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

China is a big country.

Do you know what that means?

I think not.

Toby wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>