The Chinese Foreign Ministry summoned British Ambassador Caroline Wilson to China on Tuesday (March 9) to make what it called “solemn representations” about an article she had published, but she said in her article that she stood by her views.
British Ambassador’s article on media freedom angers Chinese Communist Party
On March 2, Wu Ruolan published an article titled “Do Foreign Media Hate China?” on the official WeChat of the British Embassy in Beijing. on the official WeChat of the British Embassy in Beijing. The article pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party suppresses speech and the media is called the Party, introduced the media freedom in the UK, and ended with the motto of the French newspaper Le Figaro: “If criticism is not free, then praise is meaningless.”
The article angered the CCP, with WeChat restricting the article from being shared, and the CCP’s official media attacking Wu Ruolan, with China Daily and Global Times taking turns claiming that her report distorted “the true relationship between the media and reality.”
British politician and human rights activist Benedict Rogers tweeted on the matter on March 3, saying, “The Chinese Communist regime and its ‘wolf-warfare’ approach, attacking even its friends and persuaders, is a wake-up call for everyone.”
“I defend my article.”
As the incident festered, the Chinese Foreign Ministry summoned Wu Ruolan on the 9th, saying her article was full of “master teacher”-style arrogance and ideological bias, reversing black and white, manipulating double standards, and “seriously inconsistent with the status of diplomats and the functions of diplomatic institutions.” He even asked Wu Ruolan to “reflect deeply”.
After being summoned by the Chinese Communist Party, Wu tweeted, “I defend my article (views). No doubt the outgoing CCP ambassador to the UK (Liu Xiaoming) also insists he is free to publish over 170 articles in the British mainstream media.”
This is a new example of the tension between the UK and the CCP extending to the diplomatic level, with relations between the two countries deteriorating over the CCP’s concealment of the Epidemic, Beijing’s imposition of the so-called “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law,” the UK’s provision of asylum to Hong Kong people, criticism of the CCP’s persecution of the people of Xinjiang, and the revocation of the license of CGTN, the CCP’s major foreign service.
These frictions have spilled over into media access. The Financial Times reported that Ofcom decided on March 8 to fine CGTN’s licensee 225,000 pounds for violating fairness, privacy and impartiality rules. When Ofcom revoked CGTN’s broadcasting license in the UK last month, the Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed its “firm opposition” and urged the British side to “immediately rectify the mistake.
What exactly did Wu Ruolan say?
Wu Ruolan used the official WeChat public number of the Embassy of China to publish “Do Foreign Media Hate China? The article is euphemistic, explaining the role of the British media in monitoring society and implicitly telling the Chinese Communist Party what role the media should play.
Here are some excerpts from her article.
In this article, I will explain why the foreign media’s criticism of the Chinese (CCP) authorities does not mean that they dislike China. On the contrary, I believe they act in good faith and play an active role as watchdogs of government actions, ensuring that people have access to accurate information and protecting those who do not have a voice.
In the UK, journalists can interview politicians on any topic and ask them pointed questions. This interviewing technique dates back to ancient Greece, where they developed a form of reasoning called Socratic dialogue, which seeks the truth through a series of answers to questions.
The British media also carry out investigative work to expose wrongdoing and give a voice to minorities.
The Chinese media have also been able to provide some critical reporting in keeping with the principle of “public opinion monitoring”. For example, during the New coronavirus outbreak, more than 30 Caixin journalists conducted investigations to expose how local authorities suppressed whistle-blowing doctors and concealed the fact that the virus could be “passed from person to person”.
Unlike foreign media, however, Chinese media could only report critically as much as the government allowed. As China’s state leaders said in 2016, “Media sponsored by the Party and the government must be named Party.”
In 2015, former CCTV reporter Chai Jing released Under the Dome, a documentary about air pollution in China. Seventy percent of those who watched the documentary said it changed their Perception of the haze and gave a more holistic view of the problem. The People’s Daily also published the documentary on its official website, but it was removed within a week.
Wherever in the world, critical reporting does not prove that journalists don’t like the country. On the contrary, it proves the value of media freedom to bring more accurate information and point out what needs to be changed. As the motto of the French newspaper Le Figaro says: If criticism is not free, praise is meaningless.
Recent Comments