{"id":149641,"date":"2013-01-08T03:59:53","date_gmt":"2013-01-08T11:59:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/?p=149641"},"modified":"2013-10-07T20:11:41","modified_gmt":"2013-10-08T03:11:41","slug":"southern-weekly-censorship-faceoff-continues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chinadigitaltimes.net\/2013\/01\/southern-weekly-censorship-faceoff-continues\/","title":{"rendered":"Southern Weekly Censorship Faceoff Continues (Updated)"},"content":{"rendered":"
The heavy-handed rewriting of the Southern Weekly newspaper’s traditional New Year greeting<\/a> has triggered a staff strike, a barrage of letters and petitions, and an upwelling of popular support both on- and offline<\/a>. In the midst of it all, according to the Associated Press, newspaper staff have been trying to negotiate a settlement with their official managers<\/strong><\/a> [See below<\/a> for an update on the meeting]:<\/p>\n On Tuesday, the paper\u2019s editorial committee was to hold a fourth round of negotiations with its top management, which is part of the provincial propaganda office, according to a Southern Weekly editor. The editor spoke on condition of anonymity because of an internal directive not to talk to the foreign media.<\/p>\n Propaganda officials want the newspaper to publish \u2014 as per normal \u2014 on Thursday but editors are negotiating over whether to do so, and the terms under which they would be willing, for example, if they could include a letter to readers explaining the incident, the editor said.<\/p>\n The committee is also pushing a larger appeal to abolish censorship of the newspaper\u2019s content prior to publication, the editor said. The suggestion is that Communist Party leaders could provide direction but not interfere with reporting and editing, and should refrain from taking issue with content until after publication, the editor said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Meanwhile, protests continued outside Southern Weekly’s headquarters<\/strong><\/a>, with the newspaper’s supporters facing off against a small Maoist counter-protest. From James Pomfret at Reuters:<\/p>\n The scuffles broke out after supporters of the paper, published on Thursdays, jeered and skirmished with a small band of leftists holding posters of Chairman Mao Zedong and signs denouncing the Southern Weekly as “a traitor newspaper” for defying the party.<\/p>\n “These people (leftists) are paid agitators of the government, twisting the truth with propaganda. We had to do something about it,” said pro-press freedom protester Cheng Qiubo.<\/p>\n Dozens of police officers had to intervene, though the protests were allowed to continue. Two technicians with a ladder tried to rig a surveillance camera to the branch of a tree outside the newspaper gates, but were swiftly surrounded and shouted down by angry crowds and forced to retreat.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Economist’s James Miles observed (using the newspaper’s alternative English name):<\/p>\n Small group of leftists only persistent protesters outside Southern Weekend, Spectators wave 50 cents at them. twitter.com\/jarmiles\/statu\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 James Miles (@jarmiles) January 8, 2013<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n The Wall Street Journal’s Paul Mozur posted video of the heated confrontation<\/a>, while others published dozens<\/a> of photos on Facebook<\/a> and other social media sites. Some showed Guy Fawkes masks inspired by the Alan Moore graphic novel V for Vendetta<\/em><\/a>, via the 2005 Hollywood adaptation that aired last month on CCTV<\/a>. From The New York Times’ Jonah Kessel:<\/p>\n Some freedom of speech advocates wearing v for vendetta masks. Said he saw the movie on CCTV recently and ordered the mask<\/p>\n \u2014 Jonah Kessel (@jonah_kessel) January 8, 2013<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Tea Leaf Nation tracked online support for Southern Weekly<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n [\u2026 T]hese include some of Chinese social media\u2019s most high profile users from all walks of life. Celebrities such as actress Yao Chen (with 31 million followers) and actor Chen Kui (with 27 million followers) tweeted explicit messages of support on Sina Weibo, a microblog platform. <\/a>Yao quoted the 1970 Nobel lecture of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian author and dissident, along with a logo of Southern Weekend. Chen was more direct: \u201cI am not that deep, and I don\u2019t play word games; I support the friends at Southern Weekend.\u201d<\/p>\n [\u2026] Ren Zhiqiang (@\u4efb\u5fd7\u5f3a), one of the most outspoken businessmen in China with almost 13 million followers, tweeted on Sina Weibo, \u201cFreedom of press and freedom of speech are rights given to the society and the people by the constitution; they are also symbols of human rights and freedom. Yet they have become pipe dreams without the rule of law, being seriously distorted and restricted. If truth is not allowed to be spoken, would truth disappear?\u201d<\/p>\n Li Chengpeng and Han Han, China\u2019s two most famous bloggers, both wrote articles in support of Southern Weekend. Li wrote, \u201cWe don\u2019t need tall buildings, but we need a newspaper that speaks the truth. We don\u2019t need the second highest GDP in the world, but we need a newspaper that speaks the truth. We don\u2019t need a fleet of aircraft carriers, but we need a newspaper that speaks the truth.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/a>Han Han’s post was previously featured at CDT on Monday<\/a>.<\/p>\n A Global Times editorial, ‘Southern Weekend’s ‘Letter to Readers’ Truly Makes One Ponder<\/strong><\/a>‘, on the other hand, reiterated a claim posted by Southern Weekly’s official Sina Weibo account: that provincial propaganda authorities in fact had nothing to do with the controversial edits. China Media Project’s David Bandurski<\/a> had previously reported that newspaper staff felt this to be \u201ccompletely at odds with the truth\u201d<\/a>, and that it was issued “without confirmation or authorization from members of the newspaper\u2019s editorial committee.” The Times editorial went on to hit other points from a propaganda directive obtained by CDT<\/a>: that “Party control of the media is an unwavering basic principle”, and that “external hostile forces are involved in the development of the situation”\u2014including, it alleged, Chen Guangcheng. From translated highlights at Fei Chang Dao:<\/p>\n These people are making spirited demands, and while on the surface they are going after a specific person and event, its obvious to everyone watching that their target is the entire system that involves the media.<\/p>\n Whether these people like it or not, this is common sense: given the current state of China’s society and government, the kind of “free media” that these people yearn for in their hearts simply cannot exist. All of China’s media can develop only to the extent China does, and media reform must remain part-and-parcel of China’s overall reform, and the media absolutely will not become a “political special zone” of China.<\/p>\n [\u2026] Even in the West, the mainstream media will not choose to openly oppose the government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A version of the editorial<\/a> also appeared on the English-language Global Times site.<\/p>\n The Diplomat’s David Cohen reported that, as instructed<\/a>, the editorial was republished by major web portals<\/a> including Sohu, Sina and Tencent. Each, however, added a disclaimer to the effect that republication did not equal endorsement. Further defiance was shown in screen grabs of headlines on sites’ front pages, arranged so that their first characters spelled out messages of support<\/a>. According to Amy Li at South China Morning Post, the editorial also appeared in<\/a> Guangzhou Information Times, Guangzhou’s New Express Daily, Beijing Youth Daily, Beijing Times, Hangzhou’s City Express, Shenzhen’s Daily Sunshine, Xi’an’s Sanqin Daily, Xi’an Evening News and China Business News.<\/p>\n David Bandurski saw the leaked directive as potentially ominous<\/strong><\/a>. From China Media Project:<\/p>\n If it is true, as Berkeley\u2019s China Digital Times reports, that media have been issued a propaganda directive on the Southern Weekly incident that deflects blame from Guangdong propaganda officials toward foreign \u201chostile forces,\u201d that is not an encouraging sign.<\/p>\n Readers should understand that the Southern Weekly crisis is not just a face-off between pro-reform voices and status-quo Party conservatives. In this case, it was propaganda officials in Guangdong \u2014 the spiritual heart of China\u2019s reform and opening \u2014 who upset the status-quo by exercising censorship to such an intrusive extent that the situation became unacceptable to working journalists, most of whom had already made an uneasy peace with media controls.<\/p>\n The crisis at the Nanfang Media Group is not just about whether Xi Jinping is serious about the ostensible new openness and responsiveness attributed to him by sustained state propaganda. It is about whether China could be moving backward on the issue of media freedom, which would send worrying signals about the overall direction of the new leadership.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n At The Wall Street Journal, Danwei’s Jeremy Goldkorn also discussed the situation in terms of prospects for media and internet freedom, saying that “I don’t believe there’s anybody in the senior leadership who’s committed to those ideals.”<\/p>\n An editorial in The Telegraph suggested that the new leadership’s response will be revealing<\/strong><\/a>, finding some encouragement in a People’s Daily editorial with a different tone to Global Times piece:<\/p>\n This is Mr Xi\u2019s first serious test and early indications suggest that he is treading carefully. Demonstrations have been lightly policed and yesterday the People\u2019s Daily, the party\u2019s official outlet, said that propaganda officials should \u201cfollow the rhythm of the times\u201d and help the authorities create a \u201cpragmatic and open-minded image\u201d. On the face of it, this heralds a welcome and more tolerant official approach to the media. Whether or not it amounts to anything of substance will become clear in the next few days.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Guangdong’s new Party chief Hu Chunhua<\/a> will also be under scrutiny: the posting is, in part, a near-final test of his suitability for future national leadership.<\/p>\n For now, however, it remains unclear which way Beijing will move<\/strong><\/a>. From Jonah Kessel and Chris Buckley at The New York Times:<\/p>\n Both supporters and critics of Southern Weekend journalists have claimed that Mr. Xi would back their cause.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t believe that Xi is totally hypocritical when he talks about reform,\u201d said Mr. Chen [Min, also known by the pen name Xiao Shu], who was forced out of the newspaper in 2011.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Southern Weekend journalists have said that they accept party control, but the question is what kind of control and how far should it go unchallenged,\u201d Mr. Chen added.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n