China Media
Chinese Media Slam Dutch Reporter and Broadcaster NOS After On-Air Incident
On Twitter, many saw the moment as an example of Chinese treatment of the press, while many on Weibo viewed the incident as an example of foreign media putting China in a bad light.
A Dutch reporter made international headlines this week after he was dragged away by security guards during a live news broadcast for NOS, the Dutch state broadcaster, about the Beijing Winter Olympics opening ceremony.
The incident happened on Friday, February 4th (link to video). Journalist Sjoerd den Daas was doing a live broadcast outside Beijing’s National Stadium for NOS (Dutch Broadcasting Foundation) covering the Olympics when he was pushed away from the camera by a local security volunteer.
The moment the guard steps up to Den Daas and his cameraman, he says: “Let’s move, brothers” (“咱们往前走哥儿们”). Den Daas then says: “Wait, I’m in the middle of a broadcast.” The guard continues to say: “You’re not allowed to stay in this spot,” and pulls Den Daas away. As the guard made it impossible for Den Daas to continue, the broadcaster cut away from the shot and returned to the studio anchor.
The NOS broadcaster later posted about the issue on Twitter, writing:
“Our correspondent @sjoerddendaas was pulled away from the camera by security guards at 12.00 pm live in the NOS News Bulletin. Unfortunately, this is increasingly becoming a daily reality for journalists in China. He is fine and was able to finish his story a few minutes later.”
The editor-in-chief of NOS News, Marcel Gelauf, stated that the incident is “a painful example of the current state of press freedom in China. Don’t touch journalists.”
On Twitter, some suggested that the reporters were forcibly removed by Chinese officials because the background of the broadcast wasn’t “flattering enough.” Author Andy Ngo said that “the incident illustrates the tight control Beijing has on journalists.”
On February 5th, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) also responded1 to the incident, calling it an “isolated event” which “will not affect foreign media’s reporting at the Beijing Games.”
“Deliberately Provocative”
After the incident, various Chinese media condemned the reporter and the Dutch broadcaster. The nationalistic Chinese online media outlet Guancha News (观察者网) posted a video of the incident on Weibo, writing:
“‘Look at the sweat on my head.’ Last night at 8 pm, when the entire world was following the opening ceremony of the Olympics, a Beijing security guard was working hard, politely asking a Dutch reporter who had entered a temporarily restricted area to leave. But this reporter not only failed to show his identity papers, but he was also disrespectful to the security staff and even made a “performance” all by himself. The Dutch news outlet NOS, for which the journalist works, also issued an online post smearing the Chinese security personnel for “interfering” with the journalist’s work. So, we must expose their faces!“
In the Gengzhi Ge (耿直哥) column2, the Chinese-language state newspaper Global Times criticized the NOS for reiterating Western media clichés about Chinese interference with journalists when writing that these kinds of events are a “daily reality for journalists in China.”
They also said the Dutch media was being “deliberately provocative”3 by entering a “controlled area,” with the Dutch journalist and cameraman allegedly failing to show their ID when confronted by security staff and further “inflaming the situation.”
The Global Times claims that the intersection where the Dutch media was standing during their live broadcast was already marked as a limited access area since February 3rd, and was only accessible to vehicles and pedestrians with special documents for the opening ceremony.
Global Times writes that the area where the Dutch crew was filming was marked as a restricted access area.
A map marking the area where the Dutch reporter was standing during the incident as a temporarily controlled area.
When the Dutch media continued to report without showing proof that they were allowed to operate in this controlled area, the security staff reportedly went up to them and asked them to leave. The reporter then went on to do his live broadcast, which is the moment that went viral. As the guard tells the reporters that they need to move and tells them they can’t be in this spot, he also can be heard saying “Look at my sweaty head!” (“瞅我这一脑袋汗”), as the guard indeed seems to break out in a sweat and starts pulling the reporter away to get him out of the restricted area. Den Daas then can be heard saying: “What are you doing?!”
According to Gengzhi Ge, the Dutch NOS reporter and camera crew can only be blamed for this incident themselves by accessing an area they should not have accessed without the right papers, failing to show their ID, not properly communicating, not following security orders and not showing respect to the local guards.
The author also argues that the very fact that the NOS themselves tweeted that their reporter was fine and was able to finish the interview just minutes later shows that the security staff was not interfering with their work at all, concluding: “For some arrogant and ignorant Western media, isn’t it easier to slander and discredit others rather than admitting they are at fault themselves?”
Popular law blogger Han Dongyan (@韩东言), who has over 2.2 million followers on Weibo, called the Dutch reporter a “drama queen,” with other Weibo users referring to Den Daas as a ‘pengci‘ – a term that literally means ‘porcelain bumping’ and refers to people who pretend to be injured or hurt for their own benefit.
“They just used this as an excuse to make a fuss,” other Weibo commenters say, also writing: “They’re discrediting China by misrepresenting the facts.”
Although several Weibo users labeled the journalist as ‘Dutch trash’, there were also those who praised his Chinese speaking skills.
On February 5th, Sjoerd den Daas posted about the incident on his Twitter account. According to the Dutch reporter, he did follow police orders regarding the area where they were allowed to film. He claims that, just after going live, he was “forcefully pulled out of the picture without any warning” and that the man who dragged him away, a plainclothes man wearing a “Public Safety Volunteer” badge, did not identify himself.
Den Daas writes that it was not properly explained to him what they had done wrong. They were able to continue their interview from a parking lot around the corner.
He also adds: “In recent weeks, we, like several foreign colleagues, have been hindered or stopped several times by the police while reporting on subjects related to the Games. Therefore, it’s hard to see last night’s incident as an isolated incident, as the IOC claims, although such interference rarely happens live on broadcast.”
By Manya Koetse
With contributions by Miranda Barnes.
1Although the IOC spokesperson claimed they had been in touch with the NOS, the Dutch broadcaster said there had been no contact with the IOC at all.
2 Gengzhi Ge (耿直哥), meaning “Honest Brother,” is a Global Times column by Gao Lei (高雷, 1985).
3 “无理取闹” wú lǐ qǔ nào: “vexatious,” “to make trouble without reason.”
Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.
©2022 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.
China Local News
Changsha Restaurant Employee Pays the Price after Protecting Abused Child
A Changsha restaurant employee who intervened when a mother beat her child ended up paying the price for it.
China Fashion & Beauty
Fashion that Hurts? Online Debates on China’s Draft Law Regarding ‘Harmful’ Clothes
The proposed ban on clothing deemed harmful is stirring debate, with some arguing for the significance of protecting national pride and others emphasizing the value of personal expression.
A draft amendment to China’s Public Security Administration Punishments Law (治安管理处罚法) has caused some controversy this week for proposing a ban on clothes that “hurt national feelings.”
The discussions are about Article 34, clausules 3 and 4, which point out that wearing clothing or symbols that are deemed “harmful” to “the spirit and feelings of the Chinese nation” could become illegal. Offenders may face up to 15 days of detention and a fine of 5,000 yuan ($680).
The revised Article is part of a section about acts disrupting public order and their punishment, mentioning the protection of China’s heroes and martyrs.
Especially over the past three to four years, Chinese authorities have placed more importance on protecting the image of China’s “heroes and martyrs.” In 2018, the Heroes and Martyrs Protection Law was adopted to strengthen the protection of those who have made significant contributions to the nation and sacrificed their lives in the process.
Those insulting the PLA can face serious consequences. In 2021, former Economic Observer journalist Qiu Ziming (仇子明), along with two other bloggers, were the first persons to be charged under the new law as they were detained for “insulting” Chinese soldiers. Qiu, who had 2.4 million fans on his Weibo page, made remarks questioning the number of casualties China said it suffered in the India border clash. He was sentenced to eight months in prison.
Earlier this year, Chinese comedian Li Haoshi was canceled making a joke that indirectly made a comparison between PLA soldiers and stray dogs, while also placing words famously used by Xi Jinping in a ridiculous context.
Screenshot of the draft widely shared on social media.
The draft is open for public comment through September 30, and it is therefore just a draft of a proposed amendment at this point.
Nevertheless, it has ignited many discussions on Chinese social media, where legal experts, bloggers, and regular netizens gave their views on the issue, with many people opposing the amendment.
This a translation of the first four clausules of Article 34 by Jeremy Daum’s China Law Translate (see the full translation here). Note that the discussions are focused on the item (2) and (3) revisions:
“Article 34：Those who commit any of the following acts are to be detained for between 5 and 10 days or be fined between 1,000 and 3,000 RMB; and where the circumstances are more serious, they are to be detained for between 10 and 15 days and may be concurrently fined up to 5,000 RMB:
(1) engaging in activities in public places that are detrimental to the environment and atmosphere for commemorating heroes and martyrs;
(2) Wearing clothing or bearing symbols in public places that are detrimental to the spirit of the Chinese people and hurt the feelings of the Chinese people, or forcing others do do so;
(3) Producing, transmitting, promoting, or disseminating items or speech that is detrimental to the spirit of the Chinese people and hurts the feelings of the Chinese people;
(4) Desecrating or negating the deeds and spirit of heroes and martyrs, or advocating or glorifying wars of aggression or aggressive conduct, provocation, or disrupting public order.”
Here, we mention the biggest online discussions surounding the draft amendment.
Main Objections to the Amendment
On Chinese social media site Weibo, commenters used various hashtags to discuss the recent draft, including the hashtags “China’s Proposed Amendment to the Public Security Administration Punishments Law” (#我国拟修订治安管理处罚法#), “Article 34 of the Draft Amendment to the Public Security Administration Punishments Law” (#治安管理处罚法修订草案第34条#) or “Harm the Feelings of the Chinese Nation” (#伤害中华民族感情#).
The issue that people are most concerned about is the vague definition “harming or hurting the spirit and feelings of the Chinese nation” (“伤害中华民族精神、感情”).
Although Chinese state media outlets, including the English-language Global Times, indicate that the clause is deemed to target some provocative actions to attract public attention, such as wearing Japanese military uniforms at sensitive sites, legal experts and social media users are expressing apprehensions regarding its ambiguity.
Questions arise: Who determines what qualifies as “harmful”? What criteria will be used? How will it be enforced? Beyond concerns about the absence of clear guidelines on which attire might be deemed illegal and for what reasons, there are fears of potential misinterpretation and misuse of such a law due to its subjective nature.
Some people question whether wearing foreign brands like Adidas or Nike could be considered offensive. There are also concerns about whether wearing sports attire supporting specific clubs might be seen as disrespectful. Another common topic is cosplay, a popular form of role-playing among China’s youth, where individuals dress up in costumes and accessories to portray specific characters. Can people still dress up in the way they like?
Well-known political commentator Hu Xijin published a video commentary about the issue on September 7, suggesting that the law in question could be more concrete and avoid misunderstanding by explicitly mentioning it targets facism, racism, or separatism. He also suggested that it is important for China’s legal system to provide people with a sense of security (– rather than scaring them).
Others reiterated similar views. If the clausules are indeed specifically about slandering national heroes and martyrs, which makes sense considering their context, they should be rephrased. One popular legal blogger (@皇城根下刀笔吏) wrote:
“The legal enforceability of harming the spirit and the feelings of the Chinese nation is not quite the same as insulting or slandering heroes. Because it is actually very clear who our national heroes are. They are classified as martyrs and were approved by the state, it’s very clear. But when it comes to the feelings and the spirit of the Chinese nation, this is just very vague (..) And ambiguity brings about a mismatch in the practice of implementation, which will make people lose trust in this legal provision and makes them feel unsafe.”
Although a majority of commenters agree that the proposed amendment is vague, some also express that they would support a ban on clothes that are especially offensive. Among them is the popular blogger Han Dongyan (@韩东言), who has over 2.3 million followers on Weibo.
One example that is mentioned a lot, also by Han, is the 2001 controversy surrounding Chinese actress Vicky Zhao who wore a mini-dress printed with the old Japanese naval flag during a fashion shoot, triggering major backlash over her perceived lack of sensitivity to historical matters and the offensive dress.
Han also mentioned a 2018 example of two young men dressed in Imperial Japanese military uniforms taking a photo in front of the Shaojiashan Bunker at Zijin Mountain, where the Second Sino-Japanese War is commemmorated.
Kimono Problems
One trending story that is very much entangled with recent discussions about the proposed ban on ‘harmful’ clothing is that about a group of Chinese men and women who were recently denied access to the Panlongcheng National Archaeological Site Park in Wuhan because staff members allegedly mistook their clothing for Japanese traditional attire.
The individuals were actually not wearing Japanese traditional dress at all; they were wearing traditional Tang dynasty clothing to take photos of themselves. This is part of the Hanfu Movement, a social trend that is popular among younger people who supports the wearing of Han Chinese ethnic clothing (read more).
Amid discussions over draft law banning clothes harmful to the "spirit, feelings of the Chinese nation," this incident sparked discussions: Chinese wearing Tang clothes were denied entry at Panlongcheng Park, Wuhan, after local guard mistook their clothes for Japanese attire. pic.twitter.com/IokazvhBhl
— Manya Koetse (@manyapan) September 8, 2023
According to Zhengguan News (正观新闻), there is no official park policy prohibiting the wearing of Japanese clothing, and an internal investigation into the incident is ongoing. The Paper reported that the incident allegedly happened around closing time.
Meanwhile, this incident has sparked discussions because it highlights the potential consequences when authorities arbitrarily enforce clothing rules and misinterpret situations. One netizen wrote: “It illustrates that when “some members of the public” cannot even tell the difference between Hanfu, Tang dynasty attire, and Japanese kimono, they are simply venting their emotions.”
Last year, a Chinese female cosplayer who was dressed in a Japanese summer kimono while taking pictures in Suzhou’s ‘Little Tokyo’ area was taken away by local police for ‘provoking trouble’ (read here).
A young Chinese woman was taken away by local police in Suzhou last Wednesday because she was wearing a kimono. "If you would be wearing Hanfu (Chinese traditional clothing), I never would have said this, but you are wearing a kimono, as a Chinese. You are Chinese!" pic.twitter.com/et8vWOferQ
— Manya Koetse (@manyapan) August 15, 2022
A video showed how the young woman was scolded by an officer for wearing the Japanese kimono, suggesting she is not allowed to do so as a Chinese person. The girl was known to be a cosplayer, and she was dressed up as the character Ushio Kofune from the Japanese manga series Summer Time Rendering, wearing a cotton summer kimono, better known as yukata.
The incident sparked extensive debates, with differing viewpoints emerging. While some believed the girl’s choice of wearing Japanese clothing during the week leading up to August 15, a memorial day marking the end of the war, was insensitive, many commenters defended her right to engage in cosplay.
These discussions are resurfacing on Weibo, underscoring the divided opinions on the matter.
One Weibo user expressed a common viewpoint: “I believe wearing a Japanese kimono in everyday situations is not a problem, but doing so at specific times and places could potentially offend the sentiments of the Chinese nation.” Another blogger (@猹斯拉) also voiced support for a law that could prohibit certain clothing: “If you genuinely believe what you’re wearing is not harmful, you always have the right to make your argument.”
However, there is also significant opposition, with some individuals posting images of themselves reading George Orwell’s 1984 at night or making cynical remarks like, “Maybe we should say nothing and wear nothing, as anything else could lead to our arrest.”
“This is not progress,” another person wrote: “It’s taking another step back in time.”
By Manya Koetse
Follow @whatsonweibo
With contributions by Miranda Barnes
Get the story behind the hashtag. Subscribe to What’s on Weibo here to receive our newsletter and get access to our latest articles:
Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.
©2023 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.
“Elderlies” in Their Thirties: The Growing Interest of Chinese Youth in Nursing Homes
Changsha Restaurant Employee Pays the Price after Protecting Abused Child
Bad Apples? Chinese Actor Liu Jin Smashes iPhone 13 Pro Max, Anger over ‘Chinese’ Employee Photo on Apple Website
“Oppenheimer” in China: Highlighting the Story of Qian Xuesen
Chinese Man Wants to Marry Deaf-Mute Girlfriend, Marriage License Application Gets Denied
Behind 8 Billion Streams: Who is Dao Lang Cursing in the Chinese Hit Song ‘Luocha Kingdom’?
About Wang Yi’s “You Can Never Become a Westerner” Remarks
Russian Perspectives, Ridiculing Putin Supporters: Chinese Online Media Responses to the Wagner Mutiny
Chinese Tourists in Europe: Getting Robbed Is Part of the Experience
Jiangsu Woman Takes Smiling Selfie with Injured Victim in Background
When White People Discovered China’s ‘White People Food’ Trend
Zhang versus Zhang: An Online Debate over the Value of Studying Journalism in China
Paper over Cracks: Online Frustrations about Official Language Sugarcoating China’s Youth Employment Crisis
“Unrestrained” and “Fearless”: Chinese Messi Fan’s Pitch Invasion Ignites Memes and Admiration
Clicking Into the Craze: Exploring the Rise of “Ethnic-Themed Photos” Among Chinese Tourists
-
China Arts & Entertainment2 months agoBehind 8 Billion Streams: Who is Dao Lang Cursing in the Chinese Hit Song ‘Luocha Kingdom’?
-
China Insight3 months agoAbout Wang Yi’s “You Can Never Become a Westerner” Remarks
-
China Media3 months agoRussian Perspectives, Ridiculing Putin Supporters: Chinese Online Media Responses to the Wagner Mutiny
-
China Travel1 month agoChinese Tourists in Europe: Getting Robbed Is Part of the Experience
Pax Politica
February 8, 2022 at 3:40 am
As an Asian, I am with the Chinese security guard. The western journalists aren’t only casting bad lights on themselves but on westerners in general. Turning the images of westerners in general from smart, honest and fair to one that is cunning, loud and selfish. He is in China yet he thought he was superior to the Chinese.
Xexos
February 9, 2022 at 7:59 pm
Yes you are correct. Silly westerners put them in reeducation camp!!! Take away their freedom.
He-Man vd Z
February 9, 2022 at 9:12 pm
I’m glad that I got to know this website and Manya, who is willing to provide a different perspective. I know this will not bring much traffic or visibility, because most of observations on this website don’t fit into the mainstream narrative or code. I have to say this is true journalism, adhering to the author’s own principle, rather than story telling. As a follower, I’ll be happy to see Manya becoming active on bilibili one day, where China’s young generation can get to know you.
W
March 2, 2022 at 1:22 am
To XEXOS：Nah, Silly westerners won’t put them in reeducation camp or take away their freedom, westerners kill them directly in the Middle East and Africa，that is totally fine，isn’t it？