 | ||
|
Archives
Topics |
« May 2010 | Main | July 2010 » June 23, 2010Pass The MaskThe air in Beijing is my obsession. I watch it deteriorate each day, from "pretty good" during my early morning walks with my dog Buster, to worse in the afternoon as seen from my 33rd floor office window, to "very unhealthy" on many days by the time evening rush begins at 5 p.m. And the internet enables my obsession.
I also torture myself by following the Twitter account @beijingair, which provides updates through the day of the pollutants in the air outside the U.S. embassy. The air-quality Tweets progress from "moderate" to "very unhealthy" as the day passes almost as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. In idle moments, I also like to visit the Asia Society's "Room with a View," a web feature the organization started during the Beijing Olympics. There, I can see a photo, taken from the same high-rise window each day, which chronicles with visual day-to-day evidence what my own eyes and my internet data already prove beyond any doubt: That the air in Beijing is really bad. At first, I took some comfort thinking that what I was breathing was not really any worse than the air in New York on many days. Once again, some web research shattered that illusion. The New York City equivalent of the API is usually at about 50, or air quality of moderate concern. The Chinese government knows air quality is a major problem and recently came up with a plan that it claims will continue to improve things by tackling the issue on a regional, rather than local, basis. The new plan reported this week in The China Daily builds on an existing government initiative, called "Blue Skies," which aims to increase the number of days in which Beijing's air is only "slightly polluted," with API readings below 100. The government goal was to have 256, or 70%, "blue sky days" by 2008. They surpassed this target by 18 days. In 1998, Beijing recorded only 100 “blue sky days," so things have been worse. The cause of all this air pollution is China's policy of Fazhan, or rapid and dramatic industrialization, since the mid 1970s. As a proof point about how much has changed in that time, the government says that visibility in eastern regions of China, Beijing included. has dropped by 7 to 15 km compared to that in the early 1960s, as a result of air pollution. Industrialization has been powered by cheap electricity, produced by coal-burning generation plants. Steel manufacturing and cement production, the core industries that are building China's cities, are among the dirtiest businesses on the planet. And let's not forget China's 76 million vehicles, which are trapped in never-ending stop-and-go traffic, which produces the lowest miles-per gallon and highest emissions-per-mile of any form of driving. But now Fazhan has given way to a new policy of "scientific development," which basically means China would like to keep growing the economy without choking its residents to death. I am optimistic that they can do this. I am hopeful, even, that things can improve soon and my obsession can be calmed. Because as bad as breathing the air in Beijing might be for my physical health, I'm starting to worry about my mental health, too, because even when things seem to be OK, there's evidence that they are not. Consider: Today in Beijing the Chinese government says the API is 94, making this an official "blue sky day." But, just two minutes ago, this from @BeijingAir: "06-23-2010; 13:00; PM2.5; 42.0; 112; Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups." Posted by markhass at 1:16 AM CommentsTerrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher! Posted by: momochii at May 23, 2011 10:15 AM I love to read www.dispatchesfromchina.com ! Posted by: unlock-codes at October 2, 2011 11:29 AM Post a comment| TrackBackJune 21, 2010You Say Tomato; I Say TomahtoThe yuan was big news over the weekend when China announced that it will begin allowing its currency, also known as the renminbi, to increase in value against the U.S. dollar. The issue has been a sticking point in U.S. China relations, so the announcement was big news both here in Beijing and in the U.S. I've written before about how the media in the two countries each present a unique point of view, in the context of objective reporting, on issues that divide the world's two most important economies, and the Yuan revaluation news was no exception. Each country's media played to readers and viewers who expected to read or hear the story from a U.S. or China perspective. Like that Louis Armstrong song, "Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off," a tomato can be a tomahto when it comes to China / U.S. media coverage. Consider: From the Wall Street Journal: "With pressure on China building in both the U.S. Congress and the Group of 20 major economies, the decision showed pragmatism and a desire to set China's economic relations with the world on a more sustainable footing." From the New York Times: "The Chinese central bank announced Sunday afternoon that any changes in the value of its currency would be gradual, in a clear attempt to reassure the Chinese people that a move Saturday evening toward a more flexible currency would not result in a sharp or disruptive change. The central bank’s statement coincided with signs of a backlash in China, where many view a weak currency and the accompanying strong exports as a sign of national sovereignty. " The New York Post: "Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) isn't buying Chinese resolve to end the yuan's fixed rate to the dollar -- and is vowing to advance trade-sanctions legislation to force them to act. 'Just a day after there was much hoopla about the Chinese finally changing their policy, they are already backing off.' " CCTV, under the headline RMB reform restarts, to aid China and world: "Now fairly ensured the global economic recovery is on a solid footing and its exports had rebounded since April, Beijing finally decided to enhance the RMB exchange rate flexibility, to help squeeze out low-value labor-intensive production, and to sooth rising outside cries that the RMB must be revalued."
It is worth noting, however, that media on both sides of the Pacific agree that the best way to illustrate their stories about this issue is with pictures of Chinese bank notes. The photos below were widely used in U.S. and China media. There is hope, I guess, for a common media view. Or, as that Louis Armstrong song concludes: "We know we need each other, so we'd better call the calling-off off."
Posted by markhass at 2:18 AM CommentsPost a comment| TrackBackJune 9, 2010What a Difference the First Amendment MakesI miss the New York Times. I miss seeing it at my door each morning. I miss the intelligent, independent journalism that has defines it. I miss what an independent media represents to society. I was reminded of that in New York Sunday during a brief business trip back to the U.S. when, over a cup of coffee and a bagel, I read a really smart piece of reporting by Ian Urbina about what went wrong on that BP deep-ocean rig in the Gulf of Mexico -- how a series of mistakes and poor decisions led to the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The story reminded me of ones I'd seen in the Chinese media, mostly the China Daily, CCTV and the Global Times, about the pressing environmental challenges facing that nation. And how different the stories were.
In The Times, the reporting was entrepreneurial, independent, analytical and was striving to make sense of what happened. In the case of the Chinese media's coverage of its own nationwide environmental ills, the coverage was characterized by dull, straightforward publishing of seemingly true statements that, while they filled the page, did very little to illuminate the truth. It's almost like the editors of those stories didn't want their readers to be interested in this serious issue. And that made me think: What a difference the First Amendment makes. The independent, questioning analytic tone that American media consumers have come to expect from the best U.S. media just doesn't exist in China, where the media have no legal protection equivalent to the Constitutional shield afforded free speech in the U.S. Instead, Chinese media, while in most cases not directly government controlled, are viewed as an extension of government policy, a tool intended to help the government drive its social and economic agenda. That's what the government expects and usually manages to get. And news organizations that cross the line into the gray zone of independent reporting can have bad things happen. The government can suspend their licenses to publish. Chinese courts can slap them with fines for writing factual stories that embarrass state-owned companies. Editors get "reassigned" for handling controversial stories. Offensive blog posts will vanish from social media portals. China is simply a tough place to be an independently minded reporter or editor. And most Chinese news consumers, who value societal harmony much more than journalistic independence, are OK with the way things are. There's remarkably little awareness of this issue among news consumers I speak with and even academics in China who study society and media. Consider this recent letter to the editor that appeared in the China Daily: "Media are like fire . They are a vital part of our lives, but in the wrong hands they become lethal and disastrous. That is why good parents don't let their children play with fire. At the moment, the Chinese media are acting like children playing with fire. When will the parents (read as government) intervene?" Or this recent column written by the director of a large university's communications research center on the subject of the possible purchase by Chinese investors of Newsweek, the U.S. news magazine. "Standards of news reporting also have to be kept high. Confuse news and propaganda and the magazine's credibility will plummet." So far so good. But then: "Investors should also be aware of lingering Western prejudices and stereotypes about China, and recruit a professional team with a global vision to correct them." China is a place that has undergone an economic miracle unmatched in human history. It is a place that has come so far in so short a period because of its unique marriage between top-down government control and bottom-up evolution in its society. A free and vigorous press, which doesn't exist here, has had little role in the country's development except to act as a mouthpiece for the top-down forces and a release valve for the bottom up forces. I can't help but worry that, with a growing set of emerging societal ills such as crime, pollution and wealth disparities, China needs a free and vigorous press to help air the issues and provide voice to the diverse interests that are shaping the country. Posted by markhass at 6:58 AM CommentsPost a comment| TrackBack |
Sites to Watch |
