Media: November 2007 Archives

This is becoming an all too familiar trend here in China when it comes to my 'home and native land' trying to -- if it actually is -- fix what is rapidly becoming a tarnished public image in this country.

Since taking power in Canada, the minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper has not exactly endeared itself to the Chinese government. From strong comments about China's human rights record to the awarding of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama, the current Canadian government has not done much to try to foster a friendly relationship with one of the world's most important trading nations. The latest failing came this week with Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement's visit to Beijing.

The Minister was here to sign a few agreements related to food and product safety. And given the recent fervor about tainted Chinese products in North America, one would have presumed that the Canadian government would want to get as much mileage out of the announcement in both the Chinese and Canadian media as possible. However, this was not to be.

Yours truly is on the Canadian embassy's email alert list. As such, whenever a Canadian delegation is in China for an event of one form or another, if the embassy is involved somehow, it will let the foreign and local media know.

Minister Clement's announcement on the food and product safety initiatives was on Tuesday morning at the famous Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, where most foreign dignitaries go when they make joint announcements with the Chinese government. The first event was a Food Safety Forum at 8:30am, followed by an official signing ceremony at 10:45am, followed by an 11:45am 'Official launch of the Canada-China Joint Committee on Health.' The 'Notice to Media' from Health Canada, sent through the Canadian embassy here in Beijing, noted that the Minister would be available to answer questions from the media following his remarks. All this is standard stuff when it comes to news releases and events. However, what is interesting about all this is when the 'Notice to Media' was sent out. Yours truly received the email alert at 9:40am on Tuesday morning, the same day as the event. So, even if I would have checked my email the moment I received it, there's essentially no way that I could have arrived on time to question the minister about said announcements. Meantime, a telephone message sent to the Public Relations Officer at the Canadian embassy requesting an interview with the Minister was not returned.

Unlike Canada, journalists here in China require at least one day's notice if they're going to cover an event. It's just the way it works here. Spot news and breaking news are just not part of the deal here in China. And to be frank, events like this are neither! They require a significant amount of planning. And even if all the journalists were to scramble upon receipt of said media advisory to the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, gaining access to the secure location requires advance notice. The Canadian embassy realizes this. As such, there have been a total of zero reports about Health Minister Tony Clement's announcement in the Chinese media. And back in Canada, only the CBC and CP picked up the story, and essentially took it verbatim from the subsequent news release that was put out following the announcements. So now, the question is why the Canadian government didn't want publicity surrounding this joint agreement with China?

I really have no inkling about the government's reasoning for wanting to keep this announcement low-key. And if there were to be any suggestion that it was a mistake to send out the media advisory so late, it just wouldn't wash. Public Relations 101 basically dictates that if you want the media's attention, you give them enough advance warning to be at said event, and if you don't want the media to scrutinize something in detail, don't tell them about it until it's too late. Hence why sometimes governments will send out negative or potentially damaging information to the media late on a Friday afternoon. By the time it's picked up in both the press and electronic media, the reader, viewer and listenership into the weekend will be at its low point. And by the time Monday rolls around, the story has become old news. It's a somewhat effective trick.

So yet again, the Harper government has forgone a chance to give itself some positive press in China. And I'm beginning to think its time that questions start being asked about what exactly the problem really is, and why.

Those of you who hail from countries other than Canada may not be aware of the latest controversy hitting our shores (and no, it's not the Brian Mulroney 'envelope stuffed with cash' story).

The brief synopsis is this: On October 14, a 40-year old construction worker arrived to start a new life in Canada. Robert Dziekanski was making his first trip outside of his native Poland, and was coming to join his mother. Mr. Dziekanski arrived at Vancouver Airport and began going through the immigration procedures. He was held up for more than 10 hours when he began to get angry. Unable to communicate in English, and very "confused", as some have described him, he began to become unruly. He pushed a computer off a desk and was shouting for help.

That's when the Vancouver Police arrived and used a taser to subdue the man. Four officers descended on him as he was screaming in pain on the ground, and tasered him at least one more time. He died shortly thereafter.

For a good overview of the story, check out the video below, which comes from CTV in Vancouver.

The tasering of Mr. Dziekanski has become a national outrage. His mother demanded the police release a video of the shooting, which had been shot using a cell phone camera by witnesses. That was made available a few days ago, and is below. Viewer discretion advised.

The story, as we say in the news business, "has legs". In fact, the New York Times has picked it up, and a new group has sprung up on Facebook called "Stop the Abusive Use of TASER".

Police brutality stories have a way of galvanizing the populace, especially when one has video evidence. Who can not have sympathy for Mr. Dziekanski, a man who was confused and disoriented, pleading with somebody to be brought forward who can speak Polish and give him some help? Many readers of this blog have traveled extensively and are familiar with arriving in a new place -- and even for them, it can be challenging. But for a middle-aged man who had no previous travel experience, and who was stalled at immigration for 10 hours, one can understand has level of frustration, and even fear.

But on to my point...

I showed this video this morning to a Chinese person, and asked if China would ever air something on national television that showed the PLA, or Public Security Bureau, in such a bad light. Would Chinese television, radio, or newspapers ever discuss this openly? Would a video like this ever even see the light of day, even on private websites?

I know the answer to these questions, of course. Canadians and people in other countries boasting a free press have learned to be fearless when criticizing their own military, government, police, doctors, nurses, teachers, or whomever else makes a public mistake. That's because by making these events public, we can bring about change, and ensure a similar circumstance doesn't happen again in the future.

I often find that many of my Chinese colleagues and friends respond badly to criticism of their government, believing that westerners are criticizing China. But here is something to keep in mind: westerners are often critical of their own governments as well. There is a big distinction here (and I am going to make a generalization, my apologies in advance): Chinese people often view the Chinese government as China, whereas people in democratic countries view governments as temporary representatives of the state.

Of course, in PR, the goal of any political party is to become as closely associated with national pride as possible. In Canada, the Liberal Party won three consecutive elections after claiming to stand for "Canadian values". The implication being the other guys weren't Canadian.

In China, though, this is dangerous. Criticism of the government, the police force, the military, or other public office can often bring about change. When one criticizes the Chinese government, this should not be taken as a criticism of China -- they are two entirely different entities. Just like Americans would be loathe to consider Republicans and the United States as one and the same. (This is a discussion for another day).

I am a Canadian. I am proud to be Canadian, and I will stand up for my country if its values, traditions, and character are attacked. But that doesn't mean my government gets a free pass, and it doesn't mean it's perfect. In fact, it has many flaws, and so does the RCMP. It would be nice if this nuance was more pronounced in China, as well.

Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has announced the government will now look into the incident, and the future use of tasers in Canada:

"I have ... asked for a review in terms of the use of Tasers," Mr. Day told the House of Commons. "We want to make sure that ... public safety is maintained and the answers are found on this particular issue.

"This is a tragic and grievous incident. We want to find out answers that can prevent these things from happening in the future."

It may seem obvious, but government intervention in this case is a direct result of the media's attention on this case. It's how countries move forward, develop, and progress positively.

The longer China holds out, the slower its own progression will be.

I am rarely surprised by the state-run media apparatus here in China. Working in the 'happy fun sunshine factory' myself, I get a first-hand look at the hypocrisy on a daily basis. However, today takes the cake when it comes to the coverage of Dr. Margaret Chan's China visit. The good doctor, a Hong Kong native, has graced China's presence to -- among other things -- talk about the state of China's rural health care. What is delightfully interesting today is the interpretation of her comments yesterday. Here is how Xinhua, via China Daily, interpreted her chat:

WHO chief lauds China's efforts to improve health services
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2007-11-01 21:25

BEIJING -- World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan praised Chinese government's efforts to improve public medical and health care services on Thursday. She said she had noticed that the six tasks on improving people's well-being in the report by Chinese President Hu Jintao at the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China included the basic medical insurance systems for urban workers and dwellers and a new type of cooperative medical care system in rural areas. "The public health service should put the stress on social equality and fairness," she said at a forum on China's rural health care services, organized jointly by the WHO and the Chinese Ministry of Health. She appreciated the Chinese government's efforts and plans to build medical systems for all people, saying "when fair and accessible public health services become the clear targets of a country's public health policy, people's health will be improved". Chen Zhu, Chinese Health Minister, said the Chinese government stressed harmonious development and valued the fairness of public health services. He said the Chinese government will continue to improve health services in rural areas aiming to enable rural residents to enjoy the benefits of China's reform and development. "The Chinese government will commit to build a fair public heath system in line with social and economic development," he said. He said "China has made remarkable achievements in the improvement of public health care services", but also admitted "there are still many challenges for the health care services in rural areas such as inadequate medical resources". China started the medical service reform in the early 1990s to abolish the system in which governments and state-run enterprises covered most medical expenses of urban Chinese. However, rural people found it rather hard to get access to medical care. Now medical insurance has been introduced and promoted in urban areas, and cooperative medical care has been experimented in the countryside. In this sense, all Chinese people will be able to enjoy an affordable medical service. The cooperative medical care system in rural areas, initiated in 2003 to offer farmers basic health care, covered 720 million rural residents, or 82.8 percent of the country's rural population, by the end of June this year.

Sounds like China's gettin' the job done. Way to go!!! So let's go get some confirmation about China's wonderful efforts in the rural health care sector from the foreign media who attended the same event:

Health in rural China worsening, costs rising-WHO

Thu Nov 1, 2007 12:56am EDT

BEIJING, Nov 1 (Reuters) - Health in parts of rural China is deteriorating despite rising incomes, and commercialised care has ratcheted up costs for those who can least afford them, the head of the World Health Organisation said on Thursday.
Hong Kong-born Margaret Chan said the cost of health care in China was outstripping income growth and that poor health was a major cause of poverty among China's hundreds of millions of rural residents.
"The payment of providers and fees charged for services has commercialised health care, compelling providers of care to focus on profit rather than the most efficient health services," she told a conference in Beijing.
"Health education and preventive services are neglected. Why? Because these activities do not guarantee income. As a result, simple conditions are often treated at very high cost."
The costs of seeing a doctor or staying in hospital are out of reach for many in the world's fourth-largest economy, and the lack of access combined with corruption has made the issue a source of social unrest.
China has pledged to provide its population with basic medical care by 2020, but Chan said the government was receiving little return in the form of better health for its investment in the sector.
"When ability to pay determines access, many rural residents will not seek care until a disease has reached an advanced stage when treatment is more complex and costly, if not impossible," she said.
"In short, the health system in rural areas has been given multiple incentives to operate with great inefficiency."
That could undermine China's efforts to expand care through its Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, a plan under which subscribers are funded at a level of 50 yuan per person -- 20 yuan from the central government, 20 from the local government and a 10 yuan contribution from the individual.
Chinese Vice-Minister of Health Chen Xiaohong said nearly 85 percent of counties in China were participating in the plan but the funding level paled to that of wealthy coastal cities.
China was also facing new pressures in the health sector, from an ageing population and environmental risk factors, as well as the challenge of drawing doctors to practise in its rural interior.

Now, I have no qualms about talking about the positive aspects of any given subject. As a journalist, you are trained to see all sides of the equation. And I know for a fact that journalists working for Xinhua are also trained in the same fashion as western journalists, as I have come to know a couple of journalism teachers here in China who have illustrious backgrounds in western journalism. However, for reasons that are becoming far too obvious and convenient in the media world in China, the state-run organs are sucking the life out of young and aspiring journalists, who otherwise would probably have a solid career in a non-state run environment. News, like everything, has an interpretation. Fox News has its view. CNN has its view. However, a journalist is supposed to see things from all sides, good and bad. Any event that one covers is supposed to be looked at from every angle, and reported as such. Now, I will admit that I was not in attendance at Dr. Chan's speech. And I don't doubt that what Xinhua is reporting is accurate, as far as the single quote (she's cited twice, but you can tell it came from the same sentence) of Dr. Chan is concerned. (though I can't vouch for the context of which the quote was gleaned) But I can, without a shred of doubt, tell you that the Reuters interpretation of her talk was just slightly closer to the mark than what Xinhua pulled out of it, given the vast amount of direct quotes from her! As a former journalism instructor myself, I really feel bad for the reporter who carved out the Xinhua story. Thankfully for him or her, there is no by-line.

The longer the state-run media continues to screw up its propaganda, the longer this country is going to suffer in the eyes of the rest of the world.