Chinese newspaper the Southern Weekly has gone back to print after a public standoff about censorship, leading to wider scrutiny of the Chinese government’s hold over press freedom.
Optimism about more open discussion on Chinese social media, and expectations that China’s new leaders would ease its stringent media censorship followed the 18th National Congress of Communist Party of China (NCCPC) last November.
China’s most popular microblogging platform, Sina Weibo, began to allow users to search names of the government leaders, which were previously blocked.
The authorities accepted criticisms of corrupt officials on the internet, and just recently investigated several highly ranked members of the 18th NCCPC Committee, based on tips from ordinary internet users. Several officials were subsequently removed from office.
Yet, as some commentators have observed, these changes are cosmetic. And several national media published editorials in defence of government censorship in late December last year, led to fears the new regime would strengthen and not liberalise censorship.
Such fears are seemingly confirmed by the Southern Weekly’s recent experience. Described by The New York Times as “China’s most influential liberal newspaper,” this Guangzhou-based weekly was forced to run a provided commentary glorifying the Party in place of the paper’s 2013 New Year editorial, which had been titled “China’s Dream, the Dream of Constitutionalism”.
Once revealed by the paper’s outspoken journalists on Sina Weibo, this censorship provoked a strong response from media peers, public intellectuals, celebrities and ordinary citizens. On January 7, journalists staged one of the first newspaper strikes in China. All kinds of protests denouncing censorship and supporting the weekly have been emerging both in China and abroad since, including a petition in Australia initiated by Media, Entertainment & Art Alliance (MEAA) to support the striking Chinese peers of Southern Weekly.
The journalists have since returned to work, but the discussion about censorship is still ongoing.
Social media’s gains and losses
In the past few days, Sina Weibo has shown the power it wields to facilitate public opinion and mobilise online and offline activities.
The fomentation of this issue on the platform caused an outcry from internet users, and the wave quickly spread from the online sphere to offline reality. For Southern Weekly, Weibo became the most important channel for uncovering the truth and voicing resistance, given the pressure from both the central and local propaganda authorities. It has attracted extensive attention worldwide even after its weibos were rapidly deleted and its Weibo accounts confiscated by the propaganda authority as well.
The Chinese government has been wary of Weibo’s potential subversive power since the day it was born. Constant censorship has been applied to this new media, realised by automatic filtering of blacklisted words and manual deletion. A more stringent censorship is applied to some politically sensitive issues, which is exactly the case in this incident. The Weibo accounts of 15 journalists are blocked. The newspaper’s name disappeared quickly on Weibo; the abbreviation, nickname, homophone and even some popular codes of its name cannot be searched due to the increasing inspecting personnel.
Another popular Chinese microblogging platform Tencent Weibo was not spared from the censorship. Fortunately, some posts including the codes or nicknames of the paper’s name still exist. But how long they last relies on the authorities’ attitude to this issue and the appeasing of boiling public opinion.
An evolving resistance culture
The culture of resistance has been a longstanding characteristic of the internet in China. Chinese citizens don’t challenge state power directly, but try to push boundaries of authority by using the versatile Chinese language and memetic images that can avoid filtering and censorship. Metaphor, allusion, allegory and image are the central features of this discourse.
In the Southern Weekly incident, Chinese media confronted a more difficult situation: the new government forced the media nationwide to publish glorifying editorials as well as critiques of Southern Weekly. Legacy media and news portals had to adopt some new tactics to express their different stance.
Some, for example, decided to print the critique of Southern Weekly but with an ending announcement “To publish this article doesn’t mean our paper agrees with or verify its statement”. Some chose to keep silent as a wordless resistance. Oddly but creatively, The Beijing News, whose journalists mostly come from the Southern Media Group, published an article on January 9 about food – The Southern Porridge, a homophone and metaphor of Southern Weekly, to express its position.
But such resistance came at a price: the chief editor of the Beijing News was invited to “drink tea” with the municipal propaganda officer and later announced his resignation.
News portals and social media widely used acrostic headlines, metaphors and innuendo by citing famous quotations about freedom, truth and democracy, such as Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world”.
A complicated prospect
As affirmed in the 18th NCCPC, China’s new leadership has so far shown a clear intention to push forward with reform and open up policy in many fields. But recent action shows how complicated their approach towards censorship is in the digital age.
On one hand, a severe setback could be predicted. The upcoming internet regulations, which have been forewarned by a series of commentaries from the party’s mouthpieces, would be a vital tool for the new leadership to maintain a centralised single-party rule, but a death knell to the revitalisation of a more democratic Chinese civil society.
On the other, the answer to whether censors will keep a tight reign over the increasingly dynamic public sphere is uncertain given Chinese people’s rising awareness of freedom of speech and civil rights. New resistance, both online and offline will come into being and consequently pose potential social instability, or even threat to the polity.
Ultimately, it is up to the new leadership to choose whether its reformist agenda extends to the political sphere; and whether its economic and social agenda can progress without political liberalisation.
Geoff Taylor
Consultant
From today's Guardian:
"In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament."
The UK government has fought strongly to keep this secret, as with other active interventions by the UK monarchy into legislation.
Given that a bill for democratic control of going to war in Australia has been rejected, it is interesting to contemplate what might have happened if the Queen hadn't rejected this bill. Somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000
people plus thousands of CoW force members would still be alive.
Wei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Censorship is a world issue but China seems to be the only country singled out for criticism.
According to a recent report by the New York Times, virtually every major news organization in America allows the news to be censored by government officials. Detail is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=0
MEAA is hypocrisy about Freedom of the Press. I am a financial member of MEAA and that I can confirm here that their Federal…
Read moreJohn Harrison
Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland
The problem for China is not how light or heavy the censorship is - this is always relative, or whether censorship or self censorship happens in liberal democracies (it does), but that the rhetoric of the new paramount leader in China has created expectations that there will be greater political liberalisation. And that's the issue we are pointing too.
Yanshuang Zhang
Ph.D Candidate at University of Queensland
Yea agree with Harrison.
Pathetically most ordinary Chinese people get used to a surveilled living environment and nobody is really so naive as to believe this can be changed overnight.
But the problem is the new leadership's double-dealing of this issue, is disgusting and would very likely undermine the authority and legitimacy of the regime.
Democracy, freedom, these terms pe se are essentially contested concepts far from being ideal vacuum. Hypocrisy exists in politics of every country but ironically it's just the case on this issue. I feel so sorry.
To critique is out of the conscience as an intellectual, and the patriotism is not a bit less. But I respect what you are doing. That's also a way.
Wei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Dear John,
When considering the issue of censorship, I believe that we should factor into the issues of state sponsored media disinformation and the stage of the economic development in the respective country.
The US government is notorious in funding media disinformation through funding the so-called "dissident", "NGOs", "human rights organisations", and media within and outside of the US.
I am about to complete the manuscript of a 200,000 words new book on the Art of Media Disinformation…
Read moreWei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Dear Yanshuang,
It is easy to call a government "regime". The issue here is given the same set of condition such as the dire condition in China that the CCP inherited in 1949 after century of imperial and colonial exploitation and war; and also the on-going western hostility and covert operation in China, will we as a critic of CCP do better than the CCP given the opportunity to run the country?
What happen to today China if the 7 weeks of protests at Tienanmen Square succeed in overthrown…
Read moreYoron Hamber
Thinking
Mr Chua, I completely agree in that all Countries seem to some degree to be either self censuring themselves, or at least adapt their writing to what is commonly believed even if narrow minded. But in Chinas case the ruling class seem to take it a step further, forcing people to resign if they don't fit the political agenda. But I agree in that is a step forward from sending them to labor camps re-indoctrination.
Wei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Hi Yoron,
Western countries control their journalists and editors through allowing the media market to be controlled by a handful of media organizations. There are six corporations in the US that control 90% of the media market, if my memory is right, News limited and Fairfax controlled 98% of Australia newspaper market. These private owners do sack journalists and editors from time to time to force people towing certain political line. Read this two books:
1) Bruce Guthrie, 'Man Bites Murdoch…
Read moreYoron Hamber
Thinking
Yes, i know of it, and it most definitely sux. But it's not a state we're talking about there. That is private interests wanting to keep a certain profile. There's a difference to that. But I agree that it can be vague at times in democracy's too, as politics and 'private interests'/money always seem to find their way to each other.
But when we find out we only have one name for it.
Corruption.
Wei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Yoron,
This is a very good article: The Irrational, Racist Fear of China - http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/the-irrational-racist-fear-of-china/ ; You can compare human rights ...etc between the West and China.
Yoron Hamber
Thinking
You know, I have hopes about China. Hopes that it will find a democratic solution listening to its citizens. As for how power structures tries to keep in power I would say that what differ the dynamics of it should be what system one are ruled under. A democracy will put a crimp in it, whereas a already totalitarian state will find it comparatively easy to do 'whatever needed'.
Why else would those power coups always turn democracies into totalitarian? And it doesn't really matter what their labels are, you can find everything under the sun there. From 'social nationalistic' to 'communistic' to ** (choose a favorite)
But it's easy to see for the people living under it. Either there is one man, one vote, or there is not.
Wei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Yoron, I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the progressive nature of the CCP. I am grad that I bought a few dozens of books published by the CCP in my last trip to China. Without an in-depth understanding of the issues in China from the perspective of those who run the country, it is impossible for anyone to objectively assess the nature of China political system.
Western political system at its current state is increasingly becoming a human rights issue. The…
Read moreWei Ling Chua
Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales
Sorry, forgotten to add this, by simply compared above mentioned China post disaster recovery effort to the 2009 Bush Fire in Victoria, and the 2005 Katrina in the US, we will be able to tell the different between the CCP and the so-called democratically elected government in Australia and US. Who is more caring?
The issue here is, human has yet to find a perfect political system. Learning from each other strength is more important to demonizing others and overlooked one own weakness.