http://www.giga-hamburg.de/index.php?file=z_cha.html&folder=publikationen
The original publication is available at http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jcca
4/2008 China aktuell – Journal of Current Chinese Affairs is an inter-
nationally refereed academic journal published by the GIGA Institute of Asian Studies, Hamburg. The quarterly journal focuses on current developments in Greater China. It has a circulation of 1,200 copies, making it one of the world’s most widely distributed periodicals on Asian affairs, and reaches a broad readership in academia, administration and business circles. Articles should be written in German or English and submitted exclusively to this publication.
China aktuell is devoted to the transfer of scholarly insights to a wide audience. The topics covered should therefore not only be orientated towards specialists in Chinese affairs, but should also be of relevance to readers with a practical interest in the region.
The editors welcome contributions on contemporary China, including Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, that are concerned with the fields of international relations, politics, economics, society, education, environment or law. Articles should be theoretically grounded, empirically sound and reflect the state of the art in contemporary Chinese studies.
All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed for acceptance, and the editors will respond within three months. Research articles should not exceed 10,000 words (incl. footnotes and references). Manuscripts should be submitted to the editors in electronic form: <china- [email protected]>. For detailedsubmission guidelinessee:
<www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/stylesheet>.
Recent topics:
x China in Africa: Who Benefits?
x Flexibility and Security in the People’s Republic of China x The Politics of China’s ‘Green GDP’
x New Media, Sexual Politics, Ethics and State Control
Editors: Karsten Giese • Heike Holbig
GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Institute of Asian Studies
Rothenbaumchaussee 32 • 20148 Hamburg • Germany Phone: +49 40 4288740 • Fax: +49 40 4107945 Website: www.giga-hamburg.de
J
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
J
Democracy Postponed: Chinese Learning from the Soviet Collapse
J
Harmonisierung per Gesetz – Arbeitskonflikte in China und das neue Arbeitskonfliktgesetz
J
The Changing Political and Governance Architecture in China
J
Maintaining Chinese Management Talent in Western Subsidiaries
J
Regulation, Evaluation, and Certification of NGOs in the P.R. China
J
Einheitlichkeit oder Pluralismus des Rechts? Zur
„Wiederentdeckung“ des Gewohnheitsrechts in der VR China
J
Entspannung an der Taiwan-Straße: ein Land, zwei Regionen
J
China aktuell Data Supplement
www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/cds4/2008
J
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
J
Democracy Postponed: Chinese Learning from the Soviet Collapse
J
Harmonisierung per Gesetz – Arbeitskonflikte in China und das neue Arbeitskonfliktgesetz
J
The Changing Political and Governance Architecture in China
J
Maintaining Chinese Management Talent in Western Subsidiaries
J
Regulation, Evaluation, and Certification of NGOs in the P.R. China
J
Einheitlichkeit oder Pluralismus des Rechts? Zur
„Wiederentdeckung“ des Gewohnheitsrechts in der VR China
J
Entspannung an der Taiwan-Straße: ein Land, zwei Regionen
J
China aktuell Data Supplement
www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/cdsChina aktuell – Journal of Current Chinese Affairs is an inter- nationally refereed academic journal published by the GIGA Institute of Asian Studies, Hamburg. The quarterly journal focuses on current developments in Greater China. It has a circulation of 1,200 copies, making it one of the world’s most widely distributed periodicals on Asian affairs, and reaches a broad readership in academia, administration and business circles. Articles should be written in German or English and submitted exclusively to this publication.
China aktuell is devoted to the transfer of scholarly insights to a wide audience. The topics covered should therefore not only be orientated towards specialists in Chinese affairs, but should also be of relevance to readers with a practical interest in the region.
The editors welcome contributions on contemporary China, including Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, that are concerned with the fields of international relations, politics, economics, society, education, environment or law. Articles should be theoretically grounded, empirically sound and reflect the state of the art in contemporary Chinese studies.
All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed for acceptance, and the editors will respond within three months. Research articles should not exceed 10,000 words (incl. footnotes and references). Manuscripts should be submitted to the editors in electronic form: <china- [email protected]>. For detailedsubmission guidelinessee:
<www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/stylesheet>.
Recent topics:
x China in Africa: Who Benefits?
x Flexibility and Security in the People’s Republic of China x The Politics of China’s ‘Green GDP’
x New Media, Sexual Politics, Ethics and State Control
Editors: Karsten Giese • Heike Holbig
GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Institute of Asian Studies
Rothenbaumchaussee 32 • 20148 Hamburg • Germany Phone: +49 40 4288740 • Fax: +49 40 4107945 Website: www.giga-hamburg.de
J
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
J
Democracy Postponed: Chinese Learning from the Soviet Collapse
J
Harmonisierung per Gesetz – Arbeitskonflikte in China und das neue Arbeitskonfliktgesetz
J
The Changing Political and Governance Architecture in China
J
Maintaining Chinese Management Talent in Western Subsidiaries
J
Regulation, Evaluation, and Certification of NGOs in the P.R. China
J
Einheitlichkeit oder Pluralismus des Rechts? Zur
„Wiederentdeckung“ des Gewohnheitsrechts in der VR China
J
Entspannung an der Taiwan-Straße: ein Land, zwei Regionen
J
China aktuell Data Supplement
www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/cds4/2008
J
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
J
Democracy Postponed: Chinese Learning from the Soviet Collapse
J
Harmonisierung per Gesetz – Arbeitskonflikte in China und das neue Arbeitskonfliktgesetz
J
The Changing Political and Governance Architecture in China
J
Maintaining Chinese Management Talent in Western Subsidiaries
J
Regulation, Evaluation, and Certification of NGOs in the P.R. China
J
Einheitlichkeit oder Pluralismus des Rechts? Zur
„Wiederentdeckung“ des Gewohnheitsrechts in der VR China
J
Entspannung an der Taiwan-Straße: ein Land, zwei Regionen
J
China aktuell Data Supplement
www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/cdsCall for Papers
China aktuell – Journal of Current Chinese Affairs is an inter- nationally refereed academic journal published by the GIGA Institute of Asian Studies, Hamburg. The quarterly journal focuses on current developments in Greater China. It has a circulation of 1,200 copies, making it one of the world’s most widely distributed periodicals on Asian affairs, and reaches a broad readership in academia, administration and business circles. Articles should be written in German or English and submitted exclusively to this publication.
China aktuell is devoted to the transfer of scholarly insights to a wide audience. The topics covered should therefore not only be orientated towards specialists in Chinese affairs, but should also be of relevance to readers with a practical interest in the region.
The editors welcome contributions on contemporary China, including Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, that are concerned with the fields of international relations, politics, economics, society, education, environment or law. Articles should be theoretically grounded, empirically sound and reflect the state of the art in contemporary Chinese studies.
All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed for acceptance, and the editors will respond within three months. Research articles should not exceed 10,000 words (incl. footnotes and references). Manuscripts should be submitted to the editors in electronic form: <china- [email protected]>. For detailedsubmission guidelinessee:
<www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/stylesheet>.
Recent topics:
x China in Africa: Who Benefits?
x Flexibility and Security in the People’s Republic of China x The Politics of China’s ‘Green GDP’
x New Media, Sexual Politics, Ethics and State Control
Editors: Karsten Giese • Heike Holbig
GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Institute of Asian Studies
Rothenbaumchaussee 32 • 20148 Hamburg • Germany Phone: +49 40 4288740 • Fax: +49 40 4107945 Website: www.giga-hamburg.de
J
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
J
Democracy Postponed: Chinese Learning from the Soviet Collapse
J Harmonisierung per Gesetz – Arbeitskonflikte in China
und das neue Arbeitskonfliktgesetz
J
The Changing Political and Governance Architecture in China
J
Maintaining Chinese Management Talent in Western Subsidiaries
J
Regulation, Evaluation, and Certification of NGOs in the P.R. China
J
Einheitlichkeit oder Pluralismus des Rechts? Zur
„Wiederentdeckung“ des Gewohnheitsrechts in der
VR China
J
Entspannung an der Taiwan-Straße: ein Land, zwei Regionen
J
China aktuell Data Supplement
www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/cds4/2008
J
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
J
Democracy Postponed: Chinese Learning from the Soviet Collapse
J Harmonisierung per Gesetz – Arbeitskonflikte in China
und das neue Arbeitskonfliktgesetz
J
The Changing Political and Governance Architecture in China
J
Maintaining Chinese Management Talent in Western Subsidiaries
J
Regulation, Evaluation, and Certification of NGOs in the P.R. China
J
Einheitlichkeit oder Pluralismus des Rechts? Zur
„Wiederentdeckung“ des Gewohnheitsrechts in der
VR China
J
Entspannung an der Taiwan-Straße: ein Land, zwei Regionen
J
China aktuell Data Supplement
www.giga-hamburg.de/ias/cdsStudie
A New Political Role? Discursive Strategies of Critical Journalists in China
Elin Sæther
AbstractThe simple opposition betweenfree andrestricted mediaisinsufficient forunderstandingthe dynamics withinthe Chinese mediafield. The media has diversified greatlyduringthelast two decades,and socialproblems have become partofpublic discourse.Critical journalistsin China haveformulated a new professional identity. The hegemonicrole of the Chinese media holdsthat journalists are propaganda workers,andthat theirmain assignment istoforwardthe party line.
Critical journalists opposethis definition of their role and seekto articulate a positionthatenables them to report more freely about social problems.
Critical journalists are contributing to carving out a new political role for the Chinese media.
The paper discusses how this role is a product of journalists’ attempts to increase their autonomy.
On the other hand, the increase in critical journalism also reflects the party-state’s wish to utilize new media discourses,sincelimited exposure of localproblems can portray the centralparty-state in afavourablelight,as aresponsive andresponsible centralstate. Theresult isthat the media acquires a conditionalautonomywherethe party-stateretainsthe controlling powerovera media thatseeksto expandtherange of topicsthatcan be discussedinthe public sphere. (Manuscript received August 18, 2008; accepted for publication October 03, 2008)
Keywords: China, media, critical journalism, discourse, political role
The Author
Elin Sæther is alecturer in human geography intheDepartment ofSociology and Human Geographyat the UniversityofOslo,Norway.Sætherhas conductedresearch onthe political role of the criticalpressin China.Her researchinterests arelocated within politicalgeographywith an emphasis on power, the politics of representation,and discoursetheoryand analysis.E-mail:
Studie
Eine neue politische Rolle? Diskursive Strategien kritischer Journalisten in China
Elin Sæther
AbstractDie vereinfachende Gegenüberstellung von freien und unfreien Medien reicht für ein Verständnis derDynamikinnerhalb derchinesischen Medienlandschaftnichtaus.Während der vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnte haben die Medien eine erheblicheDiversifizierung erfahren, und gesellschaftliche Probleme sind zumGegenstand desöffentlichenDiskurses geworden.KritischeJournalisten haben fürsich eine neue professionelleIdentität formuliert. Vom Standpunkteinerhegemonialen Rolle derMedienin China geltenJournalisten als Propagandadienstleister,deren Hauptaufgabe die Verbreitung der Parteilinie ist. Kritische Journalisten widersetzen sich dieser Rolle und versuchen, eine Position zu artikulieren,die esihnen ermöglicht, freier übergesellschaftliche Probleme zu berichten.
Kritische Journalisten tragen dazu bei, eine neue politische Rolle für die Medien in China zu definieren.Der vorliegende Beitrag diskutiert, inwieweitaus den BemühungenvonJournalisten um größereAutonomietatsächlich eine solche Rolleresultiert.Andererseitsreflektiertdie Stärkung eines kritischenJournalismus auch das Bestreben des Parteistaats,die neuen Mediendiskursefür sich zu nutzen,da eine begrenzteAufdeckunglokalerMissstände den zentralen Parteistaatals responsivundverantwortlich und damit in einem günstigenLichterscheinenlässt. Im Ergebnis genießen die MedienAutonomie unter Vorbehalt, indem derParteistaatdie Kontrollmacht über ihre Bestrebungen behält,die Bandbreite anöffentlich diskutierbarenThemen zu erweitern. (Manuskript eingereicht am 18.08.2008; zur Veröffentlichung angenommen am 03.10.2008)
Keywords: China, Medien, kritischer Journalismus, Diskurs, politische Rolle
Die Autorin
Elin Sæther istDozentinfürHumangeografiein derAbteilungfürSoziologie und Humangeografie an derUniversitätOslo,Norwegen. InihrerForschung beschäftigtsie sich mitderpolitischen Rolle der kritischen Presse in China. Ihre Forschungsinteressen liegen im Bereich politischer Geografie mit den Schwerpunkten Macht, Repräsentationspolitik undDiskurstheorie und -analyse. E-Mail:
Introduction
An independent mediais conceptualized as a preconditionfora functioning democracy,becauseitserves as a check on government,ensures openness,and channels information between different parts of society (O’Neil 1998). A consequence of the emphasis onindependenceisthatownership becomesthe mainindicatorof the media’s potentialas a democratizingforceinthe state-society relation. It follows from this that the political role of the media in authoritarian statesis easilydisregarded, duetoitslack ofautonomy. This paperseeksto nuancethis understanding of the media’srole within an authoritarian one-party state,and arguesthat the media’s discursive and socialpractices areimportant in evaluating the media’s political role in society. In China, state ownership has notpreventedthe media’srolefrom changing duringthe process ofeconomic reforms underwaysincethe beginning of the1980s. The paper1addressesthe paradoxesinherent inthe political roles of the Chinese media and analysesthe self-perception of critical journalists in China, and their strategies to change the role of the mediafrom atop-down propaganda channel to a bottom-up channel representing the views and fates of ordinary people (laobaixing). The strategies of critical journalists are shaped in oppositionto the hegemonic mouthpiece role ofmedia. This meansthat even in criticalandinvestigativereports, the mouthpiece discourseis present,as a“defining other”. Critical journalismis a field of resistance,but thisresistancetakes placethrough negotiations withthe hegemonicrole of the media, whichis stated as beingthe mouthpiece of the CommunistParty. However, to the extent that journalists have succeededin making criticalandinvestigativejournalism become partof the Chinese media landscape, theyhave contributedto democratizing Chinese public space.Critical media opens up new possibilitiesfor representingthevarious experiences and living conditions ofChinese citizens, in a way thatcan contributeto political change.
The Media and Democracy in an Authoritarian Context
To manypeople, the phrase“critical journalismin China”has an oxymoronic value,sincethe mediain non-democracies are often consideredto be no more
1 I would like to thank Professor Kristian Stokke and Associate Professor Marina Svensson for their comments on previous drafts of this article, as well as the two anonymous referees who contributed with concise and relevant suggestions.
than propaganda machines. This paper,onthe otherhand,arguesthatdueto journalists’willingness and ability toresistdomination, it is possiblethatstate- controlled media can also contributeto democratizing politicalpractices. The simple opposition between state-independentandrestricted mediaisinsufficient as a basisforunderstandingthe media’srolein differentsocieties. This distinction rests on a belief inthe unrestricted position of the mass mediainliberal-democratic countries. In general,an understanding of the political role of the media depends on a contextual approach that encompasses both discursive and institutional perspectives on media practices.
Withintraditional liberal theory, theimportance of the mediais connected toitsrole as afree-marketwatchdog(Curran2005). The media’s major taskis tofunction as a check onthe state bymonitoringitsinstitutions and exposing abuses ofstate power. Thefulfilmentof the watchdogrole depends on private ownership andfreedomfrom stateinvolvement.Anystate engagementwithinthe media sector is perceived as athreatagainst the media’sfreedomthatwillprevent it from exercising this role (Curran 2005). Investigative journalism is supposed to safeguard publicinterests and uphold democracy by uncovering obscured truths,exposingimmoralor illegalpractices and defendingvictims of injustice (Curran2005;de Burgh2000a).Equally important fordemocracy isthe media’s rolein providing an arena for information and debate. Through journalistic practicethat reflects conflicts and givesvoiceto a pluralityof interests, journalists mediatetheinterests of the peoplein a way that responsive governmentstakeinto account. As such, the mass media serves as a channel forcontinuousfeedback from citizens to their elected representatives (Curran 2005).
Aprincipalproblem withthe above conception of therelationship betweenthe state andthe mass mediaisthat itplacesinsufficientemphasis on sources ofpower other than state power (Curran2005). A substantialportion ofglobalmediais owned by large corporations, such as media conglomerates, and even in liberal democraciesit is naïveto conceive of the media as beingfree ofconstraints. If the public/private distinctionis made synonymous withtherestricted/free opposition, the countervailinginterestsinvolvedinthe media’srelationshipto corporate as wellas governmentpower remain hidden.Privatelyowned media have supported authoritarian stateruleinArgentina and Chile(Curran2005),and private media inTaiwan accepted and contributedtolegitimizing authoritarianrule(Lee2000).
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who controlsthe Star TVnetwork in China, removedthe BBC’s World Service channel inresponseto Chinese authorities’
negative reactions to the channel’sreportsfromtheTian’anmen massacrein 1989 (Chambers2000). In thelate1990s, there was a strong belief that the globalization ofmedia andthe developmentof theInternetwould bring down totalitarianregimes and pavethe way fordemocracy (Lagerkvist 2006). This optimism did not takeinto account that Internet technologyhas been developed on a commercialbasisthathas also madeitsusceptibleto stateintereststhat weigh in the opposite direction of free information.
Theimage of free,unconstrained media power inliberaldemocraciesis an idealized picture ofa more complex situation. Therelationship between gov- ernmentandthe mediais often characterized bymutualdependency. Watchdog journalismisfacilitated by the politicalopposition,astheyhave aninterest in ex- posing problems and misconduct thatcan be blamed ontheirpoliticalantagonists (de Burgh 2000a). Investigative journalism is expensive and resource-intensive andrequires editors and owners who are willingto place social responsibility above profitability. This has meant thatpublic media has been animportant providerofwatchdogjournalism(de Burgh2000b),contrary to whatshould be expected accordingtothefree-market thesis. Private, free-marketmediais also subject to economic constraintsthat influence howthe media contributes to democracy. Deregulation and commercialization ofmedia appearsto have reducedrather thanincreasedthe amountofwatchdog journalism(de Burgh 2000b).
Thevariouslimitations onthe media’s watchdogrole weakenliberal theory’s conception of theindependentmedia,but thatdoes notprevent the mediafrom playing animportant rolein upholding democracy.However, the media’srole in contexts of domination is less clear.
The Media and Political Transitions
In spite of the assumption regarding the close relationship between media and democracy, there have beenfew attemptsto analysethe media’srolein political transitions (O’Neil 1998). The political role of the mediareceived little attentioninthe debatethat followedinthe wake of thetransitionsinthe formerSovietUnion and Eastern Europeinthe1990s. An elite perspective has dominatedtransitionliterature andthisreflects a narrow conceptualization of democracyand democratization,onethatemphasizestheformalcharacteristics of democracy rather thanits substantialaspects. The distinction betweenformaland substantialdemocracywasintroduced bydeTocqueville,andimpliesthat thereis
no necessarycorrespondence betweentheformal institutions ofa democracyand theredistribution ofpower thatmakes citizens abletoinfluence decision-making processes(Luckham etal. 2003). Grugel (2002)elaborates onthe characteristics of formaland substantive democracyand describes substantialdemocracyas a moreinclusive concept thatdepends on whetherornot rights haverealmeaning forpeople. Democratizationis understood asthe processesthatcontributeto this goal,by introducing and extending citizenshiprights as wellas creating a democratic state. Such politics of inclusion contain processesthatgive citizens a political voice and a stakein government. The government’s accountability and responsiveness to the needs and interests of its citizens is crucial, as is the construction of democraticinstitutions thatenable political contestation and debate. A successful politics of inclusion will lead to a situation where democratizationfrom belowis combined with effective governance(Luckham et al. 2003).
In manysocieties, this goalwillseem unattainable,but the conceptofpolitics of inclusionis still valuable becauseitpoints outprocesses ofdemocratization thatmayoccur,even within authoritarian states,withoutnecessarily resulting in the constitution of a formal democracy (Luckham et al. 2003). Sklar’s (1987) analysis of developmental democracy introduces the phrase “democracy in parts”,meaningthateven within authoritarian states, there mightbe pockets of democracyembeddedininstitutions such asthe courts, the media,or the unions.
Authoritarianismis notnecessarilymonolithic,andtothe extent that institutions are ableto create expanded spacesfordissentand debate, theycontributeto democratizationinits substantialsense,while notnecessarily resultinginthe establishmentofaformaldemocracy. Political resistance againstauthoritarian regimes is often associated with dissidents who openly challenge the legitimacy of the dominantpowerholders. However, in a country like China, there are numerous people who are working towards greater freedoms of expression, and improved human rights, from within the existing institutional setup. They practice politicalstrategies of resistancethatmay contributeto a more open society.
From Mouthpiece to Market: the Instrumental Role of the Media
The Chinese media has undergone profound changesinthe post-Mao era,and duetoinstitutional legacies,market reforms,andtheinformationrevolution, the
currentmedia situationis both complexand paradoxical. While market reforms have changedthe modus operandiof the media,some of thetensions withinthe Chinese mediafield are embeddedininstitutionalpractices andthe political role assigned to the media in the Mao era.
During the formation of the People’s Republic of China, the media was moulded into the party-state structure (Chang 1997; Cheek 1989; Lynch 1999;
Nathan1985)as partof the Chinese CommunistParty’s(CCP)propaganda system.
Adoubletask was assignedto the media by the CCP: itwasto propagandize party policies and assist in the rectification of the party (Cheek1989). The first task,communicating partypolicies,was conductedthroughthe distribution ofpropaganda, whilethe rectification establishedthe media as one ofseveral supervisory channelsthat could receive complaints and grievances from the people(Liebman2005). The media should servethe people,notonly through propaganda butalso by keepingtheminformed. Investigativejournalism was conceived as a check ontendencies amonglower-levelofficialsto overrate positive results and underestimate local problems (Liebman 2005). In theory, journalists were expected to combine their role as propagandists with critical, investigative reporting. In practice, thetwo aspects ofmedia’srole were notequally valued, andthe critical, investigative practice was strictly restrained. CCPleadership decided that critical reports should only be published if they were of immediate benefit to the party’s interests (Nathan 1985; Polumbaum 1990).
As in most countries, Chinese media policy was framed in a discourse about the publicinterest (Keane2001). The Maoist idea of the public was connected to animage ofsocietyas atotality in which all relationships were changeable.
Withinthistotality,culture was a meansto be utilizedinthe education of the public and publicinterest was “recognized as the maintenance of collective morality and obligation rather than an individual’s constitutional rights” (Keane 2001:789). In principle, the Chinese media was not intendedto be an oppressive, top-down propaganda channel. Maoist ideology considered the party to be the representative of the people’s government, so the party’s mouthpiece could simultaneouslybe the mouthpiece of the people (Lee 1990). This harmony- oriented conceptualization of the state-society relationship assumed that the members of the proletariathad a commoninterest,andthat the partywasthe articulation of theinterestof the people. Inthis context the media’srole wasto ensure this unity between the party and the people.
Thisinstrumentalnotion of the media’srole meant thatmedia contentwas evaluated accordingtoits potential functioninthe construction ofa new society.
News was notevaluated accordingtoits perceivedimportance,butaccording toits potentialeffect. The mouthpiece conception of the media’srole andthe distinction between positive and negative news arelegaciesthatstillshapethe working conditions of Chinese media (Interview, Xu Feng2).
The solutiontotheinherentconflictbetweenthe propagandist role andthe investigativerole wasto establishtwo differentchannelsto separatethem. In additiontothe open media directed at the public, theinternalmedia channel keptpoliticalauthoritiesinformed(Hsiao&Cheek1995). This dualchannel system has been upheld,and constitutes one aspectof the mouthpiece media thatcritical journalists oppose and distancethemselvesfrom. However, inthe process of framing a new professional identity, critical journalists have used the fact that they have also previouslybeen called uponto produceinvestigative journalism andto servethe people as a discursiveresource. Critical journalists have construedthemselves asloyal tothefundamental task ofservingthe people, but theyhave chosentoforegroundthe second ofMao’stwo assignmentstothe media,whichinvolvedthereflection ofcommon people’s grievances andliving conditions.
Critical Discourse in the Public Sphere
From a completely integrated position within the party-state structure, Chinese media actorstodaymanoeuvre between competition,marketconstraints,and po- liticalboundaries. Economic subsidies have beenreduced,and market incentives now partly fill the space previouslyoccupied bypropaganda purposes(Huang 2001; Lee1994; Lee etal. 2006;Zhao2008, 1998). As aresultof the growing competition within the media market for customers and advertisements, the Chinese media outlets havetunedintotheinterests of theiraudiences andthe range of topics written about inthe press has expanded. Pan and Chan(2003) show howthis developmentaway fromthe dominance of the partypress hasled to the establishment of more entertaining, readable, and practically useful news media, as demonstratedin Shanghai’stabloidXinmin Evening. However, the competitive media market evolving in China during the 1990s also opened the
2 All journalists interviewed for this research project have been granted anonymity and the names are pseudonyms.
way formore problem-oriented andinvestigativejournalism,andtheSouthern Weekend(Nanfang Zhoumo)has been at theforefrontof the developmentofa critical press.
Inthe contextofa politicallycontrolled media system,criticism can easily be understood as subversive and contrary to party-state interests. Negative images ofChina and Chinese societysuch as socialand environmentalproblems, grievances,crime,and corruption were notpreviouslydiscussed withinthe open press. Makingthesetopics partof the public sphere was contradictory to the mouthpiece media’s emphasis on positive news. In order forChinese media outletstoforward such news, theyhave hadtorepresent theirdiscursive and social practices as being compatible withtheformalandinformal regulations governing the mediafield. Ininterviews with problem-oriented Chinesejournalists who have been workingfor theSouthern Weekendand othermedia organizations, I have asked journalists to explain their own practice, their motivation, and their objectives. Theiraccounts show howtheir professional identity is definedin relationtothe mouthpiecerole of the media. The mouthpiecerole of the media istheirdefining other. The partypressrepresentsthe normaland undisputedthat characterizes hegemonic understandings ofsocialphenomena(Laclau&Mouffe 2001). Critical and investigative journalism is measured against the mouthpiece conception of the media’srole,andthis meansthat thetaboos and discursive boundariesinscribedinthe mouthpiecerole of the media arerestrictionsthat critical journalism must take into account.
In order to avoid party-state sanctions,critical journalism mustappearas non- subversive. In critical journalists’accounts of theirwork, theyarticulate conscious strategies directed at representingtheir journalistic work as being within the boundaries of the politically acceptable. To be able to continue workingin the media,critical journalists must respectandincludetherequirements of the mouthpiece role, to a certain extent.
In their writing there is a parallel process of negotiation between the mouth- piecerole of the media andtherole ofsocialcriticism. As aresult,articlesfrom theSouthern Weekendare polyphonictexts where several voices orperspectives can be identified. The texts analyse social problems, but at the same time, they include elements of the mouthpiece discourseto preventaccusations ofsubver- sion. Representations of conflicts and systemic problems are often balanced by thejournalist’sfocus onindividualizedrepresentations ofsuffering and misery, which are construed asless political. This balance makesthe socialcriticism more
subtle,andthisis characteristic of forms of resistancetaking placein situations characterized byhighlyasymmetrical power relations(Pan& Lu2003;Scott 1990).
One of the consistent taboos in mouthpiece journalism is representations of politicsthatdo not reflect the party line. ForSouthern Weekend,a discursive tool used to avoid this limitation has been the establishment of “social news” as a major news category.
Social news has been construed as clearly separate from politics. This category includestopics such as environmentaldisasters,corruption, violence against women, the performance of the legalsystem, the health system, and violations of constitutional rights. The framing of these issues has made it possible to represent them as something apart from politics, and as not directly relatedtothe government’s performance. As of the mid-1990sSouthern Weekend startedto write more extensivelyaboutsocialnews. The paperpublishedlonger articles written byacademics and authorsin a supplement,and whenthese essays proved popular and influentialSouthern Weekendformed a group of their own journalists who started tolookinto the problems faced by ordinary Chinese.
The newspaper’s aim was stated as promoting democracyandthelegalsystem, and to do that they chose to focus on the situation of peasants, the unemployed, and otherweak and powerless groupsin society (Interview,FanYihong).Seen fromthe outside, thisis an explicitpoliticalobjective,butwithinthe Chinese media discourse, this aim was conducted under the heading of social news.
This also meant thatconcepts such as“democracy” and“rule of law”hadto be assigned content thatdid notchallengetherule or legitimacyofCCP. The way this hastypicallybeen doneis byemphasizingincrementalstepstowards more accountable and less corrupt social practices, while never questioning the legitimacy of CCP rule.
Conducting Critical and Investigative Journalism
The post-Mao transformation of Chinese society has improved the living condi- tions of millions of people, but in the process of reform, China has become one of the most inequitable countriesinthe world. Sincethe1990s, there have been frequentprotests where poorpeople,peasants and unemployed workers,and othermarginalized people havevoicedtheirgrievances and complaints(Shue
&Wong2007). The pace, the policies,andtheimplementation ofeconomic reformin China are disputed,but forChinesejournaliststhis has been an area
theyhave hadto approachin averycarefulmanner. Changeis a nodalpoint in therepresentation ofmodernity in China,and changesin media practices are framed as a parallelnarrativethat represents criticalandinvestigativejournalism as being linked with progress in general.
The14 journalistsI interviewedfor this project inthefallof 2002allposition their experiences within an overarching narrative of transition:
Before,ourmedia wastop-down,butduringthelastdecadethere has been a greatchangethathastaken place after the opening andreform of the country. The change has consistedinthe Chinese media’sroadtowards a market economy [...] the development of newspapers depends on cateringtothereaders’demands,asthe marketeconomydoes not request the flattering ofanything, insteaditwantsto achievetheidentification between newspapers and its readers. (Interview, Fan Yihong)
This narrative of the media’sreformis structured aroundthe meaning of “now”
as opposedto the meaning of “the past”. The past/presentdistinction aligns mediareforms with modernity,openness,andthe marketeconomy,whilethe past isrepresented as backwards,withoutany “real” journalism. In FanYihong’s narrative, the great changes within Chinese media are construed as a process of adaptation,and notastheresults ofoppositiontothe mouthpiecerole of the media. The media has developed becauseitneededto adjust totheintroduction ofa marketeconomy followingthe opening andreform ofChina(gaige kaifang).
Normalization through Professionalism
Within these limitations,Southern Weekend’s articles nevertheless represented a new developmentwithin Chinesejournalism,andreaders consideredits coverage of social problemsto be brave andinnovative. Southern Weekend journalists have usedthetraditional/modern dichotomy to aligninvestigative,bottom-up journalism with modernityand development,andto distanceit from propaganda, framed astraditionaland backwards. Theyput the distinction between modernity andthe past to furtheruse when theydevelopedthe category ofsocialnews.
According to journalist Wu Yunlu, traditional, old-fashioned social news follows a set formula. For instance, when an accident has taken place, it describes how many people who were injured or killed, how serious the damage was, and finally what the government has done to put things right again. Such narratives are compatible with the mouthpiecerole’s limitation on negative news,becausethe emphasis onrestoration allowsthe positive aspectsto come
totheforefront. Hence,stories aboutaccidents mayberead as narratives about the party-state’s ability to ensure order and help people. Wu Yunlu, on the otherhand,saysthatmodern socialnews breaks withthisformula and describes problemsthatare not yet resolved and problemsthathave more structuralcauses.
This explanation also builds on the discursive opposition between the past and the present, backwardness and modernity,and contributesto positioningthe mouthpiece role of the media as belonging in the past and critical journalism as part of modernity. However, Wu avoids terms that indicate opposition, instead choosingto presentSouthern Weekend’s socialnews as a naturalpartofmodern media.
Nevertheless, in order for investigative and critical journalismto become partofChinese media discourse,opposition has been unavoidable. Forproblem- orientedjournalists, ithas beenimpossibleto accept that the main objective of the media should be bringingthe party lineto the people. Hence, they have confronted the hegemonic standing of the mouthpiecerole of the media and haverefusedto be propaganda workers. Within an authoritarian context, voicing such oppositionis potentiallydangerous. Discoursesthatchallenge a hegemonic discourse are easilydepicted as being contrary tothe public good orsimplyas subversive. Therefore,critical journalistsin China have employed normalization as aresistance strategy: theyhave made use ofexisting discursive elements and rearticulated the media discourse, in order to construetheirown practice as legitimate and conducive to the public good.
One of the majoraspects ofnormalization as aresistance strategyhas beento establish an understanding of investigative and critical journalism as professional.
Since criticalandinvestigativejournalismis definedinrelationtothe hegemonic mouthpiecerole, theintendedimplicationisthatmouthpiecejournalists areless orare notprofessional. Inthis way, the critical journalists draw aline between themselves andthe majorityof journalistsin China. However, theydefinethe content of their professionalism by aligning themselves to the basic conception of the mouthpiecerole,whichisto contributetotheinterestofsociety;what theychallengeisthe notion ofhowthis should be done. By focusing on social problems, journalists activatethe media’srole as a channel forpublic supervision.
This was an aspect of the media’s assigned task within the mouthpiece role, but itbecame subordinateto the media’s propaganda mission. Intheirambition to change Chinese journalism, critical journalists use selected aspects of the hegemonic discourseto represent their choices as legitimate. Simultaneously,
theymakethe mouthpiecerole of the media appear to beillegitimate,becauseit is a top-down channel that excludes the voice of the people.
Theseidentityaspectsreversethe top-down characterofmouthpiecejour- nalism, and critical journalists describe their own practice as real journalism, in contrast to propaganda. Their emphasis on servingthe people changes how theyseetherelationship betweenjournalists andthe party-state,andthisinturn influences the critical journalists’ relationtothe internalchannel. Within the mouthpiecerole of the media, investigativereportsrevealing socialproblems have always been communicated directly to the leadership through the internal channel (de Burgh2003;Hsiao&Cheek1995). This excludesthe generalpublic, whichthe critical journalists see as theiraudience. Severalof the journalists interviewed felt that writing stories that reach fewer readers, the better they are, is contrary tothe wholeidea ofwhat journalismis about (Interview, Xu Feng, Zhao Sanpeng, AiHongwen). To thesejournalists, it istheir relationto the publicthatdefinestheirprofession,andtheyarguethat theircapacity toinfluence functions via the public’s knowledge and reactions. The media’s influence does notdepend on a direct relationship betweenjournalists andthe state,but rather onthe media’srelation to its public audience. This notion of media power attaches moreimportancetoindependencefromthe state,andthroughit,critical journalistsvoluntarilyclosethe gateto directpolitical influence. Theinternal channelhas providedjournalists with a capacity toinfluence power relations without bestowing them with autonomy. This distinction between capacity and autonomy isincompatible with critical journalists’notion ofprofessionalism and their relation to the public.
The propagandarole of the media has meant that journalistsin China have evaluated news accordingto how well itcommunicates politicallycorrectmes- sages on behalfof the party-state. Thisinstrumentalconception ofnewsvalueis something critical journalists do not acknowledge. The politically instrumental view of news influences both what is reported and how it is reported. Problems, conflicts,and accidentsthatdo notcontributeto presentingthe authoritiesin a favourablelightarerestricted withinthe mouthpiecerole of the media. When negativeissues arereported, theyareframedin waysthatare seen as conducive tothe dominantpolitical interests. In contrast tothis,oneinterviewee explained thathelooks uponjournalism as areflection. Hethinksthejournalistsimply ought to describe whathe seesfor the public(Interview,AiHongwen). Another informantused atruck as a metaphor,sayingthathe sees himselfasthetruck
that loadsthe news andtransportsit tothe public(Interview, Xu Feng). The idea conveyed by thesetwojournalistsisthat thereporter is a neutralconductor betweenincidents andthe audience. Theyseethejournalistas objectiverather than as an actor that actively shapes attitudes.
Within the mouthpiece conception of the media, objectivity has been a politicizedtermregarded as synonymous withreporting everything. This has been understood as being in opposition to Marxism because it undermined the propagandafunction of the media(Nathan1985). Ininternationalmedia discourse,objectivity is a defining characteristicinthe professional identityof journalists. However,being objectiveis generallydescribed asimpossible within the academicresearchliterature(Curran 2005; de Burgh 2000c). Although academicsviewjournalists as situated socialactorsreflectingthe particularities of class,education, interests,and dominating discourses,whetherornotneutrality and objectivityaretrulypossibleis not the most importantaspectof this question inthe Chinese context. The notion of thejournalistas a neutraland objective actor is a useful discursive means for critical journalists in China. It facilitates a representation of the professional identity of critical journalists as incompatible with the instrumental role the journalist is assigned within the mouthpiece role.
Theimage of the critical journalists as neutral also distinguishes investigative reporters from the practice of paid journalism that has become widespread in China duringthe post-Mao period(Zhao1998). Paidjournalisminvolves receiving money for attending press conferences, or bribes for representing companies or other social actors in particular ways. Sometimes bribes are also usedto discouragejournalists and editorsfrom publishing unwanted news.
Similarly to propaganda, paid journalism is a form of advocacy journalism, which critical journalists distancethemselvesfrom. Whenjournalists construe professionalismin a manner thatexcludes propaganda, theystatethatneither journaliststaking bribes nor those workingformouthpiece organs such asthe People’s Dailyare real journalists (Interview, Xu Feng). Discursively, this makes critical journalism stand out as more legitimate and the only form of journalism that meets professional standards.
When critical, investigative journalists express how being objectiveisfun- damental totheirwork,objectivity is articulated notonlyas an oppositionto propaganda butalso asthe opposite ofbeing subjective and biased(Interview,Shi Youli, Xu Feng). They representsubjectiveness as a common problemin Chinese media discourse. Chinese journalists often refer to anonymous sources, and not
infrequently theserepresent thejournalists’ownviewsin disguise. Thisis an inheritancefrom propagandajournalism, forwhichtheinstrumentalutilityof the news storydefinesitsimportance. Objectivity is also seen as connectedto working methods, since listening to and reporting from both sides of a conflict make articlesless biased and more objective(Interview, Xu Feng). Within propa- ganda journalism, there is never any doubt about right and wrong, nor any call for interpretation, since the general aim is to provide the public with politically pre-approved information.
Ideas aboutobjectivityandtruth are central in Western media discourse(de Burgh2003). When critical journaliststransfer theseideastothe Chinese context, theyconfrontan authoritarian one-partystatethat forbidsindependentmedia.
Journalists choose discursive strategies that give concepts such as objectivity, truth, and public service a content that is compatible withthe contextwithin which the journalists work. For instance, Shi Youli (Interview) says that as long asthere are people willingtotalk,critical journaliststry to getas close as possible tothetruth,butwithout violatingrules andregulations. Thereis a discursive convergence withforeign conceptions of journalism amongthe critical journalists, but the discourse is modified and contextualized in order to fit into the existing framework.
Social Stability and the Right to Know
Duringthelastdecade, the pre-eminent reason for the party-state’s need for information controlhas been presented asthe needto protectsocialstability (Lagerkvist 2006;Shue2004). Inthe same way thatcritical journalists co-opt the notion ofservingthe public bymakingita definingtraitof theirownidentity, they also take the hegemonic argument about protecting social stability and use it to carve out theirownidentity. Critical journalists arguethatsocialstability can bethreatened by ignoring people’sright to know. When accidents happen andinformationis withheld, rumours and panic are oftentheresult (Interview, Zhao Sanpeng, Xu Feng). This argumentdoes notquestion the importance of social stability, only the means for achieving it. In a controlled political environment, it is not possible to openly challenge the hegemonic discourse on social stability. Stability is conceived of as one of the main sources of legitimacy for the Chinese party-state; to avoid negative consequences, journalists must accept social stability as a premise.
While critical journalists do notchallengetheideathatsocialstabilitymust be protected, theyemphasizeviolations ofpeople’sright to know as a keysource ofpublic unrest and dissatisfaction. Human rights discourseis controversial in China,andis oftenrepresented as a cover for theimperialistambitions of the Western world(Sæther 2000). Usingthe phrase“right to know” (zhiqing quan), rather than freedom of expression, signifies a distance from international humanrights discourse.Strategically, it isimportant thatpeople’sright to know appears as a collective right, whereas freedom of expression can more easily be brushed aside as aliberal, individual right thatmustbe subordinatedtothe need for social stability. The focus on people’s right to know can also be understood as a market discourse where people’s demand for information must be satisfied by the supplyside, whichisthe media. The discourse of the market-oriented economy isless politicallysensitivethanthe humanrights discourse,andis better suitedforconvincingthe authoritiesto easetheircontrolovermedia content.
Nevertheless, arguingfor people’sright to know challenges the mouthpiece conception of media. For instance, critical journalists argue that the channelling ofnewsthrough theinternalchannel is aviolation of people’sright to know, as is the continuing media censorship of important incidents, perspectives, and problems.
Acentralcomponentof the media policydenying peopletheir right to know has been the division between negative and positive news. The media has been requiredto restrict the amountof “negative” newsto maximum20percent;
the remaining 80 per cent should consist of “positive” news. Critical journalists perceive the positive/negative dichotomy as a means of media control, and they opposeitonthe groundsthat it is uselessfor the purpose ofevaluating news value (Interview, Ai Hongwen). According to Xu Feng:
Thethingsthatare newsworthy,and can be called newsin China,are categorized as negative news[...] Thata public securityofficialoratax office dotheir jobin a good manner, that is onlynormal, regular,andthat cannot count as news. Dereliction of duty, crimes, that is news.
Theinsistence onjudgingtheimportance ofnews on anindependentbasis brings critical journalistsin China moreinline with Western conceptions of the media’s role. Westernjournalistsin generalbelieve strongly intheirown objectiveness and autonomyandlook uponthemselves astellers of thetruth(de Burgh2003).
In China, the mediais preventedfrom beingindependent fromthe party-state, butcritical journalists stillemphasizetheirawareness of independencefrom other
influential actors.
Critical journalists ornewspapers such asSouthern Weekend cannotclaim to be autonomous. Theirstrategies to establish themselves as a natural part ofChinese media are characterized bypartialopposition and partial loyalty to the mouthpiecerole. Critical journalistsrelatetofundamentalaspects of the mouthpiece conception of the media’srole,such as“servingthe public”and
“protecting social stability”, but modify these aspects through the formation of a new critical identity. Withinthisidentity,people’sright to know,objectivity, andindependence are centraldiscursive moments,and measured against these milestones,mouthpiecejournalistsfallshort. Critical journalists diagnose mouth- piece workers as having split professional identities: partly government officials and onlypartly journalists. Thisis associated withthe old-fashioned, closed society thatChina usedto be. Critical journalism,onthe otherhand, is modern and moreinline withideas of journalism abroad(Interview,WuYunlu). To criti- cal journalists, professionalism is incompatible with co-optation as government officials. Acentral question then becomes whether or not critical journalists are actually able to be the independent watchdogs they identify themselves as being.
Government Mission or Independent Watchdogs?
Giventhe critical journalists’oppositiontothe hegemonic mouthpiece conception of the media’srole,one maywonderwhathas madethe Chinese party-state toleratethe developmentofcritical journalism. Aslong asjournalists staywithin therulesthat regulatetheirprofessionalactivities,arethey really theindependent watchdogstheyseethemselves as? It is evident thatcritical journalists’emphasis on serving the public does notmake them equal to dissidents. The Chinese party-state accepts“public supervision” (yulun jiandu). This“means acting like a watchdog, keeping an eye upon societyand drawing attentionto what the authorities mayhave missed” (de Burgh2000d, 2003:111). Onthe other hand, the party-state does not allowindependentmedia; yet within Chinese politicaldiscourse,public supervision does notnecessarily imply impartiality. It can be conducted on behalfof the state,anditcan enhancethelegitimacyof the state, becauseitmakesit appear to be moreresponsiveto the grievances of the population. However, when critical journalists statethat their loyalty lies with ordinarypeople(laobaixing)and not the state, theyattempt to create freedom of movement for a role that exceeds the limitations placed upon a governmentwatchdog. The discussion below addressesthistension between
critical journalism as a government-inspired mission and as an independent watchdog role by investigating the objectives of critical journalistic practices.
Zhang Ping is a senior journalist who has been engaged in investigative journalism since the 1980s. He has published several books and has been particularly interested in rural China. When asked about his work and his motivation,hetells ofcases whereindividuals arevictimized dueto powerabuse, for instance,a woman who was forcedinto a marriage where she was abused and her basic human rights violated. As a farmer she was poor and without the necessaryconnectionstofurtherhercase. She had wantedto sue herhusband, butwas notableto make anything happen. Beingfrom alocalitywherethe judicialsystemis secondary tothe political institutions,herabusers could getaway withoutbeing punished. Tothejournalist,such stories areinteresting because they illustrate more general problems such as the absence ofan independent judiciary and the continued oppression of women in China.
In this case, Zhang Ping’s investigation and report caused a reaction and the culprits were punished. This can beinterpreted asthejournalist’s government- inspired mission: he conducted public supervision on behalfof the centralstate, and addressed a concrete problemthatwaslater rectified. Inthis sense,hisreport did notdiverge muchfrom previous propaganda,sinceithad aninstrumental functioninrepresenting politicalauthoritiesin a particularway. Brady (2008) argues that inits meeting withtheinformationrevolution, the Chinese party- state’s propaganda methods have beenrefined,andthe exposure of limited, local problems may verywellbeinline withthe PropagandaDepartment’sinterests.
However,asthejournalistemphasizes, there are manywomenlikethisvictim.
Theyarevulnerable as aresultofsystemicinjustice,and almostpowerless when the judiciary is corrupt and undermined by personal and political interests. The concrete, localcase has a more systemic contextdealing with social injustice and the failings of the judiciary system; investigating this challenges the party-state’s legitimacy.
Since the late 1990s, cases of corruption and criminal behaviour among officials have frequently been disclosed (Interview, Xu Feng, Wang Yi, Fan Yihong). The journalistAi Hongwen has investigated many such cases and says thathis goal isto helpthevictims ofcorruption and abuse ofpoweras besthe can.
Hetoo sharesthefocus ontheindividual victims ofabuse ofpower,andtries to use his own knowledge of lawto compensatefor victims’ lack of resources.
Heis motivated byhis sense of justice,andthisinspires himtotakerisks andto
“ferretout” the hard-to-find evidencein corruption cases. His hopeisthathis reports may influence higher levels ofgovernment toinvestigate and prosecute the criminalsinvolved. AiHongwen portrays himselfas playing an activerolein revealing how public officials abusetheirpositions. Thereis discussion among Chinesejournalists asto howfar theyshouldtakethisrole.One of theinformants from a more heavilycontrolled news organization stressedthatmedia should notactasthe police orbe ajudge,andthatother institutions areresponsiblefor bringingforward evidence ofcriminalbehaviour. Thisjournalistconfinesthe media’sroletoreporting on cases after theyarerevealed(Interview,FengLihong).
The difference ofopinion betweenthesetwointerviewees can berepresented as one ofdegreerather than as a complete opposition. Theyboth believeto some extent inthe centralparty-state’s ability to dealwith crime andinjustice.
Neitherof them explicitlycriticizesthe systemiclevel. However, the willingness to activelyscrutinize abuses ofpowermakesAiHongwenlesslikely torestrict his investigations to topics and circumstances approved by the party-state.
In the critical journalists’accounts of theirwork, theyplacelittletrust in the authorities’ accounts of how and why things happen. In particular, they emphasizethat localgovernmentofficials have aninterest in protecting a positive image of thelocality. Thetendencyof localofficialsto underestimate problems and exaggerate qualities of thelocalitywas acknowledged as a problem during the Mao era, and has continued to the present day. This has made it less sensitivefor journalists and media positioned abovethe county level to approach problems at thelocalscale. In additionto utilizingthe geographicalhierarchy, journalists have also extendedthefield ofcriticalandinvestigativejournalism by focusing on socialproblems andincidentsin provinces other thantheirown.
The resulting focus on social problems at the local level may be consistent with an interpretation of critical journalists as government watchdogs, since it makes socialproblems appear to be unitary instances,morethanthe systemicresults of general policies. However, the political development during the last few years hastransferred more powerover the mediatolocalpartybosses,and since 2005, the possibilityof provincial media outlets exposing socialproblemsin otherprovinces has beenrestricted. To dothis nowrequires permission. The practice of reporting criticallyabout lowergeographical levels has also been contained,sincejournalists now need permissionfromlocalauthoritiesif the topicin questionis a negative one(Zhao2008). Also,centralauthorities have often supportedthelocalauthorities’ version of reality, rather than protecting
journalists’ investigationsintolocalmatters. The centralPropagandaDepartment assistslocalauthoritiesin communicating news blocksto allnews organizations and affirmsthe protection ofauthorities againstnegative exposure. The party- state’s containmentof investigativejournalism duringthelast fewyearsindicates that the role of critical journalists exceeds the limits of government watchdogs.
Giventherestrictions placed upon Chinesejournalists, Xu Fengtriesto act as quicklyas possible when he decidestoinvestigate a case. Hetalksto people andtriestofind outwhat reallyhappened. Even whenthe case heis working onis closed by the PropagandaDepartment,he believesintheimportance of being present. To himit isimportant to know,eventhough he willnotbe able to publish a story. He explains that perhaps, at a later stage, when the political climate has changed,he willbe abletotell people what reallyhappened. Xu Feng’s belief intheimportance ofbeing present is alsoindicative ofhisidealist convictions, in that he believes that his own journalistic practices can contribute to a more just society.
Hybrid Roles
Itmustbe admittedthat the question ofwhethercritical journalists areindepen- dentwatchdogs oremployed on a governmentmission has a weakness. It furthers traditional binary thinking and is too crude to capture the hybrid forms of jour- nalism developing within the Chinese media field today. Journalists, such as Xu Feng,who areindependent-minded and defy restrictions contributeto extending the parameters ofwhatChinesejournalists can do. Others doinvestigative work, but limit themselves to officially endorsed issues or produce their stories for the internalchannel. For instance, journalists at theXinhua news agencycontinueto writeinternal reportsthatgo directly tothe political leadership(Interview,Feng Junjiu,WangYi,FengLihong). Tothe extent that the objectives of journalists arerestricted to helpingindividuals who suffer fromlocalauthorities’abuses ofpower, theydo notexplicitlyquestionthelegitimacyof the central levelof the state. On the contrary, the problems they address can contribute to making the governmentappearmoreresponsive and compassionate. This has been a common argumentabout TVshows such asFocus(Jiaodian Fangtan),which only features problems that can be easily rectified and contributes to a positive image of the centralauthorities(Chan2002). Inthis sense,critical journalism can be seen as a continuation of the mouthpiece role of the media, as it serves a propa- ganda purpose. Finally, there are newspapers within party-state organizations
that uncover important social issues, but they also have to uphold their role as a particular organization’s mouthpiece.
Amajorprobleminherent in combiningthe mouthpiecerole withindependent, investigativejournalismis one of trust. Propagandais designedto provoke a specificreaction,whileinvestigativejournalismis defined by its problem-oriented contentand by its methods. China Women’s News(Zhongguo FunüBao) is a paperwhich combines criticallyoriented news withtraditionalpropaganda. The paper isthe mouthpiece of the mass organizationAllChina Women’s Federation.
Its propaganda contentconsists mainlyofpiecesin whichthe local divisions writetheiraccounts ofwhat theyhave donein order to presenta convincing and positiveimage of their own practice. The problem for the paperoccurs whentheywant to put forward a more critical voice,becausetheirpromotion ofpropaganda contentmakestheir realnews harder to believe(Interview,Zhu Yang). The paper then depends on skilful readers’ability to separate between the typical patterns of the propaganda texts and freer and more real journalism.
Anotherhybridform of journalistic agencycan befoundinthe conception of the journalist as activist. To some journalists, the most relevant response when their capacity to influencethrough independent reportingisrestricted isto engagein politics as socialactivists. Seminars and meetings offerathird channel, in addition to the open press and the internal channel. Meetings offer an opportunity to exchangeviews andto writereports and articles,and constitute a more directwayof influencing governmentofficials(Interview,ZhuYang).For journaliststo work as activists within a mass organizationis a wayofengagingin advocacyon social issues withoutchallengingthe authorityandlegitimacyof the party-state.
Activism can be seen as aresponsetotherestricted media situationthat is commonin authoritarian states,where state powercannotbeinfluencedthrough democratic elections and where freedom of expressionis limited. However, when a certain level ofautonomy is allowed, the media can be one of very few channels of influencefrom society tothe state. Isuggest that this situation can be understood as conditionalautonomy. This conceptionis groundedin an understanding of the socialas open and ofhegemonic orders as changeable, while also recognizing the relative strength of the state versus social actors. It is a conceptualization of the state-society relationship that allows for an analytical separation ofautonomyand capacity,whichisimportant forexplaining situations where political influence on the state depends on close ties rather than on
autonomy. Journalists who are also activists within mass organizations,such as AllChina Women’s Federation,do haveinfluence and politicalcapacity,but notmuch autonomy.Finally,conditionalautonomy is a concept thatopensthe way foran analysis ofdemocratizing politicalpractices andtheir implications in contexts wherethe stateremainsin a positiontoimpose sanctions upon any unwanted politicaldevelopments. Thisisthe case withthe developmentofmore critical journalismin China. Ithas expanded therange of issuesthatcan be discussed andreportedinthe public sphere,but thefreedom ofcritical journalists is only conditional, and remains subject to party-state control.
Conclusion
The CCPleadership has neverofficially redefinedthe political role of the Chinese media,andthe hegemonic mouthpiece discourse ofChinese media still restricts what journalists can and cannotcommunicatetothe public. The changesthat havetaken placeinthe organization of the mediafield andin media practices have evolved gradually. Today, the Chinese mediais diversified andis characterized by a wide array of media outlets offering productsthatcater tothe interests of the audience. One aspectof this developmenthas beenthe expansion of critical journalism within some media. Critical and investigative journalism challengesthe mouthpiecerole of the media,while simultaneouslyadaptingto a controlled media environment. Critical journalists utilizethetension between the propaganda andthe informationalaspects withinthe mouthpiecerole of the media when they refer to serving the public as central to their role as journalists. Investigativejournalists balance between criticism and propaganda, but their journalism has nonetheless contributed to making social problems part of the Chinese public sphere. The naturalization strategies ofcritical journalists represent their journalism as alegitimate and necessarypartof the Chinese media.
Throughtheirworktheycontributetoredefiningthe political role of the critical press,sothat it includes people’sright to beinformed andthe exposure ofofficial powerabuse andinjustice. Tothe extent that the media contributesto politicizing social issues, it becomes a factor in the democratization process, giving voice to intereststhatmightotherwiseremain unrecognized. In spite of the absence ofan independentmedia, this shows how discursive and socialpractices can contribute to new spaces of representation, even within an authoritarian state.
References
Brady,Anne-Marie(2008),Marketing Dictatorship, Lanham: Rowman& Little- field Publishers
Chambers, Deborah (2000), “Critical Approaches to the Media: The Changing Context for InvestigativeJournalism”, in:Hugo de Burgh(ed.),Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice, London: Routledge, pp.89-107
Chan, Alex (2002), “From Propaganda to Hegemony: Jiaodian Fangtanand China’s Media Policy”, in: JournalofContemporaryChina, vol.11,no.30, pp.35-51
Chang, Julian (1997), “The Mechanics of State Propaganda: The People’s Republic ofChina and SovietUnioninthe1950s”, in: TimothyCheek&
Tony Saich (eds.), New Perspectives on State Socialism in China, Armonk:
M.E. Sharpe, pp.76-124
Cheek, Timothy (1989), “Redefining Propaganda: Debates on the Role of Journalism in Post-Mao Mainland China”, in: Issues and Studies, vol.25, no.2, pp.47-74
Curran, James(2005), “Mediations ofDemocracy”, in: James Curran&Michael Gurevitch (eds.), Mass Media and Society, 4th edition, London: Hodder Arnold, pp.122-149
de Burgh,Hugo(2003),The ChineseJournalist. MediatingInformationinthe World’s Most Populous Country, London: Routledge Curzon
— (2000a), “Some Issues Surrounding Investigative Journalism”, in: Hugo de Burgh (ed.), Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice, London:
Routledge, pp.65-88
— (2000b), “Introduction:A HigherKind of Loyalty”, in:Hugo de Burgh(ed.), InvestigativeJournalism: Contextand Practice, London:Routledge,pp.3-25
— (ed.) (2000c), Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice, London:
Routledge
— (2000d), “ChineseJournalism andtheAcademy: The Politics and Pedagogy of the Media”, in: Journalism Studies, vol.1, no.4, pp.549-558
Grugel, Jean (2002), Democratization: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke:
Palgrave
Hsiao, Ching-Chang & Timothy Cheek (1995), “Open and Closed Media:
External andInternal Newspapersin the Propaganda System”, in: Carol Lee Hamrin & Suisheng Zhao (eds.), Decision-Making in Deng’s China.
