More on Ai Weiwei from The Peking Duck
Our old friend Richard provides a glimpse into how the state-run Chinese newspaper The Global Times is dealing with the Ai Weiwei:
Nine days ago, Hu Xijin, the editor in chief of The Global Times, assembled all of the Chinese staff into the paper’s large conference room and shut the door. As is nearly always the case with such meetings, the expats, known as “foreign experts,” were not permitted inside.
Hu had a direct and simple order for his
shock troopsstaff: They were to go to their desks and seek out any Chinese comment threads, any discussions on Chinese BBS’s and portals and blogs — any discussion on the Internet at all — about the detention of Ai Weiwei and counter them with the party line, as expressed so clearly and ominously in a recent Global Times editorial, namely that Ai Weiwei is a self-appointed maverick who deserves to be detained, and who is being used by hostile Western powers to embarrass, hurt and destabilize China. This was not a request, it was a direct order. It was compulsory.
Sinister, but unsurprising.
UPDATE: James Fallows also cites Richard's post and asks "how much of the current crackdown reflects over-confidence by the government? How much reflects its nervous insecurity?". I would say "nervous insecurity" is the key driver in most decisions made by the Chinese government. There's a common misconception that because it's authoritarian, the Chinese government is highly stable. If anything, the opposite is true, hence the obsession with "security". To Westerners, a character like Ai Weiwei seems harmless because our societies tolerate eccentric members with unorthodox political opinions*. Yet in China the Communist Party fears that by allowing a few dissidents to speak out against the State with impunity would simply embolden others and threaten the Party's grip on power.
*Lest Westerners- or just Americans- start to feel good about ourselves it's worth remembering that eccentrics with unorthodox political opinions weren't tolerated during the McCarthy era, for one. Again, insecurity was the driver.
On Internships and Freelancing in the New Media
The Atlantic Wire is reporting that a group of bloggers for The Huffington Post are suing the company and its new partner AOL over their right to be paid. This piece reminded of something I read last week- the Times published an op-ed article by Ross Perlin arguing that it is wrong for interns to not receive financial compensation for their work, and wrong for colleges to require its students to complete an internship.
These two articles intrigued me for a few reasons. One, I have contributed articles for free several times over the years and expect to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. Two, I worked for a company in China that routinely hired unpaid interns to perform certain tasks. Three, I currently attend a Master's program that requires all students to complete an internship (paid or unpaid) in order to graduate.
It seems that the unpaid bloggers at The Huffington Post were particularly upset that they did not see a cent from THP's recent merger with AOL. In theory, they have a case. Arianna Huffington and her partners have profited from the labor provided by these bloggers and refused to give them a piece of the pie. This policy is by no means a secret- Huffington herself has said repeatedly that her website will pay for reporting, not opinion. After all, there are countless people around the world publishing their opinions on the Internet- I am one of them. Why should we get paid when we'd do it for free?
In addition, for an aspiring writer or journalist, not all rewards are pecuniary. Finding a good media job resembles a Catch-22: in order to get experience, you need to already have it. In the pre-web days, aspiring writers had to start on the bottom rung of the ladder and only through years of hard-work and a break or two could they rise to the top. Now, the matriculation process for talented writers has accelerated rapidly through facilitators like The Huff Post. Good, talented writers writing for free can get major exposure if they're chosen by the Huff Post as a blogger. While the rewards won't be monetized, they'll be able to attract a wider audience for their work as well as buttress their resume. Both of these are real, non-financial benefits that will help the writer meet career goals more easily.
The process with internships work the same. Most interns are asked to work for free. Yet in exchange, they receive a valuable professional contact who will be obliged to assist them through writing recommendation letters and the like; real professional experience which they can put on their resume and that may be inherently valuable; and the strong possibility of being selected by the company as a full-time employee when the time comes. If companies were required to pay their interns (some do so already), then there'd likely be far fewer internship opportunities available. Put it this way- most of the students in my Master's program would still seek summer internships even if they weren't required to do so.
On the particular merits of the suit against the Huff Post/AOL merger, I do think it would have been appropriate for Arianna Huffington to kick back some of that money to her army of bloggers. Yet I don't think the present business model is an any way immoral, and actually think that we have more and better published opinion than ever before due in part to organizations like the Huff Post.
Bob Herbert Walks The Plank
The long-time columnist Bob Herbert has resigned his Op-Ed post with the New York Times. I'm basically with Andrew Sullivan:
Yes, he had a role as a liberal voice. But such a boring, familiar voice. There was something about his writing that simply forced you to stop reading, even when his motives were obviously honorable, his compassion deep, and his solutions sincere, if invariably trite
Herbert has kept his column for as long as I've read the Times, and I can only recall two or three instances in which I've actually read one of his columns all the way through. I appreciate Herbert's attempt to keep poverty on the national radar, but his columns lacked humor, style, or bite. The Times' Op-ed page is probably the most valuable real estate for punditry in the world so I don't think it'll be too difficult finding someone to replace him.
My choice? The Atlantic's brilliant Ta-Nehisi Coates. Whether he writes about contemporary politics or football, Coates' talent just leaps off the page (or, um, the screen).
The Critic in Winter
If I may take a break from my usual content, I'd like to direct your attention to this very moving profile of America's finest film critic, Roger Ebert. Since a 2006 surgery, Ebert has not had a lower jaw. He has not eaten, had a drink of anything, nor spoken a single, solitary word since.
Most Americans my age know Ebert as one half of the eponymous film-critic duo Siskel & Ebert, whose passionate arguments about films both good and bad comprised a much-loved television program that lasted until Siskel's death in 1999. The two were a study in contrats; Ebert was fat and verbose, Siskel thin and reserved. Their arguments would culminate in an ultimate judgment: was the film worth watching? The two adjudicated this matter by a simple, trademarked gesture: thumbs up or thumbs down. In its day the 'two thumps up!' judgment would be displayed more prominently on the print ads of films than any other.
Before the Internet age few outside of Chicago, where Ebert is based, knew that the voluble fat critic was also a wonderful writer. His reviews now appear at the top of IMDBs 'External Reviews' list on each major film's page, and are truly a primer in how to write about film. Many times through the years I've struggled to articulate a particular feeling about something I've watched, only to discover Ebert had captured it perfectly in his review.
Ebert keeps a journal of his thoughts on film, art, culture, and dying. It's well-worth bookmarking, if only to celebrate a national treasure while he is still among us.
Quote of the Day
From the inimitable Christopher Hitchens:
Wiser and older people tell you that the passions of your youth will dry up and that a more sere and autumnal condition will overtake you as maturity advances, but the thought of the Nixon gang in the White House still infuses me with a pure and undiluted hatred and makes me consider throwing up things that I don't even remember having eaten.
China and Western Media Bias
Writing in the Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash makes an important point about international media coverage of China:
Hard though many Chinese may find this to believe, since their own media reflect the policy of their party-state, western governments have almost nothing to do with it. The main cause lies in the economics and professional dynamics of the west's commercial news business, which is going through one of those "gales of creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter saw to be characteristic of capitalism.
As they compete fiercely for readers and viewers, mainstream western media tend to stick with a few stories that are familiar and interesting to them. They report so much about Tibet not because they are ideological China-bashers but because their consumers are fascinated by and care about Tibet. Yes, their news stories on China's domestic politics tend to the sensational and the negative - so do their stories about the domestic politics of their own countries. Those who edit and select these stories are just following the market-oriented rules of their trade. If it bleeds, it leads. Knocking copy is selling copy. Good news is no news. "Many Chinese city dwellers moderately content with rising standard of living" is not a headline that would sell many papers.
(Emphasis mine)
Blogger and historian Jeremiah Jenne, writing in the new Global Times, adds:
And while accusations of professional journalists coming here to blatantly push an agenda is (mostly) paranoid hogwash, I do think that there is a tendency to let preconceived notions dictate how certain stories are covered, and this is obviously a problem. It would also be naive not to also discuss the role market forces play in the decision to run articles on certain topics at the expense of others.
Both points are correct, I think. Bad reporting about China typically derives from laziness, sloppiness, or lack of access- not a deep anti-China racial animus in the hearts of the reporters themselves. The narratives that emanate from foreign reports in China are sensationalistic because, as Gash points out, these narratives sell.
In countries which possess free, private sources of media, these sources compete for scarce readers and advertising revenue. In China, the interests of media are subordinate to the interests of state power. As a result, criticisms of the state in the Chinese media are virtually unheard of.
Therefore, the only criticisms a Chinese person may hear of his own government comes from foreign sources. As people typically dislike hearing foreign critiques of their country, a common defense is the biased shortcoming of the critics themselves. It is far easier for a Chinese person to claim "they hate China and want us to fail!" than it is to confront the issue that the Beijing regime often exhibits barbaric and brutal behavior.
In the United States, conservative Republicans shriek "liberal bias!" as an explanation for why their ideas do not have greater currency among the electorate-at-large. As with the nationalist Chinese brigades, this prevents them from making the difficult decision to confront their own ideas and understand why others disagree with them.
In terms of watching the Chinese media, it is important to distinguish between reporting that is actually biased- of which there is some- from reporting that merely reflects the nature of the business.
UPDATE: Link for the Guardian piece added.
Fame and Fortune
It isn't often that flipping through the pages of a week-old China Daily provides a moment of delight. But it was so, when notified by a friend, I found that in a narrow column called "Your Say", snippets from this Lost Laowai post I wrote about a month ago were used.
Of course, being lumped in with the splittist Dalai clique would be more exciting, but I'll take mention by the state-run media any time. Even if they only use my first name. To protect anonymity, of course.
Wikipedia Is Amazing
The Wikipedia entry for John Edwards' extramarital affair, an event Edwards admitted to roughly two weeks ago, has over 100 citations. Think about that- either someone took the time to compile the article himself, or enough people collaborated and cobbled together what was a very well-researched, thorough explanation. Either way, it's just amazing.
While we're on the subject of Edwards, here are some stray thoughts.
- I always thought there was something fishy about Edwards, even when he first emerged on the scene and young liberals swooned for him. He always had a messianic flair about him, as if he were dispatched from above to end poverty in America. On subjects with which he lacked authority, he was badly outclassed- witness his 2004 debate with Dick Cheney. His speeches sounded good until you realized he never said anything new. I always wished he were more of an actual politician and less of a character in a John Grisham novel.
- And what does it matter if his wife's cancer was in remission when he carried on the affair? Is that supposed to excuse everything?
-Something interesting about Rielle Hunter, Edwards' "other" woman. She was apparently the inspiration for the vapid, slutty, cocaine-fueled female characters in Bret Easton Ellis' novel "American Psycho".
- Edwards carried on his affair, admitted it to his wife, decided to pursue the presidency anyway, lied about it to the press, and then came clean. Can you imagine if he had actually won the nomination? Talk about a gift to John McCain. Edwards had to have known that the story would have come out eventually, yet felt it was so important for him to be president that he was willing to risk the fortunes of the Democratic Party to get what he wanted. During the primary season, Edward acted as though the nomination was his save for the inconvenient fact that Obama was black and Clinton female. We can all be thankful the majority of American voters weren't persuaded by his charm.
I for one, feel sorry for his children and especially his poor wife, but fairly delighted that we won't have Edwards to kick around anymore.
Why Chinglish Exists
In 1984, the American television journalist Lesley Stahl produced a report that rebutted several of President Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign talking points. Not long after the special was aired, she received a call from one of Reagan's advisors. Expecting him to be angry at her negative coverage, she was stunned when the advisor thanked her. As it turned out, interspersed with Stahl's critical analysis of Reagan's politics was video footage of the president smiling, shaking hands, and looking sunny. These images reinforced Reagan's "Morning in America" slogan, and were far more powerful than Stahl's words.
A new bakery opened in Kunming recently, selling mainly European-style bread and Italian coffee. On its sign (adorned with a photo of several smiling Chinese wearing chef caps) is written perhaps the most mangled English slogan I have ever seen. Unlike Chinglish that is unintentionally hilarious, this makes absolutely no sense. The Chinese written next to it, of course, is perfect and expresses what I imagine the English message intended to.
Malaprop English in China isn't particularly noteworthy, as few billboards and signs here are written perfectly. I used to wonder why, if a business went to the trouble and expense of having an advertisement in English, they didn't bother making sure that the English was correct.
The story of Reagan's imagery provides an answer. In mainland China, having English advertisements represents modernity, internationalism, and sophistication. Most Chinese people wouldn't realize that the actual words were nonsensical, as most don't read English. Besides, their eyes would immediately go to the (properly written) Chinese text first. Just having the words there is what matters, not what the words actually say.
A corollary to this phenomenon are the Westerners with embarrassingly stupid Chinese characters tattooed on their body. Since most Westerners don't read Chinese, it doesn't matter what the characters mean, just what image they characters represent. A Chinese tattoo indicates depth, internationalism, mysticism, and sensitivity even if the tattoo reads "my mother eats maggots".
Chinglish is a great source of mirth for both English-speaking Chinese and foreigners here, but we aren't the target audience. Just as in American politics, image matters more than substance.
The Earthquake and the Media
I spoke with a Chinese friend yesterday who is frustrated with how slowly the Chinese media reported information about the earthquake, especially in comparison with foreign news agencies like Reuters and AP. To me, though, the Chinese media has acquitted itself rather well this time. Articles I've scanned in national dailies (Xinhua, etc.) and Kunming local papers seem comprehensive and clear enough. It's difficult imagining how coverage could be improved given the nature of the disaster.
Meanwhile, Chris and Brendan are discussing a rather sloppy AP article that clumsily tries to politicize the earthquake. Their back-and-forth is well worth reading, and in a way I think both are right: it's appropriate to inject political analysis into disaster coverage, so long as said political analysis isn't asinine. Which, unfortunately, is often the case with Western reporting on China.
Beijing's relative openness in regards to earthquake coverage isn't surprising for three reasons:
1. China was widely criticized for its attempt to cover up the extent of the SARS virus in 2002
2. China has been hit with a lot of bad publicity for its heavy-handed approach to Tibet.
3. Burma, one of China's client states, is currently under intense criticism for its bungling and duplicity in response to the cyclone.
Motives aside, Beijing's response to the earthquake has been impressive. Reporters should recall that a mere three years ago a natural disaster struck New Orleans, a major city in one of the world's wealthiest developed countries. And yet the government response was slow, clumsy, and deeply incompetent, leading to horrifying situations such as bodies lying dead in the water for three days without being claimed and buried.
Monday's earthquake struck a rural part of a largely rural country with poor infrastructure. A little perspective is needed when analyzing the efficacy of Chinese government relief operations.