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].

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]

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].

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]

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]

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]

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].

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]

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]

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]

Chinese media, once again, have become the news. After a spate of recent news coverage highlighting poor food safety standards in China, an undercover story from Beijing TV showing steamed bun vendors in the country’s capital using cardboard as a meat substitute came as little surprise — that story, which over the last several days became international news, was orchestrated, authorities now say, by an unscrupulous freelance television reporter [Coverage here from Reuters].[IMAGE: Screenshot of latest “cardboard bun” story featured at Beijing Daily website].

This latest news demonstrates, somewhat ironically, that recent concerns in and outside China about poor quality standards for Chinese products should be extended to include news products as well.
The bun story is the most recent example to date of the phenomenon of “fake news” in China, a recurring problem as commercialization rapidly takes hold in the media sector, and as far reaching media controls continue to place limits on professional reporting of a wide range of news topics.
A special investigative task force of Beijing police formed to look into the allegations contained in the television news report found that a reporter surnamed Zi for Beijing TV’s “Transparency” (透明度) program hired four migrant workers to stage the cardboard bun story. Authorities said it was a lack of proper quality controls at Beijing TV that made it possible for the false report to air.
Beijing TV issued an apology yesterday for the spot, and the reporter/director allegedly responsible has been detained by police, according to Beijing media.
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 19, 5:12pm]

In recent weeks, Party officials have ratcheted up pressure on Chinese media to mind their political P’s and Q’s in the run-up to the all-important 17th National Congress. For Party leaders, the question of how China can put on its best face as international attention turns to the political session in Beijing now takes on fresh urgency.
This month, 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”, no less. [IMAGE: Screenshot of Chinese Journalist online edition].

The piece is written by two senior journalists with the “external division” of the official Xinhua News Agency, a division charged with generating China news for foreign consumption in a wealth of foreign languages.
A partial translation of the article follows. As readers enjoy the arguments, we encourage them to bear in mind that the authors are entirely serious:
“Propagating Well the Image of the Chinese Communist Party”
By Han Song (韩松) and Huang Yan (黄燕)
Chinese Journalist, July 2007
Concerning reports to the outside [world] surrounding the 17th National Congress, Xinhua News Agency’s external division (对外部) talks about the news topic of laying out the liberality and openness of the Chinese Communist Party, its closeness to and love of the people
Strengthening the directedness of news reports
In recent years, China’s progress in its peaceful development has been rapid, and it has involved itself in the process of economic globalization. A number of politicians in the West, however, continue to harbor prejudices. Stripped to its basics, this underscores deep differences in system and ideology. Given this situation, a major topic as we approach the 17th National Congress becomes how to propagate well the Party’s principles of leadership and its guiding policies toward the outside [world], how to propagate well the important position and function of the Chinese Communist Party, how to reflect well the good wishes of our country’s people to uphold harmony and their ardent love of peace.
These past few years we have done a number of good works, meticulously organizing coverage, for example, of the 85th anniversary of the founding of the Party [in China] and the 70th anniversary of the victorious Long March. Reports surrounding the 17th National Congress, it should be said, are of far graver import.
Every Party representative of every congress has had a substantial impact on the progress of China. Western public opinion is observing this [process]. We paid a visit recently to a number of media and foreign people in the capital. They expressed a keen interest in the 17th National Congress, and wanted to understand the actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Some foreign media have made contact with the Party School for interviews, and expressed excitement because restrictions on overseas media were relaxed on January 1 this year. In connection with the 17th National Congress, one issue of particular interest to the outside world has lately been: what does the Party intend to do once it has led the people of China on the path to mightiness? Related to this, how will the Chinese Communist Party meet the challenges that have come with economic and social development? How will China’s new top leaders handle relations with the world? Etcetera.
We are faced with the “China Threat” and “China’s Responsibility” theories of the West. Assessed objectively, these are questions of Western and Eastern ideology, and they have their origins in the negative effects in the West of the irresponsible comments of a number of cadres. China’s economic development has also brought the emergence of a number of new circumstances, such as trade disputes, environmental protection, workers’ rights. As for journalists, a number of problems are related to our lack of good faith in doing propaganda to the outside.
Speaking with the facts
In meeting the challenge of reports surrounding the 17th National Congress, the most basic thing is to speak through the facts. Of course, these facts must have newsworthiness, must be balanced and objective.
If, for example, we want to write about the Chinese Communist Party’s position and function, the achievements she has made, there are facts that speak directly to this, namely some predictions in the West (or we might call them “curses”) that have not come to pass.
Ten years ago, for instance, the West believed the Communist Party couldn’t run an economy. Clearly, we have made it around a number of turns, but now China has quite an economic track record. Ten years ago, for instance, the West believed we would make a mess of Hong Kong, and some people believe the Chinese economy would collapse before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Takes these facts and place them side by side and this will be quite convincing.
And how can we express clearly that China’s development is an opportunity and not a threat? It’s not enough, I’m afraid, to simply resort to conceptual terms. We should tackle this by beginning with specifics. For example, people wonder where your military spending is going? … Just send someone to report from the most remote barracks, and let them see how poor our soldiers’ lives once were; write about how they raise their own pigs and grow their own crops behind their barracks. This is something I’m afraid American soldiers would find hard to imagine. So, a large portion of military spending has actually gone into improving the actual lives [of soldiers] …
There are more facts to talk about. For example, concerning the [Party’s] closeness to and love of the people, scientific development and democratic politics, there has been no little progress over the last five years, and this has also been a catalyst for economic development. According to one standing committee member of the National People’s Congress, when American representatives made a visit to China and witnessed grassroots elections, they were hugely surprised and said they had never imagined China would have that kind of democracy. Therefore, we can offer specific reports on elections as a part of internal Party democratization (党内民主), including new developments in grassroots building of the Party.
Reports can also be done on the topic of harmony, such as that this is the most welcomed political buzzword since the 16th Party Congress. The raising of the concept of harmony [by President Hu Jintao] itself is progress. When our top leaders make policy decisions, they listen more and more to the opinions of ordinary people, including directly, face-to-face. Also, non-Party people are playing an ever bigger role on the Chinese political stage, etcetera. These are all facts …
Write human stories about figures in the Party
News reports must have people. The portrait of a ruling party is drawn through specific quotes from Party members.
Here is an example: When Party Chairman Hu Jintao paid a visit to Boeing while in the United States, he received a baseball glove from one of the Boeing employees and gave him a “Western style” hug, upon which the American worker wept, having never imagined Chairman Hu would give him a hug! Based on his being “reared” on Western media, this ordinary American never dared to believe that a Communist Party member would show such a warm and human side …
[Posted by David Bandurski, July 18, 2006, 11:24am]