Media: February 2008 Archives

Hosting an analysis show on state-run media here in China can be best described as an interesting experience. Coming here two and a half years ago, I had to sort of retrain myself and put myself in the Chinese government mindset when it comes to the things you can or can't say. I'd like to think that I picked up the concept rather quickly...though there have been a few occasions where I've crossed that invisible and undefined line in the sand that the CPC doesn't like. Thankfully, the repercussions have been minimal. That being said, I'm still often times at a loss to explain (and never given any official explanation) as to why certain events and topics are taboo. The past week and a bit is a prime example of this.

Three major international events have taken place recently that - in my mind - screamed to be talked about on an analysis show like mine: Kosovo declaring independence, Castro resigning (and possibly dying, though this is just a pet conspiracy theory of mine) and the election in Pakistan. But, much to my frustration, all three were on the banned list. So I'm going to try to reason through for you why said events will not be aired.

Kosovo: Well, this one is pretty obvious. Any connection - thin as it may be - to the potential independence of Taiwan makes the Foreign Ministry's sphincter pucker up tighter than a snare drum. In fact, any connection to the "3-T's" is almost always off limits. Once during a program on immigration, I made reference to the Statue of Liberty in the United States as a beacon for European immigrants to that country. That reference was subsequently nixed because - as was reasoned to me - it potentially could have reminded people of a certain icon that was on display during a certain event that took place here in Beijing in the summer of 1989.

Castro: This one is a bit more confusing. But I think there are a few reasons behind why I won't be talking about Fidel. One is historical. Though they are both communist countries, China and Cuba have never had a strong relationship. Castro closely allied himself with Khrushchev in the 60's and made the Soviet Union his close ally. This came at a time when the Sino-Soviet split was starting. And since then, China has had no more than a passing relationship with Cuba. Another reason, in my estimation, is the current state of global affairs. The United States, one of China's key export markets, continues to maintain an embargo on Cuba. As such, analyzing Castro and Cuba on Chinese state-run media - as far as the Foreign Ministry is concerned - could be interpreted by the US as sympathetic gesture toward Cuba, and potentially strain relations with its big trading partner. And the third reason I can think of is potential concern about angering the Cuban embassy here. A few years back, the Cuban embassy launched a formal complaint with the Foreign Ministry after one of the news readers at this radio station referenced Fidel Castro as Cuban dictator instead of the preferred nomenclature of Cuban leader. Needless to say, this radio station has been walking on eggshells ever since when it comes to the Cuban embassy.

Pakistan: This one too is a bit more difficult to figure out. But there may be a couple of possible explanations. One is that this current CPC leadership group has always maintained a good relationship with Pervez Musharraf. And given the outcome of the vote, the Pakistani administration wouldn't be too pleased to hear Chinese media picking apart the reasons why Musharraf got his ass handed to him at the polls. The other, and perhaps more obscure, reason may relate the leadership in Zhongnanhai itself. Musharraf is the President and head of the Pakistani military. Hu Jintao is the President and Chair of the Central Military Commission. Musharraf is potentially going to be ousted by a coalition of people who don't support his policies. Hu Jintao...well... You see why there might be some concern about analyzing the situation too deeply.

As I've said before, there are times working in state-run media where I'm surprised what I can get away with saying. But, that being said, I suspect as the Olympics draw nearer, anxiety is only going to push the people in charge of the state-run media organs to become that much more politically conservative.

It truly aggravates me when I see guys like Steven Spielberg waxing on about how he finds it his moral duty to help the people of Darfur by pulling out of the Olympics. It is pure, sanctimonious crap! I have no doubt that Mr. Spielberg is a very intelligent man. Having seen many of his films, I can tell that there is something special about this man's ability to make a movie. And that's the point. If he really wants to help the people of Darfur, he should making a movie about the genocide that's taking place there, and giving people insight about the wrongs that are taking place in that region of Sudan. I'm tired of guys like Spielberg, Mia Farrow and Bono sitting on their high horses and quarterbacking some kind of political grass-roots action against the flavor-of-the-month cause. If you really want to make a political difference, do like Reagan and Schwartzenegger did, which is actually put yourself up for election so you can actually enact political change, rather pulling half-baked PR stunts like pulling out of the Olympics, which isn't going to effect the overall look of the Games here in Beijing this summer, and quite frankly, isn't going to make one lick of difference when it comes to getting China onboard the Darfur situation more than it is already.

Don't get me wrong. I do sometimes enjoy when this government is given a poke in the eye, like, for example, when the WTO rules that it was completely off base in its auto parts dispute with the United States, Canada and the European Union. But I could give a tinker's damn about Spielberg's involvement in the Olympics, and I don't think anyone else outside of a few self-righteous activists and the media care much either. And don't think for a minute that Mr. Spielberg made this move out of any true moral decision. He is basically hedging his bets. He realizes that if he goes ahead with his efforts in Beijing this summer, the same people who have rushed to applaud his decision to pull out would likely have turned on him and put pressure on people in the United States and elsewhere to boycott his films. And, unfortunately, these same zealots have much more influence over the mass of undereducated Americans then the people they elect to lead them.

So good luck trying to get one of your films screened in China anytime soon Mr. Spielberg! Oh, and for the record, I do believe that China should be doing more to stop the genocide in Darfur, and it will take politicians to make that happen!

I have to admit that I am a staunch opponent of so-called 'reality' television. If I want reality, I'll go outside for a walk and watch people interacting with one another. That's reality. But it is a disturbingly popular trend. Since the launch in the United States of the very popular TV series 'Survivor,' numerous other 'reality' television shows have since popped up, including many music-based programs like American Idol and the Chinese versions of the show, which include Super Girls and last year's male version, Happy Boy. And as wildly popular as Happy Boy was amongst Chinese viewers, I regret to inform you (actually, I relish in it) that the program was rigged! This revelation comes from one of the judges on the program, Chinese award-winning rock star Zheng Jun.

On January 30th of this year, Zheng Jun appeared on the China Radio International bilingual music program The Pulse hosted by my friends and colleagues Mr. Rich and Maddy and was asked about his experience on the program. Here is the transcript of what Zheng Jun revealed:

Maddy: But since you have the power to choose [the winner of the program], but you leave the show.
Zheng Jun: No no no no. When I stay there [on the program] the leader of the TV station, the director they gonna contact you before the show and decide who should be the winner.
Mr. Rich: Really?
Maddy: Really?
Zheng Jun: So we [the directors of Super Boy] want to you just think about it. Because we [the directors] think this can make the show better.
Mr. Rich: I see. So it can make people go crazy for the ratings.
Zheng Jun: Cause this guy maybe looks better, or this guy...people think this guy is a good dancer or something. This guy is a good musician or song writer, but this guy we think is boring...stupid or boring. So the director, they want you to do what they want you to do. So we always fighting during the show cause we three judges we decide this guy should be the winner, but then we gave this note to them then they changed it.
Mr. Rich: Right.
Zheng Jun: Then they changed the name, then they changed it again! Then they changed it again!
Maddy: They can make up their minds either!
Zheng Jun: Finally they changed it again.
Mr. Rich: Right
Zheng Jun: And finally we were always fighting.
Mr. Rich: This is crazy!
Zheng Jun: This is crazy! Cause it's not...
Mr. Rich: It's not fair!
Zheng Jun: It's not fair. It's a game, but it's not a fair game.

So, as you can see by Zheng Jun's revelation, the 2007 Super Boy competition was nothing of the sort!