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 President Xi Jinping (习近平), who last month earned the affectionate title “Big Daddy Xi” (习大大), spoke out last week on the subject of the arts, essentially encouraging innovation and originality in the arts in China while stressing that such creation must serve the country and the socialist cause.
The tension in Xi Jinping’s speech between creation and coercion is of course an old one, going back to Mao Zedong’s 1943 talks at the Yan’an Conference on Literature and the Arts, in which he said “mass culture,” or qunzhong wenhua (群众文化), should serve the interests of politics and be focused on peasant lives. In his speech, Xi Jinping similarly emphasized the importance of the focus in the arts on “people’s lives.” Cultural workers, or wenyi gongzuozhe (文艺工作者), he said, must “be steadfast in upholding a creative direction taking the people as the core” (人民为中心的创作导向).
The New York Times has a good online summary of Xi Jinping’s address to the Arts Work Symposium (文艺工作座谈会) on October 15. But readers can also turn to Chinese state media, which have compiled a list of “10 Arts One-Liners From Big Daddy Xi” (习大大的10句文艺妙语) which conveys some of the key points in Xi’s address to the recent symposium.
We’ve included a translated version along with the original below:
Our quick translation of the editorial, which appears at the bottom-left of the front page, follows:
“Firmly Supporting the SAR Government’s Administration According to Law” (坚决支持特区政府依法施政)
By this paper’s editorial writer (本报评论员)
October 15, 2014
Ever since a few people in Hong Kong launched the illegal gathering called “Occupy Central,” the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has handled the matter in accordance with the law. Its prudent response has won the widespread support of city residents, and it has the full support also of the central government. At the same time, the organizers of “Occupy Central” have taken the SAR government as their target, constantly seeking to create agendas and stir up dissension, fiercely attacking the authority of the chief executive and hindering the actions of the government. Any person who cares about Hong Kong and about the people of Hong Kong should say “NO” to this hijacking of the general public will for personal objectives, and should support the actions of the SAR government under the principle of rule of law.
At present, the development of constitutional rule in Hong Kong has come to a crucial point. According to the Basic Law, the SAR Government has, after extensive consultation, provided the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress with a related report; following the decision of the NPC Standing Committee, the SAR Government will hold a second round of consultations over the question of political reform. Whether or not this process can legally move forward in a smooth manner directly concerns the question of whether or not Hong Kong can hold general elections in 2017.
But some, ignoring the Basic Law and the decision of the NPC Standing Committee, have instigated a campaign of so-called “civil disobedience” (公民抗命), seeking through the plainly illegal method of “Occupy Central” to force the central government to make concessions on an important matter of principle. In order to achieve this goal, they have pointed blame at the SAR Government and its chief executive, cooking up allegations and spreading rumors in an attempt to force a chief executive out of office who has the support of the central government, playing out a “color revolution” (颜色革命) in Hong Kong. But they have chosen the wrong place, and they are doomed to fail.
Democracy must have a foundation of rule of law. It cannot be a tyranny of the few, and it certainly cannot become an excuse by which the vast minority defy laws both human and divine to do whatever they please. In the “Occupy Central” movement, a few have attacked the normal social order, paralyzing traffic and affecting people’s livelihoods, so that people feel indignation. The SAR Government and the police have handled this illegal gathering in accord with the law in order to preserve social order and uphold their responsibility to protect the public interest, as demanded by the protection of rule of law.
Just imagine if nothing at all were done in response to this illegal conduct. Who would preserve Hong Kong core values? If those who indulge in law-breaking will not desist, who will protect law-abiding citizens? The rule of law is the greatest public interest. Supporting the SAR Government in administration according to law means respecting the responsibility of the SAR Government and the police to preserve the basic interests of seven million Hong Kong residents.
Stability means prosperity, and chaos mean calamity (稳定是福，动乱是祸). As for differing demands for the development of Hong Kong’s democratic system, we can seek common ground while reserving differences. And we can use any number of legal means to express [our demands]. Many facts and histories outside China instruct us that if we yield to political blackmail when certain people launch radical and illegal actions, this will only bring even more and even more serious illegal movements, which will only aggravate unrest and chaos until there is never any peace in society.
Only through unswerving support for the legal preservation of stability in Hong Kong by the SAR Government led by chief executive C.Y. Leung can we preserve a favorable business climate in Hong Kong, preserve Hong Kong’s status as a center for international finance, trade and shipping, and accomodate the interests of various rungs of Hong Kong society and foreign investors.
Under the “One Country, Two Systems” formula, the administrative, legislative and judicial organs of the SAR all have a responsibility to respect and carry out the Basic Law, and all have a responsibility to preserve rule of law. The central government will continue unswervingly to implement the principle of “the people of Hong Kong running Hong Kong’s affairs” (港人治港), with a high degree of autonomy. [The central government will] unswervingly support the administrative, legislative and judicial organs of the SAR in carrying out their various roles and responsibilities in accordance with the law, together preserving the sovereignty, security and development interests of the state, and protecting the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
In the wake of revelations of alleged news extortion at 21cbh.com, a financial news website under the auspices of the 21st Century Business Herald newspaper, CMP fellow Zhu Xuedong wrote about what he called an “age of corruption” in China’s media.
Describing the corruption practiced (apparently as a business model) at 21cbh.com, China’s official Xinhua News Agency used words like “shocking” and “unbelievable.” But for anyone who has closely observed the media landscape in the country over the past decade, these revelations are altogether unsurprising.
As I’ve emphasized again and again, a combination of stringent media controls and commercial imperatives are primarily responsible for the worsening environment. The bottom line is that while Chinese authorities encourage media to go out and generate income, they remain hostile to good journalism and sound (and therefore valuable) information.
I made the same argument again recently in “Who Warped China’s Media?”, in which I tried to show that even the official discussion of media corruption in China is blighted with a poisonous combination of money-worship and assumed political control. If Chinese authorities are serious in their efforts to grapple with media corruption, surely one of the most fundamental problems is that no-one in China is permitted to have a full discussion about the root causes of corruption.
But hold on. Can we really assume the authorities are serious about media corruption? Do the recent purges and televised confessions really signal a renewed determination to tackle media corruption?
I have my doubts. Let me show you why.
If you’d begin by opening up Guangming Online, the state-run website operated by Guangming Daily, a newspaper published by China’s Central Propaganda Department. Now, if there’s any media interest that should run a tight ship from the standpoint of news and ideology, it’s the Guangming Daily. You wouldn’t expect a media group run by the Central Propaganda Department, the supreme authority on what content is proper or improper in China, to be crossing any lines.
Here’s how Guangming Online describes itself in its “About” section:
Guangming Online was created on January 1, 1998, one of the earliest news websites to be established inside China. Over the past ten years, Guangming Online has extended and brought into play the core values and traditional advantages of Guangming Daily, and it has a powerful impact in the cultural sphere, knowledge community and among web users.
Civilized internet operation (文明办网) is the special characteristic that Guangming Online adheres to throughout. Guangming Online was the first in the entire country to raise the concept of “civilized internet operation, civilized internet use” (文明办网、文明上网). It was the earliest to advocate “online civilization projects.”
Guangming Online proclaims its sense of social and political responsibility right at the top of the site, with a button that allows readers to involve themselves in the policing of improper content, notifying the authorities of its presence.
A special “inform” feature on the web portal operated by Guangming Daily allows readers to tattle on others.
Now, move past the top three headlines on the news section, probably about Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang and then randomly select a headline. When I visited last, it was this story about the public reappearance of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. On the right-hand side of the news article — mine a video by China Central Television — you can find all manner of click-bait designed to generate traffic for the site. And you will probably find plenty of images of partially clothed young women under the category “Great and Hot Photos.”
In fact, I stumbled across Guangming Online’s bawdy sidebar content yesterday when I clicked into an editorial regurgitating President Xi Jinping’s remarks on propaganda policy. The piece gabbed on about the need for stability, achieved in part through “positive propaganda”:
News, public opinion and ideology work are of particular importance. Whether the work is done well or poorly directly concerns reform and development and overall stability. We must throughout uphold the encouragement of unity and stability, putting positive propaganda first, upholding the correct political orientation, grasping correct guidance of public opinion . . .
And as I continued to read this verbose tribute to Xi Jinping’s renewed vision of the paramount importance of political control of the media and public opinion, my eye was drawn ineluctably to the side-bar where . . . well, here you go.
I’ll leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether the linked content fits with the spirit of Guangming Daily. But make no mistake — this is all about the monetizing of the Guangming Daily Media Group’s ostensible public role.
This online news page, with its bawdy juxtaposition of political hardlines and female softlines, sums up the status quo in China’s media perfectly well.
Anyone who finds the content at Guangming Online offensive or distasteful might try sharing their views through the online “supervision channel.” But don’t hold your breath.
The control of the internet in China has intensified over the past two years, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping. Controls have become so intrusive, in fact, that companies and researchers have complained that business and innovation are being affected.
In the above cartoon by artist Cheng Tao (成涛), posted to Sina Weibo, a computer keyboard and mouse are taped and chained while the image on the screen becomes a virtual jail cell. The meaning of Cheng’s cartoon is inescapable, but he writes nevertheless: “This is my last satirical cartoon. Don’t just glance at it: every piece was drawn under immense pressure. I draw and I share, at immense risk. . . There’s basically no risk for all of you in passing it along. These past few days, my family have all had words with me, my mom and grandma pleading with me through tears not to continue drawing. I give up. From this day forward I temporarily desist from satirical cartoons. From here on out I’ll change over to entertainment cartoons. I’ve disappointed all of you.
The following post by former CMP fellow and investigative reporter Wang Keqin (王克勤) was deleted around 11:36PM Saturday, October 11, 2014. [See more deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]
The post, which includes an image of the Notice of Detention (拘留通知书) for legal activist Guo Yushan (郭玉闪), who was detained on October 9, simply reads: “Guo Yushan charged with picking quarrels and causing trouble” (郭玉闪被寻衅滋事). A large number of similar posts sharing the news of Guo’s detention were shared on Chinese social media over the weekend, most of them removed by censors.
Guo becomes the latest in a string of detentions and arrests of prominent dissidents in China, including former CMP fellow Pu Zhiqiang.
Wang Keqin currently has more than 657,000 followers on Weibo.
The trend of sparse coverage of Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” (占中) continues inside China today, with a single official news release from Xinhua News Agency accounting for 60 percent of total content (24 of 39 articles).
The focus in the Xinhua report is on disruption, and calls for life in Hong Kong to return to “normal.” Here is a taste of that news release:
Xinhua News Agency, Hong Kong, filed Oct. 12 [reporter Niu Qi (牛琪)] — The illegal gathering called “Occupy Central” has entered its 15th day, with large amounts of people still assembling in Admiralty, Mong Kok and other areas. Various quarters of Hong Kong society have urged the occupiers to leave the streets immediately, allowing the lives of city residents to return to normal.
On October 12, the government of the Hong Kong SAR urged members of “Occupy Central” to immediately clear away barricades from the intersection of Lung Wo Road and Tamar Road, allowing the resumption of normal traffic in and out of the government headquarters.
A spokesperson for the SAR government said that since October 3 more than 60 meetings and events originally planned for the government headquarters had been deferred, cancelled or relocated to other venues. Of the 80 events on the schedule for the next two weeks, at least 12 were being considered for cancellation, deferral or relocation.
And here is how the news release appears on page 13 of today’s Beijing Daily, the official mouthpiece of the Beijing city leadership. It’s the article right at the top, under the large bold headline.
The Chinese-language Global Times newspaper, published under the auspices of the official People’s Daily, continues to offer the only “original” content available on the Hong Kong protests — which is to say, content that is not from either of China’s official news services. There are three articles mentioning “Occupy Central” in the Global Times today, two dealing particularly with the movement.
The first article, an opinion piece on page 14 written by Xiang Guangren (向广仁), is an acerbic takedown of the protests snidely rejecting comparisons to China’s May Fourth Movement of 1919. Here is the beginning, along with the article’s lovely headline:
“Occupy Central’ Will Not Stamp Its Name in History, But Only Leave a Stink That Lasts 10,000 Years”
The “Occupy Central” movement that has gone on in Hong Kong for more than 10 days now has been the target of public discontent for the way it has tied up transportation and impacted the normal lives of city residents. But in the early days of the movement, some scholars quite surprisingly compared this illegal and chaotic movement incited by a small number of politicians to “May Fourth,” thereby deceiving students, who felt that they were taking part in a movement for justice and would likewise go down in history. In fact, this idea is a deliberate misrepresentation meant to confuse the public. And I warn them: “Occupy Central” will only leave a stink for 10,000 years; it will not make its mark on history.
On page 16, the Global Times continues with its firebrand approach to the Hong Kong protests, characterizing them as a destructive event aided and abetted by “black hands” and foreign “hostile forces”:
Hong Kong’s illegal “Occupy Central” movement entered its third week yesterday, but there were signs that is was dying. The spokesperson for Scholarism, the most lively of the “Occupy Central” organizations, announced her resignation on October 11 due to “feelings of extreme helplessness and exhaustion.” This means the departure of one of the most important internal figures in “Occupy Central.” Now the focus has turned to whether or not this will cause a domino effect. Hong Kong media have revealed that rifts within the “Occupy Central” alliance are intensifying, with organizers calling on “Scholarism” and the “Hong Kong Federation of Students” to relinquish their leadership . . .
“Occupy Central,” which has resulted in the most violent riots in Hong Kong since the handover, is already seen as a catastrophe for Hong Kong. Who is providing “black money” for it? Which people should be held criminally liable? Hong Kong’s Legislative Council has already launched an investigation into the black hands behind “Occupy Central.”
The “already launched” investigation to which the Global Times refers is in fact merely the passing of a motion by pro-Beijing lawmakers in Hong Kong to launch an investigation. As the South China Morning Post has reported, the motion is likely to be defeated later this month by pan-democrats.
But if you’re searching for such nuance in today’s coverage of the Hong Kong protests by mainland media, don’t waste your time.
In this photo, taken by David Bandurski during the first week of protests in Hong Kong, a student volunteer passes out free bread at a peaceful protest site.
In our analysis earlier this week of Chinese news coverage of pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, we noted that one of the most readily used frames was that of foreign conspiracy. Much coverage inside China, in other words, has dismissed the protests as being engendered and supported by the imagined geopolitical goblins Chinese leaders term the “hostile forces,” or didui shili (敌对势力) — those who wish to throw China’s domestic affairs into chaos.
“Hostile forces” is a time-honored term in the Chinese Communist Party lexicon. According to research by CMP director Qian Gang (钱钢), the term has its origins in the Soviet Union under Stalin. In China, it first appeared prominently in the People’s Daily in 1948, the same year the newspaper became the official propaganda organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
The term “hostile forces,” generally regarded as an indicator of the ideologically hardline — at odds with the spirit of the rule of law — has been on the rise in recent months. We’ll have more to say on that in due course, but for now those interested in reading more in Chinese can turn to Qian Gang’s analysis at Storm Media.
So, how is the term “hostile forces” employed in China’s official media? On October 8, a piece by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences professor Mo Jihong (莫纪宏) appeared on China.com.cn, a state-run internet portal site. The piece is an excellent example of conspiracy writing over what in fact is an extremely complicated story.
Mo Jihong, deputy director of the Legal Research Center at CASS, warns the “hostile forces” he says are behind Occupy Central to stop “this stupid thing.”
It is interesting, though not at all surprising, to note that although Mo is the deputy director of the Legal Research Center at CASS, he uses bile-ridden ideological terms like “hostile forces” and “black hands” without a modicum of introspection about their fundamentally extralegal implications.
Upon reading the piece, I suspect many readers will agree that despite Professor Mo’s talk of “rationality,” his language is very much in the vein of what S.I. Hayakawa would call “growl words,” epithets that cannot yield rational discussion.
But let us not assume what our readers will think. . . A full translation of Mo’s piece follows:
“We Must Resolutely Chop Off the Black Hands Behind ‘Occupy Central'” China.com.cn
Mo Jihong (莫纪宏)
Deputy Director and Researcher of the Legal Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
These past days, things in Hong Kong have been in a state of relative chaos. It goes without saying that this calamity was brought on by the initiators of “Occupy Central.” The vast majority of Hong Kong people view this chaotic scene with their eyes, but feel it anxiously in their hearts. They see plainly that Hong Kong’s favorable social order has been destroyed by the barbarism of the “Occupy Central” people — particularly as it remains unclear when these diehards will bring it to an end.
Naturally, the “chaotic scenes” the organizers of “Occupy Central” have created are exactly what they hoped for. Their goal is to stir up chaos in Hong Kong. They want to “profit in the midst of chaos” (乱中夺权). They want the Central Government and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to bow before them. This distorted “populist” mentality is spreading blindly of late, and it might result in huge losses for Hong Kong over a period of time.
Any person of conscience will wonder: What exactly is it that makes these organizers of “Occupy Central” so determined to tear off the face of the Central Government and the government of the Hong Kong SAR, “fighting to the bitter end”? Are they really fighting for their own interests? These “Occupy Central” organizers, because they are in the grip of hostile forces (敌对势力) both domestic and overseas, want to persist until the very end; their conduct is clearly illegal, but they want to carry on till the very end.
And this is where things now stand. The organizers of “Occupy Central” know very well that the Central Government and the government of the Hong Kong SAR will not accept their unreasonable terms. Because if the Central Government or the Hong Kong government bow their heads at all to them, this will mean that the very legal foundation of the special administrative region, the Basic Law, will be effectively abandoned — and the Basic Law is the product of several generations, struggling over a period of three decades, and the guarantor of the fundamental interests of the Hong Kong people.
Without the Basic Law, there is no tomorrow for Hong Kong society. If the Central Government does not exercise its full right of governance over Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law, well then, the “Occupy Central” organizers are very clear about what this means in terms of a result for Hong Kong. But still they insist on challenging the Basic Law. They regard the Basic Law as so much excrement. This amounts to an open challenge to the vast majority of Hong Kong people as well as to the Central Government and the government of the SAR.
In the vast history of mankind, there has never been such a political force as this one, that dares the condemnation of all under heaven in order to challenge everyone without a modicum of reason. And so, returning to the rational plane to deal with this question, we must maintain a high level of alertness to the black hands operating behind the organizers of “Occupy Central.” If it were not for the detailed plotting of these “black hands” behind the scenes, propping them up, these so-called “democracy fighters” would not conceivably do this stupid thing against the interests of their own people and their own country.
It’s because of the instigation and promises of these “black hands” that the organizers of “Occupy Central” dare to hold the authority of the Basic Law in contempt, acting against the pressure of international public opinion, using their foreign passports to travel freely around the world, even secretly planning award nominations and things like this. Their subversive tactics have proven successful time and again in “color revolutions.” Their ploys have been exposed already, their names forever blighted.
I advise those hostile forces and “black hands” hiding behind “Occupy Central” and scheming to destroy Hong Kong to see the situation clearly. Hong Kong is not Libya. It is not Egypt. Nor is it Iraq. The Hong Kong SAR was build on the foundation of Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, and it has standing behind it a mighty Mother Country.
The organizers of “Occupy Central” face up against a rational and practical Central Government and SAR government, both of which pursue the rule of law — and against 7.2 million majority residents of Hong Kong who sniff at their actions.
Any rational person knows that the Basic Law has preserved the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong ever since the handover, and that only the Basic Law can protect Hong Kong’s continued economic health and social stability. No matter how resolute the organizers of “Occupy Central” are, no matter how long it goes on, the true face of “Occupy Central” will be exposed. Because the “black hands” hiding behind them are not so patient, and as time goes on the residents of Hong Kong will awaken and the ugliness of these “black hands” will be unmasked.
It is a complete miscalculation to use an endless “Occupy Central” to destroy the prosperity and stability of the Hong Kong SAR, with a mind to intensifying conflict and forcing the police or even the military to intervene, with the intention of pushing responsibility for the serious consequences of “Occupy Central” onto the Central Government and the SAR government.
I advise those “black hands” hiding behind the scenes to see the situation clearly, and to desist immediately. The Chinese people have never stirred up trouble, but they fear nothing. We must engage in a rational, segmented and legal struggle against those who insist on their solitary struggle to oppose the Central Government and SAR government to the bitter end, who in their hearts reject the Basic Law and wish to bring about the collapse of Hong Kong.
We will not permit any force or any person to destroy the Basic Law that is the legal foundation of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. Hong Kong needs the blessing of the Basic Law, for only the Basic Law can give the Hong Kong SAR a shining future.
The following post by “Reporter on an Errand” (记者跑腿) was deleted sometime before 10:30AM today, October 10, 2014. [See more deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]
The post deals with the 2014 Nobel Prizes, which are being awarded this month. Its sensitivity presumably lies in the fact that it mentions both the Dalai Lama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, and Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波), recipient of the prize in 2010 — and that it wryly suggests China’s Nobel honors are overshadowed by political persecution.
China has had four recipients of the Nobel Prize: The Dalai Lama, Gao Xingjian, Liu Xiaobo, Mo Yan. One is in exile, one became a Chinese citizen of France, one is in prison, and one does not speak.
“Reporter on an Errand” currently has more than 5,200 followers on Sina Weibo.
The original Chinese-language post follows:
In late September 2014, Hong Kong secondary and university students began class boycotts to protest a decision announced by the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress in August 2014 that Hong Kong citizens would be able to elect their chief executive by “universal suffrage” in 2017, but that the NPC would vet eligible candidates. Responding to the NPC decision in August, leaders of Hong Kong’s Occupy movement said the NPC interpretation did not amount to universal suffrage: “Genuine universal suffrage includes both the rights to elect and to be elected. The decision of the NPC Standing Committee has deprived people with different political views of the right to run for election and be elected by imposing unreasonable restrictions, thereby perpetuating ‘handpicked politics.'” Martin Lee, founding chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, called the Occupy protests that began on September 26 the “last stand in defense of Hong Kong’s core values, the values that have long set us apart from China: the rule of law, press freedom, good governance, judicial independence and protection for basic human rights.” Hong Kong’s chief executive, CY Leung, responded to Lee’s remarks here. In the following cartoon, posted by artist Cheng Tao (成涛) to both Sina Weibo (deleted) and Twitter, China and its ruling Chinese Communist Party are depicted as a sadistic Panda bear riding on the back of Hong Kong, which is blinded by a red (CCP) blindfold and coaxed forward toward the “carrot” of democracy. The carrot is labeled “dream,” a reference to Xi Jinping’s “Chinese Dream.”.
How, you ask, is coverage of Hong Kong’s “Occupy” movement — the so-called “umbrella revolution” — shaping up inside China? Well, here we go.
First for a bit of trivia. The term “umbrella revolution,” or yusan geming (雨伞革命), which emerged on social media on September 28th, when Hong Kong police used tear gas and pepper spray against protesters who defended themselves with umbrellas — and which has since been further popularized by both Hong Kong and international media — has only ever appeared in three mainland news items. All of these were issued by the official China News Service between October 3 and October 5, as follows:
October 3 — “10 Questions About Hong Kong’s ‘Occupy Central'” (香港“占中”十问) October 4 — “Color Revolution: Western Media Label Hong Kong’s ‘Occupy Central'” (颜色革命：西方媒体定性香港“占中”) October 5 — “Western Media Define Hong Kong’s ‘Occupy Central’ as a Color Revolution” (西方媒体定性香港“占中”为“颜色革命”)
This photo of student protesters in Hong Kong did not appear in China’s media, though like photos might have appeared (briefly) on social media.
In fact, though issued on separate days, the October 4 and 5 news releases are virtually identical. So we have in essence two articles using the term “umbrella revolution,” both of which frame coverage of ‘Occupy Central’ by “Western media” as exposing the “British and American intention of promoting the transformation of ‘Occupy Central’ into a so-called ‘color revolution.'”
The article notes ominously: “There are black hands at work behind this ‘Occupy Central’ movement, which bears the shadow of the West.”
The foreign conspiracy frame has been one of the most widely used in Chinese coverage (we use the word generously) of the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. And not surprisingly, we see it again in today’s coverage. On page 10 today, in an article called, “Opposition Party Visits America to Work On the ‘Script’ (反对派访美策划“剧本”), the Chinese-language Global Times “exposes” the way the United States has attempted to influence affairs in Hong Kong through grant programs like the National Endowment for Democracy.
Here is a list of the story frames we find in mainland Chinese coverage of the Hong Kong protests today. (I welcome contributions if anyone else thinks they spot a fifth or sixth):
[1] Economic Doom: the Hong Kong protests are causing untold economic damage, with daily losses to the dining industry alone topping 50 million Hong Kong dollars daily, and estimated total damage to the economy (undefined) of 350 billion Hong Kong dollars since the protests began. Or as the People’s Daily (overseas edition) says so poetically today: “It’s like the electricity is suddenly turned off. During the first hour the impact isn’t serious, at most some of the things in the refrigerator are affected. But when it goes on longer, everything in the refrigerator goes bad.” [2] Foreign Conspiracies: Protests in Hong Kong were fomented and supported by “hostile forces” (敌对势力) from outside China, represented by grant programs like the National Endowment of Democracy and the National Democratic Institute. [3] Rule of Law Under Assault and Creeping Chaos: The Hong Kong protests have been a “serious attack” on Hong Kong tradition of rule of law, showing the world a chaotic Hong Kong that it doesn’t recognize. Far from demonstrating the need for “true universal elections” (真普选), the protests have show that “the development of democracy can only proceed incrementally.” [4] No One Really Cares: Xinhua visits the protest site and finds that the number of protesters has fallen dramatically, most students having gone back to class. At campuses across Hong Kong, Xinhua finds that the students are back, busy attending classes — and posters for academic and cultural events have replaced calls for student boycotts.
Those themes describe with fair accuracy the type of coverage we see in China’s media today. But where are these reports coming from?
Well, we have a total of 28 articles (with significant overlap) in the mainland press today, according to the WiseNews database. The database does not comprehensively cover the internet, but our cursory search suggests that the stories circulating through major Chinese news portals are on the following list.
Of the 28 total stories today, 17 appear in Chinese newspapers, the rest online through the official China News (chinanews.com). The stories are predominantly from Xinhua News Agency (9 total), the People’s Daily (5 total), the People’s Daily spin-off Beijing Times (4 total) and the Global Times (4 total).
The rest of the stories are all from financial newspapers or deal with the financial impact of the protests in Hong Kong. They are found in the Securities Times, the China Business Times, First Financial Daily, the Beijing Economic Times, Beijing Business Today and the Beijing Morning Post. The coverage in these newspapers is not clearly labeled as being from either official news agency, Xinhua or China News Service, but they report essentially the same information about the markets.
A full list of the 28 articles today follows:
