http://www.bibsonomy.org/burst/user/acf/TVBibSonomy BuRST Feed for /user/acf/TV2008-08-21T12:50:14+02:00May08http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2703faa763e9fc31a7bda0c17a88cbdb9/acfacf2008-06-01T16:51:41+02:00CCTV TV broadcasting <span style="color:#555555;">Joel <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Martinsen">Martinsen</a> </span><em>danwei.org</em><em>June 15, 2007 1:34 PM20070607. </em>Sun Jun 01 16:51:41 CEST 2008danwei.orgJune 15, 2007 1:34 PMLocal news programming makes inroads against CCTV20070607CCTV TV broadcasting The 13th Shanghai Television Festival concludes today. The festival's Magnolia Forum (白玉兰论坛), which brings together industry professionals and academics from a number of countries, issued a Report on the Chinese TV News Program Market 2007-2008. The report, edited jointly by the Shanghai TV Festival and CCTV Softres Media (CSM), follows earlier papers on other areas of programming. As might be expected in today's regulatory climate, the report warns news programs about stretching the bounds of taste, and looks to the most recent crop of reality talent shows for lessons. However, the Mirror finds evidence of a major change in the television news landscape: During the last year, news programs have become one of the leading formats for attracting advertisements. CCTV holds 3/4 of the market, but in regional markets CCTV has met with unprecedented challenges from local stations. In 2006, news programming amounted to a total of 640,000 hours. General news made up half of programming; arts, sports, and legal news showed growth. General arts and entertainment news made up more than 10% of programming. Viewers watched an average of 22.8 minutes of news every day. ... The Report says that in the future, the country's news programming will exhibit a few changing trends. CCTV, using its advantages of position, resources, and policies, occupies a leading position. Minority cable stations use financing, technology, and innovation to compete with CCTV in certain time slots. In regional markets, local stations have used "locally-targeted news" (民生新闻) to break out and occupy a relatively large share of the viewership. The Report predicts that in the next few years, "locally-targeted news" will become a major player and may approach or even replace the traditional broadcast position of CCTV's news. CCTV has its own spin on this: Wang Lanzhu, general manager of CSM, said: A program that could run for two years has too serious a problem with homogeneity, and if it is broadcast too frequently, it may be scuttled in a very short time. A classic example is the "locally-targeted news," because some cities have run too many repeats, leading to declining ratings; exhaustion occurs very quickly. This article from the Washington Post in March is also relevant. Links and Sources STVF (Chinese): News should preserve its strengths and be cautious about vulgarization Mirror via Tom (Chinese): Local news programs may force CCTV to "abdicate" Image from Southern WeeklyMay08http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/26578714219368dea4e72c45d94ddd7ab/acfacf2008-06-01T16:51:41+02:00bribery TV complaint censorship Wang_Shuo <span style="color:#555555;">Joel <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Martinsen">Martinsen</a> </span><em>danwei.org</em>(<em>20070615</em>)Sun Jun 01 16:51:41 CEST 2008danwei.orgWang Shuo's public complaint against TV censors20070615bribery TV complaint censorship Wang_Shuo Wang Shuo's back in the news - this time for two reasons. First, when singer Xie Dong was arrested for drug use, he revealed that Xie was actually the son of famed cross-talk performer Hou Baolin, born out of wedlock. Then he posted an "open letter of complaint" to his Kaila blog, claiming that TV censors have accepted hundreds of thousands of yuan in bribe money from producers seeking approval for their TV series. He said that Ye Jing, the director of Bloom of Youth (与青春有关的日子), a fictionalized account about Wang and other 80s figures, could testify about the corruption-filled review process. Ye claims that bribery was involved in his ill-fated 2000 TV series Laughingstock (贻笑大方). Wang puts the number of TV drama episodes at 20,000 per year, or around 1000 series of 20 episodes apiece. He claims that typical bribes are 30,000 to 50,000 yuan per censor. In a blog post this morning, Wang Xiaofeng asks some questions that are on everyone's mind: I have a few questions for you all you consider: 1. If it is like Wang Shuo says for 20,000 episodes a year, then can these few censors watch them all? If they can't, then what? 2. Wang Shuo made a signed complaint. Since there's been a complaint, then it cannot be taken as mere self-promotion. Shouldn't the government make a response to a citizen's complaint, or issue an opinion or something? 3. If Wang Shuo makes a TV show in the future, will he face retaliatory attacks? Point 2 was elucidated in an op-ed in The Beijing News yesterday that called Wang Shuo a model citizen: Wang Shuo deserves respect for making a signed complaint by Cao Lin / TBN The past few days Wang Shuo has once again been the focus of media attention. This time it's not because of his role as a mocker of all comers, but rather that of a whistle-blower. He reported that the TV series censors of some TV stations used their position to exact bribes from production teams. He said that since 1997, there were production teams who, in order to pass, paid bribes to the censors in the form of film inspection fees. To date, "film inspection fees" have reached 30,000 to 50,000 per person. The more rounds of inspection there are, the more times fees must be paid; there are basically no first-round passes - at least two rounds are needed. He pointed to director Ye Jing who could confirm this (from The Beijing News). Regardless of how "hooliganish" Wang Shuo is, or how controversial his words have been in the past, or how much nonsense he has done, this open, signed complaint about corruption among the censors shows one citizen's courage. Although the law stipulates that citizens have the obligation to report and testify, because there is no system for protection of witnesses in the scope of the law, those who make reports are frequently faced with pressure and attacks. This means that our corruption-hating compatriots require courage to stand up and make reports; signed complaints require even more courage. Putting ones name to something demonstrates complete confidence in the facts, complete trust in the anti-corruption departments, and a willingness to accept responsibility for the complaint. This is commendable. Moreover, to be "open," to expose to the stage of public opinion what one knows about inside matters so that the public can easily participate and oversee the anti-corruption investigation is beneficial to uncovering conspiracies. A citizen not only dared to make a complaint: he dared to sign his name to an open complaint. This kind of citizen should win respect from the media, other interested parties, the anti-corruption departments, and even the departments involved and the target of the complaint. One can see from society's response that he has not received the respect he deserves. First, the media has not given it enough attention. I noticed that after Wang Shuo posted his letter of complaint on his own blog, the media immediately reported it. However, because of Wang Shuo's position, most of the media ran this news item in the "Entertainment Channel" or the "Entertainment Pages." In actuality, this is an important piece of news. It is one citizen's sober action. It is one citizen's heroic move against corruption. After Wang Shuo's letter of complaint was revealed, responsible parties immediately said to the media, "Wang Shuo's words are irresponsible," and claimed, "We never received any sort of fees. I think those senior comrades did not receive any fees either." A citizen dares to make a signed complaint against corruption. This demonstrates that he is willing to accept responsibility for the facts. A signed complaint is shows great responsibility - how is it "irresponsible"? From another angle, using "I've never accepted any fees" to deduce that "those senior comrades never accepted any" is less than rigorous. Wang Shuo dared to make an open, signed complaint. If the anti-corruption departments respect the words of a citizen, they should make an immediate, positive response to his complaint, and make an objective, open, transparent investigation to give him an explanation. Only when citizens are shown fervent respect can society be cleaned to its core. * * * Here's Wang's original letter (note: there's another translation by Oiwan Lam at Global Voices Online): An open letter of complaint In response to the Anti-Malfeasance Month initiated by the Supreme People's Procuratorate Anti-Corruption & Bribery and Malfeasance Supervision Departments, I hereby make an open complaint against the widespread criminal malfeasance in which TV series censors at every TV station in the Radio, Film, and TV System accept bribes from TV production teams: Since the 1990s, TV stations have set up program censor groups made up up retired comrades and so-called senior artists to perform political inspections of every TV show about to be aired. This was originally a means of strengthening administration and preventing the ever-increasing trend toward Hong Kong and Taiwan-style vulgarity, but such absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the small groups override the professional departments of the stations, and have the power of life and death over the broadcast of a TV show. After 1997, TV production teams had no recourse but to bribe the censor groups through an inspection fee in the hopes of winning approval. To date, this inspection fee has reached RMB 30,000 to 50,000 per group member per inspection; multiple rounds of inspection require multiple fees. There are essentially no shows that pass in one round; at least two round are necessary. Even if one ultimately fails to pass, money is not returned. And no one dares ask for it, because even if you've been shut down this time, there's always next time, unless you will have no more to do with them. Nearly 20,000 episodes of TV series are produced every year in this country; calculating at an average of 20 episodes per series, this is nearly 1000 series. The 30,000 to 50,000 I mentioned is the price in Beijing; other areas may be different. Whether or not these 1000 series are able to be broadcast, they all must be inspected. Using the minimum price of 30,000 yuan per person per round times one thousand is 30 million times 10 years is 300 million, and after a second round this is 600 million. This doesn't include wining and dining - at every round of inspections, the production team must rent a luxurious hotel room and invite the censors to eat, drink, karaoke, and find girls. This bill is very clear to all film producers. They and all TV series directors are witnesses. Ask them and you will understand. Before last year, the total annual box office of China's movies was just 1 billion. These punks - at least three to five people per group, 600 million times three or five people or even five or six people, I'm too lazy to work out what the total is. Senior comrades? What scum! Mutiny! Complaint by: Citizen Wang Shuo, 2007.6.10. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wang's letter starts out as a relatively sober complaint, but his tone gradually changes as he gets going, until at the end he resorts to non-standard characters (神马老同志 - "Senior comrades?") to emphasize his contempt for the censors. This lends credence to the widespread notion that Wang is taking advantage of the Supreme People's Procuratorate's anti-corruption campaign to keep his name in the news. Here's an excerpt from a forum post that illustrates a typical "self-promotion" interpretation: Wang Shuo's action kicked up waves in entertainment circles; industry insiders and other people involved expressed their positions on the issue, but few responded to Wang Shuo. You Xiaogang, head of the North Central Television Art Center said: The situation Wang Shuo mentions may have existed ten years ago, when one or two leaders had the power to decide - give a bit of money and you're OK. But today, it's practically impossible. So many hoops to jump through with no one person possessing the ultimate power to decide. No one can hide the truth on his own. Director Chen Fuqian said: SARFT has 20 people in its film censor group alone. You can buy off one or two people, but you can't buy off everyone. Everyone can see that Wang Shuo always makes his entrance as a figure of justice, possessing the awe-inspiring aura of a righteous hero, but in reality Wang never finds much support for his positions. What is it that ultimately causes everyone to treat Wang Shuo's righteous displays with such indifference? We should be able to find it in the person of Wang Shuo himself. At the beginning of the year, Wang Shuo cursed Sina to ruin, sooner or later, because Sina uses writing without compensating authors. Actually, apart from those web sites that have signed writers to contracts, and a website that pays authors to post on forums and blogs, netizens write articles and make posts simply for their own pleasure. The government has not issued any clear rules for this situation in particular. You're an author, Wang Shuo's, and writing for money is your skill, so there's no reason at all to be so flustered. If Sohu invites you to blog without compensation, you can refuse. If Sina impersonates Wang Shuo, you can sue. This is your right. But then Wang Shuo came out and said that he was going to run a paid blog on Xu Jinglei's Flower Village, one mao per click, and immediately everyone knew where Wang Shuo's true motivation lay. The prior vehemence was just a way of giving himself an opening. ... As for Wang Shuo's "letter of complaint," there are plenty of legitimate reasons to object to bribery and malfeasance that harms the reputation of the party and the government....First, let's look at Wang Shuo's "letter of complaint." If this can be called a letter of complaint, then there's no reason for the national prosecutors to do anything else all day but read letters of complaint that they'll never finish. The important conditions of a letter of complaint - people, times, and facts - must be precise and accurate; otherwise, it will be a letter of false accusation. In these areas, what facts does Wang Shuo's "letter of complaint" contain? It can't be simply that the censor groups have taken bribes, no? ... The past few years, Wang Shuo has lived a semi-private life for personal reasons and rarely has released any new works. His new work came out this year to a lukewarm reception; as the "hooligan literature" that first made Wang famous lost its novelty it became less appealing. This is entirely normal. It's understandable that Wang Shuo wants to gain profit and mindshare through the Internet, but this one trick after another isn't really natural. A game that's always exposed before it ends isn't all that smart. While this "letter of complaint" can resurrect stale gossip from the depths of his memory, and while he can deceive the public about the truth of his words, it really can't stand up under careful inspection. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But that's all in the past, now. Just this morning, mainland media reported that Wang claimed in an interview with Hong Kong media that the late Chen Xiaoxu had a son that she and her ex-husband kept secret for twenty years. The existence of this child apparently throws a wrench into the charity fund that Chen's estate was intended to set up. Links and Sources The Beijing News (Chinese): Wang Shuo "blows the whistle" on the "inside story" of TV series inspection http://ent.thebeijingnews.com/0598/2007/06-12/017@003610.htm The Beijing News (Chinese): Wang Shuo deserves respect for making a public report http://comment.thebeijingnews.com/0733/2007/06-14/021@025109.htm Wang Shuo's blog (Chinese): An open letter of complaint http://blog.kaila.com.cn/user1/wangshuo/?article_read&p=2&a_id=173069&from=1 Lin'an News (Chinese): Exposing the real goal behind Wang Shuo's made-up "whistle-blowing letter" http://www.lanews.com.cn/col305/col1003/article.htm1?id=646538 Wang Xiaofeng's blog (Chinese): Real questions about Wang Shuo's complaint http://www.wangxiaofeng.net/index.php?p=1162 Sanxiang Metropolis Daily via QQ (Chinese): Wang Shuo reveals Chen Xiaoxu has a 20-year-old son http://cq.ent.qq.com/a/20070615/000086.htmMay08http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/256a323249e16f39dea6058381e9aec8c/acfacf2008-06-01T16:51:41+02:00commercials SARFT broadcasting TV <span style="color:#555555;">Joel <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Martinsen">Martinsen</a> </span><em>danwei.org</em><em>June 23, 2007 12:40 AM20070623. </em>Sun Jun 01 16:51:41 CEST 2008danwei.orgJune 23, 2007 12:40 AMSARFT pulls all commercials at two TV stations20070623commercials SARFT broadcasting TV This week's chengyu is 杀鸡儆猴 - "killing the chicken to warn the monkeys," or punishing one individual as a warning to others. That's the general public perception of SARFT's order revoking the right of two local TV stations to broadcast commercial advertisements. The two stations, one in Ningxia and another in Gansu, had repeatedly ignored requests from the Administration to pull medical ads and misleading infomercials. Ningxia's station has replaced its commercial ads with PSAs about combating piracy and promoting family planning. Gansu's station is not broadcasting any ads at all right now. But they're certainly not the only ones that have been violating the rules; many observers feel that SARFT is just making an example out of two insignificant stations to convince everyone else that things have gotten serious. The administration has been tightening its truth-in-advertising rules through series of regulations and clarifications issued over the past year or so. One key notice, jointly issued with SAIC last August, banned five categories of ads: weight-loss, breast enlargement, and height increase products, and all drugs and medical equipment. Some local stations replaced late-night medical ads with infomercials for watches, but for many, things did not change at all. Friday's Mirror reported that even after the ban in Ningxia and Gansu, local stations in some areas were still broadcasting prohibited commercials. Why? It's all about money. According to the Mirror, only the top five cable channels have filled all of their advertising slots; of the remainder, 70% of ad time remains unsold. Late-night TV time sells for as little as 1000 yuan a minute or less on local TV; when a company buys up huge chunks of time with questionable infomercials, many stations figure it's worth the risk, particularly because the authorities haven't really followed through on their regulatory threats in the past. Translated below are a number of (mostly skeptical) opinions on SARFT's action. In the China Economic Times, Zhou Chengxiong, head of the Academic Research Department at Peking University's Institute of Cultural Industry, identified four reasons why local stations risk defying SARFT in their advertising practices: First, local TV stations must make a living. Because of continual changes in SARFT and local policies, many local TV stations and channels are finding it ever harder to survive. Reasons include: CCTV is too strong, all of its stations cover the whole country, and the national authorities consciously or unconsciously limit competition between CCTV and local stations; Many local stations have restrictions placed on their own programming and their broadcast times, so their revenue space is compressed.... Second, punishment of violators has been ineffective. Though SARFT has repeatedly issued all sorts of regulations to local stations, it has never taken effective steps to punish violators... Third, local protectionism serves as a bodyguard for violating stations. We have not seen a single local TV station leader receive any punishment from the local party or government for violating advertising broadcast regulations. This emboldens local TV stations in their broadcast. Local TV station heads eat from the bowl of the local government, so there is nothing that SARFT can do to them. Although TV stations are not administrative organs, their position is not inferior to some parts of the government, for they are not only the voice of the government but one industry within developed by the local economy. For this reason, when local stations violate regulations, the local government typically will not carry out any punishment. When the state government issues punishment, the local government will try any means possible to protect the station, and some punishments have a hard time sticking. Fourth, there is insufficiently strict oversight of TV stations. We can see that the current punishment of local TV stations comes from the State Administration; the existence of local protectionism means that the local radio and TV authorities cannot oversee and punish local TV stations. There are several thousand stations of all levels across the country; SARFT has just several hundred civil servants, and even if they all neither slept nor ate, there would still be no way for them to oversee all of the country's stations. In Beijing Business Today, Fu Kai tried to give SARFT the benefit of the doubt: For a TV station, advertising makes up practically its entire economic resources. Revoking the right to broadcast commercials is tantamount to death by a thousand cuts. It hurts, and you've got to keep producing programs and paying salaries while your income is gone. SARFT's really going to great lengths here. However, I discovered when reading the Notice that these two TV stations received such "cruel punishment" today because several months ago they had ignored SARFT's warnings and punishments. I can't help but wonder - will this "banning order" really be carried out in full? At the same time, I also noticed that SARFT has previously issued a whole series of rules regarding the broadcast of advertisements, not directed just at the two stations in Ningxia and Gansu, but at the whole nationwide audience. But there's been no shortage of time to watch ads for "miraculous cures" and "astonishing breakthroughs." Particularly in the late-night hours every day, programming on cable channels all over is surprisingly identical. Looking at SARFT's rules, it appears that not a single ad should be able to be broadcast. Perhaps killing these two "chickens" won't be enough to scare all of the "monkeys," if the "chickens" can truly be killed this time. Nevertheless, we still welcome the murderous intent that has exploded out of SARFT this time. The Qingdao Financial Daily argued that the monkeys ought to be killed along with the chickens: Bluntly point, prior instances of SARFT cleaning house ultimately fell into a "crying wolf" pattern: a lot of bluster, and an insubstantial order sent down. The Notice on Rectifying Radio and TV Medical Information Services and TV Shopping Programs issued jointly by SARFT and SAIC took effect on 1 August, 2006, and it clearly stated: broadcasters that violated the regulations would be temporarily deprived of their right to air commercials. But after the Notice was released, out-of-line ads maintained their same crazy pace, continuing the same all bark and no bite result as in times past. Ten months later, SARFT finally made good on its promise, and carried out the punishment of revoking two stations' right to air commercials. In one light, this should not be taken as an act of desperation. To some degree, the two stations refused to mend their ways precisely because the practice of airing the prohibited ads was so common - "the law can't punish everyone," so they thought their chances were good. All TV stations are equal, so since everyone has violated the regulations, then the ones who are punished ought to be all of those violators. Execution of the law does not just choose easy targets, and it doesn't just make examples. There's no reason to treat these two small, non-influential TV stations as "chickens," first killing them and then giving a warning to the "monkeys" so that they have an opportunity to mend their ways. This is unfair. Of course, there are so many violators that it is entirely appropriate for punishment to be given to some first and others later. So we anticipate that the order to halt commercials at these two TV stations is just the start of an "advertising storm," rather than its conclusion. An op-ed at Great Wall Online asked "What happens when SARFT orders a halt and things don't halt?": This writer noticed that this is a ban issued by SARFT alone. Prior to this, what happened after the bans issued jointly by SARFT and SAIC? Yunnan and other satellite TV viewers can still see Cheng Fangyuan and Hang Tianqi as guests on ads for "Maximum Organ" bust enhancing system; the two of them will tell you in all certainty that the bust enhancement effect is higher than 98%, the safety coefficient is 100%, and in general, all foreign women use Maximum Organ. And another time, Jiang Shan, on Guangzhou TV's movie channel, continued to ask viewers: why don't you drink calcium plus zinc syrup? Calcium and zinc supplements together - two for the price of one. And the actress Shi Ke exclaims on Jiangsu TV: "Flowers and Dream" combines whitening with blemish-removal - a success the first time you use it. The notice previously issued by the two organizations when they joined hands had these results, so what will the results be when SARFT goes it alone to issue punishments? ... In the past, the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce launched an across-the-board overhaul - all medical ads that had star endorsement were banned. SAIC declared five types of advertising content illegal, and ads for health products and drugs that featured stars fell into the scope of the "hard strike." These are all stringent measures; now with one word SARFT has called a complete halt and has cut off the financial avenue for these two TV stations - is it feasible? No mechanism for implementing punishments, no mechanism for finding accountability, no linkage with the normal operation of the stations and the performance records of the people in charge - just an order to halt. I fear success will be difficult. And a QQ reader picked up by Tencent urged SARFT to be fair: Look at what TV stations are playing today: News! TV series! Variety shows! What's left? Most of it is ads! And the majority of those are commercial ads! If you take away their commercial ads, then how can they play programs? (even though I detest ads myself.) As for the stations' broadcast of illegal ads, I think that if you're going to rectify things, then the majority of TV stations across the country will have to stop broadcasting. Actually, it's enough for the TV stations to strengthen the effectiveness of their advertising oversight and editing, and then ad agencies and the companies should adopt a responsible attitude toward consumers. But there's really nothing wrong with SARFT's actions. At any rate the common people are the victims, and advertisements to a large degree influence the common people's outlook. However, if you're going to rectify things then the whole thing needs to be rectified. You shouldn't mess around with local TV stations. You should take action against the fake advertisements on CCTV first and cut them all. UPDATE (2007.06.26): SARFT issued an order lifting the advertising ban at the two station at midnight on 25 June. (link) Links and Sources Mirror via CE (Chinese): Two provincial TV stations ordered to be overhauled; other local station still airing prohibited ads http://www.ce.cn/cysc/gg/gdxw/200706/22/t20070622_11893439.shtml China Economic Times (Chinese): Why are TV stations so bold? http://www.jjxww.com/show.aspx?id=6092&cid=42 Qingdao Financial Daily (Chinese): Fairness is important in halting TV commercials http://news.a.com.cn/News/Infos/200706/22364700568.shtml Great Wall Online via People Online (Chinese): What happens when SARFT orders a halt and things don't halt? http://opinion.people.com.cn/GB/5900108.html Beijing Business Today (Chinese): Can SARFT really scare the monkeys by killing a chicken? http://www.bbtnews.com.cn/mainland/channel/22253.shtml Tencent (Chinese): Netizen's comment http://news.qq.com/a/20070622/002804.htm Image from The Beijing NewsMay08http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/202e95c0ef2bfccb0d8f43ec69db2fb62/acfacf2008-06-01T16:51:41+02:00news cooperation Chinese_media Chinese_language conference TV <span style="color:#555555;">Yang <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Jie">Jie</a> </span><em>CCTV.com</em>(<em>20080530</em>)Sun Jun 01 16:51:41 CEST 2008CCTV.comChinese Language Media cooperation20080530news cooperation Chinese_media Chinese_language conference TV Delegates from many key Chinese-language TV stations in the world are in Beijing for a special conference. On the agenda are deeper cooperation, closer dialogue, and how to present China to the world. Guan Xin has this story. Delegates from more than 41 Chinese-language TV media outlets from 22 countries and regions around the world have participated in the conference. They discussed how to improve their work and better introduce China to the world, especially with the advent of the Beijing Olympics. Delegates agreed to cooperate more to increase their global influence. They suggested establishing a regular dialogue mechanism to facilitate that cooperation. Huang Jieping, Board Chairman, World Today TV Corp., said, "The Beijing Olympics is the best opportunity. When the whole world has its eyes on China, we can take advantage of the opportunity to introduce the real China." Over the past two years, overseas Chinese-language TV media have broadcast more than 3-thousand news and feature programs on the lives of overseas Chinese people. They have also taken an active part in reporting the important events in China today. The 3-day conference concludes on Friday. http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/284dbbac21758e9c090d06bdc6a11ed18/acfacf2008-04-26T14:09:14+02:00television production read TV dramaturgical_analysis <span style="color:#555555;">M. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Keane">Keane</a> </span><em>Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy</em>(<em>2005</em>)Sat Apr 26 14:09:14 CEST 2008Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy82--93{Television drama in China: Remaking the market}1152005television production read TV dramaturgical_analysis