Media Censorship in China
| Authors: | Carin Zissis Preeti Bhattacharji |
|---|
March 18, 2008
Introduction
The 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing have drawn international attention to censorship in China. Watchdog groups say the preexisting monitoring system piles on new restrictions, and the government continues to detain and harass journalists. But the country’s burgeoning economy allows greater diversity in China’s media coverage, and experts say the growing Chinese demand for information is testing a regime that is trying to use media controls in its bid to maintain power.
What is the official media policy in China?
As China becomes a major player in the global economy, authorities in Beijing are trying to balance the need for more information with their goal of controlling content as a means to maintain power. CFR Senior Fellow Elizabeth C. Economy says the Chinese government is in a state of “schizophrenia” about media policy as it “goes back and forth, testing the line, knowing they need press freedom—and the information it provides— but worried about opening the door to the type of freedoms that could lead to the regime’s downfall.” Although President Hu Jintao was expected to be more liberal than his predecessors, his administration has pursued a media policy that involves increased regulations as well as the arrest and prosecution of journalists. Bob Dietz, Asia Program Coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), says this “hard swing to the conservative side” will likely be the direction taken as long as Hu is in power.
But in spite of a crackdown under Hu, China’s media is undergoing a process of commercialization, leading to growing competition, diversified content, and an increase in investigative reporting by Chinese news agencies. According to a government report, there are more than two thousand newspapers, over eight thousand magazines, and some 374 television stations in the country. China also has over 150 million Internet users and, despite restrictions governing online content, both domestic and international stories that censors would prefer to control slip through government information firewalls. Only state agencies can own media in China, but there is creeping privatization as outlets subcontract administrative operations to the private sector. Northeast Asia media expert Ashley W. Esarey says it is also likely the Internet will play a role in Chinese media reform, because its “absolute control has proven difficult, if not impossible.”
How free is Chinese media?
The watchdog group Reporters Without Borders ranked China 163 out of 168 countries in its 2007 index of press freedom. China’s constitution affords its citizens freedom of speech and press, but the document contains broad language that says Chinese citizens must defend “the security, honor, and interests of the motherland.” Chinese law includes media regulations with vague language that authorities use to claim stories endanger the country by sharing state secrets. Journalists face harassment and prison terms for violating these rules and revealing classified matter. The government’s monitoring structure promotes an atmosphere of self-censorship; if published materials are deemed dangerous to state security after they appear in the media, the information can then be considered classified and journalists can be prosecuted.
What are the primary censoring agencies in China?
Several government bodies are involved in reviewing and enforcing laws related to information flowing within, into, and from China, but the two primary censoring agencies are the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) and the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT). GAPP licenses publishers, screens written publications (including those on the Internet), and has the power to ban materials and shut down outlets. SARFT has similar authority over radio, television, film, and Internet broadcasts.
But the most powerful monitoring body is the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department (CPD), which coordinates with GAPP and SARFT to make sure content promotes and remains consistent with party doctrine. Xinhua, the state news agency, is considered by press freedom organizations to be a propaganda tool. The CPD gives media outlets directives restricting coverage of politically sensitive topics—such as protests, environmental disasters, Tibet, and Taiwan—which could be considered dangerous to state security and party control. The CPD guidelines are given to heads of media outlets, who in turn kill controversial stories and decide how delicate topics will be covered. Journalists who do not follow the rules face reprisals in the workplace. Publicizing the CPD guidelines invites punishment, too, as in the case of Shi Tao, a journalist detained in 2004 and serving a ten-year sentence for posting an online summary describing the CPD’s instructions for how to report about the fifteen-year anniversary of events at Tiananmen Square.
How does China exert media controls?
The Chinese government uses different means of intimidation to control the media and induce journalists to censor themselves rather than risk punishment. Censorship tactics include:
- Dismissals and demotions. One of the most common punishments, say watchdog groups, is to fire or demote editors and journalists who publish articles objectionable to the CPD.
- Libel. Government officials occasionally use accusations of libel as a way to intimidate media outlets and publishing houses. Cases range from a journalist charged with libel for writing pieces critical of Communist Party leaders on foreign websites to an author whose book about the extortion of farmers by local officials was banned after one of the officials sued him and his publishing house.
- Fines. In August 2007, China passed the “Emergency Response Law,” which bans the spread of unverified information regarding riots, disasters, and other emergencies. Originally, the law threatened to fine media sources up to $12,500 for violations, but it was redrafted with more ambiguous language before it was passed.
- Closing news outlets. News organizations that cover issues the CPD considers classified face closure. In a 2005 report, the People’s Daily said 338 publications were shut down the previous year for printing “internal” information.
- Imprisonment. China imprisoned twenty-nine journalists in 2007, making it the world’s biggest jailor of reporters for the ninth year running, according to CPJ. Almost two-thirds of the jailed reporters were arrested for materials published on the Internet. One incarcerated foreign correspondent, Ching Cheong of Singapore’s Straits Times, was arrested in 2005 while reporting about leaders within the Chinese Communist Party. Cheong was sentenced to five years in prison, plus one year’s deprivation of political rights. His arrest had a chilling effect on press freedom in Hong Kong, where he was based.
How does China control the influence of foreign media?
China requires foreign correspondents to get permission before making reporting trips within the country and reporters often face harassment if they cover delicate issues.
As part of its bid to host the 2008 Olympics, China promised to relax constraints and “be open in every aspect to the rest of the country and the whole world.” In January 2007, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signed a decree that allows foreign journalists to report without permits before and during the Beijing Games. The decree also allows foreign journalists to interview any individual or organization as long as the interviewee consents. The new guidelines came into effect on January 1, 2007, and will last through October 27, 2008.
But critics accuse China of reneging on its Olympic promise. The Foreign Correspondents Club of China reports that 180 foreign correspondents were detained, harassed, or attacked in China in 2007 despite the nominally relaxed regulations. In addition, China continues to filter foreign (and domestic) content on the Internet—in many cases using technology provided by U.S. companies such as Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google.
One of the largest foreign uproars came when Beijing introduced regulations in September 2006 requiring foreign wire services to distribute news through Xinhua instead of selling economic information directly to clients. CFR’s Economy says the restrictions had less to do with media control than with a bid by Xinhua to cut into wire services’ profits. The move was “brazen,” says Dietz, because even as Beijing continues prosecuting journalists who cover controversial social issues, “China knows it cannot afford to tamper with the flow of economic data, and that is where it will receive the most external pressure.” But despite the pressure that foreign groups place on China, experts say that criticism coming from outside China will have little effect on policy.
How do journalists get around media control measures?
Despite the systematic control of news in China—the U.S. State Department estimates China has between thirty thousand and fifty thousand Internet monitors—editors and journalists find ways to get news past the censors. Esarey says the primary space for freedom of speech in China is the blogosphere, where journalists use humor and political satire to criticize the Chinese government. In mainstream media, editors find ways to test the rules as readers in China’s flourishing economy demand hard news, says Dietz, and journalists covering social issues their editors won’t publish will post stories online, where the news will be released into cyberspace even if the original post is removed.
Dietz predicts press freedom “will expand to meet the needs and demands not just of the government but of the society.” Chinese media broke the news about official suppression of information about the 2003 SARS outbreak in Beijing. Similarly, after toxic chemicals leaked into a river and contaminated drinking water in the northeast city of Harbin in 2005, newspapers and websites criticized government response, demanded greater transparency, and posted photos of area residents stockpiling bottled water.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Email
In this POP, Adjunct Fellow Michelle D. Gavin suggests steps the Bush administration could take to promote political and ethnic reconciliation and to restore the viability of Kenya’s governing institutions.
In this paper, Senior Fellow Daniel Markey poses a set of recommendations for the United States to consider in response to Pakistan’s ongoing political crisis.
