A new report details China's increasing efforts to censor media around the world
By N.D. | SHANGHAI
IN JUNE two Chinese embassy officials in Paris paid a visit to Marc Saikali, the chief executive of France 24, a television station. Displeased about the airing of a documentary entitled “Seven Days in Tibet”, for some hours the officials sought, unsuccessfully, to persuade Mr Saikali to remove the film from the station’s website. Meanwhile in Bangkok, France 24 journalist Cyril Payen received a voice message on his mobile phone. In halting English, a woman explained he would have to “take all the possible responsibilities” if he failed to report soon to the Chinese embassy.
Such intimidation tactics are not isolated. Rather, efforts by China to censor global media are increasingly common, says a report written by Sarah Cook of Freedom House, which was commissioned by an American organisation* called the National Endowment for Democracy. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has habitually quashed critical news and opposing viewpoints since coming to power in 1949. Two factors have contributed to the widening of this strategy overseas, the report says. As China’s economic clout increases, the government is becoming bolder about pushing soft power. And today more than half of China’s population has online access to foreign media.
This makes the Chinese government jittery. Overseas video or print reports, particularly those covering sensitive issues, often clash with the official line supplied by state-controlled outfits. China’s “Great Firewall” of blocked media is easily navigable for the determined, and dissenting information is easily and swiftly spread online. (This newspaper, for one, is the subject of an unofficial Chinese website where a network of volunteers translates articles.) For the party’s narrative to be convincing to audiences inside and outside China, “reporting—especially investigative reporting—about the darker sides of CCP rule at home and Chinese activists abroad must be suppressed,” says Sarah Cook, the report’s author.
The report describes China’s censorship of overseas media as broad and multifaceted. Tactics range from overt official interference—journalists being tailed by black Audis when reporting in the field—to cyber attacks and the blocking of news websites. Then there are more insidious manipulations designed to encourage self-censorship. This is particularly true for media in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
All foreign correspondents based in China must sit through an annual interview with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before their press cards are renewed. In six cases in 2011, journalists were told their applications had been rejected or stalled because of the content of their articles. “In our view the content of a journalist’s report should have no bearing on whether he or she is accredited to work as a reporter here,” says Peter Ford, president of the Foreign Correspondents Club of China, which itself has been classified as an “illegal organisation” for its 31 years of operation.
Altough journalists in China glumly accept such impediments as part of the job, there can be profound consequences for global news organisations if they rankle Chinese authorities. Both Bloomberg and the New York Times were urged by authorities to drop articles about the wealth amassed by top political leaders. More than a year after Bloomberg published an investigative story detailing the assets belonging to the family of Xi Jinping, now China’s president, attempts to access the company’s website return a message saying “this webpage is not available”. When the New York Times published its Pulitzer Prize-winning story detailing the fortunes of family members of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister at the time, its main website and its newly launched Chinese-language version were likewise blocked.
Even if acts of defiance are common, global news organisations are not immune to pressure. Ms Cook notes that the Chinese government’s efforts to thwart independent investigations have “taken a toll” on coverage of the country. Impeded access to certain regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet makes correspondents over-reliant on state media for news of incidents. And even well-respected media organisations have been accused of kowtowing. Bloomberg, for example, reportedly chose not to run a video that was to accompany the story about Xi Jinping’s relatives following persistent pressure from the Chinese government. Human Rights in China, a pressure-group, alleged that the BBC’s Chinese-language service edited its content, including an interview with the Dalai Lama, to bolster its online readership as well as its standing with mainland entities.
The implications, Ms Cook argues, are severe. Those outside China are deprived of information needed to assess the political stability of a major trading partner and respond appropriately to global health and environmental concerns. For those inside, she says, the stakes are even higher. Overseas media outlets “offer an opportunity for Chinese people to engage directly with the world without the state media’s politicised filters.”
* Correction:In an earlier version of this post, we referred to the National Endowment for Democracy as being "an American NGO". This is what the NED calls itself on its website, which also refers to the group as being a "private non-profit corporation". As a reader has pointed out, however, the NED's funding is public, ie it is at least partly funded by the American government. In our usage therefore, it should not qualify as a "non-governmental" body, which error we corrected on October 29th, 2013.
