Does Global Times/环球时报 Provide Reliable Coverage of Hong Kong Protest Issues?
On 29 September, Global Times published an article (pasted partially below here, and in full still further below) citing subject matter expert(s) as stating that, should the Hong Kong Police prove unable to control the protests, there would be no legal obstacles to People’s Armed Police crossing the border from the Mainland to stabilize the situation. What was the significance of this?
mil.huanqiu.com › 军事 › 军事评论
1 hour ago – 近日，香港地区连续发生了罢课学生在“学联”和“学民思潮”操控下暴力冲击特区首长、
Not surprisingly, given the sensitive subject of the article, the link on the Global Times website no longer works. But the text is still available here on Sohu.
In any case, in this tragic and difficult time, it behooves China watchers around the world to redouble their efforts to understand the PRC and related issues as accurately as possible from a wide range of available open sources. To that end, the below English-language post in Sinostand on the Global Times and the nature and accuracy (or lack thereof) of its various types of coverage bears careful consideration. It’s worth reading in full for the nuances, which are all too often lost.
Personally, I believe that it’s generally better to share articles, but they must be contextualized and analyzed rigorously to avoid misinterpretation or misunderstanding. Do we have a sad, but teachable, moment here?
2014-09-29 08:11:00环球时报王强分享
武警参与香港安保没有法理障碍
作者：王强
近日，香港地区连续发生了罢课学生在“学联”和“学民思潮”操控下暴力冲击特区首长、政府总部和立法会的违法事件。据媒体称，现场“情况一度极其混乱”。可以看到，香港地区有人打着“争民主”旗号进行的特区首长产生方式之争，正在接近事件性质演变的拐点，反华势力内勾外联争夺特区管辖权的图谋更加赤裸。发生这种损害国家根本利益的事件，任何主权国家都不可能无限容忍，通常都会依照法律以强制力量进行干预，并且会根据事态大小决定介入方式。
以武装力量介入国家行政管理，确保宪法得以执行，是现代国家的通行做法。当今许多国家都有这种准军事的警察部队，主要担负警戒重要目标、维护社会治安等任务。“宪兵宪兵，宪法之兵。”只要有宪法法律的授权，在发生骚乱、暴乱等紧急事态时，这支武装力量均会参加一线处置，弥补普通警察力量的不足。正是因为警宪部队作用重大，欧盟还专门组建了多国联合宪兵部队，专门担负跨境安保维稳任务，在许多政局动荡地区为恢复当地秩序发挥了重要作用。
根据我国《宪法》、《国防法》和《人民武装警察法》的规定，人民武装警察部队就是一支维护国家安全和社会稳定的武装力量，负有参加处置暴乱、骚乱、严重暴乱犯罪、恐怖袭击和其他社会安全事件的职责。武警部队是中华人民共和国武装力量的组成部分，接受全国法律的调整。香港特别行政区虽然由特区《基本法》予以保障，但如果形势发展变化，需要武警部队在特别行政区执行相关安全保卫任务时，并不会遇到任何法律障碍。
香港特区依照《基本法》享有的高度自治，不是特区固有的而是中央政府赋予的。高度自治不是完全自治，在处理中央和特区关系上，中央政府具有不可取代的主导权，否则恢复行使主权和治权就是一句空话。因此，《基本法》不但保留了反颠覆条款，还明确规定，发生香港特别行政区政府不能控制的危及国家统一或安全的动乱时，全国人大常委会决定香港特别行政区进入紧急状态并授权中央人民政府发布命令，将有关全国性法律在香港特别行政区实施。很明显，在必要时刻，武警部队根据中央人民政府命令，依照《中华人民共和国人民武装警察法》在香港地区遂行平息骚乱、恢复社会秩序等安全保卫任务，合理、合法。
毋庸置疑，香港特区警政部门是一支非常高效的执法力量，面对闹事人群肆无忌惮的日益扰攘，表现了高度的专业素养。然而一旦事态有变，香港警队恐难心有力从，而此时，如果得到武警部队的支援，香港社会早日恢复稳定就有了更为可靠的保障。
“Why We Need to Stop Sharing Global Times Editorials,” Sinostand, 19 September 2014.
Most of us China watchers have done it at some point. We see a bellicose, inflammatory or otherwise head-scratchingly strange editorial in the nationalistic Global Times newspaper, and we re-tweet it out of mockery or disbelief. Today we all had a good laugh when GT declared that the Scotland independence referendum is “a tremor shaking the whole Western system” and shows that “the tide of secessionism is rising in the West.” Sometimes we go even further than just sharing these stories. When GT called the U.S. a “mincing rascal” for its computer hacking claims against China, it was a gift for the many media outlets that were able to draw up entire articles about it. But we really need to stop, and here’s why:
Global Times gives incentives to troll
A few weeks ago on Twitter, a Global Times employee revealed that the company gives traffic-based bonuses and also “bonuses for mentions in foreign media, good or bad, and for comment volume, positive or negative.” This was later confirmed to me by other GT employees (Global Times itself responded to my email for comment, but never replied after I asked about its incentive schemes). By a long shot, the articles in Global Times that get re-shared and covered most frequently by foreign media are the ones that say the most absurd things.
It would appear this is something the paper has taken note of, as we seem to be seeing these editorials becoming crazier and more frequent. So in effect, whenever we share or write an article about one of these pieces, we’re playing right into Global Times’ hands. We’re encouraging trolls and taking opinions at face value that likely have financial incentives driving them.
Another thing people usually fail to account for is that the English editorials go through foreign editors. So when you see highly quotable and alliterative terms like “rampant rascality” or “prancing provocateurs” used, they may have come from a mischievous foreign editor rather than a Chinese ideologue. As a separate GT employee said, articles drawn up to flag these crazy statements are “essentially click bait feeding off click bait.”
The only way to kill a troll is to ignore it
These editorials routinely defame dissidents, report outright false information and rile up nationalism and racism. In most situations, it’s just not worth putting a megaphone in front of these messages. …
