winning press freedom conference

How can a foreign correspondent earn the trust of the Chinese authorities? How can they trust that his or her intentions are just those of any competent journalist?

The answer is with great difficulty, says Yuwen Wu, News and Current Affairs Editor of the BBC’s Chinese Service, who has gone in and back through the Chinese bureaucratic maze many times and still risks getting totally lost in it.

How to Earn the Trust of the Chinese Authorities
By Yuwen Wu

I am here to address the issue of how China deals with foreign media, with particular reference to our experience with BBC Chinese Service.

It couldn’t be a more appropriate time to discuss this issue now, as both China and Western media including the BBC have been very much in the news following the riots in Tibet and the Olympic torch relay; there is strong attack on western media’s reporting of these events in the Chinese official media, which has spread onto forums, social networking and video clipping websites.

I will return to this topic at the end of my speech, because I think it is important to
put such outbursts in the proper political context; I will first explain through our own experience how the authorities control or use foreign media, and hopefully we can reach some understanding about realistic expectations in the coming months.

I will make the following points in my presentation:

1. In China, media is tightly controlled by the authorities, and there are strict guidelines as to what and what should not be reported; this is to ensure that the masses tow the party line on major issues, have confidence in the government and are not influenced by foreign media;
2. As far as foreign media is concerned, the authorities want to keep as strict control as possible, and employ many tactics, from jamming and blocking output, denying visa to journalists, to interference and harassment, and intimidating people who dare talk to western media;
3. At the same time, China is also increasingly concerned about how it is portrayed by foreign media, and has been trying to project a more positive image in the world; foreign media can also be used in this effort;
4. In our dealing with the Chinese authorities, our status as a foreign media organization but broadcasts and publishes directly in the Chinese language can work against us or to our advantage, all depending on the wider political climate, and what China wants to achieve in their co-operation with us.
5. In this Olympic year, the government’s preoccupation is to have a successful game and highlight China’s achievement; some short term concessions might be given, but we are yet to see if they represent real changes to press freedom.
   

1. Control of domestic media

Since embarking on opening up and reforms three decades ago, China has not only achieved breathtaking economic successes and improved the living standard of hundred of millions of people, but it has also loosened up control in many aspects of people’s lives, so they are much freer to move around, to seek employment of their choosing, and to live a life style without state interference.

In terms of freedom of expression, people are much freer to express their opinions, such as on corruption, legal reforms, environment, social problems etc, but crucially, the authorities still control what can be reported and what cannot be on many issues, and anything perceived to question the legitimacy of the government or the political system is not tolerated.

For instance, there are many taboo areas about which open public debate is not possible, such as the 1989 Tiananmen student movement, the legacies of some former leaders and political campaigns. On other issues, such as Taiwan and Tibet, foreign policy, and Falungong, the authorities don’t want the masses to stray from the party line, and those who do so face severe consequences. A popular and liberal magazine Freezing Point was suspended and its editor removed from the post simply because it carried some articles considered to have crossed the line; some dissidents have been sentenced to prison terms for speaking out on political issues.

2. Control of foreign media

In this context, it is not hard to understand why the authorities want to exercise strict control over foreign media; it is simply an extension of the control over the domestic media, as they don’t want the people to know how these issues are being debated inside and outside China.

This control takes several forms.

A. One way is to block foreign websites and jam their radio transmissions. At BBC Chinese service, we are constantly subject to this kind of interference.

BBC Chinese service is one of the 33 languages in BBC World Service, and it has been broadcasting to China since 1941.

Currently, we broadcast 4 hours a day to China on the shortwave, with a mixture of news and current affairs programmes and feature programmes on education, British life, sport and entertainment.

We also have two 24/7 websites: bbcchinese.com, which is a news site, and bbcchina.com, which is an education site.

At the moment, our short wave transmissions are constantly jammed in China, and our news website is blocked as well, but the education site (bbcchina.com) is accessible in China.

Recently BBC news site in English has been unblocked, along with some other websites (such as Wikipedia), but BBC Chinese news site is still blocked.

I want to stress here that this kind of censorship is effective, but never 100%.

Our loyal and persistent listeners can try to switch to different frequencies to hear our programmes, and in some parts of China, people can hear us quite clearly.

Regarding our website bbcchinese.com, many people in China can use other means to get to us, so the blocking is never 100% effective; I recently asked several well respected scholars if they can access our website, and they tell me very confidently that they can if they want to.

Nevertheless, it does interfere with people’s normal listening and reading habits, which means that we can’t reach our audience in as large a number as we hope, and our interaction with our audience is severely restricted.

In January 2005, after the former party secretary Zhao Ziyang passed away, we had a phone-in programme to talk about his legacy, One young caller told us that if it were not for the reports he had heard on the BBC after Zhao had died, he wouldn’t have known that Zhao Ziyang was such an important figure in recent history and did so much for China’s reform; he learned from school that Zhao was one of those responsible for the troubles during the 1989 turmoil. In fact, we had broadcast several series about 1989 student movement and often interviewed about Zhao Ziyang and others, but obviously this young man had no access to this information.

B. Apart from blocking and jamming, we also have to deal with official interventions or complaints about our programmes. From time to time we get phone calls or letters from the Chinese officials complaining about our coverage of Falungong, Taiwan or East Turkistan separatist movement.

As programme makers, we need to go to China and interview people; and we need to apply for a journalist visa. Sometimes we get it, other times we don’t. In the past years, applications to make a series about Mao Zedong, about Chinese media reforms and about petitioners’ situation were all denied.

Recently, even some events we routinely covered in the past became problematic. For instance, for many years, we could send a reporter to cover the Chinese parliament sessions in March, but in 2007, our visa application was rejected. The reason given to us was that there was no quota for us. Hundreds of journalists from all over the world cover the NPC season, but there is no place for one journalist from BBC Chinese Service! Later in 2007, our visa application to cover the 17th party congress was also denied, this time no reason was given. Two rejections in one year sets a record in our dealing with the Chinese authorities, and is quite baffling, given that the government promised more access to foreign journalists in the run-up to the Olympic Games.

3. Concern with China’s image

China can also use foreign media when it suits its purposes.

In the 1990s, following the Tiananmen crackdown, China was isolated internationally and concentrated on economy development, which saw rapid, double digit growth; the so-called “China threat” theory gained much currency at this time, which in turn aggravated China, nationalism soured and books such as “China can say no”, and ‘Behind the Demonization of China’ were very popular among Chinese leaders and intellectuals. China was clearly troubled by what it perceived as hostility in the western media but had no effective way of dealing with this except old fashioned slogans and editorials on the official newspapers.

As China was awarded the right to host the Olympic Games in 2001 and finally joined WTO, she realized that the world’s attention would be focused on China more and more, and it would do the country a lot of good if it is seen to make efforts to improve human rights record, press freedom and gradually move towards international standard.

China became more and more concerned about how it is portrayed in the west, and hopes to project a more positive image to the world. This has dual purposes – one is to show to the world that China is making progress in many areas and it ambitions are peaceful; the other is to tell the Chinese people that the West is accepting China as an emerging power and a force for good, thus boosting its standing among the Chinese people.

In March 2005, BBC had a week long broadcasting event in China called China Week, when the BBC was given unprecedented access, and even managed to stage Question Time from Shanghai. For a whole week, there was coverage about China on BBC radio, TV and online, which was an eye-opener to a lot of British people. Many in the British media hailed this as a breakthrough.

China certainly capitalized on this. Headlines in the official media read: “Finally BBC realized the importance of China and came to China”, or “BBC broadcasts Question Time from Shanghai, we have nothing to hide” etc. But the reports are quite selective about what actually went on during the debate, so only positive comments were quoted.

Of course, all these BBC programmes were in English, and apart from the invited audience present at the debate, Chinese people had no way of watching them; The panelists on Question Time debated about China’s human rights record and other issues, but the Chinese audience had no access to it.

So, by allowing BBC to come to China, British people had a good glimpse of the enormous changes that have taken place in China, and Chinese government is seen to be open minded in their dealing with foreign media.

With the Olympic Games just months away, we find more of this kind of gestures. Recently, BBC English news site has been unblocked, along with Wikipedia, but Chinese Service news site continues to be inaccessible in China. Again, Chinese government can say to the outside world that they are more open to foreign media, while fully realizing that the real impact of unblocking the English news site in China is quite limited, as many people can only read Chinese.

4. Being BBC Chinese Service

Because we broadcast and publish in Chinese, sometimes we are treated more harshly by the authorities; but other times, we have better opportunities than our English colleagues.

--On the downside, BBC has a bureau in Beijing, with two British reporters and some Chinese researchers, but our numerous requests to have a Chinese producer in China have all been rejected.

In 2006, a BBC team went to Guangdong to do some live programmes, and in the team there were two Chinese producers and some English producers and reporters from other language services. Our two producers were closely watched, their blog read everyday and commented on by the government minders, and when they interviewed local people, they were being watched as well; at one point, more than 10 officials were present when our producer went into a peasant’s home, making it very difficult to conduct a frank interview.

--On the plus side, sometimes, being able to communicate directly in Chinese gives us unique opportunities that our English colleagues can’t enjoy; but we have to fight every step of the way.

Over the years, we have worked with Chinese partners to organize debates on social issues. We have covered AIDS, smoking and health, the environment, traffic problems and even press freedom.

We would find a Chinese local broadcaster, decide on a topic, then organize either a live broadcast and webcast, or a pre-recorded show, and all this would attract some local coverage. It will be jointly presented by the BBC and the local station.

The fact that these can take place at all shows progress in China; but considerable differences still exists about the way to approach these issues and the manner of the debate, and we have to be very resilient and flexible to pull it off.

A very interesting example was a debate on Beijing’s preparedness for the Olympic Games that took place last August at the one year count-down. The issues for debate included what Olympic Games would bring to China, to Beijing and to ordinary Chinese people, and how will the successes be judged etc.

Our partner this time is Beijing sport radio, part of Beijing radio. They wanted to use a well know international brand as a platform to give good publicity to the games, and we wanted to hear some frank views. The plan was to jointly present the debate, and broadcast it live, and we invited some high profile guests to appear as panellists.

When our production team arrived, however, Beijing radio was deeply embroiled in the fake dumpling scandal, which brought down the director of Beijing radio, and the atmosphere was noticeably tense. The station wanted to exercise strict control about the debate, and the plan to broadcast it live was scrapped; the high ranking official changed his mind and didn’t want to appear as a guest so we had to frantically search for a substitute.

Before the debate, when our presenter and their presenter sat down to go over the questions, we were told that the debate should not touch on certain areas, such as the budget, medal hopes for China, or if people from outside Beijing would benefit from the games. But in the end, these questions were asked any ways by our presenter in a very skilled way, and the guests did give their views. The show was webcast live, and the professionalism and skills of our production team won high praise from the Chinese side.

Over the years, we have had many experiences like this in China. It highlights the different perceptions of media’s role in China and in the West, but also gives us hope that co-operation of this kind will gradually narrow the gap.

5. Olympics year and press freedom

A lot has been said about if the Chinese government is keeping its promise to improve human rights situation in China and to give more access to foreign journalists.

Since the new media measures took effects at the beginning of 2007, several BBC reporters in China have tried to cover social issues but met with local interference; Foreign Correspondents Club of China received 180 reports of interference in 2007 alone.

In March this year, as soon as troubles started in Tibet, all foreign journalists were expelled from there, making it very difficult to report what was going on, as we had to rely on second hand and third hand material. There were cases of wrong picture captions and wrong footages used in some TV reporting. This caused angry reaction from the official Chinese media and triggered some anti-west frenzy not seen perhaps since the Chinese embassy bombing incident in 1999.

After what happened with the Olympic Torch relay in London, Paris and San Francisco, BBC, CNN and French media were severely attacked for being biased and anti-China, not helped by some on air derogatory comments made by some TV presenter. “Don’t be too CNN” became a buzz phrase in China and anti-CNN anti-BBC-video clips are doing the rounds on the internet. BBC and CNN journalists in Beijing have received threatening messages.

For BBC Chinese Service, we have been inundated with angry messages accusing us of being untruthful and biased. The tone is aggressive and some extremely hostile.

As editor in the Chinese Service, I feel more than ever before the need to report events fairly, objectively and with balance, which in our case means covering both sides of the argument on the Tibetan issue and Olympic Torch relay. I notice that some pro-China demonstrations in the world have not been reported in the main stream media, which simply feeds into the belief that there is an anti-China agenda in the west.

While the international community continues to press China to keep its promise and make it easier for foreign journalists to work there and improve press freedom in general, we as journalists also have a responsibility to remain balanced, objective and fair in our reporting of China, because any mistakes we make, or ignorance or prejudice we show, might be seized upon by the authorities and further hinder our communication with the Chinese people, which is the last thing we want to do, because we have no quarrel with the Chinese people.