And I choose the word “deranged” carefully, as the policy serves no interest other than to protect the prickly old Party from looking bad.
News has always been a tough nut for Communist dictators. It happens unexpectedly, giving bureaucrats precious little time to prepare the correct ideological explanation; it often undermines whatever propaganda line the state is pushing, and if it happens to involve embarrassing events like riots, strikes, accidents or outbreaks of disease, it can make the party bosses look less than perfect.
The Soviet Union dealt with the problem with the infamous Article 70 of the penal code, which basically defined anything the state didn’t want people to hear as “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” Now China proposes to take the art of censorship a step higher with a bill that would severely fine news media outlets if they report on “sudden incidents” without prior authorization.
“Sudden incidents” sounds awfully similar to what most of the world knows better as “breaking news,” and in most countries it’s considered a core function of the news media.
I thought everything changed after SARS, and that the government now permitted, even encouraged, honest, swift reporting about disasters and threats to its citizens. Another big step back in the Age of Hu, and a decision that gives us invaluable insight into the party psyche: they’re still scared, power-drunk and willing to see citizens die to keep them looking good. They fool no one. (Or at least no one who thinks for himself.)
Update: For those of you who haven’t been following this story, here’s an update from the unlinkable SCMP:
A law that would allow the government to impose fines of 50,000 to 100,000 yuan on media outlets that run independent reports on public emergencies has sparked strong resentment among journalists despite officials’ assurances it would apply only if a report caused serious damage.
Outspoken journalism professor Zhan Jiang , from the China Youth University for Political Sciences, said the assurances by an official from the State Council Legal Affairs Office that the media would be encouraged to expose public emergencies covered up by local governments had failed to convince the media that the law was not aimed at restricting press freedom.
“The interpretation is not convincing. If that is really the case, they should have revised the draft of the law and inserted clauses that protect the rights of journalists,” he said. “There is not a single provision in the law to protect the rights of journalists, and they are talking about restricting the rights of journalists.”
Professor Zhan said another provision in the draft, which stipulates that information about public emergencies should be provided by the government, had also caused concern. Public emergencies include accidents, public health crises, social unrest and natural disasters.
No matter how the government tried to contain negative publicity after the content of the provision was released, the law was a clear case of intimidation of the media, Professor Zhan said.
Hu wants China to be a huge capitalist middle-class country, with no freedom of speech.
Comments