Enfoque para el desarrollo

Chinese news journalism also shares all the regulations and principles of the Chinese media system. According to the survey from Lin (2010), about 91% of Chinese journalists hold a college degree. In order to become a legally employed journalist in China, the person has to hold a press card or reporter identification issued by the state’s General Administration of

74 Press and Publication (GAPP) after attending a training programme that emphasizes the importance of the official ideology and the principles of the Communist Party by passing a test about the Marxist-Leninist theory (Hassid 2011). Thus, in China, journalists who do not hold a press card are actually ‘illegal’. Often, these ‘illegal’ journalists are either employed as news workers/freelance writers/part-time journalists by legitimate media outlets or self-employed. They are commonly known as ‘hucksters…[who] blackmail or extort members of the business community by demanding payment not to publicise real, or even invented, negative information’ (Hassid 2011, p. 826).

Certainly, the propaganda model of news journalism, serving political and economic

interests, is not an exception in China. However, the tricky aspect is the lack of the freedom of expression and the press in China. Researchers might have difficulty in drawing a specific line between the sincere willingness of the Chinese journalists in terms of serving the

political and economic interests on one hand, and the deadlock in terms of Chinese journalists having no choice but to stand in line with the Chinese authority on the other hand. Speaking about journalistic professionalism or ethics, this PhD study pays special attention to what Hassid (2011) calls the ‘advocate journalists’ in China. It is a kind of journalism that aims to push a specific, social, ideological or economic viewpoint in their stories’ and to represent

‘the “vulnerable social groups” in an attempt to better their plight’ (p. 829). This type of advocate journalist shares some common ground to Shaw’s (2012a) concept of human rights journalism by placing specific emphasis on people’s voices/needs. However, there is a

paucity of scholarly attention devoted to this particular trend of advocacy journalism in China and there is no statistical data to tell how many of them are in existence.

Instead, another popular type of journalism emerged after the 1978 Economic Reform, known as Chinese investigative journalism, receiving great scholarly attentions. Unlike the Western discourse³⁵, the Chinese version of investigative journalism is much more involved in

35 Under the Western discourse, investigative journalism is usually referred to a special style of journalism that exposes wrongdoings, injustice and inequalities in the society (Ettema and Glasser 1998, Protess et al 1991) with extensive investigation that makes investigative reporting ‘less timely, time- consuming and expensive’

(Tong 2011, p. 13), and commonly defined as a watchdog, particularly against the power of the state but in protection of the people (De Burgh 2000).

75

‘negative reporting’ of power abuses and social misconducts with no higher officials or political leaders targeted (Svensson et al. 2013, Yu 2007). It is a special style of journalism that exposes wrongdoings, injustice and inequalities in the society (Ettema and Glasser 1989, Protess et al. 1991) with extensive investigations that make investigative reporting ‘less timely, time- consuming and expensive’ (Tong 2011, p. 13). Investigative journalists are also commonly defined as “watchdog” in terms of against the power of the state but in protection of the people (De Burgh 2000).

The birth of Chinese investigative journalism came from the Chinese authoritarian political system. Initially, it was created by the Chinese authorities for ‘helping re-legitimate the Party’s rule in China’ via performing media’s ‘public supervision’, most importantly through

‘cross-regional supervision’ over local government (Sevensson et al. 2013) and an

‘investigation’ function (Tong 2011, p. 221, Ness 2013). Essentially, this is decided by the fragmented nature of the Chinese political authority, which is badly in need of ‘cross-regional supervision’ over the localities. Meanwhile, China’s widening social gaps and inequalities in both financial and class struggles require investigative journalists’ notice as well (Sevensson et al. 2013). In addition, in a work published by De Burgh in 2001, it showed that almost all of Chinese journalists would like to become investigative journalists.

To compare Chinese investigative journalism and HRJ, this PhD study finds that there are sharing notions. For the most noteworthy aspect, these two types of journalisms share the same fundamental journalistic notion. This includes exposing political wrongdoings, power abuses, social misconducts, speaking on behalf of the weak and the vulnerable in the society.

In terms of the differences, HRJ declares a human rights-based journalistic practice with a cosmopolitan outlook, which cannot be found in Chinese investigative journalism³⁶. After all, Chinese investigative journalism and their in-depth reporting stands as an important reference in understanding HRJ in the context of China (based on their similarities). Also, it is a major aspect that arose in the content analysis and interview findings (in chapter 6 to 9).

36 However, despite pointing out the most remarkable similarities and differences between the two, this PhD study would not like to make further claims about which came first: whether HRJ/ Chinese investigative journalism precedes Chinese investigative journalism/HRJ.

76 3.5 Conclusion

In summary, this chapter explains the four theories of the press and the three models of media and politics with the purpose to demonstrate a journalistic transition from a liberal to human rights-based journalistic norm in the US and the UK. It further argues on the imperative to promote HRJ under global journalism ethics. Moving away from Western media and Western journalism, this chapter introduces the Chinese media system before and after the 1978 Economic Reform and highlights the characteristics of Chinese media under the political regime in China. Chinese investigative journalism is also explained in depth and discussed in order to shed light on the general understandings of journalism in China. Similarities and differences are also discussed between Chinese investigative journalism and HRJ. The following chapter thus moves to the literature review of the existing scholarly debate of human rights.

77 Chapter 4

The universal human rights and China’s human rights 4.1 Introduction and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the twin Covenants

As the name HRJ suggests, ‘human rights’ is an essential part of this PhD thesis. Referred to as HRJ by (Shaw 2012b), human rights refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) and its twin International Covenants (1966). Shaw (2012a) boldly states: ‘if human rights journalism had been put at the centre of the global movement’ (p.1), it would have helped the progress of the implementation of the UDHR and ‘make the world a better place’ (p.1). This chapter reviews the norms of the UDHR and its twin International Covenants and discusses the different understanding of it between the West and China.

Historically, the earliest record of human rights could be traced back to the Magna Carta, granted by King John of England on 15 June 1215, with an ironic reason of saving his Crown and making peace with the rebel barons. However, in consideration of the ‘modern’ idea of human rights, it is generally a reference to the UDHR, drafted by the United Nations (UN) three years after its foundation in 1948. Galtung (1994) has called the foundation of the UN as being a ‘predominantly Western United Nations’ (p.13), as it was founded under the primary efforts of the American President Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister

Churchill. Human rights, stated by the UN Secretary-General Annan (2002), thus ‘lie at the heart of everything the United Nations aspires to achieve in its global mission of peace and development’ (p. xiii). A triangular relationship among ‘international peace’, ‘security’, and

‘human rights’ is also formulated, according to the Report of the Secretary General (2005):

‘The world must advance the cause of security, development and human rights together, otherwise none will succeed. Humanity will not enjoy security without development, it will not enjoy development without security, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights’

(United Nations, 2005, p.1)

78 By using the term ‘universal’ rather than ‘international’, it highlights further on the universal character that ‘refers to all members of the international community, including all human beings, regardless of the state to which they belong to or their ideology, religion or sex’

(Espiell 1998, p.526). Meanwhile, the understanding of the universality of human rights therefore ‘comes down to all-inclusiveness within the human race’ (Brems 2001, p.4). The protection that human beings are entitled to, at least in principle, is no longer merely imposed by their own nations, but ‘had depended on the goodwill and generosity of the constitution-makers’ (Kalin 2004, p.17). Also, in accordance with the records of the General Assembly, the Declaration is proclaimed as ‘a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’³⁷. In addition, pointed out by Brems (2001), the principle of universality is in the essence of human rights. Its related to ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’ and enshrined by its first and second articles, which has, ostensibly, provided further legal guarantees. Yet still, regardless of all the moral correctness, the UDHR was never a legally binding international treaty. As Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, stated explicitly in no uncertain terms, ‘it is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation’ (Rehman 2003, p. 57). In seeking to give it a legal force, the UN further created the International Bill of Rights, which was constituted by the UDHR (1948) and the twin International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights (1966) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). The civil and political rights are referred to as the First Generation Rights and also known as Negative Rights. It was contributed and strengthened during the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries aimed to ensure civil and political liberties. Thus, it is also collectively known as ‘Liberty Oriented Human Rights’, as it provides, protects and guarantees ‘individual liberty to an individual against the state and its agencies’ (Nowak 2005, p. 193). According to Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2003):

‘Until the middle of the 20^th century, civil rights were usually distinguished from ‘political rights’. The former included the rights to own property, make and enforce contracts, receive due process of law, and worship one’s religion. Civil rights also covered freedom of speech and the press (Amar 1998: 216-17). But they did not include the right to hold public office, vote, or to testify in court. The latter were political rights, reserved to adult’

37 See Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

79 The economic, social and cultural rights are referred to as the Second Generation Rights and also known as Positive Rights. It was historically aimed at reducing the class struggles with impoverishment in the era of European industrialisation in the 19^th century. In the

contemporary era, it gradually shifted to protect people’s access to food, work, education, health services and so on. It aims to guarantee the state’s protection of citizen’s rights and to force the state to improve the nation’s overall situation. Thus, collectively speaking, these rights tend to lean towards the ‘promotion of economic and social security through the economic and social upliftment of the weaker sections of the society’ (Nowak 2005, p. 194).

In addition, the Second Generation Rights also include the rights of minorities. Together with the economic, social and cultural rights, they are collectively known as the ‘Security Oriented Rights’, which guarantee the essential security in the life of an individual (Smith and Torress 2006). Precisely, Economic rights is defined as:

‘rights of access to resources – such as land, labour, physical, and financial capital – that are essential for the creation, legal appropriation, and market exchange of goods and services.

Economic rights are self-evident’

(Gorga 1999, p.89) Gorga (1999) also distinguishes the difference among Economic Rights, Property Rights, and Entitlement, the three terms often used as nearly interchangeable synonyms (see Table 2).

Social rights, according to Tushnet (1992),

‘from the emerging criteria of international human rights law, deal with the material bases of human well-being and include the rights to shelter, to a job under decent working conditions and to subsistence’

(1992, p.1207) And lastly, cultural rights are:

80

‘rights related to art and culture, both understood in a large sense. The objective of these rights is to guarantee that people and communities have access to culture and can participate in the culture of their election…aimed at ensuring the enjoyment of culture and its

components in conditions of equality, human dignity and non-discrimination…related to themes such as language; cultural and artistic production; participation in cultural life;

cultural heritage; intellectual property rights; author’s rights; minorities and access to culture, among others’

(Fundacio Forum Universal de les Cultures 2005)³⁸

Table 2 Economic rights, property rights and entitlement

Economic Rights Property Rights Entitlement

Object/content Economic needs Marketable things, tangible or intangible

Human needs from food, to shelter, to health

Legal form Abstract legal claims over

future wealth Concrete legal titles over existing

wealth Moral claims on wealth that

legally belongs to others Quantity Future wealth; a potentially

infinite quantity Related to existing wealth; a

necessarily finite quantity Related to existing wealth; a necessarily finite quantity

Source: originally from Gorga (1999) ‘Toward the definition of economic rights’, p.89. Table 2 is drawn by author.

Unfortunately, not all the nations nowadays have signed and ratified all the treaties of the twin Covenants of the First and Second Generation Rights, including China, the US and the UK. The primary treaties of human rights in 2007 are listed below and the status of sign and ratification can be found in Table 3:

1. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966 (CESCR)

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 (CCPR) 3. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discriminations of 21

December 1965 (CERD)

4. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women of 18 December 1979 (CEDAW)

38 However, this PhD study believes, the definitions above on different categories of rights remain very much at the normative and literal level. It is very challenging for journalists to quickly and precisely discover which category of rights their reported conflict belongs to, as the real world situation is often very complex.

81 5. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment of 10 December 1984 (CAT)

6. Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 (CRC)

7. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families of 18 December 1990 (MWC)

8. International convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances (ICCPED)

Table 3 Sign and ratification of human rights by the US, the UK and China

US UK China

As displayed in Table 3, only the UK has signed and ratified the twin International Covenant.

US only signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On the other hand, China only signed and ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These different choices of signing and ratification of treaties of human rights signify the different preferences of understandings of human rights between the US and China in particular and also between the West and the East in general. Despite the

interrelation, interdependence and the indivisibility of the First and Second Generation Rights, Chapman (1996) argues that ‘the international community, including the international human rights movement, has consistently treated civil and political rights as more significant, while consistently neglecting economic, social and cultural rights’ (p. 1159). Also, the World Conference on Human Rights on Behalf of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that ‘the principle of the indivisibility of human rights has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance’ (Chapman 1996, p.23). In addition, argued by Joseph and Castan (2013), only the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights contain ‘a large body of jurisprudence’ and has been ‘incorporated into the domestic law of many State Parties’ (p. 4). Such challenges of the very ideology of universal human rights as well as the disputes over the Civil Political Rights or the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has always been the priority of source in terms of the political and media wrangle between the West and China.

82 4.2 Galtung’s historical-structural and civilizational-cultural perspective of human rights

This section moves onto reviewing Galtung’s perspective of human rights, since Galtung’s peace and conflict theories set up the very basic foundation for the idea of HRJ (see Chapter 2). The theoretical basis of how and what Galtung perceived human rights to be are greatly valued and acknowledged by this PhD study.

Human rights, to Galtung (1994), is another key ‘effort to reduce direct violence’ with overlapped value-orientation with peace (p. vii). A traditional formula of ‘Western HR = universal HR’ is spelled out by Galtung (1994, p.1). And this formula has gained almost automatic acceptance by the world. If to agree the premise of this forum is based on

‘universal = West + non-West’, Galtung (1994) argues three problems associated. First, it is wrong to impose human rights either by the West on the non-West or the other way around.

Second, the non-West is not benefiting from its own traditions of human rights. And third, the West is not benefiting from the non-West’s traditions of human rights. Thus, in this context, human rights are conceived as ‘a norm, concerning, indeed protecting, the rock bottom of human existence’ and ‘a link to basic human needs which potentially would make human rights applicable to human beings everywhere’ (Galtung 1994, p. 2). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ‘provided an extension mechanism for HR from the West countries [including the Western countries such as the UK, France and the US before their revolutions] that did not have the HR tradition’ (Galtung 1994, p.3). On this basis, Galtung (1994) further explains, in the modern world, the norm-sender is only restricted to the explanations provided by organisation of states or community, such as the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Individual human rights thus are referred as the norm-objects.