Are PR and MNCs Corrupting Chinese Media?
Imagethief (Blog), (29.01.8:14 AM 20051101)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 Äbout Imagethief",
below..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)
Description
May08