Anhui Requires Journalists to Write "Positive" Reports for Promotion

The Anhui provincial government issued rules in October requiring journalists and editors based in Anhui, as a condition for promotion, to produce "positive" reports about the province that are carried by "major central news media." Southern Weekend, a Guangdong-based weekly run by one of China's most progressive and reform-oriented newspaper publishers, publicized the existence of the rules in an October 26 report (via Sina.com) on the barriers to advancement that the rules pose for a local Anhui journalist. According to the report, the Anhui provincial Human Affairs Department and "other relevant departments" issued the Conditions on Standards for Evaluating the Professional Skill Qualifications of Journalists (Conditions) on October 13. The paper reported that the Conditions were forwarded to the municipal governments of 17 cities in Anhui. The Hefei City Radio and Television Bureau posted the Conditions on its Web site on October 31.

The Conditions apply to journalists and editors working for news organizations based in Anhui, as well as to journalists and editors at other news organizations who have engaged in news gathering or editing in Anhui for at least one year. Article 12(1)(4) provides that, to be promoted to the position of "high-level" journalist or editor, the highest level as indicated in the Conditions, candidates must have produced at least three "positive propaganda reports" each year about Anhui province. The pieces must have been published or broadcast by a "major central news media" organization, which is defined to include People's Daily, Guangming Daily, Economic Daily, China Central Television, or China National Radio. Candidates who produce pieces exclusively for publication by such organizations are subject to an even higher standard: they must produce at least 30 "positive" pieces a year. In each case, the piece must be at least 500 characters in print or 20 seconds in length if broadcast. Article 14(1) of the Conditions sets forth the standards for promotion to the next lower rank of journalist and editor, with paragraph (4) requiring either one "positive" report per year, or, in the case of journalists and editors whose stories are published exclusively by "major central news media" organizations, 20 "positive" reports per year. Article 24 provides that if a candidate's report contains a "serious error in orientation," the candidate's application for promotion may be rejected and he or she may not apply for a promotion for two years.

The Conditions do not define the term "positive propaganda report." An unnamed official at the Anhui Human Affairs Department cited "the region's achievements, activities, or well-known citizens" as examples of appropriate subject matter for "positive" reports, according to the Southern Weekend report. "Don't always find problems to criticize. Problems objectively exist, but if you are always focusing on them, that will have a negative impact," the official said. The official also said that the emphasis on "positive" reporting fulfills the Communist Party's calls to strengthen guidance of public opinion.

The Conditions elicited a strong negative reaction, both from journalists interviewed in the Southern Weekend report, and editorials in domestic Chinese media issued after the report, including an October 27 Southern Metropolitan Daily editorial, an October 27 op-ed posted on the People's Daily Web site, another October 27 op-ed posted on the People's Daily Web site, and an October 30 op-ed posted on the Jinrong Jie Web site. Commentators criticized the Conditions for discouraging critical reporting and noted a recent spate of cases involving official corruption in Anhui. Commentators also criticized the Conditions for not specifying what would constitute a "positive" report and for imposing conditions for advancement with which journalists would have difficulty complying and which are unrelated to the skills required of journalists.

A line of attack employed by some of the commentators was to criticize the Anhui officials for disobeying central government directives. Specifically, they argued that the Conditions run counter to the central government's public opinion supervision (yulun jiandu) initiative. While the commentators emphasized that the initiative empowered the media to supervise government officials, in practice the initiative allows China's state-run media only limited opportunities to engage in critical reporting. Such "public opinion supervision" must be done "in a manner that benefits the Party's line, direction, and policies . . . and encourages the strengthening of the people's faith in the Party and the government." In addition, one of the reasons for the initiative is that it allows central Party and government authorities to use journalists to investigate provincial and local officials, and designate stories they deem too critical or politically sensitive to be published in the media as internal intelligence reports to be forwarded to relevant officials. But like in Anhui, local officials have sought to curb even the limited critical reporting allowed as "public opinion supervision," and central Party officials have facilitated these efforts. In June 2005, the Party Central Committee issued a document limiting a phenomena called "extra-territorial reporting" whereby news media from one area are allowed to investigate local officials in another area even though the local media in that area are prevented from doing so. The document requires that local Party officials in the targeted area approve the "critical extra-territorial article" prior to publication. Examples of efforts by local officials to block critical reports include:

• In January 2006, Hunan provincial authorities removed a Xinhua article from local newspapers that listed Hunan at the top of a list of provinces cited for poor handling of unsafe mines.
• In July 2005, Nanjing Party propaganda officials issued a directive mandating that when journalists submit a critical investigative report to an editor, they must also submit a copy of the draft that has been signed by the subject of the article.
• In June 2005, local officials in Da Gang township censored a critical extra-territorial report published by the Southern Metropolitan Daily by removing the relevant pages from copies of the newspaper that were being distributed locally.
• In March 2005, Xinhua reported that authorities in Shanxi province unlawfully detained one of its reporters.

Authorities and representatives of the state-run media have pushed for more "positive" reporting. For example, in June 2005, Nan Zhenzhong, editor-in-chief of Xinhua, said that the news media should "increase the analysis and commendation of model good people and good deeds from all areas," and that 94.2 percent of Xinhua's public opinion supervision reports in the first quarter of 2005 were "positive" reports. In May 2005, a People's Daily editorial called for more "positive" and "constructive" reporting and less reporting on "exposés and scandals." More recently, the Party Central Committee at its sixth plenum in October called on journalists to tailor their reporting to help promote a "harmonious society." Cai Wu, Director of the State Council Information Office, told an audience in the United States two weeks after the plenum concluded that China believes that the Chinese news media should be less confrontational than in the West.

October 26 Southern Weekend report. One journalist interviewed questioned how reports containing "positive" and "negative" content would be treated, while another questioned why Xinhua or China Youth Daily were not also considered central media. The report noted that one journalist had been working for 10 years at a local party newspaper and had few opportunities to publish in central news media. Another journalist who wrote primarily for a supplements section noted that central news media would unlikely be interested in such stories.

October 27 Southern Metropolitan Daily editorial. Argues that the purpose of news is not to serve as a propaganda tool for the Party but rather to engage in truth-seeking and to monitor the government. The Anhui regulations conflict with this purpose because they allow officials to convey a positive image no matter how well they do their job. "In the extreme, this means that even if terrible things happen on a daily basis in Anhui, there will be an endless supply of good tidings reaching the ears of central party leaders and the people," the editorial said.

October 27 op-ed in People's Daily. Notes that in recent years Anhui has suffered from a number of high-profile cases of corruption involving officials and argues that instead of "positive" reporting, the province needed greater "public opinion supervision." Argues that the real test of a journalists' skill is their ability to write critical reports and not "positive" reports. Also argues that whether a report is considered "positive" or "negative" depends on one's perspective.

October 27 op-ed in People's Daily. Argues that governments that have more to hide are more likely to quell "negative" reporting. Also argues that exposing evils in society is more important than "positive" publicity and noted the media's powerful ability to help better society. "Lots of people, lots of agencies, are not scared of letter-writing, petitions or lawsuits - they're just scared of media exposes, which means that the influence of the media's supervision on society is huge and acts as a powerful deterrent to bad things," the editorial said.

October 30 op-ed in Jinrong Jie. Also notes Anhui's recent spate of corruption and said that Anhui authorities were using the call to "strengthen orientation of public opinion" as an excuse to cover-up negative events in Anhui.