Time Travel Plots to be Banned in Chinese TV Dramas

According to reports by the Huffington Post, CNN, and New York Times, China’s new censorship regulations have expanded into the domain of entertainment. The most recent censorship concerns the use of time travel themes in television programs. Some of the articles alluded to the fact that the Chinese authorities discourage “plot lines that contain elements of "fantasy, time-travel, random compilations of mythical stories, bizarre plots, absurd techniques, even propagating feudal superstitions, fatalism and reincarnation, ambiguous moral lessons, and a lack of positive thinking." When I first read some of the articles and watched a few video clips, I admittedly snorted too, because as some of the reports suggest, the new guidelines do seem rather ridiculous. Ridiculous or not (though for most of us it may hold true), is it really part of the media’s job to convey that particular sentiment in official news reports? With opening lines like “Just when you thought Chinese censors couldn’t get any more sensitive, authorities here have decided to ban time travel from all television programs…” media may continue the tradition of characterizing the CCP as wholly irrational and extreme. While a little bit of humor is never a bad thing, the implicit use of satire/sarcasm deviates from the universal(?) journalistic standard of objectivity. Furthermore, in contrast to the CNN broadcast report, which explains at least some of the motives behind the censorship, the New York Times article fails to even provide the context under which these new regulations are being implemented. Instead of offering further insight into the new series of censorship rules, the New York Times simply concludes by stating, “A spokesman for the State Administration declined Tuesday to elaborate on the reason behind the new guidelines. But the Chinese authorities are known for strictly censoring newspapers, film and TV programs that are deemed ‘unhealthy.’” By noting the Chinese authorities’ rejection to clarify the matter, the journalist too, conveniently opts out on providing a further look into the issue.

Religious Persecution?

The latest in the abuse of human rights, at least according to Western media, involves the Chinese government forbidding seemingly innocuous churchgoers from attending service. Members of the Shouwang Church have reported that nearly 200 worshippers have been arrested and/or detained over the past several months. Many of those who have been taken away are members of the educated class including lawyers, students, artists, etc. According to authorities, the Showuwang Church has yet to gain legitimacy due to its failure to register properly with “state-sanctioned operations” that require censorship of particular religious material. Because the government has not approved of the Shouwang Church, hundreds of members have been illegally gathering inside a private, unofficial “house.”

One particular CNN article had an accompanying video interview with a young member of the Shouwang Church, which had the effect of personalizing the issue. The article opens in a rather flowery fashion stating, “This calm denim-clad 28-year-old identifies herself only as Water, based on the Chinese characters that make up her first name. She has been deemed an enemy of the state, an unlikely label for a petite and well-educated woman who eschews violence and confrontation.” The fact that the article goes so far as describing her appearance and social status may likely serve to gain some sympathy points from its audience. Moreover, the quotes that they drew from her interview were quite dramatic. One such quote that was highlighted in large print on the sidescreen of the webpage was the following: “They try to harass your family, your workplace and your landlord.” The particular syntax structure, which involves listing, conveys the sense that the power and pressure of the government are thoroughly pervasive/invasive. Additionally, I noticed that the majority of the translated quotes they used, much like this one, often referred to the pronoun “they” to refer to the Chinese government. In reiterating the term “they”, the article may contribute to an “us” and “them” mentality, further perpetuating the biases maintained by Western audiences.

Always Awkward...

The title of a NY Times article, “Always Awkward, New Rights with China Now May Be Hopeless,” is enough to warrant a few raised eyebrows. Again, right from the get-go, the article seems to perpetuate the perception of the Chinese as inflexible negotiators, staunchly opposed to making any positive strides on human rights issues. What’s funny about this article is that the online version maintained the original heading, but the print version, which was released the following day, was titled “Bleak Outlook for US-China Talks.” Upon another look at the online article 2 days later, the article was re-titled yet again to “Grim Outlook for US-China Talks on Human Rights.” The reason for the changes remains unclear, and I don’t know enough about journalistic practices to make any substantial claims on the matter…but I just thought it was another interesting point to make note of.

For the past two days, China and America have engaged in human rights talks held annually for the past two decades. Given the circumstances of China’s recent crackdown on political dissidents, America has been pushing hard for China to adopt alternative strategies to dealing with such opposition. The writer notes, “The Chinese government has been in no mood to discuss its heavy-handed behavior, warning the United States this week that it would brook no interference in its domestic affairs and adding, as a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman explained, that 'China does not fear the antagonism of other countries.'" In using words like “heavy-handed” and “antagonism,” the writer portrays the Chinese government as bearing some sort of threat and hostility. While the article primarily depicts China in an aggressive manner, it also does a good job at presenting the importance of China in terms of cooperative/mutual ventures like addressing climate change, confronting security issues, mitigating the global economic recession, etc. In this way, I appreciate the article for taking more than just a unilateral approach to the issue of China, particularly on matters of cooperation.

Chinese Media on Ai Weiwei

Although news of Ai Weiwei continues to dominate headlines in Western media, there is virtually no mention of the artist’s recent detainment in Chinese news. Instead, the homepage of major newspapers like China Daily and People’s Daily are plastered with headlines such as, “China Pledges Better Conditions for Workers,” “China Improves Military Transparency,” “China to Combat Profiteering in Homeselling.” A quick typing of the name Ai Weiwei into the search engine of the People’s Daily website (often referred to as the mouthpiece of the CCP) produced articles only involving his artwork or exhibitions; nothing of his recent "arrest" was remotely published. Surprisingly (or maybe not), even the more liberal China Daily, seems to tell a different account of the circumstances surrounding the lock-up of Ai Weiwei. The same process of searching Ai Weiwei’s name on China Daily was done, and this time the search offered some interesting results. One was an opinion piece written by a senior writer at China Daily titled “Ideological Bias Cloud Western Views.” This particular journalist criticizes Western society’s inclination to characterize every incident in China that arises as a political one and subsequently transform it into matters of human rights issues. The journalist writes, “Ideological confrontation is the default mode for some Westerners and Western media when it comes to issues of human rights. For these people, it has become an intuitive reaction to point their fingers at China when anyone they consider a dissident is detained or arrested on legal grounds.” This is a point very well made. However, the article takes on quite the defensive tone; more than simply urging Westerners for greater understanding, the writer actively defends the course of actions taken by the government. In this way, while this article helps illustrate the fallacies embedded in Western media, it does not do a better job per se, at objectively discussing the issue at hand. The other article that came up was another editorial linked from the Global Times. In what seems to be a direct response to the New York Times articles I wrote about earlier, this editor dismisses phrases employed by Western media like “catch all crimes.” Unlike most articles in Western media, this article offers some background information and notes China's political development - most likely as a means to give Western audiences a multidimensional view of the circumstances at hand. Very much like the People’s Daily article, this piece seemed to largely defend the Chinese government by counter-reporting what’s been published so far by Western media. However, one thing that caught me offguard was the last sentence in the article, which seemed like a last minute attempt at claiming objectivity. To me, it seemed as though the sentence was tacked on so that the writer would not be deemed an apologist for the Chinese government. After all, he/she(?) is still writing/catering to a Western audience.

One More Political Dissident Detained

As of late, Chinese authorities have detained a number of political dissidents, including the likes of lawyers, human rights activists, writers, journalists, and bloggers. Most recently, the widely celebrated artist/documentary filmmaker/architect Ai Weiwei (the same man who designed the Bird’s Nest in the Beijing Olympic Stadium) was arrested while boarding a flight to Hong Kong. The latest in a series of detentions has caused uproar among Ai Weiwei’s fellow peers in the intellectual community as well as many members in the international community. Ever since his arrest, Chinese netizens have launched an internet campaign, posting thousands of messages calling for his release. It has been nearly a month following Ai Weiwei’s detainment but public officials have yet to provide any information about his current whereabouts. It was also not until recently that the Chinese government even explicitly acknowledged that they had in fact, taken the dissident artist into custody. Just this past Thursday, perhaps partly in an effort to dissipate the widespread outrage that has followed, officials have announced that Ai Weiwei has been charged for suspected “economic crimes” – whatever that means. A New York Times journalist makes a note of this point, explaining:

“The catchall term “economic crimes” is frequently used as a legal cover by police officers who wish to detain or imprison someone whom Communist Party officials consider a political threat. Such crimes can include prosaic failures to properly comply with regulations on business registration or taxation. As often happens in China when political troublemakers are involved, the exact crime Mr. Ai is being investigated for may be announced only at a later date, after the police have more time to look into his affairs and decide what crime to accuse him of committing.”

Although this article is not an op-ed piece, the particular language used nonetheless seems to demonstrate incomplete objectivity. However true the last statement made by the NYTimes journalist may be, some may argue that it is imbued with liberal biases characteristic of the Western world. Despite the alleged commitment to neutrality, the tone of this article, at least to me, conveyed a sense exasperation with Chinese authorities.

More Tibetans Killed in Sichuan Province

A Tibet advocacy group has reported the deaths of two Tibetans who were purportedly killed by Chinese paramilitary officials raiding a monastery in Sichuan province last Thursday. According to reports, the two Tibetans killed, an elderly man and woman, were beaten to death as they were gathered outside a monastery to prevent several hundred monks from being detained. A New York Times journalist reporting on the incident said the following:

“Officers from the People’s Armed Police, a paramilitary force usually deployed to quell riots, had put the monks in 10 trucks, the group said, citing as its source a monk from Kirti living in exile who remained in contact with the monastery. The officers then clashed with a large number of laypeople, many of them elderly, who tried to prevent the trucks from driving out the main entrance gate.”

By emphasizing the brute force employed by Chinese military officials against traditionally helpless or at least peaceful individuals, this particular news story effectively appeals to the readers’ emotions. Stories concerning Tibet, a subject of intense scrutiny among the press, have generally tended to tug at the heartstrings of American citizens. Formalized news about Tibet is often juxtaposed against the democratic maxims of equality and American guarantees of universal human rights. However, media neglects to inform the public about the finer intricacies of Sino-Tibetan relations, opting instead to rely on particular “newsworthy” pegs. Tibetan revolts then, can have the effect of being perceived as a series of disconnected events that stem from a vague sense of discontent. Further details regarding Tibet’s history and culture among other paramount factors that has led to such uprisings, however, remains ever elusive.

Innocent(?) St. Patty's Day Celebration Cancelled in Shanghai

Recent rumblings of protest on the Internet have apparently left Chinese authorities quite shaken. Accordingly, officials have cracked down on journalists and other foreigners who they believe might engage in potentially subversive activities. Journalists who fail to abide by the new rules have been subsequently threatened with the revocation of their visas and also expulsion from the country. An annual St. Patrick’s Day parade, which was intended to take place in Shanghai on March 12, has been cancelled in light of these new regulations. According to reports, more than 2,000 people (among them foreigners) were expected to show up at the celebration. However, because the location of the event would have taken place on the same bustling corner where Internet campaigns have urged people to gather together against the government, officials took pre-emptive measures by canceling the event entirely. One diplomat spoke on the issue saying, “We’ve noticed that a somewhat larger number of our cultural and educational programs around China are being postponed or canceled, but we haven’t been notified by Chinese authorities of any specific reason.” Although protests have not taken place as of yet, reporters from The New York Times, The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse have been cited for loitering around possible protest sites. Reports of police brutality have also emerged as several journalists were physically assaulted for being suspected to have violated the rules.

Again, the latest set of actions taken by the Chinese is not the least bit surprising given the circumstances in the Middle East and the CCP’s long history of censorship. The profound effects of social media on Middle Eastern politics have put Chinese officials on high alert - and rightfully so. Inspired by the Tunisian revolt and the Jasmine Revolution, many Chinese netizens too, have begun to rail against the Chinese government for its backwardness and corruption. Perhaps the revolutionary sentiments induced by massive internet campaigns in the Middle East may very well carry over to China...