Reporting from China: Not an Easy Gig

Since its rise to power in 1949, the CCP has impeded international media outlets’ ability to report freely on developments in China. Until the 1980s, most journalists were barred entry, and much reporting was conducted from Hong Kong. But as controls over the Chinese economy and society have loosened in recent decades, foreign reporters have also been granted more access to the country.

Today, even as media outlets cut back on foreign correspondents, China is one of the few places where many have retained–or even added–a bureau. Between 2002 and 2013, the number of outlets with a China presence grew from 199 to 441 and the contingent of foreign correspondents from 353 to 682.[i] This foreign press corps includes journalists from the United States, Europe, Australia, and other parts of Asia, collectively serving as the eyes and ears of hundreds of millions people around the world.

Despite improved access since the 1970s, the treatment of foreign correspondents in China falls far below international standards.[ii] Foreign journalists, as well as their assistants, offices, and sometimes families are under constant surveillance, both online and offline. Officials regularly block access to sites of important news stories, while Chinese sources are threatened or subjected to harassment, beatings, job loss, and detention (though many choose to speak to reporters anyway). Meanwhile, state agencies routinely refuse to give meaningful-if any-responses to journalists’ queries.

In surveys and articles, foreign correspondents have described hotel staff alerting local security bureaus to their presence, finding their smart phones were mysteriously submerged in water and the files on their laptops deleted during their absence, and discovering after their departure that police showed Chinese contacts records of their online communications with the journalists.[iii]

In advance of the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese authorities loosened some restrictions on foreign media, a partial attempt to fulfill promises made when Beijing was competing to host the sporting event. Several foreign news websites were temporarily unblocked for the duration of the games, but by December most blocks were reinstated. Regulations amended in January 2007 removed travel restrictions on foreign media and allowed journalists to interview individuals without prior government consent. In a move that raised hopes of long-term improvements, the government permanently extended the rules in October 2008.[iv]

Instead, these minor adjustments and brief opening surrounding the Olympic games have been followed by an era of growing obstacles since 2008. Surveys administered by the Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) in 2011 and 2013, for example, found that 94 percent and 70 percent of respondents, respectively, felt conditions had declined since the previous year.[v]

Four main trends illustrate the growing challenges facing foreign correspondents in China:

• Increased physical violence. During the last six years, foreign journalists have been beaten, kicked, assaulted with baseball bats, and detained when attempting to report on incidents ranging from land protests in Zhejiang to an activist’s trial in Sichuan.[vi] Some assaults were carried out by unidentified thugs, but often security forces were involved or stood idly by.[vii] Following the 2007 amendments, such attacks have replaced travel restrictions and periodic, short detentions as a key-and arguably more serious–threat to reporters. Nevertheless, many correspondents emphasize that the dangers they face pale in comparison to concerns for the personal safety of Chinese sources and assistants, many of whom have also faced intensified intimidation and monitoring since passage of the looser travel rules.
  
• Arbitrary restrictions on reporting location. Despite the new travel regulations, central and local authorities continue to block journalists’ access to certain locations. For example, travel to the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) requires official permission. Meanwhile, a series of ad hoc restrictions have been applied to broadly defined geographical areas (such as access to Tibetan communities outside the TAR or television filming in public spaces)[viii] as well as to highly specific locations (such as a Guangdong factory town during workers’ protests,[ix] Beijing’s Wangfujing shopping district as the site of proposed anti-government demonstrations,[x] and the parking lot of the hospital where activist Chen Guangcheng was being treated for foot injuries following his escape from house arrest to the U.S. Embassy).[xi]
  
• Closer visa scrutiny, delays, and rejections. Under Chinese regulations, foreign journalists are required to renew their visa annually. Though this has long been used as a possible point of leverage for punishing critical reporting, during the past three years, the authorities have become more inclined to translate threat into action. In 2011, the FCCC reported that 27 journalists had experienced unusual delays in visa processing and that six were told by the Foreign Ministry that their applications were rejected or put on hold because of the content of their articles.[xii] In 2013, ten percent of respondents reported difficulties obtaining press accreditation because of their reporting.[xiii] During 2012, two journalists–Melissa Chan of al- Jazeera English and Chris Buckley of the New York Times–were forced to leave the country after the authorities refused to renew their visas, the first such de facto expulsions since 1998.[xiv] In a public statement, the FCCC referred to Chan’s removal as “the most extreme example of a recent pattern of using journalist visas in an attempt to censor and intimidate foreign correspondents in China.”[xv] Even when journalists are able to renew their visas, official behavior during the process can be intimidating. One journalist recalled how during an interview at a Chinese diplomatic mission in his home country–a new procedure enforced by the government–officials provided a detailed review of his recent articles and expressed hope that he would be more “objective” in the future.[xvi] The same journalist was previously asked that his spouse accompany him to a meeting at the local Public Security Bureau in Beijing. Pressure related to visa renewals is unequivocally applied by representatives of the central government, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rather than by local authorities.
  
• Increasingly sophisticated and widespread cyberattacks. Experiencing unusual computer problems and finding new forms of malware on their devices have become routine for foreign reporters in China. In its 2013 annual report, the FCCC cited “increased cyber harassment and hacking attacks” as one of its greatest concerns.[xvii] Phishing attacks targeting foreign correspondents have become more sophisticated and harder to detect. A 2009 report by the Canada-based Information Warfare Monitor described an e-mail and accompanying infected PDF that were sent to Chinese assistants at international news organizations. The content was written in perfect English, relayed a credible request, and included names and contact information of real individuals who would reasonably appear on a list of potential interviewees.[xviii]

The geographic reach of these trends has not been limited to China. In early 2013, several news organizations- including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post-publicized that they had been the victims of complex cyberattacks by Chinese hackers. The attacks not only targeted individual China-based journalists, but also infiltrated the companies’ servers outside China. The attackers apparently wished to obtain pre-publication warning on reports critical of the Chinese government and to identify sources of information provided to foreign correspondents. Though the attacks could not be conclusively traced to Chinese government entities, several features lend credibility to that assertion.[xix]

At one point, heightened activity of Chinese hackers who had infiltrated the New York Times global server on the night of the 2012 U.S. presidential election prompted fears among senior editors that the site could be compromised at a critical time. Ultimately, the hackers were focused on the narrow objective of tracking information related to an exposé about the financial holdings of Premier Wen Jiabao’s family, but the incident highlighted the potential for cyberattacks by the Chinese government or its sympathizers to affect coverage of political consequence in other countries.[xx]

Separately, Chinese security agents and local police have repeatedly harassed foreign journalists in Nepal who were reporting on the treatment of Tibetan refugees. A 2008 report by Human Rights Watch noted several instances of Chinese police questioning foreign journalists on Nepal’s territory and at least two cases of Nepalese police beating international correspondents covering Tibetan protests.[xxi] More recently, a CNN crew reported in February 2012 that men appearing to be plainclothes Chinese security personnel crossed the border into Nepal and followed them deep into a Nepalese village as they tried to interview residents for a story on Tibetan refugees.[xxii]

Collective Punishment

Beyond an individual journalist’s career or physical safety, the impact of such obstacles affects the broader ability of news organizations to report from China. When television correspondent Melissa Chan’s visa renewal was refused, al-Jazeera English had to shutter its presence in China because no visa was granted for a replacement.[xxiii] Bureau chiefs from the New York Times and the Washington Post have also been unsuccessful in securing visas, though their colleagues still report from inside the country.[xxiv] Several other correspondents told the FCCC that officials implied their visa delay was due to their predecessor’s reporting.[xxv] In Chan’s case, it remains unclear whether her visa rejection was a reprisal for her own muckraking or for a segment on labor camp abuses produced by her U.S.-based colleagues.[xxvi]

These examples reflect a broader phenomenon whereby the targets of Chinese sanctions expand beyond specifically offending content or an individual journalist to collective retaliation against an entire outlet, sometimes with notable financial implications. The Chinese government’s multifaceted reaction to investigative reports by Bloomberg and the New York Times in 2012 about large financial holdings by the kin of then Vice President Xi Jinping and Premier Wen Jiabao exemplify these dynamics.[xxvii]

In both instances, the Chinese authorities chose to block the outlet’s entire website indefinitely, an unusual move against major news organizations.[xxviii] This was despite the capacity of the country’s refined Internet filters to block individual pages within a website–a tactic employed regularly to restrict access to articles deemed sensitive within otherwise tolerated sources, including the Chinese-language websites of the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal. As of September 2013, both sites remained inaccessible from China.[xxix]

Reflecting their varied business operations in China, the official retaliation against the two outlets manifested itself differently. For the Times, the blocking of not only its English but also its newly launched Chinese-language website produced palpable financial losses. Overnight, the company’s stock lost 20 percent of its value.[xxx] The outlet was forced to renegotiate agreements with numerous advertisers, causing revenue loss.[xxxi] As noted above, Times’ employees subsequently faced visa renewal problems and cyber espionage related to the Wen report.

Bloomberg’s English-only website does not have a broad audience within China. The blocking thus seems motivated less by a wish to damage Bloomberg’s access to Chinese readers, than by a desire to signal that finance-oriented news sources are not exempt from wholesale blocking if they embark on sensitive political investigations.[xxxii] More central to Bloomberg’s operations in China are its financial data terminals, used by large banks and firms.[xxxiii] The public gesture of blocking its website was combined with other threatening measures. In July, the Financial Times reported that during the first weeks after Bloomberg’s article about Xi was published:

[P]eople believed to be state security agents have tailed some Bloomberg employees; Chinese bankers and financial regulators have cancelled previously arranged meetings with … Bloomberg’s editor-in-chief; and Chinese investigators have visited local investment banks to see if they shared any information with Bloomberg.[xxxiv]

Such actions appear to have deterred at least some would-be business partners and clients.[xxxv] According to the FCCC, Bloomberg “reportedly suffered significant commercial harm from a drop in sales of its data terminals.”[xxxvi] Like the Times, Bloomberg also encountered attempted cyber intrusions and difficulties securing journalists visas.

Pressure to Remove Unwanted Coverage

Chinese officials occasionally take more direct action to impede news reporting, explicitly pressuring international media executives and senior editors to take down or refrain from publishing a critical report.

Both the New York Times and Bloomberg were strongly urged to drop the articles about top leaders’ family assets when Chinese officials became aware of the upcoming exclusives. After Bloomberg offered the Chinese government an opportunity to comment two weeks before publication, the Chinese ambassador to the United States met personally with the company’s editor-in-chief in Washington alongside other behind-the-scenes pressure.[xxxvii]

More recently, in June 2013, the television station France 24 reported that Chinese embassy officials visited its Paris headquarters and met with the chief executive after it aired a brief documentary titled “Seven Days in Tibet.” According to Reporters Without Borders, the diplomats denounced the piece and demanded its removal from the station’s website, a request the outlet refused.[xxxviii] Without providing the full details, the FCCC noted similar incidents occurring in London and Berlin over reporting by the Financial Times and ARD TV, respectively.[xxxix]

In 2009, such pressures apparently prompted Maori TV in New Zealand to screen a Chinese-government produced film maligning Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer immediately after an independent documentary about her life and activism.[xl]

The FCCC itself has come under pressure for drawing international attention to the treatment of foreign correspondents. Chinese officials treat it as an “illegal organization,” an implicit reminder of the fragility of its continued operation.[xli] In February 2011, the club was forced to stop publishing incident reports on its website. According to FCCC president Peter Ford, the decision was made after the Chinese “Foreign Ministry threatened the FCCC president and other officers with unspecified ‘serious consequences’ if the club continued to make public statements that the government regarded as political.”[xlii]

Long-Term Impact

Hard-hitting reporting from China continues to reach newsstands and television screens around the world. Nonetheless, the Chinese government’s efforts to thwart independent investigations have taken a toll on international media coverage of the country.

When sources are intimidated into silence, journalists are forced to abandon potentially newsworthy stories- including on health issues such as AIDS and deadly asbestos-or invest an inordinate amount of time and money to complete them.[xliii]

Lack of unimpeded access to regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet has hindered independent investigations of severe crackdowns, disappearances, and torture. Blocked access has sometimes forced overreliance on Chinese state media reports, whose unverified details–on the death toll during ethnic unrest, for example-eventually seep into Western news items as statements of fact. Similarly, one study on international news coverage of Falun Gong found that reports about the spiritual practice were few and far between, despite the ongoing scale and severity of abuses suffered by its adherents.[xliv]

Psychological elements add another dimension, as fears over physical safety, access to the country, or family privacy can make reporters think twice about what they write. According to free-lance journalist Mooney, who is awaiting a new visa, a cautious mood has settled over the foreign press corps:

I’m sure that a lot of journalists would deny being intimidated by such tactics… but I’m positive that some people buckle and keep away from certain ‘”sensitive” topics because they’re afraid of not getting a visa … Recently, some colleagues have encouraged me to stop Tweeting and making comments about China on other social media and academic list serves, which we assume are being monitored. It’s in the back of my mind all the time, but I’ve not curtailed what I do.[xlv]

Collective punishment tactics generate conflicting stances among departments within a news organization, as sales are potentially damaged or boosted by editorial decisions. International media have oftentimes defiantly resisted direct and indirect pressures to alter their content, despite potential financial losses.

But not always. Even well respected outlets have faced allegations of self-censorship. Bloomberg, for instance, chose not to release an accompanying video segment to the Xi Jinping article after the Chinese government’s persistent expressions of displeasure with the investigation.[xlvi] A 2010 article in a Human Rights in China publication cited several controversies that erupted over content changes on the BBC’s Chinese-language service (including a 2009 interview with the Dalai Lama), as it sought to increase online readership from China via entertainment features and partnerships with mainland entities.[xlvii]

In 2012, the Washington Post’s then ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, questioned the paper’s handling of an interview with Xi Jinping that was printed verbatim based on Chinese-dictated questions and replies. He noted the Post’s difficulty securing visas and the receipt of significant income from a Chinese-state run advertorial insert as pressure points.[xlviii] The above-mentioned study that found disproportionately low coverage of Falun Gong in major Western news outlets (including the Post) cited self-censorship and CCP obstructions as two factors contributing to the phenomenon. Other factors cited include unfamiliarity with self-cultivation traditions, “compassion fatigue” regarding human rights abuses, and typically weak coverage of new religious movements.[xlix]

The existence of self-censorship is difficult to conclusively document, but such incidents are nonetheless a reminder of the CCP’s capacity to influence Western media reporting on China. As Pexton noted, “There is interdependence in the relationship, and constant negotiation and compromise. The Chinese know it, and they take advantage of it.”[l] 

Full report
The Long Shadow of Chinese Censorship: How the Communist Party’s Media Restrictions Affect News Outlets Around the World

Related link: Part 1 

About the author: 

Sarah Cook

Sarah Cook is a senior research analyst for East Asia at Freedom House. She manages the editorial team producing the China Media Bulletin, a biweekly news digest of media freedom developments related to the People’s Republic of China. Previously she served as assistant editor for the Freedom on the Net project, an index that tracks Internet freedom around the world. Cook is the author of several articles and numerous country reports examining media freedom and democratic governance. Her comments and writings have appeared on CNN, the International Herald Tribune, the Taipei Times, and the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Before joining Freedom House, she co-edited the English translation of A China More Just, a memoir by prominent rights attorney Gao Zhisheng, and was twice a delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva for an NGO working on religious freedom in China. She received a BA in International Relations from Pomona College and as a Marshall Scholar completed master’s degrees in politics and international law at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

She would like to thank Yvonne Shen, China Media Bulletin editor at Freedom House, as well as interns June Kim, Erin Greenberg, and Jeanyoung Cho for their valuable research assistance in preparing this report.