The Hazards of an Unfree Press

http://www.feer.com/politics/2008/october/The-Hazards-of-an-Unfree-Press

FEER.com -  October 31, 2008 

On Sept. 14, Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post reporter Jian Guangzhou posted details of the Sanlu Group poison milk powder formula scandal on his personal blog. Three days later, censors deleted the blog entry.

Why would information that is critically important to public health vanish like that, and who would “disappear” it? Blame China’s Publicity Department, previously known as the Propaganda Department. In early August 2008, it decreed to all Chinese journalists that, along with Tibetan independence and public protests, “All food safety issues, such as cancer-causing mineral water, were off limits” for domestic news coverage until the Olympics period officially ended on Sept. 17. 
 
 

For Mr. Jian and his colleagues, the Chinese government’s Oct. 17 decision to permanently loosen regulations on foreign media freedom serves only as a cruel reminder of the official straitjacket all Chinese journalists must wear. While the new regulations guarantee the right of foreign journalists to talk to any consenting interviewee without interference, Chinese journalists remain hostage to the dictates of the state propaganda system despite Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution, which guarantees a free press.
 
Over the past decade, some Chinese journalists have tried bravely to take the Constitution at face value, reporting where they can on official corruption, land grabs, and environmental crises. But in reality, what they are allowed to cover remains heavily circumscribed in the Propaganda Department’s weekly faxes that list “taboo” topics. And the top leadership makes clear the government’s view of the real purpose of journalism: In January 2008, no less than President Hu Jintao urged cadres in a speech to “work hard on external propaganda to further display and improve a positive state image.”
 
Running afoul of China’s censors is no laughing matter. Journalists and editors who violate propaganda directives face punishments ranging from financial penalties and dismissal to prosecution and lengthy imprisonment. The government’s use of plainclothes thugs to “discipline” local journalists raises the stakes quickly. At least 26 Chinese journalists are in prison due to their work, many on ambiguous charges including “revealing state secrets” and “inciting subversion.” They include freelance reporter Lu Gengsong, who was sentenced to four years in prison in February 2008 on charges of “inciting subversion” for stories he had written for overseas Web sites on corruption and the trial of a Chinese human rights activist.
 
Perhaps worst of all, talented journalists are spooked into self-censorship. In April 2008, Chang Ping, a former editor and columnist of the Southern Metropolis Weekly, wrote on his personal blog: “I am afraid of other people praising me as a brave newspaperman, because I know I am full of fears in my heart. I did write some commentaries on current affairs, and edited some articles that exposed truth . . . However, to be honest, these were exceptional cases . . . In my various media positions in the past decade, what I’ve practiced most is avoiding risk. Self-censorship has become part of my life. It makes me disgusted with myself.” Within weeks of this writing, Mr. Chang was dismissed from his job.
 
Despite these dangers, many Chinese journalists work tirelessly against the limitations of the propaganda system to report the challenging realities of modern China. Those courageous efforts have over the past three decades helped to significantly widen the margins of officially “acceptable” news reporting. But even those Chinese journalists who learn to finesse the public's right to know with the whims of the Publicity Department.

Foreign correspondents, on the other hand, have reason to hope that some of the more onerous restrictions under which they have operated for decades may be starting to ease. They have applauded the Oct. 17 announcement, but are waiting to see whether the government will honor its guarantee of greater reporting freedom. After all, similar relaxed rules were in place from January 2007 to October 2008, but that period was marred by many dozens of incidents in which foreign journalists and their local sources were harassed, detained, intimidated or physically abused in course of reporting. The Chinese government’s failure to investigate these abuses has only encouraged government officials and security forces who still see it in their interests to obstruct foreign media. The new rules also continue to restrict journalists’ access to certain parts of the country, most notably Tibet. Instead, correspondents who wish to go there must submit to a lengthy and onerous application process, and permission to visit rarely eventuates.
 
Despite those flaws, the new regulations establish a stable, measurable standard of foreign media freedom which correspondents, foreign governments and international press advocacy organizations can use as a reference point in evaluating China’s performance. But until Jian Guangzhou and other Chinese journalists have the same rights under law as their foreign colleagues, genuine media freedom in China remains a long way off, and public health and other issues of national and international concern may well continue to fall victim to government censors.
 
Phelim Kine is an Asia-based researcher for Human Rights Watch.