These are the first three paragraphs of a Reuters story published last week under the headline, “Beijing vows cleaner, stable city for Olympics”:
BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s capital faces a host of problems preparing for the 2008 Olympic Games, but its top official pledged on Thursday the city would be stable, cleaner and more civilized.
“From beginning to end, stability must be our number one political task,” Beijing’s Communist Party boss, Liu Qi, who outranks the mayor, told more than 730 delegates at the opening of the city’s party congress, held once every five years.
The party, which has monopolized power since the 1949 revolution, is obsessed with stability and has no qualms about crushing open challenges to its rule or silencing dissent.
Good to see, from the third paragraph, that it’s not only Xinhua that makes full use of the ‘cut and paste from the database’ procedure. But, more importantly, is this sentence (presumably an attempt at context) really necessary? Particularly as this report was classified as a “sports” story. This kind of reporting is surely tickling the limits set out by Reuters’ editorial policy:
We are committed to reporting the facts and in all situations avoid the use of emotive terms. The only exception is when we are quoting someone directly or in indirect speech. We aim to report objectively actions, identity and background and pay particular attention to all our coverage in extremely sensitive regions.
colleague | 21-May-07 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
a lot of reuters china stories are seriously biased…
bob phillips | 21-May-07 at 11:38 pm | Permalink
bureauspeak, reading cracks in tortoise shell
davesgonechina | 22-May-07 at 12:22 am | Permalink
I’ve always wished there was some sort of statistics or database showing just how often that sorta nub is thrown in.
You can say its bias, but cut and paste is more like it. It’s just laziness and the low hanging fruit.
Charlie | 22-May-07 at 9:25 am | Permalink
I don’t see anything wrong with this paragraph.
It is factual, and it is important to place social harmony/stability in it’s proper context: it’s not all about flowers and hugs and kisses, there is a far darker aspect to it as well.
This story may be in the sports section because of the Olympic connection, but it’s not a sports story (that’s the mistake Reuters has made) - I’m not sure you’ve represented it particularly fairly with just these three paragraphs quoted.
cat | 22-May-07 at 10:10 am | Permalink
Slight voice of dissent: Yes, the language is rather emotive, but I’d say it was a fairly accurate description of reality. It does ignore nuances and exceptions like Xie Tao’s essay in Yanhuang Chunqiu, but that really was quite a big exception. I haven’t heard anything from Jiang Yanyong for quite a while. And the day after this story was filed, Hu Jia was invited for another visit to the local police station and had to cancel his “holiday” plans. The article seems to have been misclassified as a sports story because of the word “Olympics”. It’s more of a political story dealing with part of the Beijing party congress. Whatever sports fans and politicians might say, the Olympics has always been a political event.
(Oh - I see that while I was writing that, Charlie was posting almost exactly the same thing. Sorry for the repetition.)
davesgonechina | 22-May-07 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Just to clarify what bothers me about it - first is that there’s always a free floating nub like this about three or four paragraphs into most articles on China, no matter what the topic, and it’s usually the same basic thing. I just find it monotonous.
The purple prose that I think could be improved upon are the words “obsessed” and “qualms”. These words anthropomorphize a giant bureaucracy, as an army or secretaries pool could have a soul or feelings. I would have gone with something like “The Party has always sought to crush dissent and open challenges to its rule in the name of “stability”.”
Stability in quotes because some people think democracy is actually more stable, and it’s a Party vocab word.
Jim | 23-May-07 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
I used to work for Reuters China bureau back in the day and can confirm that background was cut and paste then.
I take dave’s point about the particular language used (”emotive” terms Reuters claims to eschew), but really, as others have said, bar that it’s hard to dispute the basic accuracy of the claims in the para. And it does provide context for Liu Qi’s statement.
The political discourse in China has a unique context with key words and phrases unlike those used elsewhere. So I’d say it is “necessary” here, as this is not just a sports story when it’s Li Qi speaking and saying the things he did. That’s not to touch on whether international sporting events in China can be divorced from any political connotations.
Chris O'Brien | 23-May-07 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
I’m going to stick with my gut reaction, and that of a fellow polisher, which, upon reaching the end of the third par, was along the lines of, “Where did that come from?”
AFP wrote a virtually identical story but did not see the need for the “obsessed with stability” sentence. It is pretty true to form - 90 percent of this kind of background comment comes from Reuters, which after a while does become very tiresome (a feeling which I concede is accentuated by overexposure to news agency copy) and intensely irritates my Chinese colleagues. That said, I do think Reuters produces the best news stories out of the big three agencies, an opinion also shared by many Xinhua journalists. But do we always have to assume the reader has no knowledge of the political situation in China? Newspaper editors can make the judgement about how much background is needed.
Anyway, Liu Qi’s “stability must be our number one political task” line is hardly original. As Dave points out, “stability” is just another piece of Party vocab - which has been trotted out along with “harmonious” in a formulaic party congress speech.
Charlie, I gave the opening three paragraphs and provided a link to the whole story. Hardly misrepresented.
And I never for one minute believed this was anything to do with sport. I was merely being facetious.