SCMP becomes the mouth-piece of China

[winnipegjets]

For lovers of a free press, one of the most refreshing things about arriving in Hong Kong after a prolonged stay on the mainland was the former British colony’s delightfully vibrant English-language newspaper culture. There were the Asian editions of the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, as well as the international New York Times and papers from Europe.

And then there was the South China Morning Post, the hometown English-language paper of Asia. It combined solid analysis of China and the region with gritty, hard-nosed reporting on Hong Kong itself. It was a great paper befitting a great world city, and Hong Kong was the better for it.

But now the SCMP has been snapped up by Jack Ma, the billionaire owner of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group, for a reported $266-million. Like Jeff Bezos, who bought the venerable Washington Post in 2013 with plans to expand the paper’s reach and turn it into a digital powerhouse, Mr. Ma has some noble goals for making the 112-year-old newspaper a global go-to destination for China-watchers. But he also wants to use it to counter what one Alibaba executive feels is the ideologically tainted coverage of the People’s Republic. In short, Alibaba wants to grow the SCMP while shrinking criticism of China’s government. Can it do both things simultaneously?

In Mr. Ma’s defence, billionaires of all nationalities gravitate toward newspaper ownership. And there is a slim chance that Mr. Ma’s beneficent injection of cash will make the SCMP more internationally relevant.

But it is far more likely that Mr. Ma’s investment will be a kiss of death, one that could sink the SCMP’s reputation for good. Long admired for coverage of China, the SCMP has become less relevant in recent years as alternate sources of China news proliferated. Under the current editor, Wang Xiangwei, SCMP staff have complained of censorship, many journalists have left the paper and there have been public protests accusing Mr. Wang – who was born in mainland China – of censoring coverage of Chinese dissidents to appease Beijing. A long-standing paywall – enabled in part by Hong Kong’s wealthy expatriates and a previous dearth of English-language competition in local news – has in recent years made the paper less relevant to younger, digitally savvy audiences.

Mr. Ma wants to tear down the paywall and make the paper more mobile-friendly. That, by itself, may make the SCMP more widely read. But the moves come in a drastically changed media environment. There is tons of vividly reported, accurate and trustworthy news about China online, and many Western news organizations have dramatically increased their coverage of, and staffing in, mainland China in recent years.

At the same time, how can readers trust an Alibaba-owned SCMP? Alibaba’s owner has courted China’s leaders and has benefited from their protectionist policies that hive off China’s technology, social media and e-commerce space from Western competition. Those same leaders direct censors to block any critical coverage of China, block news websites that feature controversial stories (including, at times, those by the SCMP) and lock away Chinese journalists or writers who voice dissent.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Ma’s move will be a blow to Hong Kong’s free press, which remains one of the core distinguishing features between Hong Kong and the mainland, particularly as many of the city’s residents (its tycoons notwithstanding) resist closer ties with Beijing. Other critical English-language news outlets, such as the digital startup Hong Kong Free Press, have complained that they face frequent cyberattacks. Many other news sites are explicitly blocked by Beijing’s censors.

It is impossible – both logically and morally – to divorce Mr. Ma’s purchase of the SCMP and his attempt to shape the grand narrative surrounding China’s rise from this broader political context, and it is even possible officials in Beijing knew of his plans in advance, if not tacitly supported his effort to buy the SCMP.

In the SCMP, Alibaba’s executive vice-chairman Joseph Tsai explained the new ownership will guarantee editorial freedoms. We will see about that. He also mused that Western journalists “may not agree with the system of governance in China and that taints their … coverage.” There is a sophisticated argument to make about political systems having their respective strengths and weaknesses, but his comments ring hollow coming from a Chinese corporation that receives praise from China’s rulers.

The worst one could say about the acquisition, though, is that it just sort of looks like a bad deal – interesting only for the mystique. China already has pro-Beijing English-language newspapers with digital presences, such as China Daily or Global Times. Neither of them are taken seriously precisely because they cannot be trusted. And nowhere is a revamped SCMP less likely to be trusted than in Hong Kong, which is forever wary of Beijing’s creeping influence.

Of course, Mr. Ma is smart enough to know all of this. His involvement may bleed the SCMP’s remaining audience in Hong Kong, while doing little to gain new digital readership. Perhaps that is what the savvy Mr. Ma is up to, and it would certainly look less malevolent to outsiders than simply buying it and shutting it down, which is likely what Chinese leaders would prefer. It doesn’t really matter. Beijing wins regardless.

 

[winnipegjets]

Another China's copying sinkapore style governance.

 

[VanHalen]

Due to the forum maximum 80 characters allowed for a thread title, i had to edit SCMP's lengthy long-winded heading.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Chinks are scums....need more proof?

 

[Reddog]

Chinks are scums....need more proof?

Singapore is a Chink controlled country. A very useful conduit for advanced western technology sent back to the motherland by Descendants of the Dragon. USA advanced military systems in Taiwan and Singapore are wonderful sources for such access by Chinks. Me a Chink. Hee Hee.

 

[yellowarse]

First, free press is an illusion. Second, all billionaires gravitate towards media ownership because that's where the big bucks are. Before Westerners decry Ma's ownership of SCMP, they should ask themselves whether the constant drivel churned out by the neo-Nazi Murdoch's Fox is any more credible than SCMP under Ma. If they're objective enough, it's a flat no; rather, it's a lot worse. People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.

That's why I never fought for a 'free press' in Singapore. All mass media are subject to the dictates of their owners/shareholders. All I'm asking for is a pluralistic press – let there be centrist, leftist, rightist papers representing all segments of the population. Let there be competition among the various media in the marketplace of ideas. Let consumers use their discriminative faculty to sift the wheat from the chaff, to decide what is and what's not propaganda.

 

[JohnTan]

What's free press? Ever seen a journalist dig dirt on their own editors or main advertisers?

 

[syed putra]

SCMP owned by chinese.........from Malaysia. so why no sell it to a pimp and proper chinaman?

 

[Asterix]

...... and our million dollar "talent" who was kicked out of Aljunied is now assisting the Cina Commies with mind control .......

As Machiavelli will say - follow the money! Sore-lee hor, it is my humble opinion that my place in society is put dumbfark miniSTARS like you in their proper place.

“Remember your place in society before you engage in political debate… Debate cannot generate into a free-for-all where no distinction is made between the senior and junior party… You must make distinctions – What is high, what is low, what is above, what is below, and then within this, we can have a debate, we can have a discussion… people should not take on those in authority as ‘equals’” – Former Foreign Minister George Yeo (1994)

Okay, here is what that farktard wrote on his boss' newspaper on 17th December 2015 trying to hoodwink Hongkies like it's so easy to bluff these people like he used to bluff dumbfark Sinkies:

Seeing China for what it is, warts and all, will help bridge the East-West gap

George Yeo says the world needs a more objective view of China and its unfolding transformation, and Alibaba, as SCMP’s new owner, should know that

One of the best-known English-language newspapers in Asia, the South China Morning Post, has been acquired by China’s internet giant Alibaba. That Alibaba bought this venerable newspaper, founded in 1903, has raised eyebrows, especially in the West. Some think that Alibaba needs the goodwill of the Chinese government, and will therefore sacrifice objective reporting to curry favour with Beijing. I see the acquisition from another angle.

In April, a senior journalist from a leading US newspaper emailed me for my views on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) following London’s decision to break ranks with the US. The AIIB, initiated by China, is a multilateral development bank with the aim of funding infrastructure projects. I replied that Washington was misreading Beijing’s proposal as a move against the United States. It should be viewed instead as an economic necessity because of Asia’s huge infrastructural needs. My reply was ignored, probably because it did not fit into a prevailing view of China’s intentions.

It is not unusual for the Western media to see China through the lenses of Western values – in other words, what China should be, rather than what China is. This is not good for either side, because it leads to misunderstanding and miscalculation. What Beijing does has to be assessed with China’s own history and culture in mind. For example, its “One Belt, One Road” strategy seeks to revive the old overland and maritime silk roads for the 21st century on the basis of historical experience. It is now being played out on an epic scale and has the potential to transform Eurasia. The China trade has ebbed and flowed with the rise and fall of China over the centuries. From that perspective, the Belt and Road initiative, which the AIIB will help finance, is not a new story at all.

The earlier China trades were based on the countries involved maintaining their own jurisdictions. In sharp contrast, the 19th-century China trade was different because it was imposed on China by gunboat diplomacy. The United Kingdom wrested Hong Kong from China after the First Opium War in 1842. After the Second Opium War in 1860, Western customs officials operating extraterritorially would inspect ships landing on major Chinese ports.

The idea behind the Belt and Road initiative is similar to that of the earlier China trades, and is analogous to the internet. Each country maintains its own internal operating system. Participants accept higher protocols (like trade rules, property rights, disputes settlement), enabling economic exchange to take place. Countries still influence each other but slowly, on the basis of persuasion and osmosis. This is not to say that military strength is not needed to protect trade routes. A larger peace is always a precondition but the dominant consideration is trade, not conquest or colonisation.

This non-interference in each other’s operating system has been a principle in China’s diplomacy over the centuries. When China launched free trade negotiations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2002, then premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基) said that China did not seek for itself an exclusive position in Southeast Asia. He added that the terms should be changed should the agreement lead to an imbalance in China’s favour. (I was present at the meeting in Phnom Penh when Zhu made those remarks.) At a recent summit meeting with African leaders in South Africa in December, President Xi Jinping (習近平) pledged US$60 billion of aid to African countries, emphasising that China would not interfere in Africa’s domestic politics.

Western observers are naturally sceptical of Zhu’s and Xi’s statements, often seeing China’s moves as being cynically self-serving and amoral, if not immoral. China’s moves are indeed self-serving. In Chinese statecraft, good relations must be based on mutual interest. Historical experiences have taught the Chinese that no good comes out of interfering in the internal affairs of others when China’s own interests are not affected.

China’s approach to interstate relations is conceptually different from that of the West, especially that of the US. The US, for example, sets for itself the goal to “convert” others to its democratic values. It is a missionary power in the way China is not.

It behoves the West, and indeed all the major powers, to analyse and understand China objectively – what I call its deep nature – and its attitude towards Hong Kong. Alibaba’s acquisition of the SCMP should be seen against the history of Hong Kong’s evolution from a British colony to a special administrative region of China. When Hong Kong was a British colony, the SCMP was the establishment newspaper reflecting London’s world view. Under the press tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who privatised the SCMP in 1987, the London world view became an Anglo-Saxon one. In 1993, Robert Kuok, an overseas Chinese from Southeast Asia, became the controlling shareholder. Coverage of China improved hugely. The world view of the SCMP became that of “one country, two systems” – the governing policy of Beijing towards Hong Kong – but from a local Hong Kong perspective. Owners exercise influence through leadership changes, not through editorial interference. The question is what kind of influence Alibaba owner Jack Ma will wield in the coming years. Pro-democracy demonstrators gathered outside the government headquarters building on September 28 to mark one year since the start of the Occupy Central rallies. It is crucial for Ma to respect the aspirations of Hongkongers under “one country, two systems”, especially as 2047 approaches.

After 1997, when Britain returned Hong Kong to China, the role of the SCMP in Hong Kong diminished in importance compared to local Chinese newspapers. Hong Kong government leaders are more concerned about coverage in the Chinese newspapers, which are read by the great majority of the city’s 7 million people. However, the SCMP’s importance to English readers in Hong Kong and beyond has grown because of its China coverage. It is today the best English-language newspaper in the world covering China. No other paper devotes more time and space in talking about China than the SCMP does, day in and day out; 70 per cent of its fast-growing digital readership is outside Hong Kong and China.

It is crucial for Ma to respect the aspirations of Hongkongers under “one country, two systems”, especially as 2047 approaches. The year is not too far in the future because, for business to flourish, land rights beyond 2047 must be clarified much earlier. “One country, two systems” today is based on the agreement between London and Beijing in 1984, that resulted in the Basic Law guaranteeing Hong Kong’s separate status for 50 years. What happens after that is a matter to be decided between Beijing and Hong Kong, or, more broadly, between the people of mainland China and the people of Hong Kong. Will Basic Law Version 2.0 be an improvement over Basic Law Version 1.0 or a diminution, or will it be completely withdrawn? As a newspaper with influence over an important segment of Hong Kong society, the SCMP’s world view has to internalise this existential challenge, which requires a clinically objective appraisal of China’s prospects in the coming decades.

This objective view of China makes the SCMP an important newspaper for English readers interested in following the dramatic transformation of China. For viewing China, Hong Kong lenses are less distorted than Western ones. If Ma interferes in the SCMP’s editorial policy, it will lose not only its relevance but also its economic value. Alibaba’s future is enmeshed in China’s future. It is in Alibaba’s interest – and in China’s – for the rest of the world to see China for what it is, warts and all, because what happens in China will affect all of us.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight...a-what-it-warts-and-all-will-help-bridge-east