open Democracy News Analysis - Beijing baozi and public trust, Li Datong - Comments

James Secor on "Beijing baozi and public trust"

James Secor — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:22:00 +0000

The gov't went a step further, according to "agency" news items, in saying the reporter's name was Zi. Now, Zi is not a family name in China; once, in ancient times， it was. Zi is an appellative, as with Laozi or Kongzi. I have a student, Chen Danni, whose parents call her either Danzi or Nizi. So, a question is raised about the motives of both the gov't and the reporter: who's telling the truth? who knows what? I tend to wonder, though, about these "agency" reports: the reporters seem to have no knowledge or inclination to gain knowledge, just passing on one bit of info after another, thoughtlessly, like old wives over their clothes lines or Geoffrey Crayon with Washington Irving. 史可鉴

kywongcheung3 on "Beijing baozi and public trust"

kywongcheung3 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:59:09 +0000

It is self-evident that the key to solving the problem is political reform. A government that is not accountable to the public, not controlled by its vote, not forced by a free press to tell the truth, will inevitably find itself in a crisis of governance. In the end, both those in power and the public pay a heavy price. Reality is there is no real democratic system of governance on Earth and no real democratic human to execute if there is a good system. Most economic,political and religious leaders are greedy and selfish,it is the people who serve them. The real crisis of this planet Earth,not just USA,PRC,is these greedy economic leaders are destroying survival of human by blind pursue for profits and growth,the political leaders are helping them. Humanity is simple,peaceful,healthy,happy and good life for us and our posterity. Instead wars,pollution,global warming,luxury,waste are threats to human survival in this planet Earth.

dspc on "Beijing baozi and public trust"

dspc — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:56:24 +0000

中国的食品质量监督单位的一项全国范围的调查发现，很多产品受到污染，如婴幼儿配方乳粉、大米、面粉、肉类、饼干、海鲜、酱油、糖果等有毒食品。温家宝不得不努力改善，以面对日益增长的对中国出口的食品药品的国际关注。但是否行得通呢? 没有人可以说，所有中国制造的产品是坏的，还是好的。它取决于企业的老板。由于官僚腐败和疏忽，雄心勃勃的老板能放眼长远的成就，而投机取巧的人会玩火。此外，中国的利润系统在崩溃，因为他们享有少的不合理的的利润率。“竞相杀价”的竞争使在中国工厂疯了! 至于烂纸箱馅的包子，就更难管。经济围绕权贵运转，导致农村、内地的凋敝，大量农民聚集在大城市郊区，北京就有几百万吧。到城乡交接部看看，有大量破出租房，污水横流，垃圾满地。流动人口干各种活，多不过勉强为生。正规的早点，比如某台湾品牌店的，价格高许多。早点摊，利润很低，多是贫困的流动人口早上的工作。没有培训、缺少监管、艰难维持，一些人耍猾，如何避免？ A nationwide investigation by China's food quality watchdog found products such as baby milk powder, rice, flour, meat, biscuits, seafood, soy sauce and sweets had been contaminated. Wen has to do it , responding to growing international concerns. But it will work? Nobody can say that all products made in China are bad,or good. It depends on the boss of the manufacture since the bureaucrats are corrupt and neglectful. An ambitious boss will look forward to long-term achievements, while an opportunistic one will play with fire. Furthermore, the profit system collapses in China as they are enjoying steep profit margins. A "race to the bottom" competition drives factories in China mad! it is more difficult to supervise. Economic oriented to the bigwigs,results in depression in rural areas and hinterlands. A large number of peasants gathere at the outskirts of large cities, Beijing has millions. Go to the outskirts ,you can see many hoked-up rented rooms, open sewers and garbage all over the floor. The displaced persons do anything they can ,but barely survive. Not bad breakfast,such as a taiwan food chain's ,are much more expensive. Small Breakfast purveyors ,mostly poor floating persons ,get very low profits ,from their work in the morning. Whithout training, lacking of supervision, gloomily maintaining, some people playing sly, it is inevitable? 中国民主社会主义党 Democratic Socialist Party China

Jack Schitt on "Beijing baozi and public trust"

Jack Schitt — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:03:04 +0000

Rumour mongering will never be thought of as beneficial to public safety, but it is a way that the weak can oppose the powerful. I read this somewhere. It is a valuable tool of resistance along with false compliance, feigned ignorance, foot dragging, pilfering and so on. Such tactics, arguably, employed by millions, brought down the Soviet empire. Why tell the truth if it bolsters a corrupt and vicious regime?

Beijing baozi and public trust, Li Datong

Grace Davies — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:12:12 +0000

A rare piece of news broke in Beijing on 8 July 2007: a stall selling baozi (steamed buns) in the city's Chaoyang district was creating its product by mincing up cardboard boxes, adding a little fat and flavourings, and using the mixture as the filling. The story was uncovered by Beijing TV, whose secret filming provided cast-iron evidence of the stall's behaviour. With such proof, who could doubt that this was a public scandal?

The answer came on 18 July, when Beijing TV admitted that the news report was a fake orchestrated by one of its producers and made a public apology. In a rare and surprising instance of government interference in a case that should have been dealt with by the media itself, the producer in question was detained by the police - a first for China.

Li Datong is a Chinese journalist and a former editor of Bingdian (Freezing Point), a weekly supplement of the China Youth Daily newspaper

Also by Li Datong in openDemocracy:

"The story of Freezing Point" (12 September 2006)

"China: a ‘great nation'?" (10 January 2007)

"Chinese political reform: official discourse, real meaning" (7 March 2007)

"What China's new property law means" (21 March 2007)

"The Chinese ‘nail house': a Chongqing saga" (4 April 2007)

"'Public opinion' and China's Japan policy" (18 April 2007)

"An end to exclusivity" (2 May 2007)

"China's veteran voices of reform" (16 May 2007)

"Chinese and American unions shake hands" (30 May 2007)

"China's unlearning: a potent anniversary" (13 June 2007)

"The root of slave labour in China" (26 June 2007)

"Hong Kong's one-legged return" (11 July 2007)As a media worker myself, this saga does not come as too much of a shock. There will always be a few individuals who act recklessly in pursuit of personal fame. The Washington Post was embroiled in similar scandal in April 1981 when its Pulitzer Prize-winning feature Jimmy's World was discovered to have been fabricated by the journalist Janet Cooke (the Post suffered the humiliation of having to return the prize). More recently, it was revealed in June 2003 that thirty-six of seventy reports published under the name of reporter Jayson Blair for the New York Times contained varying elements of fraud, plagiarism and systematic inaccuracy. Soon after, the Pulitzer Prize-winner Rick Bragg resigned from the same paper after the exposure of his unacknowledged borrowing from the notes of a freelance reporter. In the aftermath of these affairs, executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald M Boyd resigned.

The journalists who invent stories or appropriate the work of others will be condemned forever to the professional hall of shame. Yet such scandalous violations also have a salutary function in forcing the media to improve their ethics and regulations. Over the last thirty years, the professional regulations of western journalism have been widely introduced to China and accepted and supported by Chinese news workers. In the serious media, those who concoct their own news stories will usually be severely punished. One result is that utterly fraudulent reports such as the "fake baozi" story are extremely rare in the established Chinese news media. It seems to me, then, that the incident is an isolated case which is no different in essence from the scandals that have hit American newspapers in the past.

In fact, a far more important problem for contemporary Chinese news media is that many newsworthy stories are not allowed to be reported.

The cost of cardboard

At Beijing TV, those responsible for the story at various levels of seniority have been punished. However, many of the foreign journalists who have interviewed me about the story do not believe that it was fake. Similarly, many Chinese netizens believe that the "fake baozi" incident really did happen. This reaction from society at large is extremely interesting.

All the people who sell baozi in Beijing are migrant workers from other parts of the country, and no one knows whether or not their food has passed health and safety-checks. Plus, everyone is aware of the serious problems with food safety in China, one that is causing friction with some of its trading partners too (see Patrice de Beer, "The China fantasy", 15 June 2007). Thus, by now, people are familiar with stories about this subject, and this affected reactions to the Beijing TV report: the vast majority of people believed it and responded with resignation (simply deciding not to buy baozi anymore) rather than shock.

The next stage is where the real lesson lies. When the government stepped forward to clarify the situation, almost no one believed it. A large proportion of the public thinks the government is lying. This echoed an incident in May 2007, when people emailed or texted their friends and relatives to tell them that bananas from Hainan contained poison. There was an immediate and dramatic drop in sales of Hainan bananas, and the farmers who grew them suffered terrible losses. Government spokespeople explained that the story was just a rumour, but again no one believed them.

These two incidents - and more could be mentioned - show that in matters of public safety, public confidence in the government has been seriously eroded. People would rather believe rumours spread by their family and friends than announcements by the government.

They have good reason. During the Sars epidemic, the government denied there was a problem; when the Songhua river disaster led to water supplies being cut off in the city of Harbin, the government claimed it was "fixing water pipes". Indeed, even officials from the state council information office admitted on 13 July 2007 that local governments "cover up 90% of negative news stories" and leave uncovered "less than 10%". In such a climate, it is hard for the public to entrust the government with its safety.

This real and widespread public feeling is becoming a source of opposition to the government. But if the sentiment continues to build, it is not just the government that will be damaged: public safety too will be threatened - for safety cannot be built on rumours.

It is self-evident that the key to solving the problem is political reform. A government that is not accountable to the public, not controlled by its vote, not forced by a free press to tell the truth, will inevitably find itself in a crisis of governance. In the end, both those in power and the public pay a heavy price.

Average rating

(2 votes)