Chinese writer Tie Ning was appointed chairman yesterday of the China Writer’s Association (CWA), an official organization that nominally represents the interests of professional writers but which some have said serves as a tool of ideological control. Following in the footsteps of writers Mao Dun and Ba Jin, Tie Ning is the first female chairman of the organization, a post that has been empty since Ba Jin’s death just over one year ago. She is also the first chairman under the age of 50.
Tie Ning’s appointment comes as China’s world of arts and letters stands at what some say is an important crossroads, with the role of the writer in society in question. In its extreme, uneasiness about the state of Chinese letters has led to cries of the “death” of Chinese literature, a question writer Ye Kuangzheng (叶匡政) addressed in a recent online essay.
According to a report in today’s Jiangnan Times, there have been a number of high-profile requests by writers to drop their association membership in recent years. In 2003, writers Xu Kaiwei and Huang Heyi, in historic firsts, applied to withdraw membership. Explaining his action at the time, Xu Kaiwei said the CWA was “internally a mess and full of conflict, leaving the association in a state of paralysis”.
The sole media voice today to tease out the importance of Tie Ning’s appointment and the deeper issues facing writers in China was Southern Metropolis Daily. The column points out that since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the China Writer’s Association has been unique worldwide in being a nominal association of writers in fact operated by a national government. According to Southern Metropolis Daily, the association has ministerial rank and is fully supported by the central government, with a staff of over 6,000 nationwide.
In typical Southern Metropolis Daily style, the editorial argues that the China Writer’s Association should move in the direction of a civic organization, representing the interests of freely creating writers over and against party ideology. The fifth and eighth paragraphs of the editorial follow [pdf_southern-metro-daily-on-tie-ning-and-writing.pdf]:

No matter when, where or under whatever system, true writers must represent the spirit of human freedom – independent thought and free imagination form the foundation of their act of creation

. Therefore, the first task of the China Writer’s Association must be to do as much as possible to protect writers’ freedom of creation, and not to limit that freedom through the hardening forces of power and ideology as an official organization. Parochial ideology and wrangling over benefits [to the party] all have the potential to stifle free creation. Writers, who are dispersed, often do not have the strength to resist [these trends]. It is incumbent on the China Writer’s Association, as for any professional association, to gather that strength and clear away these obstacles in the cultural arena so that literature can be resplendent …
In comparison to the two previous chairmen, who concurrently held several positions, onerous social responsibilities and poor health … we place great expectations on the youthful Tie Ning — not only that she might continue to write good works after her appointment, but more that she might, through the peculiar organization of the China Writer’s Association [IE: an officially-controlled professional association] beat her drum for the creative conscience of China’s writers.

[Posted by David Bandurski, November 13, 2006, 5:30pm]

November 8 – Chinese media rang in the country’s seventh annual Journalist’s Day with a range of buzzwords expressing various views on the role of journalism in China, but topping the list by a long shot was President Hu Jintao’s “Harmonious Society”. “In a CMP analysis of eight key buzzwords, “harmonious society” logged more than double the references of any other buzzword. On a day purportedly dedicated to the profession of journalism in China, there was no mention whatsoever of the term “professionalism” in the party or commercial press.
November 13 — Chinese writer Tie Ning was appointed chairman yesterday of the China Writer’s Association (CWA), an official organization that nominally represents the interests of professional writers but which some have said serves as a tool of ideological control. Following in the footsteps of writers Mao Dun and Ba Jin, Tie Ning is the first female chairman of the organization, a post that has been empty since Ba Jin’s death just over one year ago. She is also the first chairman under the age of 50. Tie Ning’s appointment comes as China’s world of arts and letters stands at what some say is an important crossroads, with the role of the writer in society in question.
November 13 — Former JMSC Assistant Professor Andrew Lih reported that blocks were being progressively lifted in China on the Chinese version of online encyclopedia Wikipedia. [More at Andrewlih.com].
November 12 — An estimated 2,00 people demonstrated at a hospital in China’s Sichuan Province after learning of the death of a three year-old boy who was reportedly denied emergency treatment after he had ingested a pesticide because his parent could not pay the fees up front. Two articles on the incident appeared in Chinese media over the weekend, but there was no mention of the demonstrations and emphasis was placed on an official investigation announced by local leaders. [New York Times coverage].
November 13 — Chinese search engine leader Baidu.com announced the signing of an agreement with U.S.-based online auction service eBay. The cooperation covers a co-branded toolbar in China as well as advertising and online bill payment. [TechNewsWorld coverage].

More news appeared in Chinese newspapers today about China’s seventh annual Journalist’s Day — 58 articles in a database of over 180 newspapers. Especially notable for its unique voice was Southern Metropolis Daily coverage, which included an editorial mildly critical of the holiday and its own “keyword” list of major media events in China this year, including the FoxConn Case and Southern People Weekly reflection, before bans were in force, on the anniversaries of the Cultural Revolution and the Tangshan Earthquake [See translation below]. Notably absent is discussion of the shutdown and subsequent re-launch of Freezing Point, which many in Chinese media circles read as a victory as much as a setback.
The Southern Metropolis Daily editorial, written by Hou Ning (侯宁),a financial news commentator, notes the lukewarm reception of Journalist’s Day by journalists and larger society: “It was only this year that I learned that November 8 is Journalist’s Day,” he writes. What accounts for this lack of recognition? One reason, Hou Ning says, is that journalists are as a rule busier on holidays than at any other time. But he suggests the deeper reason is insuffient respect for the work journalists do:
But this cannot explain why Journalist’s Day has become a holiday overlooked by the government and society at large. Because without journalists, this special group of people, busying themselves day and night, the public would be blind and live in a desert of information, and those who break laws and regulations would live at ease outside the watch of supervision.
… Journalists who are law-abiding and dare to speak the truth should have the support and protection of the government and society, otherwise we will merely be raising sycophantic editors and salesman-reporters who are doing “business”.
Moreover, the way I see it, journalists must themselves abide by the principle of speaking the truth, they must become better at using their pens to punish wrongdoing and praise goodness. I believe the old saying, “We bear justice on our shoulders/Writing works with our excellent hands” (铁肩担道义，妙手著文章) applies not only to intellectuals. Journalists especially should set their sights on these profound words of wisdom, using them to examine themselves and urge themselves on. Only in this way can journalists become a profession truly esteemed by the public. Only in this way can journalism gain for itself greater and greater freedom!
When that time comes, will it really matter whether or not we have a Journalist’s Day? [When that time comes, if journalists can achieve freedom and “bear justice”, etcetera] history and the people will long since have raised a monument for [recognized] those journalists in whose hearts a yearning for justice lives and who write excellent works.
Southern Metropolis Daily’s “keyword” column, which looks back on major media milestones of 2006, begins by summarizing the history of Journalist’s Day. Its explanation of the holiday’s purpose is by no means the official party version:
From 1934 to 1949 every September 1 was Journalist’s Day. In 2000 [then] Premier Zhu Rongji approved [the reintroduction of] Journalist’s Day, to fall each year on November 8, the anniversary of the founding of the [official] All-China Journalist’s Association. From the beginning Journalist’s Day was a holiday attesting the media’s service to the public interest, and its core was the [idea of the] media responsibly reporting the truth.
The rest of the “keyword column” is translated below. It should also be noted that four of the nine “keywords” noted involve publications from Nanfang Daily Group, publisher of Southern Metropolis Daily:
Xinhua News Agency: “[China’s] Top Media” breaks through the latent principles of media [NOTE: “latent principles” refers here to the rules of China’s media control regime, particularly central and regional propaganda officials]
COMMENT: Owing to the fact that the building of legal frameworks for the media in China is still in its infancy, latent principles (潜规则) [of control] still prevail. Xinhua News Agency, in its capacity as the top official media, this year achieved breakthroughs [of these latent rules] in many reports, which has systematic significance for the work of Chinese media. [Possibly refers to cases like Typhoon Saomai, in which Xinhua reported higher numbers of dead than provincial officials, who were furious]
21st Century Economic Herald: Series of news reports on the Hanxin digital signal chip fraud
COMMENT: On January 17 this year an unknown informer accused Chen Jin, the supposed inventor of China’s first sole-propriety Hanxin digital signal chip (DSP) of being a fraud, stealing hundreds of millions of yuan of government funding. 21st Century Economic Herald was the only media to carry out fast, comprehensive, in-depth and ongoing coverage of the case . . . [Coverage from Christian Science Monitor]
Democracy and Law: The Strange Death of Hubei Girl Gao Yingying”
COMMENT: Democracy and Law magazine bravely and intelligently revealed for the first time this case of the mysterious death of a young girl four years ago. The incident was related to the past corruption of a high-level official and regional politics, and regional power circles were suspected [in the D&L report] of a cover-up. When Democracy and Law was unable to continue its investigations [for reasons unspecified], [the news story died] as news media across China also stopped.

Southern Weekend: Hunan’s Top Discipline Inspection Official’s Tough 10 Year Battle Against Corruption
COMMENT: This special interview with a top official at the core of the anti-corruption structure [in China] revealed the particular inner workings of anti-corruption within the system, showing the human and positive side of a specially-designated top official. This can be seen as a new achievement by Southern Weekend for Chinese journalism in recent years.
Hui Jian: IT Series Reviewing “18 Talking Points on the Chinese Internet” [IT professional blogging on Chinese Internet issues]
COMMENT: This is the first IT professional to offer free, continuous, systematic and clear-eyed commentary on China’s Internet. He is not a journalist, but the free spirit of his writings is something that perhaps no journalist covering any industry in China could accomplish. [Hui Jian on the inception of the 18 Talking Points]
Nanfang People Weekly: Looking Back 30 Years – 10 People in 1976
COMMENT: This year marked the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the “Cultural Revolution”, the 30th anniversary of its close, and the 30th anniversary of the Tangshan Earthquake. This special cover feature from Nanfang People Weekly was an important breakthrough in the midst of limited information, recognizing that we must as a people reflect back on our own history [NOTE: the special issue was done at the beginning of this year, before bans for both anniversaries were in effect].
Southern Metropolis Daily: Limiting Media Reports on Emergency Events is a Step Backward [CMP Coverage]
COMMENT: On June 24 the “Draft Law on Emergency Management” was first handed up to the People’s Congress for deliberation. Clauses 45 and 57 of the draft law said the government was charged with managing reports on emergency events and that news media making bold to report on the handling of emergency situations in violation of regulations would be fined. A commentary in Southern Metropolis Daily on June 26 by writer Chang Ping [Zhang Ping] was the first to publicly question this [draft law] clearly and cogently. News in the wake of this showed that this draft law was disputed widely by members of the National People’s Congress and public opinion in society (社会舆论). The Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council also issued a rare clarification on the issue.
China Business News and the Foxconn Case
COMMENT: This was a dramatic lawsuit relying on a legal loophole and too flexible channels in the legal system. At the same time due to the blemish of [unprofessional] reporting [by China Business News] conducted over [China’s] QQ [chatroom service] the relationship between the media and the public worsened. While there was no conclusion [the suit was settled behind closed doors], this generated public knowledge of journalism and the law in a way that has not happened in the last 10 years.
Cao Aiwen: “China’s Prettiest Female Journalist”
COMMENT: This journalist become a media idol after saving the life of a person [at the scene of a near-drowning] while covering the story. In an age like ours, it goes without saying that [Cao] can make the shortlist for media person of the year.
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 9, 2006, 3:53pm]

Chinese media rang in the country’s seventh annual Journalist’s Day yesterday with a range of buzzwords expressing various views on the role of journalism in China, but topping the list by a long shot was President Hu Jintao’s “Harmonious Society”.
CMP’s search of more than 180 mainland newspapers for November 8 came up with 62 articles mentioning “Journalist’s Day” in either the headline or body. The results for eight key buzzwords are plotted on the bar graph below (marking total # of occurrences of the term in the body of November 8 coverage). Five of the terms are “red words”, or official buzzwords marking party ideology. They are: 1. Marxist View of Journalism, 2. Socialist View of Honor and Shame, 3. The Three Represents, 4. Guidance of Public Opinion, and 5. Harmonious Society. “Press freedom” and “professionalism” are what we call “blue words”, or terms denoting press roles at odds with official party ideology. The last term, “supervision by public opinion” is more complicated. In advocating the press as a means of monitoring power, it can be considered a blue word, but has been listed by the party as a recognized form of supervision:

“Harmonious Society” clearly topped the group, with more than double the references of any other buzzword. Readers may also notice that on a day purportedly dedicated to the profession of journalism in China, there was no mention whatsoever of the term “professionalism” in the party or commercial press. While this is worth noting, “professionalism” (专业主义) is a term in China used largely by communications scholars and less often by journalists. “Guidance of public opinion” (舆论导向), China’s principle buzzword for media control, came in second on our list of buzzwords, with roughly half the number of mentions as “Harmonious Society” (NOTE: the shortened form “guidance” (导向) is lately preferred, the longer form being associated with former President Jiang Zemin).
While both “guidance” and “Harmonious Society” are red words, the prevalence of “Harmonious Society” can also be explained (aside from its vogue as Hu Jintao’s new ideological weapon) by its more universal appeal — which is to say, more independent commercial newspapers can appropriate the term (and its rhetorical emphasis on social equality) along with “blue words” like “press freedom” (which party media will generally use only in a negative sense).
For example, Southern Metropolis Daily, a commercial newspaper known for pushing the envelope, particularly in its editorials, quoted a Nanjing media expert yesterday as saying journalists needed to play an important role in the creation of a “Harmonious Society”. But the red word “Harmonious Society” was mixed in with notions antithetical to party “guidance” like a “platform for public opinion” and “civic spirit”:
Fan Yanming [of Nanjing University] says that building a harmonious society means thoroughly building the base for a moderately well-off society (小康社会), and various media, including Southern Metropolis Daily have a key role to play. The media are not outliers, he said, but the most active and most vital participants and builders. They are key to promoting advanced culture and are the most important platform for public opinion (公众舆论平台). They bear responsibility for fostering the civic spirit (公民精神) and a sense of mission.
The term “guidance”, which refers unambiguously to China’s media control regime, was used predominantly by party media (the “dailies” as opposed to the “metros”). The term appeared in the following papers: Jiangnan Times, People’s Daily, Legal Daily, Shantou Daily, Jiangxi Daily,Jiangnan Metro Daily, Guangming Daily, Henan Daily, Nanfang Daily, Dahe Daily, Jinri An Bao, Henan Commercial Daily. Interestingly, while Jinri An Bao, Henan Commercial Daily and Dahe Daily are commercial spin-offs, they are also all Henan newspapers, and all yesterday ran a letter issued by the provincial propaganda department, in which “correct guidance of public opinion” was emphasized. One can suppose all newspapers were instructed to place the letter.
But a second article in Jinri An Bao, a commercial law-related newspaper under the umbrella of the Henan Daily Group, deals with Journalist’s Day in quite different terms from the letter drafted by propaganda authorities. The article’s headline reads: “Companies pay money to ‘kill’ negative news”. The lede paragraph follows:
Today is November 8, Journalist’s Day in China. This is the seventh Journalist’s Day. But journalists have lately faced unprecedented pressure on their [right to conduct] supervision by public opinion. This suppression and challenge has come on the one hand from government offices and on the other from companies and individuals against the background of the market economy. Those about whom [negative] news is exposed abuse their right to the law and engage in bad faith lawsuits in order to wriggle out of responsibility or avoid facing issues. The news must speak the truth. Sometimes speaking the truth requires that journalists and the media they work for pay a price. What does this price mean for those brave reporters out there protecting social justice and those media speaking the truth?
The article continues with a litany of challenges journalists face, including official refusal to accept interviews (the issue of information disclosure) and payment for the “killing” of news stories that offices or companies view as negative.
In a section called, “Foxconn Case suppresses public right to know”, the newspaper writes: “The fanning up of the ‘Foxconn Case’ in which a reporter was [initially] sued for 30 million yuan was regarded as an intrusion on press freedom”.
In yet another article, Jin Ri Anbao, the source for all three “press freedom” references yesterday, argued that journalism should be protected by creation of a media law:
How then do we ensure that the public respects the work of journalists and that each news professional takes on his /her individual social responsibility, leveraging supervision by public opinion and making Journalist’s Day truly into a glorious holiday? The answer is simple. Journalism must be protected by systems and measures, namely the creation of a media law! This is the most effective way of protecting press freedom and limiting the misuse of press freedom. We do have options!
While the most extreme press freedom rhetoric came from the commercial Jinri An Bao, the most extreme party press rhetoric, “Marxist View of Journalism”, came from central party newspapers, including Guangming Daily, the official paper of the Propaganda Department, and Economic Daily, and from Fujian Daily, the official mouthpiece of top leaders in that province (who have lately spoken strongly against stronger press supervision). The language in Guangming Daily: “We study from those advanced persons within the journalism world, principally we study their news careers of respect for the party. [We study] the political consciousness and brilliant standpoints of those who are mindful of the Three Represents and practitioners of the Marxist View of Journalism …”
In Economic Daily and Fujian Daily the language came from a November 7 release from the official Xinhua News Agency on the occasion of Journalist’s Day, which mentioned Hu’s “Harmonious Society” in the headline and said:
More than 700 thousands news workers [in China] have persisted in the Marxist View of Journalism, have upheld the spirit and ethics of the profession, respectfully following the key thought of the Three Represents and using their own special method to undertake their responsibility before the party and the people.
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 9, 2006, 10:12pm]

As the November 8 China Journalist’s Day approaches, expect Chinese media to stake out their positions along a spectrum of press roles and positions on professionalism, from party promoters to party watchdogs to independent voices. Party notions like “guidance of public opinion” should face off against gutsier perceptions of the media’s role, such as “supervision by public opinion” (watchdog journalism) and the “right to know”. [PHOTO: Shao Piaoping (邵飘萍), founder of Jingbao (京报) in 1918 and pioneer of independent journalism in China, from Wikipedia.com]. [pdf_southern-metro-daily-on-shao-piaoping.pdf: November 6, 2006, feature on Shao Piaoping in Southern Metropolis Daily].

The significance of Journalist’s Day, inaugurated in 2000 to honor the profession of journalism (there were already special days for nurses and teachers), has been a bone of contention since the holiday’s inception. On November 8, 2000, top Chinese officials stepped out to honor the nation’s journalists with grandiose speeches, but their emphasis was on their role as news workers for the party, as promoters of its will and guiders of public opinion [NOTE: November 8 was date of founding of the All-China Journalist’s Association in 1937]. Zheng Mengxiong, who was then secretary the official All-China Journalist’s Association, wrote in a Journalist’s Day edition of News Line, a key party journalism publication, that “we must uphold the Marxist View of Journalism, praise the fine tradition of the party’s news work, and be firm and unshakeable in carrying out the news theory and policy direction of the ruling party …” [People’s Daily news on letter to journalists on first Journalist’s Day].
In its own issue commemorating the first annual Journalist’s Day, Southern Weekend, a weekly newspaper with a reputation for pushing the envelope, emphasized instead its duty to the people and its “social conscience”. The function of the media, it said, was to “show care for the weak, to give strength to the powerless”.
The debate over the role of the press in China is a complicated one, dominated ultimately by the state’s press control regime. But there are two basic currents. The first is the party position on the role of the press — while the notion of media as mouthpieces is fading into the past, the party still regards control of the press as essential to controlling public opinion and ensuring social stability. The second is China’s free press tradition going back before 1949 to the 19th century and the establishment of China’s first non-partisan newspapers. The latter tradition entered China from the West via newspapers like Japan’s Asahi Shinbun, and is sometimes said to include in more recent times such figures as Liu Binyan [TIME magazine hero], Deng Tuo and even such figures as removed Freezing Point editors Li Datong and Lu Yuegang.
Not surprisingly, Hu Jintao’s overarching social policy of the “Harmonious Society” is making it into Journalist’s Day celebrations this year. The central party’s official People’s Daily wrote today that “Journalists are a special strength toward achieving a ‘harmonious society’, playing a special and irreplaceable role.” Underscoring the importance of the media as a tool of the central party to monitor the provinces, the article also emphasized media supervision:
Not long ago Premier Wen Jiabao delivered an important speech via telecast concerning the strengthening of government building to promote better governance. When he was speaking about how to develop democracy and strengthen the monitoring of power, he said [China] must attach great importance to supervision by public opinion [Chinese watchdog journalism], and problems addressed in the news must be seriously investigated, verified and dealt with in a timely manner. This doubtless means strong support for the work of supervision by public opinion, and expresses the high importance attached to this work by the central leadership …
Shanghai’s Wenhuibao today emphasized the responsibility of journalists to the party in an article chockful of ideological rhetoric:
The battle drums urge us on, responsibility on our shoulders. Journalist’s Day is a holiday of harvests, but a time to plant again too. The vast news workers of this city make a wish together: that we march toward [Hu Jintao’s] view of [Socialist] honor and disgrace, that we sing high the song of correctness, that we continue to raise raise the level of our professional work, writing many more excellent articles and doing our part for the realization of a harmonious society.

Nanfang Groups’s Southern Metropolis Daily began its commemoration of Journalist’s Day in yesterday’s edition with a feature on one of China’s journalism greats, Shao Piaoping [ABOVE], a free press proponent and author of China’s first professional manuals on journalism, Practical Applied Journalism (实际应用新闻学) and Introduction to Journalism (新闻学总论). Shao was murdered in 1926 in Beijing by warlord Zhang Zuolin. The Southern Metropolis Daily feature includes an interview with Deng Fenyang (郭汾阳), a grandson of Shao Piaoping and a history professor who has spent more than 20 years researching Shao’s legacy. Deng (penname San Mu, 散木) is author of the recently-released Piaoping in Turbulent Times (乱世飘萍) [Coverage from The Beijing Times via Sohu.com]. It was Shao Piaoping’s Jingbao (京报), which he launched in 1918, that inspired the founders of Beijing commercial newspaper The Beijing News (新京报). The Beijing News was originally to be called Jingbao, but this met with disapproval from propaganda authorities.
The headline of the Shao Piaoping feature in Southern Metropolis Daily, which also ran in Nanfang Daily, read: “Newspaperman Shao Piaoping and His Times”. The following is a translation of a section headed, “A Spirit of Freedom”, which uses repeatedly that term used only with care in China, “press freedom” (新闻自由):-
Shao Piaoping’s date with disaster ensured that he came to symbolize the trailblazing spirit in China’s newspaper world, and made clear the long road toward press freedom that lay ahead for China. It also gave those who came after a clear marker [for their own work]. Before his death, he had a thorough understanding of China’s newspaper environment and said, “Suppression of free speech by various governments in Europe and America has already become a thing of the past”, and Chinese newspapers “alone must deal with government people who handle things illegally if there is some issue that concerns their personal interests. Military officers, officials, councilors, politicians [derogatory], all of them perpetrate it”; and as to news [Shao said] “there is no time at which news is not severely suppressed [in China]”. He proposed creating laws for journalism, in order that “it would not be illegally trampled by the government”, but he also knew that ensuring protection of press freedom had to first mean freeing society. Nevertheless, freedom is not an endowment but, he believed, had to be realized through a process, that is was “the history of the fierce war and bitter struggle between speech and government authorities”. Therefore, he encouraged uniting the struggle for press freedom with the struggle for political freedom.
Last weekend, the city of Nanjing marked the upcoming Journalist’s Day with a public event called “News Workers and the Party Join Hearts with the People”. According to a report in Jinling Evening News, the event allowed the public to interact with media workers “from more than 60 media” and voice their views. The event was arranged by the Jiangsu provincial chapter of the All-China Journalist’s Association (ACJA).
Ping pong and badminton matches seemed to have been par for the course for this year’s Journalist’s Day celebrations. A news item in sports sections of today’s Guangzhou Daily and Nanfang Daily said about 200 competitors from Guangdong’s All-China Journalist’s Association (ACJA), Nanfang Daily Group, Yangcheng Evening News Group, Guangzhou Daily Group and other media were battling it out to honor the profession of journalism. Henan Province’s local chapter of the ACJA also held a ping pong tournament over the weekend, according to Henan Daily, the party paper of the Henan provincial leadership: “The invitational included five categories of competition, including men’s and women’s teams, men’s and women’s singles and cadres. 50 athletes from eight teams, including Henan Daily Group, Henan People’s Radio, Henan Television, Henan ACJA, Zhengzhou Daily, Zhengzhou City Radio and Zhongyuan Railway Daily.”
Shao Piaoping Key Points:
1886 — Born in Dongyang, Zhejiang Province
1906 — Tests into Zhejiang Provincial Higher Academy (浙江省立高等学堂), the precursor to Zhejiang University
1909 — After graduation becomes a correspondent for Shenbao (申报)
1911 — becomes an editor at Hangzhou’s Hanmin Daily (汉民日报), beginning a formal journalism career that will last 15 years.
October 5, 1918 — launches Jingbao (京报) and is afterwards visited repeatedly by the young Mao Zedong.
April 24, 1926 — Warlord Zhang Zuolin (张作霖) enters Beijing. Shao Piaoping is detained and accused of “promoting communism”. He was reportedly detained after leaving the Russian Embassy and heading for his newspaper offices and killed shortly after.
[Source: The Beijing News and Wikipedia]
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 7, 2006, 12:05pm]

CMP reported last week on a new assessment system for journalists in Anhui Province linking promotion to “positive” reports appearing in central party media. A report in Southern Weekend and available on Sina.com detailed how the system worked as an official glass ceiling for journalists seeking promotion to higher positions. The day after the Southern Weekend report appeared, Zhang Ping, a former editor at Southern Weekend who was removed in 2001 (along with CMP co-director Qian Gang), wrote that the Anhui system was a worrying sign that previously informal propaganda controls were now being formalized into laws and regulations.
Zhang Ping’s editorial is an important piece on the competing roles of media in an era of transition in China. A translation follows:
Southern Metropolis Daily
October 27, 2006
The Ridiculousness of Linking Professional Assessments [in Journalism] to Positive and Negative Reports
Chang Ping (Zhang Ping)
Someone recently asked whether if the journalism greats of the past lived in Anhui Province – for example, Shao Piaoping, or Oriana Fallaci, who was unbearable to so many national political figures, or many recipients of the Pulitzer Prize — would they be able to pass muster at professional assessments. The answer is NO, because lately Anhui Province has passed a standard for professional assessment that demands all editors and reporters yearly have a specified number of positive reports appearing in major central party media, and only then may be considered for higher-level professional positions.
This is a laughable and tragic question, because even without this latest regulation our journalist forebears [like those mentioned above] would have no way of being validated [owing to China’s political situation]. But this latest regulation is also a definite sign. It takes the original model of internal restrictions and writes them formally into laws and regulations, using numbers on positive reports about the Anhui region to assess the performance of news reporters. The regulations make specific qualifications based on the number of positive reports [that must appear in central media], anywhere from one to 30 depending on the position under consideration. At the same time it outlines the particulars of punishment for negative reports showing “errors of direction” [a reference to propaganda rule of “guidance of public opinion”]. Put simply this means you must sing my praises for X number of times, and if you scold me you’d better beware the consequences.
In this way party officials know the score: no matter how they do their own work, they can ensure that every year there will be plenty of positive reports appearing in central party media. In the extreme, this means that even if terrible things happen on a daily basis in Anhui, there will be an endless supply of good tidings [about the province] reaching the ears of central party leaders and the people.
Even as the ridiculousness of this idea is plain for all to see, local officials persist in defending it: how can a high-level press worker not know how to write a positive report? Or, put another way: even though the problems [of leadership] are objectively there, your writing about them is a matter of negative reporting that might negatively impact the image of Anhui – doing more positive reports is beneficial to the publicity work of the region.
When you hear such talk it might sound commonsensical. Well then, what exactly is the problem? The crucial issue here is confusion about the concept of news. In recent years central party leaders have promoted the use of supervision by public opinion [as one of the primary forms of supervision/media monitoring lower levels of power]. Scholars have pointed out that supervision by public opinion is actually a new concept. Before this, the news media were always regarded as the propaganda tools of the party, as political tools (in the class struggle, for example) to be used. When both of these notions [of what role media should play] co-exist, then the result is a kind of chaos.
What is news? An American scholar once said that it was much harder to define news than to find a news story . . . Everyone knows that news is new information, something that recently happened, or something that happened before that people are just finding out. This simple notion defines the essential function of news, and that is to satisfy popular demand for information. As demand for information becomes ever more important, it progresses to [the idea of] freedom of expression and from there is connected with the search for truth. In On Liberty J.S. Mill wrote that prohibiting freedom of speech is a great misfortune because it blocks a road to the truth.
[CMP Note: from chapter two of On Liberty]
“But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
The “right to know” which lately we’ve emphasized, is essentially about this basic function of news. As humankind entered modern times it made the discovery in the political realm of constitutional democracy, and thereby recognized distribution and balance of power as the basic principles governing society. The inclusion of news [or journalism] in this system of distribution and balance of power defined its importance over and above the [ideological] definition of truth — its importance, that is, as a means of supervising power (舆论监督). Thomas Jefferson, a principal drafter of the American Declaration of Independence, wrote that a free press should become a fourth estate independent of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government, and that it represented the basic political power of the people.
When leaders of the central party emphasize watchdog journalism they are referring to the use of news, this new social function, within the framework of the constitutional government system. This [function in monitoring power] is already a common understanding in the international community. In order to strengthen this function various nations and the United Nations have passed laws and agreements safeguarding freedom of the press. In a number of developed nations in the West, in cases where conflicts arise between the press and politicians’ right to reputation, favor is shown to the press – as, for example, in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan in the United States [more here], which ruled that slander and libel could not be considered if “actual malice” was not shown.
Returning to this question of positive and negative reports, whether we are talking about the basic right to know [Western mode of journalism] or the idea of media induced to supervise power [Chinese supervision by public opinion], this idea [of positive and negative reports in Anhui] is not logically conducive.
If Anhui Province wants to assess its government employees, these standards of positive and negative reports may be more suitable; if this concerns assessment of professional skills for news reporters, then the expectation is highly unprofessional and should be abolished.
(The author is the deputy chief editor of Nandu Weekly)
[Posted by David Bandurski, November 3, 2006, 11:38am]

The debate in Chinese media and on the Web over a proposed identification (“real-name”) system for Weblogs in China continues two weeks after a national newspaper revealed that information industry officials had tasked a “Weblog research group” with looking into the system’s creation.
Information officials have said the system, which would require all bloggers in China to register with their real names, is needed to address such problems as online slander, incivility and “rights violations” [such as copyright]. Many journalists, academics and Web users have attacked the proposed system, saying it violates privacy and free expression (言论自由).
Today, on All Hallows Eve, the official newspaper of China’s Central Propaganda Department, Guangming Daily, asked on its legal page which was spookier: controls on expression or runaway free speech? Other voices in the media asked for more balance between free expression and control, and some advocated more popular participation in deciding about the system.
The Guangming Daily news piece, which reads like an propaganda editorial, follows:
Guangming Daily
October 31, 2006, PG 9
Those Who Fear the “Registration System” Lack Confidence in their Own Speech

Yang Junzuo, chairman of the Executive Committee on Industry Self-Discipline at the Internet Society of China said recently that the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) had charged the “Weblog research group” of the Internet Society of China’s Executive Committee on Policies and Resources to conduct research on a registration system for Weblogs, with the results to be handed up to MII for a decision. When this news came out, the “Weblog research group” met immediate opposition from many Web users. The reason for this was the belief that a registration system for Weblogs would intrude on free expression and violate the privacy rights of Web users.
Is [the idea of] a registration system really all that scary? And who is it who fears the registration system? An editorial on Xinhuanet.com [recently] said that the writings of the vast majority of bloggers had expanded the scope of free expression, but slander, rights violations and incivility (“cursing”), etcetera, had come along with this. Free expression does not imply absolute freedom. The bottom line in free expression is that one does not do harm to another’s legal rights. Therefore, those who really fear the identification system are those who have little confidence in [the legality or morality of] their own speech. It is those who no faith in the law and morality!
Southern Metropolis Daily today offered the opinions of a local Web forum operator in Guangdong concerning the proposed identification system. The gist is that, yes, there are problems, but, no, the registration system will not help. The editorial accompanies a related news piece on controversies on an interior design industry forum about dishonest dealings between participants:
Southern Metropolis Daily
October 31, 2006, A37
Free Expression and Internet Order Should be Balanced

Mr. Zheng of Wanglong Computer Co Ltd. in Zhongshan City says that the Wanglong forum [offering interaction and services between various interior design firms in China] has many users on the site registered with IDs as interior design companies or interior design groups. But the forum can seldom be evenly managed because while there are many postings by interior design firms offering reliable, high-quality [services] that are interesting to industry people [there are others that are not reliable]. There have been cases of controversy between industry users that have gone to the extreme.
Mr. Zheng’s view is that a Web registration system cannot resolve these problems because there are problems of boundaries in Web management (网站管理存在界定难). If a registration system is in place this might take care of companies acting with disregard for regulations, but in the case of personally registered IDs it’s difficult to determine whether a particular person is the source of a posting. “A registration system isn’t all-powerful, people can always find a way to get around it”.
Web forums need to find a balance between free expression and orderly posting, and Mr. Zheng believes Web users themselves should play the principal role. Everyone can raise the value of their IDs like Intel stock [by ensuring good performance and building trust], but they must play by the game rules. Industry users [of Wanglong] can determine for themselves whether someone is dealing fair or not. Right now the forum is gathering opinions from users hoping to benefit from the best ideas. “But many of these opinions come from interior design companies and workers, so they can’t be said to totally represent Web users in general”. He says the process [of improving their management] is underway and is not yet a done deal.
In a “Lawyer’s Viewpoint” column on the same page as the above editorial, a reporter interviews Luo Jiangmin, a lawyer at Nanri Law Firm about the Web registration system. Luo argues that Websites can themselves establish ground rules users can choose to abide by as a condition of using the site or certain services:
[Luo believes that] without legal limitations Websites can define their own standards, including identity registration or prohibiting advertisements … If the users accept the terms themselves, there is an agreement in force between the two parties which both must respect. The Web operator can use these standards to handle advertisements or postings. But Luo also says that because they place limitations on Web users’ [right to] free expression such systems should not be used universally.
A number of recent cases have brought the question of free expression and new media to the fore. Late last week national officials admitted to the wrongful detention in Chongqing of a local government worker, Qin Zhongfei (秦中飞), for writing and transmitting by mobile phone a poem satirizing local leaders in the municipality’s Pengshui County. While Qin has been released and given government compensation, some media have expressed displeasure that action was not taken against those responsible at the local level.
An editorial appearing last Friday in China Youth Daily and rerun by a number of papers, including People’s Daily spinoff Jinghua Times, said:
First of all, the national government shouldn’t pull out 2,125 yuan, just like that, and offer it as compensation. Of course this isn’t a whole lot of money, and for an individual to shell out that kind of money wouldn’t be a big deal. But who should pay still remains a question . . . At the very least someone needs to take responsibility for this, right? Speaking more forthrightly I hope to see officials in Pengshui County bravely standing up and taking responsibility. Of course if this case can spark reflection and change of the system in order to effectively protect personal freedom of expression, how much greater would that be.
Aside from this, now that Qin Zhongfei is not now suspected of libel, well perhaps the relevant government offices should look into the problems [Qin Zhongfei] addressed [in the SMS] and take action, offering an explanation to the people.
SEE also: Another Chinese Netizen Sent to Jail for Exercising Free Speech at ESWN.
[Posted by David Bandurski, October 31, 2006, 1:38pm]

In a report appearing today at Sina.com, Southern Weekend exposes a provisional system used at a local party newspaper in Anhui Province since October 18 that makes promotion of journalists conditional on “positive reports” recognized by national level media. The Southern Weekend article details a system that seems to work as an official glass ceiling for journalists seeking promotion to higher positions and offers an inside look at how local governments are working to tighten control of the news at party publications.
In a section on professional assessments for “high-level” (高级) reporters and editors (a specific employment designation) the so-called “provisional standards” for promotion at the party newspaper of an unnamed “prefectural city” in Anhui include the following requirements: “Every year no less than three positive articles about Anhui should appear in major central media, and no less than 30 articles for employees engaged full-time in supplying major central media”. By major central media, the guidelines refer to People’s Daily, Guangming Daily, Economic Daily, China Central Television and China People’s Radio, according to Southern Weekend.
“Emphasizing positive news” is a key rule of China’s propaganda regime. An Anhui official explained use of the word “positive” in the requirements by saying they referred to reports written in line with another key propaganda concept, “correct guidance of public opinion”.
“As for those masters holding high-level positions, if they’re not familiar with specific policies, how can they keep a grasp on correct guidance of public opinion?” Southern Weekend quoted one local official as saying in defense of the standards.
While Southern Weekend’s report is not overtly critical, it focuses on the difficulties faced by journalists working under such rules. The report opens as a story about one journalist (name changed in the report) whose promotion is barred by the new rules. We’ll have to wait and see how the authorities respond to this frank airing of propaganda rules which does not take their legitimacy for granted.
Top COMMENTS at Sina.com (4:02pm):
I encourage them to write fake stuff.
————
As an Anhui resident I have no words!
————
As a national citizen I have no words!!
————
This is how officialdom is in Anhui, they’re all mediocre. The old heroes have been sent away, or co-opted.
————
These kinds of leaders should be removed!!
[Posted by David Bandurski, October 26, 2006, 4:00pm]

Local police in Chongqing admitted they had wrongfully detained a local government worker, Qin Zhongfei (秦中飞), for writing and transmitting by mobile phone a poem satirizing local leaders in the municipality’s Pengshui County. The announcement came just weeks after Chinese commercial media took Qin’s story (and his satirical poem) to a national audience [Coverage by Danwei.org and Law Professor’s Blog].
Qin Zhongfei’s lawyer, Li Gang (李纲), told reporters yesterday that they had received formal notification of the case’s dismissal because “criminal action should not have been taken against Qin Zhongfei”. Qin has also received 2,125.7 yuan (US$260) in “national compensation” from the prosecutor’s office for the error, media reported.
The investigation against Qin by local Pengshui County police began on September 1, and Qin was arrested on September 11. By October 19 various commercial media in China, including Southern Weekend and Southern Metropolis Daily, were attacking the action against Qin.
In a Southern Metropolis Daily “personal viewpoint” column on October 21, a professor from Nanjing wrote: “About this case, one can’t help recalling U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech in 1941 on the ‘Four Freedoms‘. Two of Roosevelt’s freedoms were, ‘freedom of speech and expression’ and ‘freedom from fear’. Qin Zhongfei has, for the sake of the first freedom, lost the second”.
Internet users responding to news the case against Qin had been dropped asked what might have happened had media not stepped in. “First of all, if the media hadn’t gotten involved, this case might have gone all the way,” wrote one netizen. “Qin Zhongfei is nothing compared to China, Chongqing and Pengshui County. It’s no big deal for them to punish you without cause, to break up your family, to take 10 or 20 people associated with your family and drag them down into hell for eternity. So the media gets involved, so what? They send over a few cops to get Qin Zhongfei out, they apologize and pay him a bit of money, but nothing happens to the officials. It’s a wrongful case, so the national government pays!”
Another responded: “Wrongful case, the government pays? Doesn’t the money paid [to Qin] come from the blood and sweat of the taxpayers? In this county, at the People’s Congress, at the Politics and Law Committee, at the Public Security Bureau, at the Procurator’s Office . . . don’t any of them know the law?”
[Posted by David Bandurski, October 26, 2006, 11:10am]

Last week China’s 21st Century Business Herald reported that information industry officials had tasked a “Weblog research group” with exploring the creation of an identification system for the country’s blogging population, requiring all users to register with their real names. The news drew anger from commercial media and Internet users, sparking a debate over privacy, anonymity and freedom of expression.
21st Century Business Herald cited a source on October 19 as saying that the Ministry of Information Industry had asked the Internet Society of China, an association of Internet industry companies under the thumb of Internet ministers (the same group that issued a self-censorship contract earlier this year), to address six Internet “agenda items”, including the scope of a “blog identification system” (博客实名制) like that recently implemented for mobile phones in China. The association formed the “Weblog research group” on August 2, with representation from 13 Internet companies including, said Youth Daily (Shanghai), people.com.cn, Qianlong, Sina.com, Sohu.com and Netease. Microsoft, which operates its MSN Spaces blog service in China, is also a member of the Internet Society of China and listed on the group’s Website [BBC on alleged Microsoft self-censorship of blogs]. Other US Internet companies, including Yahoo!, have been criticized by human rights advocates for cooperating with the efforts of the Internet Society of China. One topic of skepticism among Chinese media and Internet users has been the nature of this organization and what right it has to make decisions touching on the rights of hundreds of thousands of Internet users in China.

[ABOVE: Microsoft (China) listed among members of the Internet Society of China]
The next day, October 20, criticisms of the proposed identification system started coming from commercial media in China, reminiscent of other recent public policy-related rallies, including that against China’s draft emergency response law and Internet regulations in Chongqing.
Zhu Sipei (朱四倍) wrote in the New Express that officials were resorting to identification systems as a kind of crude last “straw to clutch at”, as though by implementing such systems in all areas of society they could solve public management issues with one stroke.
Zhu attributed the use of identification systems to an entrenched “paternalism” in the government, or the notion that leaders must check personal freedoms for the good of the people. The writer refered to the theories of economist Janos Kornai [JSTOR paper 01][JSTOR paper 02][Elena Lankova on paternalism and state socialism]:
I believe the fact that identification systems have become popular forms of management underscores a cultural and technical predicament. Speaking to deeper causes, paternalism is an important reason for the birth of these identification systems.
In China, ‘Managing you for your own good’ (管你，是为你好) is a manifestation of the government’s paternalism. From our tradition of father-mother officials [local magistrates] to comprehensive support under the planned economy, we have always been accustomed in our hearts to being citizen-children (子民), yearning for and receiving the care of the government. Under the market economy, the government’s direct participation in the economy has lessened, but intrusion and control and surveillance are a common occurrence. This kind of parental attitude can be glimpsed everywhere in government control and surveillance actions. But does our society need this kind of paternalistic logic?
It can be said that as identification systems encroach on public rights and benefits they have no way of gaining the people’s respect. If a system is does not have the consent and trust of the public, not only does it have no way of gaining legitimacy, it will carry enormous social costs. Paternalistic logic makes clear to all that identification systems face the prospect of failure [abortion] even before they are born.

An editorial in yesterday’s Southern Metropolis Daily questioned the nature of the Internet Society of China and why it had the power to “trample” on the speech freedoms of Internet users.
According to reports, the government is kicking around the idea of a “blog identification system”. Some say it’s “already decided”, others say it’s not yet been approved. But amidst a furor of opposition online Yang Junzuo, secretary of the “Internet Society of China” and the “Self-Discipline Work Committee”, has already said that “rolling out an identification system for blogs does not merit fear of what influence it will have”.
Freedom of expression is no doubt relative, but what we’re seeing here is: an association whose nature we do not understand, and a committee whose nature we likewise don’t know, can without reservation trample on the speech freedoms of all Chinese bloggers.
This Secretary Yang says: We cannot speak rashly and say unreasonable things simply because of Internet freedom.
Speaking rashly is not doubt a bad thing; before we speak we should moderate what we are going to say. But again what we’re seeing here is: an association whose nature we do not understand, and a committee whose nature we likewise don’t know, can presume to teach us what is reasonable.
The editorial’s tone is angry, and concludes with the bitterly sarcastic suggestion China simply shut down the Web altogether:
Therefore, I advocate completely blocking off the Internet, even to the point of cancelling all Weblogs and the Internet – then we can be sure we don’t have any of this “unreasonable” online behavior. Come to think of it, even if China doesn’t have an Internet, I really think we should continue to preserve, or even expand, the “Internet Society of China”, preserving and honoring the grand contributions these two secretaries (we could raise it to 20 secretaries) have done for freedom, control and surveillance, reason and order.
Web postings to the Southern Metropolis Daily editorial at Sina.com grabbed the sarcastic tone with gusto:
Yeah. I wholeheartedly agree with putting a lid on the Web! Let’s return to that great and pure age of stone tablets! Then we’ll never again have to get a handle on these illegal blogs!
——-
Cancelling the Web? This is a good idea, but it doesn’t really go far enough. I think we should should cancel words and language altogether. Only in this way can we control speech “at the roots”.

Huaxi Metropolis Daily quoted on industry insider yesterday as saying: “There’s no telling what kind of influence this thing could have on the market”.
Yangcheng Evening News wrote in an editorial that “responsible freedom” could come only when citizens’ rights and benefits were protected:
That ‘freedom is relative’ is not wrong, and it’s also correct to say that ‘only responsible freedom is healthy freedom’. But the condition has to be that freedom is preserved – only when there is a freedom in which rights and benefits are guaranteed thoroughly by the law does the possibility of abuse of that freedom arise . . .
Wanting to pass a blog identification system to make people take responsibility for their expression is a false problem. Only when freedoms are guaranteed does the question of “abusing freedom” arise. Only when there is freedom of expression can we talk about self-restraint . . .
—————–
[ON “identification” and “anonymity”]

Beijing Youth Daily
Basic Reasons for Identification and Anonymity
October 16, 2006

The news that an identification system (实名制) [“real-name system”] will be in place for mobile phones by year’s end has lately brought a great deal of discussion.
From going online to making a bank deposit or buying a mobile phone – the news and appeals have not stopped in recent years. Within this discussion the question of anonymity is often seen as a person’s right (权利) and the identification system is portrayed as meaning responsibility and duty. So as soon as one raises the question of identification systems, people can’t help but be sensitive to the question of rights – on the Web, this is sensitivity about the freedom to express oneself (自由表达权); when we make bank deposits or buy mobile phones, it’s a concern about our own privacy. All of these [concerns] are reasonable.
But what are the basic reasons for employing anonymity or identification? I’m afraid [to answer] this requires going back and considering the issue of rights and responsibilities between people and basic human logic and sensibilities.
Both anonymity and identification concern the social relationship between people. Different principles apply to various levels of society.
First of all, public and private are different levels. Public affairs and private affairs are also different levels. A person’s expression concerning public affairs constitutes public opinion (舆论). It should not be subject to “forced identification” (强制实名), just as is the case with street-side conversation which cannot be subjected to forced identification.
But if a person’s speech is directed at one individual this does not constitute “public”, but rather a connection between one individual and another individual. In such cases the speaker should be identified, whether online or offline. But when a particular person goes online and at one instance addresses the public and in the next instance addresses an individual, how do we determine the issues of anonymity versus identification? This is a conundrum present only on the Web. In my view, the first thought should be with protecting their right to public expression, and afterwards with his civil responsibility as an individual. Actually, in the event that there is no identification and the rights of another are intruded upon, it is possible to obtain evidence about the identity [of the anonymous person in question] through technical means. As, for example, in recent cases of online defamation.
Unlike public anonymity, our contacts and existences as individuals are generally all identified, whether it be national hukou registration (ID cards), marriage licenses or interactions among friends, relatives or colleagues. We interact as identified and recognized friends and colleagues – including by telephone; we also use real names to make contact with various government offices, registering for this or that permit.
On the personal level identification is the principle and condition under which we ordinarily accept interaction. If you don’t know a person’s name or surname, you don’t invite them to your home. We cross paths with innumerable people on the streets but don’t ask each for their name. But if you have an interaction with someone, you want to know their name . . .
But why is it that when you purchase something in an ordinary situation no one demands your identification? When you buy a tube of toothpaste the shop doesn’t have any reason to demand you prove your identity. This is because this interaction is not between two individuals, but only an exchange of objects (a product for money). When two individuals interact identification is required because these individuals must take responsibility in the interaction; for money and things there is no need for identification and knowing names, only for exchange according to an agreed-upon price.
Well then, why does using the telephone require registration? This is not a simple exchange between buyer and seller . . . but a question of long-term service, and this service assumes such relationships as credit, and in the credit relationship an interpersonal relationship is subsumed in the exchange of goods for money . . . The telephone is fundamentally different from the Internet in the sense that it is basically a tool for interpersonal communication, and not a tool of public expression (the two are best not confused). . . .
Of course, it’s understandable that people want to remain anonymous to protect their privacy and avoid being sold out by businesses, because the protection offered by anonymity is simply reliable judging from present circumstances. But taking a more long-term view, many of our rights should not rely on anonymity for their protection, because the vast majority of social interactions and social events cannot go on anonymously. It is therefore necessary to build a system that protects both the right to privacy and the right to expression, including a system for seeking responsibility in cases where rights are violated. We cannot simply rely negatively on anonymity.

[Posted by David Bandurski, October 23, 2006, 6:00pm]