Yu Jing (于劲), an award-winning writer of Chinese literary reportage, died on Saturday, November 26, at Hong Kong’s Princess Margaret Hospital. She was 63.
Yu died of illness early afternoon Saturday surrounded by her husband, Qian Gang, director of the China Media Project and author of The Great Tangshan Earthquake, family members and friends.

An accomplished army writer and a member of the China Writers’ Association, Yu published under the pen name Xiao Yu (肖于). She was perhaps best known for her two-volume work of literary reportage, The Debacle in Shanghai: 1949. A native of Zhejiang province, Yu spent her youth during the Cultural Revolution working as an agricultural labourer in the countryside. She enlisted in the army in 1971 and later became a specialist writer for the Nanjing Military Command. She graduated from the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Arts in 1986, studying alongside noted friends and fellow writers including Mo Yan, 2012 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Yu Jing’s works include Doom (厄运), a long-form work of literary nonfiction, and several novellas, including Souls at Rest (安魂), Melting Snow (融雪), and Under the Blue Sky (蓝天下，有一辆军列). Yu received the Youth Literary Prize in 1982 for her short story Cracking Melon Seeds (困了，嗑点瓜子, and the Kunlun Prize in 1983 for her story Sweep of Red Earth (绵亘红土地).

[ABOVE: Yu Jing soon after her enlistment in the People’s Liberation Army.]

IN AN OP-ED YESTERDAY, the Global Times, a newspaper on international affairs published by the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily, argued that the U.S. presidential race has exposed the farcical nature of Western media and their claims to independence and professionalism.
After suggesting that the lack of endorsements of Republican nominee Donald Trump by major American dailies “lays bare” an overwhelming political bias in the U.S. media, the op-ed (English version here) shortcuts for a broad generalisation about “the West” and its free speech pretensions:

The West has not only deeply affected the global way of thinking, but also developed political correctness and moral standards to serve their interests. For example, the American media that are hardly objective have misled the world by self-claimed “objectivity.”

The article concludes by arguing that “media outlets in the US and the West” must be pulled down from their pedestals: “It’s time to de-deify them.”
The Chinese Communist Party has long used attacks on the foreign press, and particularly the American press, to make the case for the superiority of China’s socialist system, and to stave off international criticism. Over the past three decades, articles in China’s state media mentioning “freedom of speech” have generally been pejorative, referencing “so-called freedom of speech.”
The anti-Western tone has grown more pronounced, however, under President Xi Jinping, who has emphasised the supremacy of the Marxist View of Journalism, and the need for all media to tow the Party line. A 2013 “Communique on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere,” leaked from the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee, outlined what became known colloquially as the “Seven Don’t Speaks.” The document spoke of a “fierce struggle” in Chinese society over such dangerous ideas as “constitutional democracy” and “universal values,” which it viewed as imminent threats to the Party’s leadership.
As the communique spoke of “the ideas of the capitalist class,” the old ideological lines, long fading from the Party’s propaganda work, were sharpened once again.
Number five on the communique’s list of taboos was “promotion of the West’s idea of journalism.” Anticipating by three years Xi Jinping’s February 19, 2016, speech on news and public opinion work and the idea that “must be surnamed Party,” the communique said:

Some people, under the pretext of espousing “freedom of the press,” promote the West’s idea of journalism and undermine our country’s principle that the media should be infused with the spirit of the Party.

The West’s trumpeting of “freedom of the press,” said the communique, was nothing more than a weapon to attack the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and “gouge an opening through which to infiltrate our ideology.”
The communique was in retrospect a sign of things to come, and the environment it helped to define has coaxed some of China’s leftist ghosts out of the woodwork.
One of those ghosts is Liu Zuyu (刘祖禹), a longtime propaganda official who was a core member of the powerful and secretive News Commentary Group when it shutdown Freezing Point more than ten years ago. In December 2013, in the wake of the communique, a stooped and white-haired Liu Zuyu delivered a very public keynote address at an event hosted by the leftist journal Utopia to commemorate the 120th anniversary of the birth of Mao. He was back in place of honour in May this year during an official forum on the “research results” of the Marxist View of Journalism, where he praised Xi Jinping’s tough approach to media control and said that “some of our media [in China] have been deeply affected by the bourgeois journalism views of the West, and that this situation has been cause for great happiness in the West.”
“Some of our media and journalists,” said Liu, “have intentionally and unintentionally become the assistants and the accomplices of Western hostile forces, and this must cause us to be far more vigilant.”
Liu quoted Xi Jinping as having remarked during the Party’s February conference on news and public opinion work that, “Some people praise Western media as public instruments, as a fourth estate and as the uncrowned king, and they raise the flag of freedom of the press in attacking the leadership of the Party and the socialist system.”
The idea that Western media are false-hearted conspirators who pay lip service to the facts while they seek to undermine Chinese socialism is very much in vogue again in official circles — though of course it never quite went out of style.
Back in April, Zheng Baowei (郑保卫), a professor of journalism at Renmin University of China, published a page-seven piece in the Party’s official People’s Daily in which he dusted off the argument that the Western media were merely tools of capital and related political interests, that notions of “objectivity” and “independence” were just a ruse. After suggesting in total seriousness that American media had “restricted” coverage of Occupy Wall Street because it was a “negative incident” — when in fact media had reported introspectively on their own flawed coverage — Zheng concluded:

From this we can see that media in Western countries cannot extricate themselves from the relationship with politics and political parties. Moreover, in Western countries the truly deciding factor is capital. Those monopoly financial groups that control the country’s economic lifelines will always put the ownership and discourse power of the media in their own hands.

Yesterday’s Global Times op-ed suggests that now, in the midst of the U.S. presidential election, is the time to “de-deify” the Western media. But the fact is that it has always been the right time in China’s Party-run press to point fingers at Western, and especially American, journalism.
Digging recently through the archives of the People’s Daily, I came across an article called “Talking About America’s News Industry” (谈谈美国的新闻业), published on March 31, 1949, six months before the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The article was written by Huang Caoliang (黄操良), who was head of the international news desk at the People’s Daily in the 1940s and eventually authored several books, including two on the Korean War. It’s worth noting the Huang’s article, while taking what some might see as quite a prejudicial view on the American press of his day — and relying on a single American source — at least puts forth facts to support the argument that journalism and press freedom on the United States are undercut by ownership.

The People’s Daily page is a wonderful look back on newspaper’s old layout as well, from a time when it was in fact chockfull of local advertisements — for the Wan Shun Leather Shoe Shop, offering “great discounts,” for Fukang Fresh Milk, and even for subscriptions to the Tianjin Daily.
An excerpted translation follows.

Talking About the American News Industry
By Huang Caoliang / March 31, 1949 / People’s Daily
The content of the news industry transforms according to social systems. Whatever class holds ruling status in a society determines what kind of news industry it has. For example, just as the news industry in the areas liberated by the Chinese people is essentially a tool under the leadership of the proletariat, belonging to the masses, opposing imperialism, opposing feudalism and opposing bureaucratic capitalism, the news industry in America today is essentially (which is to say, aside from those few alternatives, those exceptions which prove the rule) a tool used by big American capitalists to deceive and suppress the people of that country and propagandise external aggression.
Monopoly capitalists in America control the economics and politics of the entire country, and therefore they also control the news industry of the entire country. Of course, America today also has newspapers and periodicals that truly represent the voice of the working people, for example The Daily Worker and The Masses. But there are only a small number of these, and they lack political and material support. Monopolistic capitalist groups do their utmost to suppress them, harm them, and limit the public’s exposure to them.
The vast majority of the bourgeois newspapers, periodicals, broadcasts and news agencies facing the American people like a mad tide of inundation are assets belonging to big capital. Here they are raking in massive profits, and here they are spreading ideas that benefit the big capitalists to the detriment of the people. The principal newspapers of America are held in several major newspaper trusts: Hearst and Scripps — Howard and McCormick — the Pattersons . . . Reed and Gannett, these are the six major newspaper groups, holding forty percent of the 1,749 newspapers sold in America, accounting for half of the country’s sunday newspapers. Moreover, it can be said that all of the major-selling newspapers are in their hands. And most of the remaining sixty percent of newspapers are also assets held by big capitalists.
The situation in magazine publishing is the same. “The control of weekly and monthly magazines that command double the readership of the newspapers are all in the hands of senior people at major enterprises and banks,” said George Seldes, the author of One Thousand Americans. “Ninety-nine percent of American newspapers and magazines belong to big capital, and the interests of these rich and powerful align with the system they built.”
The total number of radio stations held by a small number of most senior big capitalists account for 508 of America’s 886 radio stations. Turning to wire services, there are the four major wire services as well as the United States Information Service, which is a news agency of the US Government. The International News Service is an asset in the Hearst system, while United Press International is owned by the Scripps and Howard system. The Associated Press is in fact a united organisation of American newspapers, and it is in the hands of the largest newspaper families. As the One Thousand Americans author explains: “The national publisher’s association (Magazine Publishers Association) and the National Newspaper Publishers Association both rely on their combined fifty million circulation of dailies and millions in weekly and monthly magazine circulation to constitute a powerful force in America for manufacturing public opinion.” Together the so-called “Magazine Publishers Association” and “National Newspaper Publishers Association” are the twin brother of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM being synonymous with the reactionary in America, as the central staff headquarters of the reactionary policies of major monopoly capitalists). Leaders are often exchanged among the associations, or the chairmen serve in succession at two different associations, or in some cases even serve concurrently in head posts at two different associations.
. . . .
The names of the bosses at the top of these newspapers, magazines, radio stations and wire services basically match up with the names of the bosses at a small number of America’s major companies and banks. They are: the Morgan Group, the Mellon Group, the DuPont Group and the McCormick Group, etcetera. According to the research of the author of One Thousand Americans, the American news industry is essentially controlled by America’s twelve major monopoly capitalist groups.

IN A NOTICE released yesterday, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the agency created in 2014 to consolidate control over the country’s internet, ordered websites not to repost material from Caixin Online, the multimedia site of one of the country’s leading professional media groups. Citing repeated violations of news and propaganda discipline, the notice announced a two-month suspension of Caixin Online’s credentials as “a news unit able to provide news for reposting to websites.”
The two-month suspension could hit Caixin Online in the pocketbook as syndication of its news content is an important source of revenue on top of advertising. The news syndication market is fuelled in part in China by restrictions on news reporting that prohibit commercial news portals, such as Sina.com and Sohu.com, from doing original reporting.
Speaking to the Chinese-language service of Radio France Internationale (RFI), an anonymous source “familiar with Caixin Online” said one likely reason for the disciplinary action was a recent report on opposition among Chinese lawyers to the newly revised Administrative Measures for Law Firms (律师事务所管理办法). The revised measures, released on September 6, expressly prohibit law firms from employing practices commonly associated with so-called “die-hard lawyers,” those who have sought in recent years to bolster their legal cases by leveraging public opinion and turning attention to deficiencies in the legal system.
Article 50 of the revised measures specifies six forms of conduct law firms must not permit, including “the manufacture of public opinion pressure to attack or disparage judicial authorities or the judicial system through joint petition signature campaigns, online gatherings, support statements, discussions around specific cases and other tactics.”
Caixin was one of the only media outlets in China to report on criticism of the revised measures within the legal profession. In a September 23 report, Caixin journalist Dan Yuxiao (单玉晓) quoted Peking University Law School professor Zhang Qianfan (张千帆) as saying that much of the conduct restricted by the revised measures should be protected under China’s Constitution and the right to freedom of expression. “Judicial authorities and law firms have no need to control the speech and actions of lawyers outside the scope of national laws,” Zhang said, “and in fact they have no authority to do so.”

[ABOVE: Article 50 of the revised Administrative Measures for Law Firms lays out six types of conduct that “must not be permitted.”]
In response to the new restrictions on “manufacturing public opinion,” Zhang added that progress on rule of law relied to a great extent on the impact of public opinion. “Right now China really needs its lawyers to courageously pursue their profession. If judicial authorities have done nothing wrong, they should remain free of the influence of public opinion — but they should not control lawyers to prevent them from exposing problems to the public.”
In a subsequent report on October 8, later removed from Caixin Online, Dan Yuxiao profiled a letter-writing campaign by 168 lawyers from across the country demanding that the newly revised Administrative Measures for Law Firms be rescinded. That report, “168 Lawyers Advise State Council to Rescind Administrative Measures for Law Firms” (168名律师建议国务院撤销律所管理新规), is now cited as possibly contributing to the CAC restriction yesterday.
According to another Caixin Online report, the Chongqing Lawyers Association held a meeting on October 10 to hear opinions on the revised measures. That report, “Chongqing Lawyers Association Hears Opinions from Lawyers on Repeal of New Law Firm Regulations” (重庆律协听取律师撤销律所管理新规意见), has also disappeared.
Whatever led to the notice from the CAC, the earlier report by Dan Yuxiao on the release of the revised measures, including criticism by legal experts, remains accessible online.

IN CHINA, it looks like the end of Consensus. No, I’m not talking about Xi Jinping fashioning himself as “the core,” or as the country’s COE, or “chairman of everything.” I’m talking about the sudden and complete eradication over the weekend of the website Consensus, 21ccom.cn, which long served as a respected platform bringing together writers and academics of various backgrounds to discuss more sensitive issues of social and political development in China.
An order for the closure of Consensus reportedly came from Beijing authorities on October 1, China’s National Day. According to the Chinese-language service of Radio France International (RFI), the site’s CEO said on the social media platform WeChat that Consensus had been shut down for “transmitting incorrect ideas” (传递错误思想).
Just over seven years old, the website was operated by Lide Consensus Media Group (立德共识网络传媒科技有限公司). Contributors to Consensus included university academics such as Zhang Ming (张鸣), a professor at Renmin University of China and a former CMP fellow, Tsinghua University professor Sun Liping (孙立平), and professional journalists such as Shi Feike (石扉客) and Xie Yong (謝泳).

[ABOVE: Popular writers appearing on the Consensus website at 21ccom.net prior to its closure on October 1, 2016. From left: Sun Liping; Zhang Ming; Shi Feike; Xie Yong.]
The Consensus WeChat account was still in operation as of October 3, but the last article posted to the account was dated August 15, 2016. The automated WeChat message for new subscribers to the account read:

Thank you for following the Consensus website and the Thinkers Blog (思想者博客). Here, we can explore together the other side not reflected in the history books, we can listen together to those voices that have disappeared in the mainstream media, and we can consider together that question still awaiting an answer: What direction is China heading?

One year ago, Lotus Ruan wrote on the TechInAsia blog that the website was “somehow bolder, less censored, more ‘sensitive’ compared with that in other online platforms,” possibly owing to its more circumscribed audience, confined largely to academics, university students, businesspeople and government officials. Ruan also noted that discussion of the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Cultural Revolution, just a few months away at the time, was more visible on the Consensus site even as it was “consciously suppressed in Sina, Phoenix/IFeng, NetEast and other commercial news portals.”

The following post by Hu Nanjie (胡南街), a user from Shanghai’s Huangpu District with more than 800 followers, was deleted from Weibo sometime before 5:50PM Hong Kong time on Thursday, September 22, 2016. The post comments on the sentencing of lawyer Xia Lin (夏霖) to 12 years in jail for alleged fraud, a case that prompted alarm from many human rights advocates.
Xia Lin has represented a number of high-profile clients, including the artist Ai Weiwei (艾末末) and the human rights lawyer and former CMP fellow Pu Zhiqiang (浦志强). Xia’s own Weibo account, which has just under 19,000 followers, has not been active since August 2014. He was arrested for alleged fraud in November of that year.
The post from Hu Nanjie in Shanghai read:

Xia Lin, born in 1970 in Guizhou, a renowned lawyer. He has represented many sensitive cases, including the case of [migrant worker] Cui Yingjie (崔英杰), who murdered an urban management officer, the case of Ai Weiwei, and the case of Pu Zhiqiang. In November 2014, because he was the defence in the Guo Yushan (郭玉闪) case, which involved Occupy Central, he was taken away by police on charges of fraud. When Xia represented the Deng Yujiao (邓玉娇) case, he wept bitterly for what she had faced, and for the utter lack of conscience. Today, he has been sentenced to 12 years! And who will cry injustice for him?

The original Chinese-language post follows:

夏霖，70年生于贵州，知名律师。他代理过多起敏感案件，如崔英杰杀城管案，艾末末案，浦志强案。2014年11月，因担任郭玉闪辩护人，涉及占中， 被警方以诈骗罪从家中带走。夏代理邓玉娇案时，曾为她的遭遇痛哭，高呼丧尽天良。今天，他被重刑12年！谁来为他鸣不平？

Searches for “Xia Lin” on Weibo today, September 22, 2016, do return results. These posts tend to be straight reports of the verdict, comments supporting the decision, criticism of Western meddling in China’s affairs, or remarks drawing from Xia’s case lessons about the ills of gambling.
But there certainly are posts, like this one, that continue to raise questions about various legal aspects of the case. One question surrounds claims from Wang Xuelong (王学龙), the key plaintiff in the case, that he loaned money to Xia Lin’s wife, Lin Ru (林茹), out of sympathy for the family’s desperate circumstances, but on Lin’s condition that he formally declare no intention to seek criminal responsibility should Xia Lin be unable to repay the money.
On this question, Tong Zongjin (仝宗锦), a Harvard-trained professor of law with more than 100 thousand followers on Weibo, writes:

Looking at the verdict in the Xia Lin case, I deeply feel that the reasoning is coarse and crude. Let me try to give an example. The first image below says that the person [allegedly] harmed, Wang Xuelong, signed at Lin Ru’s request a statement that he would not seek criminal liability from Xia Lin. Then now he still says he hopes that Xia Lin can be handled in accord with the law and that he can quickly recover his loss. The second image is the court’s determination that the statement in question is not authentic, which is to say it is not admitted. The problem is: first of all, by saying that [he] hopes to handle this according to the law, quickly recovering [his] losses,” does this mean changing his previous statement [to Lin Ru]? So does handling in accord with the law mean pursuing the charge of criminal fraud? Secondly, concerning the authenticity or not of the statement, the court should also explore whether misunderstanding, fraud, coercion, deception or other specific motives were involved [on Wang’s part]. Looking that these images [of the verdict], it is clear that Wang’s sympathy and agreement not to pursue criminal liability helped induce acceptance of the funds. How can [he] now say that at the time he was not being true? Thirdly, when its clear that the parties involved had already come to an understanding, why is there a need for you, the investigating organs, to summon people and provide fresh evidence to support criminal accusations, saying that yesterday doesn’t matter and today does?

SEPTEMBER 11, 2016. A fine morning in Wukan, a fishing village on the coast of China’s southern Guangdong province. Once troubled by acrimony over the seizure of its collective land, the village is brimming today with goodwill. On Golden Harbour Avenue, and along New China East Street, members of the Public Security Frontier Defence Corps, a division of the armed police, are hard at work sweeping the pavement, pulling weeds and disinfecting public areas.
“By speaking through action,” says Wu Jianjun (吴建军), battalion chief of Lufeng’s Frontier Defence Corps, “we can better lead everyone in being environmentally conscious and making our home more beautiful.”

Working alongside these tireless “soldiers” of the armed police are local villagers who can rest assured that the problems they once had over village land rights are a thing of the past — resolved through negotiation among city officials, village leaders, developers, and independent “experts on land issues.”
Today is the perfect day for a clean sweep. In Wukan, all are one big happy family. “We see Wukan as our second native place,” says Wu Bo (吴波), chief of the village’s local armed police depot. “And the local people of Wukan see us as family too.”
Earlier that morning Wu Bo and several others had paid a visit to the home of an elderly villager, taking fresh fruit and moon cakes along for the Mid-Autumn Festival. Seeing that the old man suffered from rheumatism, Wu made sure he received proper treatment from one of the team’s doctors.
At a makeshift clinic set up across from an ancestral temple, medical specialists from the Frontier Defence Corps offer free testing and health advice to elderly villagers, another sure sign that local authorities take the well-being of Wukan’s residents seriously.
* * * *
THIS OF COURSE is not the Wukan most readers will recognise. On September 13, the day after the above details were reported prominently in Nanfang Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Party leadership in Guangdong province — right beside an interview in which the mayor of the city of Shanwei said the village’s land dispute had been resolved — the village erupted into open conflict.
Viewers across the world watched as online video showed tight formations of armed police firing tear gas and rubber bullets at villagers, who fought back with rocks and bricks. These police were presumably the same Frontier Defence Corps “soldiers” who two days earlier had swept the village’s streets and talked about building a “peaceful, harmonious, civilised and beautiful Wukan.”
[ABOVE: The story about the Frontier Defence Corps doing clean up work in Wukan village on September 11 appears in the digital version of Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily on September 12.]
In retrospect, the Nanfang Daily story — reprised elsewhere, including the tabloid Southern Metropolis Daily — seems a cynical and perverse ploy. Consider, for example, that around 3AM on September 13, the morning after the appearance of the aforementioned story, police conducted surprise raids on village homes, rounding up those suspected of organising fresh protests over dirty land deals. And then listen to Wu Jianjun, chief of the Frontier Defence Corps in the city of Lufeng, quoted in the harmonious Nanfang Daily story: “Our task today is mostly to do a major dragnet clean of Golden Harbour Avenue and New China East Street. Then we need to disinfect the flower plots, sewers, garbage cans and other key areas, ridding them of rodents.”
As we look back on the late night raids, and on the mass deployment of armed police witnessed later in the day on September 13, the phrase “major dragnet clean” becomes darkly poetic.
[ABOVE: Home footage taken by Wukan villagers on September 13 of armed police conducting a late night raid and making an arrest.]
Who was responsible for this psalm on the sacred relationship between armed police and villagers in Wukan? Was it, perhaps, a reporter from the provincial Nanfang Daily, visiting the village to witness personally the changes that had, according to the article, brought so much “positive energy” to the community? Was it a reporter for China’s official Xinhua News Agency, the wire service that routinely issues the first and final word on sensitive topics and breaking stories?
The byline on the story at Nanfang Daily is Li Qiang (李强), a bonafide reporter for the newspaper whose bylines regularly appear there. But beside Li Qiang is another name, “special correspondent” Chen Siying (陈思映). In the Chinese media, “special correspondent” is almost uniformly code for the person from a company or agency who supplied copy to the newspaper. Generally, the reporter from the newspaper — though “reporter” is in such cases a charitable title — files the copy with little or no change and adds their own name beside that of the “special correspondent,” without any mention of the latter’s affiliation. In many cases, the exchange also involves payment of the red envelope sort.
Chen Siying isn’t difficult to find. A simple search throws up scores of “special correspondent” results over the past few years, all dealing with law enforcement conducted by the Frontier Defence Corps in the Shanwei jurisdiction, which covers both Lufeng and Wukan village. Chen shares bylines and photo credits in many different media, as for example in this report from the Legal Daily website back in June, which includes credit for a photo taken after police confiscated more than 700 kilograms of drugs.
[ABOVE: This photo included in a Legal Daily website report in June 2016 is credited to Chen Yiwu, a member of the Frontier Defence Corps who took photos in the village of Wukan this month.]
In the version of Chen Siying’s report from Wukan appearing in the digital edition of the Southern Metropolis Daily on September 12, a black-and-white photo of members of the armed police clearing away shrubs and trees is credited to Chen Yiwu (陈奕武), who also happens to have a photo in the above-mentioned Legal Daily story. Chen Yiwu too is credited in numerous stories dealing with the work of the Frontier Defence Corps, especially in Shanwei and Lufeng. Here, for example, is a story from November 2015 in which he profiles members of Frontier Defence Corps’ anti-drug squad in Shanwei. Both of these “special correspondents” seem to be intimate chroniclers of the work, life and personalities of the armed police in Shanwei.
Which is to say, both the writer and the photographer behind the Nanfang Daily feature on the cordial relations between armed police and villagers in Wukan are members of the Frontier Defence Corps — the very same group we saw firing tear gas and dragging away villagers in those online videos shared right across the world.
And what about the article appearing right next to Chen Siying’s report on September 12, the interview with the mayor of Shanwei, Yang Xusong (杨绪松)? This article, in which Yang says that land issues in Wukan have “already been resolved in accordance with laws and regulations,” is also bylined by Li Qiang, the Nanfang Daily reporter. In this case, however, no “special correspondent” is credited, and it appears that the Nanfang Daily, the official organ of the provincial Party leadership, assigned its reporter to do this interview.
[ABOVE:Page five of the September 12 edition of Nanfang Daily, with two articles on Wukan.]
Side by side, this pair of articles suggests two important things. First of all, it appears that there was strong vertical coordination in Guangdong over the issue of Wukan, with endorsement through the provincial newspaper of the approach taken by the Shanwei leadership. Second, it appears that authorities at the city level were given a free rein not just in handling unfolding events in Wukan but also in doling out the facts.
This second point is an especially interesting one in light of the larger politics under President Xi Jinping. Within the sphere of China observation, we often talk about Xi the “strongman” consolidating his grip, Xi “as the core,” or Xi as the COE, the “chairman of everything.” Xi’s centralising grip on the media, which must all be “surnamed Party,” is a crucial part of this consolidation. And yet it seems, in the case of Wukan, that local leaders are being empowered to conduct “public opinion warfare,” to borrow a phrase from the most recent commentary from the editor-in-chief of the Global Times.
Could it be that control of information on sensitive and sudden-breaking news stories is devolving to local authorities under Xi? If that is the case, this would have serious ramifications for his stated objective of combatting corruption, effectively giving officials in places like Shanwei an ace card in covering up malfeasance.
* * * *
AS ARCHIVED by the WiseNews database (300+ mainland newspapers), a total of 58 newspaper, wire and web stories on “Wukan” appeared in mainland Chinese media from September 1 to September 20 (beginning on the 8th). There are substantial overlaps in these stories, meaning that the number of unique reports is far lower. For example, roughly a third of the total (16 articles) is accounted for by the official release on September 8 reporting that Lin Zulian, Wukan’s democratically elected village committee head, had been sentenced to more than three years in prison for accepting bribes. The next four stories on Wukan, all appearing on September 11, the day before the pair of stories about the mayor of Shanwei and the Frontier Defence Corps, were a single Nanfang Daily story offering the most in-depth summary to date of the ongoing land dispute in Wukan from the perspective of the authorities.
An article in the September 11 edition of Guangdong’s official Nanfang Daily lays out the efforts of local authorities in the city of Shanwei to resolve land disputes in Wukan and surrounding villages.
The timing of this sweeping historical look at land issues in Wukan and the government’s goodwill in addressing them, just as tensions were escalating inside the village following the jailing of Lin Zulian, suggested it was intended by provincial authorities as the definitive word on the root nature of problems in the village. More importantly, the report signalled to villagers that they should avoid escalation of the dispute, accepting instead the compromise position of the Party leadership. The article gave a supportive nod to local authorities. “With the verdict in the Lin Zulian case, Wukan village has once again come into people’s view,” it said. “Recently, a portion of villagers in Wukan have raised various demands through different means. On this, the Party leadership and governments of both Shanwei and Lufeng have not equivocated or avoided [the issue], but have promoted a negotiated resolution according to laws and regulations of the problems raised by Wukan villagers.”
The article talked about a hitherto unreported local “platform” called “1+7+N,” or alternatively “17N,” created, it said, by authorities in Shanwei to mediate disputes over land-use rights in the vicinity of Wukan. The platform was meant to “resolve land disputes, assign rights to land already returned [to villagers] and allocate household plots” through a panel of negotiators that included representatives from Wukan and its seven adjoining villages as well as representatives from the Shapu Tree Farm (沙埔林场), “experts on land issues” and “relevant government personnel.”
The article concluded by driving a nail into the coffin of Lin Zulian’s legacy as a faithful representative of the people:

In 2012, the villagers chose Lin Zulian to serve as their representative on the village committee to resolve problems of land and corruption. But most unfortunately, Lin Zulian has stepped down from the “altar” for his nonfeasance and his careless conduct as a “fly of corruption.” At his open trial on September 8, Lin Zulian offered this confession to the court: “I will learn my lesson, to personally abide by the law, to do things in accord with the law, and to trust in the judgment of the court.”

With the previously mentioned pair of reports appearing in Guangdong media the next day, September 12, the official narrative on Wukan was firmly in place, crafted by Xinhua News Agency, Nanfang Daily and local authorities in Shanwei. The “soldiers” of the Frontier Defence Corps were by now of course also firmly in place, having evidently used their charitable “dragnet clean” as a pretext for embedding themselves in the village.
The late night raids followed, and after them open conflict between Wukan villagers and the men of the Frontier Defence Corps. It was at this point, halfway through our 58-article body of mainland coverage of Wukan, that the narrative shifted dramatically, and control was handed over to local authorities in Shanwei.
On September 13 and 14, a total of 11 articles appeared in the WiseNews database, essentially just two reports repeated across Chinese media. The first 9 articles were accounts from Nanfang Daily and Xinhua News Agency of the arrest of 13 suspects, noting that “police in Lufeng received the support and cooperation of the masses in the September 13 strike against a small number of people who had illegally gathered in Wukan village.” The accounts, based entirely on information from police in Lufeng (in some cases from an official Weibo account), were virtually identical.
The last two articles were a single release from China News Service, republished the next day in the Southern Metropolis Daily, quoting police authorities in Lufeng as saying they were on the hunt for people who had spread “fake information” about Wukan on the internet.
Lufeng’s stranglehold on information continued over the weekend as several major newspapers in Guangdong, including Nanfang Daily and Guangzhou Daily, the mouthpiece of the Guangzhou leadership, ran another story ostensibly reported from the streets of Wukan. An unidentified “writer” witnessed that “within the village production and life were going on in a peaceful and orderly manner.”
The kicker quote for the article — which bore the headline “A Peaceful Village With Villagers’ Hearts at Ease” — was supplied by a local merchant:

Mr. Wu, who operates a seafood products store at the pier, said that in recent years business had been good during the Mid-Autumn Festival, but sales for several months this year had not been as good as in the past. “The ordinary people all want to peacefully live their days, and those few who want to make a fuss don’t represent the people of Wukan.”

In fact, the report, which can also be seen here in the Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, was sourced from Lufeng Online, the official news portal of the Lufeng city government. (The site’s URL, http://lufengshi.net/, means “Lufeng City.”)
On September 20, the top of the Lufeng Online website featured another article that has been given prominent play in China’s media, responding to allegations that Hong Kong journalists were roughed up by Lufeng police on September 14. The article, filed by the official China News Service, is again sourced entirely from the Lufeng police and the city’s information office.
“Lufeng police said . . .”
“According to the Lufeng police . . .”
“According to the Government Information Office of Lufeng City . . .”
* * * *
OVER THE PAST few days, the “dragnet clean” in Wukan has focused on removing foreign and Hong Kong media, and on countering unwanted narratives. The facts on Wukan are still very much the exclusive domain of the local leadership in Shanwei and Lufeng — as evidenced by this September 19 story by China News Service, again sourced from Lufeng Online.
The dominant official narrative is now the familiar scapegoating of “outside media” as troublemakers bent on China’s destruction. A commentary earlier this week in the Global Times argued that, “While the Wukan issue is basically an ordinary case . . . stemming from land compensation, it has been hyped by foreign media and given a political label.” This, the paper said, is precisely how foreign media misbehaved the last time Wukan entered the spotlight: “In 2011, scores of outside media entered Wukan village to ‘do reporting,’ but that ‘reporting’ in fact added fuel to the fire of the situation in Wukan.”
The deeper problem, according to the Global Times, isn’t corruption or the lingering question of land rights but rather the meddling of foreigners and Hong Kongers:

How to avoid excessive interference by outside media, clarifying the facts in a timely manner: this is a problem facing Chinese society.

Wukan has now gone quiet, as much as we can glimpse the village from media inside China. No articles for “Wukan” appear at all today in the WiseNews database. Select for Chinese-language coverage in Hong Kong, Taiwan and other regions and things are nearly as quiet — just four articles, two each in Ming Pao Daily and Apple Daily.
The clean sweep, it seems, is complete.