A stint at Xinhua has ensured I will never be able to write about China for a foreign news agency. I edited this story last night:
The Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee said on Monday that China would promote and produce more “healthy online cultural products” as part of their efforts to promote social harmony.
Participants at the Politburo meeting, presided over by Chinese President Hu Jintao asked all publicity and cultural organizations to produce more high-quality online cultural products, which “represent the social progress and the splendid traditional culture of China”.
Such moves were aimed at “nurturing a healthy online culture” and preventing “decadent” online material from spreading over the Internet, said a news release from the meeting.
The Politburo said China would also make more efforts to promote the ideology of Marxism over the Internet, according to the news release.
China’s Internet population jumped by almost 24 percent last year to reach 137 million, around one in ten Chinese, according to the China Internet Network Information Center.
President Hu Jintao said earlier this year that the rapid development of the Internet in China has played an important role in spreading information, knowledge and CPC policy, but has also raised new issues for the country’s cultural development.
“Whether we can cope with the Internet is a matter that affects the development of socialist culture, the security of information and the stability of the state,” Hu said.
In other words, same old. Not worth bashing letters on a keyboard - as is demonstrated by the quality of my editing. Although, I did have to send back the first version of it to ask the writer to make sense of embarrassing phrases such as “promote the good, the pure and the beautiful”. I told her not to waste much time on it. Just another barrage of empty words, I said. Clearly not a news story, I concluded.
Of course, Reuters and AP picked it up and now it is all over the Internet. Not that I am admitting I was wrong. Reuters said it themselves in their own report (before repeating the same old).
The meeting was far from the first time China has sought to rein in the Internet. In January, Hu made a similar call to “purify” it, and there have been many such calls before.
But the announcement indicated that Hu wants ever tighter controls as he braces for a series of political hurdles and seeks to govern a generation of young Chinese for whom Mao Zedong’s socialist revolution is a hazy history lesson.
I suppose being drowned in news/government press releases every day does lead to saturation. Gradually, you lose touch with what is deemed newsworthy overseas (emphasis on deemed of course). Tales of Internet censorship just don’t do it for me anymore. What I want to know is what does the Politburo think of proxies? But I would hope that even readers of MSNBC were not spilling their coffee in reaction to the headline “China launches plan to censor Internet”.
Ah well, I’m off to try and explain to an editor why AP and Reuters picked up a story I labelled “worthless”.
By the way, Xinhua managed to write a couple of articles about Boris Yeltsin without mentioning the phrase “stood on top of a tank during the 1991 coup attempt”.
David | 24-Apr-07 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
I’ve just read the story this morning.
By the way, how long have you worked for Xinhua?
Wiss | 24-Apr-07 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
I was surprised to see coverage of the newly proposed censorship regime in the western press, myself. I’m under the impression that the Great Firewall is circumvented by interested parties, and for all its sophistication, was basically cosmetic.
I’m relatively new to China, and I was wondering- what’s the best indicator as to the government’s seriousness about new policy? Is it when the press release comes from a certain part of the government, when it’s worded a certain way, or is it only when you start seeing the policy implemented? How do you distinguish anything serious in the sea of tripe?
Mark Binnersley | 24-Apr-07 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
The filtered reporting of Yeltsin’s death is very sad and yet another example of how this country’s state organs are behind the times.
When historians come to research Yeltsin they will be well advised to avoid sourcing their information from China.
It’s such a shame that China has this massive, incomplete database (Xinhua) which only contains “correct” information.
Has anyone read Brave New World or 1984 lately?
MARY ZHANG | 24-Apr-07 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
1. Foreign journalists (most of them?) in China have strange feeding habits: THEY SEEM TO MUNCH OFF THE CHINESE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM!
2. If China is SO-O GOD-AWFUL, why not just leave?
3. We are already overpopulated. We could surely do with a few less bodies, especially those who are so unhappy with us.
4. And spare us the cant about wanting to share “Democracy” with us! Atleast until daily nespaper photos are a bit less gory.
Mark Binnersley | 24-Apr-07 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
Mary, China is not so God awful. In fact us foreigners think it is an amazing country. But it is not perfect, neither is Britain, the US or any other nation. We criticise our own countries as much as China. You should hear what us Brits say about Tony Blair these days! It’s nothing personal. You need to get over your problem of thinking that a criticism of China or its government is a personal attack. You have to understand that having the freedom to criticise those who govern us is very important in the West. And these are values I won’t apologise to anyone for.
Jim | 25-Apr-07 at 4:34 am | Permalink
It’s a continuation of old-style Kremlinology for me, Chris. Not that many other governments are particularly frank about the real intent of their policies, but China still remains one of those places where reading between the lines is particularly necessary.
At the risk of getting into abstruse cultural arguments, there’s also something particularly performative about sloganeering or particular choices of words is official discourse in China, so it is always worth noting shifts in vocabulary used.
As for Mary Zhang, oh dear. I remain an internationalist in the greatest traditions of the founders of New China。 无产阶级国际主义万岁! Shove your narrow nationalism up you fundament(alism).
David D | 25-Apr-07 at 10:40 am | Permalink
It doesn’t exactly put the “new” into news does it?
The only part of that which I found remotely interesting was “promote the ideology of Marxism over the Internet”.
I thought that Marxism in modern China was a bit like the Christian content of a school assembly back in England - an listless hymn sung in the morning and a dusty plaque at the back of the school hall.
Anyway, good luck to them with that idea. Perhaps they’ll try some kind of first-person shoot ‘em up meets Das Kapital
MARY ZHANG | 25-Apr-07 at 11:45 am | Permalink
LU HSUN wrote a lovely little tale about one type of “chinese internationalists”: I think he called them “FALSE FOREIGN DEVILS”. (Others call them WOGS?.
CCP are, of course, internationalists too. But their VOCABULARY is thankfully cleaner. (Steers clear of scatology.) Another reason to consider them the best group in China & THANK GOD FOR THEM.
Boing Boing | 25-Apr-07 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
China: more on Hu Jintao’s new net censorship regs …
Following up on a BB post about news reports of new internet regulations in China, BoingBoing reader Will says, This is from the blog of an English-language “polisher” who works for Xinhua news agency. The piece that got picked up by Reuters (and pas…
Jim | 25-Apr-07 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
And yet, Mary, as a peasant-led movement, the CCP has seen its share of earthy discourse. Wasn’t it the late lamented Mao Zedong who complained that the heroic Peng Dehuai had been “fucking his mother” at the Lushan conference, as one example? (”你说华北会议操了你40天的娘,你在这里还只操了20天,还操不得?现在我说要满足40天,不然我们还欠20天的账,我还加5天,尽你操,满足你操娘的愿望。” Read 李锐:《庐山会议实录》)
I fear you are merely an effete bourgeois, Mary, and unsuitable as a 革命事业接班人.
swb | 25-Apr-07 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
Mary:
You have to understand that Anglo Liberal Democracy(TM) is a kind of disguised nationalist religion for countries like America and England especially.
Most Anglos and their apologists implicitly believe in the moral supremacy of the USA, England, and their allies as global champions of “freedom, democracy, human rights,” blah, blah, blah.
The USA and UK in particular believe that they have not only a right but a solemn moral duty to export the “Global Democratic Revolution” (as George Bush and his Trotskyites-turned-Neocons put it) around the world–whether the world likes it or not.
This can be done by laser-guided bomb or by the wonderful Western free press (sic) that many people here fawn over. In short, the USA and England are kinda like modern crusaders with a new White Man’s Burden.
But you merely have to check out Iraq, Afghanistan, or the former Yugoslavia (among other examples) to see the real nature of the Anglo-American freedom they represent and generously want to export around the globe.
America and England have certainly freed the Iraqi people alright–freed them of their oil, their lives, and their very existence. At last count, this freedom has produced over 600,000 Iraqis murdered by the USA and England.
And Tony Bliar’s and George Bush’s regimes are just a reflection of the British and American nation-states, who elected and then *relected* these war criminals in the first place.
Maybe someday, the rest of the world can return the favor and export some of this same “freedom and democracy” to America and England. I am sure that every freedom-loving Englishman or proud Amurikan will welcome this with open arms.
Imagethief | 25-Apr-07 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
How Chinese net censorship news goes global…
Chris at Beijing Newspeak sums up the genesis of International coverage of China’s latest round of Internet…
Wiss | 25-Apr-07 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
Chris, I just want to tell you that your blog’s fabulous, and you know you’re doing well when it’s attracting this volume of trolls. I wonder how many are double posting under different aliases? My bet’s on Mary, Michael and mike.
Keep on rockin’ in the free world.
MARY ZHANG | 25-Apr-07 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
Thank you SWB, for your consistently excellent analyses. Have you read Henry Liu? You would enjoy his writing: about China, what he approves & also what he disapproves (globalization). ‘This ‘ere blog’ is beginning to sound rather slummy, I think it must be time to leave their ‘company’!
AsiaPundit » Blog Archive » links for 2007-04-25 | 25-Apr-07 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
[...] CHINA - Internet censorship in China snore … “Tales of Internet censorship just don’t do it for me anymore. What I want to know is what does the Politburo think of proxies? But I would hope that even readers of MSNBC were not spilling their coffee in reaction to the headline “China launches plan [...]
cat | 26-Apr-07 at 2:33 am | Permalink
Funny old world. There are all the Chinese viewers and readers who want news that means something to them presented in an interesting way. And there are all the Chinese journalists and editors who want to do just that. And then there’s swb and Mary who think it’s an outrage that anyone should want that to happen - or at least, that’s how it seems.
And then there’s communication with the outside world. Why does Xinhua have services in English, Russian, French etc? Why do CCTV and CRI have foreign language broadcasts? Why does the China Daily exist? Are they supposed to be communicating a view of China and the world from a Chinese perspective?
Mary and swb, I’d like to know what you think about this. Really. Iraq is in flames, so is Somalia, the United States might bomb Iran, Chinese and Ethiopian workers have been murdered in Ethiopia and what do we hear?
“President X met with his Y counterpart. They discussed bilateral relations and issues of common concern and called for further all-round bilateral cooperation. X highly praised X-Y relations and expressed appreciation for Y’s adherence to the One–X policy. For his par, Y vowed to adhere to the One-X policy and highly praised X’s contribution to regional stability and peace. X called for further cooperation with Y. Y called for further cooperation with X.”
Is that it? Don’t you want anyone to ever hear an alternative to the western view of China and the world?
Chinese news shouldn’t be like British news, American news, French, German or any other kind of news. It should be Chinese. There’s no reason why it should take the same stance on Iraq, Kosovo or all the many, many issues around the world, because China has its own view. Isn’t that view worth hearing?
MAC | 26-Apr-07 at 2:48 am | Permalink
I’ve been finding this blog pretty interesting, too bad the Chinese ultra-nationalists have crashed the party.
Since I’m posting, here’s a Chinese media bit that’s been bugging meonline:
中原油田勘探局在埃塞工地遭袭 9人死亡
Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau attacked at Ethiopian work-site 9 people die
…Because only Chinese are people, right? Well, to be fair, inside the article it is noted that “some” (一些)Africans died, but still, this takes self-centeredness to new heights, beating VT coverage (”No Chinese killed in VT attack.”) China Daily is perhaps marginally better- “9 Chinese workers killed in Ethiopia”. It’s typical for any country’s media to focus on their own countries casualties in any incident, but to give them the headline at the expense of the other 65… really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
MAC | 26-Apr-07 at 3:18 am | Permalink
Oops, stupid laptop highlighting and deleting things with my noticing- end of the second line is supposed to say “from People’s Daily online.”
Chris O'Brien | 27-Apr-07 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
David: One year and three months
Wiss: Cheers for the support! Although, in defence of cynical Mike, he is nowhere near the same league as Mary and SWB. As for trying to pick out the priority policies of the Chinese government, it is pretty difficult. Although, when a political story lands on the polishing desk with URGENT or PRIORITY written on the cover sheet then that is an indicator. Sometimes the reporter says he/she really can’t change the wording of the story in any way because it is straight from the State Council. But that attitude varies from reporter to reporter.
I think the real indication of the importance of a policy is how many stories are written on the topic in the weeks following its release. For example, I don’t expect to see much more on those Internet regulations for the time being. CCTV led their news bulletin with it simply because it had to report the Politburo meeting first. There wasn’t much excitement in Xinhua about it. Thinking back to last March when the “socialist concept of honour and disgrace” was banded about, the subsequent weeks were full of the sodding thing.
Chris O'Brien | 27-Apr-07 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
Jim, I agree that a shift in governmental vocabulary can be very important, particularly in diplomatic stories. The diplomatic desk just translates statements from the Foreign Ministry and often there are set translations for certain phrases. So, with issues such as China-Japan relations a study of the change in wording and emphasis is valuable.
The problem that lies in the English versions of stories such as the one about Internet regulations is that any subtleties in language use are usually lost in translation as the reporter/translater tries to make the language more palatable for a western audience. I am talking from the point of view of a person who can not read Chinese and relies on these often loose translations. What the Chinese government needs is someone to spend a long time translating their policies into English. So if you ever need any more work …
Chris O'Brien | 27-Apr-07 at 12:51 pm | Permalink
MAC, I have to agree that the Virginia Tech headline looked very bad. It was a Xinhua story, released by the international news department - a service for the whole world about the whole world. Another example of forgetting who the audience is.
swb | 28-Apr-07 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
Mary: Yes, I’ve read Henry Liu. He’s a decent writer for mainstream media, and often gives a perspective that you will not hear from the “Free Press.”
Cat: You miss the point.
Ask this question: What moral and political right do Anglo-Americans like O’Brien or the various “polishers” here have to “change” China in the first place–whether it is their definition of “media freedom” in particular or promoting the USA and England’s murderous definition of democracy and freedom in general?
Changing China is only up to the Chinese people–not Western imperial neo-missionaries who are filled with self-importance and out to wage their own personal crusades for “democracy.”
More importantly, issues like the USA-UK war on Iraq–as well as the Anglo Free Press’ criminal role in propagandizing this war–are essential to bring up, as they reveal what England and America’s “liberal democracy” truly means in practice for THE PEOPLE THAT ANGLO-AMERICAN NATIONS AND THEIR ALLIES CLAIM TO BE SO BENEVOLENTLY CONCERNED ABOUT.
No doubt, raising these very issues challenges the deeply cherished (nationalist) religion of Anglo Liberal Democracy that people like O’Brien or other posters here uphold.
For the Anglos and their allies, they are dismissive of any political perspective that fundamentally questions the moral legitimacy of the USA, England, or the West as self-proclaimed exemplars of democratic values.
That is why most posters here can only in retort in kneejerk fashion with empty propaganda phrases about “ultra-nationalism”–even as they carefully overlook their own implicit Anglo chauvinist belief in the unique moral goodness of America or England, and the divine right of these nations to export their supposed liberal democratic values universally around the world.
MAC | 29-Apr-07 at 4:41 am | Permalink
My “ultra-nationalist” label was meant for Mary Zhang, our quirky Christian communist-booster. You, on the other hand, haven’t so much sung the praises of China as gone off on shrill, irrevelent tangents about the ills of the west- which at best are nothing we haven’t heard before from your type, and at worst, in the case of your 9/11 ranting, are just plain garbage.
MAC | 29-Apr-07 at 4:43 am | Permalink
Oh, by the way, I’ve spent the last six years being enraged by the Bush administration- so does that mean I’m allowed to have opinions about China, or is that the exclusive right of the Chinese?
whatsis | 29-Apr-07 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
@swb
Agreed that it’s only up to the Chinese to change their country but does that bar anyone who’s not Chinese from making legitimate commentary on what they see happening around them? Additionally, if people are to change their circumstances (should they feel the need) they require the tools to be able to do that. One of the most important tools is access to accurate information, regardless of its source. Your arguments about the western media having an agenda to have some truth to them, although I would say that they are exaggerated to a certain extent in your attempt to make your point as strong as possible. But would you have the Chinese media manipulate its population as effectively as you say the western media has manipulated its own? It doesn’t seem to me to be an argument about which system is better, but more of an argument of how to correct the bugs in each one to make them work more efficiently for the people they are supposed to serve.
@Mary Zhang (in response to the entire string of zealous commentary I’ve read from you throughout this blog)
Jesus Christ are you a condescending, fanatically religious c**t. Worst thing the west ever exported was evangelical Christianity. Allows people to pick and choose random sentences out of the bible in a pathetic attempt add more gravitas to their otherwise inane arguments. Might as well join in the game then: Mary remember this one? “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Take that log out of your own eye sister, before you talk about the splinters in the eyes of others.
MARY ZHANG | 30-Apr-07 at 2:27 am | Permalink
This blog describes itself as “BEIJING” & therefore about China. And I being (ahem) a patriotic Christian Chinese person, should of course protect China’s interests, just as the Chinese Church does. To be specific, it seems unnaturally hostile (almost like Virginia Tech) , of some people to come to China, curse the Chinese government, yet simultaneously seek employment from them & THEN gloat that the employer is being sabotaged, because they don’t know any better! It therefore seemed natural for me to level the field a little, contact some contacts & apprise them of some bloggers & opinions here. Is that “snitching”? I don’t think so.
1. I think their employers have a right-to-know, if they have been played for fools.
2. They also have a right to know, if they have governed well.
3. I think it is a “human right” for Chinese people to speak well of a good government & governing party, IN CHINESE TERRITORY, without having to tolerate accusations of “ultranationalism” & gutter language from foreigners.
4. If anyone’s future employment is jeopardized, could that be called “accountability”?
MARY ZHANG | 30-Apr-07 at 6:39 am | Permalink
A FINAL ANSWER: (TO SPLUTTERING NAME-CALLERS!):
“MAY YOUR EVIL THOUGHTS (RACIST, SEXIST, VICIOUS, JUST PLAIN LOW-LIFE!) RETURN A HUNDRED-FOLD, TO BLESS YOUR SISTERS, DAUGHTERS, MOTHERS & WIVES” — & YOURSELVES, OF COURSE.
(YOU KNOW ABOUT CURSES, DON’T YOU? THEY SEEK OUT THE DESERVING, SO BETTER BEWARE).
ANYWAY, I WILL NOT RETURN OF COURSE, SO DON’T BOTHER TO FOUL THE INTERNET WITH ANY “REPLIES”
whatsis | 30-Apr-07 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
Tsk tsk Mary Zhang,
As a Christian are you not supposed to turn the other cheek when offended? I highly doubt God would approve of you throwing curses on people, especially since that would be akin to invoking black magic, which of course, is a sin.
P.S. “Stop” using “quotations” around “words” when it isn’t “necessary”. It makes “you” look “snarky”.
swb | 01-May-07 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
whatis:
As I have stated in a previous thread, I believe that ALL media involves some degree of political control, spin, or manipulation.
However, my points relevant to this blog are:
1. The Anglo-American media in particular claims to be morally superior to the rest of the world because it claims to be “Free.”
Most state media like China’s do not claim to be “free” in this sense.
Given the unique moral claims of “freedom” made by the Anglo-American media, this so-called Free Press deserves to be fundamentally questioned and challenged.
2. The West led by America and England presume the right to export their model of “media freedom” and “democracy” in general around the world. One example is America’s “Greater Middle East Initiative” which purports to “spread democracy” throughout the entire Middle East.
The true nature of this American democracy, however, is evidenced by the crimes that the USA and UK have committed against Iraq–of which the Free Press has played a critical role in legitimizing through lies like WMDs, etc.
Like most developing nations, China does not make similar claims about “spreading democracy” around the world like the USA, UK, and their allies do.
3. The Western Free Press, led by the Anglo-American media, is the dominant media in the world in terms of global influence and setting the news agenda.
Most of the world’s news–sadly even to an increasing degree in China–reflect what the Anglo-American media *define as news in the first place.*
Examples include the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue and the entire USA-led War on Terror, both of which are massive lies on a grand scale.
This is another reason why this supposed “Free Press” deserves particular scrutiny.
Finally, of course people have a right to comment on what is going on in China.
However, my criticisms above involve the basic fact that I do not believe that the *Anglo-American media model* has anything to offer China, for reasons that I have mentioned here and elsewhere.
As I stated in another thread, something like the South American media outlet TELESUR is a better media model for China and other developing nations, and is something that it should be studying and even emulating.
http://www.telesurtv.net/
swb | 01-May-07 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
MAC: These issues I raised are anything but irrelevant.
The very premise and agenda of this blog (shared by most of the people here) are about “promoting media freedom” in China.
The only problem is that their definition of “media freedom” (read: the Anglo-American definition of freedom) is a complete fraud and a political lie–and the last media model that China should be adopting.
I repeatedly mention the Anglo-American media lies about WMDs; the USA-led phony War on Terror; or the “terrorist” attacks of 9/11 because these lies especially demonstrate the fundamental bankruptcy of this so-called Free Press that they would like to export globally–something which many people refuse to face.
American denial about 9-11 is a good example of this, and a faith-based ideology that Liberals and Conservatives, Pro-Bushites and Anti-Bushites, in the USA all share alike.
cat | 02-May-07 at 10:28 am | Permalink
whatsis
There are rare occasions when the use of expletives is justified in a debate, but I don’t think this discussion is one of them.
Mary
You say you’re not coming back, but I’ll write this just in case you do. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Xinhua and other media organizations in China work. Every story is checked by political editors who will pass/reject/change what is submitted to them by writers and copyeditors. The political editors are not superhuman and cannot catch every mistake, but repeated attempts by any member of staff to “sabotage” the news would be noticed and action would be taken.
Someone else on one of these threads suggested that foreigners were getting away with changing stories because the editors can’t understand what they are writing. This is both wrong and insulting. The political editors have decades of experience of working in English and are perfectly capable of understanding what they are reading and checking. They also have a solid grasp of the political situation and are perfectly capable of understanding whether a piece of news is politically acceptable or not. Again, they are only human, and might miss some things, but repeated offenses would be noticed.
If a serious error is made, either by the Chinese writer or the foreign copyeditor, and the political editor misses it, the political editor is fined. This is just one of the reasons that foreign copyeditors do not “sabotage” the news, not to mention the fact that it would be unprofessional to do so. No one wants their colleagues to suffer for something they have done. On one occasion at CRI, a foreigner did make a serious error (I repeat, it was an *error*, not sabotage) and the political editor was fined his entire month’s salary for missing it. Foreigners were not punished for that mistake, but they were horrified that someone else had been punished for what they had done. So they collected the money to replace his salary.
Although foreigners are not punished with fines, if they repeatedly fail to work properly within the system, their contracts are not renewed.
Whenever two different cultures meet both have an opportunity to learn from each other. But it is inevitable that disagreements will occur. At work, the final say on those disagreements is always in the hands of the chief editors and managers, as it is anywhere else.
Here in these discussions, it would be nice if we could keep our disagreements reasonably civilized without calling each other names.