It felt like deja vu. I had read ESWN’s post earlier today on corrupt officials being held to account for pilfering donations to the “AIDS village” in Henan province. Then, hours later, I found myself reading the exact same text in a China Daily article.
This seemed especially remarkable because the article is not totally CCP-friendly. For instance, I was surprised (shocked) to see China Daily printing a story that said:
The Chinese Communist Party county committee propaganda department said that it would give no interviews and provide no information. Furthermore, the reporter is not allowed to contact villagers at will. One propaganda department official actually said: “It is impossible for us to provide any information on what you want to know about. You are too naïve to dare to cover such a sensitive topic.”
Since when do they refer to their own “propaganda department”?W as this a mistake? Did they lift ESWN’s translation and rush it to press without proofing it carefully? I suspect so, because when I went back to review the article again, the above text had been changed:
The Chinese Communist Party county committee information department said that it would give no interviews and provide no information.
Furthermore, the reporter is not allowed to contact villagers at will. One information department official actually said: “It is impossible for us to provide any information on what you want to know about. You are too naive to dare to cover such a sensitive topic.”
Even so, I’m surprised to see China Daily air so much dirty linen on the party. But then, who knows – maybe the next time i click the refresh button it’ll be changed and softened again, if not deleted altogether.
1
By Ed
I’ve seen China name their propaganda departments as “propaganda departments” before. But in China many think all news is propaganda. Even though free world international news organizations aren’t state instituations like Xinhua.
January 5, 2006 @ 12:39 am | Comment
2
By Tom - Daai Tou Laam
If you type in “propaganda” at ChinaVitae.org, you’ll find your county committee propaganda department jobs.
Did China Daily ever provide an explanation concerning the previous allegations or on their method for doing translations from Chinese to English?
January 5, 2006 @ 12:51 am | Comment
3
By richard
Tom, I don’t know whether China Daily ever said anything about it’s earlier ‘borrowing” of ESWN’s copy. I suspect they just ignored the whole mini-uproar. (“So what? Most of our material is cut-and-paste or pure invention. Who cares?”)
Ed, I did some serious googling to see if China Daily used the term “propaganda department” in earlier articles, and I think it’s a term they avoid, lnowing that for their Western readers the word has unappealing connotations.
January 5, 2006 @ 2:34 am | Comment
4
By Mike
The China Daily style book suggests that the term “publicity” or “public relations” be used instead of propaganda. However, the Chinese word for propaganda (xuanchuan) does not have the negative associations of it’s English equivalent. If you want to know the story behind the plagiarism/pilfering of material by China Daily, the person to ask is their website’s foreign editor, Dwight Daniels. (dwightdaniels@chinadaily.com.cn) or the editor in chief, Zhu Ling (朱灵, zhuling@chinadaily.com.cn). I’m sure they’ll be pleased to hear from y’all.
January 5, 2006 @ 5:16 am | Comment
5
By eswn
as the person involved, i ask you not to bother china daily on this plagiarism issue. this is missing the point, as far as i am concerned.
the reason i spent the time to translate this piece was that it was an important story that could never be told in chinese media itself. they can’t talk about the henan aids villages and they can’t talk about impeachment of corrupt village officials, and this story is the confluence of both. so it is great that CD would reprint this and allow more people to read it, including students trying to practice english, etc. so i ask everyone to leave the plagiarism issue aside and keep the traffic lane open.
by the way, CD has never contacted me on this or any other matter, and i do not receive any compensation.
January 5, 2006 @ 6:34 am | Comment
6
By ACB
“Did they lift ESWN’s translation and rush it to press without proofing it carefully?”
It wouldn’t surprise me, I’ve seen far worse. They once lifted an article that clearly described China and Taiwan as being a seperate countries.
January 6, 2006 @ 8:02 am | Comment
7
By lawrence
Regarding Tom’s question about China Daily’s attitude towards their plagiarism: A couple of weeks ago I bumped into an old schoolmate of mine who’s working for CD, and I brought this up to him, only to find that he’s not aware of it at all.
A similar case is the Sing Tao Daily’s Sling Shot scandal (also discovered by ESWN: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060103_2.htm), a friend of mine who’s working for another newspaper owned by Sing Tao Group told me that most of his Chinese colleagues show a “none-of-my-business” attitude, with some unaware of it at all.
January 7, 2006 @ 3:55 am | Comment