Why do users today go to Baidu Post and Tianya?
 
If you watch carefully, you will note that the loyal users of Baidu Post or Tianya go there basically "every day" to "hang around."  Within this group, the majority of them never post a single word.  They are purely "submariners" who read the posts (More people post at Baidu Post than Tianya because the product characteristic there encourage users to post).
 
How can so many "submarine" users still result in the high stickiness?  Based upon prior experience, we say that the user want to chase away their bordeom: "No matter what their educational level is, the young Chinese netizens do only one thing -- they get together and they chat.  At Tianya, Baidu and Touban, Chinese netizens do the same thing -- they get together and they chat."  But this idea is only half right.  "Getting together and chatting" can explain the "small groups" at Touban.  But over at Baidu Post and Tianya, this can only explain the small minority of "keyboard-active" users.  For the many more "submarine" users, they don't say anything and so they cannot be "chatting."
 
The loyal but silent users at Baidu Post and Tianya go there ever day in order to read the "non-official news"; especially the "non-official" social and entertainment news.  That is to say, Baidu Post and Tianya are news websites for the many loyal but silent uers.  Everybody needs to know the news every day, and that explains why Baidu Post and Tianya are so "red-hot popular" now.
 
This also explained why the large BBS communities are so popular on the Chinese Internet.  In the western world, the traditional media are strong and powerful and they can satisfy the basic needs of the people for news.  In China, for reasons that we all know about, the people hold a delicate attitude towards official news.  Therefore, when they are unsatisfied with official news, they get the rest from the BBS's.  It is the strong need of the users for news that may those BBS communities so popular.

After sorting through this point, then the fact is that Baidu Post and Tianya are competitors against each other . These two websites are the major "unofficial" news portals, just as there are four "official news portals (Sina.com, Sohu.com, QQ and NetEase).  Interestingly, Baidu Post and Tianya have specific strengths.  Baidu Post is stronger in unofficial entertainment news while Tianya is stronger in unofficial social news.  In the competition between the two, each has to maximize their strengths while improving their weaknesses.

For Baidu Post, the key is the front page because it is presently not being attended to.  The product model of Baidu Post makes its front page even more important than at other BBS's.  In other words, the Baidu Post users need more "guidance" in order to popular spots, especially about social news.

For Tianyu, the key is to "get more servers."  Tianya does not lack anything else, but it needs more servers.

Hong Kong's major newspapers last week gave prominent coverage to how Chinese President Hu Jintao shook the hand of Donald Tsang — who's heavily favoured to be Hong Kong's next leader, or chief executive.  The papers were all looking for signs of an official anointment when the men locked hands on Monday in Beijing.

"Donald Tsang shakes hands with Hu Jintao for 11 seconds," the mass-market Apple Daily said in a headline.  Ming Pao Daily News put the timing at 10 seconds, adding that "other leaders were very affectionate toward Donald Tsang".  ... Apple Daily pointed out Tsang's Monday handshake with Hu was five seconds longer than their handshake in Macau in December, before Tsang emerged as a likely candidate for Hong Kong leader.

The handshake analysis isn't that far-fetched.  Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin apparently sought out Tung Chee-hwa in a large group for a public handshake before he became Hong Kong's first leader after Britain gave it back to China in 1997.  TV news reports have been replaying the footage of Jiang zeroing in on Tung in the large crowd.  The South China Morning Post noted that while the Hu-Tsang 11-second handshake was "impressive", Hu still gave Tsang two seconds fewer than Hong Kong businesswoman Pansy Ho, daughter of Macau casino tycoon Stanley Ho.

Forget it!  The record has been broken (6park)

At the third Cross-Strait Economic, Trade and Cultural forum, Chinese Communist Party Secretary-General Hu Jintao shook hards with Taiwan's Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou for more than 22 seconds.

Afterwards, Terry Gou was showered with questions from the media.  "Little Ling is getting married.  How do you feel?" and "You spoke with Chairman Hu Jintao for a long time.  What did you talk about?"  Terry Gou parried off the questions with remarks such as "I need to use the bathroom" and "I have a meeting to attend." 

The number of "mass incidents"... is probably one of the most abused (by journalists seeking to prove a point as well as government officials trying to do the same thing), squishiest numbers in China, a subject on which Roland Soong of EastSouthWestNorth blog wrote the definitive analysis.

At this point, I wish to interject and dispel the notion that mainstream western correspondents based in China are either lazy copy-and-paste hacks or agenda-driven sabotage agents who have no qualms about abusing numbers.  I wish to address the question of the origin of that so-called 'definitive' post.  
 
Before that post appeared, I had been sniping at those statistics (see Mass Incidents in China, 1/20/2006) and complaining that I don't understand the meaning of the 74,000 or 87,000 which is quoted so often by foreign correspondents.   In November 2006, I had an in-person meeting with a worker for a major media outlet and I put the question to him directly: "What is the deal with this story?  How can it be?  Why is this being recycled all the time when it is dubious?"  This person gave me a detailed explanation about the exact origin (including the precise event, the names of the persons/organizations involved, the unfolding of events and the revelant research afterwards).  I was astonished.  I asked (naively): "So why can't you write a report to rectify the impression?"  The response was that in view of the audience market of this particular western media outlet, there was no way that such a complex and convoluted story could ever be published.  Then this person turned it around and said, "But you can write something about it!"  At that point, I really did not have a choice.  Right?
 
Subsequently, I received a list of the major documents (e.g. the definitions for mass incidents/public disturbances from Ningxia, Jiangsu and the People's Republic of China Code of Criminal Law) that this western media outlet had found from its research efforts.  I wrote the original post and then my informant made some significant corrections.  The final result is that so-called 'definitive analysis.'  
 
This end product is still unsatisfactory to me, because I didn't think that I had reached closure.  I was less interested in the description of the historical process than the 'true' number, which remains shielded.  In any case, I wish to point out here that the project was made possible by a member of the western mainstream media.  At a minimum, one of them is not a hack/saboteur.  Austin Ramzy is the second one.  Of course, there are many more (unless you are of those who keep quoting the 87,000 number for 'mass incidents'!).

The reporter asked a couple of people who were chatting on a bench.  "Who are the three people holding the American money?"  One of them said, "Aren't these The Worker, The Peasant and the Soldier?"  The other person quickly added, "The Worker, the Peasant and the Soldier are trying to make money nowadays."

On the western wall, there are three "flood-flighting warriors" wearing orange life-saving vests raising fistfuls of foreign currency bills (British pounds or whatever)?

On the eastern wall, there are five or six heroic looking men and women holding money bills and bags of cash in their hands.

An official in charge of reviewing outdoor advertisements told the reporter that these boards were submitted for review but had not been approved.  "I remember the one about The Worker, The Peasant and the Soldier.  How can this possibly be approved?  The Worker, The Peasant and the Soldier were the product of a particular era.  They were known for holding Mao's Red Book in their hands.  How can that be switched for money bills and bags?  This is too mocking!"

The reporter found the ad designer, who said: "The design was based upon the needs of the developer and the conditions in the local market.  The local consumers has to remember it.  Why the money (including American money)?  Investing in commercial shops is about earning money!  The ad tries to convince consumers that investing in the shops will earn money!  The revolutionary martyrs and the flood-fighting warriors?  That is what you think, because my ads do not indicate who those people are.  One can only feel and sense these things, because it is impossible to explain clearly.  The ads use drawings and color to provide a sense of beauty."

Do you accept the proposed route for the Olympic torch for the 2008 Beijing Olympics?
50% yes
16% no
35% don't know

By party affiliation, 84% support by pan-blues, 33% support (and 48% oppose) by pan-greens and 48% support (15% oppose) by independents.
 
Should Taiwan participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics?
70% yes
  5% no
 
Are you concerned that China will use the Beijing Olympics to pressure Taiwan?
30% yes
57% no

(Apple Daily)  (former Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee information group director Lin Yung-fu)

... Frankly speaking, outsiders are clueless about the history of the several decades of disputes between the sides of the strait.  During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, I met many European, American and African athletes and coaches and more than 90% of these foreigners do not understand why Chinese Taipei and China have different Olympic Committees, or why Chinese Taipei is used instead of Taiwan.  The International Olympic Committee is tired of the "troublemakers" who continued to create political bickering.

When I was working for the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee in 1998, I met IOC chairman Juan Samaranch who said something that impressed me.  He said, "It was a huge concession for Taiwan to be able to participate in the Olympics (note: he was referring to the 1981 agreement with the IOC in which Taiwan agreed to use "Chinese Taipei"."  This meant that he was hoping the two sides would cease interfering with sports with politics.  

... Whether to reject the presence of the Olympic torch in Taiwan or not is no big deal, because this is just a prelude for the Olympic Games and not the games themselves.  I am worried that the government leaders will refuse to send representatives to the Beijing Olympics in consideration of the presidential election?  This action may cause the IOC to exclude Taiwan outside of the international Olympic family and lose the ability to participate in all future international sports competition.  That will mean the loss of a apolitical international stage ...

(Apple Daily)

According to Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee Secretary-General Chen Kuo-yi, since February 12, the Chinese authorities have used the term "China Taipei" to refer to Taiwan.  The Chinese media have also used "China Taipei" to refer to Taiwan.  "We obviously feel suppressed by the other side whose attempt to lower the stature of Taiwan is obvious.  After communication failed to achieve any effect, we made the decision not to accept the Olympic torch on April 23."

(ETTV via ChineseNewsNet)

President Chen Shui-bian explained that at the Tokyo Olympics, the Olympic torch came from some other country (not China) and left for another county (not China).  Therefore, Taiwan will not be lowered in stature this time.

What if the IOC bans Taiwan from participating if they refuse to let the Olympic torch pass through?  Premier Su Tseng-chang said that Taiwan must not lose its national stature.  Su said that he can accept the use of "Chinese Taipei" to attend the Beijing Olympics because this had been previously agreed upon.  But "China Taipei" would damage sovereignty and lower the national stature.  If the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee were to use the name "China Taipei," Su said firmly that Taiwan "will not participate and will not accept."

[in translation]

The Olympic torch incident occurred right at the moment of the primary election of the Democratic Progressive Party.  What had been 50% political has now become 100% political.  What can one say?

China's arrangment of the Olympic torch route was tricky.  From Japan, it goes to South Korean and then to North Korea.  From North Korea, it goes south to Vietnam while bypassing Taiwan.  From Vietnam, it goes back north to Taiwan.  Then it goes to Hong Kong, Macau and then China.  Any route designed by a mentally normal person would go Japan->South Korea->North Korea->Taiwan->Vietnam->Hong Kong->Macau-China.  This is the least economically wasteful route and it is also basic knowledge in Euclidean geometry (namely, the shortest distance between two points on a plane is a straightline).  There was no reason to circle around.  In China, everything is about politics.  If the route goes from Taiwan to Hong Kong to Macau to China, then it shows that Taiwan and Hong Kong are part of China.  This is the same old trick by China, and so it is no wonder that the Democratic Progressive Party (which is in the midst of a primary presidential election) refused to go along because they are afraid of being cursed out by the deep-green voters.

The Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Communist Party are political animals and they know all about each other's tricks.  There will be one casualty in the battle of the DPP election and the Olympic torch.  Either China compromises and restore the route to the logical one: North Korea->Taiwan->Vietnam->Hong Kong->Macau->China, or else the Olympic torch will bypass Taiwan.  Prometheus stole fire from the heavens in order to save mankind, but apparently with the exception of Taiwan.  The ancient Greek Olympic flame has been polluted by Chinese politics to serve "One China."  What do the gods of Olympus think about the debasement of the sacred fire?

Even so, it is necessary to figure out what went wrong.  How come the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee signed an agreement in March in Beijing to agree with this route and then our government changed its mind in the end and rejected the route?  As a result, CTOC chairman Tsai Chen-wei is being condemned from all sides.  China even brought out the signed agreement to cause Taiwan to become known internationally for betrayal of confidence.  There is undoubtedly an impact on the presidential primary election in Taiwan.  It is also possible that the Chen Shui-bian administration wants to use the Olympics to explain the differences and conflicts between Taiwan and China to the international community, including their current situation and the desire for independence.  Thus, they rejected the route that they originally accepted in order to show that China is oppressing Taiwan and lying to the world.

While this may achieve some effect, it comes at the cost of betrayal of confidence.  Actually, when the Olympic torch arrives in Taiwan, they can initiate a demonstration to express their will in front of the international media.  This should be more impactful than the betrayal of confidence at present.  Besides, where does the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee stand right now?  How is anyone going to believe their promises?  How can they negotiate on behalf of the government?  This is a case in which the government has just slapped itself.

[in translation]

The ideologically driven ruling Democratic Progressive Party rejected the route for the Olympic torch for the 2008 Beijing Olympics on the grounds that it "lowered the stature" of Taiwan and thus set a precedent for the international community.  The Taiwan authorities brutally used politics to interfere with sports, and this will only damage the international image of Taiwan.  If Taiwan chooses to exclude themselves from the international Olympics family, the International Olympic Committee and the Beijing Olympics Organizing Committee can chose not to have the Olympic torch going through Taiwan.

The IOC and the BOOC announced the route of the Olympic torch on the evening before from Ho Chi Ming City (Vietnam) to Taipei (Taiwan) to Hong Kong to Macau.  This route was confirmed in an signed document between the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee and the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee in February.  But the DPP authorities now think that this route treats Taipei as an "international route" and lowers the stature of the sovereignty of Taiwan.  Therefore this was absolutely unacceptable.

People must be asking: When the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee chairman Tsai Chen-wei was negotiating with Beijing, did he communicate beforehand with the Taiwan authorities and received their authorization?  The answer is obviously that it is impossible.  The Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee executive vice-president Jiang Xiaoyu exhibited a "Meeting memorandum on four points of consensus" about the Olympic torch route and Tsai Chen-wei's signature was on it.  Jiang Xiaoyu then accused the Taiwan authorities of "betrayal of confidence."

The precedent-setting act by the Taiwan authorities of refusing the entry of the Olympic torch lets the world see that the Democratic Progressive Party is steeled in its determination to promote Taiwan independence and they are insisting that the Olympic torch must enter Taiwan from some county and leave Taiwan for some other country.  The purpose was clearly to highlight the fact that Taiwan is a sovereign country and to inflame the populist emotions of the pan-green supporters in Taiwan, thus assuring the continued rule of the DPP next year.  Beijing has no choice but to reject this unreasonable betrayal of confidence.

The DPP authorities created this storm over the route of the Olympic torch and let everyone see that they will do anything to win the 2008 Presidential election.  The DPP may be successful in hijacking public opinion in Taiwan and make the Olympic torch bypass Taiwan.  But the IOC must sternly state their principle of "One China" and condemn the political interference into sports by the Taiwan authorities.

Taiwan on Wednesday resumed diplomatic ties with St Lucia, scoring a small victory in its diplomatic war with China.  Premier Su Tseng-chang, while campaigning for his bid to join the 2008 presidential election, told a mass rally in Chungli City that St Lucia became Taiwan's ally on Wednesday.  'I have a good news to tell you. That is St Lucia will become our 25th diplomatic ally tonight,' he said.  But Taiwan's Foreign Ministry has yet to make a formal announcement regarding Taiwan and St Lucia's restoring ties.

Was this actually a trap (i.e. St Lucia announces later that it will continue to recognize China)?  Su Tseng-chang has made his bet.  What do you think?

Update: (Radio Jamaica)  St. Lucia has officially announced that it will be establishing diplomatic relations with Taiwan.  The announcement to parliament by Foreign Minister Rufus Bousquet came on Tuesday during debate on the 2007 budget.

Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

Where is the evidence?  On the September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack occurred under the watch of a Republican president, a Republican Senate, a Republican Congress, a Republican New York State governor and a Republican New York City mayor (=Mr. Giuliani himself).  So there you have it  ...  9/11 wouldn't have happened if the Republicans were in charge!  Oh, but they were in charge ... it's terribly confusing ...

... now we get back to the regular scheduled programming (e.g. (Anti-)China Bashing For Dummies: "The Coming China Wars" (and Other Hysteria)  David Scott Lewis).

The deputy director of the mainland's press watchdog, Liu Binjie, will be elevated to the post of chief censor, replacing his sidelined boss, authorities announced yesterday.

The Central Party Committee and the State Council officially announced that Mr Liu, first deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publication (Gapp), would be promoted to director after four years in his current position -- overseeing crackdowns on pornography and illegal publications.

Authorities also announced that outgoing director Long Xinmin would no longer "hold his positions as Gapp party secretary and National Patent Administration director".

Xinhua said Mr Long would be transferred to the Central Party History Research Centre to take up a job as deputy director, but his ministerial-level rank remained unchanged.

... Gapp has come under increasing criticism over the past year, under Mr Long's leadership, for tightening its control on dissenting publications -- especially its decision earlier this year to ban eight controversial books by mainland intellectuals.

(RFA via ChineseNewsNet)

One of the eight banned authors Zhang Yihe said that it would make no difference: "You can say that I and my friends are happy about the transfer.  That is a genuine state of mind.  But this elation is not about globating about him personally.  Wu Shulin who named me directly has not moved.  Why are he happy?  Because China is ruled by people.  We hope that his transfer will change the brutal and arbitrary way in which the products of Chinese intellectuals are treated.  ... China is ruled by people.  Liu Binjie has now come on and I hope that he will bring something new and not 'business as usual.'  In this legal system, it does not matter who is in charge.  This is a special characteristic.  Why are the Chinese people so concerned about the personnel arrangements from the Seventeenth Congress?  That is because they are hoping that better people will be put in there, especially the small number of people and groups that rule over the spiritual products of intellectuals.  We need to work harder on the situation.  ... This is not just about one essay, or one person, or one book.  The government/party in China can ban newspapers, periodicals and books at will.  This has to stop.  I feel that China must go down the path of the rule of law.  But we cannot expect that it will be handed over to us; every citizens must work for it."

Lin believes more than 5,000 mainland Chinese spies are operating in Taiwan. Lin himself stumbled upon one who was driving a taxi here in 1995. 

“The driver spoke with perfect Pekingese and admitted that he was from Beijing, briefed by the Taiwan Research Institute [affiliated with the People’s Republic of China’s National Security Ministry], with a master’s degree from Tsinghua University in hydraulic dynamics, and was here in Taiwan to ‘serve the broad masses by comparing the strengths and weaknesses between the capitalist and socialist systems,’” he said. 

Lin reported the matter and discovered that the Ministry of Justice Investigative Bureau (MJIB) was already aware of the man.

Critics say that both the MJIB and the National Security Bureau are fully aware of spies, but refuse to arrest them for fear of damaging business ties with China. When spies are caught, they are normally repatriated to China. Many times, they are simply put under surveillance without taking action, MJIB sources said. 

Examples abound of Chinese prostitutes working in karaoke hostess bars (KTVs) near military facilities in Taiwain. Sources say some of the worst examples include areas near the Tsoying Naval Base in Kaohsiung and Army headquarters in Taoyuan. 

However, some doubt the effectiveness of using mainland taxi drivers and prostitutes as spies. 

“Is it worth planting a honey trap in a KTV to gather info from an E-4 [a junior rank level for American enlisted personnel], when perhaps the same info could be obtained from open sources?” said a former U.S. intelligence officer who has worked in both Beijing and here. “Taiwan is a fairly transparent society, but in the military and intelligence fields, they’ve learned from the same sources in terms of masking the truth, distortion, compartmentalization, etc.”

Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Guo called a press conference yesterday to address questions about his own love affairs.  He was confident and reassured as always.  But when the richest man in Taiwan asked, "Has anyone here not joined in the fun on occasion?" it is enough to remind people of Jackie Chan's "I made the mistake that every man will make."  This may cause even more problems when society criticizes his mistaken values.

Based upon the evidence in this 19-year-old extramarital affair, irregardless whether the Chen woman trapped him or became jealous, the fact was that Terry Guo had been unfaithful to his wife.  While Terry Guo may genuinely believe that "every man under heaven has joined in the fun on occasion," this obviously contravenes good social custom.  For a person who had been unfaithful to make that statement brazenly in a press conference is socially unacceptable.

Worst yet, Terry Guo's forthrightness and honesty might cause some men to admire and praise him.  This is ignoring the fact that his name has been recently linked to various actresses and therefore in the social limelight.  Now he is emphasizing that "I paid money" during his affair with the Chen woman.  This will inevitably cause people to feel the "arrogance of rich people."

Terry Guo questioned yesterday whether Taiwan has adopted the American media culture, in which certain people with high social standing are brought down by smears in order to make other people feel better.  "Why are you people interested in me?  Am I that important?"  He also said that if the media can have a pact of self-discipline to not report on him anymore, he will erect a bronze statue for every reporter.

Terry Guo may feel wronged.  But how could the finances, words, ideas, social visions and moral values of the richest man in Taiwan not be important?  How can the media not be interested?  Terry Guo does not have to deprecate himself as a "hypocritical philanthropist."  With his wealth and position, he can be a "genuine philanthropist" who can contribute to Taiwan.

Citizens in Bao'an have been saying that it was absurd that criminals are leaving their telephone numbers on outdoor walls to advertise the sale of counterfeit money.  On March 19, the reporter followed up on the tip from a citizen and found a telephone number on the wall by the side of Seashore Middle School in Bao'an District 41.  There were four or five similar numbers on the same wall.

This reporter called the telephone number and expressed the desire to purchase counterfeit money.  The man who took the call said that he was selling counterfeit 100, 50, 20 and 5 yuan bills, plus 1 yuan coins as well.  He offered a price of 10 yuan for each counterfeit 100 yuan bill and he stipulated that the total face amount of counterfeit bill must be at least 10,000 yuan.  He made an appointment with the reporter to meet the next day at the Bao'an Plaza and he promised to transact in person.

On the afternoon of March 20, the reporter went to the Bao'an Plaza to meet the man as scheduled.  The man called to say that he was out of 100 and 20 yuan bills at the moment but he had 20 and 5 yuan bills.  He said that these counterfeit bills were all stored away and cannot be inspected in person.  However, he was willing to send over a sample to this reporter.

Ten minutes later, the man called again to say that the sample has been delivered.  He instructed the reporter to proceed to a public telephone booth at the corner of the Bao'an Plaza.  He claimed that there is a sample bill placed at the top of one of the telephone booths.  The reporter reached for it and found a 5 yuan bill.  This was a brand new bill and it was impossible to tell whether it was real or counterfeit.

The reporter then called the man, who refused to transact in person due to safety reasons.  He asked the reporter to wire the money to an account at the Bank of Agriculture and he promised that the counterfeit bills wll be at a hotel near Bao'an Plaza.  "As soon as I receive the money, I will send the hotel room key to you."

Although the reporter considered that this may be fraudulent, he wanted to get to the bottom of the mystery and so he wired 500 yuan over.  Then the reporter called the man.  The man verified that the money was there and he said that he has already obtained a hotel room in which the counterfeit money has been placed.  He said that he would send the hotel room key over.  Then he added that the hotel room fee was pre-paid by his friend.  He asked the reporter to wire 200 yuan to his account to pay for the room.

At this time, the reporter demanded strongly to meet the man.  After some excuses, the man then announced the truth: "I don't have any counterfeit bills.  This is a pure con game."  The man said, "You are the second victim today."  The man said that he had been defrauded previously in the same way.  Afterwards, he realized that this was perhaps a good way to make money.  The man then explained the method to the reporter.  At the end of the call, he even said, "If you are interested, you can cooperate with me.  You can bring some people over.  After I take their money, I will give you a percentage."

Under the banner of opinion monitoring, muckraking became popular in the United States in the 1960's and 1970's and it has now become popular in China too.  When the media industry caught onto investigative journalism, the reporter becomes not just a report but an investigator who has to be brave and risk-taking to delve into investigations.

Muckraking can come up with good news stories.  For example, CCTV's <Economy 30 Minutes> reporter Sun Jing posed as an ordinary tourist to participate in a three-day tour in Hong Kong and secretly filmed the tourist traps in Hong Kong: the $10,000 "diamond watch" had glass but no diamonds.

There are other times that reporters get into trouble during the process.  There is just a thin line between "exclusive" and "inaccurate" and between "fame" and "calamity."  One can find oneself easily on one side or the other.

On April 6, 2007, CCTV's <Economy 30 minutes> reporters went to Qinhuangdao (Hebei) to investigate an illegal and polluting factory, they were attacked by more than 20 identified thugs who seized their filming equipment.  One female reporter was almost drowned in the river.  During the assault, the thugs were crying: "One more dead is another gone."

In August 2006, Taiwan richest man Terry Guo's Foxconn sued two China Business News reporter over their inaccurate report about "overtime work" practices.  Foxconn demanded 3,000,000 RMB in compensation and froze their personal assets.  Later they reduced the amount to a symbolic 1 RMB.  In the end, Foxconn and China Business News issued a joint statement: Foxconn agreed to withdraw the lawsuit; the two sides apologized to each other.  China Business News chief editor Qin Shuo admitted later that the broadly quoted closing paragraph in the news report ("we work harder than mules, we eat worse than pigs, we rise up earlier than roosters, we get off work later than night club girls, we act more obedient than grandsons, we look better than anyone else now but we will look older than anyone else five years later") may seem exaggerated.

In September 2005, Henan Commercial Press was suspended for one month on account of a story about 480 "reporters" showing up at a mine which had an accident to receive "bribes for shutting up."  According to informed sources, the report was accurate.  But because there are numerous fake reporters who go around extorting coal mines and this report had a huge negative impact, the authorities decided to deal with it this way.

More recently, the "infected tea" investigative report has caused a stir in Chinese public opinion and this led to a debate about professional ethics.

In this story, a certain reporter posed as a patient and submitted tea for urine analysis at ten Hangzhou hospitals.  Six of them came back with a diagnosis of infection and five of them prescribed anti-infection medicine worth around 1,300 yuan.  The "infected tea" case immediately drew the attention of netizens with some people condemning the doctors for wrongful prescriptions intended to rip money off patients.

But the doctors struck back in less than 3 days.  According to China Youth Daily, doctors at 92 hospitals around China organized "tea-for-urine" tests and 127 out of 136 reports showed "infection."  This showed that if you use tea for urine analysis, it is normal for infection to be diagnosed.  Thus, this has nothing to do with the medical ethics of doctors.

Ministry of Health spokesperson Mao Junan said that the equipment was not designed to tell urine from tea.  When the reporter substituted tea for urine, the testing system is disrupted.  "If the media wish to plan these types of news in the future, they may use beer tomorrow, soy sauce the day after tomorrow ... In order for the hospitals to deal with these types of situations, they will need to insert one additional step before the test -- they will have to determine if it was urine first and then they can conduct a urine analysis.  This can get complicated."  Mao said that this type of report violates the professional requirements for journalists and misleads the public.

When Minister of State Administration of Work Safety Li Yizhong was interviewed by <People's Daily> and he said: "The Ministry oversees safe production, but it has to be supervised by the media at the same time.  The media are not the Central Disciplinary Committee.  They are not an investigative work group.  You cannot require that they be correct in everything that they say."

When Li Yizhong said "the media cannot be required to be correct in everything that they say," it may seem like tolerance and trust of the media.  But some believe that Li Yizhong is actually making a even tougher demand on the media by requiring them to use more rigorous self-discipline in return for the tolerance and trust.  If the tolerance and trust are misused, then this is socially irresponsible and will cause the media to lose public trust.

The allure of "investigative reporting" is due to its effort in revealing "the news behind the news."  The muckrakers are praised for uncovering the truth.  Conversely, if the muck is wrongly raked, they will be soiled.

On my computer, I am looking at two identical Sina.com blogs.  They have the same photograph, they have the same name for the blogger and they have the same blog posts.  But I look at them carefully and I discover that the domain name is off by one letter.  Furthermore, the blog posts were published at different times.

I had discovered accidentally that there was another Rose Garden at Sina.com blogs and the blogger was also me.  It should not have mattered because I write things for people to read and I don't mind (and I actually welcome) re-publishing.  But this new "me" is very eerie.  After all, in the Internet world, who can prove which one of two "me's" is the real "me"?  If one day, the other "me" began to publish things that I did not write under "my" name, how can I defend myself?  How can other people tell the real "me" between the two "me's"?

... This "other me" is also different because there are Google ads.  I don't know if the large number of visitors meant that Sina.com is allowing users to make money on their turf and then splitting the receipts.  No matter what, I am getting somewhat angry.  It is alright for you to make money, but why are you using my name?  Then I felt a bit lost.  Who is suppose to be responsible for this kind of problem?

Like many other people, I think a lot about how to blog.  I am certain that I am not the only one who has come across such a "creative" act to create another "me."  Does the blog service provider have the responsibility to think about how they administer such problems?

The claim former permanent Secretary for Education and Manpower Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun said Hong Kong teachers were "all so stupid" was a manufactured story to create media sound bites, an inquiry heard on Thursday.  Lisa Wong Kwok-ying SC, counsel for the Education and Manpower Bureau, accused the academic vice- president of the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Bernard Luk Hung-kay, of manufacturing his claim Mrs Law criticised Hong Kong teachers when he met her at an official cocktail lunch in Canada in 2000.

Professor Luk denied the accusation at the inquiry into allegations of government interference at the institute.  He told the inquiry on Saturday that when he was introduced to Mrs Law at the lunch, she said: "Tell me something bad about Hong Kong teachers."  "I said: 'there are bad things, but also good things'¡K I said 'for example they work very hard' and she said, 'but they are all so stupid'."

The lunch was held when a Hong Kong government delegation, led by Michael Suen Ming-yeung, then secretary for constitutional affairs, visited Canada. Mrs Law was director of education at the time, but her appointment as permanent secretary had been announced.  Under cross-examination, Ms Wong put it to Professor Luk that he "manufactured this story in order to gain sound bites in the media". But Professor Luk replied: "Not true".

The version in the Sing Tao story actually contained a great many details of the examination.

Bernard Luk testified that on the afternoon of Mary 2000, he was introduced by the Hong Kong Trade Office (Toronto) director to Mrs Law and he was arranged to sit to the right of Mrs Law during that lunch.  He said that Mrs Law had to leave after the entree was served because of an appointment with local education officials.  Luk said that he was taken aback when Law said: "Hong Kong teachers are all so stupid."

Lisa Wong then produced the seating chart for that day and quoted the Hong Kong Trade Office deputy director who said that Luk did not dine next to Law and that the director was busy with Secretary Michael Suen on that day.

Now isn't that a strange turn of events?  In April 2007, Luk recalled a dinner conversation with Law in 2000.  Who is to say that it did not happen?  Except a seating chart was retrieved and an eyewitness came forth.  Sing Tao did not say how Luk responded to this piece of 'fact.'

The other part in the questioning of Luk pertains to that old issue about who spoke of 'firing people.'
 
On a radio program, the host asked Luk whether the speaker was a "principal officer under the accountablity system."  
Luk declined to answer and thus created the impression that it was indeed Secretary of Education Arthur Li.  
Lisa Wong: "You are a historian.  You look for accuracy on everything.  What did you not clarify on radio?"  
Bernard Luk: "Either I did not hear the word 'accountability system' or else it was just a radio talk show -- in any case, it was not in a court of law and there was no need to be too clear."  
Lisa Wong: "Why didn't you tell the media that it was not Arthur Li who spoke of 'firing people'?"  
Bernard Luk: "I am a teacher.  I am used to letting the students find their own mistakes."

(SCMP)  Empty seats at dinner 'back all so stupid' claim.  Liz Gooch and Polly Hui.  April 19, 2007.

The lawyer for the vice-president of the Hong Kong Institute of Education Bernard Luk Hung-kay yesterday cast doubt on claims that the former permanent secretary for education and manpower never told his client that teachers were "all so stupid" during a lunch in Canada.  Martin Lee Chu-ming SC revealed new evidence to challenge two witness statements claiming that Professor Luk could not have spoken to Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun at the official lunch in Toronto in 2000 because they were not seated together.  "We checked. We found three of the people listed to sit at Mrs Law's table did not actually attend [the luncheon]," Mr Lee told the inquiry into allegations of government interference into the HKIEd's internal affairs sparked by Professor Luk.

Mr Lee's revelation came after Benjamin Yu SC, for the commission of inquiry, read out a witness statement given by Donald Tong Chi-keung, then director of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Canada, which organised the event.  Contrary to Professor Luk's testimony, Mr Tong claimed he did not recall introducing the vice-president to Mrs Law, neither did he hear her making the remarks: "Tell me something bad about Hong Kong teachers" and that Hong Kong teachers were "all so stupid".  Mr Tong's statement also said his office would have sat more important guests next to Mrs Law, who was then director of education.

Lisa Wong Kwok-ying SC, for Mrs Law, earlier presented a seating plan to the commission, showing that Professor Luk was sitting at a different table. She also submitted a statement given by Eddie Cheung Kwok-choi, then deputy director of the Toronto trade office, whose evidence supported Mr Tong's.  But Professor Luk stood by his testimony. He said after he was introduced to Mrs Law at the reception, "I walked towards the table with her, still talking. We never stopped talking until she decided not to talk to me anymore. I wasn't even aware there was a seating plan for lunch."  "Is there any reason for you to correct your evidence as a result of these two statements?" asked Mr Lee, referring to Mr Tong's and Mr Cheung's statements. "No, I remember clearly what happened," he replied.

The ten plus years of star-chasing by Yang Lijuan were noted by the media.  The Guangdong-based <New Express> said that a Beijing television's entertainment program went to interview Yang three times in Lanzhou and reported on the starchasing career of the Yang family.  According to Yang and her mother, the television station even promised to arrange a meeting with Andy Lau but they were not able to deliver.

The Henan media <Dahe Daily> said that the media had been part of Yang's dream.  In April 2006, the CCTV program <The Same Song> went to vist Yang to help her "achieve her dream in a healthy way."  Local Lanzhou media also tried to help her realize her dream by finding psychologists and sociologists to help her and to contact the Andy Lau fan club and management in order to get a meeting with Andy Lau.

Apart from using their media power to help Yang, the mainland media also offered financial support.  <Southern Metropolis Daily> arranged for Yang and her mother to stay in a three-star hotel in Shenzhen after their Hong Kong visa had expired in order to keep close contact with them.  <Guangzhou Daily> also offered help on lodgings.  After Yang's father committed suicide, some media offered Yang and her mother help on lodgings and transportation.

But nothing beats the impact of this photograph:

Yesterday at around 3pm, the Roosevelt Road (Taipei) police station got a telephone from the Taipei National University campus police station: "There is an emergency at the university.  Send people over!"  The patrol police officers arrived on campus in three minutes.  The campus police said: "There are two men armed with assault rifles at the School of Agriculture and they are holding thirty students hostage."  The patrol officers immediately called the police station to ask for reinforcement.  Fifty-five police officers rushed to the scene wearing bullet-proof vests, steel helmets, shields, pistols, M16 rifles and even the rarely seen Swiss-made SIG sniper's rifle and the police helicopters were about to be summoned.  When the reinforcement arrived at the location, they were met by DPP legislators Lin Guo-ching and Lee Chen-nan, members of the police public relations office and TV satellite broadcast vehicle(s).  The legislators said that this was a "planning exercise."  
 
During the exercise, Lee Chen-nan used a dining fork as an assault rifle and asked the students, "What would you do in this situation?"  One student said: "The university has given a card to each student with telephone numbers for emergency situations.  Apart from calling the military service officer or the campus police, I don't know what else to do."  Lee and Lin then checked whether the students carried the emergency notice card with them.  A professor said: "Most people would not know how to act in this situation.  The worst part is that even after all this, those who participated in the exercise still don't know what to do."
 
Lee Chen-nan gave a report card of 60 points.  Lin Kuo-ching said that the two campus police officers arrived on the scene armed only with batons.  They were "very brave" when they charged into the building.  If there were really armed criminals, they would be dead.


Lee Chen-nan and Lin Kuo-ching wait in front of the School of Agriculture building for the arrival of the police.  Lee has a stop watch in hand.


When the police rushed to the scene, Lee and Lin told them that this was just an exercise.


The two campus police officers who were made aware that this was just an exercise went upstairs to "simulate" the search for the suspects.


Lee Chen-nan held out an dining fork and asked the students: "What would you do it this were a Uzi?"

(BCC)  When informed about the public criticisms of his 'show,' Lee Chen-nan said: "This is crazy!  How can they say that?  I'm such a serious legislator and they criticize me?  Is campus safety unimportant?  It is alright if TVBS is criticizing me.  They can do that all day."  When informed that it was his DPP colleagues who are criticizing him, he said: "This is a sectarian problem.  The Su Tseng-chang sect wants to take this opportunity to attack Lin Kuo-ching.  Meanwhile Lin Kuo-ching said that he was called to attend at the last moment and when he got there, he reminded Lee Chen-nan not to disturb the students.  "Anyone who wants to make this into a sectarian problem will be rejected by the people.  If they do that, they will be ousted sooner rather than later!  What have I got to do with the Frank Hsieh faction?  They have too much time on hand if they want to politicize and sensitize everything."
 
(ETTV)  From the Executive Yuan spokesperson: while the legislators have the right to monitor the government, the methods must be appropriate.  The Ministry of Education workers accompanied the legislators to the simulated exercise and they will be investigated by the Executive Yuan; ditto for the Taipei National University administration.  The police responded to a call and therefore did not violate any procedure.  The two legislators may have violated Article 171 of the Criminal Law on making false statements and may be subjected to not more than 1 year in jail or a fine under NT$300.  The legislators acted outside of the Legislative Yuan and are therefore not protected by immunity.
 
YouTube: 突擊！騷擾？ 立委演習 55警瞎忙

Document of Decision on Administrative Penalty, Number 71723 (Gongwu-jue) year 2007

The principal: Name: Zhang Jianping; Gender: male; age: 40; ID number 320405196703010017; work unit: none; address: Changzhou XXX number 250 room 201; work address: none; legal representative: none.

The following illegal activities were confirmed:

Since October 2006, Zhang Jianping used the Internet to access overseas reactionary website <Epoch Times> in order to read information that incite subversion of the state authority and overthrow the socialist system.

The above facts were confirmed through Zhang Jianping's narrative and explanation.  According to Article 2 Rule 20 of the <Regulations for the Safe Protection and Administration of the Computerized Internet>, the subject will be issued a warning and be forbidden to access the Internet for six months.

Should the defendant not concur with the decision, he may appeal for an administrative review to the Changzhou city public security bureau or the Changzhou city Wujin district people's government within six days after receiving this document.  Alternately, he may proceed to file an administrative complaint at the Changzhou city Wujin district people's court within three days.

This document was filled out and sent to the person on this date.

The Changzhou city Wujin district public security bureau.

Credibility rating of local news media in general (scale of 0 to 10): 5.94

Freedom of press in Hong Kong:
65% satisfied
13% dissatisfied
 
Perceived the local news media in their reporting
26% responsible
43% irresponsible
 
Perceived the local news media on freedom of press
74% had given full play
22% had not given full play
 
Perceived the local news media on freedom of press
68% had misused/abused
25% had not misused/abused
 
Perceived the local news media on self-censorhip
50% had practiced
40% had not practiced
 
Perceived the local news media with respect to the HK SAR government
32% had scruples in criticizing
64% had no scruples in criticizing
 
Perceived the local news media with respect to the Central Government
61% had scruples in criticizing
33% had no scruples in criticizing

[in translation]

The April 15 march ended at the main stage on Ketagalan Boulevard.  The organizers invited the various groups to come on stage to express their support of the Lo Sheng Leprosarium.  Among the speakers was Hong Kong independent media reporter Susanna Cheung Chui-yung.  But when she got off the stage, she was immediately showered with "concern" from the police.  The police cited the "Article 27 of the Entry/Exit and Immigration Law" and claimed that her speech violated the terms of her application to enter Taiwan.  They informed Cheung that they were going to take her directly to the police station for questioning.  When others at the scene protested, the police changed their minds and warned her: "Don't do this again or you can be expelled" and made as if they wanted to arrest her.  For a foreign visitor to Taiwan, this type of state violence is especially threatening.

Yet this is the typical trick that the Taiwan government has always used against the foreigners that they dislike.  Eighteen years ago, the KMT government expelled Father Neil Magill from Taiwan because of his involvement in the opposition and the labor movement.  After the DPP became the ruling party, they were even worse.  Apart from serious violations of human rights, they showed that the Taiwan government is conservative and defensive under the government of any ruling party.

After being threatened by the police, Cheung Chui-yung tried to leave the scene quickly by walking towards the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.  The media which had been waiting the whole afternoon seemed to have found their prey and quickly moved in.  They were faster than all the police officers and prosecutors.  Some of the demonstrators quickly "intercepted" the reporters so that Cheung would not be harassed a second time.  But a short but powerful CTTV journalist broke through the cordon and chased her all the way in front of the National Library.  When he was blocked again, he howled: "Let me film.  I'm helping you!"  When he could not get his shot, he cursed out: "You students know nothing and you are just causing trouble!" "What are these foreigners doing in Taiwan!"  Then he told the students: "Your actions interfere with freedom of press and the right to gather news.  I'm going to sue you!"

Afterwards, we monitored CTTV News.  At the 11pm news show, there was nothing about the Lo Sheng march whatsoever.  At the midnight news show, there was one short segment.  In the one minute clip, three-quarters were about the Cheung Chui-yung incident: "A reporter who was gathering news somehow lost her control of emotions and got on stage to express her support."  The program also mentioned the police charge against her so-called "illegal" activity without explanation the basis.  The closing remark was that this "left an imperfect little spot in a peaceful march."

The state has employed "isolation" and "expulsion" in accordance with the will and power of the rulers ever since the establishment of the Lo Sheng Leprosarium since inception and has continued to do so up until today.  Meanwhile, the media only look for sensationalism without questioning the logic or the truth.  They spent the entire afternoon in order to come up with "the imperfect little spot."  This is more than sheer depravity.