Article,
Wang Shuo's public complaint against TV censors
danwei.org, (20070615)
Abstract
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 öpen 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 öpen," 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.htm
