What is striking is that almost all of those riots happened at political/geographical periphery, with similar grievances and comparable destructive energy. But on the other end, at the center, all is too rosy: Taiwan seems never closer to returning than ever, the Olympics seems destined to be one of the most elaborate shows in Chinese history.
Is this a pattern–a bloating and self-delusional center with a deteriorating periphery–that has been repeated before? This is not a rhetorical question, but a genuine one. In the translation I did for Lavely and R. Bin Wong, they talked about how the Tai Ping Tian Guo was the result of collapsing local administrative capacities. But I wondered what the royal court looked like then? Was it also full of pump and circumstances?
The other thought:
What the hell is going on with Chinese media? Is there a quiet “汶川之春“ going on? Listen to this:
And this article is from a magazine (瞭望周刊) that is the “trade journal” of the official media and is, I believe, under direct central control. Read closely, the logic is contorted–it is a stretch to suggest “瓮安事件的处理显然在一定程度上汲取了汶川大地震的经验“. What is “obvious” to me is that this article is trying to construct a narrative and set a tone.
Is this a sign that some insiders are anxiously but cautiously trying to keep alive the opening after 汶川? I can’t help but wonder at what level this article is sanctioned? The fact that there was poor/old way of reporting of the 3.14 Tibetan riots suggests the old guards are still out there. Do they not smell out the wickedness in this article? Who in the Central Committee are they going to resort to? How are they going to fight back? Will this fight stay inside the party or spill out to the commercial media as well? Are there going to be a widespread rectification campaign after the Olympics–or even earlier?
I have been following what’s happening in 瓮安 for several days. It is fascinating for the following reasons:
1. What makes a story explosive?
2. How efficient and effective the Net police is
3. The common damage control technique by the Chinese government
The most comprehensive and the closest to the event can be found here: http://xinwenshe.blogspot.com/ (see postings around 6.28.2008 and several days later, including a video posting)
To be explosive, a story has to have an innocent victim, an evil perpetrator, and an open ending. In this case, the victims are innocent or at least powerless: the rape-murder victim, her uncle and mother. The perpetrators are the police and street thugs. And an open ending is clearly an invitation for action.
The Net police is VERY efficient: two days later, there is scant trace left on the Chinese Net. In fact, when I used Baidu.com, it has suggested several keywords, such as: 贵州瓮安, 瓮安事件, 贵州瓮安事件, 贵州瓮安6.28事件, 瓮安公安局, etc. Many of the posting titles are listed there. However, after 14 random clicks on those with negative titles, only three are left. One (http://www.dongkou.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=11486) had the original posting deleted but nasty comments remained. Isn’t this interesting?
The damage control seems to be:
1. Physical isolation: the roads cut off, news media shut out and a surge of police force
2. Synchronizing message on the cause: it is a few bad guys (黑恶势力人员) with a large “confused” mob (不明真相的群众)
3. Stick to the message: today, only one message left, such as: http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2008-07/01/content_8468856.htm
So far, I believe the government has succeeded in putting a lid on the event.
NYT just identified the prostitute Spitzer hired that night. It turns out she was from a broken family, abused drugs, went homeless at times, and moved to NYC hoping to launch a singing career. She is pretty but neither exotic nor classic. Her hands stand out as anti-climatic. Her boss sent her out for $1000 an hour but she couldn’t pay for the rent on her own.
That is all I know about her. But what struck me the most was her own words. Before going to see Spitzer, she was alerted that he might want to do something “unsafe”. Her reply was nonchalant yet embued with I-am-in-control kind of confidence, “Listen dude, you really want the sex?” Today, however, when interviewed by NYT report at the court house, she said only, “I don’t want to be remembered as a monster”.
I don’t know whether I am in a position to feel sorry for her. Nor do I know whether that is what she is looking for. She is only 22 and still calls home when she is in trouble. But her story made me feel like living in a Kafka-nesque world.
Why does NYT has to parade her in front of the public? Because she ruined so much promise for NYT and what it stands for? What recourse does she have to defend herself or even “opt out of the game”? She begs not to be remembered as a monster, but how she’s perceived is already out of her control.
I thought about posting comments on NYT online or even write to their editors. But then again, how different am I from “Kristen” in front of the machine that has no face, no name yet is omnipresent? If NYT doesn’t pick her out, someone else might. All in the name of public’s right to know but actually is out of the public’s desire to know. I feel a chill to the bone.