Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Prev
Next
The modern Big Brothers
Mike Harris explains how modern authoritarian regimes censor their citizens
Chinese journalists back at work after “tacit agreement” with censors
After a week of protests and walkouts over a censored Near Year editorial, and rigorous calls for press freedom, journalists at China’s Southern Weekly have gone back to work. A normal edition of the paper was published last Thursday.
Outrage over the actions of Guangdong’s propaganda chief, Tuo Zhen, seemed to reach another climax when The Beijing News, an offshoot newspaper of Southern Weekly, refused to print an editorial taken from the nationalistic Global Times blaming the protests on “activists outside the media industry” instead of on the censorship apparatus.
Dai Zigeng, the editor-in-chief, was said to have nearly resigned over the editorial. However, the BBC reported this:
When the BBC visited The Beijing News offices, the chief editor’s office manager and several of the paper’s journalists issued assurances that Mr Dai was still at work. Reports that protesters were camping outside The Beijing News offices also appeared to be untrue.
The newspaper printed the directive as a news item the next day.
Maria Repnikova, an academic who writes on state-media relations at Oxford University, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that so far the Southern Weekly affair has not helped to make any waves in press freedoms here because
These journalists [at Southern Weekly] did not confront the Central Publicity Department or the Party-state in Beijing. After a few days of protest, when they quietly settled the dispute with local authorities, some netizens were outraged that they didn’t explain their decision to their supporters.
An editorial entitled Dim Hopes for a Free Press in China published on Monday in the New York Times and written by Xiao Shu, a commentator for Southern Weekly for six years, notes that ever since Tuo Zhen started overseeing the Guangdong party propaganda last May, he has “micromanaged every aspect of media operations.”
Xiao Shu went on to say that under Tuo “Guangdong retreated into its darkest period since the start of Deng Xiaoping’s ‘reform and opening up’ policies in the late 1970s.” Xiao was told to quit in March 2011, as authorities grew nervous of Arab-Spring inspired dissent.
It would seem that some of the most daring journalists in China have settled for a deal which, as Xiao Shu described, was “ending pre-publication censorship by the Communist Party’s propaganda arm in Guangdong Province and permitting greater editorial independence.” I asked Antony Tao, founder and blogger at Beijing Cream, a well-regarded China news blog, how credible these assertions were.
“It sounds good on paper, but I wouldn’t put much stock in ‘tacit’ agreements,” he said. “We should also keep in mind that in most Chinese newsrooms, to the best of my knowledge, editors and censors work in symbiosis to keep themselves out of trouble. No one wants to draw the ire of higher-ranking censors.”
According to Tao, a settlement was best for editors and journalists involved. As for what it means for media freedoms in China, Tao said:
“I don’t think the key players in this drama were ever as concerned about advocating for expanded media rights across China as China watchers perhaps wanted them to be.”
Index Index – international free speech roundup 14/01/13
On 10 January, three Pakistani media professionals were killed in a suicide bomb blast in Quetta. Imran Shaikh, Saif ur Rehman and Mohammad Iqbal were killed by the attacks against the Hazara Shia community whilst reporting on an explosion which had took place a few minutes earlier. Militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are said to be responsible for the attacks, after a suicide bomber blew himself up, followed by his car detonating remotely. Police and emergency workers were also killed and three further media workers have been injured. Satellite vans for a number of TV networks have also been damaged.
A freelance journalist has been kept in custody in Somalia since Thursday (10 January), for interviewing a woman who alleged she was raped by Somalian authorities. Abdiaziz Abdinuur, who has reported for publications such as The Telegraph, is being held in Mogadishu after he was arrested for his January 6 interview, in which a woman claimed she was raped by several government soldiers in a camp for displaced women in December. No warrant for arrest was issued, and charges have yet to be made. Police arrested the alleged victim on Thursday, but have released her until further questioning.
Abdiaziz Abdinuur’s interviewee said she was raped by government soldiers
A Gambian journalist arrested on 7 January has been released on Bail. Abdoulie John, editor of news website Jollof News, was released from the National Intelligence Agency headquarters in Banjul on 10 January but must return today (14 January). Security agents screened his laptop, phone and emails in connection with his reporting for Jollof News, a banned website critical of the government in Gambia. John has allegedly been harassed by authorities since early December.
Turkey has attempted to censor John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, deeming it “immoral” for a reference made to brothels. A group of teachers in the western city of Izmir asked their ministry for sections of the book to be censored, which has been on the education ministry’s list of recommended literature for decades. A parent in Istanbul also complained that My Sweet Orange Tree by José Mauro de Vasconcelos was obscene, calling for the teacher who issued the book to be investigated. On 9 January, Education Minister Omer Celik denied the book would be censored, but critics remain sceptical.
The US porn industry is using the free speech defence to protect against new Californian law Measure B, which requires performers to wear condoms during scenes. On 11 January Vivid Entertainment, one of the biggest pornography producers in America, filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County over the referendum passed in November 2012. Vivid claims the law violates their 1st amendment rights, preventing them from recreating historically accurate scenes – a swashbuckling adventure, for example. It is estimated that since 2004, 350,000 scenes have been shot without a condom, with not one case of HIV being transmitted by performers.
Julie Burchill, Lynne Featherstone, and Leveson
There has been a hell of a lot written in the past week or so since the New Statesman published feminist writer Suzanne Moore’s article Seeing red: the power of female anger, and I really do not want to go over the details again. There’s more to be written on transgender issues by people with far better knowledge than I. Suffice to say, people got angry over a phrase in Moore’s piece, she was rather forcefully criticised, responded in kind, and gave up her Twitter account as the weight of group anger became too much. Then Julie Burchill further fanned the flames with a massively controversial article in the Observer.
What I want to briefly focus on here is the frankly disastrous response to the furore over Julie Burchill’s Observer article by International Development minister Lynne Featherstone. Weighing in to the twitter discussion on Sunday evening, Featherstone tweeted that Burchill should be sacked by the Observer, and subsequently implied agreement with another tweet suggesting that Observer editor John Mulholland should also be sacked.
Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that Julie Burchill is not actually on staff at the Observer, and can’t be sacked, and examine just what’s happened here: a government minister in a modern democratic state has demanded that a journalist be punished for writing a contentious article. And then nodded along with the notion that a national newspaper editor be sacked for publishing a contentious article. An article that has not, as yet, been deemed illegal, or even in breach of the Press Complaints Commission code.
Featherstone has made a mockery of Britain and the EU’s declared commitment to promote free speech. Cast your mind back to the 2011 riots, when it was suggested that social networks be shut down to prevent people co-ordinating movements. The state media of regimes such as Iran and China gleefully reported this suggestion, using it both to mock the UK’s hypocrisy and to justify the censorship of their own people.
Now imagine the next time a newspaper such as China’s Southern Weekly steps out of line, and a senior Communist Party member calls for the head of a reporter or editor. Should a Foreign Office official even attempt to condemn such censorship, be in no doubt that the authorities in China will point to Featherstone’s intemperate tweet and say the UK is in no position to lecture.
There’s the international aspect. Now look at the domestic. Independent editor Chris Blackhurst has said he fears that politicians will use post-Leveson statute to “wreak their revenge” on the press. Speaking on Sky News, Blackhurst commented:
“Once a draft Bill goes into the Commons and the Lords and once they get their teeth into it they can add all sorts of amendments.“That’s where the revenge will happen. That’s one reason why some of us are very keen that there should not be statute.“It’s not just expenses, let’s not forget there are a lot of MPs, all sorts of shenanigans down the years, many of which we all know about and have been highlighted, and they can’t wait. They are sort of ‘bring it on’.”
Pro-statute campaigners such as Hugh Grant tell us that we should not be alarmed by the prospect of a new press law. But when, even before such a law is debated, a government minister thinks it’s OK to interfere with the press in this manner, why should we trust politicians with free speech?