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).
As China kicked up its campaign for a more “civilized” Internet, domestic media reported the country’s first-ever lawsuit against Internet spammers, brought by a Beijing resident against two companies in a city district court. The plaintiff alleged incessant e-mails impacted her ability to do her job and violated her rights.
According to an April 10 report in the Beijing Morning Post, plaintiff Mrs. Wang alleged continuously receiving unsolicited e-mail advertising about skills training programs in two private e-mail accounts. The messages, allegedly sent by Guangzhou’s Internet and Computer Company (网络计算机科技公司), advertised the services of Shanghai’s Yijuan Enterprise Management Information Company (上海易腾企业管理咨询公司). Wang sought 1,100 yuan (US$140) in compensation, according to the newspaper. [ABOVE: User bowled over with “Garbage Mail”, from ChinaByte.net]
On her personal Weblog, Chinese technology reporter Sun Hui suggested removing the system of free e-mail might solve the issue, and called new regulations issued by China’s Ministry of Information Industry (MII) in March a good first step toward resolving the e-mail spam problem in China. Sun’s posting is translated below:
“Oftentimes, we simply tolerate the evil of junk e-mail, partly because there’s so much of it we can’t prevent it, and partly because we haven’t felt it’s reached a point of such seriousness that it has trampled our rights, not to the point where we want to use the tool of the law to protect ourselves. And when it has reached this point, the question is where to go, because for a long time there have not been clear methods or programs for dealing with junk e-mail. But beginning March 30 this year, with the passing of ‘Methods for Internet Mail Service Management’ by the MII (‘Methods’ for short), there is a ray of hope.
“Article 15 of the ‘Methods’ states clearly: Internet mail service providers and those who make use of their services should accept reports of offenses from users concerning Internet mail, and provide a means for users to offer such reports. From the standpoint of users, this opens a door for redress. As to whether e-mail service providers will be fair and reasonable in accepting user complaints, this remains to be seen. But the ‘Methods’ do represent a real breakthrough for how China deals with junk mail. Even though the above legal case [brought by Mrs. Wang] has not yet been decided, and we don’t know whether such cases will be taken on by the courts, a victory in the case would be an encouragement to China’s Internet using masses.
“Policies and methods [on this issue] mean users can rely on rule of law, and this is a good thing. Relying solely on the power of the government is not enough. Can Internet mail service providers and those who use their services fight junk mail together with the government? Actually, one reason for the serious nature of junk mail is the fact that e-mails are free of charge; if there were appropriate charges for such mail, I believe the junk mail problem would largely be solved. Of course, such specifics as how to charge, and how much, requires more discussion and market research. Ever since the Internet began, e-mail usage has been synonymous with ‘free’. If we now want to change this, it would not be such an easy thing.”
Reports of the case in Beijing came just one day after fourteen leading Web portals in the Chinese market, including US-based Yahoo, issued a joint proposal on April 9 for a “civilized” Internet, free of so-called false and indecent content. The proposal was a nod of assent to Chinese President Hu Jintao’s most recent policy statement calling for a campaign of moral rectification at all levels of Chinese society.
[Posted by David Bandurski, April 18, 2006, 1:24pm]
The non-profit association Reporters Without Borders (RWB) said Yahoo had been implicated for a third time in the conviction of a Chinese Internet writer on subversion charges, citing a copy of the court verdict against Jiang Lijun (姜力均/姜力军), a former private enterprise boss in China’s Liaoning Province.
According to the group, the Chinese court alleged that in 2002 Jiang posted an article on the Web advocating the overthrow of the Chinese Communist Party. “The verdict indicated that Jiang Lijun wrote that the Chinese regime was ‘autocratic’, that he favoured a ‘so-called western-style democracy’ and planned to set up a political party. It also said that he planned to disrupt the 16th Communist Party Congress by phoning the police with a false bomb alert,” said the group’s announcement.
According to the verdict, said RWB, Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) had verified that Jiang Lijun and Li Yibing, another “pro-democracy activist”, were the users of the e-mail account from which the article in question had been sent.
Associated Press and Reuters stuck to the original RWB press release in writing their own news reports on the incident. These were picked up by ABC News International, Hong Kong’s Apple Daily (Article: 雅虎又助京拘人) and others.
In the past, Yahoo has been criticized for its alleged involvement in the convictions of Li Zhi (李志) and Shi Tao (师涛). Li Zhi was sentenced after posting online comments criticizing official corruption. Shi Tao was convicted after allegedly sending internal documents overseas via e-mail.
The Dui Hua Foundation, a human rights group, made copies of the court verdict in the Jiang Lijun case available on its Website in both Chinese and English.
READ: Help US Firms Free China’s Web (IHT)
[Posted by David Bandurski, April 20, 2006, 10:41am]
In the West it is understood as a matter of course that journalists must not offer cash or other inducements to secure story interviews [Example: LA Times ethics code/SEE “Access”]. In the wilder world of Chinese journalism, however, the lines are not always so clear, and one obstacle facing journalists in recent years has been public figures and academics demanding payment before granting interviews. Summaries of some of the most relevant cases on this issue follow plus a list of arguments pro and con:
The Li Yinhe Case – In March 2006 Guangzhou Daily said one of its reporters was asked to pay an “interview fee” after requesting to meet with Li Yinhe, a researcher from The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. According to the newspaper, Li’s rate was 500 yuan per hour (US$60/hr), with no charge for interviews under 15 minutes. The reporter interviewed Li for just over an hour and was asked to pay 500 yuan. Li Yinhe later explained publicly that she began charging in order to discourage a flood of interviews making demands on her time. She said interviews, which require time and energy, should not be granted free of charge. Li cited the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as an example of media who pay for interviews. In fact, the BBC’s code of ethics explicitly states the network must, “Disclose any direct or indirect payment made for interviews” and may not “pay people who act as information sources.” [Guangzhou Daily coverage of Li’s response available here].[More Chinese coverage here].
The Sun Daolin Case – According to a February 2005 news report by Yangcheng Evening News, when reporters approached film director Sun Daolin about a story on his experiences as a filmmaker and his thoughts on contemporary film, Sun asked to be compensated. The director argued that his speech amounted to a sharing of intellectual property. However, after Yangcheng reporters asked to know what Sun’s going rate was, the director said he could not determine this himself and stressed that he was not motivated by personal profit, the newspaper reported. [Yangcheng Evening News report available here].
The China Foreign Affairs University Case – According to a June 2005 report by Beijing Times, academics from China Foreign Affairs University agreed among themselves to demand “interview fees” from media at a minimum rate of 200 yuan per hour (US$25/hr). Their reasoning, according to the newspaper, was that as the interviews addressed the academics’ personal research achievements. The university reportedly responded by saying it had no right to interfere in the academics’ decisions concerning their personal rights and behavior. [Beijing Times report available here]. Arguments against “interview fees”:
A June 2005 editorial in China Youth Daily argued that officials and celebrities have a duty to uphold openness of information. By receiving payment for interviews, they may do harm to their credibility, the editorial said. It added that such exchanges of money are harmful to freedom of expression. [Chinese here].
In July 2005, the Global Times spoke with media organizations from South Korea, the United States, Germany and India and said it had found that payment for interviews fell outside journalism’s accepted norms. The newspaper said it had also found that the majority of media believed such behavior compromised the objectivity of reporting and damaged the credibility of experts, as well as serving as a harmful example to society. [Chinese article here].
Also in 2005, professor Zhan Jiang of China Youth University for Political Sciences argued that interview is a two-way process, allowing media to benefit from the expertise of a source and offering the interviewee an opportunity to build their reputation. Academics and officials, he said, should not request payment because in this capacity they serve a “public function”. If someone believes an interview will compromise their research achievements, they should refuse the interview rather than asking to be paid. [Chinese coverage here]. Arguments supporting “interview fees”:
In March 2005, Legal Daily published an editorial by Professor Sun Guorui, the Deputy Director of School of Law, Beihang University, arguing it was reasonable for media to pay for interviews with experts, who spend time and effort to contribute knowledge, experience and information. Sun also dragged the debate into the arena of intellectual property protection. [Chinese coverage here].
An editorial by Xiaoxiang Morning Herald in March 2006 argued that someone who is not a public official should not have a duty to the public’s right to know. If experts are offered the right to refuse interviews, said the editorial, they should also be given the right to request payment. The editorial said it was unreasonable to talk about journalists’ right to information without expecting them to pay for that information. [Chinese coverage here].
In April 2006 Ma Shaohua, an associate professor of journalism at Renmin University, argued in Beijing Youth Daily that the argument that says paying for interviews violates journalistic norms is irrelevant given the fact such norms have not yet taken shape in China. [Chinese coverage here].
[Posted by Brian Chan, April 12, 2006, 9:32pm]
Kowtowing to Chinese President Hu Jintao’s most recent policy statement calling for a campaign of moral rectification at all levels of Chinese society, fourteen leading Web portals in the Chinese market, including US-based Yahoo, issued a joint proposal on April 9 for a “civilized” Internet, free of so-called false and indecent content. While the statement was much more about political posturing and pandering to Leftist elements within the Party, the underlying message was a continued committment to Internet censorship.
The Internet firms signing the proposal included Yahoo, Sina.com、Sohu.com, Netease, Tom.com,China.com, search engine Baidu.com, YNET (北青网), Zhongsou (中国搜索网), Xilu (西陆网), Xici (西祠胡同网), Hexun (和讯网), and Daqi (大旗网).
State media predictably hailed the united front as a major breakthrough for social morals in the country and a key component of Hu Jintao’s vision of a “Harmonious Society”. Beijing Youth Daily put the headline in bold directly under its frontpage banner: “14 Websites Propose Civilized Operation of the Web”. A subhead directly below pointed readers to an editorial in Beijing Daily, the official mouthpiece of top city leaders in the capital, which said: “We believe that through the united effort of society, and with the continued cleansing of the online environment, the idea of operating and using the Web in a civilized way will become the dominant practice. The Internet will then truly become an important place for publicizing scientific theory, broadcasting advanced culture, creating beautiful spirits, promoting all that is just and honorable in society and correctly guiding public opinion” [Editorial here].
The reference to “correct guidance of public opinion”, a key buzzword for state media control, linked the joint proposal unambiguously with the state’s overall project of Internet censorship.
China’s propaganda apparatus has gone into overdrive to tout Hu Jintao’s latest campaign of moral rectification since the leader made a speech on “Socialist honor and disgrace” before delegates to the Chinese Political Consultative Conference on March 4. The latest state buzzword, “Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces” (八荣八耻) has risen rapidly through the ranks of the Party’s ideological lexicon.
On March 6, China’s top propaganda official, politburo member Li Changchun, called on all levels of Chinese society to implement the “spirit” of Hu Jintao’s policy speech in order to “form the stable moral basis for a Socialist harmonious society”. [Coverage of Li speech here].
The joint proposal called on Web portals in China to self-consciously operate with the goal of creating a “healthy and civilized online culture”. Specific measures included rigorous self-censorship, standardizing of content production, and strengthening professional ethics among Web employees.
[Posted by Samantha Wang and David Bandurski, April 11, 2006, 12:19pm]
China Central Television dropped a planned re-airing of a segment on its “News Probe” investigative program Thursday night after bowing to pressure from officials at China’s National Tax Bureau, media insiders said.
The program, which initially aired Monday night, was an interview with Li Wenjuan (李文娟), a former employee of the local tax office in Anshan, a city in Liaoning province, who blew the whistle on corruption among tax officials back in 2002 and paid dearly for it. The CCTV program avoided directly tackling the issue of official corruption, and focused instead on the need to protect those who come forward with information.
In a confidential letter to national tax officials in May 2002, Li Wenjuan offered physical proof of illegal behavior by tax officials in Anshan. The letter, which Li signed with her real name, was eventually leaked to local leaders, who had her taken into “criminal detention” in late 2004 on charges of “defamation”. There was never a trial, but Li spent more than a year in detention at a “rural education” program before finally being released.
Despite CCTV’s decision not to rebroadcast, the segment was still available Friday in video and transcript formats on the state-run broadcaster’s website. [If “Page Cannot be Displayed” Click Refresh].
While highlighting the challenges posed to China’s media by political power brokering, the airing of the CCTV program shows that so-called “watchdog journalism” (under state sanction), or supervision by public opinion, is moving ahead in the country despite the atmosphere of heightened control following the January shutdown of Freezing Point, a supplement of China Youth Daily newspaper.
What follows is a partial translation of the Chinese transcript available at CCTV.com:
The right to inform about illegal behavior is a right that belongs to every citizen, a right accorded by the Chinese Constitution. But ensuring someone is protected after they have informed, that the party informed against does not seek revenge against them, this requires a full-fledged informant protection system. Today News Probe’s featured personality is informant Li Wenjuan, who was previously an employee in the local tax office of Anshan City in Liaoning province. While carrying out her work registering tax revenues she discovered that some within the local tax office were aiding local tax dodging and doing other kinds of illegal behavior. After hesitating for five months, Li Wenjuan passed her information with full names to the National Tax Bureau. From this time forward, she experienced life changes she could never have anticipated.
Reporter: If you had known everything you’ve now seen and experienced, would you still have informed? What would you have chosen? Li Wenjuan: I wouldn’t inform, because after you inform the country has a hard time ensuring you’re protected and that your not singled out for revenge. Reporter: So you mean that as an informant you don’t get the protection you need? Li Wenjuan: Yes. Reporter: And before you informed you had no idea how things worked, is that right? Li Wenjuan: I had no idea. Explanation: Li Wenjuan is 43 years old, college-educated. She started working in Anshan’s tax office in 1983. In 2000 she began working in accounting section of the Anshan office of the National Tax Bureau. She was responsible for registering tax payments. In the course of her work, Li Wenjuan felt she had found some behavior in violation of national tax laws. Li Wenjuan: I saw our workers fudging with the tax figures and giving illegal rebates, changing forecasts, etc. Reporter: What would have been the result if you hadn’t reported this? Li Wenjuan: If I hadn’t reported it, this kind of thing would probably have kept going on. In one month a person could get several thousand out of doctoring the tax figures. Explanation: Anshan has always been a famous industrial city in China, home to Angang and other central and provincial-level enterprises. Typically, tax payments from these enterprises go through the Anshan tax office of the National Tax Bureau, and Li Wenjuan was in this section of the office. She used this opportunity to make copies of registers of value-added tax for enterprises, and taking this evidence Li informed the National Tax Bureau in June 2002 that illegal activities were going on at the Anshan tax office. Li Wenjuan: At the time I thought I was giving them a way to investigate. Reporter: Giving whom? Li Wenjuan: Giving the investigators a way to look into the case, letting them investigate according to the methods I gave and then providing other ways. I was thinking that by doing this I could reveal this [illegal] behavior and return the losses incurred by the state. Reporter: What made you choose to use your actual name and not hide it when you informed? Li Wenjuan: Because I knew if you informed anonymously that basically the issue wouldn’t be taken care of. So I wanted to use my own name and take responsibility for it and then let the appropriate officials solve the problem. At the same time, I had other problems I wanted to express to them. Explanation: Aside from this, Li Wenjuan felt that if she used her real name, officials might be able to protect her in the event her identity as the informer got out and those informed on sought retribution. Li Wenjuan: If you keep your name secret then there’s no way for others to help you if someone tries to harm you. Reporter: So you’re saying you though carefully about these issues before going through with it? Li Wenjuan: I never thought at the time that it would come to this. I had faith in our supervision officials.
[Posted by David Bandurski, March 31, 4:30pm]
Citing this year’s first bulletin from the office in charge of auditing government funds under the State Council, The Beijing News said annual revenues from China Central Television would no longer be appropriated by China’s state broadcast overseer, the State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT). The announcement was major news concerning China’s state-owned television broadcaster, but its significance and full details were not yet known.
According to the bulletin, issued by China’s National Audit Office (CNAO), SARFT has lately appropriated roughly 400 million yuan (US$48.5 million) annually from CCTV. Beginning with the 2006 fiscal year, SARFT will no longer reap revenues from the state television group, but media insiders speculated the central government would make up the gap. “There’s no way they would just deprive the agency of such a revenue source without making it up,” said one analyst. The Beijing News also said in its news report that CCTV would employ a “new management system”, operating as a government-sponsored institution with enterprise-style management (事业单位, 企业化管理). In fact, CCTV has effectively operated this way for years.
Since the 1990s a number of media in China have operated under “government-sponsored” status, which means in essence that they are fall somewhere between fully government-run entities and the private sector. Guangdong province’s Southern Daily is one example — an entity whose boss is not a Party leader and which is not private, but which introduces corporate-style management.
China’s budget year follows the normal calendar year, beginning on January 1 and ending December 31.
[Chinese coverage at Sina.com]
[Full text of CNAO Bulletin No. 1 here]
[Posted by David Bandurski, 10:30am, March 30,2006.]
Chinese nationalist sentiments against Japan boiled over on China’s Internet after Nasdaq-listed online portal and game services provider NetEase (163.com) posted a topic on its homepage on March 26 called, “Thanking Japan for loan assistance [to China]”. According to evidence from CMP sources within China, at least 900,000 Internet users posted messages speaking out against the NetEase topic and its editor’s note, which has now been removed, and threats have been made against the Website’s editor and his family.
The appearance of the NetEase column and fallout in the online community follow Japan’s announcement last week that it would temporarily freeze the awarding of new development loans to China amid a chilling of bilateral relations [more coverage at CNN.com].
“Japan announced on March 23 that it would temporarily freeze loans [to China] … The impact of this will have on Japan-China relations and on development projects in China is yet to be seen,” read the original editor’s note on NetEase. “But as Chinese of ‘ceremony and propriety’ we really must say a heartfelt thank you to the aid Japan has given over the years, particularly as we bid [Japan’s] aid to China goodbye”.
The suggestion Chinese should be grateful to Japan quickly whipped up enmity in China, where nerves are still raw over Japan’s invasion in the early 20th century. Japan’s alleged failure to apologize to China has harried Japan-China relations for years and tensions have heightened in recent months, centering on Prime Minister Koizumi’s controversial visits to a Japanese war shrine [Forbes coverage here].
By Tuesday morning [March 28] the NetEase column had been removed from the Website, but portions and commentary were already available on numerous other sites.
[Coverage at zaobao.com]
[Postings at military hobbiest bbs]
[Posted by David Bandurski, 11:44am, March 28, 2006]
When the Chinese government closed down Freezing Point, the highly regarded weekly supplement of the China Youth Daily newspaper, the world was shocked. What few outside observers understood, however, is that this move was not purely a throwback to a past era of censorship. Rather it was part of a relatively recent effort to reinforce the culture of self-censorship within an increasingly vibrant media sector . . . [Click here to access the full article at FEER.com].
National sentiments ran high recently as a trademark debate raged in and outside China’s online gaming industry over a Japanese company’s effort to register a game brand called “Outlaws of the Marsh” (水浒传) after the revered Chinese epic. This is yet another case highlighting the uneasy triangle of commerce, culture and politics coming into play as China seeks to commercialize its cultural sector.
Japan’s Jumo (巨摩), one of the world’s largest online game makers, applied to register the “Outlaws” trademark on March 2, 2004. In the absence of formal objections from other parties the registration would have been finalized by China’s Trademark Office on March 28 this year, China Economic Times reported. But a demur made by a company in the southern city of Wenzhou on March 6 put the registration in doubt and sparked a fierce domestic debate over intellectual property and China’s cultural heritage. [Screen capture from Japanese online game based on Chinese classic Three Kingdoms].
“Chinese stories, Chinese dialogue, Chinese scenes, taking over the Chinese market …. But of course, it’s Made in Japan”, said the caption under a screen capture from a Japanese-made game on a popular Chinese bulletin board service.
Some Chinese now see the “Outlaws” trademark as the last line of defense for China’s cultural heritage in the online game industry. Japanese companies have already registered trademarks based on two other classics, “The Three Kingdoms” and “Journey to the West”.
“[China’s] gaming industry faces a ‘disaster'”, flashed the headline of the China Economic Times article. The article quoted Liao Junming, chairman of Beijing’s Hongwei International IP Firm (红徽国际知识产权事务所), as saying: “Can you imagine, no Chinese are registering [trademarks] for the four classics? … That ordinary Chinese have not objected to a Japanese company holding trademarks for the classics is forgivable, but it’s shameful and painful that our domestic online game industry has done nothing”.
In a strange twist, the Chinese company eventually contesting Jumo’s application was a Wenzhou-based manufacturer of furniture and household accessories (温州喜倍儿家居服饰有限公司). The company’s chief executive, Wan Hanhua (厉汉华), told Wenzhou Commercial Daily, one of the first to break the story, that Outlaws of the Marsh was part of China’s cultural heritage and should not become a means of commercial exploitation for any company, much less a foreign one. Wan said he was infuriated by the situation and decided to stand up against it. In his official objection to the Trademark Office, Wan said registering “Outlaws” as a trademark “did harm to Socialist morals” and could have other harmful effects.
This was just the latest in a number of recent incidents in which commerce has become entangled with culture and politics. Just last month Chinese officials said they would ban prime-time airing of foreign cartoon productions in an effort to encourage the growth of China’s domestic animation industry. But the policy had undertones of cultural protectionism. There were calls for the creation of truly “Chinese” works more palatable for Chinese viewers, despite the growing popularity of foreign-produced animation on the domestic market.
[Baidu.com search results on “game” and “four classics”]
[Coverage in Chinese at Sina.com]
[Legal Daily coverage in Chinese with brief timeline]
[Chinese bulletin board posting expressing anger over trademark issue]
[Posted by CMP Intern Loretta Yang, March 21, 2006]
