Air pollution in Beijing, China

By studying the political representation over the recent issue, air pollution in Beijing, I chose three articles from China Daily, The New York Times, and BBC, which hold a variety of stances and opinions.

China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-09/30/content_17003905.htm

the New York Times http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/amid-heavy-pollution-beijing-    issues-emergency-rules-to-protect-citizens/?_r=0

BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24566288

Basically these three articles are allocated into two groups: the one of China Daily standing for the typical representation from national state-run media on the one hand, BBC and the New York Times for foreign media on the other. Although the opposition between two sides is not considerably intensive, their slants and the way of representation differentiate to a great extent and the competition is out of question.

Here I have sorted out a couple of major differences between two groups:

1 The most direct viewing point is the use of photos. Instead of posting some striking pictures of the dark and smoggy sky like what BBC does, the one China Daily selects is relatively mild and acceptable. The girl is calm and her protection is uncomplicated; most importantly the sky in the back is bright and deliberately blurred to leave readers the impression that maybe the air is not heavily polluted. Or on the contrary, BBC selects their picture elaborately to exaggerate the fact.

                                      

                            

2 The factors of air pollution are analyzed quite differently. China Daily only reports “Meteorologists blame pollution on stagnant air”; while BBC broadcasts “Beijing has more than four million private cars, considered to be a major source of the city’s air pollution”. It is transparent that national authoritarian media deliberately leave out artificial factors such as vehicles and precaution, which could lead to criticism towards the government. Similarly, possible consequences are not covered at all in China Daily’s story. While the New York Times provide some information of the health danger according to Reuters and the possible rocketing pressure on public transportation.

3 the third point lies in the representation of government’s plan. China Daily merely covers the newly released rate system to monitor pollution; however the genuinely controversial and crucial part is the auto restriction, which is reported by both BBC and the New York Times. Moreover they also provide several pieces of criticism of the new policy from Chinese Twitter. A rather blunt one is “…whether the car rule will solve the air pollution problem. I don’t believe this is a good policy. It’s a simple and crude measure that leaves the skies still smoggy”, and complaints exemplified as “restriction for targeting ordinary people as cars used by government officials and civil servants are exempted…ordinary people are the first to be forced to pay the price for it”.

It is not objective to draw the conclusion that the articles from BBC and the New York Times are impartial and unbiased, but the one from China Daily, without causal factors, consequences and criticism, is considerably superficial and not critical at all. After comparing the two groups of reports, I’m better informed and more convinced by the foreign articles. 

Xu WANG