Imagethief

Xinhua headlines from the last 36 hours, almost all of which came to me in one Google news alert:

• Swiss media praise Beijing Olympic Games
• World leaders, media praise Beijing Olympics
• U.S. media praises "truly exceptional" Beijing Olympics 
• Iranian media hails Beijing Olympics as great success
  
• Foreign leaders hail successful Beijing Olympics
• Indonesian Olympic Committee lauds Beijing Olympics

Personally I don't know whether to praise the games or hail them. It's a tough choice.

Updated Aug 27 - The hails keep coming:

• World media hail Beijing Olympic Games
  

Those who live in Beijing and commute on the subway will know that bags are now X-rayed on the way into the station. The security is already fairly porous in several ways. For instance, they only seem to cover one of three entrances at the station by my office. However, as I was heading home last night, I spotted a particularly Olympic-themed vulnerability. I noted that, while the security staff X-rayed the bag of the girl in front of me, they didn't feel it was necessary to X-ray the big box of five plush Olympic-mascot Fuwa/Friendlies toys she was carrying.

Insert your own dastardly plot here.

BoomBoom!

From a typical "Great Firewall" article from The Canadian Press, this delicious quote on the Power of the Interweb:

"We face so many shared global problems right now, you need some kind of global communications medium through which citizens around the world can communicate and share ideas," says Ronald Deibert, director of the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab.

"We need to find ways to protect these commons as something essential for what you might call planetary democracy to thrive."

 A few thoughts:

1. Planetary democracy? On which planet? Last I checked liberal democracy was the exception on this planet, which is all the more reason I'm happy to come from one.
   
   
2. China's Internet censorship ultimately does very little to impinge upon the value of the Internet as a global communications medium in China. I can attest first-hand to the large amount of international communication that the Internet is enabling within China. With regard to the majority of Chinese Internet users, language is probably a more important barrier to their ability to access international content.
   
   The Chinese government's attempts to manage communication within China are much more socially significant than its efforts to block undesirable content from outside China. That's why Imagethief subscribes to Danwei's point of view that "Net Nanny" is a better metaphor than "Great Firewall" for China's online censorship apparatus, even if it doesn't have the delicious historical ring about it. But I think Jeremy is fighting a lonely and probably doomed battle on this front.
   
   
3. This is one of those articles that manages, without ever saying it explicitly, to paint a picture of Chinese Internet users as helpless, befuddled souls who would be enlightened if they only had unfettered access to The Glorious Commons. It just ain't so.

Via the China Digital Times, this outstanding excerpt from the transcript of Wednesday's IOC/BOCOG press conference (the ninth in a wretched series, we are informed). I've excised some back and forth between the question and response:

South China Morning Post: Mr. Wang and Giselle, we did get to know there were 77 applicants to the protest. First question is: would you consider these parks a success or would they be part of the lasting legacy of the Games? Those few people in China who are not happy can now go to similar zones. Is there, if I look into history, is there any correlation between Chairman Mao's '100 flower campaign' and the protest parks? Giselle, does it make a mockery of the best practice of the IOC that they persuade of the host city to do? Thank you very much.

Wang Wei: On the issue of demonstration, the basic situation has been already announced by the authorities. And I think you should be satisfied with that. The demonstration parks are announced. There are three places on the basis of Chinese law. The idea of demonstration is to hoping to resolve issue it is not demonstrating for the sake of demonstration. We are actually quite happy to hear that many of the 77 cases have been resolved. Now the resolution of these protests was through dialogue and communication. And this is also a part of way to do in Chinese culture. For instance, in China, if somebody wants to complain to courts or they want to launch a protest to the courts, the courts probably first engaged mediation first to see whether dialogues are a possible solution. Even for civil cases, for instance, people want to get divorce, the community tries to mediate fist.

The Chinese cultural always emphasis the concept of harmony, so if it can be resolved through mediation and the divorce is withdrawn, then everybody is very happy about that. Other countries may not think that is very good but in China, we think it is a good thing. Of course, if you insist on divorce, you can go through the legal process to get the divorce. So I think for these people who want to demonstrate or protest, this is my personal opinion, is that they want to find a solution to their problem and once there is a solution, they will be satisfied. Of course, solution should come through legal means and not through demonstration. But now the Chinese law also accepts possible to use this method. I think that is a characteristic of Chinese law. You mentioned just now Mao Zedong led a ‘100 flowers bloom’ that is in an attempt to let everybody to express their opinion. I think everybody has the right to speak. Nobody said that you don’t have the right to speak. This is another thing. This is not the same as demonstrating. Thank you.

"Chinese culture always emphasizes the concept of harmony." In principle perhaps. In practice, I can safely say after four years here, less so. Still, track record to date: Zero protests approved. Very harmonious. You have to give Wang props for having the data points to support his thesis. You also have to admire the bureaucracy's perfect ability "resolve" these cases. How they might be resolved Imagethief will leave to his readers to imagine.

Reading through the transcripts, all of which are online here, gives you a real sense of the formula at work. Completely anodyne opening statements followed by probing questions from foreign media that receive mostly anodyne answers, and (generally later in the process) softball questions from Chinese media that receive mostly anodyne answers. One wonders why anyone is showing up at this point.

The transcripts themselves a sloppy bit of work, and seem not have been copy edited at all. I understand that there is probably a bit of pressure to get them up quickly, but still it's a bit of a shocker. They read like they've been transcribed and proofed by Chinese speakers, if at all. (In one transcript Wang Wei explains how they are "cramping down" on scalpers, which sounds really painful.)

But that's mostly a style issue, and it doesn't have much to do with the actual content. Which isn't to say that content might not be an issue. From that same session:

Fox News Radio - Mr. Wang Wei, Mr. Timo Lumme, Madam Davies, who makes the decision on the content of the transcripts of these briefings because they are not accurate.

Wang Wei - I think you can consulate [sic] with the website. It is the website that makes the final content. I think they are doing that according to what actually happened.

Fox News Radio - Ok, I accepted that. Thank you.

Imagethief has e-mailed the Fox News Radio journalist to ask if he has indeed "accepted that". I'll advise on any response I get.

However, the issue of transcripts is interesting. In China it is common practice for an organization hosting a press conference or interview to record the session and prepare a transcript for distribution to attending media. Occasionally these get printed wholesale, which can be uncomfortable for incautious spokespeople. Talk to local PR professionals and you'll often hear about how the transcripts are necessary for "lazy journalists." Maybe. But Imagethief thinks this is less an indicator of the energy of Chinese journalists than one of those unfortunate habits like the "transportation claim" that has been enshrined as standard practice, and to which all parties in the process, Chinese journalists included, have got too comfortable with.

There is nothing inherently wrong with providing a transcript to journalists who have often anyway recorded the interview themselves. In fact, when dealing with foreign spokespeople and interpreters, a translated Chinese transcript can be a big help to journalists trying to find relevant material. The problem is that such transcripts are often "cleaned up" prior to distribution. Much of this is relatively innocent, and has to do with fact checking and ensuring correct terminology survives interpretation. But it can go beyond that, with misstatements corrected, messages tightened, and that sort of thing. Even so, most of the time this is minor stuff that isn't going to shake the pillars of society. Journalists don't seem to care because it saves them doing their own transcription or listening back to sixty minutes of fluff to find the twenty seconds of quotable insight.

But like the transportation claim, no matter innocently employed it's a symptom of the unfortunately cozy relationship between press and PR in China. And when people get too comfortable with something, it's easier to abuse. Thus, it wouldn't surprise me to find that BOCOG are editing the transcripts of the press conferences. They don't seem to be removing entire questions, since there are plenty of pointy ones still in there. But it doesn't stretch the imagination too far to picture them editing the responses or softening charged language. There is no video or audio provided by BOCOG that would enable comparison.

Of course, it's also perfectly likely that they're simply sloppy and in a rush. But in China, a transcript issued by the hosts of a press conference is always a little bit suspect.

The latest incident report from the Foreign Correspondents Club of China is out. It doesn't make for pretty reading:

BEIJING: OFFICERS ROUGH UP AP PHOTOGRAPHERS, SEIZE MEMORY CARDS

August 20, 2008: Two Associated Press photographers attempting to cover an Olympics-timed protest were roughed up by plainclothes security officers, forced into cars and taken to a nearby building where they were questioned before being released, the news service reported. Memory cards from their cameras were confiscated.

 

The two were separately trying to find a planned protest by free Tibet supporters late Wednesday southwest of the Bird's Nest stadium. They arrived separately and each was set upon by people in civilian dress, apparently plainclothes state security agents or police. One was knocked to the ground, had his face pressed in the dirt, arm twisted behind his back and his cameras ripped from him. The other was tackled from behind, pushed to the ground, had his camera grabbed, all while being filmed.

 

They were forced into different unmarked cars, taken separately to an office a few blocks away, and held separately. Their photo cards were taken away. One was asked his views on Tibet. He was held for about 30-40 minutes before he was released. The other photographer was held for a similar length of time and then released.

There have been other incidents during the Olympic period, despite pledges of freedom to report. Many of them have been out in the provinces where Beijing's guarantees have often been about as useful as an anvil in a life raft. But some of them, as evidenced by the report above, have been closer to home. Details on the FCCC's ominously titled "Detentions and Harassment" page.

"Babygate" being the best sounding label I can come up with for this controversy.

First, interesting posts from the Stryde Hax blog on "Google hacking" information about He Kexin. Essentially this involves using Google's advanced search features to target very specific kinds of information. His queries on Google.cn and Baidu lead him to cached versions of spreadsheets from the General Administration of Sports of China that pretty clearly list a 1994 birthday for the golden girl of Chinese gymnastics. The Baidu cache versions (here and here) were still live when I looked. Interestingly, however, the files started evaporating from Google.CN's cache more or less as the Stryde Hax blogger was doing his digging.

What does it mean? <Rod Serling>I invite you to draw your own conclusions.</Rod Serling> But it's also worth reading a post from the always interesting Fool's Mountain blog that looks at the problem of age manipulation in Chinese sports and wonders if He Kexin's age could have been massaged down rather than up:

In fact, in the comments to a prior post, I’ve raised the point that Chinese parents change birthdays of children quite often for a variety of reasons or advantages, to older or younger, hence the possibility that things could go either way with He Kexin. He really could be 16, yet still nobody would want to come out and explain the age changing in local competitions — that’s just another can of worms. Anyway, this certainly isn’t proof of anything nor is it great news. The point is simply that, before jumping to conclusions on something having to with China, it is worth considering the other possilities, and at the least, consider that other possibilities do exist.

That last thought is definitely worth bearing in mind. Nevertheless, Imagethief had the good luck to be in the stands for the finals of the women's uneven bars on Monday night, which meant I had the pleasure of seeing He, her only slightly less microscopic teammate Yang Yilin, and American Nastia Liukin (who seems gigantic by comparison) compete. All the Chinese female gymnasts are tiny. He is teeny tiny. If it's a stretch to accept her as turning 16 this year, imagining her any older is downright impossible. Still, it was thrill to watch all three of them perform. They're all great athletes and they all deserve recognition.

While He has got most of the attention, both because she's a pint-size medalling machine and because the controversy hovers most closely over her, Yang has come in for her share of attention as well. I was interested to see a commentary from the AP that is constructed around the theme of Yang as helpless victim:

How fragile she looked, like a baby deer in the headlights of an oncoming SUV. Little pink hearts and the word "love" in blue letters decorated her hair clips. The glitter on her forehead twinkled under the lights. Chalk was encrusted where the skin met her slender fingernails. So thin, so uneasy, so out of place she seemed, in a downstairs room in Beijing's National Indoor Stadium. She'd just won an Olympic bronze medal in all-around gymnastics, one of the toughest sporting tests there is.

***

[A little hesitantly], Yang started to answer the questions. And the more she said, the more shocking it was. The answers were brief, spoken without heart. What emerged was a picture of a young girl who has been kept largely cut off from family and the outside world for more than a year, so she could be intensely trained to win medals for China at its own Olympics.

I have no doubt that China's gymnastics training regimen is brutal, and the cold mechanics of China's national sporting machine definitely deserve scrutiny. I also think the evidence of an age scandal is pretty compelling. Perhaps Yang is a victim. But she, along with He, is also a talent and should be celebrated as such. The rest of the world, America included, has had its grim training stories, especially in sports like gymnastics and figure skating for which the feedstock is young girls. This article has a whiff of the old cold-war double standard. Ours=plucky, heroic achievers. Theirs=manufactured robots/slaves/dopers.

Perhaps she's a victim of the Communist Sports Machine. Perhaps she's just a teenage girl who is a spectacular gymnast, who's had a hard year of training, and who is uncomfortable talking to the media. As Nimrod wrote on that Fool's Mountain post, consider that other possibilities do exist.

Hat tip: Adrian.

Previously on Imagethief:

Gymnasts, now and then

Update:

The UK's Times on the IOC's opening of an investigation following the Stryde Hax disclosures. For whatever reason, these spreadsheets seem to have catalyzed more of a reaction than the well-documented disappearing Chinese press reports that started the controversy.

Who knows if the investigation will go anywhere. Having seen He compete, I'd be sad to see her stripped of her medals. Her talent is genuine. I'd much rather see any sanctions that might eventually arise applied at the national team level. But that's probably not the way it would work. As I wrote in a comment on my previous post on this topic, you can't overlook violations just because the people involved are particularly young and cute.

I also wonder how the Chinese public will respond if He was stripped of her medals.

Golden girls.

For those who are a bit weary of the whole idea of corporate pavilions, Media magazine has a witty review of the pavilions of all of the Olympic TOP sponsors. Each is helpfully compared to the Olympic athlete or icon that it most resembles. Two examples:

China Mobile
SMS a vote on your favourite Olympic photograph and receive a set of stickers and no doubt a lifetime of junk text messages. Move on to write a wish on a touch-sensitive screen, play a kids’ sports game to see it beamed out of the top of the ‘wishing tree’. The naff Chinese culture performances should be avoided.
Highlight: Mischievously writing naughty messages and then seeing them projected onto the ceiling.
Verdict: The China basketball team - Very Chinese, quite good, but still a bit rubbish.

GE
Standing in the queue you are presented with a mission statement subtly set across the front. ‘Earth, metal, fire, wood and water meet another important element. Imagination.’ So far, so corporate, but the inside really does make good the boast. After the obligatory dull video in a beautifully air-conditioned space, halls introduce each of the Chinese elements and highlight GE’s work in that field with a mixture of cool presentations and fun little games that are popular with kids and adults alike.
Highlight: The water projected on the floor that ripples as you walk across it - makes any man into Jesus.
Verdict: Michael Phelps - Fulfilled the task with ruthless efficiency and a touch of flair.

Good fun. Check it out.

From the "you couldn't make it up" department here in Imagethief Towers, an old-school China Daily gem:

City gets tough on foreign jaywalkers
By Zhan Lisheng (China Daily)

The southern Chinese city of Guangzhou is taking stern action against foreigners who break traffic rules, the public security bureau said Tuesday.

It follows tough measures against local residents introduced in June.

Three crossings on Xiaobei Road, where most foreigners live or work, will be closely watched.

"Like local residents, any foreigner who crosses against a red light or jumps over a road divider will be fined between 20 yuan ($2.90) and 50 yuan.

Those not able to afford the fine or are reluctant to pay the fine will be forced to watch a video on traffic safety," Lu Zhengguang, a bureau official, said yesterday.

"We will record their behavior on video and have interpreters at the scene, so that there will be no misunderstandings," he said.

"We will then report the incident to their employers, as we do in the case of local residents."

The new rule against foreigners was introduced on Sunday, and by Tuesday, six offenders had been dealt with, Lu said.

Most opted to watch the video on traffic safety, rather than pay a fine, he said.

Pu Malong, a taxi driver, said police action against foreigners who break traffic rules was "necessary and fair".

"Don't take it for granted they (the foreigners) are all law-abiding. Many of them pay no regard to traffic signals.

"They glare or curse at us when we have to slam on our brakes to avoid hitting them," Pu said.

Many foreigners jaywalk along Xiaobei Road, forcing him to drive extremely slowly, he said.

American teacher Gordon Cook said: "Foreigners should obey local laws and regulations.

"However, the local government should do more to publicize new laws and regulations to the foreign community."

Since June, hundreds of local residents have been fined or required to watch the traffic safety video, the public security bureau said.

Imagethief fully agrees that foreigners should be subject to local traffic laws. I don't think this is a matter of contention. However, a few thoughts:

1. Foreigners may be choosing to watch the video because they think it will be a riot.
2. Foreigners' employers by-and-large won't care if they are jaywalking.
3. Chinese taxi drivers have no grounds whatsoever to complain about anyone's road habits. Ever. Not even a little.
   
4. Who is Gordon Cook and how on earth did he come up with a quote that sounds just like the government talking points?

Take some time and read journalist Jonathan Ansfield's post on Newsweek's China blog recounting his participation in a meeting with the editors of the Global Times (环球时报). The Global Times is the fiery, flag-waving, tabloid companion to the Party's unreadably staid People's Daily. Ansfield discussed the dialogue with the editors, the Global Times' growing prominence, and provides translations of segments of some of their recent articles:

In late July, as Beijing girded for August, the Global Times took American newspaper accounts of its heavy-handed security measures as a direct affront. “Do Not Taunt the Chinese People,” fumed a front-page headline. A day or two later, when Beijing organizers revealed authorities' plan to designate three parks as protest zones during the Games, the front page of the Global Times played up favorable foreign press about the move (So far, not one protest has been approved) From there the cover piece veered sharply into a recent Pew public opinion poll, which showed 86 percent of Chinese surveyed were content with the direction of the country’s development.

The free talk session came a couple days after that. What, the editors embarked, was so wrong with the Beijing Olympics? How had the coming-out bash devolved into such controversy? I’m a sucker for these sorts of behind-the-scenes affairs. At the rap session, as I’d experienced before, the editors were affable and diplomatic. In private they come off as significantly more flexible than their paper. Besides five or six of them, there was one young Japanese research fellow, one author, one U.S. affairs expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and one foreign reporter (me). We spent the afternoon around a long carved wooden table at a glassed-in teahouse. We chomped on sunflower seeds and talked over one another’s voices. Talking points included traffic, visas restrictions, security, and medal supremacy. Why did Beijing have to be so uptight? Political pressure had filtered down throughout the system, said a ranking editor. It could not be helped.

What about the Global Times? That was another area of particular sensitivity. “People say we’re a just a patriotic tool,” explained the ranking man. “But we aren’t. We have a duty to reflect the ordinary Chinese people’s views. That’s what we’re doing.” 

He also links to a David Bandurski post at the China Media Project blog that is worth a read.

When Imagethief was buying Chinese newspapers commemorating the start of the Olympics on August 8th and 9th, the Global Times had some of the best covers. Most of the rest were unconscionably dull.

See also:

Black and White Cat's translation of a Global Times article defending CCTV 9 anchor Edwin Maher following an LA Times article on him. (Also, my post on Edwin Maher is here.)

Yesterday's Global Times. "World media follow China's response to
defeated hero. Most countrymen understand Liu Xiang's withdrawal."

This New York Times article is a few days old, but I didn't have time to get to it when it first came out. Apparently some of the press conferences got a little scratchy as journalists got frustrated with BOCOG's oblique responses to any question not focusing on China's immense medal haul, and the IOCs equally vapid responses. In this case, the catalyst was Beijing's three pointless "protest zones" (pointless because no protests have been authorized, thus rendering the zones moot):

The microphone passed to Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News in Britain. “My question is short,'’ he promised sweetly. It was. “Given that the Chinese government has lied through its teeth in keeping its promises, is the I.O.C. in any way embarrassed?'’

Giselle Davies, the I.O.C. spokeswoman, thanked him for his question and continued, “We are very proud of the fact that these Games are progressing with spectacular sport, spectacular sports venues,'’ adding that they were also running smoothly.

Thomson was not deterred.

‘’Is the I.O.C. embarrassed?'’ he asked again.

He asked the question five times in all as Davies answered repeatedly with variations on the theme that the I.O.C. was happy that the Games were “operationally running very smoothly.”

When Thomson told her that nobody in the room thought she had answered the question, she replied that the Olympics were “an event first and foremost for the athletes.'’

Right. So no need to broadcast it or have hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorships or turn the Games into a nationalist chest-thumping contest then. It's first and foremost for the athletes.

Moments later, when Michael Bristow of the BBC asked about the protest parks that had been set up, Wang’s cool again threatened to crack.

Not one Chinese person has had his application to protest approved, Bristow said. He added that Wang kept saying that the parks were not Bocog’s responsibility, but it had been that body’s director of security, Liu Shaowu, who had announced their creation in the first place.

Wang answered that the parks represented “a step further for the Chinese.” They are part of the Chinese people’s constitutional rights.

So is voting, Bristow said, and asked how the parks represent progress if no one was being allowed to protest.

Wang said: “China has stepped forward. The ordinary Chinese in the street will give the same answer. Do not underestimate the wisdom of the Chinese people. Do not think that you are smartest.'’

It's a sure sign of too many journalists in too small a space when the media starts writing about its duels with spokesmen at press conferences. Still, if there is an organization that deserves a little roughing-up in Q&A, it is probably BOCOG. Pent up frustration, especially from journalists who've been dealing with BOCOG for the past two or three years, may explain the desire to needle Wang and the other spokespeople. I've yet to find the journalist with a kind word for BOCOG's press conferences, quality of information or responsiveness. Any that want to be the first can contact me care of this website.

Previously:

No questions, please. This is
a press conference.

Two or three weeks ago the New Yorker carried a good article by Evan Osnos on the phenomenon of China's "angry youth" (fenqing). Much of the article was a profile of one young man in particular. In truth, he sounds more passionate than angry. It's worth reading the whole thing, but there was one section I found particularly interesting:

When people began rioting in Lhasa in March, Tang followed the news closely. As usual, he was receiving his information from American and European news sites, in addition to China’s official media. Like others his age, he has no hesitation about tunnelling under the government firewall, a vast infrastructure of digital filters and human censors which blocks politically objectionable content from reaching computers in China. Younger Chinese friends of mine regard the firewall as they would an officious lifeguard at a swimming pool—an occasional, largely irrelevant, intrusion.

To get around it, Tang detours through a proxy server—a digital way station overseas that connects a user with a blocked Web site. He watches television exclusively online, because he doesn’t have a TV in his room. Tang also receives foreign news clips from Chinese students abroad. (According to the Institute of International Education, the number of Chinese students in the United States—some sixty-seven thousand—has grown by nearly two-thirds in the past decade.) He’s baffled that foreigners might imagine that people of his generation are somehow unwise to the distortions of censorship.

“Because we are in such a system, we are always asking ourselves whether we are brainwashed,” he said. “We are always eager to get other information from different channels.” Then he added, “But when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed.”

A couple of things stand out there. The first is the casual disdain with which China's Internet censorship issues are treated by computer literate youth. The main effect of Chinese censorship is to inflict inconvenience rather than lack of access. This doesn't excuse it, or make China's internet censorship any less of a disagreeable vestige of the Party's worst instincts. Even inconvenience serves a restrictive purpose. But the realities are that the net nanny is a good deal less omnipotent than she is sometimes made out to be and that, perhaps uncomfortably, unfettered access doesn't necessarily lead to a common point of view. (Another good article about Internet censorship is James Fallow's piece from the March 2008 Atlantic Monthly.)

But it was the last quote that really got me. It reminded me of a quote I read years ago in another article, which I've always tried to find again without any success. I think it was a Russian speaking to an American journalist, but it could have been someone from any country with a state-managed media. He said something like this (I necessarily paraphrase a bit):

"I feel sorry for you Americans. You have a free media, so you've never learned to read between the lines."

That's always stuck in my head, and I was interested to see Tang Jie offer a similar sentiment, if in somewhat different language.

So, does he have a point?

Imagethief believes it's the rare individual in most systems who asks himself, "Am I brainwashed?" Or even the slightly less charged, "How does media and propaganda influence me?" For raising the idea, Tang Jie deserves credit. In modern society most people swim in media and propaganda like fish swim in water. It's everywhere; occasionally we are acutely aware of it; but most of the time we swim through it with little thought for its effects on us.

I also believe that as Americans we sometimes fall into the trap of believing that operating in a country with a "free media" relieves us of the responsibility of having to think critically about the information we ingest. A PR person would be the first to say that it just ain't so. If anything, the volume and ubiquity of media in American society place an extra burden on us to consider its effects on how we think (although much of the rest of the world is catching up). Unfortunately, there seem to be two kinds of widespread media criticism in the US: Lofty, academic analysis that is interesting for a few but tiresome for many, and screaming at and denigrating people who espouse a different point of view on an emotional topic such as politics.

Media criticism and analysis should be a mandatory high school class in the United States. It should be taught not as rarefied analysis, but as a practical class: understanding the author of a message, teasing out the agenda, and identifying how a point of view or the construction of content affects how we respond to it. It should cover commercial and political media and entertainment. (Ask a professional film-maker how cinematic tools are used to subtly manipulate an audience's emotions and then look for those same tools being used in advertising.) It should also cover print, broadcast and the Internet and computer games. A semester of media criticism in high school isn't going to reinvent America's relationship with the media, but at least it would prompt people to ask that important question above: Am I brainwashed?

Although we as a nation are as vulnerable to propaganda as anyone, Imagethief doesn't think that Americans are brainwashed. That word, as originally conceived, implies violence and coercion that simply doesn't apply to us as willing and enthusiastic consumers of media (although parents of small children who have seen too many ads for sugary cereals may disagree). But it's good to keep asking the question. We may not be brainwashed, but we are certainly influenced deeply, and should be mindful of the water through which we swim.

Note: Yeah, this article has been out for a while. I subscribe to the New Yorker (speaking of media consumption, Imagethief, as full-on a media junkie as you are likely to find, is as guilty as anyone), but I only get about one out of three issues, and those tend to come late. The rest are presumably being read by extremely literate Chinese postal inspectors.

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on efforts by the operators of China's gleaming, new Olympic sports facilities to sell the naming rights. According to the article, six multinationals are competing for naming rights to the National Stadium/Bird's Nest among various other "partnerships" on offer for the new facilities:

Ben Sturner, chief executive of New York-based Leverage Agency, which is helping broker both deals, says six multinational companies are competing for title rights to the stadium, which cost $500 million to build and whose steel superstructure resembles a bird's nest. He won't name them but says he has been taking top executives through a whirlwind sales pitch in recent days, including visits to high-profile Olympic events.

"I would call it the most valuable piece of real estate in the world right now," Mr. Sturner says.

I don't doubt it. Imagethief attended a round of Olympic athletics finals at the Bird's Nest last night (where he was fortunate enough to see Jamaican Udain Bolt break the world record for the 100 meter dash). It was my first time in the stadium, and it's truly a remarkable structure; sleek, eye catching, and relatively comfortable inside with good sight-lines and well designed lighting. It is, with justification, a symbol of China's development and Beijing's progress toward world city.

Which makes me wonder how willing the authorities would be to see it carrying the name of a foreign brand. I think there is probably a substantial number of powerful people here who would consider the idea of the "Coca Cola National Stadium", the "Nokia National Stadium" or similar to be simply unacceptable. The article points out that (this being China), the final choice is subject to review by the Beijing municipal government.

I used the word "symbol" above intentionally. If the Bird's Nest is symbolic of Chinese national aspirations then the name or brand you put on it bears some relationship with that symbolism. That's perhaps part of what will make it attractive to potential sponsors, but also makes this a sensitive exercise.

The article reflects on this, and reminds us of the bad precedent of Starbucks' doomed Forbidden City outlet:

Putting a corporate name on such a high-profile public space in China comes with some risk. Starbucks Corp. closed a small shop in Beijing's Forbidden City after complaints from Chinese bloggers, who thought it was unsuitable to have one inside a national treasure. National Stadium's Mr. Zhang says selling the name after the Olympics has been in the plan for the stadium all along, and a survey conducted for the company by Nielsen Co. found that 70% of people in five big Chinese cities accepted the idea in principle.

Any sign going up on the front of the stadium "has to be very classy and sophisticated," Mr. Sturner says. "We will choose a company that has a very good reputation in China."

That goes without saying. I doubt we'll be seeing the SKII National Stadium any time soon. But a "good reputation in China" is, for many companies, a fragile thing. And having the audaciousness to put your name on the Bird's Nest might be kind of move that could destabilize a previously good reputation, much as the Forbidden City store plagued Starbucks' otherwise fairly smooth-sailing ship.

But which Chinese MNCs might have the juice to pull off a sponsorship deal this big, and the interest in doing it? The list seems pretty small, and largely confined to the usual suspects.  Lenovo, China's only global Olympic partner, comes to mind; Air China; Haier; current part-owner CITIC; and two or three others. It will be interesting to see who ends up holding the ring.

Imagethief at the Coca Cola National Stadium?

Now: China's gold medal team. Their talent is not to be doubted. Their ages...perhaps:

Then: The 1956 US national squad:

Things sure have changed. And not just the fashions.

Amended:

Sorry--this wasn't meant to be published. It was a placeholder and a few notes for a possible full-length post. Apologies to all those who thought I'd got lazy and decided to move the tweet format into my regular blog posts.

However, for posterity, here are those notes:

Why child-singing-gate is a PR perfect storm

All the ingredients:

Cute children, showbiz, glamor, skullduggery, shady officials. Fits into pre-conceived notions of government control freakery. [Outrage] disproportionate to the offense. Worry about the 12-year-olds on the gymnastics team.

 Maybe I don't actually need to write anything more...

-Will

As published by the Sydney Morning Herald. No link to a Chinese version, no citation of a source, and no way of confirming if these are genuine. But they look pretty credible and consistent with prior guidelines from the propaganda bureau. Nothing surprising or extra scandalous, at least from my perspective (your mileage may vary). But interesting to see under the hood if these are real:

1. The telecast of sports events will be live [but] in case of emergencies, no print is allowed to report on it.
   
   
2. From August 1, most of the previously accessible overseas websites will be unblocked. No coverage is allowed on this development. There's also no need to use stories published overseas on this matter and [website] operators should not provide any superlinks on their pages.
   
   
3. Be careful with religious and ethnic subjects.
   
   
4. Don't make fuss about foreign leaders at the opening ceremony, especially in relation to seat arrangements or their private lives.
   
   
5. We have to put special emphasis on ethnic equality. Any perceived racist terms as "black athlete" or "white athlete" is not allowed. During the official telecast, we can refer to Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei". In ordinary times, refer to Taiwanese athletes as "those from the precious island Taiwan....." In case of any pro Taiwan-independence related incident inside the venue, you shall follow restrictions listed in item 1.
   
   
6. For those ethnic Chinese coaches and athletes who come back to Beijing to compete on behalf of other countries, don't play up their "patriotism" since that could backfire with their adopted countries.
   
   
7. As for the Pro-Tibetan independence and East Turkistan movements, no coverage is allowed. There's also no need to make fuss about our anti-terrorism efforts.

The remaining fourteen at the SMH site. H/T @niubi via Twitter.

Updated:

Here is the complete SMH story that cited the points. They come originally via the unlinkable South China Morning Post. The Herald refers to them as "stunningly frank". To me they look stunningly usual.