Fake news protests and hazy disaster reporting

Limited access to the South China Morning Post’s website often means many stories slip by unnoticed - well in my case anyway. This is regrettable given the range of some of its news coverage, much of which you can’t find anywhere else. On Wednesday, Stephen Chen reported for the SCMP (no web link for the above reason) on a protest outside Xinhua’s Sichuan headquarters in Chengdu.

More than 50 villagers protested outside Xinhua’s Sichuan headquarters in Chengdu yesterday, saying the official news agency had faked a news report about job creation.

The protesters, mostly women from Wenjiang and Chenghua districts, massed in front of the Xinhua building at about 2pm with a petition demanding the agency correct a news report about district government successes in creating jobs for dispossessed villagers, witness Huang Qi said.

Mr Huang said a Xinhua official accepted the letter but told villagers that agency leaders and journalists who wrote the article were not in the office, and so no decision about a correction could be made any time soon.

Xinhua reported that 70 per cent of landless villagers were employed, thanks to the efforts of the Wenjiang district government leadership.

“We, 200,000 landless villagers in Wenjiang have never seen you reporters,” the petition says. “The fact is most of us are jobless, hungry and homeless.

“We have been arrested, beaten up and robbed by local officials. But you never listened to us.”

Wenjiang villager Li Chunfeng said the highest payout to a family for their land was 8,000 yuan, plus a 100 yuan monthly subsidy.

“Many villagers remain unemployed seven years after the government took their land. No men went to the protest today, because they are afraid of being arrested,” she said.

Calls to Xinhua’s Chengdu office went unanswered yesterday.

Apart from the obvious, one of the most worrying aspects of this story is that no one deigns to pick up the phone at one of the main bureaus of a news agency. Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone in the Chengdu bureau and given the view tentatively put forward recently that this blog might be losing the agency too much face, I think that is probably the last we will hear of it. Still, I shall recall this particular incident when I next edit stories about fake news hotlines or laudations of the wealth of employment opportunities open to untrained hersdmen from Xinjiang/Tibet/Inner Mongolia that seem to have increased in recent months.

If I may continue my tribute to the SCMP … Also on Wednesday was a story by Bill Savadove comparing the media coverage of the Hunan bridge disaster to the way the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge was reported in the United States. It drew attention to a story on the front page of the China Daily that appears to have less taste than Xinhua canteen’s head chef and also mentioned Homer Simpson’s brain for good measure.

Even as state media was updating the death toll from the fatal bridge collapse in Hunan province , readers of China Daily saw the front-page headline: “Thousands of unsafe bridges to be fixed.”

Was it simply tragic irony? Or an attempt at a pre-emptive propaganda strike against bad news to come? Regardless, it could be embarrassing for the central government’s English-language mouthpiece, which has sought to become more appealing.

“The collapse of the 40-year-old Minneapolis bridge in the United States on August 1 also highlighted the need to fix decaying public infrastructure before it is too late,” the article said.

The mainland had more than 6,000 damaged or dangerous bridges which needed to be fixed or rebuilt, a government ministry said. No mention was made of the Hunan disaster.

Xinhua reported the collapse of the bridge in Fenghuang county at 10.27pm on Monday, six hours after it occurred.

Coverage of the two incidents is a study in contrasts between US media and the mainland’s state-controlled media, which is still struggling with a fabricated television report about dumplings stuffed with cardboard and the use of a Homer Simpson image to illustrate a Xinhua story about multiple sclerosis.

US broadcaster CNN quickly went live with news of the Minnesota bridge collapse, taking witnesses’ calls and showing viewers’ photographs. Mainland reporters were told to use Xinhua reports for the Hunan case.

The mainland has recorded several bridge failures, often blamed on shoddy building or corruption, which prompts builders to cut corners. Two months ago, a bridge in Guangdong province collapsed when a sand barge hit it. Nine people were killed.

In 1999, the then-premier Zhu Rongji complained about “tofu construction” after a bridge in Sichuan province collapsed, killing more than 40 people.

In 1998, a scandal hit Ningbo when a 2,500-metre bridge at the mouth of the Yong River cracked a month before it was to open and the two ends did not meet in the middle. A further three years was needed to rebuild the bridge, and 40 officials were said to have lost their jobs.

This article mentions “mainland reporters were told to use Xinhua reports for the Hunan case”, which is clearly a major problem. As I have said before, some Xinhua local bureau reporters go out of their way to find the facts behind disasters in very difficult situations and others would rather wait for the information to come in the form of a local government statement. In the case of the Hunan bridge, it appears the Beijing Times is finding out its own information, as shown in this report by Reuters via the Sydney Morning Herald.

“The ruptured parts of the bridge show broken stones; also, it was a clean break. It’s obvious the quality was too poor,” the Beijing News quoted an architecture expert as saying.

Xinhua reporters can also come up with a crucial quote but often it just touches upon a huge issue and leaves you dangling. Take this line from an unnamed local official, that inspired the Reuters story linked above (this quote was Xinhua’s not China Daily’s).

“While the cause of the collapse is still unknown, a local official at the scene said that a ‘traditional-and-risky’ model of bridge, made of stone and concrete, had been chosen over a steel structure to ensure it remained ‘in harmony with the natural environment’,” the China Daily said.

When I received the quote in its original form, it made little sense. Something about how concrete complemented nature. On asking for clarification, the key points about harmonious environment and the absence of steel emerged but the official remained unnamed. I later found out he was the deputy director of the communications department and a “bridge expert”, whatever that means. I asked my colleague to call the local reporter and ask him or her to try and interview the official again for some more detail as it seemed the official was willing to talk to Xinhua about an issue in which he claimed to have expertise. Ask someone to ask someone else to ask someone else. That is the frustrating level of efficiency at work in the office. The reporter was unavailable and the opportunity was gone, once again leaving us with fragments of information and the overall picture unexplained.