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).
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:
According to CMP’s preliminary analysis, there are a total of 20 articles dealing with “Occupy Central” in China’s newspapers today, appearing in 18 separate newspapers but with substantial overlap of very limited information.
Of these 20 articles, 12 are taken from a single official release, or tonggao (通稿), from Xinhua News Agency. The Xinhua release, filed yesterday, reports remarks by Hong Kong’s chief secretary for administration, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (林郑月娥), to the effect that the Hong Kong government would delay second round consultations on political reform.
In fact, this Xinhua story is woefully dated considering media outside mainland China, including the South China Morning Post, reported widely yesterday on a press conference two days ago at which Lam said: “[H]aving considered [the recent developments], we understand that the current social atmosphere is not good for such a consultation exercise.”
Media outside China reported long ago, in the arc of the Occupy story, that Lam said consultations would be delayed.
Here is a list of papers and headlines using the Xinhua release on second round consultation today:
We should note that with just two exceptions, these newspapers are from the three southernmost mainland provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi and Jianxi. The exceptions are the Changsha Evening Post, a commercial newspaper in Hunan (bordering Guangdong province on the north), and the Chengdu Evening Post, in Sichuan province.
As readers can learn from our Media Map tool, the Nanguo Morning Post and the Nanguo Morning Post are both commercial spin-offs of Guangxi Daily, the province’s official Party mouthpiece. The first paper is located in Nanning, the second in Liuzhou.
The above-mentioned Xinhua article is played on the front page of four newspapers, Guangzhou Daily, Changsha Evening Post, Chengdu Evening Post and Jiangnan Metropolis Daily. In the case of the Changsha Evening Post, the article is in the lower left-hand corner, just above the banner ad (below).
Turning away from the Xinhua release on second round consultations, we have 6 articles in 5 newspapers (+China News Service) based on a second official news release from Xinhua News Agency — though 2 of these articles, at Beijing Daily and Changsha Evening Post are overlaps with the first list above, the two Xinhua releases having been combined.
Much more alarmist in tone, this Xinhua release says in the headline that “‘Occupy Central’ has a serious [adverse] effect on [the] economic livelihood” of Hong Kong.
Here is an image of page 3 of today’s Beijing Daily, the article combining the two Xinhua releases at the bottom left-hand side.
It has to be noted with utmost disgust that the 2nd Xinhua release contains patent falsehoods — the result either of consummately poor reporting or willful distortion of the truth. It reads at one point:
Professor Peter Mathieson, vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, called on students and teachers participating in ‘Occupy Central’ to immediately leave the site of the protest.
香港大学校长马斐森呼吁参与“占中”的师生尽快离开示威现场。
HKU’s vice-chancellor has not today, yesterday or at any time called on students and teachers to leave the protest. As the South China Morning Post has noted here, Peter Mathieson said yesterday that the university “profoundly regrets the escalation of events in recent days. We condemn violence of any kind by any party. We cannot understand the use of tear gas yesterday: the police and the government are accountable for that decision.”
Beyond these two Xinhua releases, we have 3 separate pieces today from the Chinese-language edition of the Global Times:
1. 港各界怒轰“无法无天” 策划者拒绝承担责任“占中”让香港一片狼借 — [not apparently available online] 2.“占中三子”须为骚乱负最大责任 — an angry diatribe arguing that “things unfolding as they have to now, the three instigators of Occupy Central must be given the utmost responsibility for this illegal movement going out of control.” 3.占中”深层震荡香港经济 — about the deleterious affect of Occupy Central on the Hong Kong economy
How and how much are the protests in Hong Kong being reported or talked about inside China?
First of all, searching mainland newspaper pages today for the keyword “Occupy Central” we find around 20 Chinese newspapers that have run an official Xinhua News Agency release filed yesterday evening, September 28. That article is a direct report of a statement highly critical of “the illegal gathering ‘Occupy Central'” issued yesterday by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council.
Aside from use of this official Xinhua News Agency release — deep in the inside pages in all cases — we have only the example of the Chinese-language edition of the Global Times, which has a prominent front page piece with a jump to page 16. That article begins:
In what direction will Hong Kong be led? The violent clashes that played out yesterday on the streets in the vicinity of Hong Kong’s center of government are a cause of concern for all who care about Hong Kong’s future.
香港究竟要被引向何方？昨天，香港政府总部附近街区上演的暴力冲突让所有关心香港前途的人忧心忡忡。
At present, it seems that outside this highly restricted coverage in the news pages we have only the same highly restricted coverage on news portal sites. If we found coverage on major news sites in China, we would expect it to be 1) the Xinhua release on the above-mentioned Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office statement, 2) information from the address given by Chief Executive C.Y. Leung at 1AM today or 3) shares of Global Times material.
As of mid-day, most major news sites had no prominently placed coverage at all. That includes the Xinhua News Agency website, People’s Daily Online, Sina.com (China), Sohu.com and QQ.com. However, when you select “news” on the home pages of the above-mentioned commercial sites, both Sina and QQ offer the Xinhua version of the already-very-outdated remarks made by Chief Executive C.Y. Leung yesterday, September 28.
The “coverage” on the QQ News site differs from other commercial sites in prominence of treatment. It uses a slightly larger headline, and also links to an August piece in the official People’s Daily addressing Occupy Central.
Searching news sites inside China for any coverage at all of what is happening in Hong Kong, the most current information mainland readers are likely to find is the full text of C.Y. Leung’s 1AM address on the ongoing protests. That information is being relayed by China’s second official news agency, China News Service.
So what about social media?
We encourage readers to use our WeiboScope tool for updates on deleted posts about Hong Kong and other issues in China. But it is clear that there is a flurry of activity about Hong Kong on Sina Weibo. As we would expect, posts about protests in Hong Kong are disappearing almost as quickly as they appear.
A search of “Hong Kong” on Weibo returns mostly entertainment, finance and tourism related results, with odd scattered results including mention of the protests, even some using the Chinese term for “Occupy Central” (占中). Generally, however, when you click into the posts about events in Hong Kong right now, you find the posts are already gone, yielding Sina’s “Sorry” message.
The surest way to get posts through related to the Hong Kong protests at all seems to be stick to the Global Times front page (like this post), its bold headline reading: “Hong Kong Government Fiercely Rejects Illegal ‘Occupy Central.'”
Here is a brief taste of posts deleted today from Sina Weibo. Note that even posts, like the last one, that are critical of the protesters are being removed. (1)
From filmmaker Xu Xin (徐辛XuXin)
With just under 13,000 fans
“microphone”
[話筒]
(3)
From User “Reporting Hong Kong” (報道香港)
With more than 11,000 fans
“So violent like this, and you tell me you want democracy. I don’t want this kind of democracy!”
你們如此暴力，和我說是爭取民主，這樣的民主我不要!
In our ongoing series of posts on media corruption in China, we look at an official perspective on media corruption and its impact on the practice of watchdog journalism — what in China is called “supervision by public opinion,” or yulun jiandu (舆论监督).
Supervision by public opinion has featured strongly in discussions of the role of media and press freedom in China since the late 1980s. In some cases the term can be used, particularly by proponents of an independent and professional press, as a stand-in term for “press freedom,” which is itself used only very cautiously by Chinese media (usually only in pejorative references to “Western press freedom”). Seeing the term as a Chinese cognate of Western “watchdog journalism,” they envision news media operating as a fourth estate, casting light on social, political and economic problems in China.
But “supervision by public opinion” has also been used frequently by officials in China to talk about the role of news media – under state control – in uncovering issues of official corruption and abuse of power on a range of issues, particularly at lower levels of the bureaucracy. In this official view, this “supervision by public opinion” must be subject to the overarching political demands of party leaders. Since 1989 the term has stood in tension with the cardinal control concept of “guidance of public opinion.”
In response to the recent news extortion scandal at 21cbh.com, China Press and Publications Journal — a publication run by a central-level media group founded in April 2011 by the State Council — ran an editorial by He Yonghai (何勇海) that spoke out sharply against the corrupting influence of commercial interests in the media.
“Media professionals must be independent of commercial interests, avoiding the corrosive affect of commercial interests,” He wrote. “[O]nly then can they earn the trust of the public. Acts like those at 21cbh.com, of using the threat of negative reports to press companies into buying advertising, or taking money to ‘profit from silence,’ without a doubt turn supervision by public opinion into a tool for profit.”
He Yonghai also voices indignation about media “doing excessively positive reporting or covering up negative problems about enterprises they [are] ‘cooperating’ with.”
Typical of official arguments on the question of media corruption, He Yonghai’s editorial blatantly ignores the elephant in the room, the corrosive affect of political power. He talks in an offhand fashion about how media should earn the trust of the public, when in fact the notion that the media should work in the public interest at all can be a highly sensitive one in China.
The media, make no mistake, work for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, a point Xi Jinping has made more emphatically than his predecessor, telling propaganda leaders they should “show their swords” and “struggle” for domination of the ideological sphere.
Press controls under the CCP have always emphasized that “politicians run the newspapers,” a term that goes back to Mao Zedong. Under this idea of the role of the press, it is the Party’s prerogative to dictate what is meant by such things as truth, fact or rationality. And year after year, propaganda leaders bang their fists about the need to “emphasize positive news” and “speak with one voice.”
Long before money could ever corrupt the relationship between the media and the public, power severed that relationship.
How can this editorial by He Yonghai speak with outrage about media “doing excessively positive reporting or covering up negative problems” when this is precisely what China’s press and propaganda apparatus, one of its most robust institutions, is tasked with accomplishing?
This is the kind of hypocrisy we should be alert for in official reflections on the 21cbh.com case and other incidents of media corruption.
Think of the way, in the heady days of state-sponsored “supervision by public opinion,” two lines would form outside the offices of China Central Television’s “News Probe,” an investigative news program. In the first line were those with urgent complaints petitioning the program to tell their story — peasants whose land was seized, patients who suffered malpractice. In the second line were local and regional government officials (or their representatives) hoping to convince the network not to run damaging segments.
In the latter case, these petitions to do exactly the kind of covering up He Yonghai professes to find so offensive, money and power greased the wheels. And these were not “black-hearted journalists” or fake reporters. This was China’s official national television network.
When this is the sort of press environment created by China’s political institutions, how can we be the least bit surprised when pay-for-play and pay-for-silence become institutionalized forms of media business?
We should be surprised if they don’t.
One of the most interesting veins in He Yonghai’s piece is his principled defense of the “shareholders’ right to know” about possible mismanagement at publicly-listed companies.
Says He:
The acts of 21cbh.com in carrying out “supervision by public opinion,” exacting “protection fees” from listed companies and then doing what they could to sweep negative news clean, or doing excessively positive reporting or covering up negative problems about enterprises they were “cooperating” with . . . all of this seriously damages the interests of the shareholders and their right to know (股民的知情权).
So citizens as such do not have a right to know news and information that might be in the public interest. But shareholders, they do have a right to know — about those companies, at any rate, where their capital is invested.
He Yonghai’s argument exemplifies the corrupt mindset he sets out to criticize and mobilize against. And that is another feather in the cap of Zhu Xuedong, who argued here at CMP last week that China, and its media, are in an “era of corruption.”
He Yonghai’s argument boils down to this. In China, who has a right to information? Well, the Chinese Communist Party, of course. And also those who are able to pay for it.
Perhaps next time, before we begin the debate about how money has corrupted China’s media, we should open our wallets, pull out a 100 yuan note and remember whose face is on it.
The Right to Supervision by Public Opinion Cannot Be Warped: It Must Be Independent of Commercial Interests
(舆论监督权绝不可异化 要独立于商业利益之外) China Press and Publications Journal
September 18, 2014
He Yonghai (何勇海)
The news extortion scandal at 21cbh.com has been brewing for days now. The special task force dealing with the case has found that the website targeted listed companies and well-known enterprises under such themes as “listing,” “restructuring” or “business transitions” in order to press willing companies into expensive arrangements whereby they would be given exaggerated praise or have their problems covered up in order to carry out “positive reporting” (正面报道). For those companies unwilling to cooperate, the site would release negative reports seeking to corner them into buying advertising or signing cooperative agreements.
The website and individuals working there reaped huge rewards through such practices, earning several hundred million yuan since 2010. (China Youth Daily, September 11, 2014).
In the past, it was generally fake reporters or “black-hearted reporters” from various media that perpetrated news extortion. Whenever these people would hear about an enterprise or government office that they could “hijack,” they would spring into action, rushing off to carry out “supervision by public opinion.” They would use such threats as the writing of neican to corner these enterprises and earn money. At 21cbh.com people were involved at every level, from the chief editor to the management, editorial and advertising staff — amounting to a news extortion “bomb” that was ready to go off and send shock waves.
The acts of 21cbh.com in carrying out “supervision by public opinion,” exacting “protection fees” from listed companies and then doing what they could to sweep negative news clean, or doing excessively positive reporting or covering up negative problems about enterprises they were “cooperating” with . . . all of this seriously damages the interests of the shareholders and their right to know (股民的知情权). For example, if certain listed companies do not carry out their obligations and reveal information, or if they violate regulations, this might seriously impact the capital of the shareholders.
To accept “protection fees” under the guise of “advertising fees” also harms the interest of certain enterprises that operate in line with standards. Aside from those enterprises that might have real problems, there are those enterprises that are clean but remain concerned that financial media might, in exercising “reasonable doubt,” attack them maliciously with negative reports, damaging their reputations and shaking the confidence of shareholders even when the reports are shown to be false — and so these companies do everything they can to maintain their media contacts, even purchasing peace.
Aside from seriously interfering with the normal operation of the market economy, taking “protection fees” under the guise of “advertising fees” does massive damage to the media industry. Media professionals must be independent of commercial interests, avoiding the corrosive affect of commercial interests — only then can they earn the trust of the public. Acts like those at 21cbh.com, of using the threat of negative reports to press companies into buying advertising, or taking money to “profit from silence,” without a doubt turn supervision by public opinion into a tool for profit.
If we do not severely strike out against this sort of conduct, if we are lenient toward these villains, then the damage to the media’s reputation in society will be serious, poisoning the atmosphere for supervision by public opinion.
Right now, numerous suspects from 21cbh.com are in prison. The soul-searching in the media and in the capital markets cannot stop here. “If those who use the media have evil intentions, the damage done as a result is unthinkable. If things go on like this, not only will be fail to become the promoters of social progress, we will in fact become the destroyers of value.” These were the words spoken in the confession given by Liu Dong (刘冬), the president of 21cbh.com, and all journalists should be warned.
If we are to create a healthy and transparent environment for supervision by public opinion, and avoid supervision by public opinion becoming a tool that is sold at a profit, we must act without fail and without delay.
