolis Daily: cardboard buns and China’s crisis of public trust

The steamed bun may now have become one of the most befitting symbols we have for the riddle of free speech and public trust in China. Almost two days after Beijing TV issued a public apology, for a “fake” July 8 report alleging food vendors in Beijing were filling steamed buns with waste cardboard, the Chinese public is still wondering who to believe. Was the news report fake, and the buns real? Or were the buns fake, the news report real, and the official police report … that’s right, fake. It’s enough to spin your head and spoil your appetite. [IMAGE: Screenshot of a Chinese news site showing the original Beijing TV ad for the July 8 “cardboard buns” spot].

get_img74.jpg

The crux of the issue, Southern Metropolis Daily suggests today in its lead editorial, is a total lack of public trust in the sources of information available to them. While problems like “fake news” are endemic to Chinese news media, the public has every reason to believe, given government controls on information, that possibly, just possibly, officials have deliberately tried to discredit a story that is embarrassingly real.
The Southern Metropolis Daily editorial makes two constructive suggestions for dealing with the “suspicion, doubt and distrust” with which the public approaches news generally today. The first is allowing the press more space to monitor itself, in the spirit of the New York Times and Jayson Blair, a case to which today’s editorial refers. The second is that the government handle investigations like that into the “cardboard bun” story with greater transparency and public accountability.
A translation of the Southern Metropolis Daily editorial follows:

On July 8, “Transparency”, a problem on Beijing TV’s life channel, ran a news spot called “Cardboard dumplings.”
The report said that the [news] program has gone undercover and discovered that some people at Beijing street stalls were making steamed buns filled with waste cardboard and pork fat. After being re-run by China Central Television and other major media and websites, and garnering major and widespread attention, the story was picked up by overseas media. But 10 days later, things look very different. Yesterday, authorities in Beijing released news saying “the making of steamed buns using waste cardboard” was ‘fake news’, that a certain Zi, hired on a part-time basis by the TV station, had manufactured the news report. Beijing TV issued a solemn public apology, and the person concerned is already in criminal detention.
10 days ago, the public thought the news report was real, and that the steamed buns were fake. 10 days later, authorities announce that the news report is fake, and that the steamed buns are OK. But as to which is actually real, and which fake, people are still in a quandary. At the present time, what most infuriates the average person is that they do not have the means to pierce through the confusion.
The cardboard bun story was paraded before the world just at the time when China’s food safety crisis was playing out everywhere, and opinion in and outside [China] was unfavorable. The appearance of this egregious case again elevated the seriousness of food safety issues in China and everyone everywhere was talking about it. And when the government came out saying what we really had was fake news, that a reporter had manufactured it, many people were still willing to believe the dumplings were fake, that the news was real. Some people believed the government had looked into the case and manufactured their own version.
This cycle of distrust has seen dumplings incite a wave of opinion. It has become, in the blink of an eye, an exercise in which the public tests its wits trying to separate out fact and fiction …
This confusing state of affairs is cause for distress. Surrounding this back and forth over cardboard dumplings is a worsening food crisis, and a crisis of credibility among media and journalists. There is also the problem of government controls on the media. The snowballing of case after case provides the backdrop for the public mindset. Suspicion, doubt, distrust, have become the scalpels with which the public dissects public events.
Waste cardboard to fill dumplings, and then, in the blink of an eye, fake news. So the affair has ended with the criminal detention of a program editor who manufactured [a story], but no one, not those running street stalls, not the news media, not the government, can escape the stink. The distrust so prevalent in society lately has upset the natural death of this affair [that might come with the news of the journalist’s exposure and detention]. The public distrusts those running the street stalls. They distrust the news media. They distrust the local government that dealt with the affair. In order to avoid the dispute and put to rest the suspicions of the public, many aspects of the handling of the affair might have been improved.
As for media discipline, things were in this case almost entirely through administrative means [by the government], and there was little room for monitoring within the media. The affair played out quickly, and its influence was huge. Government power was marshaled quickly, and the media were merely supporting characters in the event’s handling, playing an extremely passive role. In fact, where fake news reports are concerned, there should first be a respect for the media’s role in exercising its own self-discipline.
In April 2003 the New York Times also had a scandal over a journalist fabricating news. After it learned a reporter might be fabricating [stories], the Times assigned five reporters, two researchers and three editors to investigate. They carried out over 150 conversations, eventually giving front page play to a lengthy expose, apologizing to readers and employees at the paper. In the cardboard dumpling case, the government and the police became immediately involved … Before the media’s own self-check mechanism had no time to kick in, the government has given its conclusion, and this process was insufficiently transparent. These are all areas where the handling of the affair was careless and inconsiderate.

[Posted by David Bandurski, July 20, 2007, 4:42pm]

QQ.com offers innovative platform for Web users to share eyewitness accounts of Jinan flood

In what is must-see Internet news coverage for anyone who remains unsure about the potential power of the “citizen journalist” (公民记者) in China, QQ.com yesterday set up a professional feature page on the floods devastating the city of Jinan, and issued a call for eyewitness accounts, pictures and videos from Web users on the scene. Within hours, the site was inundated with submissions, including stunning video of city residents trying to cross frothing flood waters against the backdrop of a modern shopping mall. By the following day, postings to the page were closing in on 4,000. [IMAGE: Screenshot from QQ.com page on the floods in Jinan]

get_img72.jpg

While stopping safely short of criticism of government information about the breaking news story (突发事件), the news section, called “Searching for the 26 Dead in the Jinan Rainstorm,” took a glancing shot at official statistics on the floods, which put the number of dead at 26, with 171 injured.
The banner topping coverage at QQ.com was a mono-color photograph of a police officer helping a woman cross a flooded street in the city. The text beneath read:

On July 18, 2007, Jinan suffered its worst flood on record, with 26 dead!
This is a natural disaster, but with such a large-scale “natural disaster” (天灾), how is it we have only this frosty [unfeeling] information about “26 dead”, 6 missing and 171 injured? We want to know how those deceased passed away, and why …
On the morning of the 19th, the weather in Jinan was clear, but let us not forget that the weather the day before took carried 26 lives away with it … [More] [Have Your Say]

Underneath a montage of photos submitted by Web users is a call for submissions (济南网友召集令):
At this time, we issue an urgent call to anyone who went through the July 18 floods in Jinan: If you experienced the floods yesterday, please write down you experiences and feelings here. If you have any information about the 26 people who passed away, please provide us with any sources you have.
Hotline: 010-62671817
E-Mail: [email protected]

As of this morning, the video featured on the page — playing immediately as the page was opened — was a submission from a QQ user showing clusters of Jinan residents trudging through a frothing current of waist-deep water in what was apparently a commercial district in the center of the city. By noon, the video had been replaced with a spot from official television showing less dramatic footage of the flood’s aftermath.
Also by midday, a section directly below the video, previously “Unverified Reports from Web Users”, had been replaced with highlights from mainstream media coverage.
However, eyewitness accounts from Web users in Jinan remained.
Some postings told harrowing stories of trying to cross raging floodwaters, “the space of ten-odd meters seeming like a thousand miles.” Others added to their stories hints of dissatisfaction with the government:
Yesterday, the water flooded into our house. Our house is on the first floor. We were just sitting down to eat. Dad went off right away to find sand to fill up bags, but the water came too fast and washed the bags away. It looked like a dam had burst, and the water was putrid. Today Dad’s busy building up the threshold. It’s too thin and needs to be replaced. No one cares. Our government is just busy making money.
MORE LINKS:
The Internet hasn’t changed Chinese people’s lives?“, Maya Alexandri, Danwei.org, July 20, 2007
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 20, 2007, 1:15pm]