Re: AMERICA'S YELLOW PRESS--China's repressed press

Let's have a look at the status of journalism in China:

Violence against journalists:
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2004/China_8_04/China_8_04.html

Censor****p
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123002312.html

"The watchdog group Re****ters Without Borders ranked China 163 out of 168 
countries in its 2007 index of press freedom."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/

Internet censor****p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censor****p_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
http://www.amnestyusa.org/business-and-human-rights/internet-censor****p/page.do?id=1101572&n1=3&n2=26&n3=1035



More on censor****p in China from an honorable, honest and intelligent 
Chinese national (as opposed to most who post here):
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=18567

"There are three or four major aspects of media control/censor****p in 
mainland China. The first, and the most im****tant, is the effort to
isolate 
China from the outside world. To accomplish this, China makes it difficult

for overseas journalists to gain access to the country for interviews.
Even 
when they do acquire permission from the Chinese government, their freedom

is highly cir***scribed.

Another method of media control is to interfere with and disturb the 
reception of international radio services, for example Voice of America
and 
BBC. In cities, the interference is especially strong. There are also 
serious restrictions on international satellite services. Only hotels with
a 
three star or higher ranking are permitted to receive such signals. 
Generally, with the exception of government officials of a certain
ranking, 
the general public is kept from receiving such services....This policy of 
isolating China from the world has caused the information flow in China to

become a one dimensional, one channeled, one way flow....

Major historical events related to natural disasters in China have often 
been first revealed by overseas re****ters to the international community, 
which in turn exerted pressure on China to seek ways to solve the problem.

For example, SARS was first re****ted by Time magazine. . . . Therefore, it

may be concluded -- and I have written about this in one of my articles --
 
that the Chinese government owes a lot to overseas re****ters, and
especially 
Time magazine, which deserves an award.

There has been severe criticism of VOA for "spreading rumors" about the
1989 
crisis in China. Here, I want to make two points clear: first, the
so-called 
"rumors" were not created by VOA in a vacuum; people were talking and 
information was circulating. Theoretically, this issue reflects the
question 
of truthfulness or validity in re****ting an event; that is, on the level
of 
truth, dealing with factual evidence and with sources of information. For 
example, casualty rates are a form of factual evidence because an actual, 
objective number is present. On the other hand, a re****ter re****ts an
event 
that he did not witness but bases his re****t upon his informants'
accounts; 
this could also be considered valid. Second, even the circulation of such 
information or the spread of "rumors" is better than blocking information.

This is the first aspect of media control.

The second aspect of media control deals with the control of personnel. 
Overseas re****ters have a hard time understanding the source of the
Central 
Propaganda Department's authority in maintaining such strict, tight
control. 
For example, Chinese re****ters were restrained from re****ting the visit of

Kim Jong-il to China until the trip officially ended. The same with the 
Hanyuan issue, which dealt with a disastrous confrontation between local 
peasants in China and their government.* Re****ters could give no direct 
re****ts but merely replicated them from the official newspapers. My 
explanation is that the general directors of media in China are in fact 
government officials who have been appointed by the government. This is to

say, they are selected according to the same procedures and following the 
same standards and rules as those applied to the selection of public 
officials. This may explain why when in the face of a political incident, 
they respond in accordance to the wishes of government officials, instead
of 
playing the role of a professional journalist.

The third aspect of control involves the processing of articles. Each 
article goes through three or four stages of supervision in order to reach

publication: (1) the editor; (2) the branch director in charge of the
editor's 
work; (3) the editor-in-chief of the agency; and (4) the umbrella company 
over this agency (if there is one). In contrast to the rigid system of 
China, I interviewed a New York Times re****ter on international affairs 
about their system and he told me that the final decision on publication
was 
entirely up to him. In China, as an article makes its way up the ladder,
the 
content becomes more politically conscious and less politically sensitive.

We have touched upon what have been the procedures for the handling of 
articles before publication. There is also post-publication censor****p at 
both the national and the local levels, where every newspaper, television 
channel, radio station, even the internet undergo content reviews. What I 
mean is there is a follow-up system organized to review content and to 
ascertain what is deemed appropriate for publication and what is not.
There 
is also a system of punishment for media agencies that were responsible
for 
the publication of sensitive issues.

There is also a more collective method to control. In the past, the
Central 
Propaganda Department would routinely call a meeting with publi****ng house

editors and newspaper editors to discuss what could be re****ted and what 
could not be disclosed. For instance, the use of words such as
"democracy," 
"freedom and liberty," and "human rights" have been prohibited;
expressions 
such as "media is a social weapon" and the concept of taxpayers are also 
forbidden.

In the Shanghai Liberation Daily, there was an article stating that talk 
about "public intellectuals" must also be banned because it would set a 
trend or act as an encouragement to the independence of intellectuals.
Other 
events about which one may not publish are, for example, the June 4th 
incident, Falungong, the BMW case, and the Cultural Revolution.**

One scholar did a study on the type of governmental activities the Chinese

media usually re****ts and it appeared that the daily activities of the 
Chinese government involves no more than where officials visit or how
great 
are their achievements. "

Toby