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]

January 30 — Top officials and representatives from major Chinese Web portals met in Beijing to assess progress in the government’s Internet clean-up campaign, launched in March 2006 and marked by such slogans as the “development of a civilized Internet” and the “building of harmonious culture”. A number of top media officials were present at the meeting, including Cai Mingzhao (蔡名照), a deputy director at the State Council Information Office and Hu Qiheng (胡启恒), a key figure behind China’s proposed real-name registration system for the Web, as well as representatives from People.com, Xinhuanet, Sina.com, Sohu.com and other major Chinese Web portals.According to a Xinhua News Agency report on the meeting, representatives reached consensus opinion that the Internet clean-up campaign had “achieved good results, but there were still a number of unharmonious elements on the Internet”.
January 30 – Roughly one year after his essay on Chinese history textbooks caused propaganda officials to order the shutdown of the Freezing Point supplement of China Youth Daily, retired Guangzhou historian Yuan Weishi wrote an editorial for Southern Metropolis Daily praising Deng Xiaoping for his vision in setting China on the path to reform and moving the country beyond ideological diviseness. The editorial, no less gutsy than Yuan’s Freezing Point essay, begged the question: if it had been this essay in Freezing Point in 2006, how would the propaganda department’s News Commentary Group have responded?
January 31 — An official story about President Hu Jintao’s announcement at a recent “collective study” session of the Politburo that leaders must seek to “develop [the Web] well, use it well and manage it well” (建设好、利用好、管理好) lingered for more than a week on the news page at popular Web portal Sina.com — an example itself of the injunction to “use it well”. In the news report, which first appeared on major Web portals on the evening of January 24, Hu Jintao was quoted as saying “we must, with an energetic attitude and a spirit of innovation, strongly develop and propagate a healthy and uplifting Internet culture, practically building the Internet well, using it well and managing it well”.

The democracy protests of 1989, culminating in the massacre of student demonstrators in Beijing on June 4, brought the birth of new supreme buzzword in the Chinese media lexicon — “guidance of public opinion”. There are now indications that the term, synonymous with press control, is gradually retiring to the annals of party censorship. What does this mean? [BELOW: Graph showing use of terms “guidance of public opinion” and “supervision by public opinion”, or watchdog journalism, in a database of 120 Chinese newspapers].

“Guidance of public opinion” arose as the pillar of news control in China in the aftermath of June 4, as the ousted general secretary, Zhao Ziyang, was criticized for letting things get out of hand. Zhao had reportedly told top propaganda officials during the protests to “open things up a bit”. “There’s no big danger in making the news more open”, Zhao had said. “By facing the wishes of the people … we can only make things better” [SOURCE: “A Timetable of Events”, (Da shi ji), Biweely Discussion (Ban Yue Tan), 6 May 1989]. Zhao’s failure to control the press, said an official party magazine following the crackdown, had created widespread public support for the student protests and “guided matters in the wrong direction”. The buzzword was officially introduced by President Jiang Zemin in November 1989.
In its official report released last October, China’s Party Congress signaled that “guidance of public opinion” was still central to party press control. Section Five of that report dealt with Hu Jintao’s newly cast ideology for the cultural sector, the notion of a “harmonious culture” dovetailing with his overarching vision of a “harmonious society“. The third of four aspects of “harmonious culture” was explained as follows:
Adhering to correct guidance [of public opinion], and building an active and healthy public opinion atmosphere. Correct guidance of thought and public opinion is an important factor in promoting social harmony. News and publishing, radio, film and television, and the social sciences, must adhere to correct guidance of public opinion, singing the [party’s] main theme, creating a favorable thought and public opinion climate for development and reform.
But a sharp drop in use of the term “guidance of public opinion” in official party newspapers in 2006 suggests propaganda officials are softening the language of control even as they ratchet up pressure on news media. In other words, while the principle of “guidance” continues to reign supreme, officials are backing away from public use of the term, which smacks openly of government censorship that is increasingly unpopular.
Use of “guidance” fell 68 percent in 2006 (measured by total # of articles using the term at least once), much sharper than the 22 percent decline a year earlier.
Use of the term peaked in 2003 (2,029 total uses), as the leadership sought to restrain the media in the aftermath of a series of embarassing news events, including the SARS epidemic and the beating death of Sun Zhigang. The term has fallen steadily since 2004.
(NOTE: The graph above plots both “guidance” and “supervision by public opinion”, or Chinese watchdog journalism. Use of “supervision” has historically outpaced “guidance” because the term is used by both the party and the commercial press (大报/小报). “Supervision” can refer to party use of the media to combat corruption, and in this sense is an official term. More progressive commercial media, however, tend to use it as a proxy term for press freedom, media serving as an independent check on power. Note the spike in use of “supervision” corresponding to the SARS epidemic in 2003.)
[Posted by David Bandurski, February 2, 2007, 7:30pm]