Last week I was on the road and thus missed out on an entertaining and unexpectedly illuminating media slapfest in Beijing. For fight fans who missed this clash, here’s a recap. Last month Peter Foster of the Telegraph wrote a short piece about a government campaign to boost patriotism ahead of the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic this fall:
The “mass patriotic campaign” announced on the front page of the government mouthpiece People’s Daily newspaper will involve a five-month blitz of pro-government propaganda on television and at concerts, cultural events and public meetings.
The campaign is intended to “stimulate patriotic zeal” while “beefing up the national spirits” and “blazing the new era for reform and opening up” as the Chinese nation joins together with “one heart”, the report said.
Last week Patrick Whiteley, an Australian columnist writing for the state-run China Daily, took issue with the Telegraph piece’s use of the word “propaganda”:
Would The Telegraph’s Washington correspondents ever write: “An Internet poll conducted across several leading US websites as part of a government propaganda campaign to mark the Fourth of July, has drawn a patriotic response.”
By constantly labeling Chinese government initiatives as “communist propaganda” the newspaper deliberately paints a sinister and very outdated picture harking back to the days of “reds under the beds” and the “yellow peril”.
To which Foster replied on his blog:
Western polities thrive on a vociferous dialogue, but when it comes to politics in China dialogue is not an option. In China the ruling party hands down a single message designed to ‘propagate’ the article of faith that only the Communist Party can lead the country and deliver well-being to the people. That is propaganda.
The last and most informative commentary comes from David Bandurski of Hong Kong University’s China Media Project. In his post, which is worth reading in full, he touches on the key points of the debate, including the Chinese word “xuanchuan,” which means “propaganda” but doesn’t carry the same negative connotations of the English phrase. He then translates an article from the Beijing Daily about the Communist Party’s media policy without using “propaganda” as the translation for “xuanchuan.” Is it still propaganda? Judge for yourself:
Making an inspection yesterday at Beijing Television and the Beijing Bureau of Xinhua News Agency of preparations for news and publicity of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPC and Beijing Municipal Party Secretary Liu Qi (刘淇) demanded that [media] powerfully carry forward the spirit of patriotism and adhere to correct guidance of public opinion, creating a soaring spirit, joy and serenity, and a harmonious and civilized atmosphere for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China by publicizing the glorious achievements and successful experiences of the capital city . . .