You can’t express your own opinion.
by whiteoxeye
Critical Chinese journalist loses job – The Straits Times, Saturday, January 29 2011
(Click here for a more detailed report on this issue)
Mr Chang Ping was a prominent columnist and veteran journalist at the Southern Weekend Group in China. He is notorious for being critical of the Chinese government. Just yesterday he was “forced to resign” from his position because he refused to tone down his writing, and also because his bosses were “under pressure” from government propaganda authorities.
Most of us know that China adopts censorship in all their media. Well for those who had no clue, China pretty much censors everything from print media to the Internet, in fact censorship is applied to any media that have the ability to reach wide audiences. China, already so tight about what is exposed to its citizens, then comes Mr Chang Ping, a journalist who works in a major media company, and most of his works are critics about the weaknesses of the Chinese government (corruption, lack of political reform and the latest column on the violent anti-government riots in Tibetan regions in 2008 that questioned the government portrayal of the unrest as “sabotage” instigated by the Dalai Lama) Of course, he had to be censored too, didn’t he?
Funny how I naturally agreed with the criticisms of the social constructionist perspective, that people have become social performers because the theory was exaggerated in the sense that people have become so much more conscious about their social self instead of their individual self. The fact that we have unknowingly become people who are so politically correct in order to escape the troubles of miscommunication and that we have become so concerned about how other people view us based on what we say and do. It sounded so right, I almost forgot about people like Mr Chang Ping. I almost forgot that I, myself cannot care less about what others think at times.
So, what does a columnist do, you may ask. A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions. Mr Chang Ping was forced to resign because he did what he was hired to do, create articles that offers commentary and opinions. Because of the fact that he is in China, he is expected to be a social performer, to write what is appropriate, to ignore his own opinions and to write what the Chinese government wants China to read.
I feel his pain, for being punished for his words, as he put it.
He is not the first journalist to be annihilated for expressing his own opinions. An editor at CNN was fired last year for expressing her own thoughts on Twitter. This case is a little more controversial as she praised a Hezbollah-linked cleric provided a “good lesson” on what to write online. Citing just one more case from Yahoo! news, veteran reporter Helen Thomas had to forfeit her front-row seat in the White House briefing room after commenting that Jews should leave Israel and “go home”.
What all these examples suggest is that if you aspire to be a journalist, be prepared to leave your opinions behind before you graduate. If you have forgotten to do so, prepare a vault and lock all your opinions away, away from the world. Of course, you may infer from all these that in order to be a successful journalist, you just have to be politically correct and always be mindful of what you say and how you say it. No worries, you can still be yourself, except that you have transformed into a social performer, like everyone else. Who cares about being unique anymore, right?
szekaryin 
Thought inducing. It makes one wonder how much information does the media withhold from us, and whether writers are forced to conform to strict guidelines or face the consequences. Truly how much freedom does one have in writing articles or even just expressing one’s thoughts especially in the journalism line, that will not be subjected to criticism and even flaming.
A really interesting read, your article has made me question the media more so now, than ever. The media has probably set its own agenda of what it wants to public to view. This is where we should begin exercising media literacy; rather than be brainwashed by what the media only wants us to see.
In the pursuit to be unique, we often forget the advantages of being similar. More often than not, being different mean disagreement and at best, compromise, which is a case where people are less than satisfied. Well, it is easier to move on when people share the same idea. Don’t get me wrong here, i’m not saying conformity is cool – but is reform always good?
I don’t blame the authorities for forcing Chang’s resignation. Just how important and useful are his opinions to China, and the world? A different China in today’s context is something the world might not be able to cope with, economically especially and can Chang handle the consequences? The press, regrettably, should be kept free yet as politically correct as possible. Reform will occur when the people need one, we don’t need a hero.
Be a little more positive. You can express your opinion, if you are able to bear the consequences.
Very true what you said, having considered all the point of views with respect to this issue. Apparently the consequences to expressing opinions have all resulted in the sacking of all the journalists I cited above in the entry. So it is as good as not expressing any opinions at all.
So then what is really expected of a journalist? To be a puppet of his nation and company? To conform to doing what is politically correct even when he as his own stand on a particular issue? When is it then, appropriate to express his own views? Is it never, considering the cases I’ve cited?
That’s right, in a person’s professional dealings, he always has to be mindful of what he says.
When people ask for what you have to say about a certain issue, it is always safer to say what is ‘right’, than what is really on your mind.
It feels as though the only time you can truly ‘speak your mind’ is when you’re with your family or very close ones. Even with friends, there is a certain risk that what you say will become publicly known. It’s a dangerous world, isn’t it?
I do not regard their termination as a form of consequence. Even if i had to, i would only classify it as an extremely minute and personal one. We all know the powers of the press – its ability to reach and alter the thinking of the masses. This means that huge responsibilities rests upon the shoulders of journalists, the world as we know it might change because of their pens especially with the case in China. So assuming if they are unable to face the consequence and take up the responsibility of their words, wouldn’t it be better if there was silence?
As mentioned earlier, journalists, ideally should keep the press free and as politically correct as possible. They need not be puppets of the government, they just have to stay neutral. How is a rogue journalist different from a government puppet when both are motivated by their own interests?
agreed!
It’s a shame, what happened to him. Loads of reporters get arrested and thrown to jails or prosecuted because of what they write.
What happened to the idea of free speech and unbiased writings in the news? Strangely, for something that’s supposed to be independent from the govt and bringing truth to the masses , they are instead attacked for their efforts. Since when did reporters become the new symbol of freedom ?
Exactly, but referring to what Jack has commented, taking into consideration the big picture, I think what a journalist writes in China, or even in Singapore will always be a touchy subject. Not easy being a journalist!
I like it! A very interesting read and a great description on Mr Chang Ping. A few grammatical and punctuation errors here and there, but other than that, a very good piece of writing. 🙂
Ah yes, will be more careful next time! Thanks!
I don’t think that “being unique” in terms of viewpoint should be a main concern, especially when you’re a journalist. A journalist should first and foremost be responsible, especially when reporting. You do not use your position to put across a viewpoint that instigates, especially if it is through controlled media.
Audience today are media savvy. They can think for themselves and they are most definitely capable of making a judgement call. You think the people in China aren’t aware that they’re being fed only what the govt wants them to read?
A journalist should report. Present facts as it is – as facts. And let everyone else decide what they want to think.
Unless of course, you were asked to write a commentary piece, which in this case, I believe that Chang Ping stepped out of line. He forced his thoughts through one time too many. He was trying to satisfy a personal agenda. It’s not in the nation’s best interest, obviously!
Akin to what Jack has mentioned, I do agree that journalists should be politically correct. Not just journalists actually, many other professions as well.
But when is it the right time to express our own opinions? Apparently not even in our own free time as shown in the CNN’s editor’s case. Does that mean that being a journalist, or a lawyer, we are not allowed to express our own two cents on what is happening?
Media versus the Government. I like the way you are putting the message across. Well the scheming government always wins, They would never allow for the slightest occurrence that would place their ruling in jeopardy. That is why censorship occurs in every country. Let the people know what is considered ‘Good’ for them is their excuse.
The media is supposed to be watchdog of the society, they are not hired by the Government to say ‘Nice’ stuffs about the government.
With the existing system in China, it could be viewed as anyone leading their people to think the other direction of the government’s intent would be considered traitors to the society of China, and naturally have their rice bowl taken away from them.
interesting read. Every organisation and in this case government has its skeletons hidden in their closet. And most often, they would come down hard on those who question or oppose their actions. This would happen in a different degree based on a country’s culture and political system. Even the most liberal of nations the US has its limits – just look at Wikileaks. Free speech in Singapore is officially welcomed by the government but on the other hand controlled by the laws in favour of the incumbent political party e.g. defamation lawsuits. People fear to speak up. for those who dare, they have to be vetted by the relevant authorities before being able to be shared i.e. speaker’s corner. It would be interesting to see how to coming elections would be played out.
Journalists should all have their freedom to voice out what they really think is right. Not be censored and written off just because they are not politically-right.
It’ll be unfair and unethical for journalists to write about what’s “right” compared to what should be right. They are just creating an ‘ideal’ image but not what is reality for their audience.
They should be credited and given approval for what they write as long as it is not too biased.
Exactly my point. If no one starts questioning, where will change come about? Change for the better, improving the current system.
Referring to what the rest commented, I have to say that it is critical for the nation that these journalists be silenced. But I do emphasize with these journalists, I feel their pain for being punished for their words.
It will be a never-ending debate, the bigger picture, in this case the State, will always be more important.
Let me provide an alternative view of the situation.
Social stability. This is what most, if not all governments want in their respective countries no? Here I quote Huxley, in his novel Brave New World.
“No civilisation without social stability. No social stability without individual stability.’
This is the reason why the Chinese government stepped in to silence the voice of dissent. They could not afford to allow his words to continue reaching out to the masses, to inflame the public against the State. No, the Chinese government can ill afford another Tiannanmen Square. Whether Mr Chang Ping was writing on established facts or inflated exaggerations did not matter, all that mattered to the Chinese government was that such articles could potentially pose a threat to national security, and hence their reaction.
As we all know, propaganda is a means through which social stability is maintained. Give the people nothing to complain about, let them have nothing to compare against, and let them believe that the world they are living in is the best that they can hope to achieve. Silence the dissenters, and not let their negative views influence the rest of the public. With social stability comes civilisation, a successful country.
However, I’m not of the opinion that every country should become a totalitarian police state. Tunisia and Egypt are two examples of what would happen if you push the masses and ordinary people too far. Governments must find a way to strike a balance between total outright freedom (which may lead to anarchy) and an Orwellian, 1984 style of government.
I do agree with you, and the rest before you who commented!
The bigger picture is definitely more important than what one individual thinks, the stability of a nation is at stake. This is why the social constructionist perspective has been criticized all these years. That too much emphasis is placed on one’s social self, and none is given to one’s individual self.
Should someone try to give a little spotlight to his own individuality, he gets silenced. No one dares to be individual anymore, everyone is just following blindly.
Thumbs up on making the link between the strain being placed on journalists across the world by citing cases of others who faced similar injustice! I used to think it was because of the political structure of China until i read your piece and explored the links you provided.
The crux of it, i agree, is the lack of power and unfair jurisdiction being given to the press, the media. With the current state of sensitivity being hyped up in the political arena, places the burden on the concept on the free will, of speech and actions.
Across cultures and races, journalists, media in general, are all being exploited by the power of the government, contribute what they want to see and present, or become an example to keep others in check. Probably one of the many reasons why consumers are willing to pay premium prices for commentaries by TIME or The Economist, being the few who presents a neutral and unbiased view, well, most of the time.
The media, press, and all, has being supported and utilized as a tool by the government for such a long period,untangling the complicated position of the media and practicing the basic principle of the freedom of speech is going to be a tedious task indeed.
I still believe that there’s freedom of speech out there just that you need to master the skills of paraphrasing in such a way that the different authorities would not get directly offended. Sometimes sacastic remarks may be a way of staying true to oneself and yet avoid getting yourself into hot soup.
Any country has its own censorship and it’s not just China alone. However, if you think it in another way, I can fairly say that China is in the progress of opening up more to critics. This is because Mr Chang Ping got to write at least a few well known articles before he was forced to resign. This shows that the people is able to get access to these articles in order for the articles to become “well known” so much that it has created a big ho ha over Mr Chang’s opinions.
Hence, time is needed for China to open up and I’ll still put my faith in those journalists in their motto of discovering the real truth. In my opinion, readers should learn more about how to read between the lines for those opinions on sensitive topics.
hi nic, i think you forget that the KEY quality in being a journalist is to be objective.
A journalist’s job is to report. not to instigate and preferably not to influence. and so, no matter where in the world, it is preferred that journalists leave their opinion behind and let their audience judge the story as it is – with facts and without a slant.
In this case, no matter what the beliefs of the government, there is one thing they all hope to keep at bay and that is social unrest.
While it is important to tell the truth, a journalist should NEVER mix his opinion in his articles because they may be influential but they are also fallacious. And influencing through fallacious information is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.