II.Background: Longstanding Media Freedom Constraints in China

[Self-censorship] is a lofty leadership art, and a key to success. [14]

-Yang Weiguang (杨伟光), former head of state broadcaster China Central Television, November 10, 2007.

Constraints on Media Freedom

Although Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China explicitly guarantees "freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and demonstration," China's domestic media has for decades been subject to strict government controls which ensure that reporting falls within the boundaries of the official propaganda line.

Official Chinese statistics indicate that as of February 2006, the domestic media landscape included 2,000 newspapers, over 8,000 magazines, 282 radio stations, and 374 TV stations.[15] But despite the volume and variety of China's media outlets, they remain part of a state-owned-and-controlled system designed to ensure positive news coverage of the government and the ruling Chinese Communist Party. 

The Chinese government's guidelines on taboo topics, which are officially deemed as "sensitive" or min-gan (敏感), strictly determine editorial content. The official Publicity Department sends weekly faxes to domestic media outlets stipulating the latest coverage restrictions. Those restrictions typically are framed in terms of avoiding issues potentially disruptive of the "social stability" goals of the Chinese government.[16] Notable past examples include the massive death toll of Hebei province's Tangshan earthquake in July 1976, which journalists were forbidden from disclosing for more than three years,[17] and the early stages of China's outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, in 2002-2003, coverage of which government officials blocked.[18] These constraints-imposed to avoid politically embarrassing controversy rather than for reasons of public safety, public order or national security; violate Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 19.2 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,[19]which China has signed, but not ratified. The Central Publicity Bureau's censorship practices also violate sections of the United Nation's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement to War.[20]

The government deploys various techniques to control the media. In addition to the faxes discussed above, journalists' computer terminals at China's national television broadcaster, China Central Television (CCTV), are linked to an electronic notification system which automatically notifies journalists of the most recently updated list of issues which are deemed inappropriate for news coverage.[21]In 2007 and early 2008, China Central Television (CCTV) alone restricted coverage of stories ranging from the death of a pregnant migrant worker in December after she was denied medical treatment due to a lack of money to pay doctors, to reports that same month that the Chinese government had imposed a ban on the showing of American movies in Chinese theaters, to the death of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in January 2008.[22]

Articles are thoroughly vetted, especially if they focus on events important to the ruling Chinese Communist Party, such as the annual meeting of China's parliament, the National People's Congress (NPC). A handbook obtained by Reuters for Chinese journalists covering the NPC session in March 2008 laid bare the pressure on journalists to carefully script news coverage of the event in line with Central Publicity Department dictates:[23] "Uphold the system of submitting articles for approval. The responsible propaganda official must sign off on articles planned for submission."[24]

Those who try to move beyond those confines face a variety of sanctions, ranging from physical abuse to job loss. In August 2007, a group of five Chinese journalists, including a reporter from the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece, The People's Daily, were attacked by unidentified thugs while interviewing relatives of the victims of central Henan province's Fenghuang bridge collapse, in which 34 people died. When police finally arrived on the scene, they ignored the assailants and instead detained the journalists.[25] Investigative reporter Pang Jiaoming of the China Economic Times (中國經濟時報) was dismissed in October 2007 at the demand of the Central Publicity Department for publishing embarrassing reports about the conditions of China's railway infrastructure ahead of the "sensitive" Chinese Communist Party's 17th National Congress.[26] Freelance reporter Lu Gengsong was sentenced to four years in prison in February 2008 on charges of "inciting subversion" for stories he had written for overseas websites on corruption and the trial of a Chinese human rights activist.[27] At least 26 Chinese journalists are in prison due to their work, many on ambiguous charges including "revealing state secrets" and "inciting subversion," Committee for the Protection of Journalists statistics indicate.[28]

As a result, the majority of Chinese journalists produce news stories which reflect the safe reporting limits permitted by the system within which they operate. A Canadian journalist employed from April 2007-April 2008 at the English-language China Daily, the Chinese government's flagship publication for foreign readers, described self-censorship as the norm among his Chinese colleagues. "Reporters here simply know what they can and cannot write-and they don't challenge those limitations. Change isn't coming from the bottom and certainly isn't coming from the top."[29]

Chang Ping, a former editor and columnist of the Southern Metropolis Weekly, wrote in an April 2008 entry on his personal blog, titled "My cowardice and impotence," of the realities of China's institutionalized media self-censorship.

I am afraid of other people praising me as a brave newspaperman, because I know I am full of fears in my heart. I did write some commentaries on current affairs, and edited some articles that exposed truth….however, to be honest, these were exceptional cases. They were my miscalculations. In my various media positions in the past decade, what I've practiced most is avoiding risk. Self-censorship has become part of my life. It makes me disgusted with myself.[30]

Within weeks of writing this, Chang Ping was dismissed from his job.[31]

The Chinese government's new "Regulations on Government Information Openness," approved in January 2007, do little to boost transparency and reduce the risks Chinese journalists face in doing their jobs. The "Regulations on Government Information Openness" allow officials to block the release of any information judged to be secret, or that might "threaten national, public or economic security or social stability."[32] 

The circumstances for foreign journalists in China have not been significantly better.  For decades their ability to report was hindered by official rules which severely restricted their freedom and mobility. Those rules included the need for official permission to travel outside of Beijing or Shanghai, where the majority of the more than 700 foreign journalists from 374 news organizations[33] are based, and a requirement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) approval for any interviews with Chinese citizens.[34]Those rules effectively forced foreign journalists to operate in a legal "gray zone" and subjected them to detention and interrogation by Chinese police if discovered reporting in violation of official restrictions.[35]Foreign journalists who ventured into the countryside without MOFA approval risked being stonewalled by the local governments whom they tried to interview, or being detained and required to write a "self-criticism" of their "illegal" actions as a condition of their release.

Government Promises of Media Freedom for the Olympics

China's bids to host an Olympic Games through the 1990s were unsuccessful in part because of the government's poor human rights record. In a 2001 effort to ameliorate concerns of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Wang Wei, secretary-general of the Beijing Olympic Games Bid Committee, insisted that international media would have "complete freedom to report when they come to China" for the Olympics.[36]The IOC clearly found such pledges compelling.

Part of [Beijing's] representation to the IOC members was an acknowledgement of the concerns expressed in many parts of the world regarding its record on human rights, coupled with a pre-emptive suggestion that the IOC could help increase progress on such matters by awarding the Games to China, since this decision would result in even more media attention to the issue and likely faster evolution. It was an all-but-irresistible prospect for the IOC.[37]

Beijing was awarded the 2008 Games shortly thereafter.

In August 2006, Jiang Xiaoyu, executive vice-president of the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG), told a press conference that the Chinese government would, if necessary, change rules governing media in China "if our existing regulations and practice conflict with Olympic norms."[38] That December, the Chinese government announced that the most onerous restrictions on foreign correspondents' reporting freedom-the need for official permission to conduct interviews-would be temporarily lifted in the run-up to and during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. The temporary regulations for media freedom for foreign correspondents-which do not extend to their local staff or Chinese journalists-are set out in the "Service Guide for Foreign Media," published on the BOCOG website. [39]

The temporary regulations, in effect from January 1, 2007 to October 17, 2008, permit foreign journalists to freely conduct interviews with any consenting Chinese organization or citizen and "shall apply to the coverage of the Beijing Olympic Games and the preparation as well as political, economic, social and cultural matters of China by foreign correspondents in conformity with Chinese laws and organizations."[40]

When you travel, you enjoy the same rights as all foreign nationals in China. When you interview a person or a company, you do not have to apply to the local foreign affairs office for permission, and they don't have the responsibility of asking, "What are you doing here?"[41]

The regulations drew initial praise from some correspondents for lifting longstanding obstacles to access to certain political dissidents, including Bao Tong, a former top aide to disgraced former Chinese Communist Party Chairman Zhao Ziyang, and to human rights activists, including the husband-and-wife team of Hu Jia and Zeng Jinyan. Some correspondents also say the rules have served at times as a valuable tool in fending off government officials and security forces who reflexively still seek to restrict the operations of journalists outside the major cities. "The temporary regulations make a lot of difference… you worry less [because] you can say to people 'I have a right to be here,'"[42] one correspondent told us.

Despite the initial improvements, however, there were dozens of incidents of interference with journalists in the first six months of 2007 by government officials, security forces and plainclothes thugs, as well as some cases of direct intimidation by MOFA officials. Overall, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) recorded more than 200 incidents of official interference with the activities of foreign correspondents between January 1, 2007, and the end of April 2008.[43] 

Assessment of Media Freedom since August 2007

Since mid-2007 the situation appears to have worsened. Many foreign correspondents we spoke with say they continue to face serious obstacles whenever the issues on which they wish to report are deemed "sensitive" by central or local authorities. The ongoing closure of Tibet to foreign journalists offers the starkest illustration of this point. In some cases, officials have attempted to extort positive coverage from journalists by threatening to withhold their accreditation to cover the Olympics. Evidence suggests that the frequency of incidents in which government officials and security forces have sought to intimidate correspondents' local sources have risen over the past year. The Foreign Correspondents Club of China has complained that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has declined to investigate anonymous death threats against at least 10 foreign journalists in March and April 2008.

The picture is not uniformly negative. Human Rights Watch interviewed several correspondents who praised MOFA for interceding on their behalf in recent months when they encountered official obstructions to their reporting. A television journalist detained by local officials in Anhui on November 9, 2007, credited the assistance of MOFA officials in both Beijing and Anhui in brokering her release from three hours of detention by local government officials. "I called MOFA and they asked where we were and said they would [get us released]. …[MOFA] kept checking in over the next 2-3 hours with the message that 'help is on the way.'"[44]

Unfortunately, the Chinese government's response in the majority of cases documented in this report, and in reports of the Foreign Correspondents Club and other organizations, has not been positive. Instead, correspondents have faced evasiveness, denial, and recrimination. Sun Weija, BOCOG's media chief, responded to queries in October 2007 about the lack of effective implementation of the temporary regulations by attributing such incidents to lack of knowledge of the new rules at "lower levels" of the Chinese bureaucracy.[45] Moreover, in March 2008, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs alleged, without substantiation, that foreign journalists had attracted justifiable official interference in their activities due to their "reporting style," violations of Chinese law and fabrication of news stories.[46]The Chinese government has not publicly disclosed whether it has conducted any investigations, disciplinary actions, or prosecution of officials or security forces who have abused the reporting freedoms of correspondents.

Government officials have implied that the temporary rules may be made permanent rather than expiring on October 17, 2008. "If practice shows that the regulation will help the international community to know China better, then it is a good policy in accordance with the country's reforms and opening up," State Information Office Minister Cai Wu told reporters in December 2007.[47] This is an important commitment, and one that the international community should encourage. However, simply making the temporary regulations permanent will not improve media freedom in China, if present practice is any indicator. The regulations must be respected and enforced, and must be extended to cover Chinese journalists as well.

Also disappointing has been the IOC's inability or unwillingness to effectively press the Chinese government on its failure to enforce the temporary regulations. Not only was foreign media access a key issue in the decision to award China the Games, but Article 49 of the Olympic Charter explicitly commits the IOC to take "… all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic Games."[48]

Although the IOC is aware of the more than two hundred documented cases in which foreign journalists have been harassed, intimidated, or otherwise abused, it has declined in its public remarks to raise these cases, and instead has tended to be congratulatory of the Chinese government. In September 2007, Anthony Edgar, the IOC's Olympic Games Media Operations chief, said, "The Chinese government committed itself a long time ago to media working in China as freely as in other countries, in accordance with IOC and international practices and I think they are working well at the moment."[49] In February 2008, IOC president Jacques Rogge praised the Chinese government for the temporary regulations on media freedom and summarized their implementation by stating "the glass is half full" without addressing multiple and ongoing abuses of media freedom in China.[50]

Two months later, when foreign journalists were barred from the TAR and neighboring provinces and correspondents were the target of death threats amid ongoing state-media-driven vilification of foreign media "bias," the head of the IOC press commission, Kevan Gosper, praised the "open-mindedness" of the Chinese government in "supporting the interests of Chinese journalists as well as international journalists."[51]On April 3, Hein Verbruggen, chairman of the IOC coordination commission, told reporters that the IOC could "easily prove" that awarding Beijing the right to host the 2008 Olympic Games had improved China's human rights situation, but did not provide any evidence in support of that claim.[52]

International criticism of the Chinese government's blatant violations of its Olympics-related commitments to media freedom in Tibet and neighboring provinces since mid-March 2008 prompted Rogge on April 10, 2008, to concede that implementation of the temporary regulations was inadequate, and he urged Chinese officials to improve their practices "as soon as possible."[53] Weeks later, Rogge indicated that protests related to China's violations of its Olympics-related human rights commitments would prompt the IOC to "think about its role in society differently…[and] think of our activities in terms of human rights," without providing any details about possible future changes in IOC policies and pledges with regard to Olympics host city human rights conditions.

The failure of the Chinese government and the IOC to address ongoing violations of the temporary regulations prompted Human Rights Watch, in collaboration with the Committee to Protect Journalists, to produce a guide book for the estimated 30,000 foreign journalists who will cover the Beijing Olympics. This guide book explains the risks those journalists and their local staff and sources will face, and how to minimize the risks. The FCCC has produced a similar electronic document available on the club's website.[54]