{"id":1947,"date":"2020-02-18T16:37:11","date_gmt":"2020-02-18T16:37:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/?p=1947"},"modified":"2020-02-19T12:31:13","modified_gmt":"2020-02-19T12:31:13","slug":"controlleddeathnarrative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/2020\/02\/controlleddeathnarrative\/","title":{"rendered":"Controlled death narrative: Worlding in China and the communication logic of totalitarianism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Sara Xueting Liao<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nopening of 2020 has been unusual. Bushfires have been roaring in Australia for\nmonths. A weird flu season has caused thousands of lives in the U.S. Locusts in\nswarms have been tearing across East Africa. And in China, an epidemic brought\nby an infectious virus has been shaking the state\u2019s foundation of governance that\nis already in crisis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Officially\nreferred to as COVID-19, the outbreak of the new coronavirus disease is now\ndevastating the country. A Chinese doctor, Li Wenliang, who was among the\nearliest to warn his colleagues and friends of a \u201cSARS-like virus,\u201d got\ninfected and died on the night of February 6, 2020. Li was hailed a hero for\nhis action to call attention to the outbreak of COVID-19, which led him to be reprimanded\nby the local police and called as a \u201crumormonger\u201d in the early days of the\nepidemic. As the disease has taken the country by storm, the authorities were\nslapped on the face for their initial handling of the \u201crumors\u201d about the virus,\nclearly and painfully reminiscent of the lack of openness during the SARS\noutbreak in 2003. As the new epidemic took off in 2020, the level of openness\nand information sharing is largely increasing, but so does the censorship and\nsurveillance, which humiliate the intelligence of millions of Chinese in the\nauthorities\u2019 clumsy attempt to control Li\u2019s death narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

News\nof Li\u2019s death started to spread on social media and reported by some news media\nin China, on the night of February 6, which provoked pouring emotions of grief\nand anger. Chinese state media Global Times and People\u2019s Daily, and the World\nHealth Organization posted on their Twitter accounts consecutively and\nrespectively confirming Dr. Li\u2019s death around 11pm. But rumors went into\noverdrive around the same time claiming Li was still in critical condition on extracorporeal\nmembrane oxygenation (ECMO) and under emergency treatment. On top of a wave of\nprayers on social media for a miracle to bring Li back to life, news about his\ndeath on any news media\u2014including the tweets posted by Global Times and\nPeople\u2019s Daily\u2014soon evaporated. Accompanying the growing anger, deep grief and\ndesperate hope, two hashtags #WuhanGovernmentOwnsDrLiAnApology and\n#WeWantFreedomOfSpeech were trending on the Chinese Twitter-like social media\nplatform Weibo with a vast outpouring of support and acknowledgement of the\ncall for the basic human right. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These conflicting reports ended with a declaration of Li\u2019s death from the hospital announced close to 4am on February 7, endorsed by the two state mouthpieces previously mentioned, again on Twitter<\/a>. In the morning of the day, the short-lived activism on social media to fight against bureaucracy and for free speech was all gone, leaving behind only the state media\u2019s narrative on heroism and resilience of the Chinese people as a collective in the crisis. The grotesque control on how an ordinary person dies is a nasty political ploy intended to pacify and dilute public fury but indeed stoked rages toward the legitimacy of the government. A professor of communication at Shenzhen University, Chang Jiang, sarcastically retweeted and commented on People\u2019s Daily\u2019s original announcement on Twitter about Li\u2019s death, \u201cPeople behind the [Great Fire] Wall do not fit to grieve, and have no right to pay their respects [to Dr. Li].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. Chang Jiang\u2019s retweet of\nPeople\u2019s Daily\u2019s post (author\u2019s archive)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compared\nwith the draconian cover-up of details about SARS in 2003, Chinese government\nis ostensibly far more open in updating infected data. But the rare amount of\ntransparency sits in concert with the tightened grip on the information flow of\nany narrative that goes against the grain. State media are rolling out messages\nday and night: The epidemic is emergent but controllable; solidarity rises as\nmedics signed petitions to go to Wuhan for the virus war; international support\nand applause is loud and clear; recovering stories of encouragement and\nconfidence are told. The vicissitudes of life with tears and rain of ordinary\nindividuals in infected areas can be diverted to the lowbrow sloganeering and media\ncoverage on the resign of local officials, disciplinary actions to party\nmembers, critiques to the bureaucratism at the level of local authority, and,\nof course, instructions from the top leaders that emphasize the safety of\nordinary lives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

China\nhas parallel worlds these days. The social media Weibo painfully reflects an\nanarchical society, where desperate people in Wuhan crying out for help and\nself-help, like any drowning man trying to catch at a straw. Volunteers are\nquickly formed fragmented groups, swiftly organizing themselves to fill the\nvoid of civil society, bypassing low-efficient bureaucracy to acquire, sort,\nand deliver medical supplies, food, and other emergency items to hospitals, infected\ncomplex, and people in need. However, because of the immaturity and rush, many\ninexperienced volunteering groups have suffered. Stories spread out as some\nvolunteer groups got unqualified medical supplies that cost them money and time\nand essentially do not help medics on the frontline of the virus war. Individual\nagency and civil society that are denied by the totalitarianism are exactly the\nthings that can largely fill in the void created by complacency and conceit of\nthe system, and become accountable for ordinary lives. But the bottom-up narratives\nabout these lives and practices are rarely recognized as \u201cofficial\u201d news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\nthe contrary, official media keep their grand narrative, celebrating the\nachievements in fighting against COVID-19, selecting-and-editing individual\nstories that are full of warmth and encouragement, presenting hope and\nsolidarity, and constantly claiming and defending state\u2019s authority over any other\ninformation. Any incapability and ineffective handling of the situation only\nhappens and stays at the local\/provincial level. Wuhan and Hubei governments\u2019\nslow reaction, disorganized organization, chaotic management, lack of\naccountability led to underreporting of and even lies about the number of\ninfected cases and relevant information at the early stage of the epidemic. Yet\nthe big problem is that the close system of bureaucracy discourages officials\nto take responsibility to anything that might not help or even hurt their\nupward career, such as information on the outbreak of an epidemic, which is weighted\nhighly disastrous to one\u2019s career than to lives of hundreds of millions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr.\nLi\u2019s death further exacerbated the distance between these worlds. The officials\nof stability maintenance and the vast censorship machine apparently did not\nprepare for Li\u2019s death. For a state that is taking its toll of structural\nissues and the recent U.S.-China trade war, keeping up with its promises of\nprosperity and success seems far hollower than ever before. Now the epidemic\nbrings a new crisis and issues that request new narratives to legitimize the\nshaking foundation of governance. Dr. Li was a perfect fit for the new\nnarrative of what a positive resilient ordinary citizen can do in the national\ncrisis. Nevertheless, the censors haven\u2019t got the scripts written down; Li\npassed away, sarcastically leaving no time for a new script. Thus the\nconflicting reports mirrored the indecision and confusion of the censoring machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
I confirmed with a friend and got a reply

Which caused me indignation  

21:30 [Li\u2019s] heart stopped beating for 20 minutes. Colleagues really wanted to save him\u2026 so tried to put him on ECMO but eventually removed the machine at 22:57, which part I can understand.  

However, [ECMO] was soon put back again with someone saying that \u201c\u2026try to buy more time for officials to response [to how to handle the case]. Fuck them. <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2. Leaked WeChat conversations from people who worked in the hospital indicated an apparent maneuver over Li\u2019s death (author\u2019s archive, the red strike is a tactic to avoid being censored while sending the picture through the message app WeChat; translations by author)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it soon got back on track. Online commentators claimed that a public opinion control tactic was deployed to delay emotion of people who raged over Li\u2019s death. The dead-alive-dead narrative might be helpful to turn the public fury into the disappointment of hope, where angers were choked in the miracle that never comes. As rage spiked and people took to social media en masse <\/em>for their short-lived protests over free speech, a leaked document of \u201cRecommendations for Handling Netizen Reaction to Li Wenliang\u2019s Death<\/a>,\u201d which analyzed public responses to Li\u2019s death and provided policy suggestions to further censorship and propaganda, clearly demonstrated the ever-swift and sophisticated apparatus of ruling. Soon we heard on Central Chinese Television (CCTV) of highly recognition of Li the whistleblower\u2019s heroic action and the call for enforcing accountability in local authorities<\/a> of that the central government sent out a team to investigate issues related to Li as a response to \u201cpublic opinion;\u201d of more positive stories and achievements we have in the epidemic repeatedly. The grand narrative kept engineering to take over any individual story when it does not fit into the Great China\/Dream discourse of a strong and powerful nation under the idolatry of the Big Brother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Guideline for reporting
On reporting Dr. Li\u2019s death, [any reports] should be strict on controlling source information. It is forbidden to use any materials from self-media and conduct autonomous reporting. It is not allowed to have pop-up windows about the news appearing on any websites, or push the news through any apps, or have a comment section under the news in a website or an app to avoid hype. If interactive section is needed, control on the sensation is necessary. No topic discussion is allowed [on social media, supposedly Weibo], and the current trending topic of the news should be gradually taken down.[<\/a>1<\/a>]<\/a> Any pernicious information should be under tight control. <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3. A leaked message on how\nto report the death of Dr. Li (author\u2019s archive; translations are mine.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is nothing new under the sun. China Digital Times<\/a> put up a review of China\u2019s handling of the epidemic which is comparable to the former Soviet Union\u2019s action in the Chernobyl disaster,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u201c\u2026this closed, arrogant, pre-modern power structure spends all of its time removing dissent and has completely lost the ability to correct itself. When faced with a public crisis, these officials are always putting stability maintenance before people\u2019s rights. These outdated governing philosophies and capabilities, concealed by the old system, are now exposed. On this path of stubbornness and complacency, where bad habits die hard, how similar is this to Chernobyl\u2019s Bridge of Death?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4. An artist illustrating\nyoung people’s illusion of the free will under propaganda in China (courtesy of\nMatsuyama Miyabi, more of her work at www.matsuyamamiyabi.com<\/a>)
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> On Weibo, hashtag is associated to a specific section called Huati, literally meaning the topic. Users can create different topic pages in this section, and the name of the page, i.e., topic, is a hashtag. By tagging the topic, different posts by different users will flow under the same page, much similar to Twitter\u2019s hashtag page. When a topic page is deleted in Huati section by Weibo, users can still post with the hashtag but no longer able to construct conversations in a separate page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Sara Xueting Liao The opening of 2020 has been unusual. Bushfires have been roaring in Australia for months. A… <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media-research"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2TCNp-vp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1947"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1958,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1947\/revisions\/1958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/activistmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}