How does the United States deal with those problems?  Here is a Harris Poll via WSJ.com:

Q: Do you think that the Bush administration generally provides accurate information regarding current issues or do you think they generally mislead the public on current issues to achieve its own end?

  Total Republican Democrat Independent
Generallly accurate 32% 68%   7% 25%
Generally misleading 64% 28% 91% 73%
Not sure/refused   4%   4%   2%   2%

Does anyone get into trouble for being "generally misleading?  Here is the latest amazing adventure by former FEMA director Michael Brown (The Guardian):

As director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, [Michael Brown] became a national joke soon after Katrina made landfall. As stories emerged of hellish conditions at evacuee shelters, and images of poor, mostly black citizens of New Orleans begging for food hit television screens, Mr Brown seemed eerily detached.

In television interviews the Fema director said he was unaware that hundreds of people were marooned at the New Orleans convention centre. "Don't you guys watch television?" the exasperated anchor asked.  ...  He was relieved of his managerial duties on September 9 and resigned three days later, barely a week after Mr Bush publicly praised him for doing a "heck of a job".

Mr Brown's reputation since has not been improved by the release of personal email by a congressional committee assessing the government's response to the hurricane. On August 26, as the hurricane bore down on the Louisiana coast, he emailed his press secretary, asking: "Tie or not for tonight? Button-down blue shirt?" The requests for wardrobe advice continued after Katrina hit the coast.

Michael Brown, the bureaucrat who headed America's response to Hurricane Katrina and himself became a symbol of man-made calamity, is going into the disaster management business. He is setting up as a consultant, marketing his expertise on coping with catastrophe - natural and self-made.  "Look, Hurricane Katrina showed how bad disasters can be, and there's an incredible need for individuals and businesses to understand how important preparedness is," Mr Brown told the Rocky Mountain News.

A respected Japanese scientist, who works with the World Health Organization, says 300 people have died of H5N1 bird flu in China, including seven cases caused by human-to-human transmission.  He says he was given the information in confidence by Chinese colleagues who have been threatened with arrest if they disclosed the extent of the problem. 

Masato Tashiro, head of virology at Tokyo’s National Institute of Infectious Disease – a WHO-collaborating centre for bird flu – told the meeting of virologists in Marburg, Germany, on 19 November that “we have been systematically deceived”. His comments were reported in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.  He told the stunned meeting, called to mark the retirement of a senior German virologist, that there have been “several dozen” outbreaks in people, 300 confirmed deaths and 3000 people placed in isolation with suspected cases.

In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung via ProMED-mail, the quote was:

Dr. Masato Tashiro, a Japanese WHO consultant, believes that China has had 300 human deaths from avian influenza and is hiding the true extent of the disease from the rest of the world. Dr. Masato Tashiro, Director of the WHO Collaborating Center on Influenza at the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, and head of the Department of Virology of the National Institute of Infectious Disease (Japan), astonished colleagues with this information.

In turn, Masato Tashiro posted a response at ProMED-mail:

I am surprised to read the report in ProMED-mail, Avian influenza,human - East Asia (180): China, RFI [part 1] {archive number 20051123.3399).  

First of all, it is not correct. Therefore, I would ask you to correct it.

In my presentation at the meeting in Marburg, I stated that WHO's official numbers of H5N1 human cases are only based on laboratory confirmed cases. It should be therefore an iceberg phenomenon. Due to poorly organized surveillance and information sharing systems in many affected countries including China, it is reasonable to consider that more cases have occurred actually. We have heard many 'rumors' or unauthorized information which we cannot confirm. In this context, I talked about a few examples of non-authorized information and rumors about Asian countries which I received through private channels. I clarified that I do not know the original sources and I cannot confirm whether they are true, how these numbers were derived and what laboratory tests and epidemiological investigation were done.

What 300 hundred deaths?  You have already read all about it here at EastSouthWestNorth on November 15, 2005 at The 'True' Statistics About Avian Flu In China.  If you tally up the number of deaths in the statistical table, the total is 310.  Those were the '300 hundred deaths.'  As I pointed out in that post, this is totally unverified and unconfirmed, and I suggest that any reader can fake any set of numbers, send it to the same channel and it will be published.

Here the chain of custody: Unverified Chinese web posting (at Boxun) of a statistical table that did not even look good; an off-hand mention by a scientist as an example of unverified data; report by a mainstream newspaper; magnification by a popular scientific journal; prominent publicity from Boxun as proof that an experts support the 300 deaths figure (see Boxun); an angry denial from the scientist.  The only remaining question is whether Boxun will publish the denial and identify the data source (namely, itself) and explain why scientists would find it inadequate.

EastSouthWestNorth is a breath of fresh air. Looking for Chinese news in English is pretty frustrating. There is Xinhua, the CPC mouthpiece, and it's outlets like the China Daily. The fluffy Beijing Today isn't much better, geared more towards vapid expats. For an interesting take on China from a Chinese perspective, EastSouthNorthWest translates news from independent Chinese sources to give a picture of China inaccessible to the foreign ear. Everything from religious and press freedom to magical man tubers is covered.

“How sad,” [Venezuela president Hugo Chávez]  told the viewers of his weekly chat with Venezuela’s popular classes, Alo Presidente, “that the president of a people like the people of Mexico [a nod to Villa’s virility] lets himself become the cachorro of the empire.” Fox demanded an immediate apology, Chávez refused, ambassadors were pulled and here we are.

I leave the word cachorro in Spanish because it is subject to competing translations. The English-language press, firmly backed by all the Spanish-English dictionaries, goes with “puppy.” Nothing wrong with that except that it loses the fine sense of insider irony and political association that Chávez’s remark contains. I’ll go with “running dog.”

Those of you who remember the late Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung only for his brutal sweeping of all suffering humanity into his version of the ineluctable logic of history may not remember that Chairman Mao also had a way with words, one of which was zougou, “running dog.” My online English dictionary defines running dog thus: “noun: A servile follower; lackey; from Chinese zougou, from zou (running) + gou (dog), apparently as an allusion to a dog running to follow his or her master's commands.”

Back in the days of the Chairman’s outsized global influence, the term zougou was used to characterize his enemies, as well as the enemies of the Revolution. It was always translated as “running dog” in English but simply cachorro in Spanish. Over time, it was so widely and indiscriminately used that it became subject to a certain nuanced style of mockery and inverted meaning.

There is a delightfully sardonic oppositional (English-language) Chinese Website by that name whose commentaries suggest that Running Dogs who call themselves Running Dogs acknowledge both an unwillingness and an inability to carry out their prescribed roles in a set of authoritarian relationships ...

Yes, we live in a globalized world in which some comment on Mexico-Venezuela politics could refer to a blogger in China ...

For comparison, there is one and only post at The Water Crisis in Harbin.  It is a collection of government announcements, overseas website reports, local BBS posts and email from local observers coming in English or translated from Chinese.  This is precisely the type of event that western media find it difficult to cover: a complicated sequence of events with twists and turns over many days.  Any report must summarize the preceding events, and therefore the depth of coverage is shallower overall.  As time goes by, the summaries get more brief.
 
By comparison, the ESWN blog post has no spatio-temporal limitations and continues to accumulate the information.  There is also no attempt to impose a single thesis about what happened; instead, disparate and contradictory factoids are presented from different sides for the readers to draw their own conclusions.  And this is what attracts the people who want to know more.  You can click through everything above, and I think that you will decide that a blog is better at it.  You can really get that sense of confusion, panic, betrayal and disappointment.

I never thought that I would be able to sneak into the church.

Although my alarm was set for 6am, I woke up at 5am.  I only slept for three hours.  I thought that it would be better if I get there earlier.  I ate some congee, I took my camera and I headed for a Sunday mass with Comrade Bush.

On the way, I saw the police cars heading towrds that direction.  It was truly first-class police action.  When I arrived at the church, there was a bunch of believers lining up to enter.  I joined the queue.  An old man behind me was a f*cking nuisance because he called out, "This man does not have a bible in his hand."  F*ck!  What does it matter if I didn't have a f*cking bible!  So I switched to a different line and I started to talk to the other believers with my limited knowlege of Christianity.

I entered successfully and I went up to the security.  They said, "No cameras."  I had to find a place to leave my belongings.  I went over to the command center of the Americans and I wanted to leave my stuff there.  The American siad, "NO!"  I said, "I am a reporter.  I want to leave my stuff here for a while." I showed my reporter's identification card.  But suddenly, a Chinese traitor (汉奸) showed up and said that no Chinese reporters shall be allowed to enter.  F*ck!  It was all screwed up by this Chinese traitor!  "You must leave!"  So I went out of the door.  I found a place, I left my stuff there and I told the attendant, "I'll come back later for this."  F*ck!  I left more than 20,000 yuan of equipment there.  I am f*cking gutsy!

Then I got back to the end of the queue.  I entered the church.  I sat in the middle.  I have not sang with so many other people for a while.  Ever since junior high school, I have not had music training.  I am not so lucky as these Beijing children.  I sat next to a 12-year-old, who was baptised at 10.  His mother works in the church and so this was a family gig.

At 730am, Bush arrived.  Very much on time.  He was nicely dressed.  He is a sleazy person, but he looks nice and clean when well-dressed.  His wife was dressed in light-brown colors, her ears were shining and quite impressive.  When Bush entered, he said, "Morning everyone!"  An American politician!  Everybody paid him respect and replied.  Rice was also there.  She was not as ugly as seen on television.  She even looked good, and that is not bad for a black person.

Then we sat down and sang.  I must be talented because I could sing without having learned the songs.  These are the same old hymns with some new verses.  It was easy.  My voice was especially loud and moving and I looked sincere, and that convinced the believers around me that I must have been around for years.

That little boy was naughty, as he played my PALM all the time and did not sing.  But I used his bible for disguise.  When Bush sang, his head bobbed and weaved and he was really into it.

When Bush left, he shook hands with the believers on both sides.  The people kept clapping.  I have seen this type of scene often enough.  When Lian Chen came and when Li Ao came, the Chinese people who have been devoid of political experiences and whose desire to express themselves have been suppressed too long therefore felt excited when they see political figures show off.

I was sitting in the middle, so I felt too embarrassed to rush forward.  So I shoved the little boy to move forward to shake Bush's hand.  When Bush saw the little boy, he was delighted.  He went up, grabbed the boy and spoke the very officious "Thank you."  Although he had the sincere look, he said nothing more.  So my plan failed.

"His hand was very hairy," the little boy yelled out to me in delight!


Reuters Photo:  Where are the reporter and the little boy?

How was Mr. Tan located?  Probably either through the real-name registration system or information provided by Shenzhen Hotline on the IP number which was traced through the Internet service provider.  I'll leave you to decide whether Mr. Tan (and Mr. Huang)'s rights to privacy were violated.  Do you really defend their inalienable right to spread unfounded rumors to cause public panic?  And should Shenzhen Hotline and the ISP have refused to cooperate with the police?

Premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) and independent Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) yesterday continued bickering over whether Hsieh had mentioned "the empress (皇帝娘)" -- referring to first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) -- during a phone conversation with Chiu.

"I swear. If Hsieh never said so, as he claimed, I will immediately resign. Also, if I'm lying, I will be struck and killed by a car once I step out of this door. However, if he is lying, I think the premier should step down," Chiu said.

Chiu was not hit by a car yesterday.

There were quite a few more of those in this duel.  (ET News)  Chiu Yi swore that if he lied, then may the whole family perish.  When told by reporters, Frank Hsieh laughed and said, "I've seen an Internet joke about this.  The whole family refers to the reporter's family.  His own family is going to live until they are a hundred years old.  He is taking advantage of the reporter."  Frank Hsieh goes on to question the definition of Chiu's family: does that include his two divorced wives?  And Chiu also does not have the right to ask other people to die.  "If Chiu Yi wants to swear, he should swear that he will lose every election, lose all his assets and die a horrible death."

(BCC)  Here is what Chiu Yi said: "如果謝長廷沒有說『皇帝娘』，而我冤枉他的話，我出去馬上被車撞死，橫屍街頭！說謊的人就給車撞死，謝先生你聽到了嗎？" (translation: If Frank Hsieh did not say 'the empress' and I misspoke, let me run over by a car as soon as I step outside and let my body lie in the street!  Let the liar be killed by a car.  Can you hear me, Mr. Hsieh?")  So it should be noted as well that Frank Hsieh was not hit by a car yesterday.

(TVBS)  This matter yet go the path of a lawsuit.  History showed that Frank Hsieh had sued Chiu Yi six times before and lost each time.  But Hsieh's legal bill was paid by the city of Kaohsiung where he was mayor, whereas Chiu spent NT$400,000 of his own money for those cases.

Some friends recently asked me why I hadn't set up a blog, you know, a personal Web site that a lot of folks these days use as a diary or to advocate a political viewpoint. I admit that I've entertained the thought of setting up a blog, usually when I'm ranting at TV newscasts or shouting about something I've seen in the day's newspaper. And as I get older, I realize that my opinions have gotten stronger, even if my journalistic experiences have become less varied.

Before I had children, I was the kind of run-and-gun journalist who lived for adventure--riots, earthquakes, forest fires, you name it. If it was jumping off within a thousand miles of me, I was there. But one of the biggest lessons I took away from the many years I've spent in newsrooms is this: Without editors, you are dead, specifically without a copy desk. You might as well be standing in your living room, ranting away, facts be damned.

That brings me back to my point about blogs. Not all blog readers know the difference between pure unfiltered, unedited opinion and good old-fashioned solidly reported news. Yes, I know that bloggers lately have been credited with everything from drumming up mainstream media interest in the overlooked plight of missing black and Latino women to exposing any number of government hacks and mischief-makers. But much of what appears on many blogs is speculation, however well-informed.

At Huffington Post, Marty Kaplan wrote on Journalism: R.I.P.:

Mainstream journalism has cancer. The diagnosis – stage three, terminal – was made this week, by anyone with eyes to see ...

If the Judy Miller saga left anyone wondering what high-church journalism’s standards are about sourcing, confidentiality, and citizen responsibility, the Bob Woodward tale now makes it clear: They make the rules up as they go along. Guidelines and handbooks are for rookies and chumps. If you’re a diva, if you’re working on a book, if you don’t feel like being served with a subpoena, if you think you know better, if don’t want to piss off a source – well, then, you do what you damn well please. It turns out that investigative reporters have the same right to clam up or spin when journalists ask them questions as do White House press secretaries, oil barons or starlets.

We also know now that the MSM is largely useless for adjudicating between conflicting claims and establishing what the facts are. The Bush/Cheney onslaught against its critics is being covered lavishly – but only as theater. Look at the Democrats cry “manipulation”! Look at the Republicans cry “treason”! A war is at stake. The nation’s reputation around the world is at stake. Lives hang in the balance. And all the media can do is cover tactics, politics, the melodrama of thrust-and-parry. The rare reporters who have attempted to create a useful scorecard are battling their weasel-minded editors’ insistence on a bizarre postmodern notion of balance. You know the CYA drill: if you say a good word about Darwin, ya gotta juxtapose it with some intelligent design whackball’s counterquote; if you say Cheney lied about the Saddam connection to 9/11, you’ve still got to dredge up every nutjob’s assertion that the Atta meeting in Prague can’t be disproved.

... What does it say about the news profession when most of the voices determined to ensure accuracy are onliners working without benefit of staffs below them, editors above them, or brand-name seals of approval from the priesthood?

"The government is trying to amend the law to ban adjectives on cigarette packets that imply a brand is less harmful to health than others.  Japan Tobacco has been selling its Mild Seven cigarettes in Hong Kong for 20 years ... 

The company commissioned a survey of 1,026 people, both smokers and non-smokers. It said 98 per cent of respondents to the question "What does the English brand name 'Mild Seven' mean to you about the cigarettes?" said the words were unrelated to health.  

Ronald Hinckley, president of Research/Strategy/Management, a US-based research company, said: "These results clearly show the brand name Mild Seven does not create the impression that the cigarettes are less harmful than others."  

But medical sector legislator Kwok Ka-ki dismissed the survey. "This is a study carried out or paid for by the company. It cannot prove to us that it is unbiased," he said.

How different will the survey answers be if the question was just slightly different, as in "What comes to your mind immediately when you hear/see the English cigarette brand name 'Mild Seven'?"

I know that Japan Tobacco wants to save a brand name whose equity was carefully built up over many decades.  But the brand was probably named 'Mild Seven' for precisely the reasons behind the proposed government law amendment (i.e. to imply a brand is less harmful than others, as in a 'milder' version of 'Lucky Strike' (='Lucky Seven')).  There should not be a grandfather clause to protect that.

This study compared patterns of sexual behaviour and determinants of unsafe sexual behaviours amongst the Chinese and non-Chinese residents of Hong Kong. Of the 2,060 respondents (2060/4157; 50% response rate), 73% identified themselves as being ethnic Chinese. 

Overall, having a non-regular partner was more common amongst the non-Chinese (36%) than the Chinese (17%) respondents. 

Chinese people who were at increased risk of having had sex with a non-regular partner included social hygiene clinic attendees and airport travellers, males and ever smokers. For non-Chinese this was inconsistent condom use and being aged 18–45. 

Predictors of inconsistent condom use for Chinese included being aged 18–45, never having been married, and having had sex with non-regular partners; for non-Chinese the predictors were being aged 18–45, having had sex with non-regular partners and being unafraid of AIDS. 

We conclude that there are similarities and differences in sexual risk-taking behaviours between Chinese and non-Chinese residents in Hong Kong.

Ming Pao also quoted that AIDS Care has targeted these groups: male homosexuals, truck drivers who go between Hong Kong and China, youth and patrons of prostitutes.  On a technical note, it is hard to see how a 50% response rate from a representative sample could result in only 73% ethnic Chinese.  There must be something special about how the sample was selected.

President Hu persisted in his decision about Hu Yaobang's birthday even though four of the nine members of the party Politburo's standing committee, the top ruling body, expressed concern that the move could threaten stability, said people who had been told about the debate.  The four, one of whom was Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, were said to have different reasons for their opposition. But all were said to have argued that the move could risk giving people the idea that the circumstances surrounding the 1989 demonstrations, which the party has condemned as an antigovernment plot, might be open for discussion.  

Opposition to the commemoration was first reported earlier this month by Open, a political magazine based in Hong Kong, and was confirmed by people close to the late leader's family.  President Hu is said to have overruled the objections and ordered the commemoration to proceed, arguing that while students may have invoked the late Mr. Hu's name when their protests began, the former leader had no responsibility for the demonstrations.

True or not, here is what was reported in Yazhou Zhoukan (November 20, 2005 issue) in a very different reporting style.  This alternative version is interesting because you can learn a lot about management effectiveness by a careful reading.

When the subject was brought up at the meeting of the Poliburo Standing Committee, Huang Ju, Li CHangchun and Luo Gan brought up: "We can commemorate Hu Yaobang.  What about June 4th then?"  Wen Jiabao brought up: "What about Zhao Ziyang?"

Hu Jintao said: "Let us not talk about June 4th for the moment.  Please give us your individual opinions on Comrade Hu Yaobang first."

Huang Ju and others: "We did not have dealings with Comrade Hu Yaogang.  We have no opinion."

Hu Jintao said: "Since there are no opinions, then we should do it."  With respect to Wen's issue about Zhao Ziyang, Hu Jintao said: "Comrade Hu Yaobang passed away 16 years ago.  Zhao Ziyang just passed away.  We can let it go for now and talk about it later."

The nine members of the Poliburo Standing Committee signed their names on the document to indicate their agreement about the memorial rite.

Wasn't that deftly done by Hu Jintao?  He brought up the subject of Hu Yaobang and asked for opinion.  People mentioned June 4th and Zhao Ziyang.  He refused to be sidetracked and forced everyone to state their positions with respect to Hu Yaobang.  When no one had anything bad to say, it was a done deal by itself.  Then he looped back and deferred debate on the other issues. Very slick, indeed.  It should go right into the Harvard MBA management case studies.

I use "true or not" because the proceedings would have to be leaked by one or more of the attendees or perhaps a record-taker.  These people are not known to be in the habit of leaking information, and it would have to be really 'leaking state secrets.'

There is a 'petition village' near South Station in Beijing, and it is no secret.  No matter what the reasons why the people there want to seek justice via petitioning, there is no doubt that they are the most socially vulnerable group.  From the first day that they decided to petition, they have lost their source of livelihood, even their families, houses and all basic necessities.  The implication of petitioning is that they have lost all legal protection.

The winter in Beijing is bitterly cold, and it is even colder for those people who have no suitable shelter, no adequate source of warmth, no food and no basic medicine.  I recall that the temperature in Beijing reached record lows in 2003.  When the first winter snows came, seven corpses were found in this spontaneously formed village.  Those people did not obtain the justice that they hoped for, and I don't know if they found peace in the other world.

Between the end of December in 2003 through January of 2004, some ordinary netizens such as ourselves pleaded for help from everybody to give those people some human warmth in the severely cold season.  The result was astonishing: netizens from around the country sent through the mail: clothing, medicine and food and we had to get a vehicle from a moving company to get everything down to the petition village.  On Lunar New Year's Eve, the Beijing netizens donated enough materiel that it required two bread vans to cart everything away.  According to what I know, some petition village people relied on these donations to survive that winter.

Winter will be arriving in Beijing soon.  Although the national government has tried to improve the conditions for petitioning, there are still a lot of people staying there.  As individuals, we do not want to discuss the pros and cons of the policies, and we do not want to discuss the reasons why people have to petition.  We only want to invoke the most basic humanitarian spirit to ask our Internet friends: give them piece of clothing that you don't wear anymore, give them a common medicine or food item, and let them feel some warmth during this Beijing winter.

We know that we quarrel with each other unceasingly on the Internet, but in our hearts we care about this worlds.  A friend said: act and bring about change.  So be it.  At this moment, let us put aside our quarrels and clashes: act and bring a little bit of change to his world.

[Details of donation follow]

This post appeared on November 13 11:16:00.  By November 15 23:56, it had been seen by 14,765 netizens with 551 comments.

News about the virus often takes a detour to reach domestic audiences: it is first covered by foreign media, and then picked up by domestic press. Journalists sent to infected areas also say that local officials have not been cooperative enough.

For example, the government briefed the OIE on October 24 about infections in Anhui and Hunan, yet the news first ran exclusively in the Farmers’ Daily, on pages 2 and 4, over the next two days. On the newspaper’s Web site, the items were not even posted. Only after the Foreign Ministry spokesman and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government Web site confirmed the infections, and foreign media had widely reported on them, did the official Xinhua News Agency get the word out on a broad scale domestically.

The mysterious death of a 12-year-old girl in Xiangtan, Hunan, also appeared first in the overseas press. Official domestic media did not run the news until after Beijing notified the WHO of her death, and sent a taskforce to Hunan to investigate. When other domestic press, including Caijing, sent journalists to Xiangtan, they met many obstacles in gaining access to the case. 

So how did Ming Pao come up with something like this on October 27: "An anonymous Hunan province health official said that the girl and boy both tested negative for the avian flu virus ..."  What is so special about Ming Pao that a health official would talk to them and not Chinese media?

The long translation of Chu Hoi-dick's Criticizing the Hong Kong Media from InMediaHK offers a clever (but also pathetically sad) possibility about Hong Kong reporters on the China beat:

There are several admirable China section colleagues.  There are only a few of them, and they have to gather information from Hong Kong.  So they have to resort to lying a lot of times.  They may call up a certain government office and speak with a Beijing accent.  When the other party asks who they are, they may claim to be from Beijing Youth Daily, Guangzhou Daily or Southern Metropolis Daily.  Their fluent language can fool a lot of people.  Sometimes a major incident breaks out somewhere and they know enough to call up people randomly in the vicinity for information.  One time, a reporter was arrested by the public security bureau, but he talked his way out with the director and they even became friends.

That does not mean that the foreign media always get it right.  This methodology is premised on lying to get what you want and you should not be surprised that people lie to you as a result and you cannot verify what you were told.  For example, the business about the pigs with avian flu virus appears to have vanished, but it need not have occurred at all if the transparency was there to begin with.

(SCMP)  The strength of the case for universal suffrage in Hong Kong should not be judged by the turnout for next month's pro-democracy march, former governor Chris Patten said as he bade farewell to the city yesterday.  "Certainly it is very unlikely the turnout will be the same as for the marches over Article 23," Lord Patten said, referring to the shelved national security law.  Half a million people took to the streets in Hong Kong two years ago, forcing the government to drop the proposed legislation.  "[It will be] unwise, either for Beijing advisers to think that you can judge the case for democracy on numbers, or for those who actually organise the demonstration," he said. 

(The Standard)  The democratic aspirations of Hong Kong should not be judged by the numbers who turn out at the planned December 4 rally, former governor Chris Patten has said.  While predicting that next month's rally is "very unlikely" to have a similar turnout as the historic July 1 protest where an estimated 500,000 took to the streets in 2003, Patten said in an interview with Cable TV Sunday it will be "unwise for Beijing advisers to think that you can judge the case of democracy on the number of supporters."

There are two things that the demonstration organizers should do.  One, do not set up a target to define success/failure.  Already the government has put up an estimate between 50,000 and 100,000.  Do not take the bait.  In a previous comment, I argued for using public opinion polls instead because it has the highest support level (consistently around 60% for direct elections).  The demonstration is just a reminder of that level of support, not the quantitative proof.

Two, do not fool around with the number of demonstrators as they did on July 1, 2004 and 2005 (see comment again).  If you fool around with the number again, the entire project gets kidnapped and you have to fight the academic researchers and you will lose once again.