Latest Updates from China Digital Times
• Translation: “As Long as We Survive,” by Fang Fang
• U.S. to Cap Visas for Chinese State Media (Updated: China Responds)
• Coronavirus Censorship and Spin Draw Public Backlash
Photo: The Duel, by Gauthier DELECROIX – 郭天
© Josh Rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: Gauthier DELECROIX - 郭天
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Translation: “As Long as We Survive,” by Fang Fang
The COVID-19 coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, Hubei late last year. After belated government acknowledgment of a public health crisis, authorities began an ongoing lockdown of Wuhan in January as the city and country at large continued to reel from the virus. While recent overseas reports of a sharp decline in cases in Hubei note that makeshift hospitals in Wuhan are beginning to close, as recently as last week the city was still facing a critical shortage of supplies.
Poet and writer Fang Fang (方方) has lived in Wuhan since she was two years old, and the city has served as the setting for much of her work. Fang Fang has been chronicling the situation in her beloved hometown on a variety of platforms, and has seen many of her posts disappear and her handles suspended as the government struggles to control the narrative. A recent article by Yuwen Wu at The Independent translates selections from Fang Fang’s posts, noting her reproach of the state propaganda and censorship that has been a primary feature of government relief efforts, and her warning to fellow writers: “You will likely be asked to write celebratory essays and poems. Please pause before you write – who do you want to praise?”
Some of Fang Fang’s censored posts from Wuhan are being archived by CDT Chinese, and her Caixin blog is one of the multitude of sources being preserved on the nCoVMemory Github repository of personal narratives from the outbreak in China. CDT has translated a censored WeChat post from last week, in which Fang Fang expresses the frustrations of lockdown, laments the many displaced and affected by the virus, lauds the brave journalists attempting to uncover truth amid propaganda, and demands accountability from those who allowed the situation to develop:
It is cloudy again. A bit chilly, but not too cold. I walked out to look at the sky. A sky without sunshine is somewhat gloomy and dismal, I thought.
The article I posted on WeChat yesterday was deleted again, and my Weibo account has also once again been blocked. I thought I couldn’t post on Weibo anymore, and then found out that they only censored yesterday’s post and that new posts can still be published. It made me instantly happy. Alas, I am like a frightened bird. I no longer know what I can say and what I can’t. When it comes to something as important as this fight against the epidemic, I’m cooperating fully with the government and obeying all their commands. I’m now just short of taking an oath with a fist over my heart–is this still not enough?
We’re all still stuck at home on lockdown, yet some people are already singing praise to the government and posting book covers about the victory that has been achieved (if they’re not trolling). What do the people of Wuhan have to say? Whether anxious or upset, we’ve put up with it all, haven’t we? Yet even the victory is theirs. Today I saw this phrase: “When you hear someone say ‘we will do this at all costs,’ don’t assume that you are the ‘we’; you are only the ‘cost’ that is being paid.”
I’ll stop talking and continue waiting. I need to maintain serenity, remain steady, and stand by. In the simple words of my elder brother: very bored, watching TV series at home to pass the time.
Today, a doctor friend told me that many people have already been discharged from the hospitals. More than 2,000 people have been cured. It is not difficult to treat those with mild symptoms. The demand for hospital beds has eased up. The number of deaths has also fallen significantly. I did some research: a while ago nearly a hundred people were dying everyday, that number fell to 29 yesterday. Alas, I hope to see zero deaths as soon as possible. Only then can all the anxious families of patients feel at ease. As long as one survives, everything else is easy to deal with. Even if treatment takes a long time, it is acceptable. I just saw a video from the Southern Metropolis Daily which showed the thoughts of a doctor as he rescued his patients, as well as the patient’s own thoughts. It was very moving. A patient who was resuscitated said, “I relied on my strength of will and the faith that my doctor gave.” Another patient said that after having survived such an ordeal, he will cherish every day of life. That’s right, as long as we survive.
It is still incomprehensible that the number of newly diagnosed and infected cases are still so high. This means the epidemic crisis in Wuhan stands at a stalemate. According to yesterday’s situation, more than 900 people were either diagnosed or counted as suspected cases. This is really not the result we want. Those people were most likely infected after the city was put in lockdown. The updates that we are getting could probably be more specific on who these people are, where they were, and under what circumstances were they infected. This information should be made public so that, for one thing, others can take preventative measures; and for another, based on the locations of those that were infected, we can start to release residents who live in far-away areas from home lockdown. My other doctor friend wonders, since the epidemic is now under control with new cases mainly originating from prisons and nursing homes, is it still necessary to keep so many people shut in their homes? Maybe there will be good news in the coming days? I can only guess!
When looking at this from the perspective of the chain of infection, these 900+ cases are a huge number. But, when put into the context of the tens of millions of people in the province, they make up only a very small percentage. It is this small group of people that are tying up tens of millions of healthy people in this province, with no one allowed to move. And for these healthy people, what will they be facing? Will they be facing even greater consequences? I cannot say.
In addition, there are five million Wuhan residents who are being kept out of the province, not allowed to go home. How are they doing these days? Has the discrimination from recent months gotten better now? And some from outside Wuhan are stuck in the city, not allowed to leave. Yesterday I saw an article saying that some of them who could not afford boarding, or could not find an available hotel room, have been staying at the train station. There are others who have nothing to eat and must resort to going through the trash for food others have thrown away. Those who are busy with important things often disregard the little things; those who pay attention to the majority often forget the minority. Fortunately, I later saw another piece of news, which provided “a hotline number for people who are stuck in Wuhan during the epidemic and running into difficulties.” Every district has hotlines like this. It’s just that I don’t know whether these calls actually make a difference. I know, for example, that a lot of official contact numbers are just for show, for the higher-ups. If you actually call one of those numbers, it will prove almost entirely useless. You’ll only come across athletes kicking balls back-and-forth to one another. In the end not only won’t you receive any help, but you’ll also waste your time and raise your phone bill. There are many people working for the government who have learned nothing in their lifetime, but are masters at making fake moves. They will deal with you in ways that you never thought possible. And their ability to shirk responsibility is also top notch. If it weren’t based on this kind of foundation, how else could the epidemic have turned into the disaster that it’s become today?
It is an indisputable fact that Wuhan delayed for more than 20 days from the initial discovery of the virus to the lockdown of the city. Where was the crux of that delay, who exactly is responsible, and for what reason did this person provide the time and space for the virus to spread leading to the historically unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan. Locking nine million people at home is a spectacle, one that you can’t be proud of. The root of this matter must be dug up. Although there are many toady reporters in China, there is also no shortage of very brave ones. In the past few days, we saw a group of journalists asking tough questions and getting to the heart of the matter. In this internet era–where reporters investigate by peeling away layers, and netizens work together to piece together the true nature, key times, and locations of events–the secrets that have been sealed and covered up will eventually see daylight.
No matter what, there are some things we must get to the bottom of. For example, three groups of experts came to Wuhan. Who were these people that came? Who were they led by? Who hosted them in Wuhan? Which hospitals did they visit? Which departments did they go to? How many meetings did they have? Who spoke at those meetings? Which doctors were interviewed? What answers were given? What reports did they look at? What did they learn about the situation? What conclusions were finally reached? Who put the stamp on those conclusions? And so on. After all, the words “no people-to-people transmission, preventable and controllable,” have caused the people of Wuhan great suffering. Once you investigate at that level of nuance, I believe you will find the liar. Why did the liar lie? Who instructed them to lie? Do they know that they were lying? Or, did they know they were being deceived yet were willing to believe in the deception? Did they need to be deceived? Whether officials or experts, we should be able to find out the truth by combing through the threads one by one. A disaster like this cannot be concluded with a simple termination or a removal from office. For the people of Wuhan, the main culprit and their accomplices can’t be forgiven, not one of them! The more than 2,000 people (even more considering those not counted in the statistics), their murdered souls and their families, the medical staff working day and night and risking their lives to save people, the nine million residents struggling to live on in Wuhan, the five million homeless wanderers who can’t go home–each one of them will take the culprit and his accomplices to account.
And now we just wait. Wait first for the city to open, and then for an explanation. [Chinese]
© Josh Rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, coronavirus, Fang Fang, River Crabbed, writers
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
U.S. to Cap Visas for Chinese State Media (Updated: China Responds)
On Monday, the U.S. State Department announced a cap on the number of visas it would issue to Chinese employees of five Chinese state media organizations in response to “increasingly harsh surveillance, harassment, and intimidation against American and other foreign journalists operating in China.” Visa reciprocity has long been proposed and heatedly discussed as a response to China’s use of visa and accreditation denials and delays to apply pressure to or express displeasure with foreign media. The affected organizations are Xinhua; CGTN; China Radio International; the parent company of China Daily; and the distributor for People’s Daily, though the latter has no U.S.-based Chinese staff.
The U.S. government is today instituting a personnel cap on certain PRC-controlled state media entities in the United States – specifically, the five entities that were designated by the U.S. State Department on February 18, 2020, as foreign missions of the People’s Republic of China. This cap limits the number of Chinese citizens permitted to work for these organizations in the United States at any given time.
The cap applies to the five Chinese state media entities operating in the United States that have been designated as foreign missions, which recognizes that they are effectively controlled by the PRC government. Unlike foreign media organizations in China, these entities are not independent news organizations.
The decision to implement this personnel cap is not based on any content produced by these entities, nor does it place any restrictions on what the designated entities may publish in the United States.
Our goal is reciprocity. As we have done in other areas of the U.S.-China relationship, we seek to establish a long-overdue level playing field. It is our hope that this action will spur Beijing to adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to U.S. and other foreign press in China.
We urge the Chinese government to immediately uphold its international commitments to respect freedom of expression, including for members of the press. [Source]
The department’s designation of the five organizations as “foreign missions” earlier this month imposed staff and real estate registration requirements. Although U.S. officials insisted that there would be no journalistic restrictions, citing exemptions from the usual foreign mission requirements meant to ensure this, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs decried the move as “wantonly restricting and thwarting Chinese media outlets’ normal operation.” The subsequent expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters, ostensibly in response to an offensively headlined opinion piece, was widely seen as retaliation against the foreign mission designation.
The New York Times’ report on the visa cap noted that “the State Department insisted that it was not expelling Chinese journalists […] but the new limits could, in effect, force Chinese citizens to leave.” At The Washington Post, Carol Morello gave more details on U.S. officials’ efforts to draw a line between the two countries’ practices:
U.S. officials said that by March 13, the Chinese news outlets can have no more than 100 Chinese citizens on staff, down from 160 currently employed by the five outlets. The officials said it was an effort to bring “reciprocity” to the U.S.-China relationship and to encourage the ruling Chinese Communist Party to show a greater commitment to a free press. They noted that only 75 American reporters are known to be working in China.
[… T]hey said they are considering imposing duration limits on Chinese nationals working for the outlets, similar to those used by Beijing on foreign correspondents.
The officials pointedly refused to refer to the affected employees as journalists, calling it an insult to free and independent reporters who are not working for “propaganda outlets.”
[…] The government in Beijing and the four outlets were notified of the restrictions Monday morning. A U.S. official declined to speculate on how Beijing may respond but said that if they retaliate against foreign reporters in Beijing, “all options are on the table.” [Source]
In addition to the treatment of foreign journalists, Morello wrote, officials cited the detentions of three citizen journalists reporting from Wuhan on the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak: Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin, and Li Zehua. (Until recently, Li worked at CCTV, whose international arm CGTN was among the sanctioned state media organizations.) This week, Chen’s case was highlighted by the One Free Press Coalition, “a united group of preeminent editors and publishers using their global reach and social platforms to spotlight journalists under attack worldwide,” in its “10 Most Urgent” list. Chen was also the focus last week of a segment of WBEZ’s This American Life by The New Yorker’s Jiayang Fan.
News of the visa cap has met a mixed reception from journalists and other observers.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, which has long opposed such retaliation, issued a statement against it on Tuesday:
The U.S. government should immediately suspend efforts to effectively expel dozens of Chinese journalists and put a halt to mutual retaliation over media operations, which threatens to undermine the free flow of information as the COVID-19 epidemic spreads throughout the world, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.
[…] “China and the United States need to pull back from this dangerous cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation that threatens the free flow of information in both countries–especially during a global health crisis,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “As a democracy with a strong constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the U.S. in particular must show leadership in the area of press freedom, rather than adopting Beijing’s authoritarian tactics.” [Source]
The State Department announcement coincided with the release of the annual member survey report from the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China, which this year focused on China’s weaponization of bureaucracy against foreign media:
Chinese authorities are using visas as weapons against the foreign press like never before, expanding their deployment of a long-time intimidation tactic as working conditions for foreign journalists in China markedly deteriorated in 2019.
For the second time in as many years, a foreign correspondent was expelled after being denied a visa – the Wall Street Journal’s Chun Han Wong was forced to leave in August. In addition, Chinese authorities issued a record number of severely truncated visas to resident journalists. Also for the second consecutive year, not a single correspondent said conditions improved, in response to an annual survey by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China (FCCC).
The readiness to use press accreditation as a tool of control appears to have set the stage for further escalation. In February 2020, visas and press credentials for an additional three foreign correspondents – the Wall Street Journal’s Josh Chin, Chao Deng and Philip Wen – were revoked in the biggest group expulsion in three decades.
This amounts to the most brazen attempt in the post-Mao Zedong era to influence foreign news organizations and punish those whose work the Chinese government deems unacceptable. Since 2013, when Xi Jinping’s ascension to power was completed, China has forced out nine foreign journalists, either through outright expulsion or by non-renewal of visas. The FCCC fears that China is preparing to expel more journalists. At the start of 2020, two correspondents received visas of only a single month.
In 2019, at least 12 correspondents received credentials valid for six months or less, more than double the five short-term visas issued the year prior. Resident journalist visas are typically issued for one year.
Outlets affected include the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Telegraph, Globe and Mail, Le Monde, Sankei Shimbun and the Voice of America.
Twenty-two percent of respondents faced difficulty renewing their credentials, up from 13 percent the year before. Almost all of them believed this was related to their reporting.
Expulsions and shortened visas are a “very ominous sign,” said Steven Lee Myers, Beijing bureau chief for the New York Times. The Chinese government’s “desire for control, or their wariness of scrutiny, really gets in the way of the stories China does have to tell.”
[…] “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs now has increasingly explicit conversations with us about ‘red lines’ that we have crossed, and that if crossed again will trigger unwelcome consequences, whereas before they would be much more vague,” said a bureau chief at an English-language news organization.
Authorities have grown increasingly eager to quell unflattering reports about Xi Jinping, the Chinese president.
“‘Red lines’ for reporting are most often on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, but above all, almost anything written about Xi. MOFA has explicitly said that if we write the wrong pieces about Xi, we will face the anger of other arms of the government, and not just MOFA,” the bureau chief said. [Source]
The report goes on to detail pressure on Chinese sources, threats against Chinese colleagues, and digital and physical surveillance. MoFA’s Zhao Lijian appeared to allude to the ongoing exchange of blows between China and the U.S. in his response on Monday, saying that China does not recognize the FCCC and that “it is so inappropriate and unwise for it to comment with secret prejudice at this particular timing.”
Updated at 12:21:07 PM PST on Mar 3, 2020: Chinese officials have responded to the news, standing by the legitimacy of their own journalist expulsions while presenting the U.S.’ as reckless escalation. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying attacked the new policy on Twitter:
China’s ambassador to the United Nations Zhang Jun similarly commented that “we have some differences but we do not think it is appropriate for the United States to take steps in interfering with the work of journalists coming from China.” MoFA’s Zhao Lijian condemned the move at greater length in Tuesday’s press briefing:
Q: On March 2 local time, the US State Department announced that the US government will cap the number of Chinese citizens permitted to work for the five Chinese media groups that were designated as foreign missions, effective March 13th. What is your comment?
A: The US State Department waged this political crackdown on the US offices of the Chinese media out ofCold War mentality and ideological prejudice on shaky ground. China firmly opposes and strongly condemns that.
Chinese journalists stationed in the US have been strictly abiding by US laws and regulations and carrying out news reporting under the principle of objectivity, fairness, truthfulness and accuracy. Their professionalism is well recognized. The US side has no basis and reason to take such an action against Chinese journalists.
The US side has been so entrenched in its Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice that it has escalated its actions from listing the Chinese media as “foreign agents” to designating them as “foreign missions” and now to cap the number of their Chinese employees which means de-facto “expulsion” in a limited time. Because of their mounting oppression, Chinese journalists’ normal reporting activities, the reputation of the Chinese media and normal people-to-people exchanges between the two sides have been gravely damaged. While priding itself on freedom of press, the US now disrupts and obstructs the Chinese media doing their job. Such a two-faced behavior exposed its hypocrisy in so-called freedom of press, nothing short of double standards and bullying.
Considering where the China-US relationship now stands, what the US has done will have serious negative impacts and damage bilateral relations. We urge the US to immediately change its course and correct its wrongdoings. The Chinese side reserves the right to respond and take further actions.
[…] Q: US officials say the restriction on Chinese media is not “linked to any one particular incident”, but is to address “a very longstanding negative trend in the treatment of the press” in China. This decision follows the principle of “reciprocity” the Trump administration seeks. What is your comment?
A: “Reciprocity” is their mantra, isn’t it? But I want to remind you of a few facts.
First, China has never instituted any caps on the number of offices and employees of US media in China. It is their own choice to make on how many people they want to send here, not a result of China’s restriction. As far as I know, since 2018, the US has been restricting Chinese journalists going to the US by rejecting and delaying issuance of their visa. At least 21 journalists have been denied visa since last year. On top of all that, this time, the US has decided to “expel” 60 Chinese employees of these Chinese media in the US, under the pretext of capping their number. Can this be called “reciprocity”?
Second, there are only 9 Chinese media agencies in the US while we have 29 American media groups here in China. Can this be called “reciprocity”?
Third, regarding the policy of visas for members of the media and visa fees, American journalists stationed in China can make multiple entries as long as their visa remains valid. But Chinese journalists have to reapply for visa if they leave for a short stay or for visiting family back in China, because of their single-entry visa, thanks to the discriminatory policies the US specifically instituted for the Chinese journalists stationed in the US. Not to mention they have to spend as much as 354 dollars each time they apply for one, more than double what we charge of the American side. Can this be called “reciprocity”?
Fourth, the US wants “reciprocity” with us. Does it also want that with other countries’ media?
The reciprocity they cannot stop talking about is in fact their prejudice, discrimination and aversion against Chinese media. The US is guilty of foul play first. We will simply do what we have to do. [Source]
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: CCTV, CGTN, Chen Qiushi, China Daily, citizen journalism, Committee to Protect Journalists, FCCC, foreign correspondents, journalism, media conditions, people's daily, state media, United States, visas, Xinhua
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Coronavirus Censorship and Spin Draw Public Backlash
Despite the lessons thought to have been learned after the 2002 SARS epidemic, Chinese authorities have been readily using censorship and propaganda amid the outbreak of COVID-19 novel coronavirus–which some see as a contributing factor to the severity of its spread and lethality. In an attempt to keep the public calm and dilute criticism, early cases in Wuhan were downplayed or ignored. Once an epidemic was underway the narrative was controlled with censorship directives. Unsanctioned medical information was labeled “rumor,” medical professionals who shared “rumors” were punished, and the punishments aired on CCTV to serve as a broader warning. Official media has been attempting to boost morale by co-opting popular culture and sharing positive stories of heroic medical workers and selfless citizen acts of charity, as CDT explored in an earlier post. Despite these efforts, public opinion is proving hard to tame. The virus has so far infected over 80,000 in the country, killed nearly 3,000, and affected the lives of nearly every person in China. The official management of information has only added to public anger: after Dr. Li Wenliang–one of eight medical workers censured for “rumormongering” in Wuhan–died from COVID-19, netizens issued a mass call for free speech, some echoing Li’s statement that “there should be more than one voice in a healthy society.”
In response to the sharp public anger that followed Li’s death, a private contracting firm recommended that authorities strengthen their management of online information, and use of propaganda to “divert web users’ attention.” Authorities appear to have followed the advice: domestic censorship has continued, more stories of disciplined medical workers have emerged, and VPNs have become harder to use. Meanwhile, citizen journalists Chen Qiushi and Fang Bin have reportedly been arrested for covering the situation in Wuhan, and human rights activist Xu Zhiyong detained after writing an essay criticizing the government. This week, Li Zehua, a reporter who resigned from CCTV and has been working as a citizen journalist to report from Wuhan, was also detained by authorities there and his current whereabouts are unknown. China Media Project translated a final message Li recorded as state security officers apparently came to his door:
Of course, the third thing is that I realize at this point that it’s highly unlikely I won’t be taken away and won’t be quarantined. I just want to make it known, thought, that I have a clear conscience toward myself, a clear conscience toward my parents, a clear conscience toward my family, and also a clear conscience toward the Communication University of China from which I graduated, and toward the journalism field in which I did my studies. I also have a clear conscience toward my country, and I have done nothing to harm it. I, Li Zehua, 25 years of age, had hoped I could, like Chai Jing [the former CCTV journalist who made the documentary “Under the Dome”], work on the front lines, that I could make a film like the one she did in the environment of 2004 about the fight against SARS in Beijing. Or like “Under the Dome” in 2016, the one that was completely blocked online.
[…] I’m not willing to disguise my voice, nor am I willing to shut my eyes and close my ears. That doesn’t mean that I can’t live a happy and comfortable life with a wife and kids. Of course I can do that. But why did I resign from CCTV? The reason is because – I hope more young people, more people like me, can stand up! [Source]
At The New York Times, Li Yuan looks at some of the positive media campaigns Beijing is pushing on the government response to the virus, noting that many in China have little patience left for propaganda:
China’s propaganda machine, an increasingly sophisticated operation that has helped the Communist Party stay in power for decades, is facing one of its biggest challenges.
[…] China’s propaganda spinners have some tough competition. Chinese people have seen images of a young woman crying “Mom! Mom!” as her mother’s body was driven away. They’ve seen a woman banging a homemade gong from her balcony while begging for a hospital bed. They’ve seen an exhausted nurse breaking down and howling.
[…] The crisis has exposed many people, especially the young, to troubling aspects of life under an authoritarian government. In the silencing of people like Dr. Li, they see the danger in clamping down on free expression. In the heart-wrenching online pleas for help from patients and hospitals, they see past the facade of an omnipotent government that can get anything done.
Beijing is doing everything it can to take back the narrative. State media is offering steady coverage of people who leave donations at government offices then dash before anyone can give them credit. One compilation of “dropped cash donations and ran away” headlines tallied 41 of them. [Source]
The Wall Street Journal’s Chun Han Wong has more on the backlash to official censorship and propaganda, noting that some of the critique is even coming from state media:
Even state media have acknowledged failings in their approach. Justice Web, a news arm of China’s prosecutor-general’s office, lamented the lack of an independent streak in Chinese media, which it said was instead filled with formulaic stories that emphasize only the positive aspects of the government response.
“At a critical juncture in the battle against the epidemic, the drummers and buglers are playing discordant notes, severely damaging the credibility of the media,” said a commentary published last week on Justice Web’s Weibo microblog. Encountering information they dislike, journalists “automatically filter it and block their ears, reporting only good news and not the bad.”
[…] Suspicion is running high that the government isn’t revealing the full extent of the epidemic. “I can’t really believe the official data showing large declines” in new Covid-19 cases outside of Hubei province, a Weibo user wrote, referring to the region in central China where the epidemic first emerged. “Because large numbers of new cases are political lapses, whereas smaller numbers of new cases are political achievements.”
[…] “These days, everyone’s saying the openness of information is the best vaccine,” said the commentary, which was later deleted. [The article in question was posted by Tencent’s online magazine Dajia, which shut down its WeChat after posting the essay with no explanation] “Blocked ears and eyes are also a contagious disease, and no one can escape.” [Source]
While the public–a sizable portion of whom are currently living under some degree of shutdown, if not total lockdown, due to the virus–often doesn’t accept the state’s spin on the situation at the frontlines, they have been generating their own ways to help deal with the situation positively. At The Guardian, Yuan Ren reports on humor and connection amid the anger online:
There’s strictly no congregating – or socialising – in this new world order. Many cities have banned public gatherings altogether, and official advice has been “Stay in, don’t go out unless necessary”, resulting in many empty streets. Nationwide, cinemas are closed and performances at Beijing’s top arts venues have been cancelled until April. Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million, remains in lockdown. As a result, online social activity and subcultures have bloomed, and state media has joined in too.
To begin with, it was memes showing bats in soup, or people eating the animals whole, as health authorities announced that bats may have been the source of the viral outbreak. But as celebrations for new year slowed down, hashtags such as #whattodowhenstuckathome and #learnanewskill trended on Weibo, China’s Twitter, giving life to a host of funny videos and entertainment.
[…] The special restrictions seemed at first to create a burst of life online. A livestream showing the emergency construction of hospitals in Wuhan attracted millions of viewers, making stars of the tractors involved. On Weibo, each type of tractor has its own page and is ranked, with the “cement mixer” coming in at number three with 8,000 followers and the “small fork lifter” at number one with more than 40,000.
[…] For now, while plenty bemoan the censor’s heavier hand, government channels remain essential sources of information and updates. The truth is that most people are not interested in being controversial, and are just trying to pass the time and are happy for a morale boost. [Source]
Meanwhile, with concerns about China’s development, use, and export of surveillance technology high, CNBC’s Arjun Kharpal reports that experts are warning that the coronavirus could be the “catalyst” for the government to boost its capabilities:
With over 77,000 coronavirus cases confirmed in China alone, the government has mobilized its surveillance machine, a move experts said could continue even after the virus has been contained.
[…] The Chinese government has also enlisted the help of tech giants like Tencent, owner of popular messaging app WeChat and Alibaba subsidiary, Ant Financial, which runs payments app Alipay. On both WeChat and Alipay, users can put in their Chinese ID numbers and where they have travelled. Users will then be assigned a QR code based on a traffic light color system which instructs them about how long they need to be in quarantine, or whether they are free to travel. A QR code is a type of barcode which is widely used on digital platforms in China [and could be used to surveil people’s location].
Mobile networks in China have also released tracking features. China Unicom and China Telecom — both stated-owned telco operators — are asking people to put in the last few digits of their ID or passport number, which will then be used to track a person’s whereabouts. They will get messages outlining where they have been. Again, the feature could be used if a building has strict restriction on people entering who haven’t been in quarantine for 14 days, which is the suggested amount of time by the government.
[…] While the Chinese government has used the coronavirus to justify the increased use of surveillance technology, experts said it could continue even after the virus is contained. […] [Source]
At The Atlantic, Zeynep Tufekci argues that the coronavirus has revealed “authoritarianism’s fatal flaw”: that the increased use and reliance on surveillance and censorship has helped to obscure reality, leaving leaders unprepared to deal with the situation:
Authoritarian blindness is a perennial problem, especially in large countries like China with centralized, top-down administration. Indeed, Xi would not even be the first Chinese ruler to fall victim to the totality of his own power. On August 4, 1958, buoyed by reports pouring in from around the country of record grain, rice, and peanut production, an exuberant Chairman Mao Zedong wondered how to get rid of the excess, and advised people to eat “five meals a day.” Many did, gorging themselves in the new regime canteens and even dumping massive amounts of “leftovers” down gutters and toilets. Export agreements were made to send tons of food abroad in return for machinery or currency. Just months later, perhaps the greatest famine in recorded history began, in which tens of millions would die because, in fact, there was no such surplus. Quite the opposite: The misguided agricultural policies of the Great Leap Forward had caused a collapse in food production. Yet instead of reporting the massive failures, the apparatchiks in various provinces had engaged in competitive exaggeration, reporting ever-increasing surpluses both because they were afraid of reporting bad news and because they wanted to please their superiors.
Mao didn’t know famine was at hand, because he had set up a system that ensured he would hear lies.
[…] It’s hard to imagine that a leader of Xi’s experience would be so lax as to let the disease spread freely for almost two months, only to turn around and shut the whole country down practically overnight.
In many ways, his hand was forced by his own system. Under the conditions of massive surveillance and censorship that have grown under Xi, the central government likely had little to no signals besides official reports to detect, such as online public conversations about the mystery pneumonia. In contrast, during the SARS epidemic, some of the earliest signs were online conversations and rumors in China about a flu outbreak. These were picked up by the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, who alerted the World Health Organization, who then started pressuring China to come clean, which finally triggered successful containment efforts. […] [Source]
© Josh Rudolph for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: authoritarianism, censorship, coronavirus, propaganda, surveillance
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
