Signaling the determination of top Chinese leaders to control and “guide” public opinion during what they regard as a sensitive year politically, the official People’s Daily ran an article on its “theory” page today emphasizing that control of speech was critical in the Party’s grand project of building a “harmonious society”. [BELOW: Screenshot of coverage of the People’s Daily article on Sohu.com’s domestic news page].
The People’s Daily article appeared on a number of major Web portals today, including Sina.com and Sohu.com.
“Guidance of public opinion”, China’s supreme buzzword for control of speech and the press, came into prominence following the massacre of demonstrators in Beijing on June 4, 1989. Leaders elevated to power in the aftermath of “June 4”, including former President Jiang Zemin, blamed the chaos in large part on Zhao Ziyang, whose tolerant attitude toward the news media, said his critics, had “guided matters in the wrong direction”.
While “guidance of public opinion” remains a key term in China’s press control regime, its use has declined in recent months, apparently an attempt by the leadership to take a more subtle and concealed approach to press control.
Translated portions of the People’s Daily article follow:
————–
“Correct Guidance of Ideology and Public Opinion is an Important Factor in the Harmony of Society”
Why does [the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party] ‘Decision’ state that “correct guidance of ideology and public opinion is an important factor in promoting social harmony”?
 A series of discussions studying the ‘Decision’ of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party
BY Zheng Xiangdong (郑向东)
Question: The 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party] ‘Decision’ states that: “Correct guidance of ideology and public opinion is an important factor in promoting social harmony.” Why is this?
Answer: This is the correct conclusion drawn on the basis of summarizing our historical experience. It deeply underscores the important role of guidance of ideology and public opinion in the promotion of a harmonious society, and defines a clear direction for news media, publishing, broadcasting and cinema, literature and the arts, and the social sciences in serving the building of a harmonious society.
Opinion is either true or false. Information is either good or bad. Historical experience demonstrates that correct guidance of public opinion is a blessing for the Party and the people; when guidance of public opinion is wrong, this is a misfortune for the Party and the people. Particularly as information flow increases, as the avenues and methods for obtaining information grow daily more diverse, correct guidance of ideology and public opinion is irreplaceably useful in helping people understand the Party’s propositions, accept scientific theory [i.e., CCP rationality], be clear about their own responsibility, distinguish right from wrong and twisted from straight, judge between good and evil, between sublime and foul, foster good behavior and morals as the order of the day, waken the creative energies of society, continuously promote social harmony and other areas. Specifically, the utility of correct guidance of ideology and public opinion is evinced in the following few areas:
… The “Decision’ raises the target task of building a Socialist Harmonious Society by 2020. The achievement of this target task will require uniting all of those powers that can be united, mobilizing all of the active factors, making a common effort, struggling tirelessly. Cleaving to correct guidance of ideology and public opinion, accurately, clearly and actively interpreting the policy of building a Socialist Harmonious Society, urgently, truly and thoroughly propagandizing new achievements, new experiences and new developments in the building of a harmonious society, creating a rich environment of ‘everyone having responsibility for the building of a harmonious society’ and ‘everyone benefits from a harmonious society, benefits the ideological unification of the whole Party and whole people in the spirit of the ‘Decision’ …

The Beijing-based China Economic Times, a newspaper published by the Development Research Center (DRC) of China’s State Council, today criticized a proposal by CPPCC representative Yu Quanyu (喻权域) calling for the drafting of a law against seditious speech (惩治汉奸言论法) at China’s National People’s Congress, which is presently in session. [BELOW: Screenshot from www.mediaresearch.cn/ Yu Quanyu (in red square) reads his Little Red Book at a media research forum in 2002].
News of the proposal by Yu Quanyu, an outspoken Chinese leftist and opponent of press freedom in China, was reported yesterday in Hong Kong’s PRC-backed Wen Wei Po [Coverage from CMP]. As reported by Wen Wei Po, Yu Quanyu’s proposed law would target scholars and media that “twisted historical facts”, particularly surrounding important historical events such as the Japanese invasion of China.
The China Economic Times editorial argues that a law against “seditious speech” would be a violation of citizens’ rights under China’s constitution, and that a greater plurality of views should be tolerated in Chinese society. Portions follow:
The “two meetings” [NPC and CPPCC] are the biggest platform [in China] for the expression of political ideas, and representatives and executive committee members have sufficient freedom to express themselves.
However, just because ideas [may seem] politically rational doesn’t mean they are accurate or practicable. The “anti-seditious speech law” proposed to the National People’s Congress by Yu Quanyu, for example, deserves further discussion. First of all, concerning the research of history in China since the Opium War, this area has been quite lively in recent years, and some scholars have raised their own points of view at variance [with past accounts] and not overstepping the bounds of academic scholarship. Discussion among the people, even if it is this so-called “seditious” criticism, is all the same a sign of greater multiplicity and political tolerance in Chinese society. Therefore, the creation of any law to restrict the speech of the people, even if it is founded on moral precepts, is nevertheless a violation of our constitution. There is no way to make a balanced and objective determination of what amounts to “seditious speech”. We can only make such determinations through a highly-charged subjectivity. Therefore, the probable result [of such a law] is the conscious cover-up and suppression of normal civic discourse.

Hong Kong’s PRC-backed Wen Wei Po reported today that CPPCC representative Yu Quanyu (喻权域), an outspoken Chinese leftist and opponent of press freedom in China, plans to propose the drafting of a law against seditious speech (惩治汉奸言论法) at the National People’s Congress, which is presently in session. [Coverage at Tom.com].
In the 1980s, Yu Quanyu (now an executive committee member at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a CPPCC representative) was an outspoken opponent of efforts by Hu Jiwei, Sun Xupei and others to create a press law protecting freedom of speech in China. He is also known as the author of the forward to the highly nationalistic 1996 bestseller China Can Say No.
According to the Wen Wei Po report, Yu Quanyu said some scholars had “twisted historical facts” in the name of academic research, particularly important historical events such as the Japanese invasion of China. China, Yu Quanyu reportedly said, should establish a law to deal specifically with such situations, seeking to “force those scholars and media” who have “reversed the verdict” on important historical incidents to “face responsibility and punishment in accordance with the law”.
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 5, 2007, 5:37pm]

Window on the South, a Chinese newsweekly published by the Nanfang Daily Group, launched a bold criticism today of China’s top broadcast supervisor, the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT). [BELOW: Screenshot of coverage at China.com.cn of SARFT deputy minister Zhao Shi attending a news conference in September 2006].
Headlined “SARFT Bans Just Keep Coming: The Politics of TV Dramas Reflects Cultural Predicament”, today’s article criticizes the cultural upshot of official policies emphasizing control and at the same time pushing the commercialization of culture.
The article, which ran also on a number of major Web portals today, responds to a wave of recent bans from broadcast minders at SARFT, including an announcement back in January that only television dramas cleaving to the Party’s “main theme” would air during prime time in 2007 [Coverage from CMP]. The language “carry forward the main theme” (弘扬主旋律) is an unambiguous Communist Party buzzword, encapsulating the notions of Party control, the supremacy of Marxism, the central position of heroic Party figures, and other key concepts, in an analogy to orchestral music.
The Window on the South article begins: “In the last two years, the impact of the people over at SARFT could be said to be inextricably linked with the ‘ban’. Despite the fact that [orders] against speaking regional dialects [on TV] aren’t guaranteed to promote Mandarin in China, that [orders] against filming scenes of extramarital affairs won’t necessarily save those marriages of poor quality, that [orders] against airing foreign-produced dramas during prime time clearly do nothing to help promote national pride, bans of this kind are still coming wave upon wave” (禁令仍然层出不穷).
The article offers strong criticism of the flood of commercially-oriented period dramas set in imperial China (all, of course, SARFT approved), and asks: “Why is it that these [TV dramas] singing the praises of imperial power and celebrating violence get such strong ratings? Is it because they are supported by a great number of people who have this kind of feudal consciousness [respecting people with power and status], or is it because these types of dramas are creating a mass of modern feudals?”
The author’s implication seems to be that continued SARFT “bans” and the resulting “main theme” culture are pandering to, or perhaps even fostering, Chinese with a feudal mindset (臣民意识) versus a modern civic mindset (公民意识).
The author then poses the critical question: “In the present political climate, how can China’s cultural system (破冰) break through the ice? How can China’s cultural market free itself? And how can China’s cultural products walk out toward the wider world?”
The article, which ran on a number of mainland Websites, including Sina.com and Enorth.com.cn, appeared briefly this morning among the top headlines on Sina.com’s newspage, but was pushed to the back pages by early afternoon.