calculated from reports by the state news agency and local media. 7 This accusation led
one commentator to state, ‘‘Chinese news reports on this major story unfolded in a
complicated environment, and it is impossible to render a simple verdict about media
coverage.’’ 8
With more than USD 40 billion spent on hosting the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese government acted to assert control over this global event while presenting an open and welcoming environment for athletes, media, foreign dignitaries,
and visitors. 9 As part of these overtures, the government issued regulations in January
2007 allowing journalists to travel across the country without registering with local
authorities and to interview subjects without official consent. 10 While the unblocking
of Web sites and improved access to officials at Olympics venues marked some improvement in openness and transparency, the government also stepped up surveillance around Beijing and prevented activists from petitioning to use legally sanctioned
protest zones.
After a news conference held by the U.S. men’s volleyball team, in which several
Chinese reporters had their notebooks (and at least one tape recorder) confiscated, Beijing Olympics spokesman Sun Weide denied knowledge of this differential treatment
of Chinese reporters: ‘‘I am not very clear about the situation you raised,’’ he said.
‘‘For Chinese journalists, they very much enjoy the rights to cover the Beijing Olympic
Games. . . . the rights are protected by the constitution in China.’’ 11 Yet China’s ‘‘opendoor’’ policy for journalists as a result of the Olympics had a marginal impact on Olympics coverage by domestic media. The government persisted in its clampdown on local
Chinese media, 12 and the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China confirmed 63 cases
of reporting interference during the Olympics, out of a total of 178 in 2008, including
ten incidents of police roughing up reporters and breaking their cameras. 13 While the
relaxed rules for foreign journalists were made permanent in October 2008, 14 new rules
issued in February 2009 required reporters based in Hong Kong and Macao to apply for
a permit prior to every reporting trip to mainland China. 15
A month after the Olympics concluded, a scandal erupted over tainted milk products
that killed six infants and sickened nearly 300,000 others. 16 Information soon emerged
indicating that provincial governments and central government agencies, as well as
officials from the Sanlu group, China’s leading seller of milk powder, had either suppressed earlier reports or failed to act, likely at the cost of human lives. 17 Although
it had been receiving complaints about its infant milk powder since December 2007,
the Sanlu group only informed its board in August 2008, prompting its joint venture partner Fonterra to inform the New Zealand government. 18 A reporter for the
newspaper Southern Weekend, known for its investigative reports, wrote in a blog post
that he and several other journalists were prevented in July from publishing findings
about how milk powder was making children sick because of pressure from Sanlu
China
451
one commentator to state, ‘‘Chinese news reports on this major story unfolded in a
complicated environment, and it is impossible to render a simple verdict about media
coverage.’’ 8
With more than USD 40 billion spent on hosting the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese government acted to assert control over this global event while presenting an open and welcoming environment for athletes, media, foreign dignitaries,
and visitors. 9 As part of these overtures, the government issued regulations in January
2007 allowing journalists to travel across the country without registering with local
authorities and to interview subjects without official consent. 10 While the unblocking
of Web sites and improved access to officials at Olympics venues marked some improvement in openness and transparency, the government also stepped up surveillance around Beijing and prevented activists from petitioning to use legally sanctioned
protest zones.
After a news conference held by the U.S. men’s volleyball team, in which several
Chinese reporters had their notebooks (and at least one tape recorder) confiscated, Beijing Olympics spokesman Sun Weide denied knowledge of this differential treatment
of Chinese reporters: ‘‘I am not very clear about the situation you raised,’’ he said.
‘‘For Chinese journalists, they very much enjoy the rights to cover the Beijing Olympic
Games. . . . the rights are protected by the constitution in China.’’ 11 Yet China’s ‘‘opendoor’’ policy for journalists as a result of the Olympics had a marginal impact on Olympics coverage by domestic media. The government persisted in its clampdown on local
Chinese media, 12 and the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China confirmed 63 cases
of reporting interference during the Olympics, out of a total of 178 in 2008, including
ten incidents of police roughing up reporters and breaking their cameras. 13 While the
relaxed rules for foreign journalists were made permanent in October 2008, 14 new rules
issued in February 2009 required reporters based in Hong Kong and Macao to apply for
a permit prior to every reporting trip to mainland China. 15
A month after the Olympics concluded, a scandal erupted over tainted milk products
that killed six infants and sickened nearly 300,000 others. 16 Information soon emerged
indicating that provincial governments and central government agencies, as well as
officials from the Sanlu group, China’s leading seller of milk powder, had either suppressed earlier reports or failed to act, likely at the cost of human lives. 17 Although
it had been receiving complaints about its infant milk powder since December 2007,
the Sanlu group only informed its board in August 2008, prompting its joint venture partner Fonterra to inform the New Zealand government. 18 A reporter for the
newspaper Southern Weekend, known for its investigative reports, wrote in a blog post
that he and several other journalists were prevented in July from publishing findings
about how milk powder was making children sick because of pressure from Sanlu
China
451