The Media, The Truth

In today’s post, I present to you my attempt at translating a good-sized Chinese news article. Published on June 26th, 2009 in Jiangxi Province’s Daily News, this piece is entitled Experts Refute Report of ‘Unprecedented Air Pollution at Beijing’s Olympic Games’ and is followed by a caption that reads: It’s pointed out that the foreign media’s method of reporting is irresponsible and disingenuous. To fully enjoy, you should first read this and/or this, which both summarize the findings of the study that are criticized in the article below (click the picture to get a clear, full-sized view of the actual article and not just be forced to read my jumbled translation).

Recently, England’s ‘The Daily Telegraph’ and other media sources have reported on the result of an environmental research project conducted by Oregon State University (OSU), in collaboration with some scientists at Beijing University. The findings of the study indicate that the air pollution during Beijing’s 2008 Olympic Games was Olympic history’s most severe, and that athletes and spectators had to deal with dangerous levels of smoke and dust.


On June 25th, scientists from an Olympic air quality and control research group, along with Professor Zhu Tong, who was specially invited by Beijing University’s School of Environment and Engineering, declared that the foreign media’s deceptive attempt at indiscriminately using such a sensational headline is a reporting method that is wholly irresponsible and extremely insincere.

Prof. Zhu Tong admits that during the Olympic Games, in one of Beijing University’s science buildings, OSU did in fact set up some air quality measurement equipment to conduct their research. “As far as I know, from a technical perspective, there is no problem with the observations made. However, their use of data collected in Beijing University’s monitoring building to extrapolate on the condition of all of Beijing’s air quality is in itself non-scientific.” Professor Zhu Tong believes the study was unsystematic and only looked at the air pollution phenomenon from one perspective. While the results of OSU’s survey may be used for academic exchange and reference, the problem is that the research team exaggerated the results of their analysis. The fact that this imperfect study, with its limited conclusions, was published in a scientific journal and is getting such enormous media publicity is careless and inconsiderate.

According to our understanding, experts on environmental protection at Beijing University have also called into question what the OSU scientists have claimed with regard to Beijing’s air pollution being more severe than that of past Olympic host cities. Since there is not sufficient factual evidence, and because whether or not the use of OSU’s monitoring equipment was exactly the same as that of other research groups in prior Olympics, there exists at least a 30% systematic margin of error in the results. Moreover, it’s impossible for the data from just one survey to be worth comparing to the average survey results from a network of dozens.

Other experts from Beijing University believe that, more importantly, the concentration of particulate matter is already very low, and even if the level of Beijing’s atmospheric particulate matter is slightly higher than that of previous Olympic host cities, that doesn’t constitute, or make up pollution. Comparing the intensity of pollution between cities at this time is just a way of creating sensationalized news.

*The caption of the photo in the article reads: “During the Olympic Games, Beijing’s blue skies allowed people to feel carefree.”

I won’t comment here on the content of the article or its implications, as I’m sure you are smart enough to draw your own conclusions. What I will do, however, is provide you with a few links and ideas if you wish to investigate further. First, a piece on China’s internet ‘spin-doctors’ that the BBC published online late last year. Second, an analysis of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s June 2008 media policy speech, as well as its original Chinese text. Third, if you are able to read Chinese, you can google "舆论导向," which is translated as ‘the guidance of public opinion.’ And if you really love googling, you can try “China Control 2.0” for some other interesting results. Lastly, this link to the OpenNet Initiative provides some good information. I find it quite ironic that I’m posting this entry while in China on a blogging service that is ‘officially’ blocked.

Anyway, the moral of today’s story is that it’s important to be aware of the social and political context in which the things you read are published. You should also know who wrote what you’re reading, and what their potential aims may be. While the absolute truth may be impossible to find, this type of understanding will help you to construct a much more accurate picture of reality.