When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
CAIXINMEDIA

China's New Press Freedoms Have Bred Rampant Corruption

One more question...
One more question...
Hu Yong*

-OpEd-

BEIJING — Chen Yong Zhou, a reporter working for Guangzhou city's New Express newspaper in the southern city of Guangzhou, was detained recently by police who had arrived all the way from Hunan, 425 miles away. Chen was accused of damaging the reputation and commercial interests of Zoomliom, a Hunan construction machinery and sanitation equipment firm about which Chen had reported.

But it was three days later that things became even more dramatic. As the New Express and other media outlets were busy showing solidarity with Chen — convinced he was being persecuted just for doing his job — the reporter confessed on state CCTV television that he had been bribed to report false information. Not only was this a slap in the face for all those who rallied to support him, but Chen and New Express suddenly went from being victims to widely loathed figures across China.

In fact, outraged Chinese have used a particularly insulting term for Chen — “ji-ze,” or prostitute. Though it is vulgar, the name-calling actually nails the crux of the problem: In China, freedom of the press suffers from the ills of both money and power.

Journalists like Chen all too often accept “dirty money.” Five years ago, for example — ironically on China Reporter’s Day — many journalists acted particularly disgracefully when they took “hush money” to cover up a mine explosion in Shanxi province. Both actual journalists and others simply posing as reporters rushed to the site, not to report the disaster but to receive the “mouth-sealing fee” the mining company was handing out to conceal the disaster.

Holding out rice bowls

Reporters in China suffer a critical, and dangerous, quandary somewhat unique to their place in the world. Should they go against their conscience and accept bribes, or should they risk their lives to investigate and expose the truth?

Alas, reporters in China are even more notorious than those unconscionable mining company bosses, who characterize crooked journalists as “a bunch of beggars holding out a rice bowl called news.”

In 2002, 11 journalists accepted bribes to cover up a gold mine disaster in Shanxi, where local authority staff and the owner of the unauthorized mine wanted to avoid scrutiny. Instead of going to the mine to cover the incident, these journalists showed up at the offices of the local party committee and county government because they viewed these places as the real gold mine.

But even if there are some bad apples among Chinese journalists, they are perhaps no less wicked than those they work for. In 2007, for example, a reporter named Lan Chengzhang tried blackmailing an illegal mine. He then was beaten to death by the mine owner’s thugs. After the incident, the newspaper Lan worked for denied that he was actually a reporter for the paper. The employers for the 11 reporters involved in covering up the major mine disaster in 2002 did the same.

Strictly speaking, these reporters do not conform to the definition of journalists because in China they are often entrusted with multiple duties — such as being ads salesmen, dealing with publicity and receiving orders — in addition to their editorial tasks. The nature of these multiple functions creates obvious conflicts of interest. And it’s the newspapers that arrange their jobs this way.

The truth is that compared to the mouth-sealing fee-takers, the major press is much more unscrupulous that the individual journalists on their payrolls. For instance, a few years ago state media CCTV disclosed the controversial abuse of Baidu, China’s major Internet services company whose pay-per-click advertising system led to fraud. Baidu search results helped send junk information designed to mislead the public. When this was exposed, many people predicted that Baidu would have to pay a fortune to silence CCTV from further reporting.

Sure enough, as Baidu’s Chief Financial Officer Li Xin later confirmed, Baidu’s “marketing expenses” soared by more than 40 million RMB ($6.5 million) in the quarter following the scandal. The vast majority of these marketing-related expenses were given to CCTV.

Dignity and disgrace

Corrupting the press is of course shocking. But it’s even worse to silence journalistic endeavors by intimidation. It’s because legitimate reporters of the mainstream press are always afraid of “treading the red line” or “stepping onto a landmine” that crooked reporters are given the opportunity to do bad deeds. China has, unfortunately, too many journalists who either have no backbone or zero dignity.

At the end of the day the biggest disgrace is that a large segment of the press in China has lost any sense of shame. This is a disgrace not only for the press but also for the whole of society. In today’s commercialized society, there is nothing that can’t be bought. Officials can be bribed, as can journalists and their employers.

In the novel I’m Liu Yuejin, written by Liu Zhenyun, a policeman named Old Xie often arrests the bad guys he doesn’t know while letting go the ones he does. Though he has a conscience, he comforts himself with the knowledge that “all crows are black” — in other words, evildoers and evil deeds are everywhere anyway. Too many of China’s journalists embrace the same philosophy. .

• Hu Yong is an associate professor of the School of Journalism and Communication at Peking University.


You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Economy

Lex Tusk? How Poland’s Controversial "Russian Influence" Law Will Subvert Democracy

The new “lex Tusk” includes language about companies and their management. But is this likely to be a fair investigation into breaking sanctions on Russia, or a political witch-hunt in the business sphere?

Photo of President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda

Polish President Andrzej Duda

Piotr Miaczynski, Leszek Kostrzewski

-Analysis-

WARSAW — Poland’s new Commission for investigating Russian influence, which President Andrzej Duda signed into law on Monday, will be able to summon representatives of any company for inquiry. It has sparked a major controversy in Polish politics, as political opponents of the government warn that the Commission has been given near absolute power to investigate and punish any citizen, business or organization.

And opposition politicians are expected to be high on the list of would-be suspects, starting with Donald Tusk, who is challenging the ruling PiS government to return to the presidency next fall. For that reason, it has been sardonically dubbed: Lex Tusk.

University of Warsaw law professor Michal Romanowski notes that the interests of any firm can be considered favorable to Russia. “These are instruments which the likes of Putin and Orban would not be ashamed of," Romanowski said.

The law on the Commission for examining Russian influences has "atomic" prerogatives sewn into it. Nine members of the Commission with the rank of secretary of state will be able to summon virtually anyone, with the powers of severe punishment.

Under the new law, these Commissioners will become arbiters of nearly absolute power, and will be able to use the resources of nearly any organ of the state, including the secret services, in order to demand access to every available document. They will be able to prosecute people for acts which were not prohibited at the time they were committed.

Their prerogatives are broader than that of the President or the Prime Minister, wider than those of any court. And there is virtually no oversight over their actions.

Nobody can feel safe. This includes companies, their management, lawyers, journalists, and trade unionists.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest