Jeg sidder og kigger lidt rundt på diverse netmedier, og hos Washington Post finder jeg en artikel (kræver login) omkring et begreb i Kina, der kaldes “marxistisk journalistik”.
Eleverne bliver blandt andet undervist i historie (den kinesiske udgave) og lærer den (tilbageholdende) rolle, som der forventes af journalister i et land som Kina. Læs blot her om undervisningen om Tibets historie:
The mountainous territory [Tibet] has always been an inalienable part of China, they were told, and the Dalai Lama is a sly traitor hiding behind his Buddhist religion to promote secession. The lecture, a rendition of China’s standard government line, put some students to sleep, but most listened patiently.
Baggrunden bag “marxistisk journalism” beskriver Washington Post-journalisten Edward Cody således:
In China, that role traditionally has been to support the government by spreading propaganda and suppressing news that contradicts policy or puts officials in a bad light. But as the country has opened to the world in the last three decades, many journalists — and journalism students and their professors–have acquired new ambitions for their craft, such as investigative reporting on official corruption.
Against that background, the party’s Central Committee in 2001 urged Chinese media and journalism schools to adopt the concept of “Marxist journalism.” The term was broadly interpreted to mean journalism that the government views as improving society and taking account of Chinese realities, including censorship under one-party rule.
Som journalist er jeg selvfølgelig direkte imod denne måde at strømligne journalister. Men hey, hvem er ikke det?
Blot en reminder om, at der er lande, hvor medier og journalister og trange kår. Gad vide hvad begrebet “new media” betyder i Kina?