荒诞者共和

By Sophie Beach
Committee to Protect Journalists
August 24, 2004

[This is an old report in 2004, but the story it told is still repeating itself over time and place. Read also CPJ's Deadly News: 580 Journalists Killed in 15 Years Worldwide]

With China's press becoming more market-oriented, journalists are reporting more aggressively on crime and corruption and are facing violent retribution for their work as a result.

Photo journalist Tony Huang sits in a McDonald's in Guangzhou, the capital of China's southern Guangdong Province, distracted and nervous that he might be recognized. Part of a new breed of young Chinese journalists who investigate crime and uncover corruption, Huang has paid for his work many times, often at great physical expense. Huang pulls up a pant leg to reveal a long, gruesome scar, a reminder of one of those attacks, less than a year ago, when he was chased down and beaten by a criminal gang he was investigating undercover.

Censorship, detention, legal action, and arrest—the threats historically faced by journalists in China's tightly proscribed media environment—have been long and well-documented by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and other press freedom groups. Forty-two journalists are now in prison in China, most for revealing corruption among high-level government officials, advocating political reforms, or reporting on other banned topics.

But a CPJ investigation has found that as the media in China become market-oriented—and as journalists report more aggressively on crime and corruption—they face a new danger: violent retribution from individuals or groups implicated in their reports.

Violence against journalists is routine in other Asian countries such as Bangladesh and the Philippines. But in China, where the press has been tightly controlled since the Communist Party took power in 1949, these attacks are a new phenomenon. The government's relaxation of social controls and the privatization of the economy have helped foster an environment where violent crime and lawlessness are increasingly common. With the rule of law still weak in China and the central government not prepared to actively defend journalists' right to free expression, reporters have little recourse to defend themselves against attack.

Read more...

WANG SHUO: THE OUTSIDER
By Alison Dakota Gee
and Anne Naham / Beijing
Asiaweek
The Week of August 9, 1996

China has a new breed of writers, they believe in nothing and mock everything.

The role of the arts in China is clearly enough defined. They are a tool for building society, reinforcing the leadership of the Communist Party and strengthening socialist ideals. Everybody understands that -- apart, apparently, from Wang Shuo and fellow members of what some call the Punk Lit. group.

Wang refuses to play by the old rules -- or by any rules at all, apart from his own. The 37-year-old writer describes himself as a pize, a near-untranslatable term that is halfway between hooligan and Beat-generation poet, without the random violence of the former or the philosophical pretensions of the latter. "I go my own way," he explains.

With him -- or, more precisely, shambling behind him -- is a growing school of alienated young writers who have grown tired of the sloganeering of the Communist Party and dismissive of the grasping, riches-before-all-else attitude that is pushing the party aside. It is tempting to call Wang an Angry Young Man, except that he isn't angry at all. He laughs a lot more than he frowns, mostly at the folly of those he thinks take themselves too seriously.

Unsurprisingly, the pize are not the darlings of the establishment. Wang and his fellow-thinkers are under attack from politicians and intellectuals on the left and right. They are accused of spreading cynicism and encouraging their readers to indulge in drinking, gambling, swearing and casual sex. For the authorities, they are spiritual pollutants.

Wang feigns indifference to all this, even though he is finding it increasingly difficult to get his work published. Like most non-conformists in China, his situation is precarious -- especially in light of the "Talk Politics" movement launched last September by President Jiang Zemin. This back-to-basics movement is designed to buttress the Communist Party's influence in a changing society. The pize, with their scorn for all values, seem disinclined to discuss politics or anything else that has a serious tinge to it.

China's democracy movement --and, in particular, the Tiananmen Square students of 1989 -- is a prime target of their ridicule. "The students thought they would change China and the world just like that, overnight," Wang scoffs. "Some of them were my friends till they started to have those funny ideas. See what a mess they made. They were intellectuals -- that's the problem. In China, intellectuals are always a cause of trouble."

Wang began writing novels, screenplays and teleplays in 1978, reaching a wide audience throughout China. But it was in 1993, when director Jiang Wen transformed his novel In the Heat of the Sun into a film that attracted international interest, that the author rose to renown. The movie chronicles Wang's life during the Cultural Revolution -- a tumultuous, blood-stained chapter in China's history that he made look like a rollicking romp.

In the Heat of the Sun follows a group of teenagers who come of age during the Revolution. It explores their dreams and their growing understanding of love and eroticism. The movie was stalled in the censors' office and was not released in China for 13 months, and then only after a final cut. But it still received plenty of heat from local critics, who said it portrayed the Cultural Revolution far too lightly. The period, they argued, is too painful a memory to serve as the backdrop for a movie about rowdy adolescents.

Wang is unapologetic: "My parents and teachers were gone," he says, "so I could do whatever I wanted. It was the freeest period of my life. It's a pity that people died, but I was busy with my own life. In the Heat of the Sun is about me and my friends. I had lots of fun. Should I lie about it?"

The Punk Lit. group are not completely adrift without friends. Wang Meng, a former culture minister, staunchly defends their work. "It's a matter of freedom of expression," he says. "I personally don't like all their books, but I still appreciate their style of writing. Reading their books is like reading their thoughts. They are trying to reflect what they feel towards modern life."

Still, Wang has decided to give up books for a while. "I want to concentrate on becoming a B-film director," he says. "I have directed a couple and it's really fun. It's easy compared with writing." But not necessarily subject to less scrutiny.

by David Smith and Jo Revill
The Observer
September 10, 2006

The founder of Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by its users, has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive entries.

Jimmy Wales, one of the 100 most influential people in the world according to Time magazine, challenged other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing.

Wikipedia, a hugely popular reference tool in the West, has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia.

His stand comes as Irrepressible.info, a joint campaign by The Observer and Amnesty International for free speech on the web, continues with the support of more than 37,000 people around the world. The campaign calls on governments to stop persecuting political bloggers and on IT companies to stop complying with these repressive regimes.

'We're really unclear why we would be [banned],' Wales told The Observer. 'We have internal rules about neutrality and deleting personal attacks and things like this. We're far from being a haven for dissidents or a protest site. So our view is that the block is in error and should be removed, but we shall see.'

Wales said censorship was ' antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia. We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information, and for us to compromise I think would send very much the wrong signal: that there's no one left on the planet who's willing to say "You know what? We're not going to give up."'

Wikipedia's entry on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 includes the government's official claim that 200-300 died and the Chinese student associations and Chinese Red Cross's estimate of 2,000-3,000 deaths.

Wales said: 'I think it's an interesting question whether they're prepared to understand the difference between advocating one set of figures or another versus simply reporting on what the controversy is. I can understand that they would be upset - although of course I still don't think they have any moral right to ban anything - if we were pushing one set of figures in contrast to their objections, but if we are reporting both, to me that's exactly what an encyclopaedia should do and they should be comfortable with that.'

Wales will meet senior Chinese officials in an attempt to persuade them to allow the website's 1.3 million articles to appear there uncensored.

'One of the points that I'm trying to push is that if there's a small town in China that has a wonderful local tradition, that won't make its way into Wikipedia because the people of China are not allowed to share their knowledge with the world. I think that's an ironic side-effect and something the people in the censorship department need to have a much bigger awareness of: you're not just preventing information about Falun Gong or whatever you're upset about getting into China, you're preventing the Chinese people speaking to the world.'

The Irrepressible.info website will allow visitors next week to access and distribute censored content.

The campaign

Since Amnesty International launched Irrepressible.info with The Observer on 28 May 2006:

· More than 37,000 people around the world have signed the pledge calling on all governments and companies to ensure the internet is a force for political freedom, not repression. They include Coldplay's Chris Martin, dotcom entrepreneur Martha Lane Fox, Bob Geldof and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

· The House of Commons foreign affairs select committee has condemned Google, Microsoft and Yahoo's co-operation with the Chinese government as 'morally unacceptable'.

· Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, has said that the company compromised its principles by accepting Chinese censorship. He said it was 'a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with.'

· Members of the US Congress have championed the Global Online Freedom Act in a bid to stop major internet companies co-operating with regimes that restrict free expression, including Belarus, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, Tunisia and Vietnam.

Go to Irrepressible.info to join

富士康诉一财记者的采访过程及对新闻职业主义的思考
by Fu Jianfeng (傅剑锋)
Southern Weekend reporter
Remarks & Translation by ESWN

[This is a follow-up article of Foxconn Lawsuit Provides Ammunition for Media Freedom Fighters in China]

The following is a translation of a blog post by Southern Weekend reporter Fu Jianfeng (傅剑锋). This is about the FoxConn-versus-China Business News case that Fu and his colleagues were working on, but never got to publish it after a ban was issued against further coverage. So this is yet another case in which an unpublishable case found itself on the Internet instead, with all sorts of delicious details that could not have been published either. This is a perfect illustration of how the Internet has transformed China ...

[In Translation]

(Original Chinese Article at Fu Jianfeng's Blog)
The investigation of the FoxConn-versus-China Business News reporters case plus thoughts on professionalism in news reporting. (Originally written on September 7, but posted on the blog on September 22, 2006)

The reason why I did not publish these notes before was that I did not want to engage in futile debates. Instead, I am looking for calm, deep and introspective thoughts. To a certain degree, this essay is still quite acerbic. I do not mind being criticized over this, because I think it is more important to have an honest debate.

=======

The investigation of the FoxConn-versus-China Business News reporters case and thoughts on professionalism in news reporting. By Fu Jianfeng.

Let me tell a story first. The story occurred on the day when FoxConn reduced its requested damage award amount from 30 million RMB to 1 RMB -- August 30.

On the afternoon of August 30, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court received a devilishly clever complaint. The complainant was Shenzhen citizen Du Chunlian, a shareholder in the Shenzhen Wanfeng Group. He was suing two reporters of Hong Kong Commercial Press (which belongs to the Shenzhen Special Economic News Group) for 450 million RMB at the Shenzhen Intermediate Court. His model followed the FoxConn case against China Business News in a completely identical manner: he sued the news reporter and the supervisor, and he asked for an astonishingly large amount of money.

Now listen to the conversation between him and Judge Yin who was on duty for processing new cases at the Shenzhen Intermediate Court on that afternoon.

Judge Yin read this hilarious complaint and shook her head: "Du Chunlian, you should be suing the newspaper, not the reporters. You are suing the wrong targets."

Du Chunlian: "So how come FoxConn can sue this way but I cannot?"

Judge Yin said: "FoxConn offered photocopies of the defendants' ID cards. Do you have them?"

Du Chunlian: "I do." Then he took out a letter from the Shenzhen News Group that certified the two individuals as being its employees (previously, Du had complained to the Group that the two were fake reporters and therefore the Group issued this letter to establish that they were real reporters employed by the Group).

Judge Yin: "Your compensation amount is too high. What is the basis for which you ask for this amount?"

Du Chunlian: "So how come FoxConn can do that but I cannot?"

Judge Yin: "FoxConn provided a damage report to us. Do you have one?"

Du Chunlian: "I have one too. It is an audit report." In truth, the Wanfeng Group has been distributing stock dividends to its shareholders for the past five years. According to the local audit report, the amount was 450 million RMB.

Judge Yin: "You should not sue the reporters. Even if you win, you won't get that much money. You should sue the newspaper instead."

Du Chunlian: "But I want to sue the reporters. I am not doing this for money. I am doing this for justice."

Judge Yin did not know whether to laugh or cry. So she reported the matter to the supervisor, who told her to tell Du that a response will be given two days later.

I asked Du about this case, and I found him to be a smart and interesting self-made legal expert. He learned law on his own and he had previously suffered biased treatment at the hands of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court on several occasions. This time, Du saw how biased the Shenzhen Intermediate Court was on behalf of FoxConn and so he came up with the idea of applying the same thing on them.

Two days later (and that would be last Friday), the court replied that the case has been referred to the chief judge and it is being discussed. According to the legal requirements, a decision can be delayed for seven days (that is, the final answer as to whether the case is accepted or not will be given on this Friday).

On Monday, I went to see Judge Yin in person. She is a pretty young woman, with curly hair and big eyes. At first, she said that the court will not let this matter be discussed. But I saw that she was a recent university graduate and she was inexperienced and unwary. So I began chatting with her and she eventually told me about the hilarious conversation the other day. Even she had to giggle non-stop.

So I continued to ask her: "Why are you people so careful about this case?" She replied a little cunningly: "Do you need me to explain? You must know it too." I asked again: "Is this nuisance of a citizen Du Chunlian giving your leaders a headache?" She was silly enough to reply in a delightful way: "They have such headaches! The leaders have been discussing this for several days without being able to decide." I continued to ask: "Why?" She replied: "You think about it. How can we establish a precedent for asking huge amounts of compensation from reporters? But if we don't let others sue as well, we must think of a logically consistent rationale."

This story made the Shenzhen Intermediate Court slap itself heavily in its face. In the entire affair, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court actually played a materially important role, and the media had basically glossed over this during their discussion in the later stages. Fortunately, it took a courageous organization such as Caijing that issued a special announcement to condemn the various laughable acts by this court. This case hinted that even if FoxConn was able to achieve its wishes, we would not have seen large amount of awards demanded from reporters in other cases.

Therefore, in framing my article, I thought that I could take a sarcastic jab at the Shenzhen Intermediate Court on one hand and then I could use this to affirm one positive implication of the red-hot media response on the other hand -- to protect the pitifully small amount of freedom that the media has and to relieve reporters from the fear of retaliation.

Also, I wanted to use this case to illustrate the deep impact on the entire litigation process when the capitalists collude with the authorities. Actually, the absurd doings at the Shenzhen Intermediate Court must have been made at the behest of certain Shenzhen officials. During the FoxConn affair, not a single local Shenzhen media outlet reported on this affair. After FoxConn was exposed on June 15, the various Shenzhen media spent large numbers of pages to praise FoxConn and their behavior was disgusting and revolting.

Apart from the long-term public dissatisfaction with the inequality of wealth, the Taiwan problem, the labor problem and other social sentiments, political power is a core factor in the FoxConn affair and the media must confront this factor. It is precisely this factor that made FoxConn avoid all the opinion dangers after this matter was hyped up. Through several ban orders, all the media shut up and FoxConn got away.

But that is just an introduction or subtext. The emphasis of our report will be about our reflections on the entire affair.

First, I want to say this: China Business News' report by Wang You was a report that totally ignored all the basic rules in journalism. After I analyzed the detailed information as well as read up the relevant laws, I conclude that Wang You would lose this case if it was ever heard in court. That is the basic reason why FoxConn dared to come out in such high-profiled manner and why China Business News was so eager to settle.

At Sina.com, many media outlet chiefs, scholars and experts supported China Business News. But I wonder if they have read Wang You's original report and especially Wang You's description of the "news gathering process" that was attached in the legal document asking for the unfreezing of her personal assets.

Wang Yu wrote: "At the time, I read several dozens of essays at the Xici Hutong forum about the complaints by FoxConn employees against the corporate system. Later, I was browsing a small technology page and I saw the QQ numbers of several FoxConn employees. So I engaged in more than 30 pages of QQ conversation with a recent university graduate. I had read some comments at Xici Hutong and I confirmed it with him. He gave me many recommendations. After the report was completed, I sent it to him for verification. He also gave me some recommendations. Before the essay was published, I sent it directly to FoxConn to verify the core facts. I called a Ms. He in the public relations department of the company. Based upon her response (a tape recording exists), I wrote down many key statements and I edited the essay as a result."

But if you refer to Wang You's actual report, all the points of complaint from the QQ correspondent were rejected by Ms. He and the final copy affirmed that FoxConn is a sweat factory. The so-called: "Based upon her response (a recording exists), I wrote down many key statements and I edited the essay as a result" is just a worthless piece of excuse.

Worse yet, Wang You never even personally met the complainant. This interview was done on the Internet, and she cannot verify whether the QQ complainant was really a FoxConn employee. It is entirely possible that this was someone from a competitor of FoxConn. For something that fails the journalistic rules to be published implied that the editor Weng Bao was also guilty. I also found another report by a China Business News reporter on FoxConn but that piece of exposé was more regular and therefore that reporter was not listed as a defendant. Also, Xu Zhiqiang and Qiu Huihui of 21st Century Economic News reported on FoxConn and they were not sued. My personal speculation is that this was due to their solid reportage.

When I interviewed Wang You on August 29 about her news gathering process, she began to scream hysterically at me over the telephone.

I asked: "Wang You. I read your description of the news gathering process. Did you complete the whole interview over the Internet. Why did you not meet with the subject himself?"

Wang You (angrily): "Fu Jianfeng, what do you people at Southern Weekend have in your minds?"

I said: "Wang You, please do not condemn me. Weng Bao was very friendly when I interviewed him. You are a journalist colleague and I obviously want to help you. But it must still be based upon understanding the truth."

Wang You: "Let me tell you. I did not write anything about my news gathering process."

I asked: "The three major portals all have information on your news gathering process. If that is false, why didn't you ask the three major portals to take it down."

Wang You: "Fu Jianfeng, I cannot tell about these things. You can go and ask our lawyer."

I said: "Please do not get upset. I know that you are under a lot of pressure. You have taken more than a hundred telephone interviews, but I still need to understand the situation."

Wang You: "Fu Jianfeng, if you misquote us, we will seek legal redress. If you keep hassling me, I will never give another interview to Southern Weekend.!"

I kept my cool and calmed her down. But I already realized that this was the weak spot of Wang You, and it was the weak spot for China Business News, just as it was the strong spot for FoxConn. The reason why I am relating this episode is not because I hold any opinions about Wang You. I want to say that many media in China are squeezing so much out of their reporters, making them write reports like serving fast food and this is the direct reason for the problems that Wang You was facing. Under these circumstances, I can understand her pressure and uneasiness. This is another reason why I am posting this essay today.

When Master Guo was writing his commentary, he asked me about the news gathering issue. We talked about what happened with Wang You and we felt that we must be wary that China Business News may be using the sympathy of the media across China to conceal the truth. Later on, Master Guo's commentary was unique, neutral and admirable. Later on, a colleague at Southern Daily asked me why Southern Weekend did not fall for China Business News' trick. I asked him, "Did the writer of that embarrassing Southern Daily commentary know about how Wang You gathered the story?" He said, "No. Otherwise he would not have been so stupid."

On August 29, editor Chenguang also learned about Wang You's problem. We had only two days left before our deadline. We did not have the evidence to publish a report that would be opposite to what the entire industry was saying. I worked a full night and then a full day, and I was troubled by how the report will be criticized heavily once it came out. On the afternoon of August 30, Chenguang made the decision to delay the report until the next issue and we were ready to go out to collect more evidence.

In retrospect, this decision was correct. On September 1, I had a long telephone conversation with a famous magazine writer and his editor. We shared the same views on this affair. That person believed that there was a serious problem with hyping up this news in China. Many of the commentaries were based upon limited amounts of disclosed information, and the core facts were built upon a highly dubious foundation. It was impossible to confirm the core fact about the accuracy of the report. His editor also told me: "Before we find out whether China Business News' report was accurate or not, we cannot report on this. So when can we report on it? It will have to wait until the two sides exchange the evidence in court."

We also agreed on another point: The other suspicious point is about the mysterious meeting between two FoxConn representatives and Wang You/Weng Bao. The details have not been disclosed as yet. But after this meeting, FoxConn suddenly sued the two on July 10. I asked Wang You and Qin Shuo several times about the contents of the conversation, but they evaded answering.

What important thing happened during that meeting? I use normal reasoning to deduce that the two FoxConn negotiation representatives came to figure out what China Business News has. We can put ourselves in the situation. If a powerful organization comes to our newspaper to complain, the reporter and the newspaper leader would usually show all our evidence in order to demonstrate that there was no problem with our report. During that meeting, Wang You and Weng Bao showed all their evidence. This allowed FoxConn to see that China Business News had no room to stand on legally. FoxConn was certain that it would win and therefore it went after the China Business News reporters in yhis high-profile manner.

Why did FoxConn depart from normal practice and come out in such a high-profile manner? Some media workers speculated that this was a public relations strategy. On one hand, they wanted to intimidate all Chinese reporters who want to do negative reports on FoxConn. On the other hand, they want to attract the attention of all the media on this case and when they win the case, the whole world will know that FoxConn had suffered an injustice and the FoxConn clients will know that FoxConn was innocent. At the same time, in order to stop the risk of incurring public opinion monitoring, FoxConn could mobilize resources such as the Central Publicity Department to control the direction of media reporting. The facts proved that FoxConn has that ability.

Of course, from a professional point of view, it must be important to be factual and the above is a logical assumption which needs to be verified by facts.

Faced with this extremely unsound piece of reporting, China Business News seemed to be fully confident as far as the outside world can see. When FoxConn reduced the amount from 30 million RMB to 1 RMB, Weng Bao began to "respect" Terry Guo again. Also, China Business News knew that there was a problem with its report, so they used an extremely unfair method of litigation: they asked all victims of FoxConn to file their complaints with China Business News and they said that a former FoxConn senior official has given them a lot more inside information. This showed that the supporting evidence for Wang You's report was extremely lacking. They only wanted to use this type of media hegemony to force FoxConn to settle and thus avoid losing the lawsuit.

This implies a certain danger. If we permit a media outlet which obviously lacks evidence to arbitrarily criticize and accuse another party and then when the other party strikes back legally, it uses the media's right of speech to collect evidence against the other party, this is clearly a private use of public tools and a profound disrespect of judicial administration. Besides, once such methods are used, the media will begin to exceed its authority and endanger the legal rights of people and organizations in society.

But China Business News was only bluffing. After the two sides reached an agreement, China Business News immediately announced the news on its website. FoxConn only published the joint statement on the settlement the next day. A lot of information can be read from this slight difference in timing.

Qin Shuo had previously told the outside world that there was no problem with the report, but now he made an admission in a partial and obscure fashion. "As I said when I was interviewed by the Xinhua reporter, the last section of our reporter appears to be exaggerated and flawed" and "if we obtain 'total victory' with a flawed report, then I cannot convince myself inside that this was a real victory and it would be unfair for FoxConn."

Unfortunately, faced with this seriously flawed report, only a small number of media outlets such as Caijing and Southern Weekend issued independent voices and maintained their vigilance. Most of the media jumped in unabashedly. This caused Fudan University professor Li Liangrong to criticize the Chinese media severely: The Chinese media are a public nuisance, "especially the national media, because they are too egotistical and vain."

Many professionals waited until the entire affair made a dramatic turn to reach a settlement before they saw that this was a farce. Then they found out their sense of justice had been manipulated and mocked.

Why were the Chinese media not sober? I think that there are several factors:

First, the FoxConn method of litigation was particularly vile. If they succeeded with this, all reporters would live in fear of litigation about their reporting. This was a challenge to the entire field of journalism in China as well as the freedom of press. Therefore, the reaction of the field of journalism contains an instinct of self-preservation. FoxConn had used a similar method to prosecute Commercial Times reporter Joyce Kuang in Taiwan, but they retreated under pressure from the Journalist Association. From thereon, very few reporters in Taiwan dared to report on Hon Hai and even fewer dare to criticize Hon Hai. Therefore, the Journalist Association leader in Taiwan believed the joint assault by the Chinese media against FoxConn has a positive meaning.

Secondly, the media will hype up the news to attract eyeballs, and they are just as irrational as the capitalists. For example, many newspaper chief editors and so-called scholars quoted the supreme laws partially to say that the law does not permit corporations to sue reporters. But the interpretation of the supreme laws is that the corporation can sue the reporter or the unit as it wishes, but it cannot sue both the reporters and the unit in the same lawsuit. Thus, if FoxConn were to sever the case down into three separate cases, it can sue the two reporters and the unit. Although suing reporters is contrary to commonsense and practice, this is permitted under our laws. These media people decided to misrepresent the articles of law, and their mentality deserves to be scrutinized.

Thirdly, exaggerating a report can bring harm and the practice of journalism lack professionalism as well as minimum fairness. The information to reveal that Wang You's report lacked supporting evidence was there right in front of the eyes, but the media which were making one-sided attacks on FoxConn either did not see it or pretended that they did not see it and never mentioned a single word. What ever happened to the so-called fairness of reporting by the media?

Fourthly, FoxConn is a sub-contracting enterprise and it does not need to advertise in mainland media. Therefore, no Chinese media had any direct linkage in interests, and they can afford to hit FoxConn hard. But, let us imagine that if FoxConn were China Mobile or a certain large real estate corporation or a large automobile manufacturer, then what happens? It is possible that the majority of media will shut up due to their advertising interests. Therefore, I very much pessimistically observe that the pursuit of truth and social justice is just a façade in the pursuit of commercial interests in the practice of journalism. As soon as commercial interests are threatened, the façade is torn away. The Chinese media is swaying between power and money, so how shall we maintain the responsibility and conscience that the media ought to have? I am unable to provide an answer.

During this time, a minority of scholars and professionals maintained their calm and professionalism. The scholar Zhan Jiang thought that it was problematic for the media to be so fervent and to exaggerate the extent of the damage. He advocated that the Chinese media should enhance professional training in journalism and maintain their calm on these types of litigation. He believed that this case served as the first encounter between the legal system and professionalism in journalism. He believes that professionalism in journalism includes several levels, and the first basic level is to strictly observe the regulations on journalistic conduct and to maintain neutrality and objectivity in the reporting. The relationships between the media and judicial system as well as between the media and corporations are also important issues for professionalism in journalism.

Professor Li Liangrong said that he led his students to conduct a survey of 66 corporations about their views on the media. He found that the 48 corporation owners wanted to stay away from the media. The medium and small corporations have nothing but complaints about the media. "Therefore, I call for the media to treat the corporations nicely and to protect them. Overseas, the media do not interfere with the production process of the corporations. They are only interested in the quality of the products." Although Lee's view that "the media do not ordinarily interfere with the production process and they are only interested in the quality of the products" has serious problems, his research showed that the media has abused its speech rights to cause avoidable problems in our social organizations.

The China Business News report could be a good piece of counter-example for professionalism in journalism. How the media and commercial forces can co-exist, counter-balance and remain independent is truly one of the most urgent problems that the Chinese media need to solve.

Also, the field of journalism needs to consider creating the space for teaching appropriate professionalism in journalism under the current pressures from the political and commercial spaces. For example, how shall a media outlet build an instruction booklet on news gathering that is consistent with professionalism in journalism? How to ensure that reporting is separated from business operations? How to ensure that the reporters have time to verify a news items through multiple sources? If these basic guarantees are absent, then the so-called professional in journalism will be hard to implement in the news gathering process.

With respect to these issues, I personally admire Caijing magazine the most. Their editor and chief editor clearly based their judgment of this incident on their professional training in journalism, and therefore they decided with a clear head not to report on this incident. Their consistent professional style won themselves a terrific reputation among their readers. By comparison, China Business News was founded two years ago and many readers have large number of doubts about their reporting style. The Bank of China has publicly denounced their inaccurate reporting twice already.

I believe that the readers are the ones who make the final decision. For a marketized media outlet, the market will render a final judgment.

=========

Here was the design of the report on this incident.

The main article consists of:
1. The contentious public opinion war turned into clear skies. Several days ago, China Business News and FoxConn were engaged in a do-or-die battle. Now they have restored their "mutual respect for each other" and this has astonished many people. This sarcastic opening will cause some people to express surprise and amusement. This will be done through interviews as well as Internet posts and comments.
2. This will then be followed by the crazed state of the media across China. It will have interviews with media workers as well as their statements on the Internet.
3. This will be followed by a description of the Chinese media ecology as well as how the dissemination of information affected the development of the affair. There will also be a description of the factors that affected this affair. The key descriptive points will be about what happened on June 15, June 20, July 10, August 28, August 30, September 4, and so on.
5. This will be followed by statements from certain cool-headed media workers. At ReporterHome.com, the reflective statement of media worker Zhang Rui is an important point. From this, the problems with Wang You's original analysis and reportage will be brought up.
5. This will then bring up some reflections on professionalism in journalism. Zhang Rui, Zhan Jiang and Lee Liangrong will be quoted on the over-reaction by the media.
6. But at the same time, the positive effects of this joint media action will be affirmed. This will be illustrated by the case of the Shenzhen citizen suing Hong Kong Commercial News for 45 million RMB to prove that the FoxConn case can be potentially disastrous for the media. At the same time, using that spoof case, the illegal acts of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court will be dramatically exposed.

Supplementary article 1: The re-investigation of the Joyce Kuang case in Taiwan -- this will be handled by my colleague Meng Dengke.

Supplementary article 2: A comparative analysis of the Taiwan and mainland cases -- this will be written jointly by Meng Dengke and myself.

During this week of news gathering, I have to thank my colleague Meng Dengke's exceptional work on the Taiwan situation. I have to thank intern Pan Xiaoling's excellent interviews with Zhan Jiang, Zhang Jie, Xiao Huan and others. I have to thank intern Zheng Yan for researching overseas reports. I have to especially thank editor Chenguang for his patience, tolerance and persistent encouragement. Our labor could not be reported to the public and our journalist colleagues. I am just as disappointed and sorry as you are.

Commission Contracted Research Paper
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
U.S. Congress
Feb 3, 2003

After the demise of the United States space shuttle, Columbia, some celebratory cheering was posted on Chinese websites. Liu Xiaobo, a renowned writer, published an article on overseas websites analyzing this unfortunate turn of events propagated by some Chinese Internet users. Some Chinese listeners of Voice of America have also made comments via call-in phone lines on the Anti-American sentiments among some Chinese.

A Roman Holiday for Some Chinese

After the Columbia space shuttle tragedy, people and their leaders in many nations expressed sympathy and condolences, paying their utmost respect for the American scientists dedicated to the human exploration of outer space. The Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, also sent a telegraph to President Bush to convey his sorrow. However, on some of the major websites of China, web users have made comments expressing their delight in this tragedy. In an article written for the United States web forum ObserveChina.com, the Beijing-based Chinese writer Liu Xiaobo conducted some quantitative analysis on the postings of the major Chinese Internet opinion forums. His study leads him to the conclusion that although the rejoicing rhetoric on these Internet sites are not as prevalent as that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S., a whopping 50% of the postings that have appeared on China’s two leading Internet services, "sina.com" and "netease.com" are anti-American gloating over the tragedy of the Columbia. For example, some Chinese Internet users "thanked Allah for protecting Iraq"; some believed the Columbia tragedy was "a punishment from Heaven upon the U.S. for its desire to control the world"; some predicted that "with this disaster the U.S. would finally decline and China would rise up eventually defeating the United States; some even regarded the explosion of the Columbia as the "the most beautiful fireworks for Chinese New Year’s Day!!!" Some held the sentiment that "today we are really happy...Thanks to the U.S.A. for giving us such pleasure." And there was also this: "No fireworks for the Chinese New Year? Now the U.S. has given us the biggest fireworks to say bye-bye to the past and to welcome the New Year."

Poisoned by Ultra-Nationalism

What do we make of these poisonous outbursts of extreme anti-American venom? Again, the writer Liu Xiaobo analyzed his study in Beijing: "The outpouring of such extreme anti-Americanism is the result of the poisonous ultra-nationalism, which undermines common human values, destroying a decent sense of justice and sympathy, blurring the substantial difference between liberty and dictatorship, between humanity and anti-humanity, between goodness and evil, between truth and falsehood, and between civility and barbarism. Its only sentiment is cold-blooded hatred, its only message is vulgarity and venting, and its only expression is obscene indelicacy."

Misled by the Government Media Reporting

One listener from Shandong Province in China called in via VOA’s hot line today, and provided his own analysis of the anti-American outburst. He believes that the anti-Americanism in China has resulted from erroneous interpretations of news events conducted by the Chinese government-controlled media. The listener stated that "Among today’s Chinese people, there exists an anti-American feeling. I believe this has been caused by the state and government that have been deceiving the people. For example, the common folks do not know the good side and the bad side of the U.S.-China relationship. And the Chinese government only lets its media outlets tell one side of the story, twisting the facts this way or that way, thus resulting in anti-American feelings."

One Should Not Celebrate Over Others’ Misery

However, in the Internet discussion group "Strong China Forum" under the auspices of the People’s Daily, an Internet user named "MBOY6" has a different perspective on the festive mood of some Chinese over the Columbia disaster. He states that "a considerable number of "netizens" who have celebrated over the Columbia disaster are by no means cold-blooded. They are not celebrating over the loss of human lives, but for the setback of the United States space programs, which makes him/her happy about one failure of the American hegemony in its unlimited expansion." Yet one netizen from Sina.com disagrees with such a view. He believes that even if the U.S. is a competitor of China, the Chinese people should still not exude happiness over America’s setback. This netizen, with an Internet name of "Cold Heart," says thatsays "Seven people disappeared forever on their way home. In the eyes of the despicable, this loss of lives constitutes beautiful celebratory fireworks, with which they decorate their contemptible and shameless vanity. Jealousy has made these callous people lose basic human sympathy. Even if the United States is China’s competitor, we should not rest our hope for superiority on the failure of our opponent. If our superior opponent tripped and fell, should we applaud for such misfortune? If the majority of Chinese people think this way, it would be better to move the 2008 Olympics somewhere else."

Internet Alone Won’t Bring Down Dictatorship

With the rapid spread of Internet applications, many people believe this will precipitate the democratization process in some totalitarian countries, even bringing down the dictatorial governments. Yet other scholars point out that despite the fact that the Internet has provided a new venue for obtaining information, the Internet has not become a serious threat to the governments in many non-democratic countries due to governmental monitoring and control.

Internet Used by the Government to Rule

Two researchers, Shanthil Kalathil and Taylor C. Boas, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have conducted a study on Internet use in eight authoritarian countries. Their study concludes that the Internet has not necessarily posed a threat to authoritarian regimes, especially those that endeavored to control the Internet from the early stages of its development, despite the belief held by many that widespread use of the Internet would constitute serious challenges to dictatorships and states in self-imposed isolations. "According to our study of eight countries," says Kalathil of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "we believe that the Internet does not necessarily pose a threat to dictatorial regimes. They not only view the Internet as a virus that spreads freedom, but also view it as a tool. The impact of the Internet is conditioned by the socio-politico and economic environments in which it is used. This is not to say that the Internet is completely useless in creating challenges to dictatorial regimes. But we have found that the Internet is often used by these regimes to strengthen their power to rule."

Technology to Monitor the Internet Becomes More Advanced

The target countries of the study conducted by the Carnegie scholars include China, Singapore, Vietnam and Myanmar in Asia, and Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. In China, Kalathil points out, the government strictly controls the use of the Internet, blocks en masse the dissident websites and BBS forums, and restricts the contents of online expressions, thus making the Internet unable to effectively promote social openness and democratic values–despite the fact that more and more people in China are obtaining information from the Internet, and the emergence of public online forums where expressions and exchanges of ideas are allowed. Kalathil further points out thatout "the authorities in China have used laws, surveillance, intimidations, and arrests to restrict this new form of information dissemination. At present, the methods used by the Chinese government seem to be working. Internet users in such dictatorial and closed societies are fearful of persecution by the government, therefore they avoid touching politically sensitive topics in their self-expressions. The increasingly sophisticated and complete cyber surveillance technology the Chinese government has been able to obtain has made the Internet users unwilling to take the risk of being arrested to check out restricted websites, or to take part in political activities by using the Internet."

Self-Censorship by Yahoo! and Others

Kalathil states that some organizations such as the Falun Gong spiritual movement and the Chinese Democratic Party are now limited to exerting their influence overseas through their Internet websites, despite the fact that they had some initial success in using the Internet to organize, communicate and to spread their views. This is because of restriction and obstruction by the Chinese authorities. In addition, the Chinese government has realized that it is impossible to build a perfect firewall, so it has resorted to encouraging self-censorship mechanisms, demanding Internet service providers such as Yahoo! to sign agreements with the Chinese government to voluntarily filter the information going through their networks. The government of China however does occasionally allow certain critical views online under certain circumstances to let the people blow off steam. The government of course uses the Internet as a tool for propaganda. These developments indicate that the Chinese government has successfully controlled the development and usage of the Internet in China.

The Internet Alone is Not Enough

Taylor C. Boas, who is Kalathil’s co-author of the new book entitled "Open Networks, Closed Regimes–The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Regimes," concludes in the research that their case study of the eight authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, Cuba and Asia revealed that the fundamentalist Islamic views expressed on the Internet in some Middle Eastern countries have posed direct challenge to the governments in the region that have chosen to join the United States in the war against terrorism; that the mere existence of the Internet alone does not guarantee the advancement of social democracy or regime collapse. Yet in the long run, the Internet may cause some changes in these societies, and may gradually strengthen the improvements of social institutions and precipitate economic development, thus; exerting positive impact upon national development. The two authors urge the decision-makers of Western countries to recognize this reality, and promote gradual reforms in these countries through international infrastructures such as the World Trade Organization and through dialogues on human rights, because it may take a long time for the Internet to show its impact upon politics.