Chinese Bloggers Stage Hoax

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "It seemed like the latest instance of a recurring story: Two Chinese blogs had shut down, apparently the victim of government censorship. 'Within hours, English-language bloggers and Western news media spread the word that the Chinese government had closed the sites,' the Wall Street Journal reports. The BBC spread the word, and its report was picked up by the French free-press group Reporters Without Borders. 'But in this case, it appears the Chinese government wasn't involved, the WSJ reports. 'By Thursday, a day after the shut-downs, the blogs were back up and running. In an interview, Beijing-based journalist Wang Xiaofeng of Massage Milk says he shut his blog down to make a point about freedom of speech -- just one directed at the West instead of at Beijing. He calls the Western press "irresponsible" and says that the hoax was designed "to give foreign media a lesson that Chinese affairs are not always the way you think." ' The BBC later corrected its story."

Comments

BBC

[frodo from middle ea]

This is not the first time that BBC has been caught doing this. One incident that comes to mind, is when babri mosque was destroyed in india, BBC claimed to show live footage , which later turned out to be a destruction of some building in bosnia.

Who is actually irresponsible?

[AKAImBatman]

Within hours, English-language bloggers and Western news media spread the word that the Chinese government had closed the sites.

This makes it sound like all the major news outlets were up in arms about it. In fact, a quick check of Google news for "Massage Milk", sorted by date, shows that there was the BBC story on the 8th, then numerous reports about it being a hoax the next day.

The BBC article states:

Now, Mr Wang's high profile seems to have attracted the disapproval of the Chinese government, which administers the most sophisticated system of internet censorship and control anywhere in the world.

A note on his site reads simply but pointedly: "Because of unavoidable reasons, this blog is now temporarily closed."

(Emphasis mine.)

The WSJ article claims that the BBC updated its article, but it doesn't make clear what was updated. The few blogs that picked up the story seem to support the text I quoted above. Meaning, that the BBC was not unreasonable in its report, even if it did assume the worst.

As far as I can tell, the only irresponsible party here is the blogger himself. He created a situation that directly insinutated government shutdown, then tried to play the matter up as "irresponsible western journalism." He's proved nothing except to do damage to the free speech movement in China.

Re:Boys who cried wolf

[GoMMiX]

And on the other-hand, how do we know the Chinese government didn't force them to say that?!?!

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

Free To Be Irresponsible

[blueZhift]

Heh, heh, maybe the freedom to be irresponsible on occasion is part of the whole point (and risk) of a free press. After all, once the truth was known, the story was corrected. I'm not so sure that mistakes would be corrected with a less than free press. It's funny, many seem to think that freedom means making the right choices all of the time. But in fact most of the time it means screwing up and falling flat on your face whether that be choosing the wrong party or president to lead your country or just choosing an SUV with really bad gas mileage. What governments and societies around the world need to come to grips with is allowing people the freedom screw up. There can be no success without the risk of failure.

Re:Boys who cried wolf

[CRC'99]

When the Chinese government eventually DOES shut them down, I hope they don't expect much coverage in the Western media.

But it also makes you wonder if reporters these days actually have reliable sources - and if they even bother to verify them. I'm tipping this is a classic example of a big "NO" on both accounts.

I wonder how much other news is in this catagory?

Yes they are

[argoff]

Chinese affairs are not always the way you think

This is bullshit. Respect of the human dignity and free will of a Chineese person is just as important as the respect of human dignity and free will of an American one. The notion that rights are opinions and mutual agreements worked out with a government died over 200 years ago. Today it is widely understood that individuals have rights with or without government, and that those rights are inaliable, and that the puspose of government is to help secure those rights. If the government can't do it, then it is a failure - plain and simple. This isn't rocket science, the history of rights has been well tested out and is only misunderstood by those who would want to ignore it and abuse it.