Ten days after a deadly blaze in a shopping mall in Tianjin claimed 10 lives, according to official media accounts, doubts are still circulating in China about the true extent and circumstances of the tragedy. Claims on the internet and social media have suggested that the real death toll is 378. The following cartoon, posted to Sina Weibo by artist Xiao Mao (@_小矛) — and constantly shared and deleted, moving from place to place — shows a government official in a suit and tie grinning as he declares: “There is just one body!” The head of one corpse is visible outside a white blanket laid over what is clearly a pile of corpses by a pair of what are probably thugs or government hands. Two news reporters shake and sweat as they report live from the scene.

The following post by Gao Jun (高军), a producer at a Beijing company that specializes in “micro-films” (微电影), was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 5:40am Hong Kong time today, July 9, 2012. The post calls on internet users to share any information they have on the June 30 fire in Tianjin, the full facts of which remain unclear. Gao Jun has just under 300,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].

The post reads:

【Call Out】How many secrets about the Tianjin fire have yet to come out? If you were on the scene, or if you had relatives who perished in the fire, please get in touch with us. We will pay money for videos from the scene (that have not yet been shared on the internet). We don’t care about politics. We only want to document the lives of those who perished! Please send relevant video material to: [email protected]. We promise to preserve the privacy of those who provide material, and will pay for related videos.

The original Chinese post follows:

【征集】天津那场火灾，有多少秘密，未被公开，如果您在现场，如果您的亲人在火灾中逝去，请您和我们联系，我们可以付费购买现场的视频（互联网未公开过），政治和我们无关，我们只为逝去的人，证明活过！！相关视频内容请发在： [email protected]，我们承诺：保守提供者秘密，付费购买相关视频

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.

Cartoons can be a simple and powerful means of conveying basic ideas and truths, and eliciting emotions. The following cartoon, posted by artist Ah Ping (阿平) to Sina Weibo, could refer to any of the many instances in China of government suppression of Chinese citizens pushing for change, from artists like Ai Weiwei to lawyers like Xu Zhiyong, from journalists like Shi Junrong to ordinary citizens on the streets of Shifang. In Ah Ping’s cartoon, a tree spreads its limbs to the sky like outstretched arms, effortlessly defying a pair of handcuffs that restrained it lower down. A new pair of cuffs has been attached to the new limbs. The caption on the picture reads: “How many pairs of handcuffs does it take to keep the future from coming?”

The following post by software engineer Li Tiejun (李铁军) sharing in image from a recent purported first-hand account from recent protests in Shifang, Sichuan province, was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 1:23am Hong Kong time today, July 6, 2012. Li Tiejun has just under 18,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].
The article, “On the Shifang Incident”, is dated July 4 and was written by Xiao Liye (小李爷).

This is the post that was just deleted. It was gone as soon as I passed it along, killed outright.

The original Chinese post follows:

刚才被删那个，岂止是一转没，简直是秒杀。

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 Chinese writer Xu Xin (徐昕) sharing an image from the recent July 1 demonstrations in Hong Kong was deleted from Sina Weibo sometime before 3:05am Hong Kong time today, July 6, 2012. Xu Xin has just over 108,000 followers, according to numbers from Sina Weibo. [More on deleted posts at the WeiboScope Search, by the Journalism and Media Studies Centre].
In the image, a Hong Kong protester holds up a sign that reads: “If we don’t stand up today, we won’t be able to stand up tomorrow.”

[“If we don’t stand up today, we won’t be able to stand up tomorrow”] Hong Kong, image from @PhoenixMedia

The original Chinese post follows:

【今日不站出来，明天站不出来】香港，图片来自@凤凰东方传媒

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.

Yesterday we shared a number of (deleted) Chinese social media posts on recent protests in the city of Shifang, in which thousands of residents took to the streets to oppose the construction of molybdenum-copper alloy factory by Sichuan Hongda Co. Ltd. While information about the protests on platforms like Sina Weibo was actively removed by the authorities, social media were still virtually the only source on the story available to Chinese readers.
Has the story appeared at all in Chinese traditional media? Yes. But the offerings are not rich, to say the least.
There is quite a pronounced contrast between robust controls on traditional media on the one hand, and a relatively fertile — though constantly undermined and restricted — space on social media.
According to a search of the WiseNews database of Chinese-language newspapers and magazines, 14 reports today deal directly or indirectly with recent unrest in Shifang and its consequences. Of these, 11 concern the fallout for Sichuan Hongda and its share price, mentioning the suspension of the molybdenum-copper project but tiptoeing around reporting on the public demonstrations and violent crackdown.
Here are the papers carrying reports today, with a brief summary of the story being reported:

1. Global Times — 2 articles, both mentioning unrest
2. China Securities News — 3 articles, none mentioning unrest (saying the proposed project in Shifang has “reached a dead end”)
3. Oriental Morning Post — 1 article, no mention of unrest
4. Shenzhen Special Zone Daily — 2 articles, 1 mentioning detention of 27 “criminals” allegedly involved in recent unrest, 1 reporting the business side of the story with no mention of unrest
5. Shanghai Securities News — 1 article, no mention of unrest
6. Beijing Business Today — 1 article, no mention of unrest
7. National Business Daily — 1 article, no mention of unrest
8. Information Times — 1 article, no mention of unrest
9. The Beijing News — 1 article, no mention of unrest
10. Chengdu Commercial News — 1 article, no mention of unrest

Just to give readers a taste, here is the lede for the story appearing on page 28 of Chengdu Commercial News, a Sichuan newspaper:

Recently, Sichuan Hongda (600331) has been the focus of attention over its molybdenum-copper project in Shifang. Yesterday (July 4), Sichuan Hongda, which suspended trading for one day, said that the company received a notice on July 3 demanding that . . . construction be halted for the project. This negative factor drove Sichuan Hongda shares down 9.2% on re-opening of trading . . .

[ABOVE: A story (bottom-left) on Sichuan Hongda’s fall in share price appears on page 28 of today’s Chengdu Commercial News.]
It bears emphasis that two of the three articles dealing directly with the unrest in Shifang today are from the Global Times.
The first is an editorial on page 14 that deals with the news (reported elsewhere only in Shenzhen Special Zone Daily) that 27 people were held in the aftermath of the protests, and that “21 were released, 3 kept under administrative detention, and 3 kept under criminal detention.” The last three are apparently accused of having overturned a police vehicle.
Giving us a taste of debate in Chinese society that has for all intents and purposes been completely erased from traditional media, the Global Times editorial says: “A number of well-known figures in society have supported ‘releasing’ [those who have been detained]. Some have even gone themselves to Shifang in order to expand the impact of this call on the internet and in Shifang itself.”
The editorial goes on to say that while “public opinion should be taken into consideration, the framework of the law should be followed.” (The newspaper’s own approximate translation of the editorial into English is HERE.)
The second piece is a summary of an article appearing yesterday on the website of Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. Explaining the basic import of the SCMP article, the Global Times says: “Recently, large-scale protests unfolded in the city of Shifang in Sichuan province opposing a molybdenum-copper project that had already been planned. This demonstrates that environmental issues are increasingly becoming a primary reason for social instability.”

On Monday tens of thousands of demonstrators faced off with riot police in the city of Shifang (什邡) in China’s western Sichuan province, protesting a molybdenum copper refinery residents say poses a health threat. Videos taken with mobile phones and posted to Chinese social media sites showed tight lines of police in riot gear attempting to break up crowds with organized charges and volleys of tear gas [More from the FT].
Chatter about the unrest in Sichuan was shared rapidly across Chinese social networking sites on Monday and Tuesday, despite constant blocks and deletions.
The following are several posts made to Sina Weibo that were captured by the deleted posts archive at the Journalism & Media Studies Centre.
This post, made by writer and historian Cao Junshu (草军书) at 9:54am on July 3, 2012, was deleted the same day. It includes the following photograph of a member of the riot police flipping off the camera.

The caption suggests the photo was taken in Shifang, although that cannot be verified:

Things are busy in Shifang, and the gestures cocky. Brother Middle Finger, you’ve won this round.
什邡很忙，手势牛逼。中指哥，你赢了。

Actor He Zhengjun (何政军), who has just under 200,000 followers on Weibo, responded in another post that was also deleted:

I grew up in Sichuan. My impression of Shifang is of a very small, good and peaceful county. They make cigarettes there, and Gongzi Pai cigars are also manufactured there. What’s been going on there lately, that police would give the people the middle finger?
我在四川長大，印象中什邡是个安宁祥和的小县。那里盛产烟叶，工字牌雪茄便出产于此。最近这里怎么了?警察也要对民众竖中指

This post, made to Sina Weibo by the manager of a media group, was also deleted by the authorities on July 3. It reads simply:

Resistance for environmental protection. Citizens are waking up.
环保抗争，公民觉醒。

The post includes a long photo strip, a composite of nine photos from Shifang widely shared across Chinese social media. The poster in the first photo reads: “To Save Shifang, the Whole City Must Unite!” The last photo in the series appears to be the sign for the offices of the Party Committee of Shifang (the top local Party leadership), which has been torn down and trampled on.

And here is a post, also deleted from Sina Weibo on July 3, showing residents of Shifang protesting on the streets and writing messages on a wall calling for the resignation of the city’s top leader, Party secretary Li Chengjin (李成金). Among the many statements scribbled on the wall: “Li Chengjin, get the hell out of Shifang!”

[We hope the Party secretary of Shifang, Comrade Li Chengjin, faces this head on and listens!] 1. Why must you persist in something the people oppose? 2. Why when the people express their views must you use police batons and tear gas to suppress them? 3. Why is it that the opposition of the people to a seriously polluting molybdenum copper factory becomes an anti-government action? 4. Why is your ass always sitting on the sofas of the enterprises, and not on the stools of the ordinary people? 5. Why is it that people say that if you aren’t a corrupt official then “pigs can climb trees”?
【 请什邡市委书记李成金同志正视听！[围观]】1.为什么百姓反对的，你一定坚持？2.为什么百姓表达意见，你一定要用警棍和催泪弹强压？3.为什么百姓反对钼铜厂污染严重的民愿竟成了反政府？4.为什么你屁股坐的总是企业的沙发而不是百姓的板凳？5.为什么百姓说你惹不是贪官“老母猪都上树了”？

On July 1 social media in China buzzed with the news that Shi Junrong (石俊荣), a reporter for the Xi’an Evening News in Shaanxi province, had been suspended after writing a report about local government officials smoking costly luxury cigarettes (see Shi’s blog here). Up until his reported suspension, Shi was the Wei’an city bureau chief of the Xi’an Evening News, which is overseen by the top Party leadership in the city of Xi’an.
Shi Jurong’s Sina Weibo account is still active here.
Making waves today in China — at least in media circles — is an editorial on the Shi Junrong case written by journalist Cao Lin (曹林) in China Youth Daily, a newspaper published by the Chinese Communist Youth League with a longstanding reputation for solid journalism against the odds. The paper has given us top journalists like CMP fellows Li Datong, He Yanguang, Lu Yuegang and Liu Chang, to mention just a few.

[ABOVE: An editorial at the top of the opinion page in today’s China Youth Daily argues that the “weakness” of China’s journalists reveals the weakness of Chinese society and Chinese citizens.]
In the editorial, Cao makes the case that the failure to protect the rights of journalists as they exercise the public’s right to know and right to monitor power, is a failure to guarantee the most basic civil rights of China’s people. He goes further in arguing that no nation can be strong when its citizens are weak.
Cao’s editorial has so far been shared widely across China, including on official websites like that of Xinhua News Agency. The editorial was even shared today through the verified Weibo account of Xinwen Lianbo, the nightly official newscast on China Central Television.
And writing on Sina Weibo today, an editor at the official People’s Daily steamed:

Not even a pack of cigarettes can be monitored. A society in which things cannot be reported or remarked, what kind of society is that? Why is it that the relevant [government] departments see the four rights said to be protected in the [political report] to the 17th National Congress [in 2007] (the right to know, right to express, right to participate and right to monitor), and Premier Wen’s words about creating the conditions for the people to monitor government, as just puffs of wind sweeping past their ears?

Cao Lin re-posted that editor’s remarks on his Weibo, further spinning conversation around his own editorial to the issue of China’s international credibility and soft power (an issue that concludes his piece), and heaping more blame on leaders in Shaanxi province:

China has spent so much money propagating China’s image around the world. It’s bought whole pages in foreign media, built Confucius Institutes and flexed its muscle through events like the Olympic Games and the World Expo. But perhaps all of this arduous image building collapses under a single story like that of the forced abortion in Shaanxi province.

The following is a selected (but more or less full) translation of Cao’s editorial in today’s China Youth Daily:

“With powerless journalists, the people of a nation and a nation itself are powerless”
By Cao Lin (曹林)
China Youth Daily
July 3, 2012
Page 2
When a certain media in Henan province revealed some negative news about a certain company, the head of that company warned the reporter via his microblog account: “Don’t get excited so quickly. Wait for stern word from the provincial propaganda department when they want a chat!”
It can’t be said for certain that the journalist’s report was accurate, and media can’t stand in for justice. But this verbal threat emerging from the mouth of power is cause for disgust. Journalists [in China] routinely meet with reproach. “Media always cause so much trouble for us,” [they’ll say]. Or, with a mocking tone, “All this for a couple of article fees.” Or, with a note of threat, “Keep probing and we’ll detain you.” Of course, the threats don’t just stop at words. There are cases in which journalists are beaten or “pursued across provinces” (跨省追捕).
The case of the Shaanxi reporter, who exposed inflated cigarette prices and was then suspended in an official pressure bid to conceal the truth, is a representative case. A series of cases of violence against journalists have once again left those in the media with a distinct sense of powerlessness, of being thwarted and insulted. For reporters to conduct watchdog journalism — or “supervision by public opinion” (舆论监督) — under such massive pressure, exposing corruption and lashing back against unfairness, only to be shot in the back and pressured into the silence of the winter cicada, it leaves one’s heart cold.
After people posted on Weibo the news that the reporter [from Shaanxi] had been suppressed, there were countless reposts and comments [on social media] voicing support [for the journalist]. One government official said to me with some feeling: you reporters really mustn’t be provoked; provoke one and you’ve provoked them all. In fact, while the news of this reporter being silenced got a lot of attention on Weibo, what the story really underscored was not that journalists mustn’t be provoked, but rather that they are so easy to abuse.
First of all, the sense of collective fury [among journalists] suggests that the silencing of this journalist isn’t an isolated case, but in fact a regularly occurring phenomenon, and this is why it stirred up the sense of general concern among colleagues. Secondly, it suggests that journalists have a deeply-ingrained sense of victimhood. It is only in the face of the insufferable arrogance of the strong that the weak manage to huddle together for protection.
What gives the media heart is that in cases like this the public invariably voices firm support [for journalists]. This sense of support for the media evinces a precious rational attitude on the part of the public. They understand that the weak position journalists have in facing up to power is but an example in miniature of the general poor standing of civil rights. Behind these weak journalists stand a weak civil society and a weak public.
It is a journalist’s duty to monitor power and expose wrongdoing. If we hold that this is a kind of right, then this right has its origins in the idea of civil rights that holds that “power arises from the people, and so every citizen that the right to criticize and monitor the government.” Many people llike to refer to the media as the “fourth estate” (第四种权力). If what the media and journalists hold in their hands is really a form of power, then this power also arises from the people, a [journalists are] the lookouts at the masthead, standing for the sake of the public’s right to know, representing the public in its right to monitor power, watching out for the interests of the people. And so, journalists’ rights are a barometer for the rights of a society and public at large. When the rights of journalists are violated, when the rights of journalists are not protected, there is little hope that the rights of the people will be ensured, that their rights will not be violated. If, in the face of power, journalists have no dignity, then no member of the public has dignity either.
In comparison to ordinary citizens, journalists do not have special rights or privileges. Journalists cannot be separated out from the citizenry. . . Journalists’ rights are one part of the rights of citizens as a whole. Not protecting journalists means not protecting citizens. If a society cannot protect the journalists who act for the public’s right to know, if those who report the truth are suppressed, if the truth is willfully hidden and information manipulated and monopolized, then the public remains ignorant, then public opinion cannot be voiced, then the rights of the people cannot be upheld.
Therefore, citizens with a sense of public responsibility, with a civil society that is increasingly cohesive, will naturally read their own powerlessness as citizens, and the powerlessness of society, in the powerlessness of their journalists. In truth, the powerlessness of journalists does not just mean the powerlessness of a nation’s people, it spells the spells the powerlessness of the nation itself. A strong country must have strong people (强大的国民), and the strength of the people demands that their right to know be fully protected.
Only when journalists are strong will the corrupt officials be in a weak position, and only then will they succumb to the strength of supervision by public opinion. Only then will [corrupt officials] not fire back at journalists: “This money is nothing, why don’t you go expose an official whose taken more money?. Only when journalists have power will public power come to heel, working strictly for the public benefit and not for private profit. . .
The highest levels [of the Party and government] have again and again emphasized “the need to create the conditions for the people to monitor the government,” the need to “create the conditions for the people to speak the truth,” about “not lightly branding different opinions as noise and static.”
Building up the nation’s image is not a matter of spending vast amounts of money to broadcast propaganda advertisements in foreign countries. Rather, it is about real and true patterns of citizenship, and about civil rights.

The original Chinese text of the China Youth Daily editorial follows:

记者无力，则国民无力国家无力
曹林 《 中国青年报 》（ 2012年07月03日 02 版）
河南某媒体曝光一家公司的负面新闻，该公司一名负责人通过微博对记者说：别高兴得太早了，等着省委宣传部、市委宣传部的诫勉谈话吧！
记者报道不一定准确，媒体并非就代表着正义，但这种以权压人的威胁口吻让人反感。记者采访中时常遭遇种种呵斥——会被指责“媒体尽给我们惹麻烦”，会被嘲讽“不就是为了挣两个稿费”，会被威胁“再采访就拘了你”。当然，不只是话语上的威胁，还不乏殴打记者和“跨省追捕”。
以陕西曝光天价烟的记者在隐秘的官方压力下被停职为代表，近来一系列记者受打压的事件，让媒体人隔段时间就会出现的受辱感、受挫感和无力感再次爆发。重重压力下履行舆论监督之职，曝光腐败鞭挞丑恶，却不料背后中枪，噤若寒蝉之余，更让人无比寒心。
有人在微博上发了记者被打压的信息后，引来无数转发、评论和声援，一个政府官员跟我感慨说：你们记者真惹不起，惹了一个就群情激愤了。其实，“记者被打压”的信息之所以在微博上引起极大关注，透出的信号不是“记者惹不起”，而恰恰是“记者很好惹”。其一，这种群情激愤，说明了记者受打压不是偶然个案，而是普遍现象，所以激起了从业者共有的焦虑和公众普遍的共鸣；其二，说明了记者骨子里有一种弱者意识，强者总是独来独往不可一世的，弱者才会惺惺相惜抱成一团。
令媒体人感动的是，在此类事件中，民众总是毫无保留地表达了支持。公众对媒体人的声援，表现出了一种可贵的公众理性，他们明白，记者面对公权力时的贫弱，是公民权利贫弱的一个缩影。弱势的记者群体背后，是弱势的公民社会和弱势的民众。
监督公权力，曝光丑恶，是记者的天职——如果说这是一种权利，它蕴含于“权力源于人民赋予，所以每个公民有权批评和监督政府”的公民权利，与公民权利共生同源。很多人喜欢将媒体称为社会的“第四种权力”——如果媒体和记者手中掌握的真是一种权力，这种权力也是源于民众授予，为了让民众知情，为了代表民众监督公权力，为了民众的利益而站在社会的船头作一个了望者。所以，记者权利是一个社会中民众权利的晴雨表，记者权利常受侵犯，记者权利缺乏保障，很难寄望民众的权利会有保障、民众的权利不受侵犯。桀熬不驯的公权力面前，记者没有尊严，其他公众更没有尊严。
相比普通公民，记者并没有特权，记者与公民无法分离。所以，并不存在“连记者权利都不受保护，更何况普通公民”的现象。记者权利是公民权利的一部分，记者就是公民，记者不受保护，就是公民不受保护。如果一个社会，担负着满足公众知情权的记者的权利得不到保护，报道真相的人被打压，真相被公然地遮掩，信息被操纵和垄断，民众不知情，民意就无法得到表达，民权就得不到伸张。
所以，有公共责任感的公民，一个告别一盘散沙的公民社会，会从记者的无力中，感受到公民的无力、社会的无力。——实际上，记者无力，不仅是国民无力，这个国家都会无力。一个强大的国家，应该有强大的国民，而国民的强大，应以知情权得到充分保障为前提。
记者有力，贪官污吏才会无力，腐败官员才会慑服于舆论监督的力量，而不会嚣张地反击记者“拿这点钱怎么了，你怎么不去曝光那些贪更多钱的官员”；记者有力，公权力才会被驯服，被规训于严格将权力用于为公众谋福利，而不是以权谋私；记者有力，社会的丑恶现象才会被揭露，而不是被一些人捂着捂着，捂成了危害社会的大矛盾、大麻烦；记者有力，民众才能知情，这个国家才会安全，诚如哲人所言，让人民知道的真相越多，这个国家就越安全；记者有力，记者身后的民众才会有力，国家的强大并不是表现在强大的官员、强势的权力上，而是表现在每个公民的强势上，不会有被“跨省追捕”的恐惧，不会担心警察破门而入，不会担心因言获罪……
高层一再强调“要创造条件让人民监督政府”、“创造条件让人民讲真话”、“不要轻易把不同意见说成杂音噪音”。能树立一个国家形象的，不是花天文数字般的钱去国外做形象广告，而是实实在在的公民形象、公民权利。

Hong Kong was a city of contrasts on July 1. Just hours after the territory’s new chief executive, Leung Chun-ying (梁振英), was sworn into office amidst festivities of commemoration, a massive and orderly public demonstration clamored for Leung’s resignation, calling him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” — representing the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, not those of the Hong Kong people.
Not surprisingly, the 15th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty, which coincided with the swearing in of Leung and his cabinet, brought the contrasts between media in China and Hong Kong into sharper focus as well.

[ABOVE: Hong Kong residents turn out in the tens of thousands to call for greater democracy and the protection of civil rights, and to oppose the appointment of Leung Chun-ying as the territory’s next chief executive. Photo by Sara Yurich.]
Media in Hong Kong did report on the demonstrations, with coverage of the numbers topping the front pages at many papers. Like this report in Ming Pao Daily:

On the 15th anniversary of the handover, as a new government came to office, it was met with the third-largest demonstration in recent years, with demonstrators directing their criticism at newly-appointed chief executive Leung Chun-ying. The demonstrators did not stop, facing up against the hot sun and continuing up to the commencement of the fireworks display [to commemorate] the handover. The celebratory sound of fireworks presented a biting contrast to the masses [of protesters] clad in black and white. March organizers said that 400,000 took to the streets, while police said that at the height there were 63,000 people. Estimates from academics were 98,000-112,000, or 70,000-90,000 (see related reports).
A survey commissioned by this newspaper from the University of Hong Kong revealed that less than 40 percent of those surveyed believe Leung Chun-ying is suited to serve as chief executive, and 55 percent believe that he [Leung] “intentionally disguised” modifications to his property.(see page 4).

[ABOVE: The July 2 edition of Hong Kong’s Ming Pao Daily leads with demonstrations against the new chief executive, and competing estimates of the numbers.]
Here are a few other front pages from Hong Kong, all giving prominence to the June 1 demonstrations. Notably, the South China Morning Post makes the contrast explicit, running two images of equal size — one of the swearing in of the new chief executive (at left) and another of the demonstrations.

[ABOVE: Take your pick. The July 2 edition of Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post leads with demonstrations in the territory and the swearing in of its new chief executive.]
The Apple Daily, another of Hong Kong’s top newspapers, decides to use the estimate of demonstration participants given by the organizers — 400,000. There is no mention on the front page of competing estimates, as seen in Ming Pao Daily.

[ABOVE: The July 2 edition of Hong Kong’s Apple Daily leads with demonstrations.]
Not all Hong Kong papers led with coverage of the demonstrations, however. Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, both newspapers aligned with the government in China, led with the swearing in of Leung in the presence of Chinese President Hu Jintao, with large images of the ceremony set off by China’s national flag.
The papers put the primary focus on Hu Jintao’s speech, in which he outlined his “four hopes” for Hong Kong.

[ABOVE: The July 2 edition of Hong Kong’s Wen Wei Po leads with the swearing in of Hong Kong’s new chief executive.]
The Oriental Daily News also led with Chinese President Hu Jintao and the swearing in of Leung and his cabinet. Above the main headline, “Hu Jintao Lays Out Governance Direction for Hong Kong,” the paper also turned attention to President Hu’s warning about meddling by “external forces,” one of the more hardline notes in his official commemoration speech.
Hu said: “[We must] adhere to and implement a fully accurate ‘one country two systems’ policy, acting in strict accord with [Hong Kong’s] Basic Law, combining the priorities of upholding ‘one country’ while respecting differences in the ‘two systems,’ preserving the authority of the central Party and ensuring a high-level of autonomy in the Special Administrative Region, preserving overall national interests and ensuring various interests within Hong Kong society, supporting Hong Kong in actively developing international exchanges and opposing interference in Hong Kong affairs by outside forces . . .

[ABOVE: The July 2 edition of Hong Kong’s Oriental Daily News leads with the swearing in of Hong Kong’s new chief executive.]
Media in mainland China leave us little to talk about. They were entirely dominated by official stories from Xinhua News Agency and China Central Television. They emphasized the formalities of the day, giving the most prominent coverage again to Hu Jintao’s speech, in which he voiced “four hopes” for Hong Kong and its people.
The following is a selected translation of Hu’s speech as posted to People’s Daily Online:

“Four Hopes for the New Hong Kong SAR Government and Various Walks of Society”
July 1, 2012
Compatriots, friends! As we fully affirm the massive achievements since Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty 15 years ago, we also clearly see that Hong Kong society still has a number of deep-level tensions and problems. The next five years will have an important impact on the long-term development of Hong Kong. It is an important period of opportunity that must be fully grasped and during which differences can be made. Standing here, I express four hopes to the new government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and to various walks of [Hong Kong] society.
First, [that Hong Kong] works hard to promote the stability and harmony of society. Harmony and stability are the foundation of development, and improving people’s lives is the basis of harmony and stability. The government of the Hong Kong SAR must abide by the vision of people-based governance, accurately grasping public opinion and the mood of society, adopting practical and effective measures to actively and reliably resolve the livelihood issues of the people and other social tensions, paying greater attention to social fairness, paying greater attention to the weaker segments of society, giving greater care to the younger generation, so that all citizens can share in the fruits of development and raise their living standards.
All segments of Hong Kong society must set store by general interests, achieving the broadest sense of unity under the banner of love of country and love of Hong Kong, supporting with one heart the new government as it governs effectively by rule of law, working in common to raise the cohesiveness of Hong Kong society.
Second, [that Hong Kong] works hard to preserve the authority of the Basic Law. Rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong. The Basic Law is the highest law in the Hong Kong SAR, and the cornerstone of governance of Hong Kong by rule of law. . .
Third, [that Hong Kong] works hard to raise its competitiveness. If Hong Kong is to secure an unassailable position in the midst of increasingly fierce international and regional competition, it must makes strides in raising its own competitiveness. [We must] strengthen strategic plans for Hong Kong’s long-term development, better utilizing the role of the government in promoting economic and social development. . . At the same time, there must be better mutual cooperation with the mainland of the mother country (祖国内地) to promote sound development, deepening and expanding dialogue and cooperation between Hong Kong and the mainland of the mother country, promoting mutual advantage, mutual gain and common development.
Fourth, [that Hong Kong] works hard to strengthen the training of talent . . .

[ABOVE: On July 2, 2012, the homepage of People’s Daily Online is dominated by a headline about Hu Jintao’s “four hopes” for Hong Kong, which leads to a whole page of official coverage, with no mention at all of demonstrations.]
But according to another story in the July 2 edition of Hong Kong’s Ming Pao Daily, the 15th anniversary of the handover presented a contrast not just of media coverage, but also of media cultures.
As the flag-raising ceremony was held in Wan Chai’s Golden Bauhinia Square on the morning of July 1, the scene was (as could be expected) filled with local Hong Kong media clamoring to cover the story. Official Chinese state media were also there, including the state-run China Central Television.
About 10 minutes before the flag-raising ceremony was set to begin, the new chief executive arrived with his wife. The pair made the rounds, shaking hands and chatting with onlookers. Local news photographers and television reporters rushed around them.
As one photographer pressed through to get a shot, they were blocked by a reporter from China Central Television. CCTV was doing a live broadcast, the reporter explained, and everyone else needed to stay out of the shot.
The Hong Kong reporter fired back, in affirmation of his own rights and in flat denial of CCTV’s special privileges: “This is Hong Kong!”