Perceptions of China

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/3618081/Perceptions_of_China/

Richard Spencer

Richard Spencer is one of the Daily Telegraph’s Middle East correspondents. He was China correspondent for six years before moving to Dubai, where he lives with his wife and children, last year.

At the end of last week I rashly promised to deal with the question of whether I am a China-basher or not (among other things). Lo and Behold! today I receive an email from a Chinese student in Britain doing some research on why it is that British media reporting on China seems unfair.

Here are the questions, with my reply underneath. It’s a long post – this is not a small question – but tell me what you think.

Am I being an arrogant laowai (foreigner)? Am I a Western values supremacist? Are my suggestions patronising? Possibly, yes. As the questions were not really directed to me personally, or my writing, I chose to be as blunt as I reasonably could, giving a general “British defence” rather than the more qualified and ambiguous terms I might use one-on-one.

Nevertheless, I think it’s where a lot of Western journalists, be they liberals, conservatives, pro- or anti-American, stand on China.

Ideally, I’d have taken her questions, posted them on the blog, emailed them to friends, and then collated a democratic response. Unfortunately, her deadline’s Wednesday, so that’s not really possible. One thing’s reassuring: modern Chinese students are clearly no different from me 20 years ago in leaving essays till the last minute.

I’ll address other questions – do journalists have any right to criticise anybody, and whether America or China is the root of all evil, on another occasion.

To: Richard Spencer
Subject: enquiries from a Chinese journalist

Dear Mr Richard Spencer,

I am now doing a coursework about how China is covered by British media. I collected reports published on major British newspapers and the result of my research is: China is not fairly covered by British media and reports don’t show an accurate picture of China. For example, in the reporting of Chinese president Hu Jintao’s visit to Britain last November, many reports focused on the protests and played up the protests.

In fact, I was at the Mall on that day. There were about equal number of protesters and supporters, about 200 each. However, media downplayed the supporters and gave them half of the space they used to cover protesters in the stories. However, my interpretation of all this might be biased since I am a Chinese. So I have three questions for you because a different perspective is so important.

As a China correspondent, you know both countries and know how the media work in these countries. 1) Do you think China is fairly covered by British media? Why or why not?

2) Is there a stereotype about China in some journalists’ minds and so they follow the stereotypes when reporting? If there is a stereotype, what is it? (I once chatted with a British journalist and he said if he wrote how good China is, the editor won’t publish the story because the readers won’t believe it is true. Both the editors and readers expect something bad from China.)

3) Why do media tend to play up the power of China and meanwhile, play up the threat from China?

The following is the intro of a stories published in a major British newspaper: “THE world faces the real threat of a new conflict over oil as China competes with existing world powers for scarce resources to feed its growing economy, according to a report published today.” Why the world take the superpower of America as granted but is so hostile to China’s recent emergence as a modest player in the world?

Thank you for your patience in reading such a long email. My deadline is Wednesday and I will appreciate it if you send it back before that date.

My response: Thank you for your interesting email. This is a long reply but your questions are very broad. The questions you ask are ones that I and other journalists often have to consider. You don’t refer specifically to my own journalism, but to British journalism in general, so I will try to answer in general terms. I obviously cannot speak for other people, though.

If it’s OK with you, I think it would be easier to start with your second question. Is there a stereotype of China, and if so, do we follow it when reporting? Well, with one exception I’ll come to at the end of this email, I don’t think there is a single stereotype of China that we follow.

However, nearly all journalism either takes for granted, or uses, certain pieces of knowledge and certain assumptions writers expect their readers to have.

Normally these unconscious assumptions, general or particular, are uncontroversial – poverty is bad, murdering people is wrong, Kuwait is rich, Japan likes hi-tec gadgets, life in New York is very fast, etc. Sometimes these assumptions are wrong but that is the point of the story we are writing – eg, some readers in the West might think South Korea is a backward country when it is now very advanced.

The problem for Chinese who come to the West and read Western newspapers’ reports about China is that the assumptions that Westerners make in regard to China are often precisely the things the Chinese themselves are taught to oppose.

Eg: two very powerful images that many, particularly educated readers of “quality” papers, have of China is of Chairman Mao and the Red Guards/Cultural Revolution, and of the events of June 4 1989. Often, British newspapers use these events as “hooks” to explain China, even if only to explain how China has changed since these times.

Yet Chinese people, particularly the younger generation in my experience, to the extent that they think about these things at all, think of them of as “very long ago” and “irrelevant to today”. Who is right? This brings us to a wider question.

The Western assumption or stereotype is that countries that observe human rights (as defined by the UN or European Convention), have some form of democratic political system, and have the rule of law are “better” than those that do not. When it comes to reporting, the views of governments that do not observe these principles as a result tend to be given less weight; such governments are (with good reason) felt to be less trustworthy, and more likely to cover up or lie.

Not even a Chinese patriot would claim that the Chinese government at the moment follows these principles; so, rather than being a “China stereotype”, China, or rather the Chinese government, suffers from being part of a wider stereotype.

As it happens, neither I nor, I suspect, other journalists, think this is particularly unfair. The government here does lie and, just as importantly, refuses as a matter of principle to allow free journalistic reporting, whether by Chinese or foreign media.

All governments dissemble, but in China, hostility to free reporting of news and opinion is part of the system. It is hard for journalists to be “even-handed” when the government is simply opposed to the principles by which they operate. (If you want specific details, as they affect either foreign or domestic media, please tell me).

So, take the events of June 4 and Chairman Mao. There are many different views in the media of China since these events: some argue that today’s government is a natural successor to Mao, and that China cannot be accepted as a “normal” country until they have changed Mao’s (communist) system. Others argue that China has learned the lessons of Maoism so thoroughly that if anything it has gone too far in the opposite direction.

There are similar arguments about the rights and wrongs of June 4. Put in different ways, these are exactly the sort of arguments that Chinese academics, journalists and ordinary people have. But when young Chinese arrive in the West, all they see is “they are going on about Mao/June 4 and all that old stuff – this is crazy”. When such criticism comes from other countries’ nationals, we would listen hard – and we do with China, too.

But there is a difference. We would say you only have this view because you have grown up under censorship, that there is no free or full discussion of these issues (Mao/June 4), and you have all been to ideology study sessions where only certain “lines” are taught. And isn’t it possible, however hard it may be, understandably, for Chinese people to admit this, that we are right on this?

We journalists know much less about China than you Chinese, of course, but on these topics we often know more. (Again, I can give you specific examples of political ignorance among Chinese people I have met, if you like). This does not mean we should just be rude or insulting to China. You are right that sometimes comment on China is simply ignorant. But it is hard, when we report politics, to be “fair”, bearing these things in mind.

On non-political subjects – for example, business – I can’t believe you think we are unfair to China. Almost all the reporting of economic change in China is positive. When it comes to Hu Jintao’s visit (this is the only real example you give – I think since this didn’t even happen in China you should give more examples), here’s the defence of what we and other papers did:

1) In nearly all cases, (certainly see coverage of British politics), British media start off with the criticism or controversy. That’s obviously very different from China. It’s part of our sense that since power is stacked on the side of governments (our own and others’) this is a way of balancing things out and holding governments to account. It is right for governments to fear criticism and protest.

2) In some cases, Western media feel obliged to give extra weight to voices of government critics that cannot be heard in their own country, as an act of solidarity. It’s certainly the case that the voice of the protesters could not be reported in China. I can’t say whether that was a motive in newspapers’ coverage on this occasion.

3) There was a historical background: when Jiang Zemin visited in 1999, police stopped protesters waving banners so that Mr Jiang wasn’t embarrassed. This contravened British law on free speech, became very controversial and the police were eventually forced to apologise to the High Court. So obviously, the protesters on this, the next Chinese state visit, were an important issue.

4) In this case, journalists felt that the protesters were there off their own initiative to express particular views. Many of the pro-Hu people, however, were simply bussed in by the Chinese embassy. I was told (I cannot vouch for this from here) that some were paid. This made their point of view less interesting, and probably less credible.

The answer to your first question, are we fair to China, derives from these principles. In practical terms, it is very simple. If we report on a very straightforward issue – say bird flu, or pollution – we often receive a variety of claims – from environmental activists, ordinary people, health workers, other journalists, overseas campaigners such as human rights campaigners, etc.

In other countries, we would then hear “the other side of the story” – for example whether the government, local authorities, experts, police etc said they thought the claims were true. If the two sides are different, we then use our experience, judgement – no doubt, prejudices too – to decide which version to “lead” on or indeed whether to run the story at all.

That experience would include the reliability beforehand of the various sources of information, and the judgement would include the evidence for their case by either side. In China, the government will often make no reply at all. (This is improving, but still often the case – I can give examples again, if you wish, but my favourite case was this: during the row about Hong Kong’s political system in 2004, my assistant rang the Hong Kong and Macau affairs office in Beijing to try to arrange an interview to hear the Chinese government’s side. The propaganda official said: “No. Why should we talk to him. Tell him the British don’t still run Hong Kong.” And that was that.)

When they do make a reply, it is often so vague and/or contradictory that it makes little sense, and is certainly usually not backed up by detailed information, eg statistics, on which to judge how reliable it is. Even when it comes down to a straightforward “two stories of similar weight”, China’s history of covering up information (eg Sars, more recently, the Songhua river incident) leads us often (but not always) to prefer the other side, if its case is well argued.

This applies to individual news stories, but also applies to bigger issues. The Chinese government often claims that what Western media say about Tibet is wrong, and that it “knows” what the Tibetan people think – but until Tibetans are free to say what they think, how can we believe it?

In individual cases, the media “get it wrong” over China (as with any subject). In general terms, the biggest area where the West has China “wrong” is in a sort of assumption that the Chinese have uniform opinions about things (and I guess that is a throw-back to Cultural Revolution images). But in this the Chinese government is also at fault (and individual Chinese), by constantly saying “The Chinese people think this” or “the Chinese people think that”, as if a billion people could all think the same thing.

The rise of China question is interesting, because everyone seems to come at this from a different perspective and it is hard for me to get a general sense of what the view is in Britain as I haven’t lived there for three years. From what I have read, there is as much excitement about the rise of China in Britain as fear (it may be different in America – can’t speak for them). Hardly a week seemed to go by last year without a “China special” on TV or in the newspapers.

Of course, a lot of them mentioned human rights; but most seemed very positive about all those hard-working Chinese, their incredible factories, incredible Shanghai-like cities, and brilliant students. Often these views come from unexpected sources – Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP and columnist for the Telegraph, described the rise of China as a “wholly good thing” in one piece. (It’s not unexpected if you know Boris, or understand British politics, but what I mean is that most people, following the American precedent, think of right-wing people as being anti-China and left-wing people as being pro-China, but in Britain and Europe more generally that’s not the case, and China cuts across our political boundaries).

I’d be interested to hear if, on close reading, the preponderance of coverage in Britain is hostile to the rise of China per se (which is different from fearing the possible consequences). I don’t know who your journalist friend is who can’t get good stories about China into the paper – was he being polite, perhaps, or talking about ten years ago?

Certainly, the talk in British journalistic circles here (again, I would stress, not American) is that editors think human rights, politics etc is all old hat and boring and are begging for stories about how rich China is and how its brilliant students (that’s you, by the way) are all at the top of the class. I myself try to maintain a balance. I think the rise of China is a good thing, on the whole; I think it (China) has many problems, some of which are our (ie, the West’s) fault, some not, and for which on the whole we should express sympathy as much as fear (I wrote a long piece for the Telegraph on January 11 about this).

However, its rise makes some people afraid for some good reasons.

1) As other countries have risen to become world powers, including some Western countries, it has caused problems as they develop fast and the world tries to get used to them. Germany is our favourite example; but of course Britain and America themselves are good examples – particularly if you are a former British colony or an American native Indian.

2) China has a huge number of people, once kept entirely separate from the world, suddenly to absorb in the “new world order”. The wisest experts cannot tell what this might mean for the economy, jobs, multicultural harmony, etc.

3) China is not a democracy like us, and we fear that democracies are more likely, as they grow powerful, to impose their will by force. Indeed, (although as a patriotic Chinese you will certainly not agree with me on this), it has imposed its will on Tibet by force and says it will do so if necessary on Taiwan. China denies this will happen, and by and large, we take the government on trust, but it shouldn’t stop us warning of the possibility of things going wrong. The counter-argument is that no country imposes its will by force as much as America; this seems pretty unarguable at the moment – but then look at the press America is getting. Not exactly positive.

4) When it comes to use of resources, it’s clear that this could also be a flashpoint for problems – more people, fewer resources is a problem. But again, it’s the clash that people fear – they don’t necessarily blame China (though they blame China’s co-operation with really appalling regimes like Sudan just because of its oil).

Not all of this is China’s fault – why shouldn’t they have the same access to resources as the West, you are right. But then the report you quote doesn’t (in the quote) blame China – it just says this is a problem. Some of it is China’s fault, not only because of Tibet and Taiwan but because of this: we want to believe the Chinese government’s good intentions, but as we all know, it has difficulty in practising those good intentions in provinces, because a lot of officials have got used to “doing their own thing” and ignoring the government.

So how can we trust the government to maintain its good intentions when, as is not the case now, there are serious conflicts of interest. (Again, examples if required). All of these things are made worse when, for example, the Chinese demand that Western universities close down fal*n g*ong websites, that we refuse visas to Taiwanese politicians, don’t speak to the Dalai Lama etc. These things confirm the image of China as a country that is prepared to tell us to change how we behave as it becomes more powerful.

I said there was one stereotype of China that Westerners did have, which I thought was wrong. The stereotype is that Chinese people are reserved, disciplined, uniform in view, restrained, inward-looking, and defensive. (A bit like the Japanese, I like to say when I REALLY want to shock Chinese people).

My experience here is that Chinese are very varied, often have wildly different views, patterns of behaviour, sense of humour etc etc. For every Party official there is a punk, a drunk, a poet, a genius and a karaoke freak. I don’t know which you are, but I hope you are proud of this variety, because you should be.

I think China has a chance to become a great power without causing much damage to anyone – and causing a lot of good. I know British people are already learning positive things about China, just from talking to people – its attitude to education, for example, and its entrepreneurial drive. Part of the better parts of British history (and there are many bad parts) is that we usually accepted criticism, by opponents inside and outside the country (see newspaper satires of the king in the early 18th century).

One of the good things about being in China is that people are very open to discussion – normally, and under certain conditions. I think it would be a big mistake (as it has been for other countries) if suddenly China said, OK, we are now a big power, we don’t have to take criticism any more. While you are in Britain, I hope you take the opportunity to read stuff about China that is not available here (which, by definition, will be critical) – writings by Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China, for example, and novels by Chinese people banned here (maybe you already do).

There’s no reason for you to agree with any or all of them, but I hope you would find them interesting. Some people would say “bloody foreigners, always criticising China” but of course a lot of those involved are Chinese, and just as patriotic as you are. Then I hope you come back to China and write devastating (but accurate and fair) criticisms of life in Britain. We need it too.