December is just around the corner, and that generally means we can expect a wave of end-of-year media specials in China. What were the top ten news stories of 2012? And the top online memes?
These lists can sometimes get media into trouble. In 2010, Guangzhou’s Time Weekly published a list of 100 “most influential” people that included food safety activist Zhao Lianhai (赵连海) and several prominent academics and writers who had signed Charter 08, the political manifesto penned by jailed Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波). Peng Xiaoyun (彭晓芸), the chief editor of Time Weekly‘s opinion section, who had been in charge of the list, was placed on involuntary leave.
The same year, planned lists by Tencent and Southern Weekly were killed by censors.
This week, Chinese internet users kicked off the best-of season with their own list of the “10 Most Horrid People of 2012.” The list was shared on Sina Weibo by “Weekly Commentary” (每周评论), an Anhui-based Weibo user with a strong following, but was deleted sometime before 12:05 p.m. yesterday, November 26, 2012.
The post shares an image strip of ten men, all academics, experts or pundits associated with nationalism and conservatism in China, and provides brief background. All ten men get what is apparently the top “horrid rating,” shown by red flags to the right with five stars.
“Weekly Commentary” currently has just under 75,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]
The post from “Weekly Commentary” accompanying the image read:

We’ve come to year’s end. The 10 Most Horrid People of 2012 have been chosen online. How many do you know? And do you know of their accomplishments? Do you support their selection to the list? Or do you have more of your own to add?

The Top Ten are listed out as follows, and we’ve provided partial translations of the introductions provided in the online post:
1. Sima Nan (司马南): Well-known Mao-style leftist called the “anti-American warrior.” He famously said that fighting America was his work, and going to America was a lifestyle choice.
2. Kong Qingdong (孔庆东): Professor at Peking University, with a rude, left-leaning mouth . . . He cursed the people of Hong Kong, saying they were dogs.
3. Han Deqiang (韩德强): Professor at Beihang University and a representative figure of China’s new left. During anti-Japanese protests in Beijing, an old man took issue with the use of the slogan “Mao Zedong, we believe in you,” and Han Deqiang slapped him.
4. Wu Danhong (吴丹红), a.k.a. Wu Fatian (吴法天): Professor at People’s University of China. This person frequently attacks people of conscience on the internet. Internet users have called him a representative figure of the “Fifty-Cent Party”.
5. Fang Binxing (方滨兴): Head of the Beijing University of Post and Communications. He was the chief architect of China’s Great Firewall (GFW) online censorship system, so is called by web users “the Father of China’s Great Firewall.”
6. Zhang Zhaozhong (张召忠): Professor at China National Defense University. He is also a special commentator on military affairs for China Central Television. As his points of view always show a high level of consonance with those of the authorities, he frequently appears on commentary programs. He said in a recent interview with a reporter: “For an excellent television news commentator, the most important thing is not knowledge, but the most important thing is rather one’s political character and moral fiber. Political character demands that you must without condition maintain unity with the central Party.”
7. Rui Chenggang (芮成钢): China Central Television reporter. He has a penchant for asking strange questions when covering world events . . . Attending the Davos Forum in Dalian in 2011, he asked U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke if he had flown coach as “a reminder that US owes China money”. He became a laughing stock online.
8. Fang Zhouzi (方舟子): An extremely complicated figure, he was first a manager for an overseas website, and after returning to China became a full-time anti-fake campaigner, being called an “anti-fake warrior” by the media. On the surface, he has made his reputation by questioning and criticizing public figures. In fact, he has willingly taken on a role for the authorities in suppressing religious activities and has received the appreciation of authorities.
9. Hu Xijin (胡锡进): Editor-in-chief of the Global Times newspaper. The Global Times is the mouthpiece of China’s left and has been dubbed by interest users as the “great encampment of China’s angry youth.”
10. Zhang Hongliang (张宏良): A leading theorist for the new left, and a frequent contributor to the Utopia (乌有之乡) website, that leftist encampment.
The original Chinese language post follows:

到年底了，网络评出2012年中国十-大恶—心人物，你知道几个?及他们的主要业绩？你赞同他们上榜的理由吗？或者说你还有没有补充的？

NOTE: All posts to The Anti-Social List are listed as “permission denied” in the Sina Weibo API, which means they were deleted by Weibo managers, not by users themselves.

Earlier this month we took a look at what Hu Jintao’s political report to the 18th National Congress had to say about cultural policy in China — specifically, the focus on building China as a “socialist cultural power” (社会主义文化强国) to offset perceived Western cultural dominance.
A report in today’s People’s Daily summarizes the discussion — basically, a recapitulation of official Party policy — that happened recently at an academic forum accompanying the launch of a new book edited by Guo Jianyu (郭建宁), a professor of philosophy at Peking University.
According to the People’s Daily report, participants at the Beijing forum discussed the importance of “cultural soft power” development and the building of a “socialist cultural power” in achieving “national cultural security (国家文化安全).

[ABOVE: Peking University professor Guo Jianyu, one of China’s leading proponents of “soft power” development.]
Professor Guo is one of China’s most outspoken pundits on the issue of “cultural soft power” development. In this piece, written right on the heels of Hu Jintao’s inclusion of “soft power” in the political report to the 18th National Congress in 2007, Guo wrote:

Harvard University professor Joseph Nye in the United States raised the concept of “soft power” in the 1990s. Today our understanding of cultural “soft power” is more complete, as shown by the fact that overseas we have now built more than 100 “Confucius Institutes” and we have had steady successes in hosting “Year of Chinese Culture” events. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Grand Chessboard that there are four marks of a great nation, namely: a developed economy, a strong military, strong science and technology, an attractive culture. History and reality both attest to the fact that the rise of great nations is not only an economic phenomenon but also a cultural phenomenon. It’s not just about economic development; it’s also about cultural prosperity.

Guo’s new compilation is called China’s Cultural Power Strategy (中国文化强国战略). The book is one among a wave of such books on China’s soft power strategy to emerge since late 2008. But it might make a useful reference for those wanting to know more about how official China is conceptualizing culture, and turning that understanding of culture into strategy — what the People’s Daily article calls a “blueprint.”

[ABOVE: Today’s edition of the People’s Daily reports (bottom left) on a forum held in Beijing about “cultural soft power.”]
A partial translation of the People’s Daily article follows:

“Accelerating Our Pace in Building a Cultural Strong Nation”
Zhang Xuecheng (张学成)
People’s Daily
November 26, 2012, 07
The “Academic Research Forum and Publishing Launch Forum for China’s Cultural Power Strategy“, hosted by the School of Marxism at Peking University and the Higher Education Publishing House, was held not long ago in Beijing. Drawing on the book China’s Cultural Power Strategy, edited by Guo Jianyu (郭建宁), the participants studied such issues as the great importance of building a socialist cultural power (社会主义文化强国) and how to put a strong cultural nation strategy into effect.
It was the view of participants that cultural soft power (文化软实力) has already become a core element of international competition. The role of culture is now more pronounced and important than it has been at any time before. [in the view of the participants]. Building a socialist cultural power is a necessary task in the enhancement of our country’s comprehensive national strength (综合国力) and the protection of our national cultural security (国家文化安全). It is also an objective need in satisfying the people’s cultural demands (精神文化需求) and preserving the people’s cultural rights and interests.
. . .
Participants emphasized that [we] must build a socialist cultural power with a high degree of cultural consciousness (文化自觉) and cultural confidence (文化自信). The blueprint has now been drawn, the task is already clear. The key now is to place all of the ideas and actions of the Party and society together with the spirit and prescriptions of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, fulfilling them and putting them into full effect. We must further raise our ideological understanding and increase our cultural consciousness, correctly grasping the principles of cultural development, actively taking on the historical responsibility of building a socialist cultural power . . . Further strengthening cultural soft power, promoting cultural self-improvement, liberating our ideas, seizing opportunities, using [our] diverse cultural resources, leveraging the institutional superiority of the socialism, accelerating the pace of the building of a socialist cultural power.

The following post by “Old News Soldier” (新闻老兵), the deputy editor-in-chief of Chizi Magazine, was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 6:00 p.m. yesterday, November 25, 2012. The post includes an image of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao smiling at the recent 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. “Old News Soldier” currently has more than 38,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]

[They] say high-sounding things about fighting corruption, but they can’t speak in loftier tones [on this front] than Mao did. [They] say high-sounding things about reform, but they can’t speak in loftier tones [on this front] than Deng Xiaoping. Without their own tunes, just blowing the horns of others, how can they make a place for themselves in history? The clarion call that needs to be sounded right now is for constitutionalism, democracy and rule of law. Blowing anything else right now is pointless, even if you blow until you’re blue in the face.

The original Chinese-language post follows:

高调反腐，调子高不过老毛。高调改革，调子高不过小平。没有自己的调子，吹别人的喇叭，难以青史留名。现在应该吹的调子，只有宪政、民主、法治，吹别的都荒腔走板，吹得冒汗也没用。

NOTE: All posts to The Anti-Social List are listed as “permission denied” in the Sina Weibo API, which means they were deleted by Weibo managers, not by users themselves.

The following post by Song Yangbiao (宋阳标), a newspaper journalist, was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 11:00 p.m. yesterday, November 25, 2012. The post makes an oblique reference to the latest report from the New York Times about the businesses and investments of Premier Wen Jiabao. Song Yangbiao currently just under 17,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]

That thing about the Premier and Ping An that cannot be said . . .

The original Chinese-language post follows:

总经理和平安保险不得不说的那些事儿

NOTE: All posts to The Anti-Social List are listed as “permission denied” in the Sina Weibo API, which means they were deleted by Weibo managers, not by users themselves.

China’s political battles are complicated affairs, waged largely behind the scenes between flesh-and-blood Party leaders with their own, competing agendas. But the language of China’s Party politics, the script that emerges as “consensus” from this backstage melee, can offer us important clues to emerging trends.
The trick is knowing how to read the Party’s script.
Since September this year, Qian Gang, a veteran Chinese journalist and director of the Journalism & Media Studies Centre’s China Media Project, has made an in-depth study of the political discourse, past and present, of the Chinese Communist Party in a series called Watchwords: Reading China Through its Party Vocabulary.

Qian Gang’s study, which ran in Chinese on the New York Times website and in English on the China Media Project website, looked at the development over time of the Party’s distinctive political phrases, referred to in Chinese as tifa.
On the basis of his analysis, Qian Gang developed a “report card” that could be used to assess the language used in Hu Jintao’s most recent political report to the 18th National Congress of the CCP and answer key questions. What direction is China heading? Is political reform on the Party’s agenda? How does it plan to tackle issues like corruption?
Qian Gang’s initial conclusions based on President Hu Jintao’s 2012 political report were shared on the China Media Project website. Mr. Qian also summed up his findings in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on November 12 (“China Stand Still at the Crossroads”):

Just like a quarter century ago, real political reform in China requires a change in the Party’s power structure. This entails tough questions, and even tougher answers, about the origin of power, the independent exercise of power, and safeguards to ensure power is effectively checked and monitored. Instead, Mr. Hu’s pronouncement that China “will resolutely not follow Western political models” revives a hardline phrase that has often presaged a stubborn unwillingness to carry out any sort of meaningful reform.

Those interested in learning more about Qian Gang’s research on China’s political discourse are encouraged to attend his public lecture on Monday, November 26.
PUBLIC LECTURE
The 18th Party Congress and Prospects for Political Reform in China
Nov. 26, 2012 (Monday)
5:30p.m.-7:00p.m.
CPD-3.28, The Jockey Club Tower, Centennial Campus
The University of Hong Kong
The talk will be conducted in Putonghua
For enquiries, please contact Miss Emma Dong at [email protected]
Admission is Free
ABOUT THE SPEAKER:
Currently director of the China Media Project, Qian Gang is a veteran Chinese journalist and the author of The Great Tangshan Earthquake. In this talk, Mr. Qian shares his perspectives on the 18th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, based on textual analysis of historic CPC party documents, including Hu Jintao’s most recent. He’ll also discuss the prospects for political reform in China under Xi Jinping.

On Monday, Ren Jianyu (任建宇), a young former village official in Chongqing’s Pengshui County, was released from a re-education through labor facility after serving 15 months of his two-year sentence stemming from comments posted to Sina Weibo in August 2011. Ren’s case has drawn an unprecedented level of attention inside China to serious problems with the country’s system of re-education through labor, or laojiao (劳教). [Background on the Ren case and his release].
Signaling that the laojiao issue is getting attention at senior levels in the Party leadership, the People’s Daily ran an editorial yesterday saying that the whole re-education through labor system was “now in the awkward position of being in violation of the law” thanks to legal advancements stipulating (as in China’s Legislation Law) that a citizen’s rights can only be curtailed by means of laws.
In a Weibo post sharing a link to the People’s Daily editorial, Zhu Huaxin (祝华新), director of the Public Opinion Research Center at People’s Daily Online, wrote: “People’s Daily has spoken: the system of reeducation through labor has found itself in violation of the law . . . ”

[ABOVE: Yesterday’s edition of the People’s Daily runs an editorial on page 9 criticizing the re-education through labor system.]
Veteran journalist Fu Jianfeng responded: “This piece from the People’s Daily is a break with form. It’s the first time I’ve seen the People’s Daily criticizing the laojiao system. Is this a prelude to the abolishment of this nasty law allowing re-education through labor? I hope it is!”
The law Fu Jianfeng refers to is the Decision on the Question of Reeducation through Labor (关于劳动教养问题的决定), which went into effect back in 1957. Much of the concern today’s centers on how the laojiao system can be abused by local governments in China in cases like Ren Jianyu’s.
The English-language Global Times today called Ren’s release “an essential step toward more freedom of speech.”
In Chinese commercial media, perhaps the boldest voice on the issue came from yesterday’s Southern Metropolis Daily and its sister paper in Hefei, the Jianghuai Morning Post (江淮晨报). Below are partial translations of the editorials in both the People’s Daily and Southern Metropolis Daily.

“System Supply Should Keep Step with the Times”
November 21, 2012
For college student and village official Ren Jianyu (任建宇), the past two days have brought a series of ups and downs. First, on November 19, the Chongqing Municipal Reeducation through Labor Committee (重庆市劳教委), revoked its decision on [Ren’s] labor reeducation [sentence] and gave him his freedom, citing the reason that [his case] “had not been handled properly.” Then, on November 20, the Chongqing Third Intermediate People’s Court dismissed a lawsuit filed [by Ren against the Re-education through Labor Committee], saying that it had “passed the statutory prosecution deadline” [required by China’s Administrative Procedure Law].
After this “self-correction” on the part of the Chongqing Municipal Reeducation through Labor Committee received the general support of public opinion, what people are asking is: How do we view the courts? And what about the law?
Ever since Ren Jianyu was sent for reeducation through labor, this case has drawn the attention of the general public. A youth who only re-sent some text and images on the internet, and even the original creator [of this content] was never pursued? How can a shirt printed with the words, “Give me liberty or give me death,” become physical evidence of breaking the law? These details, which sound absurd, cause those paying attention to the original court case to think hard about reeducation through labor itself.
Only by being sensible can we be clean; only by being just can we have public integrity. Ren Jianyu now has his freedom, but as to why he lost his freedom in the first place, this is all still very unclear. If we say that Ren Jianyu’s “negative remarks” constituted guilt, well then, when prosecutors no longer find them to be a crime, is it reasonable for relevant [government] departments to deprive him of his personal freedoms for a year using the reeducation through labor system? When the national [Party and government] have on repeated occasions emphasized the people’s right to know, right to participate, right to express and right to monitor, how can the basic rights of the people avoid this threat of indiscriminate [justice]? Even in cases where a citizen illegally abuses his right to expression, do administrative departments have the right to simply take the matter into their own hands?
These questions have arisen from the unclarity of our reeducation through labor system as it is currently practiced. The system of reeducation through labor in our country has been in place for more than 50 years, ever since the 1957 “Decision on the Question of Reeducation through Labor” (关于劳动教养问题的决定). As democracy and rule of law have advanced in our country, the many shortcomings of this system have become apparent. In particular, since such laws as the Legislation Law (立法法) have been promulgated, it has been the case that the personal freedom of citizens can only be limited by the process of law — which means reeducation through labor is now in the awkward position of being in violation of the law. In addition, as the examination and approval process for reeducation through labor lies in the hands of public security organs, the necessary monitoring mechanisms are not in place. Inevitably, there is great license in the actual exercise [of the system], so that it has become in some areas a “legal loophole” (法律小灶), or even a tool of retaliation wielded by the few. For this reason, not long ago, a responsible person from relevant central-level departments said that broad consensus had already been reached on the need for reform of the reeducation through labor system, and that a reform program was being explored.
Rule of law is the fundamental method of governing a nation. According to classical theory, rule of law has two key elements. The first is good laws; the second is general respect for the law. Of these, [the need for] “good laws” is the fundamental precondition. In this regard, it is only by ensuring that system supply maintains step with the times, and by ensuring that laws and regulations constantly advance with the times, that we can meet the preconditions and firm up the foundations for a country ruled by law, bringing every operation of power under rule of law.

[ABOVE: Yesterday’s edition of the Southern Metropolis Daily runs an editorial criticizing the re-education through labor system.]
The following was the lead editorial yesterday in both the Southern Metropolis Daily and the Jianghuai Morning Post.

“Ren Jianyu’s Release is ‘Great’“
Southern Metropolis Daily, AA02
November 21, 2012
In the early hours of November 20, 2012, he refreshed his Weibo account and wrote, “It’s great to be back.” This prompted a wave of well-wishing from web users. His is Ren Jianyu, a college student and village official from Chongqing’s Pengshui. He was born in 1987. In September 2011, he was sentenced to two years of reeducation through labor for posting “negative” information on the internet. In August 2012, he filed a complaint in court against the Chongqing Municipal Reeducation through Labor Committee. Yesterday afternoon, the Chongqing Third Intermediate People’s Court dismissed [Ren’s] complaint [against the ], giving the reason that it had “passed the statutory prosecution deadline.” In the less than 24 hours prior to this, the Chongqing Municipal Reeducation through Labor Committee cancelled Ren’s reeducation through labor sentence on the grounds that his case “had not been handled properly.”
“It’s great to be back”
Losing his life of freedom for more than a year has been a huge strain on Ren Jianyu, and he is now more cautious and reserved. But the events of the past two days provide some solace for those who have long followed Ren’s case. The people need answers to the fear and doubt created by the Ren Jianyu case, and the most welcome response would be a judicial process rendering justice. There needs to be a judicial decision that is beyond doubt, serving as an assurance of conscience and justice — even if it comes a bit late.
The release of [Ren Jianyu] and the cancellation of his reeducation through labor sentence is a welcome sign. But at this time, a process of judicial justice (司法正义) would have a greater and more responsible effect.
Looking back on the experiences of the citizen Ren Jianyu over the past year and more, one thing people feel quite personal about is the fact that the conduct that landed him in trouble is the same behavior hundreds of millions of internet users in China have regularly engaged in and are still engaging in. The ordinary instances of web users expressing themselves are . . . in fact precisely what Premier Wen Jiabao was talking about when he said [the government needed to] “create the conditions for the masses to criticize the government.”
@People’sDailyOnline (@人民网), the official Weibo [of the People’s Daily Online website], said in a re-post on the Ren Jianyu case that “what prompts serious questioning in this case is that nothing whatsoever happened to the original creator [of the content in question], no penalties were given and [they] are still speaking in the public space, while the person who re-posted this content was branded a criminal. A true example of the saying that if you want to condemn someone you can always trump up a charge.”
. . .
The citizen Ren Jianyu, in deciding to think for himself and speak freely, should received the determined protection of the constitution. With Ren Jianyu’s return, we hope that his rights and interests have prevailed, just as we believe to the last that history and the law will stand ultimately on the side of justice.

[ABOVE: Yesterday’s edition of the Jianghuai Morning Post runs an editorial criticizing the re-education through labor system.]

The following post by “Southern Metropolis Military Officer” (南都校尉), a former soldier now working as a journalist, was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 1:34 a.m. today, November 21, 2012. The post shares a composite image showing two pairs of Chinese officials: Chen Liangyu (陈良宇) and Han Zheng (韩正); Bo Xilai (薄熙来) and Huang Qifan (黄奇帆).
Both Chen Liangyu and Bo Xilai are former senior-level officials and rising political stars ousted for corruption. Despite their associations with the fallen leaders, Han Zheng and Huang Qifan have managed to remain untouched. Huang Qifan remains mayor of Chongqing and a member of the Central Committee. Han Zheng, who served as mayor of Shanghai while Chen Liangyu was Party secretary there, has now successfully entered the Party’s Politburo.
“Southern Metropolis Military Officer” currently just over 105,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]

[Pictures Speak] Once upon a time they were partners . . . [“Cool” emoticon]

The original Chinese-language post follows:

【看图说话】他们，曾经可都是搭档。。。。。。[酷]

NOTE: All posts to The Anti-Social List are listed as “permission denied” in the Sina Weibo API, which means they were deleted by Weibo managers, not by users themselves.

The following post by Guo Songmin (郭松民), a journalist at State-Owned Enterprises (国企) magazine, was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 4:16 p.m. yesterday, November 19, 2012. The post makes oblique reference to the recent report from the New York Times alleging that the family members of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao have more than two billion dollars in assets. It does not mention Wen Jiabao, but remarks on recent developments in the corruption case of former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian and then includes a sketch of Wen Jiabao. Guo Songmin currently just over 105,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre]

Two properties bought by [Taiwan’s ex-president] Chen Shui-bian with ill-got funds, registered in his son’s name in New York and in Keswick, Virginia, were recently confiscated by the U.S. government, and the titles have been placed under the U.S. government. This case in the U.S. already shows the dangers facing the assets held by our country’s corrupt officials in America. The U.S. can at any time announce that it is confiscating them all, making them American property.

The original Chinese-language post follows:

陈水扁用赃款在美国购置的，记在儿子名下的纽约和维吉尼亚州凯斯威克的庭园住宅，两处合计价值美金210万元的房地产，纽约及维吉尼亚法院在十月下旬分别裁决没收，转入美国政府名下。 美国的这一案例，已彰显了我国贪官在美资产的危险性，美国随早随时都可以宣布全部没收，成为美国的财产。

NOTE: All posts to The Anti-Social List are listed as “permission denied” in the Sina Weibo API, which means they were deleted by Weibo managers, not by users themselves.

We’ve all read (or written) one story or another that addresses in a broader sense the impact of social media in China. But one small story making the rounds in China today illustrates quite well both the possibilities and limitations of social media impact.
At 3:06 p.m. today, prominent Chinese scholar and former CMP fellow Yu Jianrong (于建嵘) made a post to Sina Weibo in which he raised the case of a woman from Henan province who says she spent a year in a re-education through labor facility after petitioning in Beijing.

A report to our leaders: I know I have previously promised you that for the sake of [creating a] favorable environment and a resplendent image for our nation I would not again involve myself in the petitioning cases of ordinary people. But this Yan Huiming (晏会明), who came into Beijing from Henan’s Xinji City (辛集市), showed up on my doorstep this morning and was determined to set up shop and fight to the end. In order to leave my home, I could only listen to her tell her story and have her show me the documents she brought. It turns out that she was sent for a year of labor re-education for petitioning before. She has suffered a lot and hopes I can shout out on her behalf. Leaders, faced with this situation, what would you do?
报告领导：虽我曾向你们承诺，为了国家的大好形势和光辉形象，不再过问民众上访的事。但这位河北辛集市进京上访的晏会明，大清早就堵在我的家门口，并摆摊设点打算长期战斗。我为了出门，只得听她诉说和看她的材料。原来她因上访被劳教一年，受尽折磨，希望我为她喊几句。领导，遇到这样的事，如何办？

[ABOVE: This photo posted by Yu Jianrong to Sina Weibo shows petitioner Yan Huiming outside his home on the morning of November 19.]
By 9 p.m. this evening Yu Jianrong’s post had received just under 3,000 reposts and more than 1,000 comments on Sina Weibo. At 9:20 p.m., six hours after the original post, Yu Jianrong posted an update to his Weibo account:

Finally, some encouraging news: a Henan provincial department called to inform [me] that leaders have seen the Weibo post and give it great priority: 1. they are thankful for my attention to this case; 2. they will contact Yan Huiming as quickly as possible and resolve her case fairly. Ha ha, so we can also earn the praise of our leaders. I hope there will be more good results to come.
终于等来一个可以高兴点的消息：河北省有部门来电话告知，领导看到了微博，很重视：1、感谢我关注此案；2、尽快与晏会明联系，公正处理此案。嘿嘿，咱也是得到领导表扬的人了，希望有更好的结果。 (3分钟前)

After seeing the updated post, Weibo Zhiwei (微博之维), a Chinese media researcher, wrote enthusiastically: “Weibo is becoming a platform for supervision by public opinion.”
A good case can be made for Weibo Zhiwei’s statement. Indeed, social media can turn mass attention to a case or issue and perhaps exert some pressure on authorities. And in some sense, yes, they are increasingly taking on a monitoring role that we have in the past seen exercised predominantly through print media — particularly through the investigative reporting done by commercial magazines and newspapers since the late 1990s.
But there is a huge caveat too. We can’t forget that with just under 1.5 million followers on Sina Weibo, Yu Jianrong is a one-man media phenomenon. He is a highly respected scholar frequently sought out by both domestic and international media.
For Yan Huiming, getting a fair hearing — if indeed that is what she gets in the end — still meant journeying hundreds of miles and risking another run-in with authorities. She had no choice, even with Weibo at her fingertips, but to get to the doorstep of someone capable of speaking for her.

In mid-November 2012 Chinese media reported that five homeless boys in the city of Bijie in China’s southwestern Guizhou province were found dead in a dumpster after apparently sheltering there to keep warm. News stories on November 18 suggested the boys had died of gas poisoning after setting a coal fire inside the dumpster. In this cartoon, posted by artist Xiao Huxiong (小尸凶) to Sina Weibo on November 18, the famous Chinese comic character “Sanmao” (三毛), created by Zhang Leping (张乐平) in 1935, climbs into a dumpster with other children to avoid the cold. One of Huang Leping’s goal in creating the original Sanmao was to draw attention to the plight of homeless children in China.
The post accompanying Xiao Huxiong’s cartoon reads: “When I read about five homeless children dying in a dumpster, I thought of Master Zhang Leping’s Adventures of Sanmao. So it turns out that even in the age of splendor there are countless Sanmaos that require care.”