How officials can spin the media

Posted on 2010-06-19

Ever since President Hu Jintao’s major media policy speech back on June 20, 2008, party leaders have been obsessed with “public opinion channeling,” or yulun yindao (舆论引导), the banner term of what we have called at CMP “Control 2.0.” Unlike the Jiang Zemin-era media control term “guidance of public opinion,” channeling is less focused on suppressing negative news coverage and more concerned with spinning news in a direction favorable to the leadership. As we’ve pointed out, however, this is much more than “spin” — it’s spin with all the advantages of traditional media controls. Trusted party-state media may be encouraged to report breaking news, such as mine disasters, more actively and from the scene, but controls are maintained or tightened for in-depth coverage.

The term “public opinion channeling” in fact rose to dominance before Hu Jintao’s media policy speech in 2008. The crucial turning point was unrest in Tibet in March 2008 and the resulting international public relations disaster for China. Tibet in 2008 has in many ways become the media failure that precipitated the rise of “channeling,” in the same way that widespread protests in the spring of 1989, and the crackdown that followed, were the media failure that prompted the rise of “guidance of public opinion” as the dominant term for almost two decades. In the following graph, I have plotted the number of articles using the term “guidance” or “channeling” in Chinese newspapers from 2006 through to the end of last year.

While some have argued that “public opinion channeling” represents a newfound respect for “news principles” on the CCP’s part, or even a greater openness, the control aspects of the policy remain evident, and it would be naive to suggest the CCP has had a change of heart on information controls. The gains that can be seen in more active reporting of natural disasters, for example, have been offset by stricter control of such practices as “supervision by public opinion,” or media supervision of power. We prefer the term Control 2.0 because it points to the overall advancement of China’s media environment — particularly, the development of the internet and new media — while acknowledging that controls have changed and advanced too.

Fortunately for those who’d like to know more about “public opinion channeling,” new writings on the subject are coming out all the time in China to meet the demand for this must-know policy. The latest is a book by Ren Xianliang (任贤良), currently a deputy propaganda minister in the Shaanxi Province, and it is called The Guiding Art of Public Opinion.

In a recent piece in Guangdong’s Southern Weekend, Chen Bin (陈斌) takes a look at this newly released volume on the policy that is taking the news and propaganda field by storm in China. “It is ordinary for officials to think about public relations, and people naturally hope to receive praise rather than censure,” Chen writes. “But public opinion channeling must not become the covering up of the truth, otherwise the outcome will be the opposite of what is intended.”

The Technique of Public Opinion Channeling: How Officials Can Face the Media
By Chen Bin (陈斌), Southern Weekend

The Xinhua Publishing House recently released a book called The Guiding Art of Public Opinion: How Cadres Can Deal With The Media, written by an official presently serving in the propaganda department. It does not oppose supervision by public opinion, or press supervision, and places its emphasis on the “channeling” rather than the “killing” (封杀) of news reports. It sees ["channeling"] as a raising of governance capability and a beneficial experiment in the art of governing. The shift in focus from “impeding” (堵) to “channeling” tells us that leaders now have greater respect for “news principles” (新闻规律), and this is a welcome change.

However, this book carries with it the danger of being misread . . . [I]f the goal becomes to put a positive spin on negative incidents, then even this so-called public opinion channeling is really about the art of taking tragedies and turning them into triumphs, and the opposite of the intended effect will result.

. . . If negative incidents can give rise to positive outcomes, this is naturally for the good of everyone. The problem lies in the methods that are used to obtain these positive outcomes. Consider the Sanlu poisoned milk scandal [of 2008], in which we saw power acting with negligence and ineffectiveness, and in which the failings of the system were thrown into sharp relief. No matter what methods might have been used [at the time] to soften the impact of this incident on local governments, it would have been difficult to instill confidence in the people. In this case, the best thing was to improve the system and address loopholes, ensuring that the Sanlu scandal never happens again. [These improvements] were the triumph amid the tragedy, and the “positive effect” (正面效果) society was looking for.

To sum up, it is ordinary for officials to think about public relations, and people naturally hope to receive praise rather than censure . . . But public opinion channeling must not become the covering up of the truth, otherwise the outcome will be the opposite of what is intended.

One Comment to “How officials can spin the media”

Yeshe Choesang says:

2011-01-28 at 6:45 pm

Nobel Laureates Liu in Prison, Obama Hosts State Dinner for Hu
Dharamshala: Around the world all eyes are on the US-China Human Rights talks, as Obama fails to be the champion of democracy and Human Rights. Unlike the previous meeting, Obama hosted Hu, a dictator with high profile with highest hospitality, unlike when he let the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Tibet’s spiritual and political leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama out a service entrance.

This meeting was hosted by 2009′s Nobel Peace Prize winner, while Hu keeps the most recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Liu Xiaobo in prison under repression, harassment, incarceration and torture.

Moreover, it did not appear that US and Chinese leaders’ several meetings moved the conversation forward in a substantial way past that of the economical issues to other’s welfare and freedom. If Obama raised concerns about Hu of the hundreds of Chinese and Tibetan political prisoners including Liu Xiaobo, a jailed Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner, he did so privately.

At the senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid called Hu a “dictator” before taking it back and saying it wasn’t a good choice of words. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced he would not attend the state dinner being held in Hu’s honor. Outside the White House gates, hundreds of Chinese and Tibetan protesters massed for two days of demonstrations against Hu’s visit and his government’s treatment of people in Tibet and China.

It is not an unusual concern of US government, as previous presidents have contributed more for human rights and democracy. For a little concern of his part, Obama called on China to engage in talks with Tibet’s leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and said he and Hu were “candid” in their discussion about human rights, “I reaffirmed America’s fundamental commitment to the universal rights of all people, and that includes basic human rights like freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association and demonstration and of religion — rights that are recognized in the Chinese constitution.”

In China, the discussion was edited by the government’s Xinhua news agency to cut out Pres. Hu’s admission on Human Rights, and television screens went blank during the BBC’s live report, denying Chinese viewers the right to know the reality of the discussions.

The dictator Hu Jintao is holding thousands of political prisoners including activists, lawyers, writers, bloggers and especially the 11th Panchen Lama and the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison. Obama who is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner hosted a dinner for a dictator holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Winner in prison, and both the world leaders and journalists do not understand the irony of this at all. I must say both the government and media are so fraudulent, they’re too busy running around chasing negative issues, ignoring the key issues of human rights.

On a question about human rights, the communist head attempted to slither out of the answer by saying, “I did not hear the question. I thought President Obama was going to answer that.” There’s no talk about how they harvest organs from prisoners in eastern Turkestan, Tibet and China and there’s Obama, telling the head of this depraved society that we’re all pleased with his country’s progress. Meanwhile, the very same media is attacking innocent American citizens who have nothing to do with a horrible crime. The moral compass of our media is just stunning, the media laughed when Hu Jintao side-stepped the question about human rights.

Former president, Jimmy Carter who also won a Nobel Peace Prize also attended Hu’s dinner. So you had two American Nobel Peace Prize Winners effectively honoring the head of a country who’s holding 2010′s Peace Prize Winner in prison and we had to listen to our fearless leader talk about all the great progress the Chinese are making and how pleased we are with all that progress.

Later Hu sought to assuage concerns about his country’s rising economic and military power but made clear status of Tibet and Taiwan was off limit as US legislators strongly conveyed their concerns over Beijing’s trampling of human rights. Relations between Washington and Beijing need to be governed by a belief in ‘equality’ and ‘mutual respect’, and the US must recognize that Taiwan and Tibet are ‘issues that concern China’s territorial integrity and China’s core interests.’