Beijing Newspeak

When a Chinese official - the head of China’s Press and Publication Administration in this case - makes some deliberately vague statement (this link is the Xinhua article word-for-word) about drafting new regulations on blogs and webcasts then I suppose it is someone’s duty to speculate wildly.

I found out after the Xinhua story had been released that the translation “webcast” was actually supposed to include video-sharing websites - such as YouTube. Which takes us back to the question of whether the Chinese censors will tackle that thorny issue of less than favourable videos being shown in Chinese cyberspace through YouTube. By the way it feels such a privilege to write the word censor - it is often deemed to have too many negative connotations by some of the more conservative of Xinhua’s editorial glitterati. Of course, Google is now the proud owner of YouTube so, if they encounter any blockage problems, it will be interesting to see if they roll over and ask the Chinese leadership to scratch its burgeoning belly or kick up a fuss. Anyway this particular issue was covered far more eloquently by Image Thief (Will Moss) back in November.

I do find it incredible YouTube has remained unviolated in China. Tiananmen Square protest clips aside, YouTube helped publicise a blatant government lie back in October when it featured several clips of the shooting incident along the Nanpa La Pass in Tibet.  The video, shot by a Romanian cameraman, showed a Chinese border guard picking off, from distance, two Tibetans trying to cross the Chinese border. The screen went black when it was shown on CNN news in China so the inquisitive just browsed the Internet. As today’s story, quoting the China Internet Survey Report 2007, said:

The report also said that YouTube-style websites were visited by about 76 million of the 137 million Chinese Internet users last year, bringing in 40 million yuan (about US$5 million).

Xinhua stories contain propaganda. Xinhua also produces informative and credible news stories (contrary to popular opinion). But instances of conveying cold-blooded lies are in the distinct minority. So I remember quite clearly being presented with a story translated from an Information Office (under the State Council) document reporting how Chinese border guards had been attacked by kids with stones and one man had died of altitude sickness - nearly two weeks after the event. I was told not to change it so I obliged by leaving in all the ridiculous grammatical mistakes, including the word “stowaway” to describe the refugees, while ranting at whoever would listen.

So there it was. An emphatic reminder that Xinhua was, first and foremost, the voice of the Party and its aspirations of being a leading international news agency shot to pieces. Inevitably, Xinhua was criticised as if it were the fabricator of the statement. In the meantime, many Xinhua journalists logged onto YouTube and watched helplessly. The senior editors were furious that Xinhua had to release the statement, particularly when, on the same day, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman had denied all knowledge of the incident. Xinhua’s protests were heard and swiftly ignored.

 Still, even if YouTube escapes China’s Internet patrol, some people will always just censor themselves. I told one Xinhua editor about the wonders of YouTube and how he could go and watch a certain video clip. He informed me that he didn’t need to watch it because it was probably fabricated. “They can do a lot of things with modern technology these days,” he explained. They certainly can - like publish Romanian cameramen’s footage on the Internet in China. Long live YouTube!