Press Corruption in the Headlines
Recent events have focused public attention on the short-comings of China's news media, particularly the widespread practice of giving reporters bribes to keep news under wraps.
While press corruption is hardly new in China, the latest scandal broke out after West Times reporter Dai Xiaojun posted an online article with several photos showing real and fake reporters lining up in the office of a Shanxi coal mine to collect "shut up" money after a deadly accident had occurred.
Dai Xiaojun wrote that the scene shocked him even after 20 years in the industry. A man had suffocated and died in the mine, but the management was handing out hush up money to journalists instead of reporting the incident to the local authorities.
The General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) launched an investigation into the incident in conjunction with the Shanxi Press and Publication Administration after the Internet post ignited a public scandal. It found that at least 28 "reporters" – both legitimate and fake – from 23 media organizations accepted "shut up money" from the coal mine on September 24 and 25. Only two of the reporters on the coal mining company's register possessed legitimate press credentials from GAPP (see story under Policy and Regulation).
GAPP published the names of six media organizations and the sum of the "shut up" money they accepted on October 29. A number of high profile media organizations were on the list, including the Shanxi TV and Radio Station, Science Guide (Ke Xue Dao Bao) newspaper and Legal Daily (Fa Zhi Ri Bao).
The notice threatened to shut all the organizations down for "rectification", but to date only the Security Locale (An Quan Xian Chang) program on China Education TV (CETV) has stopped operating. It is uncertain what further action will be taken against the remaining news agencies, though an official from the Shanxi Press and Publication Administration told China Youth Daily that the investigation is ongoing.
Perhaps as a follow-up to this incident and others like it, GAPP on November 7 published a circular emphasizing the legal rights and obligations of mainland news organizations and reporters (see story under Policy and Regulation). The circular emphasized the media's legal obligation to investigate and report on matters related to the public interest in an ethical manner. At the same time, it warned it will clamp down on reporters – and people fraudulently posing as reporters – who collect bribes to maintain silence on a particular issue. The notice firmly stated that all reporters must carry legitimate press credentials issued by GAPP.
The events have sparked a lively debate on how the government can better regulate the press in China without stifling their ability to report truthfully and accurately. Would stronger laws help to prevent press corruption in the future, or only tighten the noose of censorship around the necks of diligent reporters?
The debate revisits the discussion sparked off by The Emergency Response Law, passed by the Chinese government in August 2007 (see China Media Monitor Vol 11, Issue 4, June 17, 2007). Aimed at improving the handling of industrial accidents, natural disasters, health and public security hazards, the law posed a dilemma for legislators trying to balance the need for government checks on the media with the benefits of a (relatively) free press.
The first draft of the law submitted in June 2006 included the provision that "news media that irregularly report the development and handling of emergencies without authorization, or release fraudulent reports will be fined from RMB50,000 (US$7,320) to RMB100,000 (US$14,641), if the reports lead to serious consequences".
This provision was cut from the law when it was submitted to the NPC Standing Committee for the second reading in June 2007 after heated debate among lawmakers and the public, many of whom argued it could be misused by government bodies to stall the release of emergency information.
While these changes were welcomed, some legislators expressed their disappointment that specific levels for fines and other disciplinary actions to be taken in the event of media publishing or broadcasting false reports were also removed from the re-draft. This they saw as weakening the legislation and providing unnecessary leeway for government interpretation of responsibilities in such cases.
Any laws to regulate the media would raise similar issues. In the meantime, what will GAPP's recent circular actually achieve when the high profile media organizations that have been caught black-handed continue to operate, apparently free from punishment? The debate continues as we wait to see what further action – if any – arises from the Shanxi coal mine "shut up money" investigation.