Responding to a recent speech by Hu Guohua, Guangdong’s deputy propaganda minister, in which the official talked about news control and the role of mass media, Dahe Daily, a commercial newspaper in Henan Province, said in a commentary last week that “smearing the media has become a tool” some officials use to stave off monitoring from the press.
Prior to Hu Guohua’s speech last week, in which he intimated propaganda officials would have to move away from a model of arbitrary censorship bowing to demands from local party officials, the media, particularly in Guangdong province, had been targeted on several occasions. In mid-January a top law-enforcement official in Guangzhou blamed media for a worsening sense of public safety. Just days before Hu’s speech, officials in Guangdong said media shared responsibility for public concerns about food safety.
The Dahe Daily commentary follows:
Someone in Guangdong’s Ministry of Public Security said [recently] that the serious public safety situation in Guangdong was related to negative reports by the media. But Hu Guohua, deputy to the People’s Congress and the vice minister of the propaganda department in Guangdong, said [in a speech several days ago] that the rise in the number of criminal cases is natural [given economic growth] and should be related [instead] to economic and social development, and not to journalists. From the point of view of management of the media, [Hu said, media should be treated well, used well and managed well. Managing media does not mean not allowing them to report anything (February 7, Southern Metropolis Daily).
These words by Hu Guohua are probably the most touching I have ever heard in my five years working as a journalist.
When I was choosing my undergraduate major, my father told me the only way to avoid being insulted and bullied was to become a government official, a journalist or a lawyer. Although this advice may not accurately sum up the real situation in contemporary Chinese society, it does accurately express the social situation as seen through the eyes of one peasant. Four years later I was a reporter. The first news story I did was to make records of ]the life of] people who survived by scavenging at two large dumps. They lived there with their children and even naturally formed social groups. I spent about two weeks going to the dumping grounds and spending the days with them. Sometimes I helped them out to break down the hostility they felt toward me.
In that period, I lived the life of a beggar … But I noticed the smearing of journalists was becoming more and more common. Public security takes a turn for the worse and reporters are blamed. Explosions cause deaths at coalmines, and while the issue of illegal mining is glossed over, journalists are defamed for their intention to extort money.
Out of self-defense, smearing the image of reporters has become a tool for some departments and professions that are sensitive [to investigation]. These actions [to smear the media] seek to limit the media’s monitoring function so [these people] can cover up their dereliction of duty. They think that by shutting the mouths of reporters they can shirk their responsibility. Clearly, faced with intelligent and open-minded officials like Li Yizhong, Zhu Xiaodan and Hu Guohua, their attempts can’t have quite the effect they desired.
[Posted by Brian Chan, February 15, 2007, 11:35am]

February 14 — China’s most controversial expert on human sexuality, Li Yinhe (李银河), is once again the focus of news and commentary in China following allegations on her personal Weblog last week that officials have warned her to keep quiet. [BELOW: Screenshot of February 8 entry from Li Yinhe’s Weblog alleging pressure from officials to “shut up”].

In a February 8 posting on her personal blog, Li Yinhe, a scholar with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), wrote that leaders were pressuring her to “shut up”. In the near future, she said, she would “accept fewer interviews with reporters” and “make fewer comments about sex”. “Right now”, Li wrote, “I am faced with this decision: I am under pressure from officials ‘who are not ordinary people’. [They say] they hope I will keep my mouth shut”.
A commentary in Monday’s Southern Metropolis Daily, and excerpted in today’s Chongqing Morning Post, said the silencing of Li Yinhe posed a threat to the speech freedoms of all those who criticize her views, not to mention those who support them:
Clearly, if Li Yinhe’s voice can be so easily suppressed then the interests and right to speak of all those who curse her [for her views] will be difficult to safeguard, and the voices they wish to hear might suffer similarly.
Protecting freedom of expression necessarily means we will have to hear some voices we don’t particularly like. This is a necessary price to be paid for freedom. If we must choose between “hearing both those voices we like and those we don’t” and “hearing absolutely nothing”, we should opt for the former.
An editorial from Li Rui (李辉) in yesterday’s Southern Metropolis Daily offered a slightly different view to the spirited defense of speech freedoms voiced the day before. Countering Li Yinhe’s point that her statements about sex were not political, and therefore not threatening, the editorial expressed intellectual sympathy with officials who might find Li Yinhe’s views politically provocative:
Surely, Li Yinhe’s sex topics are not [overtly] political topics. But this does not mean they do not have political significance. As a disciple of [Michel] Foucault, Li Yinhe most certainly understands the political significance of “sex”. For her to say such a thing is naturally a deceit with which to protect her freedom to express her views … So, for those [officials] “who are not ordinary people”, they cannot possibly tolerate tolerance toward Li Yinhe and her freedom to express herself.
An editorial in yesterday’s Information Times firmly defended Li Yinhe’s right to speak her mind, and said a multiplicity of voices was a sign of a “healthy, scientific and rational” society of citizens:
In the eyes of some, Li Yinhe is the epitome of “different”. Particularly concerning some of her statements about sex, there are some people who simply find her shocking and hard to accept. But regardless of whether you understand Li Yinhe, or see her as a freak, no one has the right to shut her up. No one can, through whatever means, deny her right to speak.
In a healthy, scientific and rational citizens society and public space, various kinds of advance guard speech should be tolerated. The expression of different voices not only benefits a balanced ‘opinion environment’ but these competing points of view will bring about social debate at all levels and will be beneficial in promoting deliberation in society generally. They will also be beneficial in fostering civic rationalism, helping to build consensus through debate …
A February 12 editorial in Shanghai’s Oriental Daily argued for greater tolerance for diverse voices in Chinese society, including ones many people may find offensive:
The expression of different voices not only benefits the ‘opinion environment’, but these voices and viewpoints and the discussions they prompt are beneficial to clearing up our ideas that seem right but are actually wrong. People at all levels [of society] can reach a common understanding through the sharing of opinions.
The editorial related Li Yinhe’s “right” to speak her mind to the constitutionally guaranteed right [Chapter II, Article 5] of every Chinese citizen to freedom of expression:
Regarding sensitive topics like sex, whether one tends to conservatism or advocates personal free license, so long as it falls within the law, no-one, including myself or Li Yinhe, has the right to ‘give the final word’. You can disagree with Li Yinhe’s viewpoints, but you have to admit that her views have aroused a great number of citizens. Li Yinhe’s right to speak her views are actually the same thing as every citizen’s right to speak his or her views.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 14, 2007, 3:35pm]

February 5 — Southern Metropolis Daily ran the first editorial by Taiwanese intellectual Lung Ying-tai [JMSC faculty page] to appear in mainland media since the shutdown in January 2006 of Freezing Point, a supplement of China Youth Daily. Following the shutdown of Freezing Point, an open letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao from Lung Ying-tai raised the stakes for top Chinese leaders, as Lung asked Hu Jintao rhetorically how China and Taiwan could consider re-unification when leaders in China still resorted to brazen press control tactics. Lung Ying-tai had also been a recent contributor to Freezing Point, with an essay called “The Taiwan You May Not Know”. The Southern Metropolis Daily essay concerned graft allegations that have damaged the political fortunes of Kuomintang leader Ma Ying-jeou.
February 6 — The South China Morning Post reported that an essay written by a top Chinese religious affairs official and heavily critical of the U.S. war in Iraq was removed from domestic Chinese websites at the order of top officials. ESWN provided a translation of the essay. [Coverage from SCMP via ESWN].
February 6 — In more bad press for China’s news media, on the heels of international coverage of the Lan Chengzhang story and media corruption in China, the ongoing session of
the Guangdong provincial People’s Congress said the media bore partial responsibility for food safety concerns. A news report on Southcn.com quoted one official, Su Yixiang (苏宜香), as saying: “As for news reports on food safety, they must be scientific and show a strict professionalism, otherwise they will mislead consumers and affect the stability of society”. [Coverage from CMP].
February 7 — Responding to a flood of criticism of the role of the media, a top Guangdong propaganda official said media were an “indispensable” form of monitoring, but that there was also a need to “raise the character” of Chinese journalists. The comments from Hu Guohua (胡国华 ), Guangdong’s deputy propaganda minister, made particular reference to previous statements made by leaders in Guangdong blaming the media for worsening social trends there.
February 9 — According to the South China Morning Post, top Chinese propaganda leaders have established a “points-based penalty system” that will tighten the grip on Chinese news media in the run up to the sensitive 17th party Congress later in 2007. Citing “party sources”, the newspaper said media “will be allocated 12 points each and subject to closure if all their points are deducted.” [SCMP coverage via AsiaMedia].
February 9 — Arguing for greater official tolerance of the news media, China’s top safety inspection official said publicly that news media could not be expected to get their facts it 100% right, and that officials must not place arbitrary limitations on the press. Quoted in China Youth Daily newspaper, Li Yizhong (李毅中), minister of China’s General Administration of Work Safety (GAWS), angrily criticized the actions of local work safety officials in the city of Xinzhou (忻州), who allegedly accepted payments from state-run mines and used the money to purchase an office building and vehicles for the local office of work safety. While the Xinzhou
case formed the crux of Li Yizhong’s comments, the official also expressed his thanks to China Youth Daily for its breaking of the Xinzhou story in December 2006 and China Central Television and other media for their follow-up coverage.
February 10 — Beijing Olympic officials said China would raise quotas on domestic journalists covering the 2008 games, allowing for more print and broadcast journalists to be onsite covering the games. News reports said registration for print journalists covering the games would begin in March 2007.

China announced that it would raise personnel quotas for the domestic media ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, allowing for more print and broadcast journalists to be onsite covering the games.
According to reports in The Beijing News and the Beijing Daily Messenger (北京娱乐信报), the announcement was made yesterday by Sun Weigui (孙维佳), the Beijing Olympic Committee official in charge of press affairs. [Coverage from The Beijing News].
News reports said registration for print journalists covering the games would begin in March this year.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 10, 2007, 3:50pm]

In what seemed a ringing indictment of official manipulation and control of news media, China’s top safety inspection official said officials must not place arbitrary limitations on the press and are duty-bound to take media supervision seriously. News media do not have the luxury of time, do not work in an official capacity and do not enjoy the powers available to party discipline inspections teams, the official said — as such it is unreasonable to expect journalists to meet a standard of 100% accuracy. [BELOW: QQ.com gives major play to comments by China’s top safety official].

Quoted in yesterday’s China Youth Daily newspaper, Li Yizhong (李毅中), minister of China’s General Administration of Work Safety (GAWS), angrily criticized the actions of local work safety officials in the city of Xinzhou (忻州), who allegedly accepted payments from state-run mines and used the money to purchase an office building and vehicles for the local office of work safety. While the Xinzhou case formed the crux of Li Yizhong’s comments, the official also expressed his thanks to China Youth Daily for its breaking of the Xinzhou story last December and China Central Television and other media for their follow-up coverage. [Original China Youth Daily story, December 27, 2006, with photos of Xinzhou office building allegedly purchased by local safety officials with dirty money].
“We [at GAWS] are in the administrative ranks, and we carry out investigation of production safety [in China]. But at the same time we also have to accept supervision [of our conduct],” Li Yizhong was quoted as saying in China Youth Daily.
Li criticized moves to control media supervision on the grounds that news reports lacked perfect accuracy: “The media are not the Central Discipline Inspection Commission”, said Li. “They do not have the power to ‘detain’ suspects, they do not have the power of coercion. Journalists can only rely on their own acumen, on their own strength and that of their departments, to go out an find news sources. When they come across mining accidents and other stories to uncover, they face the danger of being crippled or even killed … The media are not auditing officials, they cannot rely on an army of auditors and accountants and spend a few months or half a year to confirm every shred of evidence … Media are not inspection teams, armed with government power to mobilize major investigative power, openly and boldy ‘questioning” every relevant person, investigating whomever they wish and whatever government office they wish.”
“If you demand that news reports are 100% accurate in every word and every sentence, this is impossible”, Li said.
QQ.com, a popular Chinese Web portal overseen by officials in the southern city of Shenzhen, reorganized Li Yizhong’s comments in a story featured today on the frontpage of its news section. The headline of the story read: “Work Safety Minister Li Yizhong: Media are Not the Central Discipline Inspection Commission”.
MORE SOURCES:
[“Li Yizhong’s War on Recurring Coal Mine Accidents“, China.org.cn, August 2006]
[“Li Yizhong named head of General Administration of Work Safety“, Xinhua, March 2005]
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 9, 2007, 3:15pm]

Guangzhou’s top leader said in a forum with regional media yesterday that party and government leaders in the city encouraged and accepted correct watchdog journalism, or “supervision by public opinion” (舆论监督), and that it was an important test of whether cadres were dedicated to serving the people. [BELOW: Participant on a Chinese message board expresses skepticism about city leaders’ commitment to media supervision.]

Quoted in a report from the official Xinhua News Agency, Zhu Xiaodan (朱小丹), party secretary of Guangzhou and a standing committee member of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee, said watchdog journalism would help make leaders more aware of the hopes of the people and the problems facing them. “If there are problems in your own work but you keep shutting the mouths of others, the reason can only be that you are selfishly thinking of your own interests,” Zhu said. “Therefore, whether or not we can take the initiative in accepting watchdog journalism is a test of whether we have the people in our hearts and accept constructive voices”.
Zhu emphasized that quality watchdog journalism included critical news reports and opinions. But the leader’s notion of correct watchdog journalism — a reference to the concept of “correct guidance of public opinion” — also assumed supervision under party press controls.
Web users at Web portal Sina.com responded variously to the news.
“Leaders accepting supervision by public opinion is an important aspect of developing toward democratic governance. I hope Guangzhou can set a good example in this area,” said one netizen.
“Good. This deserves praise!” said another. “Especially in this place [Guangzhou], for leaders to have the courage to open up politics to scrutiny really gives us hope!”
Others were more skeptical: “These words definitely don’t apply to [Zhu Xiaodan] himself!”
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 8, 2007, 10:55am]

Chinese media sharply criticized the Japanese press for what they called the “continuous building up” of a story about a Chinese scientific research vessel sighted just off the disputed Diaoyutai Islands, which the Japanese call the Senkaku Islands. [Chinese coverage also appeared on BBC’s Chinese-language site]. A second Chinese report today, featured on most major Web portals, also criticized Japanese media for “blowing up” (炒作) a story about alleged Chinese theft of Japanese submarine technology. [BELOW: Screen capture from Southcn.com, of Guangdong province, criticizing Japanese media].

The first report of the sighting of the Chinese research vessel appeared in Japan’s Mainichi Shinbun on February 4 and was featured on Yahoo! Japan News. According to that report Japanese coast guard from the city of Naha had discovered the Chinese vessel in the area, but no specific source for the information was cited. However, subsequent news reports from Mainichi Shinbun, Sankei and Yomiuri quoted sources in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Japanese media also referred to statements made by Japan’s cabinet chief and prime minister.
A news release today from China’s official Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesman from China’s Foreign Affairs Office as saying China had already expressed its dissatisfaction with “the building up of this affair by the Japanese side”. The spokesman said the Chinese boat was carrying out “normal scientific research” in the area.
The territorial dispute over the Diaoyutai Islands has long been a thorn in the side of Sino-Japanese relations.
[Posted by Brian Chan, February 7, 2007, 4:36pm]

Responding to a flood of recent news raising tough questions about the role of the media, press ethics and propaganda controls, a top Guangdong propaganda official said yesterday that media were an “indispensable” form of monitoring, but that there was also a need to “raise the character” of Chinese journalists. [BELOW: Screen capture from Sina.com of coverage today of Guangdong propaganda official’s statements concerning news media].

The comments from Hu Guohua (胡国华 ), Guangdong’s deputy propaganda minister, made particular reference to recent comments from leaders in Guangdong blaming the media for worsening social trends there. Media yesterday reported comments from representatives to the ongoing Guangdong provincial People’s Congress, who said the media shared responsibility for public concerns about food safety. Last month, a top law enforcement official in Guangzhou drew criticism after he blamed the media for worsening public safety in the city.
Hu Guohua said Guangdong presently accounts for one-eight of the national economy and the province has entered an era of “golden” development. However, social tensions have also risen to the surface, “a trend I can see clearly from my position”.
The minister painted a picture of exploding social stories and rising concerns among local officials about the impact on their public images: “Right now the propaganda department is at its busiest. We must take care of multiple problems appearing in various media reports. Because social tensions are increasing, the material for news reports is growing hand over fist. Some news reporters do not have a proper hold on guidance [of public opinion],and some content is reported without the proper verification of facts, having a negative social impact. In terms of the timing of reports, the layout of pages, incorrect phraseology, there have been many problems,and everyday we receive phone calls from various government offices demanding that this not be reported or that not be reported. We basically consider their requests, but speaking from a long-term perspective, not reporting this or not reporting that is not a workable control strategy [for the media].”
On the question of HOW media should be controlled, Hu had this to say: “Some people say that the increase in cases [of crime, food safety, etc] has something to do with the media. [But] the rise in the number of cases is related to economic development, and is an objective outcome of the process of social development, having little to do with journalists. From the standpoint of news control, how can we use journalists? [Guangdong Party Secretary] Zhang Dejiang said it well. He said we need to treat the media well, use the media well and manage the media well. Controlling the media does not mean allowing them to report nothing”.
The Zhang Dejiang reference was in fact in line with Hu Jintao’s recent statements about control of the Internet, in which the president said party leaders must seek to “develop it well, use it well and manage it well”(建设好、利用好、管理好).
Hu Guohua emphasized yesterday that media were an “indispensable” part of necessary monitoring and supervision in Chinese society. Without watchdog journalism, or “supervision by public opinion”, he said, “many problems in society could not be solved, and the weaker elements of society would have no voice”.
Hu also called for greater discipline among news media and hinted at the excesses of media commercialization: “In the process of monitoring, we need to raise the character of news workers,” he said. “If news reporters do not raise their character, if they do not have a sense of responsibility to society, or a sense of mission, then the reports they write will be irresponsible and only seek to attract eyeballs”.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 7, 2007, 11:35am]

February 6 — In more bad press for China’s news media, on the heels of international coverage of the Lan Chengzhang story and media corruption in China, the ongoing session of the Guangdong provincial People’s Congress said the media bore partial responsibility for food safety concerns. [BELOW: Screen capture of yesterday’s Southcn.com coverage of the Guangdong provincial People’s Congress, headline on food safety and media circled in red.]

“‘Food insomnia’: media sensationalism bears some responsibility”, read the headline of a report featured yesterday on the front page of Web portal Southcn.com, and referring to an ailment rumored in the media to be caused by unsafe food products.
The report quoted one official, Su Yixiang (苏宜香), as saying: “As for news reports on food safety, they must be scientific and show a strict professionalism, otherwise they will mislead consumers and affect the stability of society”.
Su reiterated that media bore a definite degree of responsibility for food safety crises in China.
There has been a surge in reporting on food safety in China in recent years, and reports have varied in reliability. But the media’s excesses in reporting on the topic in fact underscore deeper institutional problems facing media in China, which have been contorted by a combination of commercialization and crippling state censorship.
Media commercialization, which has intensified since government funding was progressively pulled in the 1990s, has media scrambling for audiences and advertising revenue. While building up circulation depends on stories with direct relevance to the readership, however, the party’s strangehold on reliable public information slams the door to professional news coverage. Consumer-related stories about such topics as food safety occupy a safe and commercially viable middle-ground between official taboo and official propaganda.
“The media do build these stories up”, said Qian Gang, director of the China Media Project. “But control of the media often leaves them with few other options. Government controls limit the kinds of journalism that can be done”.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 6, 2007, 11:17am]

Just over a year ago an open letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao by Taiwanese intellectual Lung Ying-tai [JMSC faculty page] raised the stakes for top Chinese leaders following the shutdown of the Freezing Point supplement of China Youth Daily. Lung asked Hu Jintao rhetorically how China and Taiwan could consider re-unification when leaders in China still resorted to brazen press control tactics. Lung Ying-tai had also been a recent contributor to Freezing Point, with an essay called “The Taiwan You May Not Know” [Lung’s essay mentioned in Li Datong’s open letter, via ESWN].[ABOVE: PDF version of Lung Ying-tai essay in today’s Southern Metropolis Daily].
pdf_article784.pdf
Today Southern Metropolis Daily made bold to run Lung Ying-tai’s most recent essay about the graft allegations that have damaged the political fortunes of Kuomintang leader Ma Ying-jeou. The essay, which also appeared in newspapers in Taiwan and Malaysia, is the first piece by Lung to appear in the mainland press since her Freezing Point contribution in late 2005.
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 5, 2007, 3:50pm]