For the uninitiated, the spoken Chinese language is divided into a number of dialects that are as distinctive as the differences between Cockney English and Deep South USA English.

Mandarin is the “official” language because it is the Chinese of Beijing.

Cantonese is the Chinese of southern China and the version more familiar to many Americans. (Bok Choy is Cantonese for white cabbage. The Mandarin version is Bai Cai.)

And I can speak from personal experience that the two dialects are so different as to be incomprehensible to each other. My Mandarin barely worked in Hong Kong.

Other dialects in Western China are as distinct but, because of limited exposure to the rest of the world, are not as well-known.

For a number of years now Beijing has been trying to force all parts of the country use Mandarin. And for just as long, the Cantonese speakers have been fighting those efforts.

Cantonese is the Chinese dialect of Guangzhou province and Hong Kong — the economic powerhouses of China.

People in those areas looking to do serious business in China learn Mandarin but as a second language. (Actually, more often as a third language. English is often the second language.)

So when a Guangzhou politician made an official proposal to force a major local television network to stop using Cantonese and switch to Mandarin, more than 1,000 people demonstrated against it.

Move to Limit Cantonese on Chinese TV Is Assailed

Police broke up the unauthorized demonstration peacefully.

And, in true Communist, control all information style, all mention any mention of the demonstration was removed from Chinese Internet forums on Monday. Only one national newspaper — one aimed at the foreign community — carried a report. The report did not so much cover the popular uprising as it indicated the discussion of language is a politically delicate matter.

And, as we know, anything that is a “politically delicate matter” will come under the direct control of the propaganda ministry. And that means in the hands of the “hardliners” who want more control over information and means of communication.

This is going to be another interesting issue to follow.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World

Each year the Hong Kong Journalist Association issues a report on the state of media and civil freedom in Hong Kong. Each year, the report is a little more pessimistic than the previous year.

The 2010 report — “The Vice Tightens: Pressure Grows on Free Expression in Hong Kong” — continues in that depressing pattern.

The report looks at issues where the Hong Kong political and legal establishment are deferring more and more to Beijing or their proxies in Hong Kong.

An issue of direct concern to Hong Kong journalists is the status of government-owned Radio Television Hong Kong.

The government decided RTHK will remain a government department, despite petitions from the public and non-governmental organizations, that it should become an independent public service broadcaster.

The status of RTHK has long been an issue for free-press advocates.

Under its current status as a government department RTHK has limited editorial freedom –although the government said it will issue a charter guaranteeing RTHK full editorial independence.

For many veterans in the battle for RTHK independence, the issuance of a charter is not a victory.

When the Voice of America aired an interview with Taliban leader Mullah Omar September 21, 2001 the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell intervened to kill the story.

He failed.

The attempt by the U.S. government to step in and censor a legitimate news story sent chills of fear among supporters of editorial independence for RTHK. VOA has long been known as a fair reporting news organization. Partly because its charter – signed into law by Pres. Ford in 1976 — protects it.

Point One of the charter states, “VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.” That means no slanting the news to fit a political agenda.

The folks at RTHK got nervous because if the U.S. government could get away with intimidating VOA, what chance did RTHK have against the Hong Kong or Chinese governments.

In the end VOA won and story ran.

RTHK has always faced massive pressure by the Hong Kong government — British or Chinese — to “be more positive.” Since the handover in 1997 pressure on the Chinese language side increased so much that many journalists feared for their jobs unless they tread gently around stories critical of China.

The HKJA also pointed out the government is unwilling to adopt a more open approach towards government information. The report cites an investigation by the Ombudsman that found misunderstandings of the government code on access to information.

The cure, said the HKJA is enactment of a freedom of information law.

Again, this has been an ongoing issue that has involved journalism groups from around the world in support of the HKJA position. In 2002 or 2003 the U.S. SPJ president spoke on RTHK about the importance of freedom of information laws.

The HKJA also noted an increased lack of interest by the Hong Kong government to defend its citizens from harassment in China. Two major incidents last year involved the detention of a journalist and a cameraman in Chengdu on trumped-up drug charges as they tried to report on the aftermath of the 2008 earthquake.

In another case Hong Kong journalists were beaten and detained by local officials in Urumqi. The journalists were covering the ethnic riots in that region.

The Hong Kong government promised to follow up on these cases but nothing concrete emerged.

The HKJA said in its report that the government is not living up to its international commitments – under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to uphold freedom of expression and press freedom.

The Hong Kong government has also been lax in protesting arbitrary rules set up by Beijing to keep out journalists from news organizations, such as Apple Daily.

All in all the past year was another one of concern for supporters of civil liberties and free press in Hong Kong.

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World.

Sorry folks, got a little behind in my review of material from Freedom House. (And if you haven’t visited their web site, you should. FH has the infamous Index of Freedom and Freedom of the Press Index. Both are necessary readings for anyone interested in international affairs.)

Censorship without Borders

I’ll just take the introduction straight from the FH web site:

In conjunction with the release of Freedom of the Press 2010, Freedom House hosted a panel discussion in the Knight Studio at the Newseum. The panel, titled “Censorship Without Borders,” focused on new and innovative tactics used by non-democratic governments (and some democratic governments as well) to restrict freedom of expression, outside of their borders as well as within. Panelists included Bob Boorstin, Director of Corporate and Policy Communications at Google; Frank Smyth, Washington Representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists; Christopher Walker, Director of Studies at Freedom House; and Karin Karlekar, Managing Editor of Freedom of the Press. Below are a series of video excerpts from the panelists, covering a number of issues that have a cross-border impact on freedom of expression including violence against journalists, the use of libel laws to discourage the expression of opposing views and growing censorship on the internet.

Topics such as censorship in China, defamation, libel, violence against journalists and much more are covered in several different video snippets.

Well worth a visit.

China’s heel on the Internet

The ongoing blockage of Facebook and Twitter in China continues to be a problem for freedom of expression in that country. Now add to that shutdowns of Twitter-like sites.

[F]our major Twitter-like micro-blogging services providing only limited services due to “maintenance” or “testing” – often euphemisms for strengthening internal self-censorship systems following government pressure; restrictions on at least one Chinese micro-blogging platform being able to link to any overseas websites—including non political sites like Geico Insurance; and the shutdown of an estimated 60 plus blogs by prominent legal and political commentators.

China has one of the most sophisticated Internet blocking operations in the world. It reaches down into the ISP level to make sure “improper” information is not provided to the Chinese Internet community. The technology seems to be mostly home-grown.

Clearly, the Chinese development of Internet censorship requires a lot of people — there are a lot of ISPs in the country. But China has a lot of people. So Internet censorship can easily be seen as a full-employment program by the central government.

Compare how China does it with Iran — another country that is nervous about the Internet.

Thanks to technology — hardware and software – purchased from Western Europe, Iran blocks sites such as Twitter and Google at the point where the Internet connection enters the country.

Back to China, Freedom House says the censorship of the Internet is an issue the international community can no longer ignore.

“The Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to control the internet affect much more than just its own citizens,” said Robert Guerra, director of Freedom House’s internet freedom project. “In addition to its domestic censorship practices, a growing number of sophisticated technical attacks are originating in China against organizations and companies outside of its borders.”

And let us not forget that the European Community is also looking at Chinese Internet censorship as a barrier to free trade.

Least Free Places On The Earth

Freedom House put together a travelogue of the least free places. Foreign Policy magazine picked it up and posted it online with pictures and commentary.

A very interesting read.

And one of the key things about all these “wonderful” garden spots is the lack of free media. Phrases such as “the government controls all broadcast media and restricts independent print publications” or “a monopoly of political power” or “human rights defenders, and others continue to face harassment and arbitrary detention and torture” are common in each country.

Proof once again — as if any was needed — that political freedom and press freedom go hand in hand.

The International Federation of Journalists has an excellent summary of more examples of Chinese suppression of its media. (And thanks to IFEX for publicizing the report.)

IFJ Press Freedom in China Campaign Bulletin – July 2010

Highlights of the report, which are not surprising given China’s track record of press suppression, are:

1. Media Blackout Envelopes First Anniversary of Xinjiang Unrest
2. Attack on Journalist Who Exposed Genetic Mutations in Crops
3. Editors Detained, Beaten and Interrogated in Chengdu
4. IFJ Condemns Sentence of Sichuan Writer After Failed Appeal
5. Journalist Fined, Demoted for Publicising Ban
6. Ban on Publishing Improved Salaries
7. Correspondent Detained for Photographing Strike Action
8. Police Investigation of Journalists Prompts Group Action
9. New Civil Law Encourages Self-Censorship

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World

When the Chinese government blocked Facebook and Twitter, Chinese Internet companies filled the gap. And Beijing saw that it was good.

Oops.

Then the Chinese people wanted to use the Chinese-based social networks to actually talk about real events and the news instead of the private lives of music stars.

So, now it seems that the government of China has done what it usually does when people are getting information that has not been pre-approved by the leading government ministries.

Reports are coming out of China that the leading Twitter-like companies in China have been off line since Tuesday.

Clampdown rumored as China “twitter” sites down

On Wednesday, NetEase.com Inc’s microblog (t.163.com) was inaccessible. A notice said the site had been down since 7 p.m. on Tuesday and was under maintenance.Sohu.com Inc’s microblog (t.sohu.com) was also shut down for more than a day earlier in the week and all Chinese “twitters” now display the notice “in testing mode.”

Company sources told Reuters that the developments were the result of tightened government controls over the new services.

“Nobody will publicly announce the reason, but it is as obvious as a fly on a bald head,” one source said, declining to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Shanghai-based Oriental Morning Post cited unnamed “industry sources” as saying that the websites were under pressure from Chinese censors.

I trust no one is surprised by this.

Cross posted with Journalism, Journalists and the World

The censorship squad in Beijing has got to be going crazy right now.

The European Community made the case earlier this year that censorship is a trade barrier. That means governments that engage in censorship of the Internet are in violation of trade agreements from simple bilateral accords to the whopper World Trade Organization.

Countries like China fought to get into the WTO to ease their sales into other trading countries. At the time, China said it was willing and ready to play by the rules of the rest of the world.

Of course, they only meant the “build cheap, sell expensive” and “Buy from me but I don’t have to buy form you” rules. Nobody mentioned anything about opening up access to information.

It was inevitable, however. Free and fair trade can only exist when there is also free exchange of information and data. The Chinese government understands that somewhat. They loosened some controls over foreign media access to China. More Western — non-Chinese government — publications are available to more Chinese people. And even some Chinese pubications are able to report more freely about economic and business issues. (But not social or political ones.)

But the Old Guard continues to hold enough power in the government to keep trying to control Internet access in China. But there has been push-back they never expected.

• The government failed to force all computers in China to install the stolen software Green Dam.
• Google refused to play ball by self-censoring information through its web site
• Hackers who provide ways around the Great Chinese Firewall are treated like rock stars by computer users.

And now trade, the lifeblood of economic well-being in China is under attack.

Basically the Europeans have told China: “Censor the Internet and we will file unfair trade practices against you.”

And now the U.S. has joined in. And Google is helping. (Google helps build trade case over Web censorship)

The usually boring trade issue stories now have GEEK APPEAL. It would be nice to see if some U.S. reporters — national and local — pick up on this technology and trade issue.

• How is censorship unfair trade?
• What does it mean for U.S. and local businesses?
• How has the Internet made getting cheaper goods easier? Harder?
• How has the Internet affected how people do business with suppliers from around the globe?

Just a few questions. Let’s see if anyone asks them.

IFEX points out that of the latest additions to the United Nations Human Rights Council, five countries have dismal human rights records: Angola, Libya, Malaysia, Thailand and Uganda.

New members elected to UN Human Rights Council include five human rights violators

What else would you expect? China and Cuba are on the committee as well. And we all know what a great track record these countries have in human rights.

In fact, Reporters Without Borders notes that the presence of China and Cuba on the committee for years has shown that the argument of putting less democratic, less human rights loving countries on the committee will help change them is a non-starter.

Why should reporters in the United States care? And even more, why should local news organizations care?

Outside of the fact that this is information that helps figure out how the world works — or doesn’t — there are local angles that can be looked at.

Not all immigrants to the United States — legal or otherwise — come for economic reasons. Some — many — come for political reasons. And running away for political reasons usually includes human rights issues.

So, how about the immigrant communities that are growing in every town and city in the United States? What are the stories from these immigrants about why they came to the States?

If a reporter goes a Mexican immigrant group in Texas or an Indian group in Fairfax County, Va., chances are the main story will be one of coming for economic reasons — jobs. (But there are a growing number of Mexicans fleeing the drug wars as well.) But how about the Somalian Ethiopian community in Minneapolis? Or the growing Venezuelan community in Northern Virginia? Or the Vietnamese community in Louisiana?

Those are just off the top of my head. A reporter with an ounce of curiosity might be able to find out more in his/her own community.

So there is a reason to look at the human rights situations in other countries. Violations elsewhere in the world often lead to larger immigration to the United States. It is the duty of LOCAL reporters to get the reasons why people are moving into LOCAL areas and affecting LOCAL businesses and LOCAL politics. But all that LOCAL! LOCAL! LOCAL! can’t be covered unless there is also an understanding of the rest of the world.

Here are some additional organizations to help understand the human rights situation in the world:

• Freedom House
• Amnesty International
• Human Rights Watch
• International Labor Organization

First posted at Journalism, Journalists and the World

The winner of this year’s Society of Professional Journalists’ high school essay contest on press freedom understands the linkage between media freedom and other civil liberties.

The contest — Why are free and independent news media important? — is designed to increase among high school students an increased understanding and knowledge of the importance of free media.

This year’s winner, Erin McDonough of Bishop O’Connell High School in Arlington, Va, used Burma and China as evidence how free media and civil liberties go hand in hand.

By eliminating the free press first, authoritarian governments eliminate their opposition and open the floodgates for the repression of other civil liberties.

She gets it.

It makes me feel that there may yet be hope that more Americans can make the connection between free media and other civil liberties and why it is important to speak up about violations of freedom of press in other countries.

McDonough’s entry first won the Washington, D.C. SPJ chapter contest. Her winning entry was then forwarded to the national SPJ for consideration. The national SPJ award includes a scholarship check of $1,000.

She and a companion will be feted at the annual DC SPJ Dateline Awards/Hall of Fame Dinner June 15.

Read her full essay here.

For all of you “between jobs,” maybe teaching English in China is something you might want to try.

English Teaching Fellows

Organization: Jiao Fellows Program
Location: China (Jining)
Website: www.jiaofellows.org

Contact Information: Kanyi Maqubela
Email: apply@jiaofellows.org

Description:
The Jining Fellowship is set in Jining, Shandong Province (the home of Confucius Kung Fu Tze) halfway between Shanghai and Beijing. The fellows will teach conversational English to children ages 3-18, and experience life and work in the heart of China. All teachers receive training before stepping into the classroom. The training is done by professional teachers who have designed the material and the lessons and have been teaching in China for eight years (kindergarten and university).

We are looking for intelligent and enthusiastic native English speakers who want to discover Chinese culture and work with fantastic children. Our teachers work in an environment where they can build relationships with their students and Chinese co-teachers (a native Chinese teacher fluent in English is present for every class).

Rest of job description

China journalist club shuts website after attack

I’m not surprised. I am only amazed the Foreign Correspondents Club of China web site stayed up so long.

The FCCC has been publicizing the hack attacks against foreign journalists and their staff for several months now. The club has also been gathering information on harassment of journalists by local and national government officials and agencies.

The web site was always a good place to go to get accurate information about what what happens to reporters in the field in China.

Here are reports I have run on some of the things the FCCC has made sure the public know about:

• It’s a new New China and the rulers don’t like it
• Hong Kong journalists roughed up in Chengdu for covering court case
• UPDATE: Journalists’ G-Mail boxes hacked
• CNN Reporter detained in Shanghai