PR woes

china's credibility problem
Detractors unlikely to change their minds over Tibet despite Beijing's media campaign
Wednesday • April 9, 2008, TODAY
Maria Siow
East Asia Bureau Chief, Mediacorp News

THE authorities and groups in China have launched a series of counter-offensives against what they felt were biased Western coverage of the recent disturbances in Tibet.
While such efforts have received the support of many Chinese, their impact is likely to be limited overseas.
In recent days, the central government in Beijing had strongly countered what it called "distorted facts" and "unfounded claims" generated by the Western media.
Using the state media as its platform, Beijing argued that the recent riots had been orchestrated by the Dalai Lama clique, and were aimed at disrupting the Beijing Olympics and sabotaging social stability in Tibet.
At times, the counter-offensive moves not only appeared robust, but also excruciatingly detailed.
For instance, a group reportedly spearheaded by students, argued that photographs which appeared on a number of Western media websites had been deliberately tampered with, so as "to denigrate China".
A set of photographs on one such website purportedly depicted two military convoys headed towards the direction of civilians. But, the Chinese authorities claimed that if the photographs had not been tampered with, the scene of rioters hurling stones at the convoys would have been apparent.
Another photograph which appeared on a German television bulletin depicted four baton-welding security personnel chasing and hitting demonstrators, and the caption read: "Chinese police cracking down on protesters in Tibet". The photograph, Beijing pointed out, was in fact that of the Nepalese authorities cracking down on demonstrators in the landlocked Himalayan kingdom.
In other extensive reports in newspapers and on television, the Chinese authorities also spared no effort to rebut what they called "inaccurate Western reports".
They painstakingly depicted Tibet's oppressive and feudal past under the Dalai Lama, and highlighted how Chinese rule had allowed the region to modernise, develop and prosper.
The counter-offensive, by both the government and citizen groups, struck a chord with many Chinese who felt that their country had been unfairly treated by the Western media.
Their reactions ranged from "the Chinese people are indignant with the unfair Western coverage" to "we fully support the Chinese government for safeguarding national unity".
Criticism against CNN in particular, ranged from "shame on you" to "you have chosen to team up with arrogance and prejudice and stand against fact and truth". The American news organisation, however, issued a statement saying it had "provided comprehensive coverage of all sides of the story".
Apart from the angry reactions, a Chinese website has also launched a campaign urging Chinese around the world to register their protest against alleged Western media bias. So far, over 1.4 million signatures have been collected.
Some suggested that the robust reactions of the Chinese had been encouraged, if not instigated, by the Chinese authorities. But even without prompting from the Chinese government, it is clear that most Chinese favour stability, unity and sovereignty and do not take kindly to what they view as Western interference into China's domestic affairs.
But, the public offensive is unlikely to have much of an impact beyond China's shores, let alone convince detractors to change their minds about Tibet. In the eyes of many in the West, the Chinese government has a credibility problem arising from its questionable track record.
After all, many still remember China's patchy record when it comes to official statistics — most notably, how Beijing had tried to deny and cover up the Sars outbreak in 2003.
It also does not help that the Chinese media does not have a history of accurate reporting on sensitive issues.
In the case of the Tibetan riots, the Chinese media had either discredited the version of events given by Tibetan exiles and activist groups, or ignored them altogether. No mention had been made of the death toll as reported by the Tibetan exile groups, nor the claims of widespread repression during six decades of Chinese rule.
While it is clear that China has realised the importance of countering what it sees as adverse publicity, its efforts are unlikely to produce the desired results, given the country's overall lack of transparency. Like the boy who cried wolf, the problem that the Chinese government faces is that even when the truth is finally told, it may not be recognised as such.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FROM TIBETAN UNREST TO SQUAT TOILETS...
China's recurring PR nightmare
By Chua Chin Hon, ST, 22 Mar 08

BEIJING - EVEN the toilets are not safe from criticism.
After seven years, US$40 billion (S$55.2 billion), and millions of hours planning and constructing a 'new Beijing, new Olympics', the Chinese government finds it cannot please everyone.
At least, that's how it would appear from headlines around the world. Hardly a week goes by now without Beijing, host city of the 2008 Olympics, being criticised for not doing enough to improve its air quality, traffic management, food safety, human rights record and whatnot.
This past week, Beijing was hit by a wave of condemnation for its handling of the unrest in Tibet, where hundreds of ethnic Tibetans clashed with police and set buildings on fire.
Amid acrimonious finger-pointing and fears that the torch relay route would have to be changed to avoid Tibet, a fresh complaint emerged from out of the blue to embarrass the Beijing Games organisers yet again: The city's fancy Olympic stadiums, evidently, had too many squat toilets.
Though a regular feature in China, such toilets would be impossible for less nimble Western visitors to use, foreign reports suggested.
The Associated Press news agency said on Wednesday that the Games organisers had received 'frequent complaints' about the toilets, most recently when two American teams played an exhibition match at the new Olympic baseball stadium.
Mr Yao Hui, deputy director of venue management, gave assurances that the stadiums - including the showpiece 'Bird's Nest' stadium - would be retrofitted with sit-down toilets.
Is this wave of criticism, from Tibet to toilets, merely tough love? Or is Beijing being picked on unfairly?
There are no straightforward answers. Some activists do see the Olympics as a 'now or never' chance to pressure Beijing. So they attack the authorities for every conceivable shortcoming at every available opportunity.
The criticisms, and what is regarded as the foreign media's unfair and prejudiced reporting, leave many Chinese officials feeling hard done by.
At a late-night press conference this week to give China's version of events in Tibet, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao was visibly upset when he was peppered with questions about the actions of Chinese security forces in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital city.
'I noticed that you have all been asking about the actions of the Chinese law enforcement personnel and no one is asking about the violent actions of the protesters. This is unfair,' he told journalists.
His outburst is understandable. But with less than five months to go before the Games begin in August, Beijing no longer has the luxury to whine about being portrayed unfairly in the media.
Instead, observers say the government should take concrete steps - fast - to arrest the slide in international good will caused by concerns over air pollution, a purported crackdown on domestic critics, and growing calls for an Olympic boycott over the Tibet issue.
Crying foul will achieve nothing, and has never worked in Beijing's favour for two main reasons: One, the government's huge credibility problem; and two, its poor communication skills.
Officials here don't like to talk about it, but the painful truth is that the Chinese government has never truly recovered from the damage it caused to its own reputation when it tried to cover up the Sars outbreak in 2003.
Whenever a disaster strikes or an insidious plot is uncovered, the knee-jerk reaction among China-based foreign journalists these days is to ask whether Beijing is trying to cover up something.
For instance, when officials announced earlier this month that they had uncovered a plot by Xinjiang terrorists to crash a plane in Beijing, many foreign journalists prefaced their reports with the caveat that Beijing could be trying to cook up an excuse to crack down on the restive Muslim region in western China.
Likewise, when the recent unrest in Tibet broke out, many journalists preferred to believe activists who told them the initial demonstrations were 'peaceful marches' rather than Beijing's assertion that they were part of a violent 'premeditated plot' to sabotage the Olympics.
The archaic language and methods Beijing uses to deliver its message often make things worse.
For example, in the aftermath of the Tibetan unrest, China's official Xinhua news agency unleashed a series of harshly worded commentaries slamming the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader. The English-language articles were clearly targeted at an international audience, for similar ones did not appear in Chinese.
Here is a sampling of Xinhua's diatribe (no other word is possible):
'From flat denials to completely false accusations, Dalai tried to wash itself (sic) of brutal violence, which was his orchestration, now he is ready to quit. What a drama!'
'This impudent politician did not show any sign of shame when he disassociated himself from the conspiracy as an innocent monk.'
'The Dalai Lama's hypocrisy has put the power of his religion at stake, but he cannot cheat all the people all of the time. Buddhism is no harbour for separatism. All in all, it's China's Tibet, now and forever.'
Tibet's top official Zhang Qingli went a step further this week by describing the Dalai Lama as a 'devil with the face of a man and the heart of a beast'.
Observers say such language is way too crude for an international audience. 'The accusations and language are way over the top for the outside world and will only encourage more foreigners to really consider boycotting the Olympics,' said Dr David Zweig, director of the Hong Kong-based Centre on China's Transnational Relations.
Given China's rigid political system, it is unlikely its officials will get around to fixing its credibility problem or improving their communication skills any time soon.
As Beijing confronts the very real prospect of losing the Olympics public relations war, there is talk of the government considering making a grand gesture - say, by granting amnesty to political prisoners or holding direct talks with the Dalai Lama.
But a senior Beijing-based public relations executive who asked not to be named said a grand gesture now will 'look like a PR stunt'.
Instead, he suggested: 'It will be more advantageous for the Chinese government to take a lot of small, constructive steps, such as by giving a freer hand to the domestic and foreign media, and adopting a softer touch across the country in dealing with civil disobedience.'
But is it too late to rescue the government's image?
'It is not too late,' said the public relations executive. 'There are still several months to go. But time is passing rapidly. If they want to make real progress, they have to start now. There is no time to waste.'
- thanks to ST.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE BEIJING OLYMPICS
When spin spirals out of control
By Philip J. Cunningham / 26 Feb 08

THE Beijing authorities need to graciously accept the fact that people are going to politicise the Olympics for all kinds of reasons - good, bad, ridiculous and ludicrous.
Even with American director Steven Spielberg no longer willing to serve as artistic adviser, Beijing will do just fine if it sticks scrupulously to its script as a fair-minded, tolerant host, with or without the Hollywood touch.
If China can show the world how cosmopolitan it is, echoing many centuries of truly cosmopolitan history, the Olympic spirit will prevail and any political grandstanding will remain on the sidelines where it belongs.
Having once worked with Spielberg in China, I find it easy to understand the idealism and enthusiasm that led him to lend his name to the
Beijing Games. What I find more difficult to understand is why such a legendary director with almost impeccable humanitarian credentials would cave in to a contrived power play on the part of a celebrity Darfur activist, Mia Farrow.
I worked with Steven, as he is warmly known to people in the film business, as production interpreter on Empire Of The Sun in Shanghai in the early months of 1987.
China at that time lagged far behind the more open, liberal and improving society that it is today. Back in 1987 there was no talk of boycotting China or pulling out of Shanghai even as Shanghai Studio support staff were ordered not to fraternise with the foreign film-makers and domestic spying was routine.
There was no freedom of the press whatsoever, in contrast to the dynamic - though not entirely unfettered - media of China today. Back then, summary executions were routine for offences that are no longer capital crimes and judicial protections were minimal, compared to the imperfect but greatly improved current standards.
Did Spielberg pack up and leave in symbolic protest at that time? No such thing happened. Deng Xiaoping's government clearly had its troubling side, but there was a sense that life must go on, not to mention a film aching to be made. Just by being there, he fostered people-to-people contact of the kind that really counts - the job opportunities, small kindnesses and exchange of ideas that make a difference in the quality of people's lives.
The power and the persuasiveness of Empire Of The Sun owes much to the splendid art deco streets and skyline of 1987 Shanghai, dressed to look like war-time Shanghai under the boot of the Japanese Imperial Army.
Closing down busy streets to dress the stage with hundreds of extras in period costume and staging war scenes with Hollywood bombs and pyrotechnics involved both the cooperation of and endless argument with Chinese Communist Party officials.
One day, thousands of Chinese extras went without lunch and we foreigners were blamed, though it later transpired that someone had pocketed the lunch money. As tempers rose, the producers were hit with huge fines for polluting Shanghai's less-than-pristine air by burning tyres to create background smoke.
It was not business as usual, but rather the business of expecting the unexpected with humour and a firm hand. There was considerable give and take and in the end a fine film was made.
So, what's different this time?
Countless books have been written about the Byzantine politics of Hollywood, where spinning the truth is a way of life. Had Farrow not publicly humiliated Spielberg in The Wall Street Journal with the unfair tag of being a partner to the 'genocide Olympics', he would in all likelihood still be engaged in a constructive dialogue with his Chinese counterparts.
By even a loose application of Farrow's exacting standard, not only should the United States be boycotted for invading Iraq, but every country that trades with it should be boycotted as well.
Earth calling Mia: What planet are you on?
Not only do the actions of the idealistic American actress have a narcissistic edge inasmuch as her agitation puts her back in the limelight after fading from the screen, but also her singling out of China reeks of a sort of subliminal racism not uncommon among well-heeled liberals.
In order to establish her position as one of a handful of enlightened whites who really care about the tragic fate of distant, disenfranchised blacks, Farrow calls for a boycott hurtful to the pride of a billion Chinese.
Her narrowly focused idealism is teamed with an overly broad demonisation that is accentuated by China's remoteness from her.
In her eagerness to promote her cause, she inadvertently bruised the pride of countless Chinese individuals anticipating a rare moment of glory in a long history ravaged by much sorrow.

The writer, a professor of media studies at Doshisha University in Japan, is currently a visiting fellow at Cornell University.
-thanks to ST/iht