Under the vigilant watch of propaganda authorities, China’s media so far report with vigor
By David Bandurski — CMP has confirmed with sources inside China’s media that the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department (中宣部) has issued “numerous” directives on coverage of the Sichuan earthquake, including a directive against “critical reporting” on the disaster. The general atmosphere for coverage, however, seems to remain relatively open. While media have been instructed to follow the lead of central party media – Xinhua News Agency, CCTV and company – regional commercial media can and are, for the moment, pursuing the story with intensity. [Homepage Image: Screenshot of earthquake coverage on the news page at Netease.]
We’ll summarize, analyze and translate that coverage as we can.
For now, though, we include the latest piece from CMP director Qian Gang, in which he urges leaders to move quickly to the next level of disaster relief planning, addressing the potential collateral effects of the earthquake.
“Science and Expertise: This is What our Brothers and Sisters in Need Hope For”
By Qian Gang (钱钢)At last the rescue teams have entered Wenchuan. While the manpower and equipment reaching the disaster area still lack the scale and effectiveness needed, this is a crucial turning point. It means that rescue work has begun in earnest in the heart of the disaster area.
We have every reason to expect that after today, May 15, the rescue work in the earthquake-affected area will move rapidly into high gear. Saving lives, staving off epidemic disease and settling the disaster victims [will become the next priority] . . . as thousands throng into the cramped spaces available. As countless anxious souls are thrust together, new challenges will emerge: chaos, congestion, and instructions [from authorities] overlapping or in direct conflict.
What is most urgently needed now is a high level of crisis management ability (高水平的危机管理能力). Our nation has great strengths and resources it can rally together, but in preventing and minimizing disaster situations there has always been lack of coordination between different government agencies. We have no standing body (常设机构) tasked with organizing and coordinating disaster relief efforts. Even though we have teams to deal with the various aspects of an emergency situation, these are separate strands, not twisted into a single unified system. At this moment, we have various different disaster relief teams working on various complex disaster relief matters in a dynamic, rapidly changing situation, so that leaders operating and controlling the relief effort face immense challenges. And the level and efficiency of logistical command is a matter of life and death for tens of thousands.
Those in command must have a thoroughly clear macro-view of the “disaster area”. Disaster relief resources (and not just seismic waves) must radiate out from Wenchuan across the whole Chengdu plain, from the Chengdu plain to the Chuanyu (川渝) region [Chongqing and the Jialing River] to the central plains (中原), to the southeast. The entire disaster relief effort must become a tight, rationally managed systematic effort (科学严密的系统工程). Right now, rescuing survivors has already become the overriding mission. At the same time, I urge those in command to handle the following tasks:
To seek out hidden collateral problems (次生灾害的隐患点) that might arise with the greatest urgency possible. All water reservoirs, oil depots, petrol stations, chemical storage facilities, stores of military explosives, areas where landslides are an imminent risk, or where they have already backed up river currents, geological prospecting and exploration sites that might give off dangerous fumes, all must be sought out quickly, demarcated clearly and strictly controlled with the best possible resources.
Assemble the most experienced experts, and let them turn their expertise toward organizing air and land transport issues that are becoming more complicated by the day. At present, the disaster zone is a war zone. Right now, transport and dispatch orders should be regarded with the same seriousness as military orders.
Epidemic prevention teams should be sent out in force. Aircraft sprays should be carried out immediately to stave of disease. From here on out, strict standards must be enforced for the work of burying the dead.
Expert teams must be deployed immediately to begin repairs to the electrical and gas grid so crucial to cities and towns.
Our brothers and sisters in Hong Kong have already begun relief campaigns. A lot of people ask: How can we quickly reach the disaster area? How can we help the disaster victims? At the same time, people in Taiwan and overseas have made urgent offers of aid and assistance. I believe that we should put great stock in relief experts and medical experts from Hong Kong, Taiwan and other countries, and should seek to benefit from their expert opinions. [IHT: "Japan to send disaster relief team to China to join effort to rescue quake victims"].
Lastly, we should reconsider the persistent deployment of army soldiers [in rescue work]. A disaster of this magnitude cannot possibly be resolved in a space of a few weeks, and we should ready ourselves mentally and spiritually for a prolonged effort. We must have teams in reserve, and must allow time for exhausted soldiers doing rescue work on the front lines to recoup.
In a word, our hearts must be hot, but our minds must be cool. Big words and empty speeches, gaudy, showy and useless old habits, documents that parade their achievements to those on top, posing and dramatizing for the camera lens . . . At this moment, let this all pass away! Science and expertise is what our brothers and sisters in need hope for most.
[Posted by David Bandurski, May 15, 2008, 4:21pm HK]
MORE ON RELIEF DEVELOPMENTS:
“Phones coming back to service at China quake epicenter“, Xinhua, May 15, 2008
“Quake-hit China appeals for shovels“, AFP, May 15, 2008
First-hand Accounts of Relief Volunteer Workers, Barking at the Sun Blog, May 15, 2008
“China girl’s legs amputated to free her from rubble,” John Ruwitch, Reuters, May 15, 2008
“AP Video shows China quake’s first moments,” AP, May 15, 2008
Related Posts
How state media used to report on Ai Weiwei 
Drafter of Hu’s 2007 political report appointed deputy propaganda chief 
Propaganda leaders scurry off to carry out the “spirit” of Hu Jintao’s “important” media speech 
China’s most grateful peasant: a vigilant blogger finds revealing patterns in the party charm offensive 
Chinese authorities intensify pressure on veteran journalist Zhai Minglei - Shocking cardboard bun story on Beijing TV a fake, Beijing authorities say
[...] See David Bandurski at the China Media Project, accessed at http://cmp.hku.hk/2008/05/15/977/ on May 21, 2008.[8] “Chinese media urged to do a good job in reporting earthquake [...]
[...] to China Media Project (CMP), critical coverage of the quake has apparently been banned by an edict intended to stop the [...]
In the last few days, I’ve read a number of stories in “western media” sources that have offered unequivocally optimistic appraisals of the “Chinese media’s” handling of earthquake reporting. They tend to note a trend of loosening up of media control. I remain skeptical, however (with all due respect, blogger812, as I lived the best years of my life thus far in China, and I continue to hold very warm feelings towards China, its people, and my friends there).
In my opinion, it’s not possible to use reporting of this natural disaster as evidence of a loosening system of media control. To turn suddenly from COMPLETE blackout during wide-spread, Tibet-related, anti-CCP protests (a crisis which was deeply political in nature) to COMPLETE openness (both domestic and international) to the point of over-saturation (see CCTV’s 24 hour coverage of the quake, as one example) with coverage of a completely APOLITICAL natural disaster, seems to me to be a very conscious strategic decision on the part of the CCP. Your confirmation here that complete openness was in fact DIRECTED openness — ie, a strategic openness — only strengthens my confidence in my opinion. Furthermore, many of the western reports praising an open media response have been written by western journalists who have established long-term lives in China (some of whom may have received death threats following the “anti-China” reporting of the Tibet crisis period), and use quotes from Tsinghua University professors’ analyses as support…
In no way do I mean to criticize the Chinese government’s rescue efforts. I believe that the CCP is a competent government that cares deeply about the fate of its people, and that they have done EVERYTHING within their capability to save as many people as they could. I do, however, see fairly clear ulterior motives in allowing both domestic and international media to blast the world with a flood of stories and information about the event. To me, this shows that there are still some very powerful hands opening or closing the information floodgates as such proves beneficial.
This is not to say that such openness will not have lingering positive side-effects, but that remains to be seen.
Blogger812:
I really appreciate hearing your thoughts. The question, of course, is WHICH “western” media, WHICH writers, WHICH “westerners”. Yes, American media — let’s get a bit more specific — are (most of them) “corporate-driven.” Does that necessarily mean their reports are unprofessional, or “exaggerated”, “unconstructive” or anti-China? Of course not . . . America’s media are not perfect. But they are, to an important degree, free.
That freedom means we get really good perspectives (on China or anything else), some really bad ones, some that I agree with and some that I don’t, some that get the facts right and others that do not. When they don’t get the facts right, or seem to be “biased”, this can become part of the debate too — as the whole “anti-CNN” story DID become itself a focus of international media attention.
I think you should be careful not to assume you know what attitudes “most westerners” adopt towards China. Do you really know that they accept “distorted” news reports at face value?
I don’t know where you’ve seen reports calling Chinese people “brainwashed.” Of course that would be an unfair statement.
At the same time, you should realize that some of the very notions underpinning your thinking on this issue are concepts and viewpoints stemming directly from the CCP. The very notion of “Western media” as a unified force attacking China’s interests is one encouraged by the party when it suits their purposes.
But “Western media” is an awful generalization.
Can you imagine a U.S. president railing against “Asian media.” I think you’d agree that’s ridiculous.
I would encourage you, next time you think “western media” are attacking China, to look more carefully at the differences between news reports — and the whole range of stories being covered. And if you cannot find them, then of course I’m happy to help.
Best,
David
I think the govmt has done a good job. They reacted quickly and allowed transparent reporting. They censored the new, yes, but they’ve made a great progress this time.
I don’t think you have a nasty agenda. You were saying I should think more and expect more views, so I just explain why I am skeptical of some criticisms of CCP, since there are too many exaggerated and unconstructive ones. I never thought your blog has any ulterior motives. I was talking specifically about western media. Sorry if you got offended. The trend that I don’t like is how most westerners immediately adopt the distorted view presented by their corporate-driven media and fiercely condemn China. If they met any Chinese who try to defend China, they start saying how Chinese people are brainwashed and their opinions are distorted. Worse, they might start patronizing and pity the Chinese for being “oppressed” under CCP. Your blog is very neutral and circumspective. In the last post, I was just expressing my skeptical view of criticism, and I was just offended by you implying that I don’t think and don’t accept another view. I am sorry if you got offended by my unintentional paranoia of your blog. I really don’t doubt your good intentions.
Blogger812:
Thank you so much for taking the time to present your argument. I would submit to you that one can criticize and present the facts without being “malicious” — why do attribute motives to myself or anyone else when you have no idea what our “intentions” are?
Does having “good will” for China to improve mean we cannot be skeptical (even while the PRAISE good actions) of the government and its very factual policies? . . . As an American, which I happen to be, I consider it my patriotic duty to “bash” my government representatives at every opportunity. Do you think I’m a traitor?
No one in this forum denies that China is changing and opening up. In fact, an important part of our work is showing those outside China how much things have changed, particularly in the media sector.
I hope you continue to come back and read our good-willed criticism. And of course that you continue to provide your own valuable views . . . From now on, why don’t you assume that I DO NOT have some sort of nasty agenda — and I will extend you the same courtesy.
Thanks,
David
I am the same guy as “whatareyouthinking”, but I changed it in case you decide to make a pun again.
Everyone knows the news is censored here, but I am just saying that anything that CCP do is met with over-criticism or over-skepticism. Even when they are opening up and improving, as in this earthquake, they are still showered with nit-picking criticism. While some criticisms are valid, almost all of them made by western media are motivated by malicious intentions, instead of a good will for China to improve. I am not specifically referring to this time. I say that because of the unevenness of the criticism(if 2 countries make the same mistake and one is commie and one is not, the commie’s mistake will be magnified and exaggerated by using dissent sources) and the violent and insulting method to get the “message” across.
Nobody is blind and unquestioning. CCP has many faults, one such thing is massive local corruption. However, there is just too much malicious criticism/smearing, that I am becoming skeptical of maybe even valid criticism. This time I fail to see why anyone should be skeptical of CCP attempt to open up. Why would CCP even want to host the Olympics, if they don’t want to really open up in the first place?
Dear Whatareyouthinking:
Thank you for your comments. “Bashing”? What exactly do you mean by “bashing”? We are simply pointing to facts about the Chinese leadership’s approach to this disaster. The fact is, “Whatareyouthinking,” that the news IS being censored here. At the same time, the level of openness is encouraging.
As an intelligent, clear-minded person, you can decide yourself what to make of those facts. You are free to think, for example, that propaganda department bans against certain types of coverage are acceptable so long as you have plenty to read.
But the point, “Whatareyouthinking,” is that we should THINK. We should not be blind and unquestioning.
Thanks again for your comment. And do keep reading.
Regards,
David
When China censor news, you bash them. When China encourage open news, you still bash them. I don’t think you will stop until China ends up like the Soviet Union, divided and weak. PNAC?