The Internet wages war on the liberal media

The Biggest Riot in History

There’s a war going on over freedom of speech, democracy, and western “universal values.”

In the above cartoon we see the forces of China.com (the patriots surrounding the sentry tower on the right) arrayed against the defenders of the Southern Metropolis Daily and liberal democracy on the left.

War was sparked by Chang Ping’s essay of 3 April, “How To Find The Truth About Lhаsa,” in which he discussed the recent attacks on the bias of the western media in the wake of the Lhаsa riots and applied the same reasoning to the domestic media (from ESWN’s translation):

The distorted western reports about China came from an unwillingness to listen and understand because they are too engaged in the sort of Orientalism that Edward Said wrote about. But what about us and the ethnic minorities? If we use nationalism as the weapon to resist the westerners, then how can we persuade the ethnic minorities to abandon their nationalism and join the mainstream nation-building? The Dаlai Lаma asked the Chinese government to reassess him, so what kind of person is he really? Apart from the official government position, will the media be permitted to discuss the matter freely and uncover more truths?

The China.com forums labeled Chang Ping a traitor, and started an assault on the Southern Metropolis Group, where Chang Ping edits the Southern Metropolis Weekly.

Things really got going last Friday with an op-ed that brought the ugliness of the forums to the pages of the Beijing Evening News:

A man named Southern Metropolis Chang Ping, who recently ran afoul of a group of netizens, might want to make another argument for free speech in the belief that the netizens have stripped that right from him. I do not usually concern myself with online forums, but the netizens’ broadsides were so fierce this time that I took a look at the so-called speech of this Southern Metropolis Chang Ping. I noticed immediately that this individual had brought “free speech” to an appalling or even “terrifying” degree. The heart of the matter for which he was criticized was this: “Free speech intrinsically includes the freedom of mistaken speech and particularly the freedom to question authority. More frightening than rumors is the removal of free speech.” And he openly held this up as a universal value. According to his logic, “free speech” means that you can muddy the truth, fabricate facts, indiscriminately distort history, speak irresponsibly, “freely” rumor-monger, “freely” smear, “freely” toss about labels. Just like the western media’s hysterical performance on the issue of China’s Tıbet. Was that free speech? That was violent speech. I have never seen the western media enjoy that kind of freedom of speech in their own country, because that would be an infringement on the rights of others, and it would trample social justice and betray fundamental ethical principles. If this is the “universal value” that Southern Metropolis Chang Ping wants to protect, then honor is the price he pays in return.

I did not know who Southern Metropolis Chang Ping was at first, but after a short investigation, he turned out to be a “trendy spicy chicken” at the Southern Media Group. Not surprising in the least, because the Southern Media Group, with ____ Weekly [Southern Weekly] at the lead, has always set itself up as China’s most “western” newspaper, the “boldest,” “keenest,” and most “penetrating” newspaper, one that tirelessly promotes western “universal values” and “free press.” It is no surprise that Southern Metropolis Chang Ping spoke in such a way. And the subsequent huge uproar was due to the western media’s brazen rumor-mongering, smearing, and distortion of the Tibet situation. This leads one to believe that he (or they) are not merely seeking free speech; their last fig-leaf is about to be torn away.

For Southern Metropolis Chang Ping and his ilk, who seek so-called “universal values,” only things of the west are universal and need to be upheld. Even the freedom to rumor monger needs to be protected. This leads one to wonder: throughout modern history, all of the colonization and wars were instigated by the west; is this a “universal value”? The very existence of the speech of Southern Metropolis Chang Ping and his ilk proves one fact, which is that those people today shouting and parading around “universal values” and “freedom” are nothing more than using a grandiose phrase as an excuse to achieve their own shadowy ends. But lies remain lies, and in the face of facts and the truth, lies only serve to allow people to perceive hypocrisy more clearly, so that the “universal values” of Southern Metropolis Chang Ping and his ilk are rejected by the people.

Blogger Ten Years Chopping Timber posted two responses: one post lamenting that the standard for frothing-at-the-mouth commentary had dropped in the 42 years since the attacks on “Hai Rui Dismissed From Office,” then a follow-up that looked back at the “Evening Chats at Yanshan” affair in 1966.

The Chats were a series of columns written by Deng Tuo and published in the Beijing Evening News. Together with the “Notes from Sanjiatun,” a column in Front Lines magazine written by Deng and a few others, the Chats were criticized by Mao Zedong and Kang Sheng in March of 1966, and ultimately the Beijing Daily was forced to put together a three-page spread of criticism which ran on 16 April, 1966. Other national national papers followed up in May with Yao Wenyuan’s indictment of the articles as anti-socialist poison. The blogger’s implication was that with such a history, the Beijing Evening News shouldn’t be so quick on the attack.

Chang Ping himself responded in a blog post titled “I’m not your enemy,” in which he deflected Wen Feng’s overheated criticisms, suggested that he was beating a straw man, and urged more courtesy in future exchanges:

Mr. Wen Feng wrote that “their last fig-leaf is about to be torn away,” and mentioned an “excuse to achieve their own shadowy ends.” In my opinion, these words make people self conscious, and have shadowy ends themselves. That is the only explanation I have for why, after you finished your investigative work, you got my name wrong in the headline and in the text, calling me “a man named Southern Metropolis Chang Ping,” who was a “‘trendy spicy chicken’ at the Southern Media Group.” If I called Mr. Wen Feng a “man named Beijing Evening Wen Feng” who was “‘tanghulu at the Beijing Daily Group,” that wouldn’t be very nice, would it? And I won’t say that it’s “not surprising in the least” for Wen Feng to come out of the Beijing Daily Group; instead, I would remind myself that the Beijing Daily once published that fine article by Yu Keping, “Democracy is a Good Thing.”

Perhaps all of this is a good thing. Taizhou-based journalist Zan Aizong suggested that even though Wen Feng and the anti-Southern Metropolis may mock Chang Ping’s appeal to “universal values,” at least they’re having a discussion:

Returning to the topic, I applaud the open controversy with “Southern Metropolis Chang Ping” that Wen Feng brought to the pages of a newspaper. Perhaps you can find a platform for open debate, where you can discuss universal values and how they are measured.

Update: Zan identifies “Wen Feng” as Mei Ninghua (梅宁华), president of the Beijing Daily Group, vice-chair of the All-China Journalists Association, and director of Beijing’s Bureau of Cutural Relics.