Jump to content

Talk:Mass media in China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 14:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fax machines are perfectly legal in China and in fact China is one of the largest exporters of fax machines and scanners in the world. Why was the lie that fax machines are illegal because they might transmit illegal documents placed on this article? It is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.98.85 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

LOC

This is the text from the LOC country study of China. It was valid in 1987, but I'm not sure how much of it is valid now. Someone with a little more knowledge than me can try to weed out whatever is still relevant. --Jiang 05:25 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since 1978 the media had been one focus of the CCP's efforts to modernize key sectors of Chinese society, and it operated on the premise that more responsible and factual reporting would help to narrow the distance between the elite and the masses. The party hoped in this way to enlist mass support for its nation-building program. In 1987 the official media continued to play its assigned role as a vehicle through which to inform, educate, indoctrinate, control, and mobilize the masses.

Before 1978 the CCP used the mass media as a tool to "serve the interest of proletarian politics" or the party's "class struggle" and "mass line." Having these priorities, the party was concerned neither with openness nor accuracy. What the CCP considered information was more often than not the interpretation of events or data that would support the government's political, social, and economic programs. Timeliness of content was far less important than political or ideological utility. Before 1976 the party allowed no dissenting view to appear in print. The result was reporting and commentary that made information and propaganda all but synonymous.

With the ascendancy of the Deng Xiaoping reformers in 1978, the mass media began to display a different orientation and focus. It began to play a significant part in the CCP drive to popularize, first within the party, the notion of "practice being the only criterion of truth" and of "seeking truth from facts," rather than from petrified formulations. After March 1978 the party press no longer printed Mao's quotations in bold type. Moreover, it began to report more shortcomings and expose more criticism of the central authorities. In 1987 there still were considerable limits on criticism in the official media, however. Party general secretary Hu Yaobang, in a 1986 speech published in the party's daily organ Renmin Ribao, instructed editors that 80 percent of reporting should focus on achievements in modernization and only 20 percent on shortcomings.

China's extensive communication system includes both official and unofficial channels. Official means of communication include government directives and state documents, newspapers, periodicals, books, and other publications; radio and television; and drama, art, motion pictures, and exhibitions. Unofficial channels include handwritten wall newspapers, handbills, posters, street-corner skits, and theater (see Culture and the Arts , ch. 4). Of all these channels, the newspapers, periodicals, and electronic media continued in 1987 to play the most important part in communications.

Among the principal national newspapers in 1987, Renmin Ribao contained party and government directives, unsigned editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor. The latter were often critical of local implementation of central policies. The PLA organ was Jiefangjun Bao (Liberation Army Daily). Gongren Ribao (Workers' Daily) dealt with labor matters, and Guangming Ribao (Enlightenment Daily) provided coverage of science, culture, and education. There were numerous other newspapers published both at the provincial-level and at the mass organization-level, but none of these had the prestige and authoritativeness associated with the party and army newspapers. Starting in 1978, party authorities permitted newspapers from south China provinces to circulate outside China; in 1983 north China newspapers were given foreign circulation. There were also many specialty newspapers focusing on the economy, trade and finance, agriculture, the arts, youth affairs, and so on. By the end of 1984, post offices in China reportedly were distributing 734 different newspapers with a total circulation of 112.9 million, or a newspaper for every eighth person in China.

Hongqi (Red Flag), a journal published by the CCP Central Committee, provides guidance on questions of current political theory, explaining the direction of the party's Marxist analysis, setting forth the party line, and suggesting the proper methods for implementing it. A monthly until December 1979, Hongqi since has been published twice a month. The government also publishes its major reports and documents. For example, Guowuyuan Gongbao (State Council Bulletin), appearing three times a month, provides a summary of directives, prints notices, presents agreements signed with foreign countries, and registers central approval given to local government actions.

In addition to open official and unofficial documents, there is another large category of materials that is classified for internal use (neibu), as opposed to for public use (gongkai). These materials are published by party, government, academic, and professional organizations. Some publications have additional restrictions, such as for distribution only within the publishing unit. The most protected publication is entitled Cankao Ziliao (Reference Information) and is distributed to around 1,000 high officials daily. A similar internal use publication, but with a much wider readership, is the Cankao Xiaoxi (Reference News). This publication contains translations of selected foreign news articles, many of which are critical of China. These internally circulated materials generally are more reliable and detailed than those found in the open press.

The principal source of domestic news and the sole source of international news for the mass domestic newspapers and radio is the Xinhua (New China) News Agency. This government agency has departments dealing with domestic news, international news, domestic news for foreign news services, and foreign affairs. It maintains an extensive network of correspondents in ninety overseas bureaus. Xinhua also releases the News Bulletin in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Russian, totaling about 30,000 words per day, and provides special features to newspapers and magazines in more than 100 countries. Domestic branches of Xinhua can communicate with the head office over microwave communications. Internationally, a telecommunications network has been established linking Beijing with Paris, London, New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Further, Xinhua has rented an international communications satellite to file news to foreign countries and exchange news with foreign news agencies. It mails special features to newspapers and magazines in more than 100 countries. Another news agency, China News Service (Zhongguo Xinwenshe), provides news stories and photographs to Chinese newspapers and some radio and television stations in Hong Kong, Macao, and several foreign countries.

By 1984 electronic media included over 160 radio stations and 90 television stations (see Telecommunications , ch. 8). The Central People's Broadcasting Station, headquartered in Beijing and subordinate to the Ministry of Radio, Cinema, and Television, provided domestic service to every area of the country. Radio Beijing, China's overseas radio service, continued to expand its programming, initiating a news program in English for foreign residents in Beijing in January 1985. Television service was available in the major urban areas and was increasing its reach outside urban centers. China's television broadcasting was under the control of China Central Television (CCTV). In 1979 the network began an "open university" program. By 1984 China reported having "radio and television universities" in 326 cities and 1,168 counties throughout 28 provinces, autonomous regions, and special municipalities, making the use of television an important aspect of higher education in China (see Education Policy , ch. 4).

Old discussion

Far overstates the situation

Information about social and political conditions in the country is considered a state secret thus criminalizing communication or publication of accurate information.

The government can and does use state secrecy laws at some things that it considered really embarrassing. But at the same time, there are huge areas of discourse that are permitted.

Have you ever read a Chinese newspaper.

--- Roadrunner

Added information from

https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/425050797/index.htm

US Federal publications hence public domain --Roadrunner

Given the rapid rate of change in both media worldwide and in China in general, I would suggest that all mentions of "the present" be changed to mention exactly what period of time the information pertains to. Text like "More than 100,000 people in China now have Internet access, and the figure is likely to surpass one million within four years, according to a Chinese specialist on the subject." sounds patently absurd in the fall of 2004, and it would be nice to know exactly when "more than 100,000 people" had internet access.

In China the media must now produce programming not only that consumers find attractive but that advertisers find attractive too. For example, a journalist might want to report on a problem with a product that happens to be made by one of the newpaper's key advertisers. He speaks with his advertiser about it and decides to put the article on an inner page under a smaller headline.

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 14:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


Mainland/PRC/China

Unless there is some ambiguity, the PRC is China and doesn't need to be referred to as "mainland". Instantnood's last edit replaced every occurrence of China with "mainland", more than 50 times. Which amounts to renaming the PRC to a regional term. I'm reverting this. SchmuckyTheCat 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If all three different ideas are to be referred to by the same word - "China", it's not easy for readers to figure out which idea is each occurance of the word "China" actually referring to. The ambiguity is there, and has to be avoided. — Instantnood 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the very first sentence says it's about the mainland removing any ambiguity. SchmuckyTheCat 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Not every single mentioning of "China" or "Chinese" refers to mainland China or mainland Chinese. For instance, there's no "government of mainland China", but "government of the PRC", and no "ethnic mainland Chinese", but "ethnic Chinese". — Instantnood 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There are four nominal governments of China; the People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Hong Kong and Macau. ROC is fully independent of the PRC, whereas Hong Kong and Macau are Special Administrative Regions with their own Chief Executives. There are different Chinese ethnicities, the dominant being Han Chinese. The Han are a super-majority in the PRC, ORC, HK, Macau and Christmas Island, and a sizable majority in Singapore. - MSTCrow 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs proof read...

But I don't have time now, nor the knowledge of this subject. Sentences such as:

Nonetheless, the contacts that do occur are having an impact on individual Chinese journalists, according to people interviewed for this study

Occur throughout. - Estel (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Google

Maybe consider adding that Google agreed to ban certain words like Tiananmen Square among other words on Google China, so the government would not ban their web site from China. I do not have a source -ChristopherMannMcKay 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article subject

This article is really about Government control of media in the People's Republic of China. I think it needs to be renamed. --Ideogram 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some statements in the article such as "Chinese films have enjoyed box office success abroad" are unrelated to government control. Shawnc 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vibrance and diversity of the media?

"Yet within those restrictions, there is a vibrance and diversity of the media and fairly open discussion of social issues and policy options within the parameters set by the Party."

This seems very oxymoronic. You cannot have on one side the government telling you what you may and may not say on subjects X and Y, and then turn around and state that there is "vibrance and diversity" in subjects X and Y. - MSTCrow 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could but it would have be only about certain things. However the problem with that section is the lack of citations.

Specific government Agency's?

It would be nice if this article would state which government agency's control certain parts of the media. For example, I know for a fact that http://english.gov.cn//2005-10/09/content_75331.htm controls the religious movements, that http://www.chinaembassy.org.in/eng/mt/jyjs/t61109.htm controls radio, tv, film and the internet, but what controls the journalistic press? Is it just the prosecutors? or is it a silent force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.121.178 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the external links section the link where "Much of the information here seems to be a summary of this monograph" is dead heres the live link, i dont know how to attach it to the article, so please do it yourselves

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-chinese-media-more-autonomous-and-diverse-within-limits/1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.175.159 (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of trimming or sourcing

Unless some footnoting appear for the political and controversial content, I'll be going through them and deleting them in a few days. Some of this crap borders on soapboxing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right there are barely any citations.PonileExpress (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems rather pro-PRC biased to me. It really should be changed to NPOV.--redlock (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Partisan edits

I cannot help but note the partisan nature of these edits by user:asdfg12345. If these departments are controlled by the Propaganda dep't, one can easily click on the links to find out. There is no need to emphasize the label "propaganda" all the time. The second part of the edit, saying that media serves the need of the one-party state, is a pejorative clincher that negates much of the preceding neutral clauses. It is unmistakably partisan and therefore was also removed. Most of the mechanical fixes, however, are fairly good, as was getting rid of some of the more "pro-CCP" sounding phrases of the paragraphs. Colipon+(Talk) 09:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's highly relevant that these organs come under the propaganda department. I don't think it's partisan to note it at all. It's basically the same as saying the Epoch Times was founded by Falun Gong practitioners. It's perfectly normal and helpful to the reader to note such things. About saying that the media serves the needs of the one-party state being a "pejorative clincher," I don't see how this is relevant. It's in like one of the best sources available on this topic. Doesn't matter how we ourselves see such issues, we are merely here to retransmit what has been published on these topics out in the big wide world. --Asdfg12345 19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, asdfg, if this article was about "propaganda in the PRC". It is not. It is about "media" in the PRC. Inserting elements to highlight the "propaganda" is partisan. Colipon+(Talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the conclusion to this discussion. I took another look at the diffs. Agreed. You were right to remove those notes; that's for a different article. However, just looking through this, there should probably be a section in this article about the propaganda role played by media in China (both party-mouthpieces and otherwise) that can be linked to the article on propaganda in the PRC. That article isn't too informative yet, though. --Asdfg12345 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked further through the diffs. I apologise for insisting on the information where it wasn't particularly relevant. On reflection I can see this article is not supposed to be oriented that way, and that it would probably both transgress WP:DUE and read slightly odd to include those sentences. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Asdfg12345 13:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for deletions requested

If PCPP could kindly explain these removals that would be great. [1][2]. --Asdfg12345 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm looking at this as a third party, and there ARE no deletions made by PCPP since your edit. The differences I see are:

1. A request for citation
2. A section that has relocated to make the article read better
3. A section that has been moved and then date-referenced

My conclusion is that either:

a) You haven't bothered to read what someone else has taken the time and effort to write, and have reverted the edits blindly. There ARE NO DELETIONS
b) You really are biased against the PRC and am masquerading an unbiased

Therefore I have reinstated PCPP's edits

Ouyuecheng (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted:

The principal mechanism for forcing media organizations to comply with CCP wishes is the vertically organized nomenklatura system of cadre appointments, and includes those in charge of the media industry.[1]


Changed:

from

"Currently the Internet is still closely monitored by the state; access to politically threatening Internet sites and web logs is blocked; uncensored satellite television is not legally available to the general public; foreign radio broadcasts are scrambled; and the sale of publications with content critical of the regime is restricted.[1] "

to

"Freedom House issued a report in 2006 claiming that the Internet is still closely monitored by the state, with access to websites and publications critical of the government being restricted, as well as foreign satellite television and radio broadcasts being censored. [1]"

I will put the paragraph about the Central Organisation Department's role back in, if there's no reason it should stay out. --Asdfg12345 05:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PRC internal media

This article could use some attention, see my comments on its discussion page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Impact of Tiananmen Crackdown'

I am deleting the sub-section titled "Impact of Tiananmen Crackdown,' which had been placed under the header of "weakening of party controls." The Tiananmen Square massacre catalyzed a crackdown on press freedom in China and a tightening of party controls; prior to 1989, as compared to today, China was much more free for both domestic and foreign reporters. Most of the content in this section is unsourced, in any case. Homunculus (duihua) 03:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean up required

This article requires extensive clean up in order to comply with WP:MOS. The current article appears to mostly be a direct copy from the cia.gov article: The Chinese Media: More Autonomous and Diverse — Within Limits without modification. The CIA report is not an encyclopedia article and the text needs to be rewritten or copy edited to make it fit Wikipedia.

In addition, the article is very shy on references, many of which were on the CIA report but were not copied over. The article needs to be referenced in detail. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have done the cleanup but there is still a lot of work to be done getting good sources to replace the copyvivo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Media of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c p. 3 Cite error: The named reference "esarey2006" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_media_in_China/Archive_1&oldid=1243841999"