Be cool, Beijing; six tips to fixing China's PR mess
The always excellent Imagethief has pointed us to an interesting article written by James Millward on OpenDemocracy.net called "China's story: Putting the PR in the PRC". Millward examines six areas in which China can improve it's PR. These include:
▪ Remember that what you say to a Chinese audience is heard by the world audience
Until recently, Chinese authorities viewed even local Chinese newspapers as "internal circulation" media which a billion-plus Chinese, but not foreigners, were allowed to read. Those days are over. Since broadcasts, newspapers and everything else are now online, and lots of foreigners understand Chinese, Chinese domestic news gets out. Even stories that are squelched in China get out. It is a cliché, but true, that we live in one media universe.
▪ Consider how your statements sound in English
Diatribes by hardline leaders may be aimed to satisfy a domestic Chinese audience, but such rhetoric sounds violent, even hysterical, when translated and broadcast in English. Zhang Qingli, first party secretary in Tibet, infamously called the Dalai Lama a "terrorist"; Xinjiang's first secretary Wang Lequan shouted at a press conference on 9 March 2008 that "those terrorists, saboteurs and secessionists are to be battered resolutely, no matter who they are!" It would have worked better if he simply said "stopped," or "apprehended": words like "battered" or "crushed" merely contribute to the impression that the Chinese government is inherently violent. (True, President Bush often sounds the same way, with his cowboy swagger - but here I rest my case. His world image is nothing to emulate.)
Also, be aware that many Chinese slogans sound quaint, or worse, in English. "The Three Evil Forces" is one example, "the Dalai Lama Clique," another. And don't call it "splittism"! That word, probably originating in a poor translation, is used only in the Chinese context, mainly by the Chinese government's English-language media. "Separatism" means the same thing, but is the term used when similar situations plague other nations.
The other ones are great, as well. Millward's last point is for Beijing to act with more confidence. Even if Beijing is telling the truth on issues like the arrest in Xinjiang over an apparent terrorist plot, westerners are skeptical because they aren't given the freedom to investigate for themselves.
One of the fundamental differences between the west and China is that people who grow up in western nations don't automatically trust their own governments. They are taught a healthy sense of skepticism; so when governments make claims, reporters need to check it. When they introduce a new policy, reporters and pundits often examine it and even criticize it. Westerners don't automatically assume the government is doing the right thing.
As Millward suggests, keeping one message that works for domestic consumption and a different one for overseas consumption may work. Because the domestic and overseas audiences are so profoundly different, this isn't a case of one size fits all.
The rest of Millward's suggestions can be found here.
Categories
Media and Public Relations0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Be cool, Beijing; six tips to fixing China's PR mess.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/323
Free Tibet. If it is not ubiquitous now, it will be by tomorrow morning. The flyers and headlines are everywhere. I hear them everyday, from the television, from across the table. They are questions of independence, of righteousness, and of humanity. Columbia Students for a Free Tibet, in conjunction with NYU, staged a protest last week in support of the cause. Another event is already set for later this week. The Columbia Web site featured a link last week to a professor specializing in Tibetan affairs. The Dalai Lama recently graced the cover of Time. CNN.com featured over 100 articles relating to Tibet in the last month alone.
In light of recent violent confrontations between the Chinese army and Tibetan citizenry, the Western world has offered its support to the Buddhist territory. While the conflict in Tibet has been ongoing for some years, escalating acts of violence have forced it into the international limelight. Student groups and media outlets demand independence for a place and a society of which they have little understanding. The associations are only natural. What could a monk seek but peace—what could a religious figure preach but love and acceptance?
Many Western supporters of the Tibetan cause identify the Dalai Lama as a figure to be revered, and with good reason. The Dalai Lamas have taken care to craft an image of monastic bliss. The 14th Dalai Lama was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
Yet while the Dalai Lamas have received much praise over the years, the history of the title is far from pristine. One Dalai Lama has admitted to having sex with a hundred men and women, knowing all the while that he had AIDS. His predecessor was abusive, forcing his students to perform acts against their will. The public praise and the private follies of the Dalai Lamas of the past and present construct a troublesome and hypocritical image of the Tibetan leader.
Supporters and protesters brazenly argue for the Tibetan people’s right to live under their own rules and beliefs, but these beliefs are not all peaceful. Ritualistically, women were seen as impure, inferior, and a temptation for monks. Many monks participated in the dismemberment of female bodies. As a result of these beliefs, orders of nuns were often unable to develop, and remain subordinate even today.
Until recently, the Tibetan legal system was plagued with cruel and unusual punishment. Since killing was forbidden, jailors often resorted to torture. Prisoners could serve any number of punishments, including the loss of the eyes, tongue, and other limbs. Major monasteries also contained dungeons comparable to those of the Middle Ages, often decorated with human limbs. As the legal system functioned on wealth and status, an offender charged with murder could provide the surviving family with monetary compensation, allowing the wealthy to escape a physical sentence.
While the teachings of the Dalai Lama promote peace, the history of Tibet itself is far more sinister. The clash itself remains complicated and ambiguous. Both sides rely heavily on the use of historical facts as the foundation of their arguments: Tibet should be independent because it has always been so. Tibet should not be independent because it has never been so. China dates sovereignty over Tibet back to the Yuan Dynasty. Tibet, on the other hand, believes that China stole their independence in the 1950s. The differing views lead to violence and riots that have no doubt incited much suffering and pain.
Whether Tibet deserves independence is up for debate. What is not, however, is having a complete understanding of the side one takes. The effects of this dispute make one thing brashly clear. Suddenly, freedom is not a prized value but instead a knee-jerk reaction. In the Western nations’ hasty move to remake the world in the name of freedom and democracy, we find that people often suffer more than they gain. The international community is still buzzing in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. “Freedom must be had,” the US government cried as it charged into the Middle East. No one is charging this time, but the battle cries can be heard loud and clear.
The central conflict lies between China and Tibet, but the moral conflict rests with foreign supporters of Tibetan independence. We, as outsiders, have the responsibility not to unwittingly follow the banner of liberation, the same banner that led us so recently into the Middle East. Columbia Students for a Free Tibet address each other as “freedom fighters.” The insurgents in Iraq also share this revered name. While America remains knee-deep in the atrocities of Iraq, we seem no more hesitant to cry for freedom. In the Iraq war, our ignorance was imposed. With Tibet, our ignorance, to whatever degree, will be deliberate.
Independence alone does not put right those who fight for it. The complications of Iraq and similar situations prove that ideals of liberation and independence demand careful consideration. Using them blindly as banners unnecessarily jeopardizes lives, and devalues what should be our most prized possessions. The invasion and subjugation of Tibet may not be justified, but neither is unquestioning support of a society yet to be fully understood. It is simply not enough to know what one is fighting against, but also what one is fighting for. Whatever side of the line we choose to fall on, we should choose with understanding.
The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in American studies.
Pretty good advices. It about time for change. Better late than never.
"As Millward suggests, keeping one message that works for domestic consumption and a different one for overseas consumption may work. Because the domestic and overseas audiences are so profoundly different, this isn't a case of one size fits all."
"Two facing" as a PR strategy ? Great advise !! What if the internal audience gets a peek of the external message, and vice versa ? Since there is a better chance the external audience seeing the internal message than the other way around, we are safe.
monk movie Bulletproof