David Bandurski, project researcher at the China Media Project at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Centre, posted translated excerpts from this fascinating editorial by Oriental Morning Post deputy editor Chen Jibing (陈季冰), which appeared in the China Youth Daily on 27 March. The upshot: Chen's diagnosis for the ethical ailments which plague the Chinese media isn't governmental regulation and oversight, but rather civil society--stronger non-governmental associations capable of setting their own ethical guidelines.
The most basic reason why we cannot establish effective "norms" in many sectors is that we lack the necessary social "communities". Academic freedom needs to be supported by an "academic community", and journalistic norms need to be supported by a "media community". Of course, these sorts of communities are different from the government in that they are not backed up by legal force (the power to restrain under the law). Nevertheless, anyone who challenges the authority of the community will automatically lose their credentials as a community member, and owing to the internal operation of mutual acknowledgement and censure within the community, the community works as a strong binding force.
Chen goes on to cite as an example European football associations, which he says work their ethical suasion even without legal teeth.
What I'm arguing is that journalistic norms are the precondition for freedom of speech, and the creation and protection of journalistic norms relies upon the emergence of a "media community".
Some boiler-plate caveats follow: this is the China Youth Daily, after all.
I don't mean that we should give the work of propaganda offices entirely over to a news media association. And I'm not saying the government should not control [the media] from here on out. What I'm saying is that because the functions and resources of the government and industry communities are different, they should have different spheres of management. In light of China's national realities, propaganda authorities should be responsible for questions of guidance in the ideological realm of media.
Despite this, there's meat in the message, and I'm sure everyone agrees that it's a nice idea: peer censure, and not government regulation, is the basis of a responsible media in those geographies where one can be said to exist. But let's be realistic here. Civil society in China is embryonic, feeble, and exists in China at the pleasure of Beijing. It's allowed to develop when it serves the interests of the state. Chen argues that those interests are indeed aligned:
Media professional associations should be charged with ordering market competition, professional principles for journalists and other questions belonging to the "social" sphere. Once this pattern of assuming respective roles and working together emerges, "freedom" and "regulation" will complement one another.
But I wonder whether a public sphere professional media association in China could be expected to circumscribe its activities to "ordering market competition" and urging "professional principles for journalists." How long would it be suffered to live? Any better suggestions?
I think "ordering market competition" and urging "professional principles" would actually keep them very busy. Little red envelopes fall squarely into both categories.
Honestly, I have a bit of trouble imagining journalist associations doing any good when the U.S. is full of them and I just watched this clip from the Chris Matthews Show:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html
A "media community" could just as easily be a chattering opinion-making class that appears to be adult-free.
Posted by: davesgonechina | March 28, 2007 at 02:40 PM
I think there is a greater change that has to happen before media ethics improve.
Zhao Ziyang famously showed his charges tapes of the British show Yes Minister in a bid to improve their understanding of the bureaucratic process and pick up a few tricks of the trade.
I think there are people in the propaganda departments now who could learn a thing or two from the West Wing - in particular how to strike the balance between managing the media and using them.
Only when the government starts thinking of how the media could help rather than hinder their agenda will the situation improve - and sadly it's going to take braver editorials than Chen Jibing's to start changing important minds.
Once the media's role changes, then maybe we can start hoping for improved ethics.
Posted by: Charlie | March 28, 2007 at 04:43 PM
A great example of the "authority of the community" would be the Mafia. It doesn't have to be governmental to (a) have universal authority in its sector and (b) be utterly morally warped!
It's I think a mistake to try and single out one particular panacea for Chinese journalism. Professional associations can do their bit, as can a journalistic community built around respect, that in turn depends on honest and cutting-edge reporting. But it's not everything.
Other ingredients could be openness of the journalistic process, more demanding readers (perhaps a dianping.com for people to rate journalists?), a functioning legal environment, competition from HK / Taiwan media (which are far more heavily blocked online than English-language foreign media!), and I'm sure many more I haven't yet thought of.
Posted by: William | April 01, 2007 at 01:06 PM
@ William - Yeah, definitely no single panacea, no quick fixes. It's deeply systemic. Some good ideas you've got there, especially opening to increased HK/Taiwan media competition - unlikely as that is anytime soon. A dianping.com for journalists, though? I can already imagine the abuse that would invite.
Posted by: Kaiser Kuo | April 01, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Many thanks.Still an additional brilliant article, this is exactly exactly why My spouse and I arrive to the blog page over and over again!
Posted by: pneumatic | December 15, 2010 at 03:47 PM