And a good question it is.

I myself have heard the outrageous lie, “Your Chinese is as good as Dashan’s!” often enough over the years to have had to suppress a gag reflex on many occasions. But I find both the comparison and Dashan-hate in general to be much less prevalent than they were six or seven years ago. I am not sure if this because there is actually less of them, or simply because I now move in circles that have graduated to other concerns. When one is a parent, one spends less time pondering Dashan and more time pondering how to keep one’s children from developing silicosis from the air. Or, at least, I do. Just writing about Dashan feels a bit like turning the clock back a few years.

But for a long time, Dashan was a guaranteed conversation starter. As you can see in the Quora entry, my old friend Kaiser Kuo actually wrote a That’s Beijing column in 2006 in praise of Dashan (he called me, among others, in researching it). It’s not worth recapping all of the pro- and con-Dashan arguments here. Rowswell gets into most of them in his Quora answer. But I would touch on one factor that I think is important. Rowswell writes about what he calls “stereotyping”:

This even borders on racism in more extreme cases. The logic seems to go like this: white guy – speaks Chinese – Chinese people laugh – he must be making an ass of himself. Of course, the only way a white guy could possibly entertain a Chinese audience would be to be a complete buffoon.

It’s the “race traitor” syndrome, and it’s always been a huge part of expat perceptions of Dashan. We all like to think we’re enlightened, but there are things that push deeply buried emotional buttons, including the notion that a compatriot (or, for Americans, near compatriot) might be demeaning us racially in front of –pardon my language– the natives. This is, of course, a completely colonial, racist and unworthy attitude, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And it says something about how, deep down, many of us view our relationship with our Chinese hosts.

When the media is involved I think there is also a political reaction, where we see participants as selling out to or somehow collaborating with the regime in a way that crosses some imaginary line of decorum that the rest of us have respected. Both of these reactions also had a great deal to do with a bout of hate directed at CCTV 9 news anchor Edwin Maher a few years back, following an LA Times profile.

Rowswell’s entire Quora response is thoughtful and worth a read. There was, however, one other part that stood out to me, and is particularly relevant to anyone who communicates in China on behalf of a foreign entity (such as PR people, just to name a random example):

…I work within Chinese cultural norms – the limits of what is culturally acceptable to a Chinese audience. That doesn’t necessarily mean you pander. You can challenge the norms and push limits here and there, and I believe I have done and continue to do that, but in large part you work within a cultural acceptable limit. Chinese don’t go for shock humour, nor do they tend to accept what is commonly accepted in the West – that it’s OK to be offensive as long as you are offensive on an equal opportunity basis. That’s just not part of the Chinese comedy or media scenes.

Also, in many instances what would be acceptable for a Chinese performer to say is not considered acceptable for a foreign performer, especially when it comes to social or political satire. Even in a comedic exchange between individuals, you have to be aware that the audience may not perceive this as Character A making fun of Character B, but instead as Foreign Character making fun of Chinese Character, which goes over like a ton of bricks.

So I work within cultural norms. This spills over into the political realm, because, to be honest, Chinese cultural acceptance of foreign political criticism is almost nil. In short, I don’t have to worry about what government censors might say because Chinese audiences would never let me get that far anyway.

So, I could make a short public statement like that of Christian Bale recently or Björk a few years ago. It’s very easy to do and ensures you get very good coverage in the Western media. You go home and everyone thinks you are a person of moral conviction who stood up to the great Chinese monster. But the fact is that these kinds of statements elicit almost no sympathy whatsoever from ordinary Chinese citizens. They simply are not culturally acceptable to the broad Chinese audience. And it’s very difficult to see what impact they have other than to further convince ordinary Chinese people that China is misunderstood and that the Western world is antagonistic towards China and resentful of China’s development. What use is that?

Indeed. Whatever you think of Dashan, there are broader lessons in there for those who care to look.

Update:

In retrospect, and after hearing from some friends who feel differently, it occurs to me that I should have called this post, “Excuse me while I refuse to hate on Dashan.”

“It was really distressing for me to talk to a WHO expert and have him tell me, ‘I have no idea where it’s safe to buy food here….’” - Sharon LaFraniere.

When Luoyang journalist Li Xiang broke China’s latest food scandal last week, exposing the industrial reprocessing and resale of “gutter oil” in a massive operation allegedly concealed by government officials in Henan, the news sparked yet more public outrage over China’s food safety record, while triggering what seems to have been brutal retaliation by the producers, who are suspected of ordering the killing of Li earlier this week in what is being treated by the authorities as a murder-robbery.

As awareness has spread that the Chinese government is hoarding organic food for its own consumption, the question of food safety has never been a more sensitive public topic, which is why this week on Sinica we’re pleased to welcome Barbara Demick of the Los Angeles Times and Sharon LaFraniere of the New York Times. Both excellent China watchers doing investigative work on China’s growing food scandals, Barbara and Sharon join Sinica regulars Jeremy Goldkorn and Will Moss to bring us the inside scoop on how bad the situation really is and why food safety is so difficult for China to get right.

Get the links to the show from Popup Chinese, download the MP3 here, or search “Sinica” on iTunes. Also, City Weekend just named Sinica the best China podcast. All credit to Kaiser and Jeremy, but I’m thrilled to be playing a regular part.

*Alright, I’m not entirely the Ed McMahon of Sinica. I’ve written extensively about the communication and trust issues surrounding the food industry in China. You may wish to browse the following from my archives:

• PR slime – in color! Imagethief talks PR scandals on BonLive (video interview, Dec. 2010)
• Sanlu melamine milk powder crisis becomes a national issue (Sept. 2008)
• Melamine in Sanlu milk powder? Now that’s a crisis! (Sept. 2008)
• China’s food crisis PR strategy: Blame everyone else (June. 2007)
• The great donkey meat – tiger piss – media whore axis (Sept. 2005)

What? No fries?

I co-hosted with Kaiser and we were joined by journalists Kathleen McLaughlin, of the Global Post and elsewhere, and Ed Wong of the New York Times. Ed recently wrote a superb story about Zhao Liang and has also written about the water diversion project (with an unforgettable lede). Kathleen’s recent stories about the water diversion project will go to print soon, and I’ll put links up when I have them. Meanwhile, enjoy the excellent discussion, available from Popup Chinese or iTunes (search Sinica). The standalone MP3 file is here.

Update

Kathleen’s articles:

• China’s biggest relation project yet
• For development, China moves millions

Not nearly enough...

With an assortment of topics like that presented by a China media expert, international journalist, noted bridge blogger, history Ph.D candidate and a spin doctor (for good measure) how can you go wrong? It’ll be like drinking knowledge straight from the garden hose every minute you listen.

Well, not really, but pretty good fun. Online on iTunes, or listen or download at the Popup Chinese Sinica page.

Our topic was “Brand China” in two senses of the phrase: The ability of the Chinese companies to establish their brands internationally, and Chinese soft power and international perceptions of China as a whole. Some of the key points to emerge from the discussion are below, mingling stuff from the main discussion, Q&A and some of my sidebar discussions afterward. This will be a bit of a stream-of-consciousness tour of some of the main topics and points rather than a coherent essay.

Landscape

The Chinese national brand and company brands are intertwined. There is no separating perceptions of Chinese companies from perceptions of China among western audiences at the moment. Following on the experiences of countries like Japan and Germany, David and I agree that companies have to lead the national brand rather than vice-versa, although that will come with some challenges.

David feels that Chinese brands need to be more assertive about grabbing hold of the positive things about being Chinese and not running from them. I agree with that, but only partially: I think it’s practical in certain areas where there are established, positive attributes to work with – fashion and (don’t laugh) food come to mind. But there are also areas where the perception deficit is so significant or the political aspects are so charged that it’s not yet practical to do that.

Three key things for developing brand China

I suggested that there were three key things that could improve China’s soft power and the overall “China brand”: Encouraging entrepreneurs and businessmen to take a lead role; unfettering popular culture; and reworking the government approach to messaging to external audiences.

Charging businessmen and entrepreneurs with leading relates back to need for companies to lead development of the national brand. There are smart, articulate businessmen and entrepreneurs here who have a real stake in how China as well as how their companies are perceived overseas. They could make an excellent vanguard for Chinese public communication. The problem here is that businessmen, especially in private business, must tread with supreme delicacy around issues of importance to the government. Totally understandable risk aversion acts as a large brake on their potential as communicators.

We also discussed the cultural issues that might inhibit Chinese businessmen and companies from taking lead roles in public communication, and the impact of cultural issues on Chinese acquisitions of foreign companies. We all conceded that this is a challenge. I suggested that newer companies or companies from more private-leaning (as opposed to state-linked) industries might be in a better position here, suggesting the Internet industry as a likely candidate. David hit me with the catastrophic meltdown of the Yahoo-Alibaba relationship. That’s a fair point. On the other hand, Jack Ma is a great spokesperson, Alibaba has long internationalized their communication, and they certainly know how to build a brand, so let’s see.

Popular culture is another potentially very powerful force in China’s favor. This is especially true of film, which is very accessible and for which there is a natural and existing (if a bit niche) constituency in the west. But it’s another area in which the potential is limited by the involvement of the state. My personal view of the last few years of exported Chinese cinema is pretty dim, what with the huge fixation on vast, ponderous period epics and three-hanky melodramas. It would be nice to see a broader range of Chinese film being exported. And, of course, it would be nice to see an even broader range being made and distributed here. But with the media largely steered into anodyne themes and all-audience suitability (no film ratings in China) the potential is once again limited.

One aspect of media that I think we all feel will not make a big impact is the expanded foreign news services such as Xinhua CNC. As I said in the session, anything too close to the government will trade at a discount, especially by Western audiences. I’ve written in some detail about Xinhua CNC before, so I’ll only repeat one other point I made about that yesterday: One of the real opportunities for Chinese overseas news organizations is to focus on the areas of the world that Western media chronically overlook and which, coincidentally, happen to be areas that China has an interest in, such as Africa and Southeast Asia. But they still have to come up with a good product.

The last of the three areas I mentioned was government messaging. As long as external messaging, especially on sensitive issues, sounds hostile and archaic to western ears the Chinese national brand will be penalized. The way I phrased it last night is that they need to find a more nuanced approach and give their diplomats room to tailor the substance of their messages to different national audiences. This again is an area that the government holds very close for pretty obvious reasons.

You can see a repeating theme here. All of these three areas rub up against the political philosophies that underpin the Chinese government. I am not going to get into a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of those philosophies now because that’s way too big and sensitive an issue, and also beside the point of this post. However it does point to an essential conflict between the traditions of government in China and the demands of a modern, global communication environment. This is something that will be wrestled with for a while here, but it’s also something I think that some elements of the government understand well.

A more human touch and the Led Zeppelin factor

When I think back across those three points, it’s clear to me that one of the things I seek is a sense of human engagement – less communication via institution, more communication via influential individual voices that can put a human face on China. One of the advantages of living here is that you come to see the China as a country of people, rather than either an impenetrable monolith or a collection of news story archetypes (the jailed dissident, the victim of corruption, the thuggish official, the sphinxlike modern artist…). It also reflects my personal belief that in general institutions suck at public communication, and that people can do a much better job. You can see this at work in things as basic as Wen Jiabao’s fairly well-received (though not covered in China) appearance on Fareed Zakaria’s show on CNN, which we also remarked on.

On the issue of humanizing communication, the topic of the Olympic opening and closing ceremonies came up. I’m afraid I was rather harsh in my judgment, describing them as “charmless.” Don’t get me wrong: It was also stupendous, amazing and, at times, breathtaking. But it was also mostly devoid of human scale and completely devoid of humor or warmth. This isn’t an exclusively Chinese problem. Superbowl halftime shows are also pretty charmless. But American football doesn’t have a global brand problem (or maybe it does, since no one outside of North America cares about it).

My favorite moment of the Olympic ceremonies was when sportswear magnate Li Ning was hoisted into the rafters of the Bird’s Nest to light the Olympic flame, but that’s because I consider that maneuver the greatest ambush marketing stunt of all time, conducted at the expense of Olympic sponsor Adidas.

That notwithstanding, David and I both think that Li Ning is one of the Chinese brands with the best prospects internationally. In Q&A someone asked if it was possible to reconcile Li Ning’s desire to compete with Nike, Adidas, Reebok etc. with their need to build a domestic market. Our answer: Sure. Brands are global, but marketing is local. More broadly, I see fashion and Chinese streetwear as something with real international potential, niche though it might still be.

Further to the Olympic thing, I am apparently alone in the entire universe in having liked the handover to London 2012 in the Beijing closing ceremony, where Jimmy Page was hoisted out of a double-decker London bus on a hydraulic platform to the riffs of “Whole Lotta Love” while a multiculturally-correct throng punted soccer balls around the bus. Admittedly I have a big soft spot for Led Zeppelin and maybe it would have been more contemporary to hoist, oh, Lily Allen or someone like that out of the bus. (Although with Lily Allen there would have been a high risk of profanity — it’s a sign of the times that Whole Lotta Love is the safe choice.) But as goofy as it was, the London handover was a good antidote to the general stiffness of the Chinese proceedings. We’ll see how their actual opening ceremony goes. It’s -gasp- less than two years away now.

Comparisons with Japan and Korea

Comparisons with the rise of Japanese and Korean corporate and national brands came up a couple of times in the discussion, including in the Q&A. Both of those countries made the leap from being seen as producers of low-quality or anonymous products into the being the homes of extremely powerful global brands, especially in the automotive, technology and consumer electronics businesses.

We talked a bit about parallels in industrial policy between China, South Korea and Japan, but also the very different situations that each nation faced, especially with regard to economically and politically important American audiences. Japan and Korea both rose to industrial prominence as American client states. Even when American suspicion of Japan was at its height, in the late eighties, that fundamental dynamic was in place. China, on the other hand, is a large and increasingly powerful geopolitical rival to America. It’s also emerging in a very different media age than Japan and China did. On the other hand, one thing worth remembering is that the emergences of Japan of Korea both took place over generational time spans. China has been growing rapidly since reform and opening-up, thirty years ago, but it has really only been integrating globally for a decade, so let’s all see how things look ten or fifteen years hence.

We somehow managed to get through the entire discussion without touching on the product quality crises of a couple of years ago. Longtime readers will know that I devoted a lot of attention to those issues (classic posts here and here), and that was much more a product of the flow of the discussion and the Q&A than an intentional omission. Quality management will remain a bugaboo of “brand China” for a while, but, China’s enforcement issues notwithstanding, that’s something other countries have had to overcome as well. We also didn’t get into the innovation environment here, and its impact on the national brand. That will have to wait for another discussion.

The event should be podcast shortly via our friends at Popup Chinese, and I’ll throw up a link once I get one so you can get more of the actual discussion. I fear the quality won’t be great since it was recorded with little electronic dictaphones rather than from our microphone feeds, but we’ll see what we get. The audience questions were excellent, so it’s worth catching that part of the discussion if you can.

Also, we were a very Ameri-centric panel. In fairness to CET, I was the second choice after Hung Huang, so it’s not for lack of trying. The result was that we framed many of the issues in terms of western –and especially American– audiences. The world is obviously bigger than that and you could have many more discussions about brand China in other parts of the world.

And now a word from our sponsors…

Or, more correctly, for our sponsors. The event was hosted by the extremely swish Capital M restaurant, which, to my mind, is pretty much the sole redeeming feature of the “improved” Qianmen Pedestrian Street. Capital M is by the same group responsible for the well-known M on the Bund. They provided a good room for the event and an astounding dinner for the speakers who had participated in all the Trialogues.  I’m already planning a date night with Mrs. Imagethief there. Not that the company last night wasn’t superb –I’ll refrain with some effort from gratuitous name dropping, but it was a lively table– but there is good company and then there is good company, if you know what I mean.

Update:

In his blog, Atlantic Monthly journalist and former Beijing resident James Fallows notes the inclusion of a China Daily supplement in the Washington Post. An interesting addition to the soft-power arsenal, but subject to the usual state media disadvantages. Now, a Caixin supplement…

Various media became gradually detached from the leadership of the Communist Party. The principle of the Party spirit [in journalism} (党性原则) is a fundamental principle of socialist news work. Adhering to the Party's leadership of news work is at the core of the principle of the Party spirit [in journalism]. However, not only did Gorbachev’s news reform not keep to this, it openly abolished this “administrative intrusion” on cultural and propaganda work (文化宣传工作), so that Party leaders from the national level down to the local level dared not exercise their leadership over cultural propaganda offices and public opinion organs under their jurisdiction, allowing them to act as they pleased and govern themselves.

This in fact amounted to the abandonment of the Party spirit [in journalism] and a discarding of the Party’s leadership over news work. In June 1990, the USSR’s Supreme Soviet passed its News and Publishing Law (新闻出版法) ruling that government organs, political parties, social organizations, religious groups, and citizens of the age of 18 or over “all have the right to establish public opinion tools [or media].” This was a green light for the “free operation of publications” (自由办报), ensuring the legitimization of publications launched by political parties and individuals. By October that year there were already more than 700 newspapers, magazines and journals registered [in the Soviet Union], including those from 13 different political parties. Of these, one-seventh were registered by individuals, and privately-operated news services had also appeared.

…and then everything went to hell in a handbasket.

Read the whole thing on the China Media Project site.

I put a link to Gady Epstein’s excellent post on the recent dairy industry PR meltdown in my own earlier post on the topic, but it’s worth coming back to at more length (and not just because I’m referenced in it). Gady’s post is one of the very best discussions of the dark side of PR in China in any source, and anyone interested in the topic should give it a careful read.

Gady remarks a bit on the possible origins of the scheme to undermine competitors through black PR, including referring indirectly to a comment in my own post where I said I felt it a bit too conspiratorial (actually, I said “Snidely Whiplash”, but if you didn’t grow up watching cartoons in the ’70s*, I meant “conspiratorial”) to suppose that the plot had originated at the highest levels of Mengniu management. On that point, Gady writes:

BossePR has worked with Mengniu’s most senior executives for years, people above An up to the very top. Do you conduct black-bag special ops at the behest of a division head if it is against the wishes or previous inclinations of more senior managers?

I suppose it depends how explicit those wishes or previous inclinations are.

Bear in mind that this is all speculation and conjecture. I think that it is plausible that a plan to discredit rivals was hatched or at least discussed at the very top of Mengniu. It would be dumb of said management, but it is plausible. However, I also think that it is entirely likely that top management involvement, if any, could have been more indirect. I would have little trouble believing either a sort of Thomas Becket, “will no one rid me of this turbulent dairy priest?” situation, or a win-at-any-cost culture tolerant of sketchy behavior in the pursuit of business goals.

In any of the above situations, top management would still deserve a good share of the blame. In practice, it seems more likely that a bunch of mid-level types and agency people will get their heads rolled, with the damage stopping a comfortable distance from the executive suites.

There is nothing particularly Chinese about discrediting rivals. It is a time honored PR tactic often referred to by the antiseptic term “depositioning”, which makes it seem vaguely professional and like you’re not engaging in some kind of wicked skullduggery. In fact, your skullduggery may be someone else’s hard-nosed marketing. Witness the technology industry’s time honored tactic of dispensing FUD –fear, uncertainty and doubt– about rivals. The trick is to employ some subtlety and to not to cross the magic line separating FUD from, oh, libel. Plus, the self-infatuation of many technology executives means the source of FUD is often –though not always– clear. If Steve Jobs is trashing Android, well, he’s pretty clearly talking his book, as it were.

What is particularly Chinese about this case is that it involves a complex skein of intertwined ethical problems across multiple industries. If you have a media that easily falls into bed with big companies and an ethical environment that tolerates PR firms willing to sock puppet for cash and a public primed to believe the worst of scandal-plagued industries, well then you have a recipe for trouble.

It’s great that Chinese media blew the lid off this, but there are plenty more lurking scandals where this one came from.

Speaking of Gady and dairy, looks like I’ll be back on Sinica this week, with Gady pinch-hosting for traveling Kaiser, as we discuss PR in China as well as some other interesting stuff.

*Snidely Whiplash was the villain from the Dudley Do-Right cartoons. He was played by Alfred Molina in the 1999 Brendan Fraser clunker, but I’ll always remember him like this:

Curses! Foiled again!

Erickson isn’t “selling out” in the traditional sense of the word, that is, he’s not morphing into a press release writer or a corporate communications executive. He will instead remain a reporter — just one who’s getting a paycheck from the only company on his beat. Call him a corporate journalist.

…

Erickson, who co-wrote a biography of Bill Gates, is the managing editor of the site — and, at the moment, its only writer. Alibaba, which believes this initiative is the first of its kind, say it’s not a marketing tool but rather a “quasi-independent news outlet.”

“All my life I’ve known journalists who have gone over to what we call ‘the dark side,’” Erickson says. After 25 years in journalism and a brutal layoff, he felt Alibaba offered him a middle ground: “I could still be a journalist, but I wouldn’t be subject to the same constant financial pressures.”

I’ll give this to Alibaba Group: I think they’re one of the few Chinese firms that gets international PR. Granted Alibaba is not cut from the same cultural cloth as the big SOEs and red-chip firms, but even controlling for that they’ve done a good job telling their story.

Although it still feels like a work-in-progress (and is labeled “beta”), Alizila is a good idea. This is the digital age, and as mainstream media are stretched ever more thinly companies need to get better at telling their own stories directly to the audiences that matter to them.

But I wonder about two things. First is the effort taken to stress that Mr. Erickson remains a journalist and not a PR person. As a PR person, when I look at this site I see PR: A house platform for telling stories about the company and making the company more visible.

In the end, can you be a journalist in the sense most of us understand it and report impartially on a daily basis on the company cutting your paycheck? What will happen when there’s a real crisis or serious problem that demands coverage or investigation? What will happen the first time someone in an executive suite wants to kill or amend one of Mr. Erickson’s stories?

Some of the stories on Alizila do delve into Alibaba’s challenges, but none of them is what I would call confrontational. Ms. Alberts quotes Mr. Erickson remarking on an Alizila article he wrote on Alibaba’s efforts to tackle counterfeits on the site, saying, “I’m certainly not going for the jugular, but if you’re in PR it goes against every instinct in your body, because you are drawing attention to the fact that there are fakes on the website.”

I’m in PR, and as an outside observer it doesn’t go against every instinct in my body. The availability of pirate goods on Alibaba isn’t a secret that’s being suddenly revealed. Personally, I’d see a post on steps the company is taking to control a known problem, even one that embeds some criticisms or discusses past problems, as generally positive. If that story had been on a third-party news site, I’d grade it as positive with regards to Alibaba because of the emphasis on the company’s actions to resolve the problems and the positioning of the piracy problem as a widespread issue afflicting the entire industry (a classic PR technique, “broadening”). If it had been a story earned through PR, it’d be good PR.

The second question is why jump through hoops to make this look like a news site rather than harnessing Mr. Erickson’s talent and experience as a straightforward company blogger? He could cover the same topics, dig into general industry news, use a more engaging voice, and probably achieve similar visibility results for the company, without having to maintain what to me seems like an unsustainable air of impartiality. He could be an advocate in the best possible way.

Perhaps it has to do with how the audience they’re trying to reach will perceive a blog as against something that looks like a news site (although they’re also active on several conspicuously American social media networks). Or perhaps it’s simply the approach that everyone is comfortable with. There is a blog on Alizila, but although the posts seem shorter than the “news” articles, the voice is similar.

Ultimately, Alizila is PR. There’s nothing wrong with that. They should embrace it and be proud. Get past the “dark side” stuff. Good, honest communication and good storytelling are both part of good PR. And there is certainly a role for journalistic skills in good PR, nutting out the stories and telling them well (which is why our industry is full of ex-journalists, although Imagethief is not among them). But trying to distance such efforts from PR strikes me as disservice to PR and journalism alike.

With all that in mind, I think Alizila is interesting, especially coming from a Chinese company. I’m curious to see where they take it and if they launch a Chinese version.

The second and longer segment of the show covered the issue of “China apologists”, foreigners who somehow seem to have crossed the line in their enthusiasm for China or Chinese government policy. Who is a China apologist? Are we China bloggers also China apologists? Why do some foreigners make their compatriots uncomfortable? China market analyst and consultant Shaun Rein, a friend of mine who has kindled some strong reactions elsewhere in the China blogosphere, figures heavily in the discussion and contributes a segment to the show. It’s a rousing discussion featuring something relative rare on Sinica: debate among participants.

Here’s the blurb from the Sinica site:

This week on Sinica, Jeremy Goldkorn, Gady Epstein, Will Moss and David Moser join Kaiser to talk about the Guo Degang Affair. When a fight with the media at the famous comedian’s house became news, the incident sparked a week of heated public debate. This ended abruptly as authorities closed ranks, muzzled the outspoken comedian and stepped-up an old school campaign against the “three vulgarities.” Looking beyond the headlines, what does this tell us about the media in China and why does it matter?

On a different front, we also talk about the insidious phenomenon of China apologism. A lively debate over this topic has emerged in the China blogosphere of late, especially regarding the controversial punditry of Shaun Rein. In an attempt to clear his name, Shaun joins us with an audio postcard and prompts a discussion of where the line should be drawn between presenting a nuanced perspective on China and defending the indefensible? When has someone simply gone too far?

Get the show here. See also Gady Epstein’s post and Richard’s response at Peking Duck.

Guo Degang: fast talker.

The blurb (which wasn’t written by me!):

The China blog is officially dead, moribund, cadaverous, extinct, buried, bereft of life, defunct and totally-and-utterly-inert. It could even be said to be resting in peace, save for the fact that Will Moss drove a silver stake through its heart before recording this podcast. “We single-handledly made the China blog obsolete,” he joked in our studio after further sawing off its head. But he has a point. Because who reads blogs these days?

Does anyone even remember the China blogs of days past? Back then there were greats like Peking Duck, Imagethief, Sinosplice and Danwei, and you could even indulge in a little China-bashing at Talk Talk China. Then came Sinocism and EastSouthWestNorth, and then the mainstream media blogs from magazines like Time and journalists like Malcolm Moore, Peter Foster and Tom Lasseter. And then the explosion of blogs like the Shanghaiist, China Geeks, China Hearsay, ChinaSmack, ChinaHush and CNReviews, not to mention the more eclectic and academic writings of China Youren, Jottings from the Granite Studio, In the Footsteps of Joseph Rock and The China Beat?

Well… we’re sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but all of these blogs are dead. Or that’s the opinion of the curmugeons in our studio this week: Kaiser Kuo, Will Moss and Jeremy Goldkorn, veteran bloggers in China who’ve seen the ups and downs of social media and are prepared to tell it like it is. So join us this week on Sinica for a dissection of the Chinese blog scene. And then get the hell off our lawn. What is it with kids these days anyway?

Download the podcast from the Sinica site, hosted by Popup Chinese. It will also be available on the Popup Chinese page on iTunes, but it’s not there yet.

Two follow-up notes to the podcast. First, it was impossible for us to name all the blogs we like and read, so if you find yourself left out please don’t take it personally. I am happy to take other mentions or suggestions in the comments, below. Also, there is one blog we agree we should have mentioned when we were discussing China business blogs, but somehow neglected to include: David Wolf’s Silicon Hutong. Well worth your time.

Flashback: Imagethief.com circa 2004, before it was on a blogging engine. It's a long story.

I’ll answer question that from my point of view in a moment. But first, there were two related articles in the last day or so I thought worth mentioning. One was a post on the always useful China Media Project providing a brief overview of the history and significance of the bulletin boards (or “forums”) in China. The persistence of the forums as agenda setters is one of the defining characteristics of the Chinese Internet. It’s also a major thorn for ethical PR people because the forums can be difficult for companies to engage with and the easiest (and laziest) solution is often to pay off commenters to promote your brand or disaparage your rivals. The rationalization is something like this: It’s relatively cheap, it seems to work and, hey, even the government uses paid commenters to manage public opinion, so why shouldn’t we?

Well, to paraphrase something my mom used to say, if the Chinese government jumped off a bridge, would you? (In my case, it depends. Is the government wearing cool shoes?)

Call me naive, but I continue to believe that the best long-term approach is transparency and respect for customers, fans and Internet users in general. But as long as companies operating in China don’t want to feel like they’re fighting asymmetrical battles against companies willing to employ such tactics, or feel like this is the easiest route to buzz or managing issues, the temptation will be there.

The second article is a long Xinhua piece on the phenomenon of cyber-celebrity in China. This has been another defining aspect of the Chinese Internet. It’s not unique to China –America, after all, gifted the world with Gary Brolsma and the Numa Numa Dance– but I don’t think we can compete with China in terms of color, consistency, or cynical appropriation for marketing purposes. This article gets into a discussion of forum ethics and promotion of Internet celebrities. Perhaps more interesting, however, is the pathos that seeps out of the article. One thing China and the US have in common is the degree to which people will humiliate themselves by publicly attempting to demonstrate that they have talent despite vast evidence to the contrary. There’s a surprisingly bitter appearance by the formerly impervious-to-self-doubt Furong Jiejie.

So, by an indirect and rambling route (sorry, but you should be used to it by now) we come to the question I posed earlier. Is it OK to release a viral video with an in-obvious brand message and only disclose the identity of the brand after a week or two?

Well it’s legal, and sometimes even successful, but I don’t think it’s a good idea.

There’s an obvious question that arises in that you can do a print or TV ad campaign that doesn’t immediately identify the brand. So why not an Internet campaign? The problem is that a viral campaign requires people to be complicit in spreading your ad, while most other campaigns do not. For a funny video, most people might not care if they’re unwitting agents of advertising, but at a fundamental level it’s still deception. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Facebook’s recent problems it’s that you can get yourself in trouble by overestimating the desire of people to be involuntarily coopted into marketing campaigns. Perhaps that reaction isn’t as strong in China, but I’m reluctant to bet a reputation on it. Personally I think that if someone is going to forward a link to their friends, they have the right to know who they might be promoting by doing so, and to weigh that in their decision. If you want to build a real and sustainable relationship with your community of customers, you should treat them with due respect. Part of that is not deceiving them, even as part of a joke that you will let them in on later. Finally, many of the most powerful viral videos I’ve seen have been completely clear about the brand behind them. It seems to me that if you’re sufficiently creative, you shouldn’t need to resort to deception, and take the risks that it entails.

I have no doubt that there will be different opinions about this, especially as it relates to China. Sock it to me.

Furong Jiejie. Who says China doesn't have soft power?

[T]he front page graphic at the time I’m writing this is a big yellow circle with two much smaller circles below it. It’s supposed to represent the population of China (1.3B) vs. the population of Beijing (12M) vs. the population of Dalian (2.3M) vs. the population of Qiqihar (1M).

Problem is, the proportional difference in the cities’ populations is represented by the DIAMETER of the circle, not the area of the circle. Take a look. Beijing’s circle is not 1/100th the area of China’s, it’s 1/100th the diameter. Likewise with Dalian’s circle & Qiqihar’s circle. So the visual representation is that Beijing is 0.01% of China’s population, rather than 1%.

This is what makes visual representations powerful, of course: what *I* mean by the visual representation of the data may not be what you interpret. Or it can be precisely what I WANT you to interpret.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics; and then there are visual representations of data. Come to think of it, PR firms and departments should really get behind this…”

So, a few things. First, the graphic in question was in an objective sense wrong, applying a linear formula to a visual representation that was based on area. This was pointed out by a commenter on the Chinfographics site, and to their credit the guys have responded and are addressing it.

Second, Bob, makes a good point. What an author means to communicate through a visualization may not necessarily be the same as how an audience perceives it. Sometimes they can be confusing. More insidiously, because of their power to communicate complex data in very simple ways, visualizations can be also be used to intentionally distort information.

This is not a problem unique to data visualizations. As anyone who followed the Chinese response to CNN and BBC photographs of the Tibet unrest of a couple of years ago, the same thing can happen with the selection and cropping of photographs or video, or even in the editing and presentation of text. How often has a joke in an IM, e-mail or, ahem, blog comment been misunderstood because of missing context that was obvious to the author, but not to the recipient?

But the same storytelling power that makes data visualization so powerful when used well makes them dangerous when inaccurate or distorted. That argues for caution and thoroughness. In the words of that great sage, Uncle Ben Parker, with great power comes great responsibility.

Also, for what’s it worth, in addition to data visualizations there are very good storytelling infographics that are not data based. One now classic (though slightly controversial) example is designer Yang Liu’s “East vs. West” series showing differences in Asian and European culture. Another example is a Men’s Health article that explains the caloric impact of some beverages by showing them next to collections of other junk foods with the same calorie count. There are also various visualizations and infographics for the great Gulf oil spill. These include a Google Earth plugin that superimposes the spill’s area (an admittedly incomplete representation of a three-dimensional catastrophe) over various urban areas, and a complex infographic (large image) on the spill from a company that creates editorial infographics .

What do you see?Image from Infographicworld.com via the Daily Green.

The blurb:

Despite efforts to downplay the story in the face of the Shanghai Expo, news of a recent wave of copycat killings has spread quickly through China, driven in part by the surprising revelation that many of the killers have been middle-aged and apparently well-educated men. Online, some netizens have blamed the government, which in turn blames social contradictions. Writing for the Telegraph, Malcolm Moore summarizes these attacks as a “turning point” created by alienation engendered over the last twenty years of China’s industrialization. Where does the truth lie?

With Kaiser Kuo out of the country, Jeremy Goldkorn of Danwei takes up hosting duties this week joined by Sinica regulars Gady Epstein, Beijing bureau chief for Forbes magazine, and China public relations expert Will Moss, whom you may know as author of the popular blog Imagethief. We also have Qin Liwen as a guest in the studio. She is a Chinese author and bookstore owner in Beijing who has written about these killings in the domestic media.

Unfortunately, this is Imagethief’s valedictory performance on Sinica. On Monday, after four and a half months of sabbatical fantasy life, I return to full-time work (in a new job, more on this soon). Sinica tapes on Thursday afternoons, so I will have to pass the torch to those with more flexible schedules than I expect to have. It’s been great fun. Do keep listening.

Readers in America: When was the last time any of you went to a Confucius Center? I thought so. How about watched a Chinese television program or a Chinese movie that wasn’t directed by Zhang Yimou or Chen Kaige? See any Chinese brands last time you walked down the street? Ever had an American tell you they think Hu Jintao is super cool? Driven a Chinese car lately? Right. Whereas here, people feast on American pop culture (especially TV and movies), the street corners are a plague of American fast food labels and Buick is an aspirational brand. Leaving aside your opinions as to the value of McDonalds and Starbucks as ambassadors of American values, let’s not get all hysterical about the Confucius Centers or wallow in insecurity about America’s cultural influence until poor American refugees start seeking a better life in Fujian.

In fact, China’s government is well aware of its soft-power deficit with regard to the US (see also this article on Danwei), and has been investing in building up its capabilities. International news is one of the key areas of investment, thus the revamping and expansion of China’s foreign-language media organizations. This has included a refresh of the venerable China Daily, the launch of the surprisingly interesting English edition of the Global Times, the revamping of CCTV’s English language station, and more. Most recently, the Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about Xinhua’s plans to roll out an international television news service:

China’s state news agency announced the launch of a global English-language television channel, part of a broader international push by the country’s government media aimed at countering the dominance of Western news outlets and conveying a Chinese perspective on events.

Xinhua news agency said trial broadcasts of the new 24-hour TV service, called China Network Corp., or CNC, will start Saturday, and the station will be fully operational July 1. CNC will be available by satellite, cable systems, the Internet and cellphones, Xinhua said, and will carry a range of programming on news, business and lifestyle issues.

“CNC will offer an alternative source of information for a global audience and aims to promote peace and development by interpreting the world in a global perspective,” Xinhua quoted its president, Li Congjun, as saying at a launch ceremony Friday.

Well, maybe.

I fully understand and even support the motivation behind this. China is a globally important country and has a right to be represented in international media. And as American news media continues its slow-motion implosion, you’d think this would be a good time for them to make their move. Nevertheless, I have a history of rolling my eyes at Chinese efforts to improve their international media efforts. This is not because I am some kind of cynical bastard (although that might also be true) or because I doubt China’s technical competence (I do not). It is because I feel that the natural control-freak inclinations of the Chinese government toward media essentially preclude any ability to develop a news organization with real, international credibility.

The objective–the real objective–is important. If the goal is simply to further disseminate the usual propaganda, then fine, they can do whatever they want. They’ll all feel good about themselves. But no one will watch.

If, on the other hand, the goal is to develop an international media organization that can compete with what’s already offered in English and offer a legitimately different but respectable perspective, then they’ll need to break their traditional mold a bit. Al Jazeera is perhaps the model here. It emerged from a country and region not known for a liberal approach to media and established itself as a serious and credible news organization largely on the back of its Iraq and Afghan war coverage. It did so while still presenting a point of view that was a clear alternative to most western media. They were helped along by some good journalism and slick packaging.

I don’t want to overwork the comparison. For one thing, Al Jazeera has had its problems (including serious personnel issues at their English service a couple of years ago). China certainly has the resources to try something similar to Al Jazeera, but it has some very different political and institutional factors to wrestle with than Qatar did. Also, the world isn’t necessarily screaming for an Asian alternative. Remember, Singapore has already tried the international TV news stunt with Channel News Asia, and it has had only modest international success at best. Even Al Jazeera kind of limped along for several years until it found its purpose and voice after 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. One hesitates to imagine a Chinese news organization blossoming in the heat of such a controversial international incident.

So with all that in mind, here are a few things I think China should do if it is really serious about launching a successful international television news network.

Base it in Hong Kong
Let’s face it, as wonderful as Beijing is, nobody is going to take a Beijing-headquartered international news organization seriously. By my thorough calculations, credibility will increase by the square of the distance from Zhongnanhai. This will be especially true if your parent organization is formally a branch of the Central Publicity Department, as Xinhua is. Technically that probably makes Lima or Buenos Aires the best option, but since those might be impractical, how about Hong Kong? Hong Kong is an established media hub with a veneer of press freedom that will be important in helping a new network to establish itself. It’s visa situation will be easier for pundits and professionals, especially the foreigners (see the next point). And, hey, it’s still China, right? Beijing has no trouble calling the shots in Legco, so it could probably manage a Hong Kong-based media organization without too much headache.

Hire pros to do it
Al Jazeera raided the BBC Arabic service when it started, and then raided the BBC again when it started its English service. China should do something similar. There are a lot of good, unemployed journalists around these days, including TV journalists. Avoid the second-stringers and discount talent and hire some heavy hitters for the editing and mainstream talent. Go for some recognizable brand-names. This will be hard because most such people won’t want to work in a Chinese news organization. Basing it in Hong Kong will help, but people will have to believe it will be doing serious journalism.

Also, make sure the production values are competitive with the best out there. No college broadcasting, please.

Cover China for real
This is another area where the Al Jazeera comparison breaks down. Al Jazeera was able to concede limits to its ability to cover its patron’s country, Qatar. Fortunately for them, nobody outside Qatar much cares what happens there, and there are plenty of sexier, more powerful and weirder places in the Gulf, let alone the broader middle East.

This won’t work for China, however. China is pretty much story number one out of Asia these days. How a Chinese international news network covers China will be a key part of how it is evaluated by audiences. The real test will come when, inevitably, such an organization has to cover a serious disaster or bout of civil unrest in China. What plays domestically will not play internationally, especially when people are comparing the coverage to other international media organizations. With all due respect to the Chinese people, who have been poorly served by foreign media on more than one occasion, most people outside of China–even non-Westerners–don’t spend their time grumbling about how crappy and one-sided coverage of China is. So don’t waste too much energy tilting at that particular windmill.

I’m not sure how China could manage this. It might have to credential its own news organization’s China journalists as foreign media. Now wouldn’t that be something.

Less scolding, more seduction
We understand that this operation is there to present China’s point of view, but a little bit of nuance is called for. Sometimes, the organization is going to have to cover the Dalai Lama, or Rebiyah Kadeer, Taiwan’s DPP, or other people the Chinese government finds distasteful. The moment the announcers start slipping into hostile language about black elements, jackals (jackals always get a bad rap), splittist criminals, etc. it’s all over. By all means, be more sympathetic to the Chinese government point of view, but do without with the theatrical, throwback language that alienates foreigners and reminds people that the propaganda mission always comes first. Find articulate, polished spokespeople to present the Chinese government point of view and let them, rather than the journalists or newsreaders, present the government’s points.

Don’t forget the rest of the world
It shouldn’t be all China, all the time. Global news organizations report on, yes, the globe. If the big news of the day is from somewhere outside of China, let’s make sure we don’t lead with what the Standing Committee did today, in protocol order, and doesn’t Uncle Wen look nice with the bouquet those schoolgirls gave him. That means opening a lot of bureaus and sending hardcore journalists to interesting places. With many western media organizations in retreat, there are plenty of parts of the globe that could and should be covered better, and where China might get better access than Western media organizations. Africa and Central Asia come to mind. China has the resources and can do this if it wants to.

Or it could all be a fantasy. I’d be interested to see China come up with something polished, interesting and watchable. There have certainly been signs of life from corners of the Chinese English-language media in the last few years. But given the history, especially in the heavily state-managed regime of television, it’s hard to be optimistic.

NewsMorphosis panel on the Transformation of the News from Jay Fidell on Vimeo.

But stick with me, because that’s the point. The fact is that everyone and their goldfish has an opinion on Google’s fortunes in China, but few people actually know anything conclusive, so what we’re getting is a huge dose of punditry, analysis and opinioneering. This is the kind of thing that PR people live for, because what we’re witnessing first hand is the creation of a narrative. Or, rather, several narratives that serve different worldviews, audiences and points of view.

This is PR in action: The effort to influence perception and opinion with regard to an entity or event, generally with the objective of supporting some kind of end-state result (higher sales, a political victory, popular consensus, the launch of a war, etc.).

PR people are often accused of being liars. This is a shame, because a good PR person doesn’t lie or make up facts. I’d like to tell you this is because PR people are noble souls who want only the best for the planet and fuzzy puppies, but the real reason is that lying makes you vulnerable and doesn’t usually work very well (and, yes, it’s also wrong). Lies can often be proved false, and this can cause your position to unravel pretty quickly, often with devastating consequences. Even if you string the lie out long enough to achieve a stated objective, you’ll take damage on the backside if your story comes apart. See, for example, weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq war, which claimed the reputations and legacies of many people.

But PR people do often try to interpret the facts (or obscure them) in specific in selective ways. In the vernacular, we spin things. In fact, the very term “spin doctor” (sometimes credited to the novelist, Saul Bellow) refers to trying to define the interpretation of events or facts — to determine which way they “spin” in the public sphere.

PR people do this for a living. But we’re not the only ones who do it. Anyone with an agenda tries to interpret facts to create a narrative that serves that agenda, or that serves their world view. Often, dueling parties compete to establish the defining narrative of a situation or event. Consider how Democrats and Republicans competed to establish the narrative for health care reform in the interest of divergent political objectives. The media and public spheres of discussion are thus, often, noisy and squawky collections of competing narratives interpreted or distorted from the same basic set of facts in order to serve different agendas. Sometimes it takes a long time for a “definitive” narrative to emerge. Sometimes a definitive narrative never emerges, or different audiences arrive at divergent narratives because they’re exposed to different influences (anyone who looks at how Chinese and Western audiences fail to see eye-to-eye on many issues will be familiar with this).

This is essentially what has been happening with Google over the past few weeks, as people have competed to establish different narratives regarding its withdrawal from China. There has been a huge amount written and said about Google’s predicament and options in both the Chinese and Western media and blogospheres. At last count I had 27 articles bookmarked since the announcement that Google would shift it’s Chinese search operation to Hong Kong. And there were plenty that I didn’t bother to bookmark.

Well, that’s just too much damned stuff to analyze, and I am way too lazy to pore through it with a notebook and try to draw any meaningful conclusions about what it all means (hey, I don’t get paid for this). Also, my overwhelming impression is that there is so far roughly zero consensus on what it all means.

What I did do, however, was to put together a handy chart that shows the key known facts, and, based upon all the articles I’ve read, how each of the major interest groups that I observe is spinning or reacting to each of those facts. In each case, the vertical thread through the series of facts creates the skeleton of a narrative. And that’s what each of these parties –Google, its rivals, the Chinese government, the Western activist community– is trying to do: They’re each trying to control and define the narrative of Google’s situation in China to serve their own agendas. They are, in other words spinning. Here is what the result looks like:

I realize this is a vast oversimplification and there are no doubt various interests omitted, but this captures most of the main parties and facts. What’s not included here is any kind of conclusion of each narrative. In my opinion, the story is still unfolding and its too early for that. But we’ll see how things go over the next few weeks.

The other thing is that these narratives aren’t in equal competition. To use a possibly inappropriate military metaphor, there are different theaters of operation in which the stakeholder have varying levels of influence. So, in the US, Google and the activist (and analyst) community are the loudest voices. in China, the Chinese government has the tools to define the public narrative, and has been using them liberally, although there is some ferment in the margins (also here).

Eventually, there will be a canonical version of Google’s misadventures in China. or at least one canonical version in the West and one in China. These may not be the creation of a single group. One group might control interpretation of one element of the story, and one group control another. But for the moment, the fun is in watching the battle to own the story. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Finally, from a PR perspective, there is possibly one overarching lesson that can be drawn from this whole situation. I can’t take credit for this insight, it comes from Craig Adams, a colleague of mine. But it’s deceptively straightforward and I agree with it wholeheartedly. He said that if you have to sell out your basic principles to do business in China, that’s a pretty good sign you should reconsider your plans.

Other sources (just to prove I’ve done my homework):

• Official Google Blog: A new approach to China: an update
• After China Move, Google Faces the Fallout – NYTimes.com
• Rio Tinto Is and Google Refused To Be, Corrupt, Rule of Law in China (Asian Healthcare Blog)
• G-Day: Letter from China : The New Yorker
• Billionaire linked to Rio Tinto bribe case | Stuff.co.nz
• FT.com / China – Redirection of users ‘just a little trick’
• RConversation: China, the Internet and Google: my uninvited testimony
• An Interview with David Drummond of Google – Science and Tech – The Atlantic
• Google Braces for Fallout in China – WSJ.com
• Stance by China to Limit Google Is Risk by Beijing – NYTimes.com
• Silicon Hutong: The Google Shuffle and the Hong Kong Twist
• China Kowtows To Nobody, Especially Google – Forbes.com
• Stance by China to Limit Google Is Risk by Beijing – NYTimes.com
• Google’s China Site Redirect Was Pretty Clever, Actually (Silicon Alley Insider)
• Google’s unwise move to Hong Kong – How the World Works – Salon.com
• Letter from China: Life Without Google : The New Yorker
• Brin Drove Google to Pull Back in China – WSJ.com
• Google Searches for a Foreign Policy – NYTimes.com
• Three Google / China Follow-Ups – Science and Tech – The Atlantic
• China Unicom Dumps Google from Android | John Paczkowski | Digital Daily | AllThingsD
• China says Google breaks promise, totally wrong to stop censoring (Xinhua)
• Google Would Remind My Grandpa of the Arrogant White Invaders – China – Gizmodo
• Heard on the Street: On Rio Tinto and Google in China – WSJ.com
• Google Official Calls for Action on Internet Restrictions – NYTimes.com
• How China’s internet generation broke the silence | World news | The Guardian
• Goodbye Google and GM information (China Daily)

Previously:

Google detonates the China corporate communications script (January, 2010)

Note: Table slightly updated to correct “mainland” to “Greater China”.

The week before last Imagethief was in Hawaii to participate in the NewsMorphosis panel organized by ThinkTech Hawaii and several other organizations. The last week or so since I got back have been a bit hectic, so I haven’t had a chance to write anything about the conference, or the activities around it.

The whole conference was streamed live, and the video is still available. I’ve posted the two videos below the jump, below . There is about four hours worth, so, while it was a great conference, unless you’re truly dedicated you may want to pick and choose a bit. I’ve included a bit of a rundown, below, but the easiest thing to do is to look at the program, here (pdf) and bear in mind that the opening remarks by Avi Soifer, dean of the University of Hawaii’s law school, is about half an hour, each of the three panels is an hour, and the closing speech on the Peer News program, by John Temple, is a half hour or so. (John Temple’s remarks also on Vimeo here, and Avi Soifer’s remarks here.)

I appear in the first panel along with Honolulu Advertiser editor Mark Platte and Hawaii News Now news director Chris Archer. The three of us about how new technology is affecting the business of news. It’s definitely an interesting discussion, and very relevant. Hawaii News Now, which is the television news gathering service shared by two of Hawaii’s major TV stations, just finished a massive consolidation and technology revamp to enable them to serve multiple stations. The Honolulu Advertiser, long Hawaii’s newspaper or record, was recently sold by Gannett to its smaller, local rival, and will be closed soon unless something dramatic happens. So my fellow panelists are both dealing first-hand with the remaking of the American news industry. As the sole participant from overseas, my job was to bring a little foreign perspective.  I also appear in the brief wrap up with TechCrunch journalist Sarah Lacey (our star power for the day) and Michael Freedman.

While I was there I had a chance to visit both the Hawaii News Now and Honolulu Advertiser offices, along with Michael Freedman, a fellow speaker, longtime CBS newsman, and now executive director of George Washington University’s Global Media Center. It was a visceral lesson in the state of news in America. The television operation has gone through a lot of consolidation, but it at least had a sense of vitality about it. They’ve recently revamped all of their technology and workflow to server several broadcasters. Having spent a couple of years in the newsroom of San Francisco’s CBS affiliate, KPIX, I got a little tingle of nostalgia. The Advertiser, however, is at death’s door. Their newsroom has been shrinking for some time, the building looks like it hasn’t had a dime of maintenance in living memory, and they were recently sold by the Gannett group to their smaller local rival, the Star-Bulletin. They’re all on death-watch now, and the newsroom is a mix of gallows humor and grim resignation to fate. The spot in the newsroom where the sale was announced by the publisher has been roped off with crime-scene tape, and there is a little masking tape body-outline in the shape of a newspaper on the floor. It was an interesting experience.

More below.

Unfortunately, the Ustream video player is a bit primitive, so finding the right spots can mean a bit of fishing, but it can be done. My panel starts at 31 minutes into the first video, with my opening remarks at 45 minutes and closing remarks at 1:28.

I also appear in the closing panel, at 1:03 in the second video, with my remarks at 1:04:30.

Enjoy. If you have the persistence to dig it out. If they post the individual panels, I’ll update.

Part 1:

Part 2:

At any rate, the sudden hawk-a-thon brought to mind the many contrasts between China and Japan, including this sign, posted over a water fountain at Kansai Airport, in kind of near Osaka:

This made me wonder, what happens if you do gargle there? A polite warning? A ticket? A beating? I wasn’t courageous enough to try.

Something else I noticed at Kansai: In the departure lounge they were playing the documentary show “Air-Crash Investigations” over the big LCD TVs. I’m not a nervous flyer, but this struck me as an odd choice of programming for an airport departure lounge. The topic was United 232 which, you may recall, ended in a fireball in Sioux City that was caught on video. They showed this video. I was reminded of the old Leslie Nielsen comedy “Airplane”, which is probably not what your average airport administrator wants to evoke. But, hey, maybe the Japanese are different. Gargling prohibited, air crash videos allowed. It takes all kinds.

In other news, the NewsMorphosis conference yesterday morning went well. I met some really cool people, including a bevy of Hawaii based entrepreneurs and journalists, TechCrunch writer Sarah Lacy, and Michael Freedman, the Executive Director of George Washington University’s Global Media Institute and a longtime CBS newsman. There was some great discussion. Sorry that I wasn’t in a position to live-tweet it or blog it. However there should be video available soon, and I’ll post a link or embedded video as soon as I can.

Li Hongzhong, governor of Hubei province, was asked by a People’s Daily reporter about last year’s case of a hotel worker whose murder charges were dismissed after she claimed she had acted in self-defense when an official and his colleague tried to rape her. His reply: “Are you really from the People’s Daily? And you ask such a question? What kind of Communist Party mouthpiece are you? Is this how you guide public opinion? What’s your name? I’m going to find your boss.”

Yep, a little retro there. These people all need media training. Every last one of them. Imagethief is available for a very reasonable price.

Possibly this is linked to pettiness of some of the scams that unfold out in the provinces and thus need to be suppressed ensure continued smooth career progressions for the cadres in range of the excrement helix. How else to explain the restriction of coverage of the alleged discovery and suspiciously rapid death of a Siberian tiger cub in the Wanda mountains of Heilongjiang province, in China’s far northeast?

Jonathan Watts, of the Guardian, has the story:

The first Siberian tiger cub to be found in the wild in China in at least 20 years has died less than two days after being discovered, the Guardian has learned.

Authorities have moved covered up the death, which casts a shadow over what is potentially the best conservation news the country has had for decades.

It also raises questions about the handling and timing of the discovery, which comes as China celebrates the start of the lunar year of the Tiger and a major financial push to save the biggest cat on the planet.

***

Ma Hongliang, the propaganda chief of The East Is Red Forest Bureau, told the Guardian that the cub is dead, but the news has been withheld. He has advised Central China Television and other domestic journalists not to report the death because of possible negative publicity.

He declined to answer questions about the time and cause of death. “Experts tried their best to save the cub,” he said. “It was too weak to survive.”

Because, you know, discovering the first wild tiger in twenty years smack at the beginning of the year of the tiger in a part of China known for its tiger breeding farms isn’t sketchy at all.

As the story points out, eco-fraud is something of a problem in China, and tigers have been implicated in the past. But, really, why squelch reporting of the death of the tiger, sad though it is? Wouldn’t be easier to just get the news out, heap blame on a couple of powerless unfortunates whom no one will miss, and have done with it? That would probably reduce the risk of the affair dragging on or being outed in the blogosphere down the line.

Or does the whole thing go deeper than we think? Was the tiger rubbed out? Did he know too much? Could he link the whole scandal to the highest levels of government? Would this tiger have talked under pressure? Or maybe his patrons just weren’t powerful enough. After all, as everyone knows, laws aside tigers are generally worth more dead than alive in China.

It’s a tiger, people. This ain’t Kennedy and the grassy knoll. Doesn’t “The East is Red Forest Bureau”* propaganda chief have better things to cover-up?

*Gotta love northeast China.

Previously:

The great donkey meat – tiger piss – media whore axis (September, 2005 – on the old Imagethief)