Momentum builds for a freer press

It's true that no country has absolute or perfect press freedom. The concentration of media ownership in the hands of the rich and powerful is a concern in some economies. Herd behaviour can also be a threat: witness the singular failure of US journalists to challenge the false intelligence disseminated by their government before the Iraq war (the British media did rather better).

China's restrictions are of a different order. The Propaganda Department, I was told by one journalist who used to work at a Chinese newspaper, telephones the editor or sends a fax every day listing the stories that are off limits for the next day's edition. Such censorship doesn't and couldn't happen in any advanced democracy.

The power of the Propaganda Department is such that even the Premier of China cannot get into print if they decide his words are inappropriate for the masses. Who are these people? Who elected them? Who do they answer to?

I'm afraid I wouldn't agree that "There is no denying that Chinese press is gaining more freedom commensurating with national economy development and political reform". The climate for opinion and debate in the media was far more liberal in the 1980s. China's press freedom has regressed as its economy has developed. When Premier Wen Jiabao called for political reform in a speech in Shenzhen and an interview with CNN, the Propaganda Department did not allow the population at large to read his words. That is not promising.

A free and independent media is one of the essential pillars of any system of checks and balances. It is intimately linked to other issues of China's development, such as corruption, rule of law, separation of powers, democracy and social cohesion. China's government will never succeed in ridding the country of corruption (and perhaps doesn't intend to, given that the beneficiaries are largely the Communist Party elite), until it establishes a political system that is genuinely transparent and accountable.

Nkab, I hardly think a discussion of such issues can be described as "vicious nit-picking".

The Economist says: “Freedom of speech and the press are enshrined in China’s constitution. But in reality there is only so much that people can say or write without getting into trouble.”

There is no denying that Chinese press is gaining more freedom commensurating with national economy development and political reform in the process (but not to Western style of democracy, thank goodness). I think most Chinese believe that a timed approach in stages is necessary.

The rather vicious nit picking, a la Economist acrimonious style will not be helpful. I believe no nation is saint when it comes to the press freedom department.

Two examples immediately come to mind. Remember how the press was controlled and manipulated at the on set of last Iraqi war?

It also reminded me that only a few months ago, the US government scoped up all printed copies of a new book on the market for fear it being read by the public.

Is there a truly perfectly free press nation in this world? Kindly let me know when and if you find one.

Part of the problem lies in a different understanding of the concept of freedom. I once watched a top Chinese Communist official saying on tv that there must be a limit to the freedom of speech, just as it would be illegal for anyone to advocate secession in America.

I am afraid that poor soul (and all his comrades) would never imagine that the right to advocate secession is definitely part of free speech and most Americans (and other free men) would defend such right to death.

@nkab wrote:
Two examples immediately come to mind. Remember how the press was controlled and manipulated at the on set of last Iraqi war?

It also reminded me that only a few months ago, the US government scoped up all printed copies of a new book on the market for fear it being read by the public.

---------------------
First example can you please explain , How was media manipulated?
For second, can you give little bit details about the book you are talking about?

And these two examples does not mean media is controlled all the time, as in China!!

and as far as "I think most Chinese believe that a timed approach in stages is necessary.".

Do Chinese people have right to express their opinion? So what made you guess about thinking by common-man.

And what is mean by "timed approach in stages"? Media has only lost freedom in "timed approach in stages".

Lack of free press in China only goes against the countries most basic interests. Without it, accountability by party and government officials, or by their influential business partners, is greatly impeded, given the absence of judiciary independence, so corrupt and abusive officials or rich businessmen can go stealing, polluting and trampling on their subject's rights in total impunity. Too often whistle blowers end up paying for their good deeds, rather than the culprits. But Chinese leaders seem to prefer to allow these abuses to happen and these hundreds of millions of RMB to be embezzled rather than risking their grip on the Dragon Throne.

Daveycool:

The media can and does fail to act as a watchdog on behalf of the governed. Does that mean we should mandate the media to follow its mission? I doubt it, myself. It sounds good in theory but doesn't work in practice. What you end up with is a group of people who think they know better telling the media what to write - in other words, the black hands of the propaganda department. For all its bias, distortions and abuses, a free media is a better way to go. You can't shut out the bad without shutting out the good too. It's like economic central planning versus market systems. Markets, like public opinion, tend to take wrong turns, but the democracy of the marketplace tends to be self-correcting over time. It comes down to a trust in the wisdom of one's fellow citizens. Do we think people are children, who need to be shielded from false, unpleasant or undesirable information for their own good, or do we see them as independent, free-willed citizens who can be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves?
As Abraham Lincoln said: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Bardamu,

"A free and independent media is one of the essential pillars of any system of checks and balances."

This is very true. However, this does not guarantee that the media will actually play the part faithfully. More often than not, the independent media succumbs to the lure of profits. At the same time, people are often lulled into thinking that an independent media means that the media is at once fair, well-researched, correct, and free from other influences. An independent newspaper does not have to be a good watchdog if it so chooses.

Lawyers and doctors are supposed to do their jobs without violating some ethical standards. The media has no such obligation that I know of. Is it perhaps time to watch over the watchmen by enacting laws to the end?

@Daveycool wrote:
Bardamu,

"A free and independent media is one of the essential pillars of any system of checks and balances."

This is very true. However, this does not guarantee that the media will actually play the part faithfully. More often than not, the independent media succumbs to the lure of profits. At the same time, people are often lulled into thinking that an independent media means that the media is at once fair, well-researched, correct, and free from other influences. An independent newspaper does not have to be a good watchdog if it so chooses.

Lawyers and doctors are supposed to do their jobs without violating some ethical standards. The media has no such obligation that I know of. Is it perhaps time to watch over the watchmen by enacting laws to the end?

-------------------------

"-Media succumbs to lure for profit."
TRUE.
"-The media has no such obligation."
FALSE. The same moral code is applicable to media as is applicable to doctors and lawyers.

"However, this does not guarantee that the media will actually play the part faithfully"
FALSE: May be un-controlled media will not play fair game. BUT govt controlled media has not scope of playing fair.

Bardamu,

The point is the media has to do its job, it cannot be allowed to NOT do its job. Otherwise it's like hiring a guard and having the guard fall asleep at the sentry. You can see why this situation can potentially be far more dangerous than not hiring the guard at all.

I think that it's a rather unreasonable thing to mistrust the government and not have the same skepticism of the independent media. It's an irrational preference. If the media is a pillar of the system of checks and balances, and the government is checked and balanced, who checks and balances the media? After all, a key element of democracies is the ability to sack the government. Can we sack the media? For instance, when the media is derelict in its fact checking, it could lend tacit support for a war (Iraq and the al Qaeda-WMD link, for instance). Forget sacking the media, has the media even been scolded? Has the public developed a healthy skepticism of the mainstream media?

All I'm saying is that it's time we have the same sense of reservation towards the media as we already have of governments.

"-The media has no such obligation."
FALSE. The same moral code is applicable to media as is applicable to doctors and lawyers.

I don't think it's as rigorous as the ethical standards for the other professions. Suppose the New York Times forget to check facts and ends up tacitly supporting a war on Iraq. Do they lose their license? If they are to be a pillar of checks and balances they must be held to a higher standard of behavior.

=====================

"However, this does not guarantee that the media will actually play the part faithfully"
FALSE: May be un-controlled media will not play fair game. BUT govt controlled media has not scope of playing fair.

I'm not even speaking of a government controlled media. If the free and independent media is to be that much better than a government controlled media, it must actually do its job, otherwise it's just a more dangerous thing that an overtly controlled media. For instance, when one goes to court, the testimony must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Partial facts often distorts the reality.

I think the media should not be allowed to enjoy free and independent status without living up to its responsibilities. There is absolutely no middle ground.

Is there anyone still holding breath for free speech in China?

I'm not.No free speech in in sight,at least not in traditional ways, such as paper media.

Internet and easy proxy,that's enough for the timebeing and for me

Daveycool:

There are checks and balances on free media in democracies: libel and privacy laws, and industry regulatory bodies such as the PCC in the UK. The fewer the better in my opinion, though. The best check and balance on lies and distortions in the media is the existence of other, competing news organistions that challenge and expose such wrongdoing. A free and independent media means a variety of news organisations that reflect all hues of political opinion and engage in robust discourse and disagreement. Having a free media doesn't mean that government-controlled news organisations disappear. They still exist; they just have to compete for public opinion with everyone else.

To add to my first post: in fairness, the development of more market-oriented media in China has been a positive trend for press freedom. Although all newspapers are nominally state-controlled, there are degrees of separation, and some of the newer and racier publications such as Southern Daily in Guangzhou have been daring in their reporting on corruption and political debate. These papers have tended to flourish and are packed with advertising, while the official party organs from which they sprang have withered, since few people are interested in reading their dreary propaganda.

Nevertheless, the party remains in control and when a publication oversteps the mark, the editor is replaced or the publication is shut down - such as the campaigning Beijing magazine Bingdian, which had built a reputation for exposing corruption scandals.

Davey,

"I'm not even speaking of a government controlled media. If the free and independent media is to be that much better than a government controlled media, it must actually do its job, otherwise it's just a more dangerous thing that an overtly controlled media. For instance, when one goes to court, the testimony must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Partial facts often distorts the reality. I think the media should not be allowed to enjoy free and independent status without living up to its responsibilities. There is absolutely no middle ground."

Correct me if I'm not understanding but it seems you're suggesting that if the press can't be absolutly un-biased that it needs to be controlled by the government.

Isn't this more than just a little 'absolutist'? Who would determine what's biased and what's not? I mean isn't EVERY perspective biased in some manner? We both know you and I see many things differently so what if we both reported on any given subject as objectively as possible? Both articles would be quite different. Would one be biased and one not?

It is this very issue that may well be what sets us apart from the Chinese. Contending minds, values, perspectives, etc. The Chinese see these things as a threat. For us, it is what makes us strong. Yes, it has it's drawbacks but the benefits by far out number them. We are originators and creators largely because of our contending ideas. And if nothing else, as has been demonstrated on this forum numerous times, we have the ability to laugh at ourselves. A survival skill the Chinese would do well to adopt.

Our press is a product of our mindset. It has a moral code it doesn't always live up too but that's how life is. I'm surprised you say "There is absolutely no middle ground." as it seems so naive and idealist. Life is all "middle round".

I believe that the fact that there are people IN China actively working to expand and their freedom of the press and make it a reality, not just something on paper, is a positive sign of where China as a country is heading. Despite the fact that the media distorts the news and hides facts that they don't want to be released, as long as there are people in China working to obtain true freedom of the press, it WILL happen. For example, despite the fact that freedom of speech has been such a huge part of the US's constitutions, there have been instances when the government has hidden or distorted facts before releasing them to the public. During the Vietnam war, the government made the situation seem a lot better then it seemed. Despite the fact that US troops were being harried and constantly ambushed by the Vietcong, resulting in many deaths for the US. However, the US government hid many facts and made it seem like we were doing a lot better than we actually were, in order to maintain support for the war. I believe that if enough citizens believe and fight for the freedom of the press, they will get it. This push for freedom of the press may also be hinting at China's government slowly but surely becoming more and more democratic.

The Chinese people are advocating for freedom of press and speech in China, but the government keeps suppressing them. It is not the fact that the government is going against what the county's foundational laws are, but that the public interest in China is changing. The government officials are traditional, keeping the nation under the rule of their ancestors, but now, in the 21st century, the public view is undergoing a dramatic change. The people are more open to the Western ideas and more liberal rules in their country due mainly to the fact that thousands of Chinese students study abroad to Western nations, and when they come back to China and take up high positions in society, they influence everyone around them. This change in interest from censored media and press to a more liberal and free press can be directly related to Francis Funkuyama's theory about the "End of History", where the nations in the world will eventually become all liberal democratic, and the clash between ideologies will disappear. In China, this transfiguration is going on now. The people are beginning to slowly embrace the Western democracy, first with a change from a communist to capitalist economy, and now from a censored press to a free one. Now it is just a matter of time for the world's largest opposer to democracy converts to democracy, and then the rest of the world soon after.

While I do not agree with the Economist's characterization censorship in China (it is not nearly as bad as they make it seem), I do think Hu Jintao is overtly paranoid on this issue. Chinese media was much more free under Deng, and even Jiang. Hu spent much of his career in inland provinces, and especially during his stint in Tibet he learned the "power of the pen" is mightier than the power of the tank. Having arose to prominence post-Tiananmen Hu regards Deng's liberal press policies as a mistake. In Hu's mind, if there is one mistake that the Chinese government should never make again - it's to restrict grassroots populist movements so that they do not spiral out of control. This is meant to maintain social cohesion as much as it is meant for the party to stay in power.

China's recent history of press controls went something like this: post-Tiananmen saw very strict controls, but it was gradually relaxed under Jiang Zemin as economic growth became more stable (1994-99) and the Communist Party's "mandate of heaven" became gradually more legitimized under the flag of increased wealth. In 1999, Falun Gong used the power of e-mails and the internet to organize a sit-in in front of Zhongnanhai, China's ruling compound. This scared the leaders like nothing before. Jiang, fearing for his own power, lashed out with a pseudo-Cultural Revolution type campaign against Falun Gong, and press controls were tightened once more. Hu came to power having experienced both Tiananmen and Falun Gong, and now with an ever-growing cohort of internet users, many of whom are intellectuals, he took an ultra-conservative stance on media controls. The Internet changed everything: the propaganda department adopted a highly sophisticated system to monitor and control the internet for what the government considers destabilizing forces (political issues like Tibet, Taiwan, Falun Gong, pro-democracy demonstrations, and most recently, Uyghurs, as well as NON-political ones like pornography, hate speech etc.), and these controls spilled over to all forms of media.

In addition, apart from Wen, who has capitalized off of his populist binge like no one else, China's politburo is stacked with conservatives who are equally paranoid as Hu: prime amongst this group are Li Changchun, Liu Yunshan, Jia Qinglin, and Zhou Yongkang. Zhou, particularly, is a no-nonsense figure who controls almost all of China's legal and riot-suppressing forces (moral qualms aside, I think he runs the department quite well - he streamlined operations and decreased corruption). The younger members of the Politburo, Li Keqiang and Xi Jinping particularly, are forced to be moderates and hide whatever views they may have so they could stay in power long enough to see the leadership transition in 2012. From this you can see a power arrangement that is inherently favouring conservatives within the party.

All this being said, Western media not only ignores much of the political and historical factors that is behind these arrangements (instead choosing to focus in on demonizing the Chinese "regime" as a single cohesive entity), the overtly negative coverage also gives a completely misleading impression to the average reader on what it's like to live in China. Not only is the Chinese internet a dynamic social forum composed of a multitude of perspectives, views, and ideas, most ordinary Chinese could not care less whether or not a few Falun Gong websites are blocked. The vast majority of people go on the internet to surf, read entertainment news, follow European football and Yao Ming, or to chat with their friends on QQ. Life does not stop because of more stringent censorship rules.

[Fooli Cat wrote:

Oct 24th 2010 12:49 GMT
Davey,

"I'm not even speaking of a government controlled media. If the free and independent media is to be that much better than a government controlled media, it must actually do its job, otherwise it's just a more dangerous thing that an overtly controlled media. For instance, when one goes to court, the testimony must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Partial facts often distorts the reality. I think the media should not be allowed to enjoy free and independent status without living up to its responsibilities. There is absolutely no middle ground."

Correct me if I'm not understanding but it seems you're suggesting that if the press can't be absolutly un-biased that it needs to be controlled by the government.

Isn't this more than just a little 'absolutist'? Who would determine what's biased and what's not? I mean isn't EVERY perspective biased in some manner? We both know you and I see many things differently so what if we both reported on any given subject as objectively as possible? Both articles would be quite different. Would one be biased and one not?

It is this very issue that may well be what sets us apart from the Chinese. Contending minds, values, perspectives, etc. The Chinese see these things as a threat. For us, it is what makes us strong. Yes, it has it's drawbacks but the benefits by far out number them. We are originators and creators largely because of our contending ideas. And if nothing else, as has been demonstrated on this forum numerous times, we have the ability to laugh at ourselves. A survival skill the Chinese would do well to adopt.

Our press is a product of our mindset. It has a moral code it doesn't always live up too but that's how life is. I'm surprised you say "There is absolutely no middle ground." as it seems so naive and idealist. Life is all "middle round".]

Correct me TOO if I'm not understanding what you are saying.

"It is this very issue that may well be what sets us apart from the Chinese. Contending minds, values, perspectives, etc. The Chinese see these things as a threat. For us, it is what makes us strong.]

If it TRULY can make you strong, you (or your system) will surely overwhelm and replace the Chinese (and/or the Chinese system) even in China. Social Darwinism would make sure that will happen. So, what is the point of having the West's propaganda industry constantly blackening China for not making itself weak and, therefore, preparing itself ready for replacement by the Western democratic system? Unless, of course, China's actions is having exactly the opposite effect to that the western propaganda industry says.

[Yes, it has it's drawbacks but the benefits by far out number them. We are originators and creators largely because of our contending ideas. And if nothing else, as has been demonstrated on this forum numerous times, we have the ability to laugh at ourselves. A survival skill the Chinese would do well to adopt."

I am not sure about China, or the Chinese, adopting your "survival skill". After all who, or whose system, have survived longer?

Devil's

"If it TRULY can make you strong, you (or your system) will surely overwhelm and replace the Chinese (and/or the Chinese system) even in China."

Reminds me of the same rhetoric Mao would use.

"I am not sure about China, or the Chinese, adopting your "survival skill". After all who, or whose system, have survived longer?"

There is more to life than 'survival' but indeed that's the best most Chinese can do.

In my view freedom of press in China is one of the most controversial issues today. When the government is questioned on about this topic they believe from the bottom of their heart that press is not excessively oppressed. When it comes to reality it is clear that the press is under great pressure from the communist regime of China, giving it what some people call the false sense of “democracy”. Especially in this period of time, in which China is struggle to fight the influences of the west, I believe that China has no chance but to keep their current policy on press if not make it more strict. I am not saying I support such an approach but if China does not execute they will fall weak. Government newspapers and channels play a big role in keeping Communism in the spotlight. Without such propaganda the people of China will not put up with its current regime which already seems to be occurring. People are opening their eyes and with a free press it will just get worse.

There is not one country with a "perfect" freedom of speech. At times even the idolized democratic country, America, "the land of the free," has had cases of censoring the media to their advantage. In 1996 a Communications Deceny Act was imposed which stated that anyone who "uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs," will face up to two to four years in federal prison.
Also, I believe that a completely independent media would be just as bad as a government controlled one due to the fact that a completely independent media would most probably get out of hand with extreme bias