CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Zhao Yan, a Story of Power Struggles, Leaks and Hunger Strikes

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Linda Lynn

In September 2004, Zhao Yan, a local journalist working for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times, was arrested on charges of leaking state secrets. So far the authorities have not given the exact reason for Zhao's arrest. It is said that State Security officials accuse him of being the source for an article by Joseph Kahn in The New York Times reporting Jiang Zemin would resign from his last position of power as head of the military two weeks before the official announcement was made.

Though the newspaper declared that Zhao had nothing to do with the article, he was still detained. What crime did Zhao Yan actually commit? As an ordinary journalist, such "state secrets" are beyond his means. I believe there are two possible explanations to this case:

First, Zhao is a victim of the political power struggle that Mr. Kahn reported on in his article. Background information indicated that ex-president Jiang did not genuinely intend to hand over his power but did so out of heavy pressure from various circles, especially President Hu's allies. The article reported that before deciding to resign, Jiang was still struggling and bargaining to maintain his power.

Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the anonymous sources of the article revealing Jiang's intended resignation at such a crucial moment came from officials with vested interests in the outcome. The publication of such an article in The New York Times would no doubt put great pressure on Jiang.

So Zhao's arrest might just be revenge for the scoop The Times let out. Though Zhao was arrested and Jiang resigned, Jiang's allies held onto important positions in the party--of course, not as important as they could have expected if he had remained in power. While the senior officials who actually revealed the "state secrets" protected themselves with their power, a Chinese journalist became the scapegoat, the only real victim of a power struggle and the leaking that exposed it.

The function of western media and Chinese media are quite different. In western countries, the press is the fourth estate, functioning as an independent power that monitors the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. In China, however, the media has been described as the "throat and tongue" of the government and the Communist Party since its very birth, suggesting that media is just a tool to serve the party's interest.

Working for a foreign news agency, Zhao Yan was practicing western journalistic principles while restricted by Chinese journalistic disciplines. When The New York Times infuriated the government with the scoop, America's First Amendment and the Shield Law protected Joseph Kahn, but not Zhao Yan. The conflicting nature and interests of the media and the lack of laws to protect Chinese journalists may answer the question why Zhao was chosen as the scapegoat rather than someone else.

Second, it is said that the charge of leaking state secrets was only an excuse. That the real reason for arresting Zhao Yan was that he was about to go on a public hunger strike to protest the police imprisoning a farm leader. In recent years, Zhao Yan had gotten indemnity amounting to some 500 hundred million Yuan for the farmers, and saved 300 people wrongly caught up by the judicial organs. This activity offended many provincial governors and officials.

The hunger strike he was planning was deemed damaging to social stability and security. The publication of such a debatable article gave his enemies a great opportunity to put a troublemaker out of the way.

Since the press's first loyalty is not to citizens but to political parties, the freedom, objectivity, and trustworthiness of the press can hardly be ensured. China's most influential media are all state-run, they cannot be independent from political forces. As long as this kind of press monopoly is maintained, talking about freedom of the press is in vain.

It is true that with the popularization of the Internet, more and more Chinese people are exposed to foreign media. But how many of them are able to read The New York Times without difficulties? Also, if the best access to China's hottest domestic issues is foreign media, what do we need our own media for? The media of China needs to be neither a transmitter for the government or a political party, nor a translating organization for AP or Reuters.

What we need is our own voice--an objective and impartial voice free from political restriction. To realize this, the diversity of media and media's independence from government are essential. The Chinese government is always accusing the foreign media of being biased on Chinese issues, but before accusing others, we really need to improve ourselves.

The news censorship system obstructs the development of Chinese media. Though the government has no law restricting freedom of the press, there are unwritten rules preventing journalists from going beyond the "limits" on free speech. The articles or essays that officials deem damaging will not be published, and people who violate the unwritten rules will be punished.

It is understandable that to rule a vast land with one fifth of the world's population, achieving unity of thought is an effective means. However, it can only fulfill temporary interests while undermining the nation's interest in the long run. If the leaders want to consolidate their power by suppressing freedom of the press, the results might end up being the other way around. China is progressing at a fantastic speed economically, but unbalanced development can hardly last forever. If the openness of speech and reporting cannot be ensured, the economic development will be restricted sooner or later.

In the interim, as cultural conflicts are inevitable, it is necessary for foreign news agencies to take effective measures to protect their local employees. Meanwhile, the news people themselves should be aware of the unavoidable conflicts in their work and know how to protect themselves. For example, in China, it is a national characteristic to express ideas in the implicit and indirect way, especially when criticizing others. When dealing with sensitive issues, we should avoid radical words, therefore the art of speaking and writing are important.

More importantly, China should make laws and rules to guarantee journalists' rights and interests as soon as possible. Only when the press's operating system is improved can freedom of the press be ensured.

China's current press operating system has run for decades, and because of the political system, it may keep running for years to come. But no matter how difficult it is to change the situation, as the Chinese journalists of tomorrow, we should have the courage to challenge the flaws of the system.

Only in this way can the things we learn from textbooks be more than dead theories. Only in this way can we promise journalism in China a bright future. And only in this way can China keep developing in a balanced and healthy way.

This is what we young journalists are pursuing and will not stop until it is realized. If we are sincere in our duty to benefit the general public, we should not be afraid of the possible difficulties and dangers ahead.

I really hope that one day our efforts can be paid back, and Zhao Yan's tragedy will never reoccur. Good luck to Zhao Yan, I sincerely hope his case can be redressed soon.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE: Zhao Yan and the Great Firewall of China

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Lucy Yang

When I first got this topic, I spent quite a lot of time on the net searching for news on the journalist Zhao Yan. But as some of my friends had expected, most of the websites with information on the arrest of Zhao Yan were blocked. Finally, I found some information on foreign websites.

Compared with other media, the Internet offers more space for academic and intellectual discussion. As proved in many cases, discussions on the net do facilitate social protests and people rely more and more on the web to get information.

However the Internet is not an absolutely free place due to the system of Internet censorship. One part of this system is known outside China as the Great Firewall of China, which blocks content by IP addresses. This firewall is largely ineffective at preventing the flow of information and is rather easily circumvented by determined parties using proxy servers outside the firewall.

Although the government does not have the physical resources to monitor all Internet chat rooms and forums, the threat of being shut down has caused Internet content providers to employ internal staff who stop and remove forum comments which may be politically sensitive.

However, censorship has no way to stop truth or discussions of truth from spreading. Political criticism and the pressure of public opinion on the web have become a significant force. This was particularly evident during the SARS epidemic. At the very beginning of the epidemic, news about this disease was first released by net media. It was long after that when traditional media began to cover the story. Technical advances in the field of communications are undercutting efforts to control media content and are likely to play an even greater role in the future.

Zhao Yan has been an outspoken critic for many years. Before joining the New York Times bureau, Zhao was a reporter on farming issues for Zhongguo Gaige (China Reform) magazine. He also worked as an activist and advocate for peasants facing abuse at the hands of corrupt officials. According to a friend who worked with him for a time, Zhao is a person full of courage but sometimes lacks discernment. Based on the information I obtained, Zhao is a journalist with a keen sense of civic responsibility. I pay my respects to him because he served his role well, and he helped those voiceless peasants make their voice heard.

Frankly, I have doubts as to the truth of the details in Joseph Kahn's September 7 article in The New York Times, and that Zhao Yan was the source of its information. But even if he was, the government was unjustified in arresting him on the charge of "providing state secrets to foreigners," for there was nothing in the article that could impact an individual's safety, national security or national defense. Someone wrote something that our government did not want us to discuss; reports of this kind help to keep the public informed about matters of critical public interest, which often relate to governmental misdeeds.

Following the case of Zhao Yan, the Propaganda Department ordered official media outlets to stop publishing articles from six reformist political commentators. They include Jiao Guobiao, a professor of journalism at Beijing University, who called for the abolishment of the Propaganda Department. Under official pressure, the university cancelled his journalism course.

Recently, there's a wave of people calling for the promulgation of press law, including law that provides protection to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source. But some experts worry that press law might have a negative impact on free expression for the law will probably lead to the practice of classifying more information as secret.

While searching for related information, I found that every year Reporters Without Borders establishes a ranking of every country's level of freedom of the press. In 2004, the country with the least degree of press freedom was North Korea, but China was not that far behind.

Yet, the media in China are becoming more autonomous and more diverse. The media's growing autonomy is reflected in its increasingly diversified content. In recent years our media paid special attention to public issues and published debates on such fundamental issues as the rule of law and human rights.

There are many factors behind the emergence of more diverse and autonomous media in China. Intense competition for the media market is among them. Nowadays most state media outlets no longer receive large government subsidies. They have to pay for themselves through commercial advertising. The urge to respond to the demanding market is a major liberating force for the media in China.

What's more, journalists are now receiving more professional education and improved training to prepare themselves to function in their duty: to present a faithful picture of our community. A new generation of journalists with not only skill, but also more importantly, like Zhao Yan, a keen sense of civic reponsibility, is emerging. Calling for a more free atmosphere of expression, we have ample reason to expect vibrancy and diversity in our media, and more open discussion of social issues in all areas.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE: When Can We Be Free to Tell?

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Leslie Sun

To be frank, I was not surprised when I read about Zhao Yan's case. I've known for a long time that the Chinese government does such things. I am quite used to it.

I used to dream of being a journalist who could let the majority hear the minority and let the minority hear the majority. But I don't have this dream anymore. They won't let me do that, will they? I may be thrown in jail like Zhao.

I wanted to introduce China to the world, but what to introduce depends on them. I may not know a lot about my own country's business, because there is no way for me to know. In other words, a journalist in China knows little about what's happening and there's little he can report to the public about what he does know.

I feel deeply sorry about my career and my countrymen. To some extent, I loathe the Chinese government because they don't respect their countrymen's right to know and speak. And for journalists it's not only a right but also a responsibility.

China has a very long history. All during this history the Chinese people have been treated like fools. There's an old Chinese saying: Be on alert for people's mouths, as they're even more dangerous than the flood. There's not been a minute in this history when Chinese people really had the right to know and speak. Maybe some people will argue that it's a problem of the whole of human society, not merely China, but you have to admit it's especially serious here.

In the Qing dynasty, there was a phrase, "Word Jail," to describe those people who were thrown into jail for saying bad words about the government. In almost every era people were killed or imprisoned because they said something bad about government. There is little difference now. I admit that we are way more free than they were; but there is such a long way to go.

China is now on a fast lane to develop, and I'm very glad and proud to see my country gain more and more respect from other countries--both from our friends and from those countries that don't take us as a friend. No one can deny that China is developing at an impressively high pace economically. In other fields, however, we haven't made such rapid progress. I'm deeply worried that in years to come China will be a country full of rich but ignorant people.

I know the government has its justifications. But I'm not talking about state secrets. I totally agree that the public should not know state secrets. But what can be defined as a state secret? A thing that is surely to happen in a few days, such as Mr. Hu taking the place of Mr. Jiang? That cannot be a state secret. If the explosion of an atomic bomb will take place Wednesday afternoon, you cannot tell other people about it Wednesday morning. That is a state secret. The Chinese government displayed its over reaction on a less than important issue. It acted like a moron on this issue, and on countless such issues.

As you can see, I'm still mad about it. I think that is good. I mean, it's good that I'm mad about it. I know a lot of people, and they are all mad about it. I sincerely hope these mad people--including me, of course--will make a change in the future. And I hope Mr. Zhao will come back soon.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Hard Times For Journalists and Writers

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Stephy Zhai

Late last year, Li Boguang, a Chinese journalist and advocate for poor farmers was detained for unspecified alleged criminal offenses in Fujian Province. The action announced against Mr. Li followed closely the detention of several other writers as Chinese authorities, concerned over the public anger at official abuses, intensified a crackdown on the media.

"We took him in on a Friday. His activities here constitute a criminal offense," said a police official in Fu'an, a city in southeastern China's Fujian province. He gave the reporter only his surname, Zheng.

Li hadn't yet been formally arrested, Zheng said.

But, "We have reason enough to charge him," Zheng said. "I don't want to tell you for what crime. We are now detaining him for 15 days. We can prolong it to one month if we need to."

Sound familiar?

As it almost always does, word of Li's detention first came from an overseas human rights group. Li had run into trouble for working with farmers in Fu'an, who accused local officials of corruption.

In an article posted on the Internet in October, Li wrote that he planned to return to Fu'an despite threats by officials that he and another reporter, Zhao Yan, would be "thrown to the sharks."

According to that article, Li and Zhao were helping farmers in Fu'an to petition the central government for help in a land use dispute with local officials.

Zhao was arrested in September and accused of "leaking state secrets," a few months after he began working as a research assistant for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. The status and facts of his most recent case are very unclear.

Zhao, who had worked for a Chinese magazine, was well known for exposing official abuses. He was a political activist and had already spent three years in prison after taking part in a failed attempt to create a new political party.

Pu Zhiqiang, a lawyer in Beijing who has represented other writers involved in farmers' rights cases, said he received a call over a weekend saying Li had run into trouble in Fujian.

"I'm not clear about Li's situation now. As a civilian lawyer, I don't handle criminal cases," Pu told a reporter in a telephone interview. "I can't help if he's caught on criminal charges."

More recently, activists Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, whose writings frequently criticized the Communist Party, were detained overnight in Beijing and questioned.

All of this is why I think Chinese political development must go along at the same pace as the economical development. These tragedies of free speech happened because today there is a regression in Chinese politics.

The media no longer plays up the themes of dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle. One reason is that this line of propaganda was used as sort of a magical potion by the Gang of Four, who were overthrown and repudiated. Another reason, which is even more important, is that the people have had enough of it and can no longer be deceived.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Crabs, Heroes -- and Zhao Yan?

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Wendy Li

People always say that the first person who dares to eat crab is a hero. Although Zhao Yan is not the first journalist to dare to speak the truth, even at great risk to his own interests, all for the benefit of the voiceless and powerless people, he is a hero. But the hero is in a fix.

Let's look at the case. Reports say he was involved in revealing national secrets. Some people guess that he was arrested because of an article Joseph Kahn wrote last September for The New York Times predicting the resignation of Jiang Zemin as the military chief of China. Some people suspect he wasn't arrested simply for this reason, but for other, more severe reasons, because this charge does not deserve a prison sentence. But still, the officials have not given a clear explanation of Mr. Zhao's alleged crimes.

From the Internet, I got a lot of information about Mr. Zhao. It is said that he is a very responsible journalist who consistently points out flaws in society and government. He helps peasants ask for their money back. He gives voice to the voiceless, and monitors power. I really admire him and journalists like him. They are heroes of the society. And China, or rather every country, needs this kind of a journalist.

However, even though I don't know whether the news of the resignation of a high level leader can be called a national secret, I do feel that it is not proper to see this news appear first in a foreign newspaper, reported in part by a Chinese journalist. In that case, Mr. Zhao might have done something improper.

Firstly, I think, as a Chinese journalist, Mr. Zhao shouldn't have given this news to a foreign media first, even though he was working for them. As a result, he put the Chinese government and Chinese media in an embarrassing situation.

Second, I think a good journalist must learn to protect himself, otherwise no matter how great a mission he has, he won't have a chance to realize it. And in China, journalists have unique situations and rules to consider, which inevitably demands them to be on alarm and careful to protect themselves. As for Mr. Zhao, to have such news printed in a foreign media was not a sensible choice. For two reasons: it may have caused the nation a bad effect, and it gave the country a chance to arrest him.

In all countries, the press is working for the party it supports, and China is not an exception. Communism is the national Party of China, it is easy to understand why it chooses to control the media. The state-owned media is the throat of the Party. Therefore media can not exactly be independent from the seat of power. Which makes it very hard for them to monitor power, and expose it when power corrupts. But what is exciting is that in China today we have a lot of media or programs that strive for the achievement of democracy and the right to monitor power, like China Youth, Southern Weekend, and some TV programs on CCTV.

Nowadays, merely announcing information is not the most important task for print journalists, since there are more and more media offering more convenient and faster news. For newspapers, and other print media, new angles and deeper reporting with additional knowledge are more and more important.

This is also important: Since there is a unique situation in China, journalists have to adapt a particular way to express our views, and it must be above the bottom line of protecting ourselves.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Who’s To Say What Zhao Yan Did

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Teru Chen

On September 7, 2004, The New York Times published an article written by Joseph Kahn, in which he told readers that an offer by Mr. Jiang Zemin to retire would be announced in two weeks. Several days later, the authorities arrested Zhao Yan, a local journalist working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. There wasn't a clear reason for Zhao's arrest until October 20, when it was announced that he was detained on charges of providing state secrets to foreigners. Some of Zhao's friends believe that State Security officials are seeking to tie Mr. Zhao to the Kahn article.

Zhao Yan is a famous journalist in China who fights for people's rights. It surprised many people when he was arrested for leaking state secrets. For further information on the case, I searched on the Internet. But I was surprised: I found many comments on the topic on Google, but almost all of them brought me the dreaded "This page cannot be found" message when I clicked on them. But soon I knew what had happened.

Our press is now under a repressive atmosphere. Free speech about sensitive topics is banned, and Zhao's case is just one of them. As far as I can see, the Zhao Yan affair is only a small part of a much larger event. Many people are confused as to whether the retirement of Mr. Jiang Zemin should even be a state secret. Many people are also wondering if it was Zhao Yan who leaked the information, or if it was the authorities themselves who leaked it. There wasn't any evidence to prove that Zhao had leaked state secrets when he was placed under arrest, and till now we still know nothing about the real reason for Zhao's detention. It is only a supposition that he was arrested because of the article published in The Times on September 7.

But let us suppose the article is the reason Zhao is under arrest. If that is the case, many people think that it is unreasonable. Reasoning that Mr. Jiang's retirement was going to be announced sooner or later, they believe it was only a serious problem because foreign media announced the information first.

I had this opinion at first; but after thinking it over deeply, I think it may be a problem of state security. If foreign media can know the retirement plans of Mr. Jiang before it is announced in China, what will happen if other military secrets are released like this? The authorities may consider it a very serious problem which may do harm to the state and its national interests. Maybe Zhao's case is not as serious as what we have considered, but it was necessary to arrest and punish him in order to set an example to others who intend to do such reporting.

If the article was not the reason for this event, what might be the cause? I read many articles and found that many people have the opinion that Zhao was arrested because of his fight against corrupt officials. It reminded me of Jiang Weiping, another journalist who fought against corruption. He was put into prison several months after he had written an article exposing the serious corruption committed by Ma Xiangdong, a high-level official in Da Lian Province. He was also arrested on charges of providing state secrets and sentenced to five-year’s imprisonment. He is still in prison.

There is another such event that happened recently: on December 14, the Chinese police detained three leading intellectuals who have been critical of the government, apparently stepping up a campaign to silence public dissent. They are Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, literary figures, and Zhang Zuhua, a political theorist. They were suspected of "participating in activities harmful to the state."

That's why I said Zhao's detention is only a small part of the whole. There have been a string of arrests recently of journalists, writers and scholars, most of whom have spoken out their opinions on sensitive topics or written articles or essays that officials have deemed damaging. The media in China is party-controlled, so there are many unwritten rules for journalists to obey.

It is the media's responsibility to tell the truth to the public, but unlike in the U.S. where there is the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, the authority in China is only the Communist Party. If too many critical comments are published against this authority, the whole state may become precarious. So it can be understood why the authorities pay so much attention to the behavior of media.

However, it is still just a guess about the reason for Zhao's arrest. We certainly cannot pronounce a reason because it involves many political rules and sensitive matters we don't know about. As far as I am concerned, Zhao's situation is not a simple thing that can be solved with a few discussions in a classroom. Everybody has his or her opinion on this.

What is certain is that for those of us who want to be journalists in the future, this event gives us a good opportunity to see clearly the circumstances journalists are working under in China.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: The Law is The Law

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Joyce Zhang

When I first learned the news that Mr. Zhao Yan, a researcher for the Beijing bureau of The New York Times, had been detained by the authorities for leaking state secrets since September and not allowed to communicate with his family or lawyers, I was shocked. In the past 20 years, rarely have I ever been exposed to this kind of news; this kind of news is usually banned in China.

What secret did Mr. Zhao leak? This is the most important question we should ask before making any judgments on the issue. Most of the news from abroad says that the Chinese government detained Mr. Zhao because they believed he was behind the September scoop by The Times' Beijing bureau chief, Joseph Kahn, that China's former leader, Jiang Zemin, was about to retire from his last formal position.

Isn’t it too weak an accusation for the Chinese authorities to bother detaining a journalist over at the risk of being criticized by foreign media? That was my thought. But, after reading the original article “China Ex-President May Be Set to Yield Last Powerful Post,” I changed my mind. It was not just the simple fact that Mr. Jiang Zemin planned to retire from his military position that was leaked, but a lot of secret information about different opinions among the authorities as well. All of it involves really sensitive topics that are banned and have to be banned in China.

As we know, there are many factors that may influence news reporting: economic gain, political bias, personal whims, etc. This determines that there may be some unintentional or intentional distortions in news reporting. Take the comments that foreign journalists made after Mr. Zhao was arrested for example, the secret was condensed into a simple assumption that Mr. Jiang might retire, which is not complete in its context, and might mislead readers to form an opinion that the Chinese Government is too sensitive and fussy.

Actually, that is not the case. I’m not saying that foreign media mean to insult the Chinese government by distorting the facts; but due to different cultural backgrounds, we share utterly opposite understandings of certain issues. As a matter of fact, the condensed truth from the foreign media would have formed an improper idea about the issue among Chinese citizens.

Undoubtedly, Public opinion is vital to a government. Therefore, it is reasonable that no government should ever risk indulging the media with reporting whatever however they want; neither should the Chinese Government. Let alone allow the release of sensitive information to the foreign media. China is a huge society consisting of 13 hundred million people, and difficult to govern. Any scandal may result in chaos.

The public is sometimes restrained by the environment--a specific knowledge level, social class, or current economic situation. In most cases, people are exposed to only a part of the truth, which might be caused by their own choice, friend’s influence, certain media, as well as restrictions from the government. Not seeing the whole picture, they are easily blinded and provoked into extreme reactions. In order to prevent this terrible result, the Chinese government chooses to cut the root by not releasing the information in the first place.

As for Zhao Yan, I’m not sure whether he really leaked a state secret to The New York Times. Although The Times claimed that Mr. Zhao was not their source, that might be a method that The Times uses to protect its sources. If he did so, I would say that he deserved being sentenced. As a citizen, we have responsibilities as well as rights. There’s no excuse for anyone breaking the law. That’s the only way our society is guaranteed to work properly.

The journalism ethics we’ve learned say that we should not report at the risk of breaking laws or moral codes. It is true that every legal citizen has the right to speak, but with a precondition that he does not break the law. If anybody breaks it, he is to be punished. As an experienced journalist, I believe that Mr. Zhao should know the principles and he should obey them.

If Mr. Zhao was not the one who released the state secret, the Chinese government is to blame. If Mr. Zhao didn’t leak state secrets, there’s only one possibility left: he was arrested for exposing the corruption cases as most foreign reporters have suspected. In that case, the Chinese government will be accused again of trying to hush up the scandals and taking revenge on Zhao Yan for his reporting. I would be ashamed of such a government if that is the real reason for Mr. Zhao’s detention.

Concerning this case, I urge a relatively perfect law governing journalism being established as soon as possible. Clear principles about what can be reported and what should be banned should be listed in it. The ban on releasing the news of SARS in China two years ago was a complete failure. Though the intention was to prevent chaos, the Chinese government underrated the Chinese public, which led to a disaster.

Restrictions are not always the best way to solve a problem; the Chinese government should have more confidence in Chinese people, and let them know what they are obliged to know.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Not Enough Facts In Evidence

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]

By Daisy Hao

A Chinese journalist, Zhao Yan, had a special job--working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of the New York Times. Since September 17, he has been detained by Chinese authorities for "providing state secrets to foreigners."

There are a lot of debates and remarks on the Internet about this case. Some criticize that China is moving backwards on human rights; some are worried about the freedom of journalism in China. All these remarks are based on an assumption--that Zhao Yan was detained for reporting Jiang Zemin's retirement. In my opinion, this assumption is worth discussing.

According to the presumption of his colleagues and friends, the so-called "leaking state secrets" charge is linked to an article published in The New York Times on September 7, 2004, revealing Jiang Zemin's retirement from the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the transfer of full leadership to President Hu Jintao. The story proved to be accurate on September 19, when Mr. Jiang's resignation was officially announced.

Here is a truth: Zhao Yan was detained by Chinese authorities. And the accusation is leaking national secrets.

Here is an assumption: the secret might be the retirement of Jiang Zemin.

As a matter of fact, no one really knows what is the so-called "secret." Even the New York Times said that the Chinese authorities have not told them what secret information Zhao Yan allegedly revealed, or to whom.

As a student majoring in journalism, I am told all the time to never present any information before I can verify it myself and never to take anything for granted. So, I don't think it is proper to make any comment, especially sharp comments, before we are clear about the whole issue.

How come we combined a truth with an assumption as a premise for a later series of logical inferences and as the base for remarks?

Let's come back to the case itself. First of all, focusing on Zhao's special job, I have something else to say. As we know, large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, with great reputations attract many people who want to work for them. And most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help assemble and sort out information from official sources, newspapers and the Internet, and to assist in translations.

Working there is an extremely special job; and you must consider the risks because it is not a government organization. In some sense, it is a business and you are working for a foreign company whose product is news for people in another country. However, you are working on the mainland, so you should obey the law here; meanwhile, you work for a foreign organization which has a different system and style, and you have to follow your boss's principles. In addition, some rules and laws in China are often considered unreasonable or ridiculous by your foreign colleagues and boss. Thus, there is a conflict in most cases: being committed to your job and being loyal to your country.

It is an open secret that some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive. Therefore, you should keep the national honor and laws in mind, and make every decision deliberately.

Apart from that, we should think about other questions concerning this issue. Is it real that the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement led to Zhao Yan's misfortune? Who is the source of the news?

The New York Times foreign editor confirmed that Zhao Yan had been working for the newspaper as a researcher, not as a reporter, and that he was not the source of the information about the retirement of Jiang Zemin. Almost everyone knows that large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, have their own sources of information. Is it possible for Chinese authorities not to know this? Moreover, it is said in Joseph Kahn's article that the information came from a high-level source inside the government.

In other words, Zhao Yan is not the source that leaked the information, nor the one who investigated or dug up the information. Besides, in China, people such as Zhao Yan are little potatoes. You must remember, the state system and conditions are different between China and Western countries. Such little potatoes have no way to seek or get inside information about the government and the Party by themselves--unless people inside the government leak the information.

Now, the sky is clear. Zhao Yan is not the one who leaked the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement. What he did was present news to the public. As a student majoring in journalism, my teachers taught me the principles of journalism and the personalities and abilities we should possess and process to be a journalist; no one taught me that pursuing and presenting truth is a crime. I think that the Chinese authorities also understand this. Therefore, it is unlikely that they detained Zhao Yan for reporting this news. In other words, he was detained for leaking national secrets, and the secret is something else--something that we don't know.

That is a piece of news worth investigating by journalists. What is the real reason the State Security Bureau detained him and what is the secret he leaked? I'd like to devote all my time, energy, and intelligence to figuring out the answers, because I resolve to be a good journalist. But, now, it is beyond my reach.

My wish is that some day I am able to investigate this kind of mystery on my own and report the truth hiding under the complicated, puzzling surfaces to the public. This is the most basic responsibility and also the ultimate objective of a journalist, every where.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Don’t Sacrifice Any Excellent Life

[See Series Introduction -- the Editors.]

By Christina Liang

When I first heard of the "Zhao Yan" case in class, I felt quite surprised. I was not surprised at the case itself, however; I was surprised at the passion in my foreign professor's voice and on his face as he spoke of it. To tell the truth, I don't see Mr. Zhao's case as anything special. Neither is the case about Mr. Yu, or Mr. Liu, or Mr. Zhang. They are just more examples of the authoritarian, press-restrained system in China. Also, they are about Chinese politics.

First of all, I should say that I sincerely respect Mr. Zhao's bravery. Just as his former colleague Mr. Kristof wrote in his column: He was a valiant man in such an environment. I suppose that any individual who knows a little about the Chinese government and its policies could have predicted the result Mr. Zhao received. And so could he. But still he took aim at the authoritarian system.

In this society, we are not lacking ideas--many of us have great ideas, or say, illusions, about real democracy and freedom of the press. However, we always choose to speak about them only among a few intimate friends, on the Internet, or in our diaries. With a common understanding, most of us are "clever" enough to prevent ourselves from getting into trouble. But the truth is, we are getting used to the authoritarian system and gradually becoming its guards. What we are lacking is "Zhao-type" courage. We need such people to challenge the authoritarian system. What's more, we need them to wake us up.

However, I don't encourage such doings. I mean, I don't encourage all of the excellent journalists or "leading intellectuals" to follow such examples. It is too dangerous and isolated.

In China, it is not hard to understand the danger. Actually, we have heard of several such cases before. Once, a Chinese journalist gave a file leaked to him by an organizer of the 1997 People's Congress to a Hong Kong newspaper three days before the congress convened. Consequently, the agenda of the meeting was first reported in the foreign press. Later, the journalist was arrested. Only three days.

We can say that it wasn't really about that file, or in Zhao's case, the news of Mr. Jiang's resignation. The party, the government, must protect its authority, its face. That's so important for a ruling party, especially in China. Regardless of the politics, that is an important psychological reason. Although it is announced that we are democratic, there is an unwritten rule, rooted in the rulers' hearts, that no one can "intrude" upon their authority of power. They should be the first to announce what they are going to do next.

Born in a country with a two-thousand-year-old tradition of feudalism, most of us have gotten used to this reasoning and have unconsciously accepted it. Besides, I don't think there is any need to go into the details to check whether it was Mr. Zhao who "leaked national secrets." In my opinion, he was destined to be arrested--as long as there was someone in authority who thought he should be, even if only as a scapegoat.

Maybe from my words many foreigners won't understand our acceptance of unbridled power, and even blame us for lacking rebellious spirits and democratic ideas. But I should say that our government is not like Saddam Hussein's regime. People here don't want to overthrow the Party because, in general, we are benefiting from it, for example, the great economic growth.

I have to mention the psychological aspect again. The Chinese nation by tradition is a practical nation. What most people care about is whether the governors can improve their living conditions. And there are other psychological characteristics, such as circumspection and toleration. Chinese people try to avoid trouble as long as the intrusion upon their rights is not beyond their tolerance; most of us are likely to be satisfied with current conditions.

In a word, it's very unlikely that a few "intellectuals" can instigate reform among Chinese people unless the people feel they can't keep their contented conditions. This is the root of the intellectuals' isolation.

Therefore, I don't advocate such brave doings. In consideration of the powerful government, no one should sacrifice themselves. We must have other ways to protect the freedom of our voice. In such an environment, we should be wise enough to speak against unfair policy in a pragmatic, responsible way. We need the ability to gradually change the situation while protecting ourselves. In consideration of its supporters, the Zhao Yan type courage is of too high a price to ever be popular. Maybe it suits western culture, but in China, we need practical and efficient ways to implement change with "Chinese characteristics" so that most of the people will give it their support.

Moreover, the corrupt system isn't worth even one excellent life.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Thinking Over Zhao Yan’s Case

[See the Series Introduction -- From the Editors]

By Julia Zhu

I am really upset by what the government has done to the journalists Zhao Yan and Shi Tao, etc. According to the information I can find, our new political leaders seem to be adopting harsh measures on the journalism sector, especially on its coverage of an increasingly long list of sensitive issues. However, what really caused our government to charge Zhao Yan is unknown.

If it does accuse Mr. Zhao of providing state secrets to foreigners due to the article published in The New York Times reporting an offer by Mr. Jiang to retire two weeks before the leadership change was announced, as many people have guessed, then this act seems ridiculous to me for two reasons: First, the authorities of The New York Times have claimed many times that Mr. Zhao was not the source of the story; second, the article did not expose a serious issue threatening our country's security, though it did have something to do with our government's future plans. Actually I think its content was more an assumption than a declaration of fact on Mr. Jiang's retirement.

What the real problem with the article was that it touched on the issue of a power struggle inside the party. Such cases, especially when they happen continuously, are, of course, not pleasant phenomena. The historical conflict between the media and government is clearly demonstrated here: Journalists are obligated to play the watchdog role, while government, to maintain its rule and reputation over the society, is going to try to avoid being criticized.

One teacher in our university told us that no matter which country, there is this inevitable clash between the government and the press. In the fierce conflict between the interests of journalists and the interests of governments, it is always the journalists' side that is hurt; the only difference among countries is the degree of hurt.

China, as the facts show, is an inescapable example of this. Then, since this is the undeniable reality, every journalist needs to be on alert; that is, he or she must pursue the truth bravely, as this is their sacred obligation, but to be well informed on the ways to protect themselves while doing so.

This can be done either through the law or by technical reporting methods. Pressmen should acquire the ability, and it is also what we journalists-to-be have to learn. Moreover, Zhao Yan, no matter whether he is involved in leaking state secrets or not, is a national hero. Loving his country so much, though he knew it might be dangerous, he didn't hesitate to challenge authority and expose defects in the government when he discovered them.

As a Chinese journalist-to-be, I know that's what I should possess: bravery and enthusiasm. And I also know that there is something I should be aware of: Though media will never defeat government, it can make a difference by waking the public up to reality. This is the most important duty of the press.

As I understand it, among the different models of expression and speech, China belongs to the communist or state one, in which press controls are in the lap of government. Theoretically speaking, this model intends the press to speak for ordinary citizens and workers so that the government can be enlightened and the media can serve the common goals of the state. It calls for press and government cooperation.

Judging from the present reality, the system in China is far from perfect and allows for no delay in change. As Chinese, we are obligated to make a difference, every one of us.

CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Who Does He Think He Is?

[See Series Introduction -- The editors]

Charlotte Li

I cannot imagine that a journalist who truly loves China could describe it as "donkey droppings." This title deeply hurts my feelings. I feel very angry about Mr. Kristof's attitude towards my country.

Yes I know little about the detention of journalists in my country. But I think the police had proper reasons to arrest Zhao Yan.

From the view of Mr. Kristof, there is no freedom of speech in our country. The Chinese people are still living in hot waters. All of the Chinese leaders are dictators who can do nothing but persecute the people. These groundless accusations are ridiculous.

First of all, the journalist Mr. Kristof has no right to comment on the judicial system of my country. It is none of his business to say who should be arrested or not. He is not god. Indeed, I recall a few years ago, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, an expert on nuclear physics was accused of leaking advanced skills to China and was detained for many days by the American government.

What I want to express by taking this case as an example is that each country has its own situations, and they're obviously different from other countries. But Mr. Kristof's article gives me the impression that some journalists, especially American journalists, enjoy criticizing other countries.

The world is complicated. Each country has its history, culture, religion and traditions. As an English saying goes: "one man's meat is another man’s poison." It is no good if the American government pushes its democracy to other countries. We can see this in Iraq. Although personally I don't like the former president Saddam Hussein, I am worried about the Iraqi people. By watching television and reading newspapers, I can see the country has turned into a hell.

Also Mr. Kristof indicates that the Chinese leaders want to maintain dictatorship by persecuting Falun Gong adherents. This accusation is even more ridiculous. Because China is a developing country, many people do not receive an adequate education. It is easier for them to believe in dangerous cults. One of my neighbors suffered from such an illness. But he believed in the cult and he was instructed not to take any medicine otherwise he would not become a good follower. In the end, he died a miserable death.

In fact, China is very open now. You can voice your opinion if you wish to. And the government welcomes foreigners to give advice and criticism so long as they are out of good intentions. And, yes, China needs not only spaceships and big buildings but also freedom and democracy. However, I don’t think any Chinese can accept such words as "donkey droppings."

One of the jobs of a journalist is to pay close attention to evil social phenomena. But he must study it and reveal it on the basis of facts so as to supervise government functions instead of making personal attacks. I don't know if Mr. Kristof often reads Chinese newspapers. If so, he should know that nearly every week the newspapers publish articles on officials arrested for corruption. If it's true that journalists who expose corruption take such a great risk of being arrested in China, then there should be thousands of journalists ensnared, far more than the 42 mentioned by Mr. Kristof.

China is a great country, so is America. Both countries share dreams and glory and want to contribute much to mankind. But the dream and the glory should be based on mutual respect and understanding.

[Correction: As pointed out in a comment below, Dr. Wen Ho Lee was originally and incorrectly identified in the article above as Dr. Ho. We regret our error and appreciate it being brought to our attention -- the Editors]