Covering China a unique dilemma

A new report by public policy organisation China Matters rejects claims Australia’s media are ‘anti-China’.

A new report by public policy organisation China Matters rejects claims that Australia’s media are “anti-China”, explains that reporters’ access in China is uniquely constrained, and calls for two-year Chinese language scholarships for mid-career Australian journalists.

The report, which Sydney-based China Matters commissioned me to produce as a former Beijing correspondent, also recommends that programs be established for leading media executives to visit China through the Australian embassy there.

It also called for arrangements to be negotiated with Beijing to allow reporters to conduct short-term assignments in China without official Chinese sponsorship, and that Chinese official visitors to Australia — and Chinese executives with prominent investments in Australia — should make themselves available for interview.

Public life in Australia has become caught up in a ferment of debate about China, with lists drawn up of those “for” or “against”. And the media have been blamed by some prominent commentators and businesspeople as cheerleaders of the “anti-China” camp.

But the settings in which the media cover China are unique. China’s own party-state does not make itself accountable to any media. Journalists operating in China face a considerable challenge.

The parliament meets for a fortnight every year and provides only limited access. There is very rarely access to courts and very few press conferences, government or corporate. There are no phone interviews, on or off the record, with senior officials in the party, government or companies. The internet is severely constrained and censored, with restricted access to many international sites as China imposes its “cyber sovereignty”.

Diminishing numbers of academics and other analysts are prepared to be quoted directly, or especially to be filmed. Even within Australia, some people of People’s Republic of China background have become reluctant to talk publicly out of concern for repercussions for themselves, family or friends in China. And when senior Chinese officials or government ministers visit Australia, they are almost never available for interview.

The inevitable resulting gaps are sometimes filled for journalists by well-informed analysts and sometimes by the opining of people with a special interest. The difficulty of gaining access to decision-makers crucial to explain a one-party state provides scope for mischief-making by those who may wish to promote a case either “for” or “against” the PRC, since their assertions cannot, or are very unlikely, to be proven or disproved.

Sometimes that gap is filled by citing directly the strongest opinions of PRC media, usually found in the Global Times, whose staff are in part rewarded according to internet clicks and international citations.

Usually, Australian media seeking to report on places where they have no correspondent, or where they wish to deploy the skills of a specialist reporter to augment their coverage, send journalists there on short-term assignments. That is not possible for China, where journalist visas are attainable only through the explicit sponsorship of a party or state agency.

The PRC and its media tend to conflate “China” and the Chinese people with the ruling Communist Party and its interests — viewing criticism, say, of a Chinese government policy or action as “anti-Chinese”, whereas criticism of Australian politicians will not be perceived as “anti-Australian”.

Australians with the longest and deepest links with China especially resent being labelled “anti-Chinese” for criticising Beijing’s harsh rule in Xinjiang, say, or “pro-Chinese” for supporting a Chinese investment in Australia, as crudely portrayed in Clive Palmer’s TV ads.

The Australian mass media, whose content reflects this ferment, have been blamed in some quarters for instigating it. Some in the business world, especially those whose companies depend heavily on Chinese markets, have accused both media and politicians who have voiced concerns about Chinese influence of imperilling the entire economy.

There is clearly a perception of “a problem with Australia’s media coverage of the PRC”.

But is this different from problems with Australia’s media coverage of the world at large?

The fragmentation of the media as multiple online platforms have emerged has diminished income and thus resources. This in turn has reduced severely the number of correspondents posted overseas, except by the taxpayer-funded ABC. And as John Howard pointed out at a meeting in Beijing a few weeks ago, while the PRC in general or President Xi Jinping in particular may be subjected to some criticism from Australian media, this is as nothing compared with the shellacking he has himself suffered for decades from that same media. He stressed that despite this, he staunchly cham­pioned media freedom.

Just as Xi has told Chinese journalists that “Party must be your family name”, many PRC officials and commentators believe Australian journalists are somehow government-directed. Thus journalist coverage must carry the added burden of being perceived as carrying the weight of state approval and policy. Crucially, there is no true institutional comparability between Australian and Chinese media organisations.

The China Matters report’s list of recommendations to help improve China coverage includes scholarships for mid-career Australian journalists to spend two years studying Mandarin.

Double Walkley Award winner Rowan Callick, author of the China Matters report “Is there a problem with Australian media coverage of the PRC?”, is an Industry Fellow at Griffith University’s Asia Institute. He has been a China correspondent three times, including for The Australian