Financial weekly closed for three months for reporting on a public bank
Reporters Without Borders today condemned a three-month ban slapped on financial weekly China Business Post, accused of having broken the law in an article on the Agricultural Bank of China.Elsewhere, the Propaganda Department is still keeping tight control over news linked to the toxic milk scandal. An investigative journalist has been gagged from reporting on the issue since July to avoid embarrassment during the Olympic Games.
"While there is growing concern about the international banking crisis and the toxic milk scandal, it is appalling for local and national officials to try to censor media who are only trying to carry out their job of informing the public."
"We call for the lifting of the temporary ban on the China Business Post and for the end to censorship of the milk scandal. Without these steps, the credibility of government promises of transparency will again be tainted", the worldwide press freedom organisation said.
The China Business Post, which sells 400,000 copies weekly, was suspended for three months on 8 September by the press and publications bureau of Inner Mongolia in northern china, where it is licensed.
Following negotiations, the newspaper was able to appear as usual on 11 September, but the 18 September issue was banned. This sanction followed complaints from leading officials in Hunan, southern China and from the Agricultural bank of China. The weekly in July accused the Changde, Hunan office of the public bank of poor management of assets.
According to the authorities, the Beijing-based weekly violated a regulation that bans the media from publishing an investigation into an event in a province other than that in which it is licensed. The authorities also considered that the China Business Post should have questioned the Agricultural Bank of China before carrying the article. Officials in Inner Mongolia justified their decision by citing other investigations by the financial paper which reportedly violated the same rules.
Press magnate, Bruno Wu, owner of the title through the Sun Media group, told the Financial Times, that there had been an "abuse of administrative power". He told the paper's staff on 24 September that he had decided to suspend publication of the weekly indefinitely to protest against the decision. A source at the paper also told Reporters Without Borders that an appeal had been lodged with the competent authorities.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=28764 Yeah! :victory:
Would be easier for you only to send the link!:handshake
Where is your opinion?
Only to copy is a little bit weak! Are you sure that it's enough to only send the link? I bet RSF is probably deemed a evil terrorist website by the great firewall admins.
My opinion: The CCP makes china a kindergarten for adults. They only let the informations through which they can no longer suppress. To protect their "children" from thinking too much.
If the milk scandal wouldn't be that huge, then no one would know about it. What the … did you actually read that particular article in China Business Post? Did you actually read the response from the Agriculture Bank of China? Did the Reporters Without Borders actually read them too? FYI, this piece of news is not censored in China’s news media!
This incident is a rather simple business conflict, but you and RSF just HAVE TO make it look like a principle fight for media freedom. And I HAVE TO say, your idea of media freedom is shallow.
One of the rules of China’s media game is that you can not run a national weekly from one of the provinces: in principle media have to stick to the province where they get their license from. Of course, like many rules, they are only implemented when you stand on some sensitive toes. But this rule has been around for a while and whether it’s necessary is debatable. If RSF has a problem with it they should challenge this particular rule, instead they only bark when the rule is being implemented and call it a media freedom issue so they can again criticize China.
BTW, if you have not read the articles I mentioned above, you should read them and then decide whether the ban is necessary. [quote]Original posted by [i]ENGISELF[/i] at 2-10-2008 08:29 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=21844&ptid=2625][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
What the … did you actually read that particular article in China Business Post? Did you actually read the response from the Agriculture Bank of China? Did the Reporters Without Borders actually re ... [/quote]
that's why RSF edited this in such a way it looks like it tells you a lot but in fact tells nothing. so that it can lead you on to where it wants by leaving out the information that can make you think. look at how FT wrote about this. at least more informative:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9d764c0-8b14-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html
i just don't like how this was written by RSF (neither do i have any good impression of RSF). china does need more press freedom. [quote]Original posted by [i]ENGISELF[/i] at 2-10-2008 01:29 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=21844&ptid=2625][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
But this rule has been around for a while and whether it's necessary is debatable. If RSF has a problem with it they should challenge this particular rule, instead they only bark when the rule is being implemented and call it a media freedom issue so they can again criticize China. [/quote]
It actually is a human rights issue.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
of course this doesn't mean that you can violate someone else's human rights by using your freedom of opinion. but in this case it seems that no one's human rights were infringed. only a company which is scared of bad publicity and calls the government for help to enforce a rule which doesn't even have anything to do with defamation.
and no i didn't read the article in the business newspaper, because i don't have much use for chinese newspapers as i don't speak chinese.
reporters without borders don't just criticize china. they criticize every country were freedom of press is undermined.
it's hard to find a country which doesn't get criticized by them as soon as a journalist gets problems with the law.
i like it that t hey criticize my government. and i don't care if they only do it when something happens.
as long as they have solid evidence and not just repeat some rumors. You said ‘it SEEMS that no one’s human rights were infringed, only a company which is scared of bad publicity …’ If you have not read the articles in question, how do you know that there isn’t much damage done to the company? Doesn’t a company have the right to protect its own reputation and seek legal action if possible?
And, it’s not just any company, it is a BANK! A bank’s credibility and reputation (call it publicity if you want) are of paramount importance. Hurting a bank’s credibility is even more damaging than robbing it. And THAT is the main reason China Business Post is punished.
No, I don’t think cross-province news reporting regulation is necessary, but this regulation is not taken seriously by most of the press media anyway. They do it regularly and go unpunished. It only becomes an issue if there are other more serious issues involved. It’s just like that you are not allowed to use internet for personal use at work, but everyone is breaking this rule (I’m doing it right now, so sue me). Who’s getting punished for it? No one, UNLESS you cause other more serious troubles at work and the manager wants to fire you. And reasons for firing you? You did this, that, this, that and you used internet at work. But the RSF only sees the last bit and yells you can’t fire people because they used internet at work!!
RSF can criticize however they want, but they need to equip themselves with the right knowledge and evidence (not the ones only useful for them to criticize). Otherwise, they’ll just make a fool of themselves and damage their own credibility… oh and mislead their fan boys.
Reply 7# ENGISELF ENGISELF's post
well i personally see it that way:if it is true, that the managers of the bank created some poor asset management, then it is the duty of the media to inform the customers about this fact.
if it is not true, then the article is only damaging the reputation of the bank and the newspaper should get punished. at least they should be forced to print a correction, after a judge had a look on this incident.
just recently there was a bank in germany which sends millions of euros to a american bank which was already insolvent from the financial crisis.
do you think the media should be forbidden to report about the poor management of this bank? i mean it's the money of the customers they are playing with. shouldn't the customers have the right to be informed about what their bank is up to?
and i agree that it would damage the RSF's reputation when they say "omg! human rights!" only because someone got fired for violating his labour contract.
but i never saw them do this or anything which is comparable.
i don't think violations of contracts which a employee has with his boss can be compared with the prohibition of reporting about poor management of companys.
Page:
[1]