When the Chinese Ministry of Public Security arrested nearly 200 people at the end of last month for “spreading rumors,” one of the most prominent targets was Wang Xiaolu (王曉璐), a reporter for the respected business magazine Caijing.
Wang was compelled to confess on television before going to trial. Dressed in a green polo shirt and looking downcast, he told viewers of China Central Television, the main state network, that he had gathered information using private sources “through abnormal channels,” then added to this his “own subjective views.”
The article in question was a “sensational” and “irresponsible” report on the stock market, Wang said.
Illustration: Mountain People
That the state would take aim at a publication like Caijing came as a surprise to many. The magazine has a strong reputation for hard-hitting investigations and pushing the boundaries of what the government might deem permissible. Yet it has steered clear of prohibited topics like the Falun Gong movement.
“I know how to measure the boundary lines,” Caijing’s founder, Hu Shuli (胡舒立), told the New York Times in 2005. “We go up to the line — and we might even push it. But we never cross it.”
So the public shaming of one of its journalists has raised fears about prospects for journalistic freedom within China — and the direction of Caijing itself.
The publication was set up in 1998 by Hu, a former propaganda writer for the Chinese Communist Party publication Workers’ Daily, and it took an aggressive journalistic approach from the beginning.
The cover of the first issue focused on a property company with a rocketing share price that had been suspended from trading after overstating its profits. A few insiders were tipped off beforehand and managed to unload their shares.
In an editorial on the future of journalism in China, Hu wrote: “By simply reporting the story and pointing out places where the system failed to protect small investors, we incited a stir. Government watchdogs immediately criticized Caijing.”
Caijing, a biweekly magazine with a circulation of 225,000, has continued chasing the same types of stories. Exposes by Caijing — which means finance and economics in Chinese — have covered such topics as illegal securities trading, stock price manipulation and falsified profits. Some of the reports have prompted regulatory investigations.
However, for a business-focused publication, it has also ventured further into less traditional territory.
In 2003, Caijing was one of the few Chinese media outlets to report critically on the SARS crisis. The government tried to control the story, said David Bandurski, an editor at the China Media Project based at the University of Hong Kong.
“Some media, Caijing and Southern Metropolis Daily, decided they were going to report,” Bandurski said. “Hu Shuli was going into west China with her hazmat suit. Around the time of SARS, April 2003, was the beginning of what they think of as the media spring. Official guidance totally fell apart.”
In 2008, Caijing reported on how construction standards had been ignored and public money was wasted in Sichuan Province, leading to the collapse of many schools during an earthquake. Other publications were punished for covering the collapsed schools, but Caijing was not.
Bandurski said the importance of economic reform to the government meant elites wanted strong financial reporting. Caijing seized the opportunity.
However, it also occasionally crossed the line, from Beijing’s point of view.
Wang Boming (王波明), who helped obtain financing for the publication when it started, told the New York Times in 2005 that people from the magazine had been called to perform “self-criticism.”
Wang, who is president of the Stock Exchange Executive Council (SEEC) and helped establish the stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen, is now editor-in-chief at the magazine.
Caijing is owned by SEEC Media, a company listed in Hong Kong, which sells advertising.
Hu resigned as editor in November 2009 after a dispute with the publishers. Caijing had come under growing pressure from government censors, and Hu and others at the magazine had complained that SEEC Media was too stingy with the budget.
Hu left along with most of the editorial team. She went on to form Caixin Media, a news group focused on finance.
Caijing, observers say, has stayed at the forefront of financial reporting and has performed better than many expected. However, the confession of Wang Xiaolu has some questioning whether free rein for Caijing, Caixin and publications like them is coming to an end, either because of government pressure or because journalists are trying to protect themselves.
“I think it is a crackdown on media and a step-up of censorship,” said Cheng, a stock market investor in his 40s who wanted to be referred to only by his surname because of safety concerns. “I can see that because of what happened to Caijing magazine, many media don’t want to be the first one to report important news. Like the day before yesterday, China Securities Regulatory Commission started another action to further restrict loans for stock trading, but I can see that no media wanted to be the first one to report this.”
Luo Changping (羅昌平), a former deputy managing editor at Caijing, said people he knew who work at Caijing or have worked there are upset. And although anyone going into journalism in China knows the constraints they will work under, standards are changing, he added.
“Maybe a few years ago, the line was higher,” he said. “But now it’s dropping lower on everyone. Many journalists are saying that nowadays, there is no media that is safe. Everyone lives in a comparatively dangerous situation.”
He said even Wang Xiaolu’s confession was vague on exactly what he had done wrong.
“Everything he did was just his usual reporting work,” Luo said. “And we are all saying that a big part of journalists’ job is ‘privately gathering information.’”
Orville Schell, director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, said punishment of a Caijing journalist was a sign of tightening government control.
Wang Boming is well connected, which “would afford a certain measure of protection. He knew where the lines were,” Schell said.
“When people like Wang Boming, a man who knows his way around town, can’t protect his reporters, that says something,” he said.
Schell also added that the stock market was likely to be a particularly sensitive topic for financial journalists. The need to prop up share prices has become more pressing for the government, leaving less leeway for reporting.
“This is a time-honored Mao [Zedong (毛澤東)] tactic of the ’30s and ’40s,” he said. “To see China returning to this strategy, for someone who has been watching China slowly open, become more relaxed with certain parts of its social structure like the media and society, this is quite a startling reverse.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath