Via Peking Duck and Danwei, an interesting editorial from China's Caijing (Finance) magazine lamenting the woeful state of coverage of the bird flu outbreaks in local media. Specifically, the writer, Caijing's notoriously independent editor, Hu Shuli, complains that what domestic coverage there is generally comes from Chinese press picking up international coverage. From her editorial soap box, Hu schools the government in the benefits of transparency:
Admittedly, the situation has improved immensely over what we witnessed in the early days of the SARS epidemic in 2003, when the question of the virus’s very existence in China was deemed a state secret. But if we want to further improve the situation, we must also acknowledge that officials still are not open and efficient enough in disclosing virus information to the public. Millions of Chinese farmers, with their lives and property directly threatened by the virus, deserve to receive information first-hand the minute it becomes public. Better informing farmers means granting greater freedom to the domestic media. At very least, they should be allowed to stand on the same starting line as their foreign counterparts.

Officials still seem to be preoccupied with the fear that fully disclosing information may make too strong an impact on the public, and thus fuel panic. Such reasoning holds no water in this case. With international health groups issuing one warning after another about the potential damage H5N1 could do, some panic is inevitable – especially given people’s awareness of China’s recent outbreaks. There is no other choice but to face the truth squarely. Bad news always shocks. But people will get used to dealing with it as long as they have are able to know the whole story and learn how to cope with the threat. The SARS epidemic should teach the lesson that official hesitation and lack of cooperation with the media could easily lead to another credibility crisis and create much more panic and instability than there would be otherwise.

So, will it make a difference? Danwei's Jeremy is strikes a downbeat tone:
Hu's editorial is titled "Epidemic information should not be exported before being released domestically", rendered on the English section of Caijing's website as "Why Must Chinese Press Take a Detour for Virus Info?"

The answer to that question is sadly very clear: the government fears an open media, and the media in China is meek and timid.

This writer and other foreigners can complain until the birds drop from the sky about the state of media in China and nothing will change. It is only when a greater number of Chinese media workers themselves stand up for the integrity of their profession that there will be any progress.

I think it's encouraging that even one journalist is willing to editorialize publicly about this. Good changes can start small. But Jeremy's point is valid. It will take more than one uppity Chinese journalist to change how Chinese media work and to reinvent their relationship with an opaque and secretive government that has never shed its deep-seated belief that media should be, first and foremost, a propaganda tool for the state.

Ultimately, the nature of the media here depends not just upon the attitudes of the journalists, but also upon the regulatory environment they operate in, the expectations the public places upon them, and how the industry as a whole sees its role in Chinese society. A popular media had to be reborn here in the wake of China's opening to the world, and it is still in many ways in its infancy. Unfortunately, the government is doing plenty to retard its growth.

Let's hope some other journalists follow Hu's lead. Meanwhile, I'll take what bright sparks I can find.