Author: David Bandurski

Now Executive Director of the China Media Project, leading the project’s research and partnerships, David originally joined the project in Hong Kong in 2004. He is the author of Dragons in Diamond Village (Penguin), a book of reportage about urbanization and social activism in China, and co-editor of Investigative Journalism in China (HKU Press).

Chinese media seize on words of cultural minister and broach Cultural Revolution anniversary

A statement yesterday by China’s cultural minister emboldened a handful of mainland newspapers to defy a government ban on coverage of the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. For the first time today, four mainland newspapers ran articles directly mentioning the “fortieth anniversary”, based on a database search of 140 Chinese newspapers.
Chinese cultural minister Sun Jiazheng (孙家正) said at a press conference on May 25 that the National Museum of China and the National Library of China were gathering together Cultural Revolution materials that might “assist in research of this period in history”. The response came as Sun dodged a question by a foreign reporter as to why China had no museum for the Cultural Revolution, but bolder newspapers read this as a clear opportunity for more open coverage – an act Chinese call jieti fahui (借题发挥), or, translated roughly, “using a current topic of conversation to put out one’s own ideas”.
The four newspapers to mention the Cultural Revolution anniversary were: Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily and New Express, Wuhan’s Strait News, and Chongqing Morning Post.
In an A16 article, Southern Metropolis Daily reported the exchange between Sun Jiazheng and a United Press International reporter who asked why China had no Cultural Revolution museum:
The first “Cultural Heritage Day” will come on June 10 this year. The theme of the first “Cultural Heritage Day” will be “protecting our cultural heritage, preserving our spiritual homeland”. China’s Cultural Heritage Day will fall each year on the second Saturday in June.
At a May 25 press conference held by the State Council Information Office, Cultural Minister Sun Jiazheng said cultural protection concerns not only the long-reaching history of our people, but also how we will face our future
[Concerning a “Cultural Revolution” museum, the National Museum and National Library are gathering materials]
United Press International reporter: “May this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. China has many museums about the history of the 20th century, I’d like to ask why China has no Cultural Revolution museum?”
Sun Jiazheng: “Concerning history, including the history of the ‘Cultural Revolution’, we have people gathering cultural materials together. Right now there are various ‘Cultural Revolution’ materials scattered about the globe … and those we can collect, including at the National Museum and National Library, will assist in research of this period in history” …
Even more brazen, however, was a letter to the editor Southern Metropolis Daily seemed to have had at the ready. It appeared right at the top of page A2 and was called, “Forebears, please write down your ‘Cultural Revolution’ histories”:
Cultural Minister Sun Jiazheng said yesterday responding to a reporter’s question that the National Museum was collecting materials from the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in order to improve research on this period of history (May 25, China.com.cn). When I saw this news, I had a sudden hope: Beloved forebears, won’t you please write letters to your children and grandchildren, telling us the truth about what the ‘Cultural Revolution’ was and what you did then? …
The histories that arise from each personal story, each tale of a family’s pleasure, anger, sorrow and joy, are every bit as precious as those official histories – indeed, they are more precious. Forebears, for your children, why don’t you become household Si Maqian’s [Chinese historian, 145-90 B.C.]. Pick up your pens and tell us everything that concerns you.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 26, 2006, 5:12pm]

Formerly-banned AIDS village documentary now available on DVD in Chinese stores

Chen Weijun’s (陈为军) 2001 documentary (released 2003) on Chinese AIDS villages, “To Live is Better Than to Die”, can now be shown in mainland China, bringing to an end a four-year ban, the film’s director confirmed by phone Wednesday. Mr. Chen said film was now available on DVD in stores across China, but there were likely to be few public showings.

get_img10.jpg

“I’m very happy about this, of course,” Chen told CMP. “A lot of people in China have wanted to see this film for a long time but have never had the opportunity.”
Copies of “To Live is Better Than to Die” have been available in stores across China since late March, Chen said.
Chen Weijun began shooting his AIDS documentary in the summer of 2001, after he was introduced to five AIDS patients in Wuhan by doctor Gui Xi’en (桂希恩), credited as the first doctor to document China’s AIDS villages. Breaking from his day job with a local Wuhan TV station, Chen traveled to the Henan village of Wenlou and, disguised as a farmer, filmed a Chinese family’s struggle with AIDS without the knowledge of local officials. Chen’s documentary was banned by Chinese authorities, but received critical acclaim outside China, winning a Peabody Award in 2003.
The availability of Chen’s film within China could be seen to signal a further relaxing of restrictions on coverage of the country’s HIV-AIDS crisis, which was first exposed at great risk by domestic media in 1999-2000 and taken international by The New York Times in October 2000. Recent contributions include Wang Keqin’s excellent China Economic Times report to commemorate International Aids Day last year.
Chen’s film should be regarded as an important example in what has been called China’s New Documentary Movement (新纪录片运动) — generally speaking, films produced independent of the government using inexpensive digital video technology. News that the film is now unshackled in China offers a good opportunity to address some recent misunderstandings about this documentary movement and its importance.
In an entry called “Wu Wenguang’s Village Video Project”, one blogger recently had the following to say about new Chinese documentaries:
Before seeing the films produced by Wu Wenguang and the villagers, I had spent a couple days watching other documentary films made by contemporary Chinese filmmakers. In a sense, these filmmakers were capitalizing on the new capabilities offered by DV cams. Whereas filmmakers once had to conserve film because expensive reels of tape restricted their ability to shoot long, continuous takes, DV filmmakers can just keep the camera running and then pick and choose the bits that are most compelling.
What this generally translates into is an extremely long (one might say boring) documentation of some aspect of modern life in China that is spiritually empty. Most of the documentaries produced in China today seem to belong to an artistic movement called the “New Documentary Movement” (新纪录运动). Wu Wenguang is considered an early member of this movement, and all of the other films I saw were considered part of the movement as well.
Before seeing the films produced by the villagers, one thing really struck me about these New Documentary Movement films. While they were interesting in a cultural sense, they were incredibly tedious and difficult to follow. Not one of them contained a narrator, and only once did text appear on the screen describing the action that was happening in the film. People were talking to each other, and conversations were painstakingly stiched together, one after another, on the presumption that the audience would be able to grasp what was happening in the lives of the people who were on film. The approach is artistic and tasteful, but not very entertaining or brave. I would surmise that the absence of narrative, which is so widespread, indicates that the New Documentary Movement filmmakers are of two stripes. One is your average loyal party member. The other is too frightened to make a judgement and lead his audience.
To criticize these New Documentary films for lacking narrative devices or the courage to “lead” the audience is to miss the point entirely. These films, as expert Lu Xinyu (呂新雨) of Fudan University and others have noted at length, represent a break with documentary tradition in China precisely because they do not lead the narrative or impose the voice of the narrator. Here is Lu Xinyu in her book Documenting China, contrasting the new documentary with the state-produced “special topic films” (专题片)) of tradition:
Special topic films are done by national television; they are a kind of “social responsibility” undertaken by the national television station, a manifestation of the national ideology. They take a top-to-bottom look at Chinese society. Documentaries, however, must probe from another perspective. I often use the metaphor that the dominant ideology is the sun that illuminates whatever it touches, but a normal society must also have moonlight, starlight and lamplight. Documentaries are an important complement to the dominant ideology; they enable non-dominant (非主流) people and marginal groups to write their own existence into history.
Given the tradition of state-imposed ideology and its rigorous enforcement in the media via the cardinal principle of “guidance of public opinion” (舆论导向), it should not be hard to understand the director’s interest in letting his or her sources speak for themselves. Quite contrary to the speculation that the new documentary creator must be a “loyal party member”, it is this lack of guided-ness that gives these films their decidedly non-Party character.
One documentary filmmaker recently told the author, in fact, that he conceived of himself more as a journalist than an artist. He felt new documentaries, while presently having little direct social or political impact, will in future prove important first drafts for a non-official history of contemporary China.
Chen Weijun’s documentary, an intimate look at the lives of Chinese AIDS patients on which Party ideologies do not intrude, is a clear case supporting such a role for these films.
There doesn’t yet seem to be much writing online about the release of “To Live is Better Than to Die” (and there are apparently no Chinese media reports, except one in Hong Kong’s Apple Daily on May 23), but here is what one mainland blogger wrote about the film after seeing it last month:
Yesterday I saw the documentary film, “To Live is Better than to Die”. My heart is so cold I can’t breathe. Faced with setbacks and difficulties, everyone thinks of death, thinks of escape. Death, in such situations, is a kind of beguilement — a form of extrication.
This film tells the story of a family beset with HIV-AIDS. A father, mother and three children. The father faces not only the agony of his illness and the approach of death, but must witness the creeping illness of his loved ones. He has thought of death, but must not die. He knows that by throwing off his own pain he would leave even greater tragedy for the others.
I so admire his resoluteness. He bears his own pain, determined not to add it to the pain of those he loves … What a responsible man this is, a great man! A father and a husband. Surely, heaven will send angels to great him …
[2003 coverage of Chen by Time magazine]
[Site on Independent Documentary book]
[Discussion on independent documentary with Zhi Ruikun]
For Chinese-language readers we also strongly recommend reading Dong Yueling’s (董月玲) 2004 coverage of “To Live is Better Than to Die”, which was featured in the Freezing Point supplement to China Youth Daily even while the ban was in force. Her story, which narrates the story of the Ma’s and of Chen’s film, begins:
Wuhan TV’s Chen Weijun never himself expected that the documentary he made with his DV camera, a film about the ordinary lives of a peasant family, would shake people to their cores and bring him international acclaim.
In Wuhan, I climb to the seventh floor of an apartment block, dripping with perspiration as I approach the Chen home. In the disorder of the sitting room, I watch this documentary, “To Live is Better Than to Die”. After I’ve watched the 80-minutes, my feet and hands are icy. I struggle for breath.
Chen Weijun never ceases smoking. When he’s finished with the cigarettes in the box and on the end table, he harvests the butts from the ashtray, carefully tears each open, rolls up another and smokes again …
[UPDATE:Chen’s film seems to have been shown at a film festival in Anhui Province on April 19]
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 24, 2006, 6:16pm]

Changsha Evening News [Hunan] launches “Eight Honors” nursery rhyme competition

We’ve written elsewhere about Chinese President Hu Jintao’s ideological campaign for improved social morals, which has had implications for media in China [See also this link]. Just to keep tabs on how Chinese media are taking part in the “Honor and Shame Ideology” (荣辱观), also referred to as “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces” (八荣八耻), here’s a look at an announcement in yesterday’s Changsha Evening Newspaper (长沙晚报), which is launching an original “nursery rhyme” competition: [PHOTO: Chinese children play paddycakes using the national “Eight Honors” nursery rhyme, from Sina.com]
“Searching, searching, searching, searching for a trusty friend, to tip their hat, shake my hand, everyone let’s all be friends” [a child’s nursery rhyme]. We all have memories of such innocent nursery rhymes that grow up with us. They saturate the young lives of successive generations. But in the [recent] past, some vulgar and unseemly so-called nursery rhymes have invaded our schoolyards and polluted the spirits of our children. Carrying on the Socialist Honor and Shame Ideology (社会主义荣辱观), and in hopes of enlivening the spiritual lives of our kids, this newspaper has decided to launch its “Star City [Changchun] New Nursery Rhyme” propaganda competition.
The new nursery rhymes must take “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces” education as their main line, including such content as patriotism, diligent study, friendliness, honesty, justice, loving-care, thrift, courage, and towing the line. The new rhymes should be clear, simple to learn, suitable to a child’s taste and sing-able. Each rhyme should be about 15 sentences in length and must be original. Teachers, students or anyone else interested in created nursery rhymes (or children’s songs) may participate by submitting their creations to this newspaper. Multiple submissions are welcome. Submissions may be made by Internet ([email protected]) or by mail … Winning submissions will be printed in this newspaper. Submissions must be received by June 6, 2006.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 24, 2006 at 9:57am]

Reading the “Summer Palace” at Cannes controversy through Chinese press coverage

pdf_article644.pdf
The May 21 issue of Hong Kong’s Apple Daily printed an internal notice released by Guangdong’s provincial propaganda office, dated May 19, and referring to a Central Propaganda Department ban against all coverage of this year’s 59th International Cannes Film Festival, where Chinese director Lou Ye’s “Summer Palace” was screened without proper authorization from China’s media minders at SARFT and the Propaganda Department. [Coverage of the film at Taipei Times].

get_img9.jpg

[PHOTO: “Summer Palace” director Lou Ye]. What follows is a timeline of the recent political row over “Summer Palace” based on mainland media coverage:
May 8-9 – reports say “Summer Palace” failed to pass approval by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) because director Lou Ye (娄烨) had not implemented revisions they had demanded.
May 9 — SARFT and director Lou Ye publicly deny the above, saying “Summer Palace” has not yet been submitted to SARFT. Interviewed by Chengdu Economic Daily, the film’s producer, Fang Li (方励), says he has assurances from SARFT that the approval process will be simplified to ensure quick approval.
May 13 — SARFT says it has not yet approved the film’s application, and that approval will be unlikely before the film festival begins. One SARFT official says the movie’s nomination for the Palme d’Or, the festival’s highest award, is already in violation of SARFT rules.
May 15 – “Summer Palace” is finally sent to SARFT to begin the approval process.
May 16 – Citing poor film and sound quality, SARFT refuses to begin the approval process.
May 15-17 – Mainland media report conflicting accounts by people involved in the film as to SARFT’s regulations and position:
Fang Li, producer: “It’s not necessary for a record of the film’s recommendation [for the Palm d’Or] to be made [with SARFT] because the recommendation was made by the film’s foreign distributor, Wild Bunch, and not a mainland producer.” (The Mirror, 法制晚报, May 15)
Nai An (奈安), producer: “We will produce a new version of the film that is brighter and has a clearer soundtrack for SARFT … If we do not receive permission [from SARFT], ‘Summer Palace’ will be withdrawn from the festival.” (Nanjing Daily, 南京日报, May 17)
Lou Ye, director: “I don’t understand what can possibly be wrong with the film. If [the screening committee at SARFT] wants to give the reason that the film and sound quality are poor, that’s like fooling children. It’s shameful! (Strait News, 海峡都市报 [Fujian] May 17).
On May 18, Lou Ye took his director’s cut of “Summer Palace” to Cannes and the film was screened according to the original schedule [AP coverage here]. However, the film was presented as Lou’s personal work and not as a work representing China at the festival.
On May 19, the Propaganda Department sent out an internal notice banning all news reports dealing with the Cannes Film Festival, “Summer Palace” or any of its creators. On the day of the notice, however, news report on the film’s “illegal” participation in the festival were still running in many mass media.
On May 20, reports about “Summer Palace” could still be found in some media. See, for example: Chongqing Morning Post, and Yangzi Evening News. The Chongqing Morning Post story begins:
Reporter Feng Weining (冯伟宁) – Approval from the China Film Bureau [of SARFT] never came, but Lou Ye took part in the competition nevertheless. On the night of May 18 at the Cannes Film Festival, a screening for Lou Ye’s film “Summer Palace” was held and three consecutive showings were packed.
Since May 21, reports about “Summer Palace” in the Chinese media have apparently disappeared, based on a search through publications database WiseNews, but there are some reports on the Cannes Film Festival, including from The Strait and Beijing Times.
The following is a graph showing the results of a WiseNews search on both “Cannes plus Summer Palace” and “Cannes” for May 14-23. Numbers at left are total number of articles:
get_img8.jpg

[Search covers 140 mainland Chinese publications]
There is now strong speculation that the non SARFT-authorized screening of “Summer Palace” at Cannes will mean the film will not be shown at theaters in China. It is also conceivable that the director, Lou Ye, could face penalties from SARFT, the most severe of which would be withdrawal of his right to make films legally in China.
[See May 17 Danwei.org for more coverage and links]
[Posted by Brian Chan, May 23, 2006, 12:30pm]

The Parable of the Scarecrow: A Chinese appeal for public interest journalism and adherence to global standards

Just two days after a Xinhua bulletin exposing acts of “news extortion” by four Chinese reporters, Chun Cheng Wanbao (春城晚报), a commercial spin-off of Yunnan Daily, ran an editorial attacking the practice. What sets this piece apart from other expressions of outrage in the Chinese media is its thinly-veiled reference to public interest and its appeal for adoption of global professional journalism principles, which precede mention of China’s recent moral clean-up campaign, the “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces”.

By Lao Lai (老赖) [a penname]
News journalists have been called “uncrowned kings”. But behind this glorified moniker, journalists bear a holy responsibility – providing society and the public with the most up-to-date news and information. They are the scarecrows in the cornfield of society.
But if the scarecrows becomes the robbers, colluding with others and doing an inside job, well, that cornfield is done for, and the people, who are the masters of that field, are also done for. Not long ago, some news organizations gave rise to a group of bandits – such reporters as Wang Qiming (汪启明) from China Food Quality News and three other papers extorted money from the people and low-level companies or offices (基层单位) in the name of journalism. Put simply, they used their right to interview and report to grab somebody’s handle (get supposed evidence against them), and through the threat of “exposure” demanded huge sums from the people and work units in question. Because this later came out, they were taken into custody (Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, May 15).
In Article 7 of its Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists says: “The journalist shall regard as grave professional offences the following: plagiarism — malicious misrepresentation — calumny, slander, libel, unfounded accusations — the acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression” [Editor’s Note: this is actually Article 8 of the Declaration].
Since commercial reforms in the media, such trends as fake news, false advertising, exaggerated news and sensationalism have created an upswell of sentiment against journalists. Now, with the addition of “news extortion”, public trust in the media and its public image is again shaken. It seems discussion about the “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces” in journalism, about professional ethics and media self-discipline is much needed …
If journalists want to gain the trust of the public they have to begin with themselves. Those like Wang Qiming represent a minority among journalists, but, as we say, “One ant hole can cause a breach in the dam”, and we must not be negligent in our journalism.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 20, 2006]

 

What China’s media minders had to say about the anniversary of the Cultural Revolution

pdf_article640.pdf
In our May 17 analysis of Chinese media coverage of the Cultural Revolution, we passed over one important article from Guangming Daily, the official mouthpiece of China’s Central Propaganda Bureau. That article, “Looking forward with Solidarity: A review of what Deng Xiaoping and other old revolutionaries tell us about how to correctly assess the ‘Cultural Revolution'”, was important because it offered, on the day of the fortieth anniversary, the Party’s official line on how the Cultural Revolution should be marked and remembered. It said, in over 4,000 words: the Party has already told us what we should think and feel about the Cultural Revolution – let us all look forward!:
Here is the first portion of the Guangming Daily article, which appeared at the top of Page 3:
The “Cultural Revolution” of the 60s and 70s of the last century was an important turning point in the development of our Party and the nation. The Party and the people have worked earnestly to reap the experience and lessons of the “Cultural Revolution”, and such revolutionaries as Deng Xiaoping and Chen Yun have left us many profound treatises. The phrase they use most often is “looking forward with solidarity”. Today, under new historical conditions, we need urgently to review their treatises and look forward with solidarity to correctly treat that episode in history, the “Cultural Revolution”, and reach a more consensus vision, promoting the grand work of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics with one heart and mind.
It continues by pointing to two “erroneous trends in thought” following in the wake of the Cultural Revolution (our emphasis):
Thirty years ago, as the Cultural Revolution ended and countless problems waited for solutions, people’s thoughts were also in a state of chaos. Two erroneous trends in thought existed as to how to treat the “Cultural Revolution”. One was the error of Leftism, which persisted in affirming the errors of the “Cultural Revolution”. Another held falsely that disavowing the “Cultural Revolution” meant denying the history of the Party and its position of leadership, denying the socialist system, denying Comrade Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought. Without question, for the Party and the country to walk out from the morass of the “Cultural Revolution” they needed to correctly assess and thoroughly rectify the erroneous theory and direction of the “Cultural Revolution” … How to appraise the intimate relationship between Mao Zedong and the “Cultural Revolution” was an even more complicated and delicate question. Do we have the ability and presence of mind to thoroughly disavow the path of the “Cultural Revolution” while looking rationally at Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought? These questions, in apparent contradiction, are an important test of the Party and crucial to determining China’s fate and outlook for the future”.
A detailed discussion of Deng Xiaoping’s writings about the Cultural Revolution follows, with an emphasis on his line: “We sum up the past so we may all look forward with solidarity” (Guangming Daily citation: Selected Writings of Deng Xiaoping, Volume II, pg. 292 [《邓小平文选》第二卷第292页]).
Not surprisingly, the final paragraph is an enthusiastic self-affirmation of the Party’s mandate to rule:
The “Cultural Revolution” is already 30 years past. Our Party’s basic summations on questions of history since the Republic’s founding, and particularly the question of the “Cultural Revolution”, have stood the test of time and historical experience. Today we cherish the summaries of history given us by Deng Xiaoping and other revolutionary leaders … and affirm their call for us to look forward with solidarity … Not forgetting history, we should set our eyes on the future, and with greater unity fight our way up in the embrace of the Party Central Committee led by General Secretary Hu Jintao, never ceasing to advance the great project of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics!
————————–
Today, however, Southern Metropolis Daily slipped right into the past by running a profile on the life of engineer Sun Jingqiao (孙镜樵), who passed away earlier this month. The story talks directly about the abuse he received after being branded an “unlawful capitalist” and “reactionary” during the Cultural Revolution.
The story is called, “A Sketch of Sun Jingqiao”. “In the prime of his life he wore ‘two tall hats’. He was branded an unlawful capitalist (不法资本家) and reactionary force (反动技术权威)”, it begins, then describes the scene at Sun’s funeral in Guangzhou on May 7. “There is a six-member band in black coattails in one corner of the parlor, playing the familiar strain of ‘Auld Lang Syne’. Sun Jingqiao’s eldest son, Suen Kwok Lam, executive director of Hong Kong’s Henderson Land Development, says his father loved dancing his whole life, and would have enjoyed such a melodic farewell …”
The story briefly narrates Sun’s life prior to China’s “liberation” in 1949, and then goes on:
In 1966 the fate of engineer Sun Jingqiao met a turning point. His wife, Hu Yuzhen, recalls that shortly after liberation, Jingqiao’s salary was quite high at 135 yuan. The household never wanted for anything, and could even hire a maid. After the onset of the Cultural Revolution, everything changed. Their second son, Guoquan, remembers that one day his father said unexpectedly: ‘There are already two hats on my head, unlawful capitalist and reactionary.’ His fathers tone was relaxed as ever, but Guo Quan quickly learned the affect these two “hats” would have on the fate of the family.
The three children in secondary school were soon forced off to the countryside and Hu Yuzhen was sent to clean toilets at a glass factory. Shuyi, the only child left in Guangzhou, said her father was frequently forced to wear a tall hat and sit atop a truck that hauled him through the streets to a ceremonial hall where he was publicly denounced. Sometimes he was locked in a cowshed for many days and visitors were kept away. But every time he returned home, a smile would break across Sun Jingqiao’s face and he would describe in vivid detail the scene of the denunciation …
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 19, 2006, 12:57pm]

An unwelcome compliment?: Wen Jiabao makes the Time 100 list

When Time magazine announced its latest Time 100 list of most-influential world figures on May 1, five people on the list were Chinese – PRC Premier Wen Jiabao, film director Ang Lee, Gome Electronics founder Huang Guangyu, rights activist Chen Guangcheng and journalist Ma Jun. The last two figures did not appear in already sparse Chinese media coverage of the list due to the general sensitivity of the grassroots activism associated with them. Wen Jiabao’s appearance, an embarrassing upstaging of China’s top leader, President Hu Jintao, was also a very sensitive issue. Five newspapers, though, simply couldn’t resist:
On May 2, the day after the Time issue appeared, Nanfang Daily not only ran the story, but put Wen Jiabao in the headline and the lede. The headline was: “Wen Jiabao selected among top 100 influential persons”. The subhead: “Film director Ang Lee and Gome Electronics [founder] Huang Guangyu also selected”.
Here is the story’s lede: “Yesterday’s Time magazine published a list of the world’s 100 most influential people. Premier Wen Jiabao was selected in the ‘leaders and revolutionaries’ category, while Taiwan director Ang Lee was selected for the ‘artists and entertainers’ category.”
A paragraph explaining the categories of the Time 100 followed, and then the zinger (our emphasis):
In the “leaders and revolutionaries” section, Wen Jiabao was mainland China’s only political figure. The magazine said Wen Jiabao had supported China in pressing ahead with economic reforms, and pointed out that Wen had paid increasingly more attention to those in society who have been overlooked, wanting to raise social equality, and he had paid particular attention to problems facing peasants and workers.
The actual text, as available on Time’s website raised the issue of “social unrest” too, which naturally didn’t make it into the Nanfang Daily version:
As Premier, Wen has guided China’s tectonic economy, supporting continued economic reform and growth but also pointedly calling for greater emphasis on social equality for those who have been left out of the country’s “economic miracle.” Indeed, his expressions of concern for the plight of ordinary peasants and laborers, whose disaffection has manifested itself in an alarming increase in social unrest, have given him the image of being something of a populist. He has faced other political challenges: the AIDS crisis, SARS, China’s worsening environmental problems.
Guangzhou’s New Express (a commercial spin-off of Yangcheng Evening News), Southern Metropolis Daily (Guangzhou), Yangtse Evening News (Nanjing, Jiangsu) and Chun Cheng Evening News (Kunming) ran the story too, but softened the blow with more emphasis on foreign politicians.
Here is the New Express lede of May 2: “The May 1 issue of Time magazine announced its list of the top 100 influential world figures, among them State Council Premier Wen Jiabao”.
And in a second article in the same issue: “State Council Premier Wen Jiabao has been selected for a list of the world’s 21 most influential leaders. Time described Wen as a modest and even-tempered leader who has used a practical style and excellent political measures to further China’s rapid economic development”.
A headline in the “International affairs” page of Yangtse Evening News, one of China’s largest papers by circulation, read: “Time selects Wen Jiabao in list of most influential leaders”.
In China’s political climate, news of Wen Jiabao’s inclusion in the Time list puts Hu Jintao in an awkward position, and mentioning Wen’s inclusion is a risky move for domestic media. It is not surprisingly to find that four of the five papers daring to include the news are from China’s south (three from Guangdong Province and one from Yunnan Province), whose press has a reputation for pushing the envelope. Their choices underscore the complicated nature of China’s media environment, where officials in charge of newspapers or other media find ways of wriggling through sensitive topics and around government orders. Hu Jintao, of course, is hardly in a position to respond to the coverage without further embarrassment — and the newspapers presumably realize this.
As to why Time made the choice of Wen Jiabao, Hong Kong Economic Daily said it showed America’s ambivalence over China’s economic growth — its position as an economic partner and its potential threat to U.S. dominance. While Wen Jiabao has become emblematic of economic growth and partnership, the paper said, Hu embodied the West’s reservations about China. “US President George W. Bush has already described US-China relations in a very complicated manner, seeing China as both a competitor and a partner. Again, we have this classic pattern of love and hate … Of course, the West must confess the achievements of China’s economy. After all is said and done, after many years of economic globalization, China’s economy is already inextricably linked with those of the United States and Europe. As the principle in charge of economic work, Wen Jiabao can of course enjoy the glory of China’s economic achievements to its fullest. As the master of overall work, Hu Jintao must bear the full burden of the West’s value judgments and prejudices about China!”
[Posted by David Bandurski and Brian Chan, May 18, 2006, 5:35pm]

How “silent” were Chinese media on the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution?

Western press coverage of yesterday’s fortieth anniversary of China’s Cultural Revolution talked about the “silence” of Chinese media on this sensitive political issue. But exactly how silent were Chinese media? A widely-circulated Reuters report said there had been a “blanket ban on the subject”. AFP said “all mainstream media – newspapers, television and radio stations – stayed mum on the subject”. These are very different statements, however, and it must be pointed out that an outright ban on coverage directly commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution does not mean the subject was not broached. How Chinese media did mark the event is a much more complicated story. Here is a quick run down of coverage over the last week, using information from the WiseNews publications database:

mao.jpg

A quick search of 140 mainland Chinese publications for the period May 11-17 shows a total of 79 articles using the words “Cultural Revolution” (文革). Of these, just three made bold to use “Cultural Revolution” in the article’s headline, where it was more likely to draw the attention of top editors and media minders. Given a blanket ban on coverage commemorating the Cultural Revolution, these occurrences are the boldest and most dangerous – even if they headline soft news they might be seen as “lineballs” (打擦边球) and could potentially bring disciplinary action. They might be read, in other words, as naughty assertions of independence.
What do these three articles actually talk about? One, in today’s Southern Metropolis Daily, is a 300-word about a showing of Cultural Revolution-era oil paintings on display at Guangzhou’s Adam Space Gallery (原子空间画廊). The headline: “‘Cultural Revolution’ Oil Paintings Shown at Guangzhou Gallery”. The next article, in People’s Daily spin-off Beijing Times on May 16, talks about an effort to restore to Beijing’s Yuetan Park a Ming Dynasty bell that was “lost” during the Cultural Revolution. The last article to use “Cultural Revolution” in its headline appeared in the May 11 edition of Jiangxi Province’s Jiangnan Wanbao (江南晚报), and profiled an old hobbyist who collects Cultural Revolution-era musical records.
Articles using “Cultural Revolution” in the body run the gamut, from a few that use “Cultural Revolution” to refer simply to an era in time (“after the Cultural Revolution”, etc.) to others that refer to writings or works of art dealing with the Cultural Revolution, or the importance of Cultural Revolution experiences in the personal growth of cultural figures.
But some coverage tackles the subject more directly, even if the story’s lede never positions it as being about the anniversary. China Newsweekly, a leading magazine published by China News Service, yesterday ran the personal story of one man’s trials as a former study-abroad student in the Soviet Union. While purportedly commemorating China’s “Year of Russian Culture” (2006), the story invoked the Cultural Revolution quite graphically:
During the Cultural Revolution, the situation of students in Beijing who had studied in the Soviet Union (留苏学生) was not bad, but outside [the capital] things were much crueler. As soon as the “revisionists” [Mao used the term “revisionist” to attack Nikita Khrushchev at the height of tensions with the Soviet Union in the 1960s] set about seizing people, they [the former Soviet students] were seized. They suffered many excruciating things. At the time, a lot of people came to inspect me, and they always asked me to inform on spies – I would say, where do you imagine all these spies are? They wanted me to expose others and forced me to write huge posters (大字报), but I couldn’t write them … Some of these former Soviet study-abroad students committed suicide, some went mad. Most, fortunately, were eventually de-purged. During the Cultural Revolution, I burned most all of my letters, photographs, books and music from the time I spent in the Soviet Union, so all I have now are memories.
A literary review in the culture and entertainment section of the May 16 Shanxi Daily says the following about a long-form novel: “It is only because the author was guiltlessly engulfed in the black maelstrom of that historically unprecedented catastrophe and suffered the torments of extreme purgatory, that he has such a keenly felt pain and profound experience of the Cultural Revolution.” This is one of six references to the Cultural Revolution in that article.
In a May 15 story in Shanghai’s Xinmin Evening News, the writer talks about coming across a literary piece by Zeng Yuancang (曾元沧) during the May holiday. The meaning of the Xinmin article itself is veiled, but its crux is “remembrance”: “Ah Cang [Zeng Yuancang] felt grateful for the protection he received from his relatives in the old village during the Cultural Revolution, and could not forgot how naïve he had been, getting rid of his ‘tiger-head shoes’ as an attack on the ‘Four Olds’ [these were ‘old ideas, old culture, old customs, old habits, anything regarded as feudal or bourgeouis]. The life of the ancestral village permeates Zeng’s writing … and he says in spartan prose: ‘My hometown will always flow through my subconscious’. Don’t you see? Those lines on our palms, they mark the past and fortell the future, but of course this has nothing to do with palm-reading. Zeng’s writing does talk about how his parents named him with canghai [“ocean”/ 沧海] to compensate for his deficiency of the water element [one of China’s five traditional elements], but that is a matter for fortune-tellers. What concerns Zeng Yuancang, and what concerns us as readers, is the need to remember, and not lightly to forget”.
It should not surprise us to find few direct references to the fortieth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution in China’s headlines and filling its news pages. To do so under the current political climate would mean running a foolish risk. It is of course sad and unfortunate that journalists in China cannot face this painful chapter in Chinese history head on. But the silence is a restless one, and by no means absolute. And as with so much news coverage in China, really understanding what is happening requires careful reading between the lines.
That having been said, a look at Hong Kong coverage of the Cultural Revolution highlights the obvious difference between these two news environments. While “Cultural Revolution” appears in 79 mainland articles for May 11-17, it appears in 176 Hong Kong Chinese-language articles for the same period, for one-seventh the number of newspaper titles. The nature of the coverage, of course, is also much bolder.
graph.jpg

[Source: WiseNews]
[Posted by David Bandurski and Brian Chan, May 17, 2006, 6:01pm]

China details news extortion cases in official bulletin and tells newspapers to clean up their news bureaus

Chinese media ran an official bulletin, or tong bao (通报), detailing acts of news extortion (新闻敲诈) allegedly carried out by journalists from the provincial bureaus of four nationally-circulated newspapers. The bulletin, which called on newspapers to “further normalize the news reporting activities of reporters at their news bureaus” by ratcheting up their internal supervision mechanisms, was issued on May 15 by the official Xinhua News Agency and carried forceful warnings from the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP), China’s government minders for the publishing sector.
The cases outlined in the bulletin were not in fact new. For example, the second of the four cases in question concerned the actions of Meng Huaihu (孟怀虎), the former Zhejiang bureau chief for China Commercial Times, a business paper published by the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC).
Meng was quietly removed from his position last year after he allegedly tried to force an advertising contract from China Petroleum and Chemical Company (Sinopec) with the promise of an investigative report. China issued a ban on news coverage of the affair, which many insiders supposed was being resolved through backroom politics. Up to the release of the Xinhua bulletin, the only trace remaining of the China Commercial Times incident was a report from September 2005 in which ACFIC’s chairman called the incident “a painful lesson” and vowed that the paper would clean up its act by “grasping the lessons of the Marxist View of Journalism, [former President Jiang Zemin’s] Three Represents and the Three Lessons [training program for media personnel, which emphasizes upholding the Party’s principles in news work].”
So-called cases of “news extortion” have been on the rise in recent years as government support has been progressively withdrawn from the bulk of Chinese media, forcing them to compete for advertising revenues even as they retain their role as an arm of the party-state. With a glut of publications and many editors unable to create sharp editorial products to take advantage of the market, some “media professionals” are tempted to monetize the power vested in them as state organs to force advertising contracts from low-level government bodies and corporations.
The May 15 bulletin said reporters from “China Food Quality News” (中国食品质量报), China Commercial Times (中华工商时报), Economic Daily (经济日报), and China Industry News (中国工业报) had been involved in the extortion cases in question.
Other Coverage:
At People’s Daily Online in English
Reuters via Sydney Morning Herald
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 16, 2006, 12:35pm]

China launches fresh round of “Three-Points” indocrination for media professionals

According to a report by Beijing Youth Daily, the first session of this year’s traveling “Three-Points Study and Education Campaign” (三项学习教育活动), an indoctrination drive designed to “educate” journalists in their obligations as well-behaved members of China’s state-controlled news industry, went off swimmingly in Beijing on May 13. As it only could, of course.
The training event, which features speeches by news reporters and officials, will travel on to Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing as well as cities in the provinces of Jiangsu, Fujian, Guangdong, Hubei, Sichuan and Gansu. The event is organized by the Central Propaganda Department, the Education Ministry, the All-China Journalists Association and News Frontline (新闻战线), a media policy magazine published by the party mouthpiece People’s Daily.
The “Three-Points” campaign was first launched in October 2003 with an announcement sent out by the Central Propaganda Department, GAPP, SARFT and the official All-China Journalists Association. It said News Frontline would launch a campaign to educate journalists in 1) [former President] Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents”, 2) the Marxist view of journalism and 3) professional spirit and ethics (SEE: “中宣部等通知: 新闻战线开展三个代表学习”, CCTV International Website, October 28, 2003). If there was any doubt about the nature of “professional spirit”, the announcement spelled it out. News professionals would learn “from the first to last, to support the [Communist] Party-nature of the news, support placing ‘guidance of public opinion’ [rigorous news control] before all else, support ‘serving the people’ and serving socialism …” The training would also “make further steps to strengthen political awareness [of the Party-line], a sense of responsibility [to the Party-line], loudly singing the dominant [Party] strain (唱响主旋律)” etc., etc.
One focus of the “Three-Points” campaign has lately been poor ethics in the Chinese media, targeting such things as “fake news” and “news extortion”. The campaign’s approach, however, is ideological and does not address the institutional causes of such behavior.
At a People’s Daily Online page dedicated to news about the “Three-Points” campaign, the banner running along the top reads: “Strengthening the ‘Three-Points Study and Education Campaign’ to Build Up the Correct View of News [Work] (新闻观)”. The site is dedicated to official policy pronouncements on the work of news professionals as an arm of China’s party-state structure, and to profiles of model figures in Chinese journalism.
Speaking during the May 13 session in Beijing, Xinhua News Agency reporter Zhang Yanping said that only by “deeply loving your mother country and the people, keeping after interviews and putting your heart into interviewing and writing, could you move yourself (感动自己) in the reporting process and move society with your news reports (用新闻报道感动社会)”, Beijing Youth Daily reported.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 15, 2006, 6:04pm]