Media Freedom in China Since 1949 Essay Example

surveillance, resulting in a complex landscape of media freedom in China. This article provides an overview of freedom of expression in China over the past decade, focusing on extensive censorship and surveillance by the ICP. It highlights incidents involving Southern Metropolis Daily in 2003, Google's withdrawal in 2011, and Backbone's recent struggles entering the Chinese market. Historical and political factors contributing to media control are explored, as well as the true intentions behind "public opinion supervision." Potential paths for advancing media liberty in China are suggested. Since its establishment in 1949 by Chairman Mao, China's media has served as a revolutionary tool known as the Scup's "mouth and throat," with no negative reporting during that time according to Professor Lie Iguana, Executive Dean of the Thuggish School of Journalism and Communication.During Mao's era from 1949 to 1976, the Chinese government exerted strict control over all aspects of media, including quantity, content, length, and format. News providers were established either directly by the state or indirectly through compulsory subscriptions or collaborative arrangements between organizations (Hashish, 2008). The media in China was referred to as "propaganda" openly by the government and played a dual role encompassing both "hegemonic" and "petitioners" aspects (Cheek, 1989). People's lack of knowledge about life outside their country prevented them from questioning the political system. Consequently, the media served as a one-way channel for information dissemination rather than mediating between the Party and the people. Former Chinese Premier Shah Uzi Yang introduced the concept of "public opinion supervision," which emphasized internal and external oversight within the ICP. The media was expected to align with Party principles and guide public opinion accordingly. It functioned

as the government's "eyes and ears," broadcasting positive information aligned with party interests while intentionally manipulating public opinion to align with their agenda (Hashish, 2008).Significant changes in China's media landscape occurred after 1978. Centralization was introduced in 1979, leading to an increase in news providers and acceptable content through advertisements and market competition (Hashish, 2008). In 1983, decentralization happened in the broadcasting system, leaving China Central Television (CATV) as the only channel under central party supervision. The State Press and Publications Administration mandated major newspapers to become financially self-sufficient by 1994, except for certain central party organs in 1992. This move brought market elements into the media structure but also posed a challenge of serving both the Party and pleasing the market. According to Professor Emeritus Chin-Chuan Lee from the University of Minnesota, China's media can be described as having a capitalist body with a socialist face. These newspapers strive to find a balance between meeting traditional party expectations and creating a propagandist-commercial model that satisfies both leaders and ordinary readers. Maintaining this balance is crucial for survival in China's commercial media landscape. Lee cynically portrays China's media transformation from being a Party mouthpiece to a Party publicity corporation. Nowadays, the media is tasked with resolving social issues, promoting Party legitimacy, and addressing corruption at lower levels of government instead of brainwashing people.Economic reforms in China have led to a gradual shift of media control from the Communist Party to market forces. This has resulted in some level of media freedom, although there is still no independent press as revealed in group interviews with Chinese citizens. It was discovered that newspapers owned by individuals or

civilians are not permitted.

China's print media is divided into Party and non-party organizations, with the leading newspapers in each province directly controlled by the ICP party papers. Non-party media outlets still belong to major Party organs, government departments, or semi-official organizations and are under their supervision. Stricter censorship measures have been imposed on non-party presses, including prohibiting certain publications and dissenting journalists.

The government has further consolidated its control through large government-run conglomerates. A significant example of this consolidation took place in 2003 during the Sun Shining case. Sun Shining, a designer who had relocated from Huber Province to Guanos city for work at a garment company, was detained by local police in April for lacking his temporary residence permit.

Tragically, while being held at an internal migrant detention facility, he was fatally beaten by staff members. This incident gained national attention when it was reported on April 25th by the Southern Metropolis Daily - an assertive non-party newspaper.
The article caused public outrage and was reprinted by newspapers nationwide. This led to the government repealing a 20-year-old law allowing detention facilities, seen as a victory for watchdog press. However, the Chinese government retaliated against Southern Metropolis Daily by raiding its offices and detaining its top editor and six officials. Later, the managing editor and another official were sentenced to prison with weak evidence of corruption. The newspaper underwent staff changes and lost its reputation after being replaced by ICP appointees. A similar example is seen in recent incidents involving Southern Weekly, where editors have faced harassment from the Chinese government for challenging boundaries set by the ICP through investigative reporting. They have been replaced with pro-government officials

who manipulate stories, leading to distortions in reporting. In response to their editorial column being manipulated and renamed, Southern Weekly staged a protest against government control but faced hindrances in investigating this alteration. They subsequently went on strike with solid justification. The Department of Propaganda quickly responded to concerns regarding Southern Weekly's situation.

Instead of addressing the specific issue, the authorities chose to condemn the entire Chinese press corps, emphasizing Party control over media and claiming involvement of external hostile forces. They ordered all media outlets to stop expressing support for Southern Weekly and required them to prominently republish an article stressing government and Party control over press freedom. The authorities also threatened to shut down any non-compliant media outlets. Despite ongoing political pressure, Southern Weekly remains a significant battleground for liberal editors opposing ICP censorship. These examples demonstrate how the ICP exerts control and puts pressure on local non-party owned media. China became home to the largest number of internet users in the late 1990s, with more than 450 million people accessing it; however, advancements in technology developed by Internet Content Providers (ICPs) have allowed for interception and censorship of online content despite this surge in voices advocating for democratic reforms catching the government's attention.The Chinese government implements censorship measures to block sensitive or controversial topics and posts, and imposes punishments on those who try to bypass these restrictions. This censorship extends to various platforms such as websites, blogs, forums, bulletin boards, and emails. It is enforced through multiple regulations including media regulation, state secrets laws, cybercafe regulations, as well as controls over service and content providers that support the filtering system.

The Communist Party's Central

Propaganda Department ensures that content providers adhere to party ideology. The internet filter famously known as "the Great Firewall of China," is maintained by the Internet Content Provider (ICP) which swiftly deletes certain internet posts within minutes of their publication. To facilitate censorship, the ICP uses different methods such as having network monitoring agents who delete suspicious posts and seize online accounts. They also employ hackers to obtain private information from overseas servers and target servers outside of China that pose a threat to Party interests or support human rights activities.

Google's withdrawal in 2011 serves as an example of the Chinese government's increasing desire for internet control. As Google is the world's largest online media company with more than half its income generated outside of the United States, it initially complied with censorship requests when it began offering services from Chinese servers in 2006.The government's stricter filters caused a decline in service quality for Google, requiring constant consultation with ICP officials to keep the search engine operational. Google traced attacks on U.S. web properties and email accounts of human rights activists back to China but did not reveal specific individuals responsible. Consequently, Google decided to withdraw its services from mainland China. However, those who wanted to show support for Google's departure by leaving flowers and candles at their Beijing headquarters were told they needed permits as it was deemed an "illegal flower tribute." In contrast, Facebook has no plans to offer its services in China. Similarly, Passbook faces challenges in China due to restrictions demanded by the ICP on freedom of speech and access to company data. To obtain a license, local internet companies like

Passbook must hire censors at their own expense. Given that Passbook plays a role in mobilizing people and facilitating protests, it is unlikely that Backbone will receive a license for local operations in China. The leading networking service providers currently operating in China have succeeded by carefully managing their relationship with the government, which is constantly changing (Hempen, 2012). As these services grow more popular, censorship attempts become increasingly aggressive.Since 2012, the Chinese government has enforced a policy requiring users on social networking platforms to use their real names for registration (Hempen, 2012). Despite government restrictions, there is a growing number of Chinese citizens who are finding alternative political perspectives through creative means. This silent media revolution, driven by market forces, allows the general public more freedom for expression. Media outlets in China now play a significant role in the nation's political and social landscape (Anderson, P.J., 2009; Chanced, A., 2011; Cheek, T., 1989; Redefining Propaganda: Debates on the Role of journalism in post-Mao Mankind China., 47-51 , (2011); Chinchillas repressive' on press freedom in 2010.

Tibetan Review: The Monthly Magazine on all Aspects of Tibet.(2004).Chinese Censorship.Http:// ethics.SC.NCSC. Du/speech/: NC State University.Cunningham, M. (2010).Illegal flower tributes.The Student Magazine if Victoria University, Wellington .Hashish, J. (2008).Controlling the Chinese Media: An Uncertain Business.University of California Press , 414-430.Hempen,J. (2012).Passbook's China Problem.Fortune , 103-105.Hood, M. (1994).The Use and Abuse of Mass Media by Chinese Leaders During the sass.CHINA'S MEDIA, MEDIA'S CHINA , 39-40.Hung,Y.(1994)."The text discusses various sources related to media and politics in China. These include the articles "Peaceful Evolution: the case of Television Reform in Post-Mao China" by Louise (2008), "The Impact of The internet on the

Political and Media Landscape in the People's Republic of China" by Melbourne Journal of Politics (2008), "China's Muffling of the Hong Kong Media" by Scout (1996), "Media in China" by Sings (2012), "Race to the Bottom: Media Normalization and Increasing Negativity Toward the United States in China" by Scotchman (2011), and an HTML document titled "Report Delivered at the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China" delivered in Beijing, accessible at http://cop.People.Com.CNN/KGB/64162/64168/64566/65447/4526369.HTML. The latter document includes preserved tags and their corresponding content from CNN and KGB.