美 Mei - Zhong 中 關 Guan - Xi 系

The Implications of Western Articles in the Chinese Media

An Original Article for Mei-Zhong Guanxi by Anton Lee Wishik II

Following the recent inspections into how the Chinese media has translated and republished articles and editorials that originated in the New York Times, it seems that there is a segment of observers who insist on placing this sort of analysis within the context of the whole ‘China vs. the West, the West vs. China, which media’s flaws are more egregious’ debate. While there is a time, place, and method for such discussions, the most fascinating element involved may be suffering in overlooked obscurity. Namely, the insight which has been made available into the editing, censoring, and decision-making involved in determining what is fit for print. For the readership, both Western and Chinese, who is always forced to make do with the finished product as it has been presented to them by the Chinese media, there is now a ‘first-draft’ of sorts which can be examined, and when compared with the published version, can reveal which ideas have been blotted out with red ink and, just as significantly, which ones received at least tacit approval and were allowed to make it on the page. In the past, it could be argued that comparing articles in the Chinese media with corresponding articles in the Western media could offer similar grounds for comparison, but with large contingents doubting the Western media’s credibility of late, the sort of comparisons discussed here are less open to attack. In essence, in these finite instances, we have been made privy to the inner workings of a normally opaque mechanism.

Now some may argue that it is impossible to ascertain whether certain passages have been left out due to editing, censorship, or irrelevance. To which the response is: maybe to a certain extent but not entirely. By examining which passages are expunged, whether or not the surrounding information was also removed, how other media sources handled the same topic or article, what the official government position on the subject is, past practices in similar situations, how closely an issue relates to China’s interests, how something would spur/hinder sales of the media’s product, and the like, it is possible to arrive at some ‘educated conclusions.’

For example, in the recent translation and republication of Thomas Friedman’s editorial, ‘A Biblical Seven Years’, the specific cost cited as the total expenditure for all Olympic infrastructure in Beijing, $43 billion, was left out of the republication in both the People’s Net and Global Times versions. Thus, it would be safe to conclude that despite the fact that this figure is not impossible to find in the Chinese media’s coverage, there may have been those who decided it was best to keep its prominence in check. Conversely, the fact that two of the more sensitive topics that Friedman touched on, poverty in China and the nature of China’s enemies, were each included by one media source but not the other seems to imply that in these cases, the editors/censors have made judgment calls on the severity of the statements. Additionally, the divergent conclusions that People’s Net and Global Times reached on what to include may denote some level of disagreement on how certain principles should be interpreted. It also seems quite clear that the reason behind both media sources choosing to cut much of the second half of the editorial, which was concerned with US issues, had much more to do with the interests of their readership and the lack of a direct connection to China than any sort of censorship or editing principles. The alteration of the title would also seem to fall in this category, as ‘Compared to China, the US is a Third World Country’ draws a lot more eyeballs than ‘A Biblical Seven Years’, especially in China.

Mr. Friedman’s latest editorial, ‘Postcard from South China’, was almost immediately translated and republished in Global Times. Nearly all of the areas where the republication veered from the original were found in the last four paragraphs, while the first nine paragraphs made it through mostly untouched. This clearly reduces the likelihood that the changes that were decided upon were selected simply due to length considerations as that principal would lead to an equal likelihood of each paragraph being cut up. Thus, it would seem that there would have to be some content-based criteria being applied. The last five paragraphs of the republication, including how they were edited, are included below:

As for what didn’t make it in, two areas of interest stand out. First, many references to Wang Yang were purged, including his name, standing as a Politburo member, a quite complementary introduction, and most everything he was quoted as saying. It appears highly unlikely that this could be construed as arbitrary editing, and more likely could be seen as an unwillingness to publicize the source of this ‘courageous experimentation’ before its results have become clear. Regardless of the reasoning, it’s a fascinating development in what would seem to be a relatively benign area. Just as interesting yet less mysterious was the sensitivity to references of a Chinese-led boycott and the development of civil society. Apparently when Friedman ventured into such territory, he left the limits of accepted discourse behind him. As for the reasoning behind the inclusion in the above graphic of the mostly unchanged fifth-to-last paragraph, it is instructive in that this paragraph embodies the most direct commentary on what the Communist Party should do, and by implication, what it has not done up to this point in time. Thus, this passage’s inclusion makes it clear how magnanimous the Chinese media can be towards their Western counterparts when the two sides’ views coincide with each other.

Finally, it is worth noting that in addition to the popularity of ‘The World Is Flat’, Thomas Friedman has now had two editorials published in the Chinese media in the span of a week, has been invited to meet with a Politburo member, and has had one of his books read by and strongly affect said Politburo member. Perhaps China has finally found a member of the Western press that they can get behind. Now, if only the Chinese media would publish first drafts of all their articles.

The original Friedman article can be found here.  The article as it appeared in Global Times can be found here.

Note:  Credit to the Black and White Cat blog for such an accessible method of presenting the before and after comparisons.

Related Posts

• How Thomas Friedman’s Editorial Was Presented in the Chinese Media
• The New York Times Makes a Free ‘Ad’ for Guangdong