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]

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]

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]

Before and during the recent political meetings in Beijing, Internet discussion and official media coverage in China turned to the possibility of Weblogs as a tool for grassroots political participation, allowing the people to interact more directly with leaders. How much of this “grassroots revolution” was real and how much was official hype? Here’s a quick review of some of the hubbub.
Internet chatrooms bubbled with discussion on March 3 after Tian Bingxin (田炳信), an columnist for Guangzhou’s New Express newspaper (新快报) and a former reporter for the official Xinhua News Agency, made a modest proposal: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao should start his own blog to ensure better contact with the people.
Commenting on four discussion forums Wen Jiabao held from February 6 to 10 with people from all walks of life in China, Tian said: “To meet face-to-face in Zhongnanhai [China’s official enclave] with the premier is a chance that comes once in a blue moon … If the premier, department heads, mayors and county heads all set up their own blogs, policy decisions and directions, investments (expenditures), and all incomplete thinking on tough decisions could benefit from opinion from all quarters, the opinions of bloggers at all levels. The cost is minimal, the speed quick, the reach broad”.
“It’s very difficult for people to see the county head or the mayor, to say nothing of the premier,” New Express quoted one netizen’s enthusiastic response to the idea. “A blog from the premier would be the people’s fortune”.
In a move New Express said was inspired by Tian Bingxin’s suggestion, People’s Congress representative Deng Mingyi (邓明义) submitted a formal proposal that Wen Jiabao establish a blog ‘in the near future or by next year’s [2007] political meetings” in order that “to more widely and directly give ear to the people”.
During the recent political meetings [of the 10th People’s Political Consultative Conference and the National People’s Congress political blogs in general were the subject of some attention. People Online, the official website of the Party’s official paper, People’s Daily, set up a blog service for leaders on March 1, with message boards for Web users. Eight officials taking part in the meetings set up their own blogs via the Website.
“China’s bloggers are on the rise, and one the eve of the meetings, this Internet-based ‘grassroots revolution’ is opening a channel for the voicing of popular sentiments”, hailed the lead of a March 2 article by China News Service, one of China’s two official news agencies.
The same article also said the news centers of many Chinese web portals had set up online polls to hear the thoughts of average Chinese.
In light of China’s rigorous system of censorship, the burst of enthusiasm in state media over blogging and “grassroots” political participation, particularly from official mouthpieces like People’s Daily and Xinhua, suggested Chinese leaders wished to project an image of greater popular participation and transparency during the meetings.
Generally speaking, average Chinese have no way of influencing or participating in decisions at this level. The perception is still that China’s National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s highest legislative body, is merely a “rubberstamp legislature” serving only as a symbol of participation in decisions made at the highest levels of leadership. Although this has changed some in recent years, with some members beginning to take a more active role in pushing certain policies, participation is still limited.
German news agency Deutsche Welle pointed out that while People’s Daily was hyping the political blog by saying that “by transmitting information about the meetings through blogs representatives could more conveniently communicate with the people and bring the two sides closer”, only eight of 5,000 officials at the Beijing meetings had set up blogs. Of the roughly 3,000 delegates to this years NPC, only two created personal Weblogs to communicate with average Chinese.
Despite the limited scale of political blogs in China, however, some officials expressed reservations. Li Weicheng, a National People’s Congress representative from Guangzhou, told Yangcheng Evening News that not all ideas expressed by bloggers were good or helpful, and officials were better off conducting inspection tours in person to gauge public sentiment. Moreover, said Li, the Internet could prove hard to control if Chinese were encouraged to express their views.
Whatever the long-term outcome of this year’s political blog mania online and in official media, there is little denying that the Internet, in the form of blogs, chatrooms and message boards, has served as an unprecedented platform for the voicing of public opinion in China. There are an estimated 16 million bloggers in China, running some 30 million blogs, and the numbers are on the rise.
In one recent case of Internet opinion concerning political decisions, netizens raised a cry for a national law against cruelty to animals after photos were published online showing the abuse of a cat [More coverage from Danwei].
[Posted by CMP Intern Loretta Yang, March 20, 2006]

Bob Garfield of National Public Radio speaks with CMP researcher David Bandurski about ethics and commercialization in Chinese media. The “On the Media” site also contains an interview with Li Xiguang, head of Qinghua University’s School of Journalism. [Click here to download].