Article,
Saturday PR blog: I'm sorry, the government has killed your story
Imagethief (Blog), (03.02. 4:20 AM 20070203)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
Colleagues from American and European offices often ask Imagethief
how PR in China is different from PR in the west. Usually I give
a two-part answer. First I tell them that were they to step into
our offices in China they would see many things that they would instantly
recognize as garden variety PR. We write press releases, organize
events, craft angles and pitch stories to competitive publications
and journalists, develop communication strategies and train executives
in how to handle the media, among other things. But then I tell them
about what's different, usually sticking to the highlights. In the
best diplomatic, spin-doctorese I tell them that the Chinese media's
"ethical framework is not entirely developed". By which I mean that
it is, in many ways, a corrupt swamp. (This is something of a theme
in the foreign media recently, having been covered by the Washington
Post, New York Times and AP with the Lan Chengzhang case as catalyst.)
The other difference is that the government has explicit power over
the media agenda. Most of the time, self-censorship is the rule.
However the propaganda ministry --中宣部-- also sends out guidance on
sensitive issues to major media. Editors who want to keep their jobs
are expected to toe the line. Occasionally an acute issue will motivate
a directive to halt coverage of a topic, as when media were directed
to layoff the Foxconn-Apple scandal of last year. (Recently this
has led to proscribed topics sloshing over into journalists' and
editors' blogs, but that's a topic for ESWN.)
We were reminded of the realities of government management of the
media agenda recently, shortly after arranging an interview between
one of our MNC clients and a Chinese business magazine. The magazine
in question had requested the interview, with an eye on exploring
our client's business and investments in China. The discussion was
vigorous but reasonably balanced and we were expecting a decent article
as a result, with publication planned prior to Chinese New Year.
About two weeks after the interview, one of the editors involved called
us and said the story would be "delayed". Apparently the magazine
had just received guidance from the Propaganda Ministry to be more
"sensitive" in publishing stories that involved foreign investment,
particularly around certain industries or well-known Chinese brands.
We had not, at first blush, considered the story we were developing
to be particularly risky or sensitive. But the journalists and editors
at the magazine were, as you would expect, taking the ministerial
guidance extremely seriously. So we had to wait, and so did our client.
But clients who make busy senior (foreign) executives available expect
explanations about these kinds of things. "Hey, dude, it's China,"
doesn't really cut it, so we did a little poking around. The back-story
is illustrative of one of the challenges of the PR biz in China.
Anyone who follows current affairs in China will know that these are
delicate times for discussing the topic of foreign investment. Questions
are being raised about the quality of foreign investment and the
intent behind it. Early last November the 11th Five Year Plan was
published. It put a great deal of emphasis on the quality of foreign
investment. In this English Xinhua article about the plan, the money
graf --as far as we were concerned-- is the very last one:
In response to the rising concern over foreign acquisitions of leading
Chinese firms in critical sectors, the document says China will speed
up legislation and step up the supervision of sensitive acquisitions
and takeovers to ensure critical industries and enterprises remain
under Chinese control.
Shortly thereafter, it seems the initial guidance to treat reporting
around this topic sensitively was passed on to at least some Chinese
media. The publication we were dealing with was government-linked,
and had little wiggle-room as far as interpreting this directive
to be "sensitive". Unfortunately, apparently, they had somehow missed
the memo and in their previous issue published an article that had
raised eyebrows upstairs. This had resulted in a ministerial reminder
to toe the line, which descended, Rumsfeldian snowflake fashion,
into the in-boxes of the editors of the magazine we were working
with the day before they called to tell us that they had to postpone.
My initial response when the Chinese media-relations guru on my team
told me that the magazine had to postpone the story because of a
government directive was to assume they were giving me a polite brush-off.
Similar, perhaps, to what you might get if a Western editor didn't
like the story a journalist had put together on your client, and
the journalist in question wanted to tell you something more polite
than, "The editor thinks your interview was crap on a stick."
Äre they yanking our chain?" was the first question I asked her.
Some of our other Chinese team members, including one of our government
relations people, had the same first reaction, so it wasn't just
foreigner-itis. But after some research and phone calls turned up
the story above I changed my opinion. At the very least, if it was
an excuse, it was a damn well substantiated one with abundant face-saving
for everyone. In which case, my face duly saved, I could sleep well
at night.
The net result, however, is that our story went on the back burner,
where it remains until the publication feels that it can once again
broach the topic of foreign investment in certain industries, or
hell freezes over (whichever comes first). And now I have one more
piece of due-diligence to do when identifying Chinese media to work
with in future.
Such is one of the many things that make PR in China such a rush.
Filed under: China, PR & Media (Old)
