via: danwei, asianpundit, imagethief, peking duck
update:
eswn - The 'True' Statistics About Avian Flu In China (comment by bingfeng: if the data are ture, then the points i made in the following parts are seriously challenged. the question is, why the government spent so many resources in controlling it but at the same time trying to cover things up, i can't see any logic behind it)
china daily - Anhui reports newest outbreak of bird flu
related links: eswn - How The Hong Kong Press Reported On The Bird Flu In China
danwei cited a Caijing magazine editorial which criticized chinese media's reactions towards birld flu:
despite [the greater transparency of the government in the wake of SARS], the domestic press still lags noticeably behind in its coverage. News about the virus often takes a detour to reach domestic audiences: it is first covered by foreign media, and then picked up by domestic press. Journalists sent to infected areas also say that local officials have not been cooperative enough...
within a few hours, the post was circulated and echoed among english blogs and even became sort of "proof" to refute a previous post of mine to defend chinese media.
i am not sure which news "takes a detour to reach the domestic audience" since almost all china bird flu stories were released first by chinese media and then reported overseas, i know a few exceptions did occur at the very early stage or when the foreign media just gossiped around without solid fact base.
as for the question whether chinese media reacted promptly? i did a little research in the most comprehensive coverage on bird flu in china's leading news protal - sina, and found that the earliest reporting about bird flu in china dated back to May 21, released by Xinhua on May 21 and reproduced by Sina on the same day:
青海省刚察县候鸟发生H5N1禽流感疫情
http://www.sina.com.cn 2005年05月21日16:36 新华网
the report says, " the agriculture department announced on May 21, that the agriculture dept received a report from Qianghai agriculture and husbandry bureau on May 4 that there are some birds died .... after checked by the National Bird Flu Reference Lab, they are confirmed to infected H5N1 virus"
i doubt any media could report the case before the lab confirms it, certainly the local government took preemptive measures as soon as they found dead birds.
i guess the media reportings on bird flu in china must follow a procedures to ensure the reported stories are authentic and accurate and in a way that public panic could be avoided. otherwise, just image how commercial media fan up the anti-japan sentiment in china.
so what's my point here. from what i know, the accusations brought by Caijing magazine are not tenable. chinese media do react to the bird flu in a proper and prompt way, it's proper because the way they reported the cases reflects a balance betwen media professionalism and social responsibility, it's prompt because they reported the cases in the earliest time they could report.
i don't know if Caijing magazine has any other information to back up their notions. the perspective they view the bird flu reportings in china has a very strong western "birthmark", not necessarily bad but weakened their independence of thinking. with such a pre-set conclusion at mind, Caijing seems to me another BWJ to use fabricated basis to support a valid argument.
as a final note, i must make it clear that i am totally agree with the conclusions reached by Caijing:
...Clearly, we still have a ways to go in China to create completely transparent mechanisms for media scrutiny and the release of information to the public.
and my salute to all bloggers who care for china's media progress.