Oh, it was so delicious, so scandalous, so nasty that it just had to be true. A bun-maker in Beijing cutting corners. Literally: cutting them off of cardboard boxes, softening them up in caustic soda and using them to replace some of the pork in steamed buns. First reported in China by Beijing Television 7 (BTV 7), it was rebroadcast by CCTV and rapidly picked up by the Associated Press, from where it was slingshot into orbit by the zeitgeist gravity well and covered by pretty much every media organization on the planet.

Naturally, it was a hoax, as AP is now reporting. Red faces all around, especially at BTV 7, where apologies are being issued and heads are being rolled (in Chinese).

Here is the lede from the AP story reporting the cardboard bun scandal:

Chopped cardboard, softened in an industrial chemical and made tasty with pork flavoring, is a main ingredient in batches of steamed buns sold in a Beijing neighborhood, state television said.

The report, aired late Wednesday on China Central Television, highlights the country's perennial problems with food safety despite continuing government efforts to improve the situation.

I would suggest that, in addition to highlighting the country's perennial problems with food safety, the situation also highlights the perennial risks of running stories ripped from a Chinese media that is rife with ethical problems, shabby reporting and thinly substantiated sensationalism.

As I have said before, there is plenty of great journalism in China. But there is also plenty of questionable dreck.  Of course China doesn't have an exclusive on questionable dreck -- I am sure that some commenters will rush to point out errant reports from the US or elsewhere. But it is in a relatively unique situation as it wrestles with the combination of an exploding media industry that has a completely embryonic ethical system and surging international interest.

The irony is that this is one of those cases where the imprimatur of CCTV --"state television"-- went a long way to giving legs to a story that had it been spotted in some provincial tabloid or the "odd-news" section of China Daily probably wouldn't have gone as far. It's funny that when when it's economic figures everyone is automatically suspicious but when it's toxic baozi everyone is immediately on board.

Every foreign news organization here combs the Chinese media, as well they should. For the wire services, relaying Chinese news reports to overseas audiences is a substantial and useful part of what they do. But this case is a reminder that there is a certain credibility risk in doing so. It's also a reminder for all of us who read second-hand relaying of these reports that just because a credible international wire service has picked up a Chinese media report doesn't necessarily mean it has independently verified it.

On the other hand, at a time when the Chinese authorities are blaming foreign media for many of their problems and urging them to "report more truthfully" on China's situation, this doesn't do much for China's credibility either. They really shot themselves in the foot this time. The retractions won't overcome the effect of the hoax, and conspiracy theorists (which Imagethief is not) will gleefully wonder if the original report was true and the reporting of the "hoax" is itself a hoax.

Contemplating such possibilities makes my head spin.

Update:
On that last point, see this post from Danwei reporting on speculation over the debunking.

 

 Buns made with paper! Shock horror!

 

 Oops

 Oops. Our bad. 

Update, August 5, 2007:

Comments on this post have closed, but Beijing Boyce e-mailed me the following remarks, which I thought I would include:

Actually I've been thinking a lot about the cardboard case. (I've been writing talking points all week, so I'm in that mode). Have you heard / read about any foreign reporter who visited the site where the video was shot or interviewed any of the residents or tried to contact the BTV reporter? Or is this the typical "view from 50,000 feet" where the individual (in this case, the reporter) gets dehumanized as discussion descends into a macroanalysis of how the Chinese government and the Chinese media do, could and should act? I mean, has this guy broken any stories before? If so, does that mean they are also fake, or that he suddenly became a bad apple recently? It seems people are skipping over the individual here and diving into the nice safe pool of generalizations about Chinese society...
 
What precipitated this is that I couldn't imagine any analysis of "fake news" and "New York Times" not including the name "Jayson Blair", but I've been surfing around reading about the baozi story and mentions of and details about the BTV reporter on English-languages sites are few and far between...
 
Why?
 
Anyway, gotta get out of here. Those talking points have me thinking too much and this baozi case is giving me flashbacks to grad school and the thesis I wrote about media bias...

Thanks, Boyce, and congrats on your recent Best of the China Blogosphere win!