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.