Media: October 2007 Archives
I'm sure we've all come to realize that a certain amount of paranoia runs rampant within the government and the state-run system as a whole. I mean, it can't hold a candle to the freak show that lies just below China's border in the northeast, but the years of Mao and the Cultural Revolution still seem to be influencing the state system. And one recent revelation about the state-run media really brings this point home to roost.
This past weekend a friend and colleague of mine revealed just how afraid China is of Falun Gong. I was told that before she was able to be considered for employment that she must put forward a letter from her university professors explaining to the management of the radio station that she has never been involved or associated with anyone who was part of the Falun Gong movement. It was also explained to me that this is common practice before anyone is allowed to take a position in the state-run broadcast media. Apparently, as the story goes, the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television, or SARFT, instituted this no-FG rule a few years back after -- as the story goes -- a Falun Gong member penetrated one of the broadcasting outlets here in China (can't be sure which one, but I think it may have been China Radio International) and put out anti-government messages for about 4 hours until they were discovered and, presumably, yanked off the air (and likely taken for a healthy dose of 'reeducation' forthwith)
Now I'm no fan of Falun Gong. Having been involved in the media in Canada for a number of years where the Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, as they call themselves, have complete freedom, I have dealt with many of them, and truly believe that their movement -- however spiritual in nature that it may have been when it first started -- is now run by fanatics and zealots. But still, this revelation by my colleague brings home the fact that this government is scared of these people. So the question is why? Is it the fact that they organize well? Is the idea of a spiritual movement in a Communist-run society too unappealing?
Under Jiang Zemin, the line was that the government outlawed Falun Gong because the sect was telling its members to hurt themselves. But why, with a population of 1.3 billion people, would -- and not to sound too crass -- this government give a rats ass if dozens, or even hundreds of people decided to take a dip in the Kool-aid? That theory just doesn't wash. So what is it? Why is there so much concern about this movement that the state-run broadcasting organs are making their employees pledge not to be F.G.? I'm afraid it's an answer we shall never hear directly from the horse's mouth.
I know this has been an ongoing issue for quite some time now. However, I wanted to posit a theory out there for folks to chew on. I preface this post by saying that I have no hard or fast evidence to prove any of this. This is not a journalistic entry...just the musings of an international affairs analyst.
I find the timing of all the recent hype around the Chinese product recalls a bit suspicious. First of all, I am not for a moment going to tell you that the toy recalls in the United States right now aren't justified. I wouldn't want my kid playing with toys splattered with lead-based paint. However, I do sort of wonder why this issue all of a sudden began to rear its head again.
For years there have been recalls because of Chinese produced products. I mean, when, as a country, you're pumping out the vast majority of toys for domestic US consumption, odds are, you're going to be the main focus of recalls. But still, this year, the media seems particularly interested in this ongoing saga. So why?
Since the summer of 2005 when China loosened - but didn't fully eliminate - the peg of the Chinese currency, the Renminbi, to the US dollar, lawmakers in the United States have been on China's case about allowing the Yuan to revalue more quickly. The main reason is that China has a massive trade surplus with the United States, and lawmakers don't like the imbalance. They figure a higher Yuan will reduce imports, help balance out the trade surplus, and create more manufacturing jobs domestically. No big revelations here. But it was this year that the Bush Administration began playing hardball. Just this week the US filed its 4th WTO complaint against China this year. These complaints started coming around the same time as US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson began the second round of 'strategic economic dialogue' with China. And, coincidentally, the product recalls because of lead paint began shortly thereafter. So is there a connection here? On the surface, one might not think so.
Before the 'strategic economic dialogue,' Treasury Secretary Paulson was not outwardly keen to press China on the issue of revaluation. I have to admit, when I heard that, I was a bit surprised, given the pressure lawmakers in Washington were putting on him to do something about the Renminbi, given their individual pressures at home because of manufacturing job losses. And when the toy recall issue started popping up in the States, I really didn't think twice about making a connection. However, it did get me to thinking recently...
Was Mr. Paulson was putting up a smoke screen in May? Were there plans already afoot to try to put increased pressure on China and reduce the trade surplus?
Unlike China, of course, the US government does not control what the media can and can't report. However, that's not to say that the government can't find a way to influence what 'revelations' are made in the media. It happens all the time. As a western journalist myself, I was constantly trying to groom contacts in the government. And when doing this, often times it turns into a game of give and take. Sometimes you will be given a 'tip,' that you know is merely a 'trial balloon.' Still, you run with it, because it's legitimate, and you have to - as we say in the media - 'feed the beast,' or get stories on the air for consumption. You do this as a journalist so that when you do uncover something that isn't fed to you, the odds of getting better information to round out your story increases.
So, with this knowledge, I posit this suggestion: Did the Bush Administration point the media in the right direction when it comes to Chinese recalls? Now, I'm not saying that - if this was the case - the Administration is still pushing the issue with journalists. There's no need. Once the media gets its teeth into an ongoing issue, it will stick with it and look for new angles on the existing issue. Some might call it lazy journalism, but it's still the way the system works. And for the Bush Administration, why not just sit back and hope that these recalls will start to fuel other stories about the safety of Chinese products (which, it has). What better way to stimulate spending on domestically-manufactured products than to put fear into the hearts of your consumers about products from overseas. You do that, then fewer and fewer bad Chinese products hit the shelves and the trade balance is reduced without having to continue beating on China over the revaluation of the Renminbi.
As I said before, there's no proof I can conjure up to add any credibility to this theory. But if you do the math on the timelines, it does make for curious speculation.
Working for the largest state-run radio outlet in China, hosting a political current affairs program, I knew this week was going to be trying. In fact, the headaches began even before the CPC's 17th Congress even opened up!
The tension and pomp and circumstance a couple of weeks before the Congress began became increasingly palpable. From the increased meetings of the station leadership, to the inclusion of a second set of PLA guards in the entrance to our offices, to the 'gussying up' of the office itself with banners and the like, one could tell that we were going to have an interesting time of it.
When the CPC took over government here in China in 1949, it decided to copy the media design laid out by its socialist sponsor, the Soviet Union. As such, propaganda replaced opinion and actual journalism. It was that same propaganda that helped cultivate and nurture Mao's cult of personality and the Cultural Revolution. Unfortunately, even after Mao's death and the realization within the party leadership that personality cults and the Cultural Revolution were disasters, the propaganda continues. Now granted, some days it doesn't seem so bad. This government has come to the realization that in order for it to show the outward appearance of increased transparency, it can't all be sunshine and roses about the Chinese government. As such, you are seeing more and more examples of this government being critical of its own problems. Even on my program, which is heavily scrutinized and vetted, I'm sometimes surprised at what I can talk about. Maybe five years ago, the idea of even talking about corruption within the CPC was unheard of. But these days, you can get away with it (within certain limits, of course). And in actual fact, there are days when I will do an interview and walk away afterward feeling that the questions and responses that were brought forth weren't that far off from actual journalism. But throw all that out the window this month!!
Rarely am I told what I can or can't ask. I'm not so naive as to believe that I have free reign. But I know, for the most part, where the line is, and I will rarely step over it. It's not as though I don't want to sometimes, but there's really no point, because the program will just be edited afterward anyway, and I don't get a say in that. But the past few days have been particularly annoying. Because of the uber-political environment this week, the leadership within the state-run media organs is on high alert, because they don't want to be seen as making a mistake. As such, the daily directives that come down from the government about what we are or aren't allowed to talk about are being interpreted by the management to the strictest of levels. The one that really sticks out for me was before the Party Congress even began!
We were preparing to do a program about French President Nicholas Sarkozy meeting for the first time in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pretty tame stuff when it comes to controversy. In fact, the trip turned out to be so boring that it barely made a splash on the international headlines. It was a non-starter, and seemed pretty safe for us to tackle...or so we thought. After conducting one interview with an academic in Europe, I ventured out for a bite to eat while I waited for my second interview to be lined up. Upon my return, I could see the disturbed look on my steadfast producer's face. Something tells me I wish I wouldn't have asked what was wrong, though it really does provide some insight into the mindset of the media organs in China at present.
As it was explained to me, we were going to have to rebroadcast an old edition of the program (given the fact there wasn't enough time left to set up new interviews) because the Sarkozy-Putin meeting was deemed to be too politically sensitive. No, not because it may offend either the Russian or French Embassies (which is actually a major concern at this radio station). No, the reason we couldn't broadcast this particular story was because of Chechnya. During Sarkozy's visit, there may have been brief mention of the would-be break-away Russian republic between himself and Putin. As such, this topic was to be a non-starter on Chinese radio at this point, because it might remind someone in the CPC about -- wait for it --Taiwan! The structural engineers who built the Golden Gate Bridge had an easier time making that connection than I did to this particular line of reasoning.
All I could do was shake my head, try to console my producer with a quick joke, and go home. And the ironic footnote to the whole story came when we got in the next day and were told that the former edition -- which was perfectly acceptable in the spring -- was also not a good choice at this time because it focused on food safety.
This Party Congress can not be over fast enough!!!
