by Garrett Epps
The Chinese government, which already severely curtails free expression, is about to pass a law forbidding media in China from reporting "sudden events" such as industrial accidents, natural disasters or public health emergencies in any way that displeases local or national authorities. Americans may be tempted to dismiss the issue as simply a minor tweaking of a foreign authoritarian system, but this would be a grave mistake. All of us -- investors, workers and consumers -- have a stake in the Chinese media's fight for independence.
The Media Situation In China
The new "Emergency Response Law" stipulates that those who break unauthorized news could face fines of up to 100,000 yuan (US$12,500 at current exchange rates) per "offense." I spent five weeks this summer in the newsroom of a Chinese magazine and saw how the government dislikes the free flow of information. Foreign TV or radio news broadcasts are barred from most Chinese households. English-language publications such as the International Herald Tribune are available only at newsstands serving expatriates and the Chinese elite. Internet portals like Google.com are blocked unless they agree to keep Chinese users from accessing disfavored websites. The government recently indicated it even will try to block access to video sites like youtube.com. The government owns all the broadcast outlets and most broadcast news coverage centers on such topics as "vice minister for tourism announces breakthrough in China-Kyrgyzstan air charters."
The situation for Chinese newspapers and magazines is more complicated but still restrictive. Local, provincial and central government organs have their own print outlets, as do Communist Party institutions at different levels. But a few are even nominally independent like Caijing, the business and finance magazine I advised, which is owned by the publicly traded corporation that created the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets. Unlike the Mao years, when Party papers were subsidized by mandatory "subscriptions," now even state-owned print outlets are now expected to be self-sufficient through circulation and advertising.
But the Chinese people are hungry for news, and the number of publications has increased in the past decade so competition among outlets and reporters is fierce. Whether state or privately owned, Chinese newspapers and magazines must try to protect themselves in a very difficult legal and political climate by finding the protection of various figures and factions within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Chinese defamation law can be very strict, and the country's new wealthy classes use the threat of lawsuits to intimidate reporters. In addition, editors know that if what they print displeases the wrong official, they may lose their jobs, or even end up in prison, like New York Times researcher Zhao Yan, charged with "leaking state secrets" because of Times reporting on a behind-the-scenes power struggle within the Party leadership.
Fortunately, some CCP leaders realize that their ambitions for economic transformation depend in large part on creating a culture of accountability among Chinese institutions, public and private. For a few years now, the leading journals have been willing and able to expose China's pervasive official corruption, and the lax safety and health regulation that has led to the country's choking pollution, festering public health problems and hideous industrial-safety record. The new "Emergency Response" law is a bold step in the wrong direction: it gives officials one more weapon to use against upstart media who question government policy or describe its poor performance.
Countless Chinese reporters go to work every day determined to force back, even if only a little bit, the official curtain of deference and secrecy that shrouds every level of Chinese government. The journalists I met reminded me of the colleagues I had when I entered journalism three decades ago (nowadays in America quick riches lure journalists to become opinion shouters on ideological TV). In China, where ordinary people are getting rich overnight, the reporters I met weren't motivated by greed or ideology. They met the standards set by the finest Western journalists, who have no desire to be mouthpieces for any regime or party. Like good reporters everywhere, they are professionals with a job to do and a desire to do it well.
And make no mistake, China's performance in handling "sudden events" is abysmal. Take mine safety for an example. In 2005 alone, official figures show that 5,986 Chinese coal miners died in mine accidents. Some human-rights groups estimate that the real death toll could be two or three times higher. Provincial and local governments, which are responsible for safety inspection and enforcement, have shown much more interest in suppressing news of accidents than in preventing them. The new law will give them a powerful tool to use against local media. (Though the individual fines may seem low by American standards, they can be quite a deterrent in a country where a well-paid white-collar worker may make less than $7,000 a year.)
Article 35 of the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. This is clearly honored in the breach -- but until recently the government had not made a general move against press freedom. China was already a long way from a free and independent press; now the government wants to take a step back toward the days when the Party controlled all news. America's media have been battered lately, both by internal scandals and by the Bush administration's accusations that any criticism of government, or even independent reporting, is unpatriotic. But most Americans realize that we need an independent press to tell us about official corruption, government lawlessness and ineptitude, and military and intelligence failures. The Chinese people need this no less than we do. And we have an interest in whether they get it or not.
Chinese Transparency Matters to U.S. Businesses
China today has 20 percent of the world's population. Sometime between 2030 and 2050, its economy will surpass ours. What will happen to the world if China becomes the world's largest economy without growing an open and democratic system? The "Chinese century," which began in 2000, could be a long, hard passage for all of us.
More immediately, our current imports from China total around $200 billion per year. American investors and companies are plunging into the Chinese domestic market at a dizzying pace, investing more than $3 billion last year alone, for a total of $54 billion. And China is central to the stability of our own financial system. Right now, nearly 4 percent of America's national debt is funded by Chinese banks and investors who buy and hold American treasury bonds, second only to Japan. A banking crisis in China might impact those totals very quickly, making it harder overnight to raise the case the U.S. needs to stay solvent.
The financial system there may be more fragile than we would like to think. Much of the work I did in Beijing involved explaining Western immigration law to Chinese reporters. The subject is crucial, because almost every week a top official or business executive from China leaves home suddenly and pops up in the U.S. or Canada with a visa and a fortune in yuan earned through embezzlement, smuggling or graft. Lai Changxing, China's most-wanted man, is living in Vancouver with an undisclosed amount of the more than $8 billion he is alleged to have gained by massive smuggling. Two former Bank of China officials are under indictment in the United States on charges of looting the bank for $485 million. Zhou Jinhuo, a former director of commerce and industry for Fujian province, was recently arrested in Mongolia with a false passport, which he apparently planned to use to get to the United States, where authorities say he had secreted millions in graft. Liu Zhihua, deputy mayor of Beijing, was recently detained by Party investigators on suspicion of corruption in the building of venues for the 2008 Olympics. Such wide-open corruption threatens the very integrity of China's financial system. Even in 2006, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there soon total up to real money--losses the country's emerging banking and finance sector can ill afford.
But who will speak up for press freedom in China? The Beijing government over the years has proved remarkably blasé when it comes to condemnation from human rights and press freedom groups. A stern lecture from the U.S., even if the Bush administration chose to deliver it, would have precious little credibility. Ordinary Americans can make their voices heard -- but the Chinese rulers care little for their own ordinary people, much less for foreigners.
Whom does that leave? Well, the Westerners who might have the most influence on this issue are the ones who also have the most to lose if it isn't handled correctly. Western business executives and investors have an urgent stake in the search for corruption and incompetence in China's economy and government. And if investment bankers, importers, manufacturers and investors begin asking questions about the press law, the Chinese government, despite its resentment of outside pressure, might have no choice but to listen. If self-interest doesn't motivate these financial elites, then public pressure may have an effect. What if public employees raised this issue with the executives who manage their retirement funds? What if investors asked whether their funds' managers are aware of the hidden costs of secrecy and its handmaid, corruption?
China right now is the hinge on which the world's economy turns. Ironically, the success of this enormous economic transformation may depend on the efforts of a relatively small number of underpaid journalists. History suggests that the role of an independent press in economic modernization is indispensable. Without it, the economic future of China and the world could flounder in a mass of corruption and inefficiency, bringing us all down.
- The author teaches Constitutional Law at the University of Oregon. His new book is Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America. He spent the past summer in Beijing as a visitor at Caijing Magazine. Learn more about the law here.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Comments (9)
The comment from India that the "Press is the Fourth Estate" is confusing because most Americans don't learn about the Estates of the autocratic French Government that was overthrown by the liberation of the Bastille on a certain July 14,300 years ago. Bastille Day is as important to the French as the July 4 Freedom Holiday. Any rate, President Madison observed the French court of King Louis directly, a paternalistic leader that was not qualified to be a dictator, and developed the "separation of powers" principles with 3 separate branches of govt. The President was supposed to be a weak figurehead. The free press should be considered one of the most independent branches of the diverse system because it covers regions that the President might not be familiar with.
When I was in China, there was news that the "Big Dig" that had been impeding traffic for at least 20 years around the Boston area, and was finally built, had started falling on the cars going through the highway tunnels.
That made me laugh! Of course I wouldn't like to be in one of those cars, but I thought this was refreshing. Incompetence prevails around the Boston area, and skilled workmen who have competent engineering plans don't have to spend 20 years rebuilding a tunnel.
I didn't see any "choking pollution" either, there was a clean burning nuclear electric plant near Shanghai. It is clean burning as far as the lack of dust residues in the houses that use it, and the tiles in the tunnels going to the airport looked like they had been scrubbed by Chinese workers.
However there is a lot of unstored nuclear waste that has to be canned in lead and buried. In areas where coal is used to heat places, there is some "coal dust" residue, but I didn't see any smog where I was going to school.
I think it's necessary to report on natural disasters so people can avoid traveling to disturbed areas.
The Free Press is essential because the executive, legislative and judiciary around Washington tend to be autocentric and follow their leader. The Free Press can give you viewpoints from remote areas.
The dance halls in Shanghai where wealthy Chinese entertained aristocrats and bought them watches and diamond rings are gone, and you wouldn't want to spend $7 for a watch made in Albania that doesn't work.
When immigrants from Japan hold most of the paying jobs in the hospitality industry and at the airport, it is a shame that they don't make rules about "Chinese citizens having first rights to jobs" (like they do in the European Union) unless the Japs are confiscating identities from the Chinese.
Let the people prevail!!!
August 20, 2006 1:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 20, 2006 13:47
Issues of freedom of speech and expression are always tricky. One, there's nothing like 'absolute freedom': my freedom ends where your freedom begins. Secondly, the dynamics of free speech are inextricably linked to the nature of society.
Putting out unverified, unauthenticated, unsubstantiated news reports does not in any way help matters, be in China, India or the US. So, if Chinese authorities are planning to penalise journalists who put out such information, I don't think they can be faulted at all.
The Press has been traditionally seen as the Fourth Estate: the other three being the Executive, the Judiciary and the Parliament. And, all four make up the system of governance called "democracy". The success of each of the four depends on the other three and also on the rest of the society.
When we discuss China, we have to remember that the country is not a democracy in any sense of the term. The nation's rulers have been extremely smart to have a win-win (from their point of view) combination of capitalist economy and communist government. China doesn't have a democratic polity anyway.
As a newspaper journalist in India, I have had occasions to see how difficult it is report "sudden events" like accidents and other similar "developing stories". The biggest handicap is lack of authentic information. With the result, the free media tend to lap up anything and everything that comes by the way to satiate an info-thirsty public. Often this leads to a certain amount of chaos, not necessarily of the violent kind.
We have seen that happening in all free-media societies, including the US. When such is the case in democratic societies, the state of closed societies can only be imagined.
It's obvious that Chinese authorities do not want to have such a chaotic situation. If such controls are healthy for Chinese society and it leads to better lifestyle for its citizens, why should we complain?
After all, we have now seen that Western style of democracy is not sure-fire, guaranteed success in all parts of the world. Limitations are inherant.
August 19, 2006 2:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 19, 2006 02:56
To Scott concerning whether conspiracy style thinking is more prevalent in authoritarian societies. In societies fundamentally religious or authoritarian or both people direct their thoughts to the ruling powers or project them outwards--they tend to have a rather simple good/evil outlook in other words. In other words they have certainties rather than conspiracies even though some of these certainties are absurd (the Godking failed to keep it from raining, etc.). With the advent of democracy as in Greece and especially science we had a reality breakdown (Gods clashing and conspiring against one another in Greek mythology, etc.) and were thus set up as we are today in Western democracy where we can neither easily blame the authorities, project hostility outward, or even tell whether god exists or whether we should believe in evolution, etc. We quite simply have a multiple reality experience in democracy and it is up to the authorities to be extremely responsible or chaos will ensue. To believe authoritarian or fundamentally religious (or both) societies to be deeper into the conspiracy mentality is to essentially say they are more imaginative than democratic societies--that they have a multitude of reasons why things are wrong, etc. Your examples from China I suspect are not so much conspiracy theories as actualities or conspiracy thoughts directed at the Chinese government which are a focal point for conspiracy style thinking. A focal point is what is more and more lost in democratic society which is why leaders in democracies need to be exceedingly honest. As for conspiracy style thinking in the Muslim world, I suspect Muslims think Israel and the U.S. are behind everything more than anything else--in other words they move by a simple good/evil type of thinking (compare Middle Eastern music to Sonata form and tell me which you think offers multiple perspective possibility). Only in the Western world do we have movies such as the Matrix or the Truman show, evolution, relativity of morals, relativity of time (Einstein), etc. Authoritarian and/or religious societies can hold thought to certain points. Democratic societies are multiple thoughts often in tension, conflicting and our glory is the potentiality of a higher integration. But the government must be exceedingly noble, honest, or chaos can quite easily ensue. And the press, educational system etc. have no choice but to be reality creators in the best sense or threaten us with collapse back into primitive political/religious organizations. I would be a little more humble criticizing China. They have existed for five thousand years. American democracy is two hundred years old. Kind of like comparing a mouse to a full grown man if you were to graph the time frame to a height scale. This is not to say we should not wish the best for China, but we had better reflect on ourselves first. It seems the U.S. is having difficulty with multiple perspectives on reality and both the Republicans and the Democrats are jockeying to control our minds (religion versus evolution, political correctness versus...etc. etc.). I hope this has been a satisfactory response to your questions (particularly when and where conspiracy theories are more likely to arise).
August 18, 2006 3:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 18, 2006 15:53
Mr. Wang: I think that China's current prosperity is evidence to the Chinese government and Chinese society that you don't need much of a free press in order to succeed in the global economy.
While you and I might agree (which we do) that a free press is a good thing and a healthy thing in the long run, I believe the Chinese need for 'order' (or more specifically, the illusion of stability) will not allow for a truly free and tumultuous press.
The need for basic rights to be respected and the mechanisms to enforce them are very difficult to develop. I don't see that happening in China any time soon; the Chinese people are poorer for it, and come to think of it, so are we.
August 17, 2006 11:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 17, 2006 23:50
It's also completely incorrect to attribute the genesis of conspiracy theories to lack of an "official view of reality".
As an American who spent 9 years in China, I can tell you that the Chinese, despite a surfeit of government-approved stances on just about everything, have no shortages of conspiracy theories.
In fact, I bet you would find a strong correlation between how authoritarian a country is and how prevalent/entrenched conspiracy-style thinking is. Conspiracy theories are certainly widespread in Iraq and other Arab countries, where even the most outlandish possibilities are accepted with a shrug.
This is so because the people in those countries know the government can't be trusted yet have no open outlet to debate ideas and no mechanism to get authorities to acknowledge error.
I personally find the conspiracy theories about 9/11 to be alarmingly widespread, but it is hardly a new phenomenon. JFK, AIDS, UFOs, the moon landings, dinosaur fossils and many, many other matters also have plenty of conspiracy-style explanations. It's a credit to our free press that the vast majority of Americans do not take any of those seriously.
August 17, 2006 11:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 17, 2006 23:26
It is quite wrong to suggest that the Chinese people, while busy getting rich, don't necessarily need a free press.
I am a Chinese journalist with some working experience in both China and the United States. It is true that the Chinese don't care about either "human rights" or "free press" values as much as the Americans do. There is no denying that. But as fellow human beings we want the same thing in the end: a society with values and order accepted by the majority, if not all, so as to ensure the general well being of the majority, if not all. That is what makes the United States, or China, different from today's Iraq or Lebanon. In order for the majority of society to improve their lives, there has to be order. There have to be laws, rules and mechanisms protecting some basic rights -- for example, private property.
But what we see in China today is, such basic rights getting violated and trampled every day, if not on an epidemic scale, at least with enough cases to fill newspaper pages. A farmer trying to make money from his crops may find his land taken away by the government and handed to real estate developers, while getting very little in compensation. The same government may also seek to bury the news of such robbery so farmers in similar situations can't organize and protest en masse. When government officials, laws and courts fail to protect people's rights in such cases, that is where the press comes in, in a similar fashion as in the US.
Government restrictions, censorship and stiff retributions to the press organizations as provided by this law do deter many journalists, but not all.
August 17, 2006 10:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 17, 2006 22:36
The author's suggestion that a free press is 'indispensable' for economic modernization is both interesting and controversial. Convincing either Chinese gov't elites or the Chinese people of this will be difficult.
My assessment of the Chinese people is that they don't particularly care for 'human rights' or 'political freedom' as Westerners would describe it. I think they care about not being poor and quite possibly, getting rich. I also assert that they are getting rich without needing to have a free press -- why bother?
If the free flow of information is as important as Professor Epps asserts, they will either adapt to it or possibly suffer the consequences. My personal prediction is that they will adapt as minimally as possible.
August 17, 2006 7:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 17, 2006 19:27
I think the problem of a free press with respect to government is a problem far too serious and complex to be considered understood let alone grasped and ready to be applied to China. In Western Civilization the rise of science and skepticism has left us in a world in which reality is extremely difficult to determine--we live in essence in a world in which we clamor for "correct sources", "insight" etc. and yet we are constantly left in the dark. In a world without an official view of reality whether religious, political, or otherwise conspiracy theories are the order of the day and only a great, noble and honest government can dispell this problem. The Republican party in America calls the left wing crazy for thinking that the Twin towers were brought down not by terrorists but the U.S. government, but this is perfectly natural in a world in which no one is certain about reality and everyone panics and tries to impose on everyone else. Only an extraordinary amount of restraint, good-will, insight, etc. on the part of the populace can get a society through this. The United States has hardly come to terms with the problem of free press versus government and it seem arrogant to expect we know all the answers with respect to China. This is not to say we cannot make an analysis of the problems of China, but we had better be careful we are not about to be thrown into something perhaps worse than any of China's problems: A complete loss of confidence in determining reality--a free press free-for-all bolstered by all the competing views born of communications technology and now dramatically increased by the internet. How exactly is reality organized in a skeptical world? Worse: a skeptical world in which humans are still all too human and eager and jealous and envious and so much else? My belief is the free press in America let alone elsewhere is about to have an incredible burden placed on it: not the task of truth to power but a constant revolution in what we mean by truth for the power and sake of us all. If we are incapable of this task it makes little sense to take other nations to task for we can hardly expect them to gladly enter where we so obviously failed. But of course we should want a free press in China....
August 17, 2006 5:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 17, 2006 17:58
I think the problem of a free press with respect to government is a problem far too serious and complex to be considered understood let alone grasped and ready to be applied to China. In Western Civilization the rise of science and skepticism has left us in a world in which reality is extremely difficult to determine--we live in essence in a world in which we clamor for "correct sources", "insight" etc. and yet we are constantly left in the dark. In a world without an official view of reality whether religious, political, or otherwise conspiracy theories are the order of the day and only a great, noble and honest government can dispell this problem. The Republican party in America calls the left wing crazy for thinking that the Twin towers were brought down not by terrorists but the U.S. government, but this is perfectly natural in a world in which no one is certain about reality and everyone panics and tries to impose on everyone else. Only an extraordinary amount of restraint, good-will, insight, etc. on the part of the populace can get a society through this. The United States has hardly come to terms with the problem of free press versus government and it seem arrogant to expect we know all the answers with respect to China. This is not to say we cannot make an analysis of the problems of China, but we had better be careful we are not about to be thrown into something perhaps worse than any of China's problems: A complete loss of confidence in determining reality--a free press free-for-all bolstered by all the competing views born of communications technology and now dramatically increased by the internet. How exactly is reality organized in a skeptical world? Worse: a skeptical world in which humans are still all too human and eager and jealous and envious and so much else? My belief is the free press in America let alone elsewhere is about to have an incredible burden placed on it: not the task of truth to power but a constant revolution in what we mean by truth for the power and sake of us all. If we are incapable of this task it makes little sense to take other nations to task for we can hardly expect them to gladly enter where we so obviously failed. But of course we should want a free press in China....
August 17, 2006 5:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 17, 2006 17:56