這篇是筆者很想檢討的一篇。雖然過了要七年，在經濟學者雜誌上，只有五隻貓舉手說看過這篇。當時馬英九的威望從連任以來半年多，直直墜落。在野黨當時的黨主席是蘇貞昌，很不悅於馬對親中媒體的擴張。馬被視為沒有在作臺灣，或中華民國的國安機制，任人唯親，由三立電視台視為金馬同志體制，金指的是金溥聰。此前馬英九在第一任，與中國大陸簽訂有至少二十項貿易及投資協定，被民進黨為首的台灣本土政團，視為要放棄自身主權獨立地位的第一步。

筆者要檢討的是，有無絕對標準來衡量蔡衍明在兩岸媒體之中，統獨影響力的問題。另外是，如果拿來說明車輪牌很差，想拿出作為說服民眾，以使民眾認為現今(寫該篇文章的時候)民進黨的要員確主導台灣例子，比如羅文嘉那段引用錯誤，刑法一百條爭議時他並沒有扮演要角。而提及張旭成曾與周恩來激辯台灣未來歸屬問題時，倒是一個很好的著力點。前些日子過世的史明，當年是95歲，筆者記起就寫了一兩句，毛澤東主席和他共事的往事。

台灣媒體長期以來，在經營方向，一直和政治的走向很難脫勾。從第一間從李濤和李豔秋開的無線衛星電視台，政論節目帶動各類型有線電視節目的開播、製作和構成龐大的生態網，又到了前幾年，因為Youtube和Facebook的直播，圖文的大量與快速傳播，效率及便利性上遠勝過第四台，過了要七年後的今天，回顧你爭我奪的第四台媒體經營權，並不一定對公共利益有如十幾、二十幾年前的那般嚴肅氣氛的變動，還要配合著所謂高層冷酷的謠言。但是這段的確，包括三立當時鄭弘儀的大話新聞停播，被人想像成旺旺中時集團會入半間公司股權。七年前的實際上，是東森集團趁著東森新聞雲作業務擴張（獨立於東森電視各部以外），而三立電視正想作數位媒體之際引進資金，而王令麟曾經想直接買三立電視新聞台的股權，未果乾脆連東森電視的股權都要弄到沒了，丟給表弟家善後，乃至於現在聽說黃寶慧阿姨要選車輪牌不分區立委了，王某要吃奶了。所以鍾年晃當年出書寫錯攻擊對象了。而之後來接替三立的新聞部政論時段的，住仁愛帝寶廖筱君變得更綠，再過了幾年鄭弘儀還是回到三立新聞主持政論節目。順帶一提，三立電視是與微軟很要好的企業用戶，三立集團是台灣微軟的「試考生」，除了伺服器及企業雲端運算，當時的office 365推出前，美國微軟總部就是請三立集團測試並修正繁體中文版。

說起來會有人要媒體經營權，不外乎就是拿錢稍微影響風向。還有就是獲利的問題。不過後者的問題現在變得很大，雖然有4k電視的普及和數位化HD畫質，但是台灣的經濟不如以往，連個幾千元的有線電視費都會很計較，有線電視的好處就是資訊的多元化，而比較能反應及匯集真實的社會各層面，而各家都有對不同領域和社群的愛好，而有了專業化，或是有時候稍微掛羊頭賣狗肉一些，比如東森新聞和各附近號碼的新聞台相比，和警察局比較要好。改成用app或是Youtube或臉書直播來收看。現在的有線電視收視戶數是2018年的507.7萬戶，而且是透過和網路數位的策略聯盟經營撐住的。而第四台的言論，所造成的正面效果有限，又要和商業和政治的權威取向靠攏。

蔡衍明董事長曾經在2012年的台灣總統大選中，特別發聲明說為什麼自己又要親中，又要愛台，被當時三立新聞的苑曉晼，說話大聲，講話犀利。說一個中國是對的，要講經濟發展，但是說台灣的政治制度很不錯，又有島內很多勢力歧見一時難以平息，實在很難比較，所以要維持現狀。可是旺旺集團自家的新聞報導把焦點放在中國概念多好多好，台灣的聲音需要如何「矯正」。彼時馬英九因為要增稅，導致民意反感以致於支持度下降至二成以下，而筆者正好引用連勝文是少數有公開「指正」馬英九，或說與馬英九「保持距離」的國民黨要角。在這未來的一年裡，反中的情緒沒有退燒，從這種編輯辦公室和本土社團，傳至網路或次文化社團等社會各層面討論，而間接導致了2014年太陽花學運的爆發。

Taiwan’s press

Give us our daily Apple

Jan 21st 2013, 7:07 by J.R. | TAIPEI

WAVING black-and-red flags emblazoned with the word “fury”, a sea of nearly 100,000 supporters of the opposition flooded the grounds outside the office of Taiwan’s president on January 13th. They formed the largest protest against the president, Ma Ying-jeou, since he was elected to a second term, a year ago. The crowds demanded that Mr Ma step down over the ailing condition of their island’s economy. The rally, which was organised by the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), had another, newer theme too: media freedom. Protesters were demanding that regulators block the acquisition of the young democracy’s most popular newspaper, the Apple Daily, by a consortium that is widely perceived as being cosy with the government of mainland China. The DPP’s leader, Su Tseng-chang, accused Mr Ma of doing nothing while pro-Beijing corporations snap up Taiwanese media outlets. “The media freedom that I have witnessed Taiwanese people fight for with bravery and even their own lives is being destroyed,” Mr Su told the cheering crowd.

Taiwan has seen many feisty demonstrations of late. Mr Ma, first elected in 2008, has eased over six decades of hostilities with the mainland, which regards Taiwan as a renegade bit of its own sovereign territory, by signing nearly 20 trade and investment pacts across the strait. Mr Ma says this saves Taiwan from economic marginalisation. China, for its part, believes this bolsters its long-term goal of political unification. As Taiwanese companies, including media owners, see their fortunes increasingly tied to the mainland, critics of Mr Ma’s policies say that China will use its clout to muzzle criticism in the press and to Sinicise Taiwan’s separate culture, either by applying direct pressure to the media owners or by indirectly persuading journalists to self-censor. Political scientists say the resulting situation would be is similar to what has happened in Hong Kong since its handover to the mainland in 1997.

Worries converge on Tsai Eng-meng, a Beijing-friendly media baron, whose snack business in China has made him one of Taiwan’s richest men. After he added the influential China Timesto his stable of newspapers, magazines and television stations in 2008, critics say the paper started to echo views from the mainland and grew reluctant to raise sensitive issues, such as unrest in Tibetan areas. The alarm increased when Tsai Eng-meng told the Washington Postthat the number of people who were killed when China crushed the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 had been greatly exaggerated.

Then in November a flamboyant pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai, sold off his Taiwan print-media businesses, including the critical Apple Daily,to a consortium that includes Mr Tsai’s son. Fresh protests erupted, stoked by the fear of a strengthening, pro-Beijing monopoly on the media. The China Timesand Apple Dailynewspapers combined would have a market share of nearly 50%, if regulators approve the deal.

Mr Ma denies the claim that Taiwan’s press freedom is at risk. George Tsai, an editorial writer at the China Timesand a friend to Tsai Eng-meng (but no relation), says his paper’s owner is not a stooge of the government in Beijing: granted, he supports reunification, but only rarely does he meet with Chinese officials. And he will criticise them too, if need be.

University students are at the forefront of the protests. In one incident around 200 of them eschewed New Year’s Eve celebrations in favour of a rainy all-night sit-in near the presidential office. They were greeted at dawn by a phalanx of riot police standing behind shields.

Their movement will undoubtedly give the DPP new momentum, but the party still needs to find a way to negotiate with the economic powerhouse across the Taiwan Strait, which reviles all talk of independence, if it is to win the presidential election in 2016. In other respects the climate is favourable: Mr Ma faces a record-low level of public satisfaction, measured at 13%. The KMT might need to absorb the protesters’ ideas to some extent if it is to remain in power.

KMT lawmakers seem to be taking notice. At first they supported the DPP-sponsored draft legislation to prevent the growth of media monopolies. On January 11th however they voted them down in parliament, on the advice of Mr Ma’s media regulators, who said the plans were not well considered. Mr Ma says Taiwan still needs such legislation. His government will send fresh draft bills to parliament March. Even if they were enacted, it is not clear whether these laws would prevent the takeover already under way. The prospect of anyone’s winning ultimate control over the media is complicated by the fact that while China’s economic clout is ever rising, so too is the sense of a separate, distinctly Taiwanese identity.

Give us our daily Apple

Jan 29th 2013, 09:40

I have both confronted and tuned up in harmony with Taiwan’s media for more than a decade. For a long time, the circumstance of the media surrounds complex interest of political party and enterprises, like minority or pressure group. Hence, media affects much of local ordinarys life. So does my imagination of Taiwan.

In 1990s, Taiwan’s media followed the prevailing freedom of press, owing to post-soviet era and Taiwan’s democratization. In addition to the existence of the late Yu Chi-chong’s China Times and Wang Ti-wus United Daily, a younger-generation media developed into big group one after another, mainly including TV and Internet social media like TVBS by Lee Tao and Lee Yang-qiou and ETTV of Wang Ling-lin. At the first U-turn of party in 2000, SETTV became a strong base of DPP (and I) for a “informal” speaker against pan-blue media which Chen Shui-bian’s government disliked as a minister Cheng Wen-tsang’s posture of gunshot. Many political figures made good use of media’s camcorder for public relation, especially Ma Ying-jeou.

In 2008, it was said that cross-strait relation would improve. The sayings drove Tsai Yan-ming, the leader of Want-want group, to expand into media business. During Ma’s first term, Tsai was said to be “peace envoy” for both sides of Taiwan Strait. However, in truth, Tsai played an embarrassing role in mainland and Taiwan. DPP said Tsai is too close to “Great China” ideology making Taiwan’s unity declined. By contrast, Tsai’s sayings of protest at “Beijing’s autocracy” doesn’t accord with Beijing’s interest, even resembling “Falun Gong”. For me, this Tsai and another guy are really the same as big betrayer Li Hung-zhi, choosing an insensible option of China’s re-unification. Moreover, Tsai’s base is never steady enough to amalgamate many media’s share with the existence of food group. Therefore, I don’t think Tsai’s behaviour, which disobeyed our Beijing’s law, can be classified as any kind of business.

Ma’s support rate stayed below 20% since Ma said the policy of rising tax. Last Friday, a survey of Formosa TV showed horrible 49% KMTs members who mistrusted Ma. Recently, some KMT’s member, on purpose to some journalists, disclosed the wait-and-see attitude of 2012’s re-election. Besides, Ma is questioned of preference of one-party system beneath multi-party democratic law’s skin, said by Luo Shu-lei, a legislator close to SETTV’s Lu Hui-min. Sean Lian, former vice-president Lian Chan’s son, is the only one that obviously disapproved of Ma before Ma’s re-election. Ma’s so-called the appeal for foreign investment, as well as his ideas of interior reform, unwelcome having DPP gain reason for abortion of KMT’s reign by collecting signatures.

In Taiwan, student activities are constantly exercising, sometimes a mainstream of political evolution. Famously, China’s late premier Zhou En-lai and Chang Shu-cheng, during Taiwan University’s student chairman who represented local students, debating whether Taiwan belonged to Beijing’s China or did itself in future. In the late 1980s to , Luo Wen-chia pushed forward democratic reform, including the abolishment of 100th criminal law and directly presidential election by people, from a tenure of the seat to Chen Shui-bian’s secretary.

The previous are acclaimed due to improve public interest but, this time, the student activists do nearly rioters far away from Chang and Lou. These “boxer”-like students say relative blurred words, although they still argue about the equality and high unemployment rate. Nevertheless, they invited 95-year-old Shi Ming, who once met China’s utmost leader Mao Ze-dong, for an inspiration to younger Taiwanese. By this chance, Shi’s oral biography is published today. This idea seems very good but the appeal, with DPP’s chairman Su’s utterance, is a bit weak while letting Ma down. Taiwanese go cold to politics and uncertainty to their future, indeed, making Taiwan devalue only to waste time on big pose called “feelings” and protest. They don’t know cherish mutual spirit so I work on planning for Xi Jin-ping and Li Ke-qiang, after Chen’s government, continuing involvement of politics.

Interestingly, Ma relied on media for several years but, at present, this Mr. Clean’s white face and leg, for the lure of girls before, made public affairs on the wane. Besides, these turn to prove Ma is gay with Chin Pu-tsong. Really, too much gay is filled with Taiwan’s political arena and media’s live studio. In contradiction with situation a decade ago, when Chen and Lien practiced US-stylish politics, Taiwan is naughty enough to become trash. Besides, it’s hard to see the next program like Cheng Hung-yi’s “Talking Show”, which ended last May, for a free-speech stage. Last November, Chung Nian-huang wrote a book about Cheng’s show with audiences and “Want-Want” effect. In truth, as I knew and this book said, China’s entrepreneur preferred Cheng’s show. Let them continue to have Taiwan stagnate as I go on my own.

    Recommended

    5

    Report

    Permalink

當時「南方週末」的編輯群有所謂政治改革之意，在經濟學者雜誌上討論了有近一個月。當時台灣的輿論也有拿來抨擊旺旺集團的蔡衍明董事長，希望能拿到蘋果日報的股權及經營權。因此經濟學者雜誌作出討論。下面是筆者還留有當時經濟學者雜誌在2013年1月相關報導的資料。

Curbing dissent

Muzzling the media

Jan 4th 2013, 12:29 by J.M. | BEIJING

AS The Economistreported this week in its China section, the Communist Party’s new leaders are facing bold calls for political reform. These are coming from figures close to the establishment, with backing from at least a couple of the country’s more liberal-minded newspapers. Since we published the story, more signs have appeared of the leadership’s anxiety about these appeals for greater freedom and democracy, which began to surface almost as soon as the new leadership was installed in November. Officials could well be worried that unless they move quickly to suppress the appeals, demands for political change might spread to other newspapers and gather support from the public.

One of the new signs is a decision to water down a feisty new-year message in Southern Weekend, a newspaper based in the southern province of Guangdong. As originally drafted, the message would have appealed for the “realisation of the great dream of constitutionalism”. China Media Project (CMP), a Hong Kong-based website that monitors developments in the Chinese press, has translated part of it as follows:

"Only if constitutionalism is realized and power effectively checked can citizens voice their criticisms of power loudly and confidently, and only then can every person believe in their hearts that they are free to live their own lives. Only then can we build a truly free and strong nation..."

According to CMP, Guangdong’s propaganda chief, Tuo Zhen, is said to have re-written the message, making it much more anodyne. This has angered journalists at the newspaper, prompting many of them (as the Associated Press reports) to issue a public complaint—a rare act of defiance by employees of a prominent state-owned publication. A group of former reporters from the newspaper have also called on Mr Tuo to step down. Many Chinese microbloggers have expressed support for them, notwithstanding the authorities’ efforts (reported here by China Digital Times, a California-based website) to suppress the news.

The authorities’ jitteriness was also evident in their decision to close the website of Yanhuang Chunqiu, a reformist journal in Beijing. (On January 4th the site, http://www.yhcqw.com, began to direct visitors to a message saying that it had been closed because it had not been officially registered.) The journal had just published a call for genuine implementation of the constitution, which notionally guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and publication as well as the right to demonstrate.

The appeals for the party to respect the constitution’s provisions are part of what appears to be a new tactic by Chinese liberals to push for faster political change. On November 16th, a day after the party’s new leadership was installed, Yanhuang Chunqiuand academics from Peking University jointly organised a meeting in Beijing of around 100 intellectuals as well as a sprinkling of retired officials to discuss the constitution and the importance of upholding it (see this account on Yanhuang Chunqiu’s website, in Chinese, as stored on Google’s cache). At the meeting a draft was circulated of what was called a “Proposal for a Consensus on Reform”. The thrust of its message was that if only the constitution were to be respected, China would become far more democratic. The document was made public on December 25th, with the names of 72 academics and lawyers attached.

The liberals’ decision to appeal to the constitution is likely to gather wide support among intellectuals, many of whom fear that any more overt challenge to the party could provoke a backlash. A petition for radical political reform issued four years ago resulted in police harassment of many of the thousands of people who signed it, as well as the sentencing of its chief author, Liu Xiaobo, to 11 years in prison. This time the authorities will find it harder to crack down. Thanks to the rapid growth of social media, especially microblogs, in the last couple of years, the liberals’ message is likely to spread.

« Dissent and the demands of literature: Mo on Mo

Press freedom

Street politics

Jan 8th 2013, 16:13 by J.M. | GUANGZHOU

RARELY since the heady days of the Tiananmen Square unrest of 1989 have people in China gathered so openly, and so free of police interference, in support of wide-ranging political freedoms as they have in the past two days in the southern city of Guangzhou. The pretext for the gatherings has been the watering-down of a feisty New Year’s message that a local newspaper, Southern Weekend, was preparing to run in its latest edition. It would have urged the Communist Party to uphold the Chinese constitution and the freedoms it purportedly guarantees. Chinese journalists have accused censors of modifying the message to make it more like praise of the party. Some have called on the propaganda chief of Guangdong province, of which Guangzhou is the capital, to step down.

The gatherings outside Southern Weekend’s office have been relatively small: a few hundred people on Monday, January 7th, and at most about a hundred on Tuesday. But the rhetoric of the speakers who took turns to address the crowd appears to have grown bolder. Several called for freedom of the press and freedom of speech—as well as free elections—to shouts of approval from those who had gathered around on the pavement in front of the building. Remarkably, around 20 police deployed at the scene made no effort to stop the speakers or remove slogans expressing similar sentiments, held aloft by a few of the participants. One large banner held up by two men said simply: Free China. At one point someone was heard to shout: “Down with the Communist Party. The Communist Party must step down!”

The police appeared unruffled. Some in the crowd said they had heard of a couple of activists being detained or prevented from joining the gatherings. But compared with the authorities’ rapid and stern response to a few attempted gatherings early in 2011 in support of the Arab uprisings, the relatively hands-off approach over the past couple of days has been striking. In the early evening, the police moved the crowd away from the building, citing a need to keep the pavement clear during the rush-hour. No one appeared to resist them, and most of the participants dispersed. Some said there would likely be more gatherings in the days ahead. This seems likely. News of the “Southern Weekendincident” has been circulating widely on the internet in China, despite the authorities’ efforts to curb online discussion of it. Many users of social media have expressed support for the journalists’ campaign against interference by the censors.

Some, however, have been denouncing the newspaper. Among the crowd outside the Southern Weekendoffices on Tuesday was a small group of people who held up pictures of Mao Zedong and placards denouncing the newspaper as traitorous. When other people occasionally stepped forward to lay flowers at the entrance, in a gesture of support for the newspaper, the Maoists yelled “traitors” at them. Southern Weekendhas long been a bête noire of China’s extreme leftists, who regard the newspaper as a pro-Western mouthpiece for “bourgeois liberalisation”. Fierce debates erupted between small groups of the newspaper’s supporters and the Maoists. A couple of scuffles broke out, but they were broken up by others in the crowd and by the police. Some people chanted “50 cents, 50 cents (五毛, 五毛)” and waved banknotes of that denomination at the Maoists: a reference to the widespread belief in China that the party employs people who it pays 50 cents (ie, half a yuan) in Chinese currency ($0.08) for each internet posting in favour of the party line.

Some of the participants expressed surprise at how relaxed the gatherings have been. It is possible that the authorities have yet to decide how handle them, or that they are divided over how to do so. Some officials might be reluctant to respond harshly, given that Xi Jinping chose Guangdong for his first trip outside the capital, after his appointment as party chief in November. The official media have made clear that the aim of Mr Xi’s tour in early December was to highlight his commitment to reform; Guangdong having been a pioneer of market-oriented changes in the 1980s. Few, however, expect the authorities to tolerate the kind of dissent expressed so openly in Guangzhou this week for very long.

(Picture credits: The Economist, J.M.)

« Curbing dissent: Muzzling the media

·         Recommended

·         59

·          

Press freedom

Battling the censors

Three articles look at relations between individuals and the state. First, calls for press freedom; next, reforms in the detention system; finally, a traffic-light revolt

Jan 12th 2013 | GUANGZHOU | from the print edition

AT THE end of December, China’s newly appointed Communist Party chief, Xi Jinping, told his colleagues to “respond positively” to the public’s “strong cries and eager expectations” for reform. He had no idea just how strong those cries were about to become. By a busy road in the southern city of Guangzhou, protesters this week called for freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Rarely since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 have such demands been aired so openly. Mr Xi has faced a tough challenge.

The protests in the heart of the capital of Guangdong province began on January 7th, after allegations appeared on the internet that Guangdong’s party censors had watered down a new-year message that was due to appear in Southern Weekend, a popular and outspoken newspaper that is based in Guangzhou but has a nationwide readership. As drafted, the message called on the party to uphold the freedoms guaranteed by China’s constitution. Implementing this, it said, was the only way of enabling citizens to “speak out loudly in criticism of government power”. The revised version dropped all mention of political demands.

This change triggered a rare revolt by staff at a Chinese newspaper (Southern Weekendis controlled by the Nanfang Media Group, which answers to Guangdong’s party leadership). Petitions signed by dozens of staff and former journalists at the newspaper, which were widely circulated online, called on Guangdong’s chief of propaganda, Tuo Zhen, to step down. Some staff said they were going on strike. Nanfang Media’s headquarters quickly became the focal point of public protests calling for wide-ranging political reform.

The gatherings have been relatively small: a few hundred people at their height. Tens of thousands of similar demonstrations occur every year in China, but their slogans rarely stray into the realm of national politics. The rhetoric of Southern Weekend’s supporters in Guangzhou has been unusually bold, a point that will doubtless be raised by some party leaders who worry that even a modicum of political liberalisation could open the floodgates to demands for far-reaching change.

One of the speakers at a gathering on January 8th was Yu Gang, a self-described philosopher who was a student activist in Tiananmen and remains a strident, and oft-detained, dissident. He told the small crowd that when he graduated in 1990 he expected democracy would soon be realised in China. “Twenty-three years have gone by, and there has been no progress,” he declared. China remained a “dictatorship”, he said, relying on terror to keep people subdued. He told his listeners not to be afraid of government retaliation for speaking out. Another speaker also recalled 1989. “Twenty-three years later, once again people of conscience…are again crying out here,” he said. “Democracy and freedom!” he shouted through his megaphone. The crowd echoed his chant. “Down with the Communist Party. The Communist Party must step down!” shouted another man.

Not all agreed. Frequent, bitter debates broke out between supporters of Southern Weekendand members of a group of diehard supporters of Mao Zedong, some of whom carried his portrait on placards. “Ardently love the Communist Party” said one of the slogans they held up. Another called Nanfang Media “traitorous”. China’s Maoists are a vocal lot who enjoy some support among the country’s downtrodden. They have long regarded Nanfang Media as bent on maligning them and peddling Western values.

You can’t shoot them

Remarkably, the police did little at first to intervene in the protests, beyond breaking up a couple of scuffles between members of the rival groups. As The Economistwent to press on January 10th, however, it appeared the police were becoming less tolerant, dragging several protesters away. By then, reports had emerged of a compromise: the staff would return in exchange for a promise by censors not to demand changes to stories (the press are normally controlled in China by self-censorship and official directives that are issued to the media generally). The newspaper appeared as normal on January 10th, but it appeared censorship, whether self-imposed or by the party, was still in force. It made no direct mention of the controversy.

Propaganda officials in Beijing have also been trying to suppress widespread expressions of sympathy for the newspaper on the internet—a tough challenge as support for the journalists has been widely voiced online. Searches for Southern Weekendare being blocked on Twitter-like microblog services. Newspapers were ordered to reprint an editorial that was first published on January 7th by Global Times, an often-hardline Beijing daily. It said that the press freedom demanded by Southern Weekend’s supporters could not exist under China’s “current social and political realities”. Even Western newspapers, it argued, would not choose openly to confront their own governments.

Some Chinese newspapers dared to resist. Beijing News, which is partly owned by Nanfang Media, only agreed to publish the editorial after propaganda officials paid the newspaper a menacing visit. Staff said the newspaper’s publisher had threatened to resign in protest. Some newspapers put the editorial on their websites with disclaimers saying it did not represent their own views.

The authorities can perhaps draw comfort from the public response to the protests in Guangzhou. Even as activists delivered their daring speeches, backed up by massive online support, most white-collar workers from nearby office buildings walked past paying little attention.

from the print edition | China

Talking about press freedom

Warm porridge and bitter tea

Jan 11th 2013, 11:31 by T.P. | BEIJING

IN THIS week’s dramatic tussle over press freedoms, much of the action took place in the Guangzhou newsroom of Southern Weekend, the newspaper at the heart of the dispute, where journalists organised petitions and threatened a strike. There was more action in the streets outside the paper’s headquarters, where supporters of press freedom bickered with supporters of the Communist Party and its old-line, heavy-handed approach to media control.

But China’s growing chorus of new-line, new-media voices have managed to put their own stamp on the controversy too. They have had to be rather creative about it, since the old-line forces still call most of the shots. Notwithstanding the concessions that have since been made to Southern Weekend’s reporters, there remain strict limits on the permissible scope of commentary, both in the mainstream publications that the state and party directly control, and in the more unruly online universe, where they struggle constantly to keep the lid on.

One notable figure got his point across with a combination of wry commentary and the clever use of “negative space”. Kai-Fu Lee gained fame as the founding president of Google China and has cultivated a broad following for his blog since leaving that job in 2009. In a post on the Sina Weibo microblog, he showed a picture of a tea set, accompanied by the comment “From now on, I will only talk about East, West and North. And I will only talk about Monday through Friday.”

Taken all together, the cryptic message would make perfect sense to many of the millions who follow his feed. The phrase “to be invited to tea” is a common euphemism for a non-voluntary chat with the police, and the fact that he could now talk about everything except for “South” and “Weekend” left little doubt as to what he might have been warned against chatting about.

A day earlier, he had another post, with only the picture of the tea set and the comment: “What unpleasant tea!”

Another clever post, from January 8th, reported by China Digital Times, showed a picture of a dog catching a Frisbee, with the caption, “That cruel moment when the dog nabs the Frisbee.”

The word “Frisbee” became a fraught term in the spectacular scandal of 2012 involving Bo Xilai, who fell from high power and now awaits trial on corruption charges. Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of another newspaper, became known as “Frisbee Hu” for making sure that the Global Times, one of the most hardline, nationalistic and outspoken in China, would arduously spin the Bo Xilai scandal in ways that were supposed to reflect well on the government.

A microblogged comment of last year, “No matter how far his masters throw the Frisbee, Master Hu will always fetch it back for them,” spawned Mr Hu’s new nickname. A day before this latest posting of a dog and a Frisbee, an editorial in the Global Timeshad argued that the sort of liberalisation demanded by Southern Weekend’s supporters is not suited to the “current social and political realities” of China.

Rich with homophones, the Chinese language is particularly well-suited to punning. This trait was exploited by a wiseacre at the Beijing News(which is partly owned by the same group that owns Southern Weekend), who ran a florid lifestyle piece in praise of southern-style rice congee. In this coldest winter in decades, the paper said, there is nothing else that can provide the warmth and consolation of southern-style congee. The allusion has been translated and in explained in depth by the China Media Project, but with “southern-style congee” sounding so much like “Southern Weekend” as it does in Mandarin, the meaning would have been clear enough to any Chinese reader paying attention. Which suggests that the censor responsible for that day’s Beijing News either wasn’t paying attention—or decided to let it through.

(Picture credit: Kai-Fu Lee, or 李开复, via Weibo)

« Google in China: Mr Kim, tear down that wall; Mr Xi, carry on