@article{Story2007LPP, title = {Lead Paint Prompts Mattel to Recall 967,000 Toys}, author = {Louise Story}, journal = {The New York Times}, month = {August 2, 2007}, year = 2007, url = {http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/02toy.html}, timestamp = {2008.06.01}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Matel the maker of Barbie dolls and Hot Wheels cars, is recalling nearly one million toys in the United States today because the products are covered in lead paint. Susan Etheridge for The New York Times Nickelodeon, which owns Dora the Explorer, says it will keep a closer eye on its toy makers. According to Mattel, all the toys were made by a contract manufacturer in China. The recall, the second biggest this year involving toys, covers 83 products made from April 19 to July 6. Many of them feature Sesame Street and Nickelodeon characters — including the Elmo Tub Sub, the Dora the Explorer Backpack, and the Giggle Gabber, a toy shaped like Elmo or Cookie Monster that toddlers shake to hear giggles and funny noises. Mattel says it prevented more than two-thirds of the 967,000 affected toys from reaching consumers by stopping the products in its distribution centers and contacting retailers, like Wal-Mart, Target and Toys ‘R’ Us, late last week. But more than 300,000 of the tainted toys have been bought by consumers in the United States. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the toys may have a date code from 109-7LF to 187-7LF on the product or packaging. A complete list can be found at nytimes.com, mattel.com or cpsc.gov. Mattel is hardly the first manufacturer to encounter a breakdown in the Chinese production chain. In recent months, factories in China have been sources of poisonous pet food sold in stores in the United States, dangerous car tires, and lead paint on the popular Thomas & Friends wooden toys. The Chinese government has said it is working to improve its product regulations, even as members of Congress have called for legislation requiring more inspections of imports from China. This is Mattel’s 17th recall in 10 years. Most recently, an infant swing made by its Fisher-Price division was taken off the market because of a risk children could be trapped in its moving parts. And in its largest consumer action involving toy safety, in 1998, the company recalled more than 10 million Power Wheels cars. Speaking of the new recall, Nancy A. Nord, acting Consumer Product Safety Commission chairwoman, said in a statement, “These recalled toys have accessible lead in the paint, and parents should not hesitate in taking them away from children.” The statement said that the commission had stated an investigation and that “ensuring that Chinese made toys are safe for U.S. consumers is one of my highest priorities and is the subject of vital talks currently in place between C.P.S.C. and the Chinese government.” Earlier this summer, RC2, the maker of Thomas trains, recalled 1.5 million trains and accessories because a Chinese supplier had coated them in lead paint. At that time, consumer safety experts and toy industry analysts said that Mattel was unlikely to face such a problem. “There are companies that live up to their obligations to the government as well as to consumers, and they are one of them,” Julie Vallese, a spokeswoman for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, said of Mattel in mid-July. But Mattel’s safety checks — which include independent audits of facilities and ownership of many of its own factories in China — did not prevent the chain of events that led to today’s recall. In early July, according to Mattel executives, one of the European retailers that sells Mattel toys discovered the lead on some products. On July 6, Mattel stopped operations at the factory that produced the toys and initiated an investigation. On July 18, Mattel took a reporter for The New York Times on a tour of a factory in Guanyao, China, and of Mattel’s toy safety lab in Shenzhen. At that time, Mattel executives say, it was unclear whether Mattel was facing a widespread lead paint problem, or if the European case was an anomaly. Last Thursday, the same day The Times ran an article about Mattel’s toy safety procedures, the company’s executives say they received conclusive data that persuaded them to recall the 83 products. Then, the company contacted retailers who stocked the toys. “This is a vendor plant with whom we’ve worked for 15 years; this isn’t somebody that just started making toys for us,” Robert A. Eckert, the chief executive of Mattel, said in an interview. “They understand our regulations, they understand our program, and something went wrong. That hurts.” Mattel requires the factories it contracts with to use paint and other materials provided by certified suppliers. Mattel executives said they did not know if the contract manufacturer substituted paint from a noncertified supplier or if a certified supplier caused the problem. Mr. Eckert said Mattel was considering various ways to overcome the problem, including reducing the amount of toys it makes through contract factories. About 50 percent of Mattel’s revenue comes from toys made in 11 factories it owns and operates. That is a high share for the toy industry. But the other half comes from toys that it outsources to up to 50 manufacturers in China. Those toys tend to be short-term products that feature characters from movies and television shows rather than Barbie dolls or other Mattel brands. In light of the recalls, Nickelodeon — which owns the characters Dora the Explorer and Diego — has decided to introduce a third-party monitor to check up on all of the companies that make toys under its brands, including Mattel. Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit organization behind the “Sesame Street” program, is considering adding third-party testing, Gary E. Knell, president and chief executive of Sesame Workshop, said in a statement. This summer, the Toy Industry Association has been working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission on new regulations to require more stringent safety checks. Carter Keithley, president of the association, said the federal government needed to help the industry block China from using lead paint. “We don’t have lead paint in this country any more, and they shouldn’t either,” Mr. Keithley said of China. “If there was no lead paint, then we wouldn’t have this problem.” Thomas G. Rawski, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who has visited factories in China regularly since 1975, though not toy factories, said companies there are trying to check product quality, but more improvements are needed. “The mechanisms for preventing this stuff don’t leap out of a tree,” Mr. Rawski said. “They have to be built up carefully, and I think it’s very clear this process of building is going on in China right now. That means there are lots of things happening that in an ideal world shouldn’t be happening, including things that wouldn’t happen in Japan or the U.S.”}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27b1f9f75bda9294cebbb9d419dfb7ae0/acf}, keywords = {product_safety product_quality news example China US_media} } @conference{Rowe8–10July2007Cer, title = {Corporate environmetal reporting: informal institutional chinese cultural norms}, address = {Dr Anna L. Rowe Graduate School of Business Curtin University of Technology GPO Box U1987 Perth 6845 Western Australia Email: Anna.Rowe@cbs.curtin.edu.au}, author = {Anna Lee Rowe}, booktitle = {Fifth Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference}, month = {July}, organization = {Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia}, year = { 8 – 10 July 2007}, url = {http://www.unisa.edu.au/commerce/events/docs/2007/unisa020807.pdf}, timestamp = {2008.05.04}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {The significance of global environmental issues have been further propelled to the forefront, with the current public awareness highlighted by the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore’s global warming statements and the Stern review. As the most populous nation on earth with one fifth of humanity, coupled with an appetite for raw materials to boost its economic growth, China has a prominent role in solving global environmental challenges. Research in corporate environmental reporting (CER) as an environmental management strategy to communicate with stakeholders has provided a discerning body of knowledge. However, there exists, a glaring ‘gap’ in the literature in relation to the study of CER in an emerging nation such as China. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the normative assumptions underpinning CER in China focusing on Shanghai. Findings from the data appear to reverberate well with institutional theoretical approach within the Chinese cultural norms (informal institutional rules) in understanding the embryonic progress of CER in China.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27ba8451f51c715cb918e840ca24b00bd/acf}, keywords = {stakeholder corporate_environmental_reporting environment corporate_reporting management_strategy CER accounting cultural_norms China} } @article{Moss20051101APa, title = {Are PR and MNCs Corrupting Chinese Media?}, author = {William Moss}, journal = {Imagethief (Blog)}, month = {29.01.8:14 AM}, note = {Imagethief is William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China since 2004. The opinions in this blog are his own, not those of his agency. For more information see "About Imagethief", below.}, year = 20051101, url = {http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2005/11/01/4968.aspx}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {The week before last I had lunch with a foreign correspondent who asked me if there was corruption in PR in China. Although I was only providing background, and not speaking to him on the record, I was, to put it politely, diplomatic in my answer. Ever mindful of the brand that graces my business-card, it’s an issue that I tend to tread lightly upon. I did, however, send him on to a friend who has been here longer than me and who works independently and is, therefore, inclined to be more forthcoming about such things. But the topic arose again last week, courtesy of bloggers Bingfeng, of Bingfeng Teahouse, and Myrick, of Asiapundit. Bingfeng fired the first shot in a post telling foreigners who complain about China’s media restrictions to find something better to do with their time. The crux of his argument was the blocking of any individual site affects only a few thousand people. However, a pervasive culture of media corruption fostered by “foreign MNCs” (multinational corporations) affects everyone in China: As we all know, the blocking of these web sites, in its worst situation, influence the life of a few thousands in china, while at the same time, the corrupt journalists/media taking money from firms and various organizations and writing misleading articles to fool the public is a everyday story in china, as i know, the norm of taking money from firms to make favorable media exposures was cultivated by many MNCs in china, which bribe chinese journalists in the name of "media PR" or "marketing PR" activities, and bribe them when they have a "PR crisis". such collusion affects the lives of millions of people and you could do something to change it, especially a lot of them are related with MNCs in china. There is some truth in what Bingfeng wrote. On this site I have previously written, tongue somewhat in cheek, of the “transportation claim” commonly paid to journalists who attend press events in China. According to the journalist I had lunch with, foreign technology companies originated this practice about ten years ago. I don’t know the detailed history. Anyone who does is invited to comment. So I agree with Bingfeng to some extent. However, before he makes me his “star of the week” again, he needs to read on, because I’m going to bite later. Myrick posted a rather interesting response to Bingfeng. First, he pointed out that he, a foreign correspondent by day, was recently offered 500 RMB (about US$60) himself while attending an event sponsored by a nameless European telecommunications firm. He mentioned that, although he refused the money, three Chinese journalists who were present accepted. I suspect that this was vanilla “transportation claim” (车马费) as 500 RMB is the amount typically offered to journalists who attend an event from out of town, while 200 RMB is the going rate for journalists from in town. If Myrick was attending an event in the town he is based in, then there is some inflation happening. I would like to point out that whoever offered Myrick the money, even if it was simply transportation claim, was an idiot or badly trained. Foreign correspondents work differently than Chinese ones on many levels. Any PR firm, local or foreign, that doesn’t train their staff on these differences is courting trouble. In my company we often dissuade clients from mixing local and foreign journalists not only because it makes things like the transportation claim awkward, but because we often have different messages for domestic and overseas audiences. In a rebuttal to Bingfeng that I agreed with, Myrick wrote the following: Bingfeng is correct that this is a serious problem for China - a 2003 study by the Institute for Public Relations [proxy link – WM] puts China dead last in a list of 66 countries in a study on the acceptability of bribery for coverage. Still, by citing the existence of this problem as a criticism of free-speech advocates he is making a common fallacy of argument by evading the issue. This is also known as the Chewbacca defense. That last link is from the blocked-in-China Wikipedia. I regret that readers here won't be able to access it without a proxy. The problems of censorship in and press bribery in China are related issues, both shape the content of news here. But to say that censorship of a website is something that only affects a "few thousand" is a gross understatement. While it may be only a handful of residents who are affected by a block on a single blogspot site, the control of information in China promotes ignorance, retards democratic development and prevents the building of an educated civil society. This affects 1.3 billion. The report that Myrick points to is well worth looking at. The reason why I agree with Myrick’s response, besides correctly calling out the “Chewbacca defense”, is that it points out that there is a relationship between corruption of the media and censorship. I think that relationship is quite deep, and has to do with how the media have evolved here and what Chinese societal expectations of the media are. I also think that relationship should be looked at in terms of corruption in general. Not to be dissuaded, Bingfeng came back with the following: [The] so-called "bribery for coverage" is more than just giving money to get favorable media exposures, thanks to the cultivatons of MNCs in china, the collusion between media and business has evolved into more sophisticated forms that influence/manipulate the public and they are unfortuantely followed by more and more organizations and individuals. khodorkovski-style chinese firms are on the horizons and their agents are already very active. this imposes an immediate threat to the emerging "civil society" in china, not the censorship. "free speech/press fighters" could do something to change the media corruptions, but in the short term i don't see their chant could do anything to reduce the media censorships. MNCs are the one who set the norms of media bribery, government "PR", media "PR", marketing "PR", etc. and our "free speech/press fighters" could do something to ask them to change the norms or even follow a more strict business ethics. this is a more approachable goal. like many things in china, the dysfunctional part of the system is not removed directly through a confrontational approach, but through the cultivations of incremental parts of the system. a less corrupt media will forster an environment that leads to less censorship. the only disadvantage of a different roadmap is that hte process will be less satisfying for the moral superiority of some westerners and perhaps doesn't fit into the political agendas of some of them. Here again, Bingfeng is half right. There is “collusion between media and business [that] has evolved into more sophisticated forms that influence/manipulate the public.” We call that public relations, and it’s what I do for a living. But no matter how distasteful you might find it, it is not necessarily corrupt, and seems not to have undermined civil society in most of the rest of the world. The origins of the transportation claim notwithstanding, blaming MNCs and PR companies for corruption in the Chinese media is absurd. Complicit though they may sometimes be, it’s like blaming vultures for the death of your horse in the desert. This argument is the reframing of a victimization theme I often see wielded against foreigners and multinationals when discussing problems in China. It plays well on nationalist sentiments and often does a really good job of deflecting attention away from serious, underlying issues worthy of scrutiny. The Chewbacca defense, as Myrick pointed out. Furthermore, to suggest that a cleaner media will lead to fewer restrictions on free speech is, quite simply, to put the cart before the horse. I believe the exact opposite is true. Free speech and a less fettered press are much more likely to be effective weapons against corruption. Who Are You Calling Corrupt? Chinese companies and institutions, as anyone who lives here rapidly learns, are quite capable of corruption without any foreign influence whatsoever. Corruption, in the media or anywhere else, isn’t something that springs up spontaneously, or as the result of the wicked influence of foreign MNCs, who are perennial favorite targets of Chinese nationalism. Corruption is like a gas. It’s always there and it expands to fill the shape and volume of the space available for it. The volume of space available for corruption is created by lack of transparency and by well established patterns of government and commercial behavior. While many countries, including the United States, have corruption, China leaves a comparatively wide-open space for it. For some details, sift through Transparency International’s website, which ranks China at number 78, alongside such illustrious company as Morocco, Sri Lanka, Senegal and Suriname. Or this more recent article (subscription) by Andrew Yeh, one of the Financial Times’ Beijing-based journalists, on the OECD’s assessment on the impact of widespread corruption in China. However, this isn’t to say that some MNCs won’t collude with corruption. MNCs tend to be amoral beasts that adapt themselves superbly to any environment in which they need to operate. Many governments are aware of this, which explains laws like the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Companies like mine often help to clean up the mess when MNCs get caught misbehaving. Bingfeng may be shocked to learn how often those cleanup efforts involve absolutely no bribes. For the record, in my time in the PR industry in China, I have never witnessed anything I felt to be corrupt. I have never seen anyone in my company do anything I felt was corrupt. Nor, in the course of their work with me, have any of my clients, all MNCs, done anything I felt was corrupt or even borderline. One of my clients’ policies on separating advertising and paid coverage from PR is so strict that we don’t even help with advertorial copy, something I did all the time in Singapore. If I was asked to do something I felt was wrong, I would decline to do it and warn whoever was asking me of the consequences. If necessary, I would resign before compromising myself, my colleagues or my company. I don’t think this is likely to happen, so it doesn’t keep me up nights. Our (Chinese) finance director is one of the most scrupulous and careful men I have ever met. He is constantly reminding us of our financial disclosure and probity obligations as part of a listed, international media conglomerate. Furthermore, despite the occasional ghastly scandal, there is no company as aware of the value of its reputation as a global PR company. None of this, however, means that Bingfeng is wrong about there being corruption in the media or in PR in China. Within our office, it’s the local, Chinese PR firms that take the most flack for corruption. Chinese consultants in my office have spoken to me many times of what they perceive as the distinctly lower ethical standards of local firms. This may simply be their pride talking, or just empty gossip. Although given how close many of our Chinese consultants are to Chinese journalists, they’d be in a position to hear about anything that happens. Now, allow me to pose a hypothetical scenario. If you’re MNC X, and you want to buy some coverage savaging your bitter competitor, MNC Y, in the China market, which of the two following PR firms would you use to arrange it? The SOX compliant multinational PR firm with public company accounting requirements and an international reputation to protect or, The privately held, locally owned firm with no international reputation or financial disclosure obligations. Simple risk management suggests the latter would be a better choice. Now perhaps, was this to actually happen, it would be a case of a wicked MNC leading an otherwise chaste Chinese PR company down the dark path of corruption. More likely, it would be willing buyer/willing seller. Furthermore, I’d be shocked Smurf blue to hear that Chinese companies, forever battling their own corruption demons, would turn up their noses at these methods. I don’t think they’d need to learn the trick from foreign MNCs. In case you are wondering, although I think it’s a bad idea, I don’t feel that the transportation claim is corrupt. Media corruption thrives in the dark, when its influence is hidden. The transportation claim is completely matter-of-fact and auditable. You can follow the trail, from our cost estimate for events to our invoices to clients to the list of exactly which journalists showed up at a press event, and their sign-in signatures. It’s never guaranteed us good coverage, or even attendance at events. Frankly, I think it’s a desperate waste of money, and it will be a good day for the maturity of Chinese media when it is abolished. But that will only happen when the Chinese media decide for themselves to abolish it, or when all companies with PR efforts in China, both local and foreign, decide to abolish it together. It would take a company with a large risk appetite indeed to unilaterally decide no longer offer the transportation claim, especially while their competitors still did. Is my position hypocrisy? Or rationalization? Maybe. What is this Media of which You Speak? I have been working in China for just over a year, and I, as an individual, am not an expert on the Chinese media. But I have been involved in media-related work, one way or another, for thirteen years, my graduate degree is in media studies, and I work in an industry whose stock in trade is an understanding of media. With that disclosure, you may take the following observations as you will. The problem with Chinese media is not that it is being corrupted by ne’er-do-well foreign MNCs or PR firms. Rather, it is that the Chinese media are in transition from explicit state control to something subtler and more reflective of modern Chinese society. It has become something that isn’t developed country media, but which looks like it from a distance. Bound up in this transition are the ongoing changes in China’s media regulations as the government tries to figure out what it wants Chinese media to be, and shifting public expectations of what role the media should play in Chinese society. The tremors of this transition have been documented in Chinese media, overseas media and, not least, by the China blogging community. An interesting recent example includes ESWN’s post on fraudsters representing themselves as journalists. If all this seems like a recipe for confusion…it is. This shows in, yes, the opportunities for corruption and, more mundanely, in how the media relate to authority, to multinationals and, of course, to PR firms. There is a relationship aspect to PR work everywhere. It’s formalized. We call it, surprisingly enough, “media relations”. An ability to build good relationships with journalists is one of our marketable skills. Here in China, our relationships with journalists are especially cozy. Not corrupt, mind you, just cozy. This coziness isn’t unique to China any more than media corruption or the influence of corporate or state parent organizations. Anyone who thinks that the US, for example, is immune to this hasn’t been following the salacious Plamegate affair. This has done wonders to illuminate the shameful coziness that greases the operations of both the Washington DC press corps and the spin-obsessed White House. But in China this coziness is more pervasive. Although I never did PR in the US, I did do it in Singapore, which also has state-controlled media often accused of pliancy. Even in Singapore, no matter how good my personal relationships with journalists were (and they were pretty good), there was often an adversarial quality to the professional relationship. That wasn’t necessarily expressed in hostility or bad press, but in healthy skepticism, tough questions, and wariness of spin. All qualities of a decent press corps. Here in China I find, on average, that it is much easier for us to control a line of questioning or set it in advance, review coverage and quotes before they go to press, suggest themes and anticipate the tone of stories. Journalists here often expect us to package stories quite completely for them, giving us yet more room to set the agenda. We have stenographers at most media events, and send complete transcripts of press conferences and round tables to the journalists who attend them, often on the same day. It is expected that we will do this. When we can package a story more completely, we can dictate its tone more effectively. Among my Chinese team members, the nickname for pliant journalists is “rabbits”. Not the image of ferocity. Now, I want to stress two important things. First, relationships are not a red carpet. We flacks in China are not excused from having to come up with good pitches and interesting events. And we’re not immune to bad press, by any stretch of the imagination. We also have real PR challenges that are unique to doing business in China. It’s just that the relationships are more central to how we work. In the land of guanxi, this is not so surprising. Second, and most important, my observations above are industry generalizations. I know many extremely bright and motivated Chinese journalists who take real pride in their work. They are capable of asking dynamite questions, picking up killer angles, and writing hard-hitting and intelligent stories. Chinese journalists have suffered and died for their commitment to their work, and for their integrity and many are worthy of the highest respect. (Contrary to what you might think, most PR people are news junkies and really appreciate dynamite journalism, as long as it isn’t causing trouble for our own clients.) Even many of the “rabbits” are good, smart people working in an established system. Please do not interpret my observations as a condemnation of Chinese journalists. Some Chinese media pliancy may simply be a result of a wildly booming industry that is hungry for content. The seller of a product that is in high demand, such as particular content, exerts more control. That’s why Hollywood publicists can dictate question lists for stars, whereas corporate flacks like me seldom can. But I think some of it also descends from the Chinese media’s recent legacy of control and management from above. Chinese media are still evolving their editorial standards and modes of operation. PR firms, multinationals and Chinese firms will all figure out how best to operate and achieve their goals in this environment. That might be cynical, and you don’t have to like it, but it isn’t corrupt. Ruthlessly separating my preferences as a media consumer from my objectives as a PR pro, I am under no obligation to tell a journalist to ask tougher questions of my client. Mouthpieces or Watchdogs? What does China want from its media? Let me return to the idea that started it all off: the relationship between free speech and corruption. The media can be a potent weapon in fighting corruption, given the space to do so. A few years ago, Jiang Zemin appeared to recognize this when he cited media as one of the country’s great tools in its perennial war against corruption. Of course the media themselves were fighting their own corruption demons in ways that went far beyond low-rent payola for good coverage, as 2004 busts of senior editorial staff from the well known Southern Metropolis News and Nanfang Daily Group showed. But beyond media’s own corruption problems, counting on them to help unmask corruption demands independence and a culture of enterprise that needs room to grow. The current government seems to have different ideas, as this recent article from The Economist (subscription) reports: The Chinese government's increasingly hardline stance is encapsulated in Document 16, promulgated this spring. Among other things, this banned the practice of yidi baodao, or “reports from non-local places”, with journalists travelling to distant cities where, free of their local minders, they could write harder-hitting stories about corrupt local officials or social unrest. “This was the best hope for China developing an open press,” says Mr [Nicolas] Becquelin [of human-rights group HRIC]. In Hong Kong, papers critical of China, like Apple Daily, are complaining that advertisers are fleeing because of threats to their mainland businesses. Journalists there are suddenly finding it harder to get visas for travel to the mainland. These regulations were also covered nicely by the invaluable Chinese media blog, Danwei. Even more worrying, some suggest that anti-corruption drives in China are simply tools to clean out the lingering remnants of the previous power structure and, bizarrely, to implement monetary policy, as suggested by this Asia Times Online article. So, even in their role as corruption fighters, the Chinese media face the specter of being cynically deployed tools of state policy. Media can, of course, be effective weapons against corruption, whether that’s corruption in government, business or within their own industry. Even if, for no other reason than fulfilling their own business objectives by attracting eyeballs, most publications love nothing more than to break a big scandal wide open. But that will never happen here unless the government can decide what role the media should fill in society: mouthpieces or watchdogs. They can’t be both. You can’t state-manage a media industry to effectiveness as anti-corruption crusaders, and keep it muzzled at the same time. You have to do the opposite. Give them space, in the form of freedom of the press, which is just another way of saying freedom of speech. That will help to lift the veil on corruption everywhere including, yes, in the media itself. So when we arrogant foreigners rail against the restrictions on the Chinese media, we aren’t ignoring the problem of corruption in the media, or anywhere else. In fact, we are advocating for the unleashing of China’s most potent weapon against corruption. A truly free media. Filed under: China, PR & Media (Old)}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e76652b006f9f9d12ace68c97e73ab68/acf}, keywords = {PR&media corruption Shanghai PR Public_Relations fun blog Chinese_media China} } @article{Moss20070129WEC, title = {WaPo's Ed Cody on media bribery in China}, author = {William Moss}, journal = {Imagethief (Blog)}, month = {29.01.8:14 AM}, note = {Imagethief is William Moss, a public relations professional and writer working in China since 2004. The opinions in this blog are his own, not those of his agency. For more information see "About Imagethief", below.}, year = 20070129, url = {http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2007/01/29/8308.aspx}, timestamp = {2008.05.18}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {How did I miss this? The Washington Post's Ed Cody has written a fascinating story (via David Wolf's Silicon Hutong) about a syndrome we in the PR business in China run into regularly: the practice of media extortion in China. I can't comment extensively right now, but this is a very real issue. Cody gets into the history and consequences of the practice: In many ways, blackmail journalism grew naturally out of a system in which Communist Party censors control the news rigorously, barring reports that could be seen as unfavorable to the party or contrary to the government's political goals. If the ruling party distorts the news for political reasons, blackmailing reporters have concluded, why wouldn't they do it themselves for financial reasons? In addition, local party officials, long used to manipulating information, have been complicit in the payoff system when it suits their needs. In the everybody-does-it atmosphere, even non-reporters have found ways to get in on the take by posing as journalists. After the August 2005 mine disaster, for instance, reporters and their friends in Henan province dispatched a flurry of cellphone messages as soon as they heard the news -- not because they were eager to report on it, but because they knew local officials would be eager to hush it up. By the time Fan Youfeng of the Henan Business News arrived at the mine, in a village in Jiliao county, local officials said they had already given money to so many reporters and phony reporters that the coffers were dry. But still more people showed up, Fan wrote, and the officials sought more cash, pressing the mine owners to chip in. Journalists and poseurs lined up to get their handouts, he said, with some pushing and jumping the queue. Over several days, the extortionists carried away 200,000 yuan, or more than $25,000, he reported, quoting officials and a list signed by those who got the cash. Encouraged by Ma, his editor, Fan wrote a story for the Henan Business News about what had happened. It was the first open discussion of what had become a widespread if secretive practice, Ma said with a note of pride. As a result, however, an official from the central government propaganda department visited from Beijing and accused Ma of publishing an "inappropriate" and "false" story. The newspaper was suspended for a month, Ma was forced to retire and Fan was reprimanded, Ma said. The death toll from the mine disaster was never reported, he added. Don't miss David's own post on this issue. David is a former colleague of mine and veteran of public relations in China. David explains how companies fall into this trap and lays down a very clear policy for avoiding it. He writes: There's only one way to avoid [falling into this trap]: Repeat after me: "No matter what my PR people, my PR agency, or anyone else tells me, OUR COMPANY WILL NEVER PAY FOR COVERAGE, either directly or indirectly." I wonder how many of our agencies follow that very sound advice.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2c2a53c370cf8baeb2bb5c97129e6dcc0/acf}, keywords = {PR&media corruption Shanghai PR Public_Relations fun blog Chinese_media China} } @article{McCullagh20060315BCF, title = {Behind the China Firewall}, author = {Charles McCullagh}, journal = {Magazine Publishers of America}, year = 20060315, url = {http://www.magazine.org/international/031606.html}, timestamp = {2008.05.30}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {China has been much in the news of late and not only for buying US debt or pulling Asia out of a recession. China is under immense media scrutiny because of recent disclosures that Google, under pressure from the Chinese government, is removing (e.g. censoring) on its Chinese search engine certain words such as Falun Gong, Tibet, democracy and the like. So serious were these disclosures that Congress summoned Google, Yahoo, and MSN to Washington to berate Google in particular for such un-American activity, suggesting in a sense that the search engines and technology companies do what the US government and more than 100,000 international businesses in China have failed to do: insist the Chinese government embrace the tenets of free speech and a free press. That this Google news would come as a surprise to Congress is no particular surprise. But it should not be a surprise to even a chest-thumping general public or to the media. Harvard’s Open Net Initiative (ONI) has probably provided the most thorough critique of the lengths to which China has gone to police the online behavior of its fast-growing population of Internet users. The ONI reported in 2005 that “China’s Internet filtering is the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world. Compared to similar efforts in other states, China’s filtering system is pervasive, sophisticated and effective. It comprises multiple levels of legal regulation and technical control. It involved numerous state agencies and thousands of public and private personnel. It censors content transmitted through multiple methods, including Web pages, Web logs, on-line discussion forums, university bulletin board systems, and email messages. “Our testing found efforts to prevent access to a wide range of sensitive material, from pornography to religious material to political dissent. Chinese citizens seeking access to Web sites containing content relating to Taiwanese and Tibetan independence, Falun Gong, the Dalai Lama, the Tiananmen Square incident, opposition political parties, or a variety of anti-Communist movements will frequently find themselves blocked.” The Open Net Initiative provides a detailed analysis of the pervasiveness of Internet control in China. The report concludes that “China operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated, and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world. The implications for this distorted on-line information environment for China’s users are profound and disturbing.” IEEE Spectrum has also looked very carefully at Internet censorship in China. The magazine poses this question: “Could the (Chinese) government open the floodgates to the waves of information washing up on every shore yet keep out the ideas it was afraid of, such as ones about sexuality, democracy, religious expression, and Taiwanese independence?” Spectrum answers the question in the affirmative. It also reminds us that “China’s experiment in cyberspace censorship is about to take a dramatic turn. A massive upgrade to the country Internet will soon give China robust, state-of-the-art infrastructure easily on par with anything in the developed world. New technology will likely give the Chinese authorities more censorship power at the router level, making censorship more a matter of politics than technology. I hear from many, inside and outside China that the best answer to censorship is a technical solution. In the long term that might very well be true, though short term, considering Chinese wealth, access to the newest technology, and a 50,000 strong Internet police force operating in 700 cities, the government appears to have the upper hand. (The Internet in the U.S. is also highly centralized and could be censored much as it is in China). After the U.S. Congress called Google and others on the carpet, the media reported that this issue extends far beyond China and Google, Yahoo, Cisco, and Microsoft. Xeni Jardin writes in the New York Times that SmartFilter, a product from Secure Computing, a California company, has been used by Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. “It has also been used by state-controlled providers in Iran, even though American companies are banned from selling products there (Secure Computing denies selling products or updates to Iran, which is probably using pirated versions.) Other filtering products, such as Websense, have been used in Iran and Yemen ostensibly to filter offensive content and that aimed at converting Muslims. Myanmar uses a filtering product from an American company and Singapore uses one from a British firm. Western filtering products appear to be used everywhere the government restricts free speech, and not just in China. Jardin recommends that filtering technologies be put on the United States Munitions List, a list of products for which exporters have to file papers with the State Department. But the horse appears to have already left the barn. top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- China’s Shadow Side Every development, good or bad (depending on one’s point of view), has a shadow side. Spectrum has reported and many others have observed that Internet traffic is outpacing capacity, so the Internet is becoming somewhat of a bottleneck to the country’s push for greater industrialization. When Internet transactions are slowed down by the censors, business suffers. And this is just one of the dilemmas facing Chinese leaders. Despite such sophisticated technology this system works best when self-censorship is practiced by the population. China has presented to international companies something of a choice that might be applauded by the 17th century determinist Thomas Hobbes: If you want to do business in the PRC, you must abide by our rules, even if they run counter to your own traditions and business practices. Though it’s not my intent to give the Chinese government wiggle room under the wings of Hobbes, the philosopher is emphatic about a strong social order being the only way the keep in check unruly nature, which is man. Whether we like it or not, China has not been meek about its position. At the FIPP conference in New York in May 2005 a Chinese delegate raised questions about the disputed Newsweek article regarding the desecration of the Koran by Americans. The delegate asked, in effect, what is the proper balance between the social order and the social good and the public’s right to know. I am not sure whether the question was answered to his satisfaction. Nonetheless, his question accurately frames the media policy of the Chinese government. Censorship in China is serious business. Violators, real or imagined, are put in jail and some are killed. Newspaper and other media outlets are regular shut down. The list of banned words and topics seem to grow by the day. Recently the New York Times reported that a group of prominent Chinese officials, senior scholars, and retired publishers denounced the closing down of Freezing Point, a popular news journal. (Click here for more.) They considered this move as a violation of China’s guarantee of free speech. The letter read: At the turning point in our history from a totalitarian to a constitutional system, depriving the public of freedom of speech will bring disaster for our social and political transition and give rise to group confrontation and social unrest. Experience has proved that allowing a free flow of ideas can improve stability and alleviate social problems.” David Barboza reported in the New York Times that Chinese Internet police are very adept at blocking and deleting phrases such as “human rights” and “free speech” from online bulletin boards, but in most respects the Web in China is unregulated. He writes that “Chinese entrepreneurs who started out brazenly selling downloadable pirated music and movies from online storefronts have extended their product lines—peddling drugs and sex, stolen cars, firearms and even organs for transplanting.” As Xiao Qiang, director of China Internet Project at the graduate school of the University of California, Berkeley notes, “Outside of politics, China is as free as anywhere. You can find porn just about anywhere on the Internet.” China has about 110 million Internet users and is expected to surpass the U.S.( 130 million users) in a year or so. China’s size and the rapid growth of its Internet population makes long-term policing very difficult. So do the muckrakers! Reuters reported that Li Xinde, a self-styled Internet investigative reporter, exposes corrupt officials and injustice on his China Public Opinion Survellience Net. According to Reuters he uses 49 blogs to slip past censors. “It’s what Chairman Mao called sparrow tactics, Li said. “You stay small and independent, you move around a lot, and you choose when to strike and when to run.” top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reforming the Media Landscape The New York Times writer Joseph Kahan notes that though most of the signers of the letter cited above are retired, a collective letter from respected elder statesmen can often help mobilize opinion within a ruling party. Though Chinese President Hu Jintao has seemed to favor tighter media controls, such as practiced in Cuba and North Korea, he has solicited support from liberal elements. This is the dance that is China. There exists more than one parallel media universe in China. In 2003 the government announced plans to reform its media of 2000 newspapers and 9000 magazines. According to China Daily in less than five months the edicts has affected 1,452 Party and government newspapers, 673 had been suspended from publication. Perhaps the most important move was to eliminate over time the so-called “command-subscriptions” where in effect people were ordered to subscribe. Reforming China’s media landscape is easier said than done. Over a half-century the government spread media licenses around its thirty-one provinces and among Communist Party powers and trade and industrial groups (with Beijing getting the lion’s share). Publications tended to be of low-production quality, boring, and often unread. China’s next step was to organize the stronger publishing and media units into larger units with scale. Concurrently international magazines continued to enter China with most of the global advertising revenues going to Western brands such as Cosmopolitan and Elle. However, domestic Chinese brands, especially in business and women’s lifestyle made significant progress. The business magazine CAIJING has been censored and closed down on more than one occasion for criticizing the government (Better targets are corrupt businessmen and questionable consumer products). The magazine has vocal supporters in and outside China—including the Wall Street Journal. One often forgets that Western magazines have been in China in quantity for at least twenty years (International Data Group enjoys that honor). Since 1995 most major Western publishers have a presence in China. Indeed, the women’s, fashion, lifestyle, men’s and special interested categories are quite filled and mature. It is hard to find room on the newsstands for another automotive title. In other words the market has segmented along expected lines as it has done in so many other countries—only faster. But big brands always matter. Vogue was introduced last September to considerable fanfare and success. Rolling Stone will launch shortly a China edition. The safe, lifestyle sector has been a bonanza for international publishers. But there is no such a thing as linear development in China, especially in regard to the media business. Many publishing companies, including some American firms, have been in the queue a long time waiting for government approval. Media regulations change frequently in China, are often ignored, and are frequently used as a means of giving or not giving a publishing license to an international company. Just when the talk in late 2005 was about China opening up its media to outside investment and ownership, the door seemed to close a little. Basically the State Council, which is China’s Cabinet, issued a directive that non-public capital cannot set up and operate a news agency, a newspaper, a publishing house, a radio station, or a TV station. The regulation is extensive, including audio and video programs, and Internet news sites. The regulation appears to limit any control of content in the various media. At the same time the government seemed to throw its doors wide open to outside investment in museums, entertainment venues, and travel and culture services. China-watchers suggest the government wants investment in these cultural venues in advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. We know that the 2005 announcement was simply a re-statement of existing regulations that have been ignored or flouted through the pervasive gray market. We have reported in the past that the government is very unhappy with the blatant (and illegal) license leasing. However interpreted, this directive was not good news for international television content providers eager to tap the China market. The government seems confident that no matter the hurdle, foreign media companies will still be lining up in Beijing for operating licenses. This perception is probably accurate though there is considerable discontent about how China manages its license approval process. As recent as January 2006 Qi Yongfeng, an official of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission was quoted as saying that the ongoing restructuring of the Chinese publishing industry is virtually at a stalemate. He cites a number of reasons for this. The Chinese had planned to designate all but a few Communist Party publications as “for-profit,” and they would no longer enjoy government funding. Apparently many publishers have resisted this, reluctant to give up the government subsidy. The government has not made clear how these new, for-profit entities are to be managed. On paper these businesses were to be governed by law and not by Party edict. Since the government requires state-run publishing entities to retain majority ownership, this makes it very difficult to attract outside investment. Perhaps more to the point: the restructuring of the industry required a massive investment in staff and infrastructure and the government was not able to underwrite this. In effect many companies were cast adrift without the necessary funding or expertise to prosper. In China one never knows when comments are official or unofficial. Nonetheless these remarks are strong evidence that many Chinese publishers have been reluctant to embrace restructuring because they see no immediate benefit. (Click here for more) I know plenty of people and reputable companies who have access to legitimate licenses. The Chinese government is becoming increasingly concerned with the prospects of a newly introduced brand being financially successful. The last thing the country needs are more under-funded, unprofitable media businesses. As noted the China magazine market is now very competitive and most niches are either filled or filling up fast. China is woefully lacking in experienced publishing people and this dearth is sending the price of talent sky-high. Publishing in China is now very much about rapid brand-building, multi-platform publishing, and sustainable competitive strategies. China is now experimenting with granting licenses to well-established and financially-sound Chinese publishing companies that can in turn transfer them to international companies with the tacit agreement of GAPP, the license approval body, without the usual delays and red tape. Whether this is due to a realization that the current licensing system is neither convenient nor sustainable, we will probably never know. But it does suggest the government is willing to try a different approach. This effort will likely become more public if it is successful. China is a country of few laws and many exceptions. If something works, it often becomes policy and law. Many international media companies in China should not be able to exist. But they do. And this is China. top -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Map and the Territory What is most bewildering about China is that the map never seems to fit the territory. China is a Communist country that is demonstrably brutal in repressing free speech. International publishers will rightly say they don’t make the rules and are obliged to operate within Chinese law. There are those, including some in the U.S. Congress, who suggest large media companies in particular should make China a cause celebre, insisting on certain rules of conduct. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence that the Chinese government would respond favorably to such assertiveness. China doesn’t need Google. The Chinese government is not unfamiliar with glasnost and perestroika and the consequences of the breakup of the Soviet Union. They see that period as representing too much democracy much too fast. “Breakup” is the operative word. China seems very fearful of the rural/urban split, which is how the economy is developing. Thus the attempts to suppress news of the 2005 riots in rural China! Beneath a roaring economy, a Byzantine welter of government regulations, and very real censorship is a growing middle class: 300 million strong, mainly spread out over the urban axis from Beijing, to Shanghai, and to Guangzhou. This is the reading room for so many Western and upscale Chinese lifestyle magazines. Consumers in this region are consuming products in much the same way as their Western counterpart. Young couples are moving into apartments that need to be beautified. Shelter, design, and décor magazines will surely be the next hot category in China. Children in urban settings have assumed an exaggerated importance, spurred by the one-child, one-family rule. They are not called “little emperors” for nothing and will need all the accoutrements that their Western counterparts enjoy. Baby, parenting and financial planning magazines won’t be far behind. Nor will health magazines, following in the footsteps of Prevention magazine, already well-positioned in China. China is experiencing a very aggressive consumerism, fanned by the government because it’s in the interest of the state. The Chinese consumer marketplace is a dizzying spectacle of products. Advertising is not immune from consumerism. Procter & Gamble has been taken to task for overstating the benefits of Pantene shampoo. This is a rare example in China of a genuine consumer protest movement presumably for the common good. On the other hand, the Chinese consumer has to develop a more subtle understanding of the language of advertising, appreciating the role of metaphor. And international marketers should be aware that the Chinese consumer is collecting marketing savvy at a fast clip. UPS has done extensive research on what American products the Chinese would or wouldn’t buy. The research indicates that consumers are very interested in American-made consumer electronics products and fashion items. Conversely, they have little interest in alcoholic beverages and cigarettes coming from the U.S. (though advertising for American liquors dot the urban landscapes). The research indicates that in terms of overall purchasing behavior, sensitivity to price and importance of brand, Chinese consumers are very similar to their Western counterparts. When asked why his company Danfoss, a Danish manufacture of compressors, values, and motion controls, recently decided to invest much more heavily in China, CEO Jorgen M. Clausen underscored the availability of expensive consumer items even in rural areas. “Something that particularly caught my eye was a refrigerator with inverters that control the speed of the motor and thus saves energy—a luxury category one wouldn’t even find in a Danish town.” (Click here for more) Just consider some of the economic facts recently reported in China. The country has become the largest market for Bentley. Best Buy opened its first store. Kraft just shifted production from Australia to China. China produces 60% of the world’s ceramic products. Warner Bros. moved a design center from London to Shanghai. Wal-Mart has at least 52 stores in China. And the country’s foreign exchange reserves reached US $818.9 billion (Click here for more) Go to the site listed and see how international China has become. In many areas of production China has become the center of the world. China is fast developing the world’s largest middle class. No wonder more international companies see China not just as an important area of investment but as a second home market, to borrow a phrase from Jorgen Clausen. China remains the elephant in the room and we are the blind men each getting a limited sense of a large canvas. One can certainly object on ethical grounds to doing business in China. But one must acknowledge with as much certainty the salutary effects from the 100,000 international companies operating in China. A large and growing middle class, interested in the spoils of work, has developed and this has been one hallmark of a country’s stability since the Industrial Revolution. F. Scott Fitzgerald, the American writer, advised his readers to hold a number of contradictory thoughts in their heads at the same time, maintaining the tension of contradictions. One might try the same exercise with China, but increase the contradictions by a factor of ten. Publishers and direct marketers have a lot to offer China. In large measure China remains a command information economy with the Post Office being the ineffectual center of subscription marketing. This is an area that offers considerable promise. Likewise, China lacks in the truest sense a national distribution system, though numerous initiatives are underway. Distribution and advertisings are sectors where foreign ownership is encouraged and can reach 100%. Late last year Hachette Distribution Services (HDS) took over a majority stake in Huadao, the operating company based in Shanghai, indicating HDS will be more aggressive in the sector. HDS is well-equipped to produce what is desperately needed in China: strong management and a reliable system to track and report back sales data. China is forcing publishers, domestic and foreign, to scramble. Much of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. The push now is to identity and reach the hundred high-growth, second-tier cities that marketers are hungry for. If introduction of the Western media promotes democracy and cultivates a middle class, which has been the conventional wisdom, then publishers have a distinct stake in investing in national magazine distribution and subscription marketing system. A Chinese friend wrote that a “great socialist idea would be to give everyone the equal right, at equal price, to buy anywhere any time all the magazine and book titles published in China. My speech to the Chinese people is that they have to move away from a poor retail distribution system to more subscriptions and digital products.” He adds that to a degree China should (and perhaps must) leap-frog over the antiquated distribution systems and move briskly to digital delivery of content and subscription offers. Given the rate that China is developing its Web infrastructure and the number of Internet users the Internet can become an important content delivery system. And the country is already wired for this. Perhaps the kindest view of China’s press and foreign ownership restrictions is to look at the country from the perspective of other developing nations. Though India has been a rambunctious democracy for sixty years, it has only recently loosed it restrictions on foreign ownership of news content. But we are talking ownership, not censorship. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia moved fairly quickly to permit joint ventures, in the Western sense, often using these agreements as ways to get hard currency and/or industrial components (I recall a publishing company that gave the Russian partner a sausage factory as its contribution). And only in the last few years did Brazil make it possible for an international publisher to enter a bona fide joint venture agreement. Some would argue that Russia moved too quickly to restructure state-owned business because Communist Party members just put on their democratic hats. China has chosen a more cautious path: maintain a one-party government but restructure the business environment. Though in practice the regulation can be interpreted in many ways, the Chinese government restricts foreign ownership of content. That’s the bullet a publisher must bite when entering China. In most instances, due to self-censorship and the lifestyle focus of most international titles, content ownership is not a big deal. The government simply won’t permit hard-hitting, critical news or business magazines into China. The government will tolerate a certain amount of criticism from the domestic press—and gets it—but not from foreigners. No one expects that to change any time soon. To be sure this edict has as much to do with history and the Chinese psyche as with censorship. I recall launching Novii Fermer (New Farmer) in Russia with the late Bob Rodale. This was in 1989 and he saw a huge opportunity with the expected collapse of the large, unmanageable state and collective farms. The magazine would be an instrument of change, bringing about a generation of new farmers (He died before that dream could be fulfilled. (Click here for more) But one had that sense in Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. That is not the sense one has when entering China. Obviously international companies are contributing extensively to China, but the compact is very different. The Chinese government, too aware of its history and the tendency of the country to pull apart, has no such fantasies as glasnost and perestroika. The restructuring that does take place will be in the industrial and business sector, not the foundations of government. By some estimates magazine advertising revenues for China in 2005 were more than $770 US million. As noted, most of this goes to the big international brands. Publishers are in China to extend the brand, project a lifestyle and sensibility readily embraced by the middle class, and to make money. Perhaps that’s enough. Given the complexity of the situation, the international dependence on the China market, and the global consequence of any government missteps in the PRC, perhaps we should leave it to the Chinese (and American politicians) to lecture their government. I think it was George Green, President of Hearst Magazines International—and a keen student of China, who said that America’s greatest contribution to international publishing is our emphasis on empowerment and self-sufficiency. These traits in its citizenry, after all, have a lot to do with America’s success. Moreover, the traits stand in sharp contrast to the Communist collective, which the Chinese entrepreneur seems to be running away from. We should probably be pleased that most international magazines in China are filled with all sorts of “revolutionary” products and ideas that help, inform, and cultivate the country’s important middle class, offering a kind of transformation from within. Richard Madsen writes in The Consumer Revolution in Urban China of the power of consumerism to transform China but adds: “The novelty of the first stages of the consumer revolution will wear out. The freshness of consumer freedom is maintained by the constantly increasing production of new and different commodities.” Madsen fears moral and emotional anarchy if rising expectations outstrip the capacity of the economy to deliver. While he is probably over-reacting, he does underscore how influential international businesses have been in changing the consumer psychology in China during the last twenty years. Every country goes through its “Age of Narcissism.” China is no exception. Charles McCullagh cmccullagh@magazine.org March 15, 2006}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21a8a60f49c879210d41db2d279ebe324/acf}, keywords = {media_markets magazine censorship online_censorship internet China} } @article{Cody20080527RoT, title = {Resentment over Tibet eases - outpouring of help shifts mood in China}, author = {Edward Cody}, journal = {Washington Post}, year = 20080527, url = {http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601814.html?hpid=artslot}, timestamp = {2008.05.28}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {BEIJING, May 26 -- An unprecedented and politically significant flood of foreign aid has been pledged to China since the devastating Sichuan earthquake, ranging from a $50 million Saudi Arabian check to crates of cellphones from Nokia. The outpouring of goodwill has been interpreted by many Chinese as a welcome demonstration of their new status as a major power with friends around the world. But to a large degree, it has also dissipated a sour, nationalistic mood that had swollen up in response to foreign criticism of a harsh Chinese security crackdown after Tibetan riots in March. "This is making up for a lot of the bad feelings of recent months," said Shi Yinhong, a foreign affairs specialist at Renmin University's International Relations Institute. When the earthquake struck May 12, killing more than 65,000 people and leaving millions homeless, the Foreign Ministry rejected immediate offers of assistance by foreign rescue teams. The reaction was in line with China's traditionally wary attitude toward foreign involvement in internal affairs. But several days later, the ministry announced a reversal, and specialists from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Russia and Singapore were allowed in. Some reports said People's Liberation Army soldiers in the disaster zone displayed hostility toward the Japanese team. But broad public opinion seemed to welcome the group despite lingering resentment here over Japanese atrocities in World War II. "Although the Japanese group did not save any lives, Chinese people praised them and no one mentioned the unpleasant history with Japan," noted Li Datong, a senior magazine editor who was dismissed over an essay dealing with World War II. More significantly, perhaps, Foreign Ministry spokesmen were appealing for help from anywhere abroad within a week of the quake, particularly for tents to provide temporary housing to the countless Sichuan residents who will be living in camps for what promises to be a long rebuilding period. The new stand was in sharp contrast to that of neighboring Burma, an ally whose leaders were declining aid for victims of a cyclone on May 2-3. It was also a departure for China, which typically accepts only small amounts of aid in times of crisis. In response to its appeals, China has received more than $158 million in cash and $35 million in goods so far from foreign governments. In addition, international and regional organizations have pledged nearly $12 million in cash and $700,000 in goods. Perhaps just as significantly, the list of donor countries spans the globe, reinforcing the idea that China has integrated into the rest of the world and forged friendly relations with most other governments. This had been a central theme of the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. But it was overshadowed in part by the tension over Tibet and protests against the Olympic torch relay -- a shadow that now seems to be receding. "I think the Chinese government feels this reaction to the earthquake is a good development that can bring back a good Olympic spirit," Shi said. "The Chinese government will learn something from this experience," Li added. "As time goes by, it is not impossible that the Dalai Lama will appear in the Olympic ceremony." Saudi Arabia, which donated $50 million in cash and another $10 million in goods, has been the most forthcoming foreign government. The Bush administration has given $2.8 million so far and announced plans to donate more as relief plans progress. U.S. satellites have been providing imagery of earthquake damage, the U.S. Embassy said, and U.S. military transports flew into Sichuan with relief supplies. In addition, the American Red Cross has promised to provide more than $10 million to its Chinese counterpart, and U.S. companies operating in China have pledged about $34 million. Other foreign companies in China also have offered to help, including Finnish firm Nokia, which has sent cellphones to the quake zone. Carrefour, the French supermarket chain that was widely attacked during the Tibet crisis, sent tents, food and water. In all, the Commerce Ministry said, foreign companies in China have pledged more than $280 million in money and goods. The number of donor governments has reached almost 80, the Foreign Ministry said, and continues to grow. India, for instance, has pledged $5 million and Tonga $50,000. Norway said it would send $4.1 million in cash and goods and Nigeria offered $2 million. President Hu Jintao expressed public thanks for the foreign assistance. In the same spirit, Premier Wen Jiabao went out of his way to be photographed amid the earthquake ruins with the visiting U.N. secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. Falling in line, the Communist Party's propaganda apparatus signaled the official mood had changed, producing friendly comments in an official news media that only a few weeks ago was bristling at foreign governments and foreign journalists for the way they viewed Tibet. Part of the shift was also due to generally favorable coverage in the foreign news media of the party's swift response to the disaster. Internet commentators who had bitterly criticized CNN over its Tibet coverage, for instance, switched gears and started praising the U.S.-based news network for its moving earthquake coverage, Li pointed out. "With more and more aid from the international community for disaster relief, the Chinese people have got a chance to see how the country has been integrated with the rest of the world," said a commentary from the official New China News Agency. "This has also made it a necessity for the people of this country to understand what such integration means," it continued. "While appreciating the humanitarian spirit displayed by foreigners who help us save lives and relieve the damage caused by this earthquake, China and the Chinese feel evermore the obligation they have to the making of a harmonious world." Shift on One-Child Policy Chinese officials said Monday that families with a child killed, severely injured or disabled in the Sichuan earthquake would be exempted from the country's one-child policy. Officials have not been able to estimate how many children were among the more than 65,000 killed. In large parts of rural China, most families are already allowed a second child, especially if the first was a girl.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cbc229ccfd2af14d737df436cc7bc8df/acf}, keywords = {resentment disaster help news Tibet earthquake Carrefour Sichuan Japan China} } @techreport{CNNIC2007CR2, title = {CNNIC Releases 2007 Survey Report on China Weblog Market Number of Blog Writers Reaches 47 million Equaling One Fourth of Total Netizens}, author = { CNNIC}, institution = {China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)}, month = {2007/12/27}, number = 21, type = {Website}, year = 2007, url = {http://www.cnnic.net.cn/html/Dir/2007/12/27/4954.htm}, timestamp = {2008.06.01}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {On Dec. 26th, 2007, CNNIC published “the Survey Report on Blogs in China 2007”. According to the report, by the end of Nov. 2007, the number of blog spaces has reached 72.82 million in China, and with 47 million blog writers, it is reaching one fourth of the total netizens. This indicates the rapid growth of the blog market in China. The survey statistics show that by the end of Nov. 2007, the number of blog spaces has reached 72.82 million in China, while that of blog writers has totaled 47 million, which means that one out of every 30 Chinese, or one out of four netizens writes blogs. Also, the active blog writers have taken up 36% of the total blog writers, approximately 17 million, and the number of valid blog spaces of the active blog users is 28.75 million. By the end of 2006, the number of blog writers was 17.5 million, and within one year the increasement reached nearly 30 million, indicating the large-scale growth in number of the blog writer group. However, as indicated by the survey, the future growth of the blogs will slow down: 65% of the investigated said they only registered one blog, and showed little tendency to register another in half a year; only 11% of the investigated said they would definitely register a blog in the future half a year. The survey also indicates that the blog covers almost all the areas of people’s daily life, including the cultural, military, economic, tourist, living areas, etc. therefore the blog has also become the important channel for people to obtain information. Among the blog writers surveyed in this report, the male gender take up 43% while the female is 57%, which is contrary to the traditional gender ratio of 55:45 (male: female) among netizens, and shows a higher popularity of blogs among female users. In terms of major content the blogs covered, 47% of the blogs are written about the inner monologues or record of emotions of the writers. Next are the narration of daily life, personal interests and hobbies. Most of the blogs are for the writers to record their own life status and conduct self demonstration, with the blogs having a more and more obvious tendency of self-media attributes. The survey also finds that among the motives for reading blogs, entertainment comes first, which is reported to occupy 43% of the surveyed. It will become one of the directions for further probing of the profitable blog model to make full use of the participative, interactive, and circulative characteristics of the blog and dig out the entertainment value of blogs. In addition, although blogs have become an important information channel, the readers obviously have more confident in online news than in blog content. 63% of the surveyed said they trust more in the online news while only 20% have more trust in the blog content. This shows that compared to online news, the blog content at present calls for improvement in its credibility. And as a kind of transmission media, the blogs need the self discipline of the blog writers in order to raise the credibility. The survey shows, in terms of the methods that blog writers choose to access most frequently visited blogs, the primary choice is through the links on the blogs and through the browser bookmarks. 12% of the blog writers directly key in the blog addresses in the address bar, which means 5.64 million blog writers browse their blogs directly by keying in the addresses of the blogs. Judging from the accessing habits, the market of individual domain names looks optimistic in the blog area. Meanwhile, 66% of the surveyed expressed interests in using the individual domain names. And as many as 31% of the surveyed said that if a blog website offers the simple or customized blog domain names at 10 yuan/name, they would consider changing the blog platforms. So for the 1 yuan registration price of .CN domain names, the individual .CN domain names would have a lot to commit itself to in the blog area. The function that blog writers use most frequently is the upload/display function of pictures, also with a high frequency in using music and videos on the blog. Among the new functions or tools the writers mostly long for, the blog writers wish the most is to expand the storage of the blogs space, and being provided with the customized design models of the blog. Meanwhile，10% of the writers responded that they are willing to buy the blog space service. This indicates that the functions of blogs have set apart from the monotone written record, and headed for multi-functions. With the continuous progress in Internet technology, the continuous expansion of Internet cyberspace, and the continuous raise in networking speed, the future blogs will include various technologies such as character, images, audio, video, flash, etc., combing the instant messaging, social network, online shopping and etc., demonstrating having the tendency of becoming the all-around personal space which cover all aspects of information of the blog writer. China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), the state network information center of China, was founded as a non-profit organization on Jun. 3rd 1997. CNNIC takes orders from the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) to conduct daily business, while it was administratively operated by Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Computer Network Information Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences takes the responsibility of running and administrating CNNIC. CNNIC Steering Committee..}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23331c99299a6300bc655abc0941c1f57/acf}, keywords = {netizens internet_user blogging blog internet China statistics} } @techreport{CNNIC2008SSR, title = {Statistical Survey Report on the Internet Development in China}, author = { CNNIC}, institution = {China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)}, month = {20080601, 17:12}, number = 21, type = {Website}, year = 2008, url = {http://www.cnnic.net.cn/uploadfiles/pdf/2008/2/29/104126.pdf}, timestamp = {2008.06.01}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {By December 2007, the total of netizens in China had increased to 210 million, with a sharp increase of 73 million in the year of 2007, at an annual growth rate of 53.3%. The Internet is gradually diffusing among resident at different levels. Out of the new netizens in 2007, netizens aged below 18 and netizens aged above 30 showed a relatively fast increase. Netizens with the education background of secondary school and below grew relatively fast and low-income groups have started to accept the Internet increasingly. The rural groups who will access the Internet grew relatively fast. The current 16% of the Internet penetration rate in China is 3.1 percentage points lower than the average global standard of 19.1% In view of access methods, broadband netizens have reached 163 million and mobile phone netizens 50.40 million, both of which have been in a rapid growth. In view of regions, Beijing and Shanghai have a higher Internet penetration rate, being respectively 46.6% and 45.8%. In terms of increase volume, Guangdong observes the biggest increase due to the driving factor of the increasing mobile phone netizens, with an increase of 15.05 million in one year. China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), the state network information center of China, was founded as a non-profit organization on Jun. 3rd 1997. CNNIC takes orders from the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) to conduct daily business, while it was administratively operated by Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Computer Network Information Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences takes the responsibility of running and administrating CNNIC. CNNIC Steering Committee..}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a5ffb08fd2418345bc7ebfcf1c8ba86a/acf}, keywords = {netizens internet_user internet China statistics} } @article{Chan2009IT, title = {IT Outsourcing in China: How China's Five Emerging Drivers are changing the Technology Landscape and IT Industry}, author = {S. Chan}, journal = {The Outsourcing Institute. China Trends \& Opportunities}, pages = {--}, year = 2009, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {test1}, description = {alt}, abstract = {China is in a remarkable position to become an IT outsourcing superpower in less than five years? time. Recent fundamental changes and trends also will accelerate the growth of the China IT services industry. Let?s take a look at the statistics. According to Gartner Dataquest, a U.S.-based research firm, IT services revenue in China is projected to reach $8.9 billion in 2006, a compound annual growth rate of 19.6 percent. Another report from IDC, also a U.S.-based researcher, states that China?s IT services market has grown nearly 42 percent a year since 1997.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/24485999a10c6624220fc1e0a3f7099d9/acf}, keywords = {BIS Outsourcing IS IT China} } @article{beaudoin2007snc, title = {{SARS News Coverage and Its Determinants in China and the US}}, author = {C.E. Beaudoin}, journal = {International Communication Gazette}, number = 6, pages = 509, volume = 69, year = 2007, timestamp = {2008.05.04}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {af}, doi = {10.1177/1748048507082839}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 1440 Canal St., Suite 2315, TW19, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA, beaudoin@ tulane.edu / This study investigates the prevalence of news frames in SARS news coverage from the Xinhua News Agency and the Associated Press (AP), as well as whether the frames were predicted by news environment and the SARS timeline. Factor analysis supported four frame dimensions: attribution of responsibility, human interest, economic consequences and severity. Frame prevalence was considered in terms of, first, the story as the unit of analysis and, second, word count as the unit of analysis. For both types of measurement, attribution of responsibility and severity frames were more common in AP. For economic consequences, story frame prevalence was higher in AP, while word frame prevalence was higher in Xinhua. For both types of measurement, economic consequences decreased over time, while attribution of responsibility and severity increased. Attribution of responsibility and human interest frames increased more over time in AP, while the severity frame increased more over time in Xinhua.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/211f3f98a88aed7dcba5696885c2c1e6e/acf}, keywords = {frame_analysis framing chinese_media SARS xinhua China comparative_studies US_media} } @article{akhavanmajid2004mmr, title = {{Mass Media Reform in China: Toward a New Analytical Framework}}, author = {R. Akhavan-Majid}, journal = {International Communication Gazette}, number = 6, pages = 553, volume = 66, year = 2004, timestamp = {2008.05.04}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, doi = {10.1177/0016549204047576}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Department of Mass Communications, St Cloud State University, rmajid@stcloudstate.edu Historically, analyses of change in mass media systems have tended to draw upon a ‘dissident vs state’ framework, derived largely from the western historical experience. In the case of China, a ‘state vs market’ scenario has been superimposed on this basic framework, in the context of which the Chinese Communist party-state is often portrayed as a monolithic entity intent on promoting market-oriented reform in China’s economic base, while keeping a tight grip on the country’s mass media system and political superstructure. These dominant analytical frameworks tend to mask a number of important dynamics unique to Chinese history and society, that have played a significant role in the mass media transformation process. The purpose of this article is to outline a new conceptual framework incorporating these unique dynamics. In particular, it is the contention of this article that many of the changes in China’s mass media system during the post-Mao period have been achieved by non-state actors, not in an adversarial process vis-à-vis the state, but through what may be called ‘creative renegotiation and expansion’ of new policy openings initiated by the state. The success of these non-state actors, furthermore, has been due to three major systemic factors: (1) the increasing ‘deideologization’ of the Chinese society set in motion by Deng’s pragmatic policies; (2) the gradual functional shift on the part of the local party cadres and bureaucratic authorities from ideological supervision to entrepreneurial collaboration with private investors; and (3) the increasingly common core of interest created by the media’s commercialization among the party cadres, bureaucratic bodies and media entrepreneurs and managers in extracting profits from the media.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/29aa8d6528e71b63ea7de9e61d5030556/acf}, keywords = {market-oriented party-state media_commercialization non-state_actors media_reform Chinese_media China} } @article{AFP15.05.2008CJz, title = {Chinesischer Journalist zu vier Jahren Haft verurteilt}, author = { AFP}, journal = {AFP}, month = {May}, organization = {newsroom}, year = {15.05.2008}, url = {http://www.newsroom.de/news/detail/455218}, timestamp = {2008.05.17}, markedentry = {[afeld]}, owner = {afeld}, description = {May08}, abstract = {Qi Chonghuai war im Juni 2007 in der östlichen Provinz Shandong verhaftet worden. Er hatte Artikel über die Umsiedlung der Landbevölkerung und Umweltschäden veröffentlicht, von denen nach Angaben seines Anwalts einige sogar auf Websites der Regierung und der amtlichen Nachrichtenagentur Xinhua zu lesen waren. Peking, 15. Mai (AFP) - Ein für kritische Berichte bekannter chinesischer Journalist ist zu einer vierjährigen Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt worden. Qi Chonghuai seien Erpressung und Betrug vorgeworfen worden, sagte seine Ehefrau am Donnerstag der Nachrichtenagentur AFP. Ihr Mann habe zwar gelegentlich Bargeld von Unternehmen oder Parteien angenommen, über die er geschrieben habe, dies sei aber eine "verbreitete Praxis" in China. Das Urteil sei übertrieben, da ihr Mann kein Verbrechen begangen, sondern höchstens moralisch fragwürdig gehandelt habe. Ein ehemaliger Kollege ihres Mannes, He Yanjie, sei zu zwei Jahren Haft wegen Erpressung verurteilt worden. Qi war im Juni 2007 in der östlichen Provinz Shandong verhaftet worden. Er hatte Artikel über die Umsiedlung der Landbevölkerung und Umweltschäden veröffentlicht, von denen nach Angaben seines Anwalts einige sogar auf Websites der Regierung und der amtlichen Nachrichtenagentur Xinhua zu lesen waren. Die Organisation Reporter ohne Grenzen verurteilte den Gerichtsbeschluss. Wenige Monate vor den Olympischen Spielen sei dies ein weiteres Beispiel für die fehlende Toleranz auf Seiten der Regierung für kritische Autoren und Journalisten, erklärte die Organisation.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/21a61c72ec839bcbc4a59b34b74673ba5/acf}, keywords = {prison chinese_media corruption Haft journalist China} } @incollection{Steinmueller2005Deutsch-chinesische, title = {Deutsch-chinesische Wissenschaftskooperationen: : Situation und Entwicklung einiger Institutionen der Wissenschaftsfoerderung}, address = {Wiesbaden}, author = {Ulrich Steinmueller}, booktitle = {Migration und Integration von Auslandschinesen in Deutschland}, editor = {Hui Wen and Groeling Che}, number = 2, pages = {143--154}, publisher = {Harrassowitz}, year = 2005, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, issn = {3-447-05163-9}, owner = {test1}, description = {alt}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23e43b2121331ee9d43591a40756aeac5/acf}, keywords = {Internationale_Kooperation Wissenschaftleraustausch Volksrepublik_China Wissenschaftliche_Einrichtung Wissenschaftspolitik China Studentenaustausch} } @article{ZhangEtAl2005Examination, title = {{Examination of Characteristics of News Media under Censorship: A Content Analysis of Selected Chinese Newspapers SARS Coverage}}, author = {E. Zhang and K. Fleming}, journal = {Asian Journal of Communication}, number = 3, pages = {319--339}, publisher = {Routledge}, volume = 15, year = 2005, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292980500261639}, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, abstract = {This study examines the characteristics of the Chinese print media under censorship on their coverage of the disease of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). With Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm's four theories of the press (Four theories of the press, Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1963) and Shoemaker and Reese's hierarchy model of influences on media content (Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content, New York: Longman, 1996), the authors conduct a content analysis of the coverage of SARS in front pages of the Guangzhou Daily and all pages of the Southern Weekend, respectively, from December 2002 to June 2003 and from February to June 2003. The rationale of choosing these two data sets is that they are both important Chinese newspapers in southern China's Guangdong province where SARS presumably originated. Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm (1963) summarized three ways in which the Soviet Communist Party and government controlled the content of media: (1) its departments of propaganda at various levels appointed editors; (2) the Party, through propaganda departments, issued directives for media content; and (3) the Party reviewed and criticized the press. Our content analysis of the selected newspapers from December of 2002 to June 2003 reveals that the political pressure during this period influenced the newspaper content via three factors, and that the three factors mainly match the three ways concluded by Siebert et al. (1963). Therefore, this study concludes that this three-way model can still be applied to the analysis of the Chinese media system under political influence. However, in addition to the content analysis, the authors believe the information from Chinese editors and journalists about their views of the newspaper coverage of SARS would enhance the strengths of this study.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22067516bd49a75278375d6ee702079a1/acf}, keywords = {party_press political guangzhou_daily chinese_media censorship media_policy medgov southern_weekend propaganda Parteipresse China content_analysis} } @article{Sternfeld.Waldersee2005DDL, title = {Die Lage der Umwelt in China: Jahrzehntelang wurde ruecksichtslos die Umwelt verschmutzt. Jetzt zwingen die immensen Schaeden zum Kurswechsel ; es entsteht ein grosser Markt fuer gruene Technologien}, author = {Eva Sternfeld and Christoph von Waldersee}, journal = {Internationale Politik}, month = {December}, number = 12, pages = {52--64}, volume = 60, year = 2005, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, description = {alt}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/223792fec81e4c60ab7bb20e70629de2a/acf}, keywords = {Umweltschutz Umweltschaeden Umwelttechnik Energieversorgung Umwelt Luftverunreinigung Export China} } @article{Sieren2005Konkubinenwirtschaft, title = {Konkubinenwirtschaft : der Westen buhlt um die Gunst Chinas wie Konkubinen um den Kaiser: Wie seit jeher hat der Kaiser die Wahl ; wird Deutschland zum Freizeitpark für reiche Chinesen}, author = {Frank Sieren}, journal = {Internationale Politik}, month = {December}, number = 12, pages = {36--45}, volume = 60, year = 2005, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, description = {alt}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/207eeaa85fb58144c80bc0dc2d79eb6f8/acf}, keywords = {Volksrepublik_China Pro Tourismus Status_und_Rolle_im_internationalen_System Direktinvestition Westliche_Industrieländer Wirtschaftswachstum Weltwirtschaftliche_Verflechtung/Globalisierung Deutschland china Internationaler_Wettbewerb} } @other{Siemons2005Die, title = {Die Zukunft ist gelb : offensiv gen Westen: China eröffnet ein Kulturzentrum in Berlin}, address = {Frankfurt/Main}, author = {Mark Siemons}, journal = {Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung}, month = {November}, pages = {37--}, year = 2005, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, description = {alt}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e3f244060aa152a3d6971df31def58ce/acf}, keywords = {Beijing_Normal_University Auslandskulturinstitut Auswaertige_Kulturpolitik medgov Internationale_projektbezogene_Zusammenarbeit Deutschland Confucius_Institute_(Beijing) Gruendung_von_Institutionen/Vereinigungen China} } @article{SHIRK2007Changing, title = {{Changing Media, Changing Foreign Policy in China}}, author = {S.L. SHIRK}, journal = {Japanese Journal of Political Science}, number = 1, pages = {43--70}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, volume = 8, year = 2007, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, description = {nicht vorhanden}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/261e365d74204276307984eabf7982d59/acf}, keywords = {foreign_correspondents foreign_policy China} } @article{Oa€™RourkeEtAl2007a€˜Google, title = {{‘Google in China: government censorship and corporate reputation}}, author = {JS O’Rourke and B. Harris and A. Ogilvy}, journal = {Journal of Business Strategy}, number = 3, pages = {12--22}, volume = 28, year = 2007, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f39d86a59109185832bf64097d2109bc/acf}, keywords = {google censorship reputation medgov china} } @unpublished{Moser2006, title = {Media “Schizophrenia” in China}, address = {HongKong}, author = {David Moser}, howpublished = {internet}, institution = {danwei}, journal = {Danwei.org}, month = 8, year = 2006, day = 7, url = {http://www.danwei.org}, timestamp = {2008.04.27}, owner = {test1}, abstract = {Some rather astonishing changes took place in the Chinese media landscape in the 1990s with the advent of digital technology and the sudden availability of a vast number of bootleg foreign entertainment disks. The rapid and chaotic influx of so much foreign material into average Chinese homes caught the Chinese government off guard, and necessitated certain rapid and ad hoc adjustments to the general policy of combating “spiritual pollution”. This development, combined with certain features of China’s system of information control has resulted in a peculiar kind of “schizophrenia” in the Party’s treatment of entertainment media. This article will try to trace the factors that have led to this interesting state of affairs.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/294dddbe8f08694a5ac53569c9502e746/acf}, keywords = {party_press control chinese_media Entertainment medgov internet china} }