诸事无常:中国媒体的鸵鸟政策

A friend of mine who recently returned from Tokyo asked me why the Chinese media has only been reporting on the conflict between the pro-Gaddafi military and the opposition, rather than analyzing the reasons why there are so many people opposed to Gaddafi’s rule.

一位近期从日本回来的朋友问我，为什么中国的媒体一味地报导前卡扎菲军和其反对派之间的冲突，而忽略分析为什么那么多人反对卡扎菲统治。

Certainly, the Chinese media has been very interested in the 

conflict in Libya

. But it has mostly been reporting on the actual conflict and how the West is ‘attacking’ Libya. In contrast, there has been little analysis on the political issues facing Libya, including how Gaddafi’s government is falling apart, the country’s long-term political outlook, and why many Libyans are so unhappy with their ruler.

The reason is simple: the Chinese media is adhering to its ‘ostrich policy’. 

原因很简单：中国媒体一贯坚持“鸵鸟政策”。

What does this mean in practice? The media, being afraid or unwilling to confront the real problems behind the unrest, has decided to put its head in the sand by just reporting straight news. If it reports in much depth on how the Gaddafi regime has been in power for a significant amount of time, and how this has led to corruption within the family and prompted public discontent, then people might make a mental connection with the situation in China – and act accordingly, therefore risking instability. As a result, the authorities have reportedly asked China’s media to stick to reports by the official 

news agency.

This doesn’t just apply to news articles on Libya – similar situations in Syria, Yemen and Egypt, have recently become ‘restricted’ zones. With so many ‘restricted zones’ now in place, the media has become quite adept at the ostrich policy, meaning that even if the authorities don’t give a clear signal on an issue, media managers will adopt self-censorship and avoid sensitive topics. 

这并不仅仅适用于对利比亚的新闻文章——同样的情况也发生在叙利亚共和国、也门和埃及身上，最近它们也成为“受限区域”。这样的区域如此之多，媒体对于鸵鸟政策的使用愈加熟练，这意味着即使没有当局的明示，媒体管理者也会进行自我检查，避免出现敏感话题。

This self-censorship can sometimes cross the line into efforts to manipulate public opinion – with amusing results. A recent CCTV programme, for example, was reporting on how Libyans were opposed to French air strikes. Unfortunately for them, they inadvertently showed footage of people holding pro-Paris banners. Another CCTV programme featured an interview with an ‘average’ Chinese national residing in Tripoli. However, netizens reportedly discovered that the person interviewed was actually a Foreign Ministry employee. 

有时，这种自我检查过头了，就会产生一种讽刺喜剧的效果来改变大众舆论。例如，最近有期中央电视台的节目在报导利比亚人反对法国空袭。不幸的是，他们却不小心连续播放了人们举着支持巴黎横幅的镜头。另一个央视的节目，采访了居住在的黎波里的“普通”中国居民，但经网友爆料，那些人其实是外交部的雇员。

The examples I’ve just given are typical of Chinese media coverage of current affairs. Although reporters know that the ostrich policy is aimed at appeasing the authorities, they still don’t like it. Yet even knowing the media is dissatisfied, a nervous government has no desire to allow unfettered media coverage.

上面的例子是中国媒体对时事的典型报道。尽管记者们清楚知道鸵鸟政策是为了迎合当局者，他们还是不喜欢这样。而且即使知道他们不满意，紧张不安的政府也不会允许媒体报道可以无拘无束。

In a way, you can understand why. History has shown many times that in an authoritarian country, once a previously tightly-controlled media is released and given free rein, instability and change can follow. As a result, the Chinese government sees the media as a front in the battle over public opinion.

在某种程度上，你可以理解这种行为。历史已经证明，在一个专制国家，一旦给予一个曾被严格控制的媒体自由，那么不稳定性和各种变化便接踵而来。于是，中国政府把媒体视为公众舆论的先锋。

I understand the Chinese government’s belief in the importance of stability for economic development, and why it would therefore believe that it needs to control the media. But frankly, when newspapers all start publishing the same news sourced from 

, the trade-off for stability has become an insult. 

中国政府深知稳定对于经济发展的重要性，由此认为必须控制好媒体，这点我理解。但是坦白说，当所有的报纸都在报导和新华社一样的新闻，这种协定好的稳定性已成为一种耻辱。

This is a sensitive issue here in China, so I hope you’ll understand that on this entry at least I’d rather not get drawn into a debate in the comments section.

在中国，这是一个敏感的问题。所以我希望你们明白，至少，我不愿意把对这个话题的评论当成个辩论。