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).

The Marxist View of Journalism 马克思主义新闻观

In the two years prior to the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), China’s media were busy complying with a 2001 Propaganda Bureau edict demanding they “offer programs for training [of media professionals] in the Marxist view of journalism.” Even after SARS, they continued to hold training sessions to educate professionals in the “three programs,” which included training in Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents”, the “Marxist view of journalism” and “professional spirit and ethics.”
The Marxist aspect of the aforementioned trinity of training-courses comprised studies of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin on the topic of the press, and selections highlighted the following key issues:
1. Supporting Party principles. “The Party publications are weapons of Party, and as such they must set forth the political creeds of the Party, and advance holding high the flag of the Party” (Marx/Engels). The Party’s papers are “publications of the Party,” they are “its gears and its screws.” (Lenin). In April 1942, Mao supervised the makeover of Yan’an’s Liberation Daily and defined Party “spirit”, or character, as the foremost of its four attributes. (Mao Zedong). On January 29, 1981, the Party said in its “Current Propaganda Regulations for Print and Broadcast Media”: “Professionals in publishing, news, radio and television must uphold the spirirt of the Communist Party.” “Party newspapers and periodicals must be sure to publicize the opinions of the Party without condition” (Deng Xiaoping). “Journalism must uphold Party principles” (Jiang Zemin).
2. Criticizing the “bourgeois concept of free speech.” Lenin once said that “absolute freedom” (绝对的自由) and “pure democracy” (纯粹的民主) do not exist. Lenin essentially believed the bourgeoisie concept of free press meant only the wealthy could publish newspapers, and amounted to a capitalist monopoly on the press. Therefore, Lenin advocated the overthrow of bourgeois press freedoms, saying that by doing so they could destroy a key ideological weapon of the enemy. Years later, Jiang Zemin said, “freedom of speech required rigorous class analysis”. Jiang believed hostile forces overseas and domestic proponents of press freedom were leveraging the concept as a means of “peaceful” resistance to Party rule. In order to safeguard the interests of the people, China must not only limit press freedom, but must, in accordance with the law, crack down on all designs to transform the socialist system through journalism.
3. Maintaining correct “guidance of public opinion”. This is the idea that media must walk the Party line, and is a vital component of prior censorship in China that requires editors and reporters to be obedient servants of the Party leadership. “We do not want intellectuals running newspapers, but rather politicians” (Mao Zedong). “Newspapers must become centers of stability and solidarity” (Deng Xiaoping). “[We must] grasp correct guidance of public opinion” (Jiang Zemin).

Paid-for News 有偿新闻

This is one among a litany of terms relating to ethical abuses in Chinese media. It has never been clearly defined, but can be generally understood as the practice of releasing information in the form of a news report in return for gains personally or for one’s media organization [definition at Modern Broadcasting website].
Some sources trace the phenomenon to an early column in Shanghai’s Wenhui Bao into which “news” was routinely sold. At that time reporters called such exchanges of news for cash “food coupon news” (饭票新闻).
An article on Sina.com identifies six forms of paid-for news, as follows:
1. Receiving money or other forms of benefit in exchange for news coverage;
2. Doing news coverage in exchange for advertising or circulation benefitss or sponsorship;
3. Forcing money or other forms of personal or institutional benefit by threatening negative news coverage (“news extortion”).
4. Media editors or bosses demanding their subordinates play a role in revenue creation, thus blurring the line between business and editorial;
5. Exchanging news with other media or journalists for payment or other benefit;
6. Public relations companies doing so-called “news reporting” on behalf of their clients and paying for space or airtime.
Forms of paid-for news, however, are constantly evolving. One article by People’s Daily described how some journalists work mention of so-called “clients” (those who have paid them for coverage) into stories in an indirect way, for example when addressing more general topics.

Emphasizing positive news 正面报导为主

“Emphasizing positive news” has been a guiding principle of China’s Central Propaganda Department (中宣部) since at least 1984. At a February 1995 conference of editors in chief of provincial-level newspapers, propaganda minister Ding Guangen said: “By supporting unity and stability, emphasizing positive news and speaking with one voice, we have achieved success in setting examples, leading and encouraging [the people] (People’s Daily, February 27, 1995). Ji Bingxuan, a deputy propaganda minister, said: “The relationship between positive and negative news must be well-managed. We must always support the guiding principle, which is to encourage unity and stability by emphasizing positive news. This principle must be followed with news reports … China is so vast and diverse, its development so unequal. While some areas are advanced, others lag far behind. Our country’s social development is fraught with contradiction, and problems appear often in many places. Suppose problems arise in each of our more than 2,800 counties. How those problems are viewed, and how they are reported – that is a question that must be treated correctly … The influence of propaganda is extensive. Failing to carefully analyze [content], or allowing negative reports to become too numerous or careless, results not only an incomplete picture of events but misleads the public, who begin to imagine problems are piling up. Such a slide in social morale negatively impacts social stability, the consequences of which may be incalculable” (See”新闻宣传要把好关把好度”, Press Frontline (新闻战线), March 2004.)

Fake News 虚假新闻

By some Chinese accounts, “fake news”, or xujia xinwen, has plagued news media in China since at least the Cultural Revolution, at which time media fabricated news to suit the political purposes of the Gang of Four. It is an extremely fuzzy term, and obviously, while it may be used by Chinese officialdom in campaigns against news regarded as unprofessional (or against party directives), could in its broadest sense (though not the official one) overlap with party propaganda itself.
When looking at fake news in mainland China, one of the toughest challenges is to separate genuine calls for professionalism from moves to control news unfavorable to the party. Over the last two decades, as economic reforms have moved ahead, the problem of fake news has certainly grown more serious. Many officials and academics point to the commercialization of media industry and intensified market competition as root causes – the need for a political reform and a more independent role for journalism as a “profession” is not addressed openly.
In June 2005, the Central Propaganda Department held a forum to discuss the issue. Reading between the lines, their definition of “fake news” predictably includes that which falls outside the purview of state news control, or “guidance of public opinion” (舆论导向). They mention the following tendencies in fake news: (1) more fake news is being outright fabricated, using flights of the imagination rather than real news materials; (2) more news is being exaggerated by media to generate public buzz; (3) there is more fake foreign news (including that generated by domestic journalists and that taken from foreign news sources); (4) non-journalists from different fields of the society are participating in the “creation of news”; (5) some well-known “mainstream” media also taking part in the creation and distribution of fake news; (6) the Internet is amplifying the influence and reach of fake news.
Writing in late 2005, one propaganda official for a local News Commentary Group (阅评组) in China addressed fake news and its causes: (1) journalists do not do work hard enough to verify the reliability of information in their stories; (2) journalists interpret stories in such a way as to exaggerate their importance (in other words, sensationalize them); (3) editors and reporters, knowing there are factual problems, modify problematic portions in such a way as to push the report through, circumventing controls; (4) some journalists lack the common sense necessary to distinguish true from false; (5) management practices are poor (by publication officials, top editors, etc) and there are no methods in place to ensure investigative reports conducted in areas outside the publication’s home turf are checked for accuracy. Beginning in 2001, The Journalist Monthly (新闻记者), a magazine on news media published by the Shanghai Academy for Social Sciences, began publishing an annual listed of “Top Ten Fake News”. Results from 2001 to 2005 are available on the publication’s website, or here through Xinhua News Agency.
[Posted by Brian Chan, May 11, 2006, 12:30pm]

The Four Unchangeables 党管媒体4不变

The “Four Unchangeables” is the buzzword for the central policy affirming the Communist Party’s control of the media under the rapid acceleration of commercialization and structural reforms. It can be seen as a policy cousin of Hu Jintao’s “Three Closenesses” (2002), which called for media to become more relevant to people’s lives (essentially, through commercialization) and “enlarging and strengthening”, which was about the creation of Chinese media groups fit to compete with international media groups like News Corp and Yahoo!. [See People’s Daily Online section on “multi-media groups”]. [More English-Chinese coverage of media conglomeration here]. The first articulation of the “Four Unchangeables” came on May 29, 2001, as Beijing All Media and Culture Group was officially launched in China’s capital. The opening ceremony was attended by media-minder big wigs like Propaganda Department vice-minister and SARFT head Xu Guangchun (徐光春), State Council Information Office head Li Bing (李冰), and top Beijing city officials. Representing Beijing’s Party committee and the city government, vice-secretary Long Xinmin (龙新民) said that under any conditions whatsoever, “the Party’s control of the media would not change (党管媒体不能变), the Party’s control of top media personnel would not change (党管干部不能变), the Party’s control over the ideological direction of media would not change (党管导向不能变), and the Party’s control over the asset structure of the media would not change (党管资产不能变)”. From this point on, most official reports about media consolidation, the formation of “news groups” etc., came hand-in-hand with mention of the “Four Unchangeables”.
In 2004, some mainland media reported a relaxing of restrictions on the operation of newspapers in China after Chongqing’s IT Home Publishing (电脑报社) and Zhong Ke Pu Media (重庆中科普传媒) teamed up with Hong Kong’s Tom Group. An official from the General Administration of Press and Publications, the media minders for publishing, stepped up to end the speculation and clarify exactly what the deal meant: “IT Home Publishing’s joint-venture (合资公司) is responsible only for the business side”, the official said. In other words, the Party would maintain tight controls over content – a clenched fist for politics and ideology, an open hand for business interests. In fact, the GAPP official said, IT Home was one of eight newspapers that had been designated by the Communist Party as an experiment in reform (by which they meant commercialization). The paper would be transformed from a “government-sponsored institution” (事业单位) to an “enterprise”. And this was not, as some media had reported, “the first news publishing joint-venture enterprise to be approved by GAPP since 1949”, officials said. The first such venture had in fact been the 2002 alliance between People’s Daily and Hong Kong’s Sing Tao News Corporation Limited (the publisher of Hong Kong’s Sing Tao Daily and The Standard. At the time, GAPP officials said total investment in this venture was 250 million yuan (US$31 million), with People’s Daily holding a 51 percent stake. [Company’s Website here, includes introduction touting the link-up as an illustration of China’s opening of its media to the “outside” following WTO entry. Its business scope is limited to retail distribution]
According to officials, the eight “newspapers” slated for commercial reforms included four newspaper groups and four newspapers. These were: Henan Daily Group, Xinhua Daily Group, Dazhong Daily Group (大众日报), Shenzhen Daily Group (深圳日报), IT Home (电脑报), China Securities News (中国证券报), Beijing Youth Daily (北京青年报) and Jin Wan Bao (今晚报). Then, as might be expected, came the “Four Unchangeables”. The GAPP official said: “These eight experiments in cooperation and restructuring have one thing in common, and that is that they are limited [in their cooperation] to the realm of business (经营领域). They are entrusted with business operations. They do not have the right to publish (出版权) or media proprietorship (媒体所有权). The right to publish and media proprietorship are exclusive rights of the newspaper’s sponsoring institution (主管单位).”
The GAPP official emphasized that the premise of restructuring [in the media] was to differentiate media and carry out reforms to the business side of newspaper groups. “But no matter how they are reformed”, he said, “the Party’s control of the media would not change, the Party’s control of top media personnel would not change, the Party’s control over the ideological direction of media would not change, and the Party’s control over the asset structure of the media would not change”.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 22, 2006, 5:08pm]

Chinese leaders intensify propaganda orders and jargon of control in run-up to 17th Congress

As a general rule the atmosphere for Chinese media grows more restrictive in the run-up to key political sessions. With China’s crucial 17th Party Congress just two months away (specific dates yet undetermined), propaganda authorities are readying themselves to keep a tight grip on public opinion. The tools at their disposal: abstract theoretical communiqués and concrete orders and bans.
In dense Communist Party jargon, propaganda department head Liu Yunshan (刘云山), also a politburo member, reminded party members in a speech last month (published in the latest issue of Building the Party magazine and excerpted on the Web yesterday) that:
As the 17th Party Congress approaches, publicity preparation in anticipation [of the session] also enters a new phase. We must, in accordance with the demands of the central party, push ahead with basic work on a number of fronts. The overarching idea is to: cleave to Deng Xiaoping Theory and the “Three Represents” as guiding ideologies, to further, see through and realize the scientific development view, being careful to maintain a high degree of uniformity with the central party under Comrade Hu Jintao as general secretary, making sound preparations for the 17th Party Congress our primary political duty …
The close of Liu Yunshan’s ponderous preamble — also thick with phrases like “singing the main theme”, “maintaining correct guidance [of public opinion]”, and “promoting social harmony” – contains the overarching point: the need to “create a desirable theoretical environment, public opinion environment, cultural environment and thought environment in society in order for the party’s 17th Congress to open victoriously” (为党的十七大胜利召开营造良好的理论氛围、舆论氛围、文化氛围和社会思想氛围).
The bottom line: intensified CONTROL.
Liu Yunshan’s words are the external face of the propaganda apparatus, the one you can find readily in state-run publications and on the Web. In terms familiar to the initiated, it says, essentially, that cadres all need to step in line with the top man, Hu Jintao, and keep a lid on things during a politically sensitive time in order to maintain a firm grip on power.
The view from the inside is more direct, and is all about the mechanics of control. Take this recent missive, which addresses one of China’s biggest news topics of the summer, the story of the use of child laborers at a brick kiln in Shanxi Province. The order was sent recently to major Web portals across China:
[Websites must] intensify public opinion guidance and management on the Internet of the Shanxi Kiln Affair. Recently, the mistreatment and detention of underage workers at the Shanxi kiln has continued to draw a high level of attention from Web users. [Websites must] regularly release positive and authoritative information, and regularly report information about related people receiving medical treatment and being safely relocated, leading to favorable online public opinion. Internet opinion must cool off rapidly, and language using every opportunity to attack the party and government, attack our country’s socialist system, attack our country’s human rights [situation], and stir the emotions of Web users must be discovered quickly and removed as it appears in Web postings, chatrooms, Weblogs and other interactive programs.
As was this one:
Concerning reports on the Shanxi Kiln Affair, websites must move quickly to tone it down, dealing strictly with related content. Already existing reports must be immediately deleted from the homepages of websites and from the main news pages. Aside from authoritative information from relevant government offices and from the investigation in Shanxi province as released by key central party news outfits [i.e., Xinhua News Agency, People’s Daily], other new reports that come out must not be given prominent positioning (不上头条), be placed in top news sections, allow Web postings (跟帖), or be given links to special sections [devoted to coverage of the story]. Severely monitor forums, blogs, instant information and other interactive forms, and immediately delete extreme language and harmful or bad information.
In recent months, offices charged with controlling the Web, such as the Information Office of the State Council, have been increasingly vigilant as propaganda authorities redirect their focus to reflect the growing influence of the Internet. But traditional media, including central party media, have also been warned to remain extra cautious during the next few months. The following order went out to central party media in the middle of June:
Directions on Reporting of 17th Party Congress
(1) From now onwards, creating a favorable environment for the 17th Party Congress is most important for us all. All reports must be encompassed by this demand as they are carried out. All units must conduct an examination of their own reports and programs, and those not appropriate must be readjusted immediately. [Media must work] with political consciousness [of the party line and party interests], awareness of the overall situation [of the strategy and interests of the central party/大局], and a sense of responsibility.
[Frontpage Photo: Cover of a back issue of Dangjian, or “Building the Party” magazine, published by the Central Propaganda Department]

Preface to "The Age of Warm Words", a volume of editorials from Southern Metropolis Daily [CHINESE]

In his preface, He Xuefeng explores the origins and shape of China’s burgeoning interest in editorial writing, specifically the trend of current affairs editorial writing at major newspapers across the country. His preface begins: At the dawn of this new century, Southern Metropolis Daily’s inception and continued expansion of its commentary section was a sign of things to come. Newspapers all over the country then vied to create their own commentary sections, which precipitated all at once what has been called China’s third “wave of current affairs commentary.” The mushrooming of these editorial sections is doubtless a bright spot in the development of Chinese media. Moreover, the unflagging participation of Web users and the public [in this process] and new alliances between newspapers and public intellectuals demonstrates that Chinese society yearns for and is capable of expression, so that some have talked of the arrival of an “age of citizen writing” to describe this phenomenon.
So, what are the characteristics of this “age of citizen writing”? What is its relationship to the rise and popularity of the current affairs editorial? And what will its impact be on China’s future? [LINK HERE]

Party School scholar: effective power monitoring requires deep political reforms

In a bold analysis making the rounds in print media and on the Internet yesterday, Wang Guixiu (王贵秀), a scholar with the Party School of CPC Central Committee, criticized normative approaches to “power monitoring” in China, saying they were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of power relationships and the delegation of power. Effective monitoring, he argued, could only come with “rational decentralization”, in which power was delegated through an electoral process and officials were monitored independently by those who entrusted them with power.
The article, which addresses with rare boldness the question of political reform in China, also touches in its conclusion on the issue of media monitoring, or “watchdog journalism.” While affirming the importance of so-called “watchdog journalism”, or “supervision by public opinion”, in China, the author argues that it is not a true form of power monitoring as it fails to meet the test of “rational decentralization”:
News watchdog journalism (新闻舆论监督) is an extremely important and special form of monitoring. In Western countries it has been called “the fourth estate,” which places it alongside the legislative, judicial and executive branches as fourth branch of power. This idea [of media as independent monitors of power] has been trumpeted by a lot of people in China since economic reforms began. But this is actually a misunderstanding, a specific case in the confusion of what should, as watchdog journalism [in China], be classed as “rights monitoring” (权利监督) with “power monitoring” (权力监督).
While watchdog journalism is an irreplaceable form of supervision, says Wang, it cannot be truly effective without the political reform required for it to operate independently. “However, watchdog journalism, without the proper assistance, if it is not backed up by ‘power monitoring,’ cannot serve the purpose and function it should have. On the contrary, it will suffer grave danger, facing violence and revenge such as ordinary people can scarcely imagine, being entirely snuffed out.”
Selected portions of the Wang Guixiu article follow:
How can we talk about monitoring without rational decentralization?
In the checking and monitoring of public power, the necessary condition is rational decentralization.
Without rational decentralization, there is no way to check or monitor power. But for a long time now, we have been on guard or even in terror of the “separation of the three powers” (三权分立) of the West and have not dared speak of “separation of powers” (分权).
In fact, this is a major misunderstanding. It goes against Marxist theories of political power, and is incommensurate with the basic facts of our own political structure [in China]. Marxism has never, generally speaking, opposed separation of powers, and even less has it opposed rational decentralization …
When all is said and done, monitoring implies a special kind of relationship of power constraint, and it is an important embodiment of the relationship involved in the delegation of power. It means monitoring and supervision by those who delegate power of those to whom power is entrusted (委托权对受托权的监督和督促). This [question of relationship] is the real issue in the monitoring of power. However, we have for a long time grown accustomed to treating and grappling with the question of power monitoring without addressing this real issue.
If we wish to address the problem of ineffective power monitoring beginning with fundamentals, we must have a grasp of the real nature of power monitoring, working out and adjusting relationships of power delegation (调整和理顺权力授受关系), building within the party a chain of power delegation based on elections in proper order (依次选举的授权链), from “Party member (election, delegation) → representative congresses (election, delegation) → full committees (election, delegation) → standing committees (election, delegation).” To be able to accomplish this, we must fundamentally change the existing inverted chain of power delegation, [a top-down bureaucracy in which] – “secretary working meetings (书记办公会) [delegate power to] → standing committees (常委会) [which delegate power to] → full committees (全委会) [which delegate power to] → representative congresses (代表大会) [which delegate power to] → party members (党员),” and this includes eliminating the “secretary working meetings” [of core leaders in a given jurisdiction], which go against the letter of the Party Constitution. This is the deep foundation on which the strengthening of internal-party monitoring is based …
For a long time, when we talk about power monitoring we have emphasized “cooperation” and coordination between those being monitored and those carrying out monitoring. We have overlooked the relative independence [required of] monitors and monitoring [in general], and we have neglected the [necessary] “estrangement” (异体性) of monitor and monitored. Under the influence of such notions [of monitoring], our monitoring bodies have been placed routinely under the control of those monitored, so that [these bodies] are perhaps in every aspect controlled by and adhere to those being monitored, and monitors have no independence to speak of. This means our special monitoring bodies are fundamentally incapable of independently carrying out monitoring, and so “impartial and incorruptible monitoring” (铁面无私的监督) is altogether impossible.
Power monitoring is actually an act of checking on limiting of those monitored by the monitoring body, and so, as far as those monitored are concerned, it is always an act that comes from an “outside” (异体) body. This means that monitors and those monitored, monitoring and the act of being monitored, must always be “estranged” (异体), and are never “of the same body” (同体). Often, we talk about “self monitoring” (自我监督) or “internal monitoring” (内部监督), which means monitoring between parts within an organizational system, rather than a part [within an organizational system] placing checks on itself.
Our so-called “internal party monitoring” (党内监督) refers to monitoring between parts of the vast party organizational system, such as superior [party] organs of subordinate ones, the disciplinary commission of party organizations or party members, or party members of leadership organs . . . These are, without exception, cases of one part monitoring another. Any checking of one part against another may be called “self restraint” (自我克制), or “self-examination” (自省), or “self-discipline” (自律), but it is fundamentally not “monitoring.”
MORE SOURCES:
Studying the Three Represents“, Joseph Fewsmith, China Leadership Monitor [mentions Wang Guixiu on page 5 as a “campaigner” for internal-party democracy]
Social Issues Move to Center Stage“, Joseph Fewsmith, China Leadership Monitor
China reduces party posts for efficient governance“, Embassy of the PRC in the U.S., November 3, 2006 [quotes Wang Guixiu]
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 16, 2007, 1:15pm]

Gainsayed epidemic in Shandong underscores challenges facing information openness in China

China’s official Xinhua News Agency stepped up yesterday to deny “rumors” that an outbreak of unknown “hand-foot-mouth” disease had struck Shandong province, affecting scores of young children. News and information on the disease, first reported by commercial media on May 11 after rumors swept across the Internet, is now the center of debate over China’s recently publicized national ordinance on information release, which will include public health information under its mandate when it takes effect in 2008.
An editorial in today’s Yanxi Metropolitan Daily (燕赵都市报), a commercial newspaper under the umbrella of the official Hebei Daily, argued that opening up the media, rather than “simply directing or suppressing them”, would be key to ensuring accurate public health information reached the public in a timely manner, preventing widespread panic and social instability. The argument was reminiscent of the debate that followed revelations in 2003 of the government cover-up of SARS, which many see as a seminal moment in awareness of the need for information openness in China.
The Yanxi Metropolitan Daily editorial also argues that it is not enough for the government to release information, but that officials need to create “public confidence” in the accuracy of the information they release. This, too, will require the concerted effort of government offices and the media, the author says.
The Yanxi Metropolitan Daily editorial follows in full:
Linyi Affair Tests Capacity to Release Government Information
Yanxi Metropolitan Daily
May 14, 2007
By Yang Tao (杨涛)
PULLOUT: “As governments at various levels [of the bureaucracy] pay particular attention to openness of information (信息公开), they must determinedly look into how to raise public confidence in government information. An important part of this is opening up the media, relying on the media, rather than simply directing and suppressing them.”
Beginning in April, about 80 infants and toddlers were infected with an unknown disease in Shandong’s Linyi [a city in the south of the province, about 100 kilometers from Jiangsu Province], with infections most common in children under three years old. In the majority of cases of those infected, ulcers appeared on the hands, feet and mouth along with high fevers. According to information released by the Linyi government, this illness was hand-foot-mouth (手足口病) disease. Up to now, only one death on April 29 has resulted from this illness. But as journalists looked into the case they found discrepancies in information coming from various directions (Shanghai Morning Post, May 13). Information released on May 12 on the official Website of the Shandong provincial health office (山东省卫生厅) said media reports on May 11 claiming that an “unknown disease had claimed the lives of many children in Shandong’s Linyi” were false.
On April 5 the national ordinance on release of government information (中华人民共和国政府信息公开条例) was formally announced, to take effect on May 1 of next year. This sudden-breaking news event in Shandong’s Linyi is the first sudden-breaking public health incident of influence since the Ordinance was announced. [The question of] whether things can be adequately handled according to the principles of the Ordinance, whether or not the local government can issue timely information, and government information with the necessary public confidence, tests the ability of the local government [to live up to the obligations of information openness], and is of great significance.
According to the national ordinance on release of government information, administrative organs must release “any information concerning the vital interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, or which requires the broad participation or knowledge of the society and the public.” The ordinance also says that “state organs should release government information in a timely and accurate manner. In cases where State organs discover false or incomplete information influencing social stability or disturbing social order (扰乱社会管理秩序), they should release accurate government information within the scope of their duties” [Article 6]. Looking at the Linyi case, the government did release information and notified the media in a timely fashion, but there was still a definite lag. The first case was discovered on April 27, and terrifying rumors surfaced on the Web on May 7 about the appearance of an unknown disease. And yet, it was only on May 10, through [the official] Linyi Daily and Linmeng Evening Post that the “epidemic response” article called “Urgently Preventing Hand-Foot-Mouth Disease” was disseminated. At this point there was still no information available to society at large answering the rumors that were circulating. It was only after May 11, when a substantial number of print media began running news that an “unknown disease had claimed the lives of many children in Shandong’s Linyi”, that relevant government authorities formally released accurate information about this incident. By this point rumors had already spread panic among the public.
If the Linyi affair is seen as a preliminary exercise before formal implementation of the National Ordinance on Release of Government Information, well then, governments at various levels [of the bureaucracy] should take profound notice that: creating a “transparent government”, winning the confidence of the public, and eliminating and mitigating factors of social instability, require that passivity become initiative, that [governments] more keenly observe sudden-breaking public incidents, that they pay more concern to the dynamics of society, and release government information in a timely and accurate manner.
Whether or not state offices can release timely and accurate information is one thing, but whether this information meets with public confidence is another aspect of the problem. The latter is a question the Ordinance rarely gets into, but nevertheless a critical question for governments at various levels as they carry out the task of information release. In the Linyi affair, the local government of Linyi has already carried out release of information, and the provincial health office of Shandong has also publicly “staved off rumors”. Indeed, the incident has become a high priority for the Ministry of Health, which has demanded the rumors be “staved off” as quickly as immediately. However, looking at the investigations of the Shanghai Morning Post reporter, it’s clear that a number of circumstances [surrounding the incident] remain points of mistrust among the public. Moreover, the earliest reports … came from Chongqing Morning Post and various media outside the province and local media did no reporting on the incident. This does not tally with the fact that local reporters should be more familiar with the situation and be able to quickly and accurately follow up local news. All of this potentially lowers the degree of believability government information has in the eyes of the public, and creates prime conditions for the spread of rumors, making the government’s work of “staving off rumors” even tougher.
Therefore, as governments at various levels focus attention on openness of information, they must look determinedly at the problem of how to raise public confidence in government information. An important point here is the need to open up the media and rely on the media, not simply directing or suppressing the media. Local media need to be encouraged to participate more in the reporting of sudden-breaking news events, and outside media must be welcomed and encouraged to carry out “supervision by public opinion” [or “watchdog journalism”]. Only with free and open reporting by the media can falsehoods be eliminated and truths retained (去伪存真), and only then will public confidence and support for government information be substantially strengthened. This, in turn, will bolster the authority of the government and mitigate factors of instability in society.
I am confident that by striving together, the government and media can get a clear picture of the truth about the affair in Shangdong’s Linyi. But what is more important is that governments at various levels draw lessons from this case that can be applied in the future (举一反三), raising their capacity for information openness and ushering in the age of “transparent governance”!
MORE SOURCES:
False Epidemic Outbreak Rumors Refuted“, China Daily (Xinhua), May 13, 2007
Girl Dies from Hand-Foot-Mouth Disease“, China Daily (Xinhua), May 12, 2007
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 14, 2007, 1:39pm]