China's 'memory holes' swallow up Melissa Chan

A picture of al-Jazeera correspondent Melissa Chan in their China bureau office in Beijing

Related Stories

The idea of the "unperson", whose existence is erased from all records by the state, comes from George's Orwell's novel 1984.

Today Melissa Chan, the al-Jazeera English television correspondent who, it was announced yesterday, had been expelled from China, seems to have become an "unperson" in China.

The only Chinese-language newspapers in which we could find reports on the expulsion on Wednesday morning were the Hong Kong-affiliated Ta Kung Pao paper from Henan province and the Global Times.

The decision not to grant her a new visa, effectively kicking her out, was made by the Foreign Ministry, and was significant. China has not taken such a step since 1998.

At the Foreign Ministry's daily press conference on Tuesday, 14 out of 18 questions were about the decision, some of which were helpfully recorded by Voice Of America.

Reporters wanted to know why Melissa Chan had been expelled, what rule she had broken and whether this was some sort of warning to all of us.

Start Quote

The problem with the head in the sand approach is that China has left itself voiceless, while in today's YouTube world all Ms Chan's reports are preserved online”

End Quote

Today, the Foreign Ministry's own website, which usually carries a transcript of each daily briefing seems to have expunged Ms Chan's case from the official record. There is no English transcript, just a Chinese one, and that makes no mention of any of the questions about her. Only the four other questions are recorded. The video story on the Chinese page is about the Philippines.

So China's government is in the bizarre position of having censored itself.

US 'disappointed'

There wasn't much in China's responses anyway. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei refused to explain why she had been denied a new visa, saying only "the media concerned know in their heart what they did wrong".

That unfortunately isn't much help when it comes to trying to report China's position or to work out where other correspondents might fall foul of the Foreign Ministry in the future.

The most widely circulated idea is that what China really objected to was a documentary, produced not by Ms Chan but a different department at al-Jazeera, about the alleged use of prison labour to manufacture products for export, and she is being punished despite having no link to the story.

China's move has drawn protests from organisations including the US state department. In a regular briefing, deputy spokesman Mark Toner said the department was "disappointed in the Chinese government".

"To our knowledge she operated and reported in accordance with Chinese law," he said.

The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China, often the target of official ire itself, said in its own statement that it was "the most extreme example of a recent pattern of using journalist visas in an attempt to censor and intimidate foreign correspondents in China". It details other cases where visas have been delayed, denied or never issued.

In 1984, George Orwell wrote about the "memory holes" down which inconvenient documents were dropped to be erased from history. This case seems to be the equivalent.

The problem with the head-in-the-sand approach is that China has left itself voiceless, while in today's YouTube world all Ms Chan's reports are preserved online. So anyone (outside China, or with VPN technology to skirt the online censors if they are inside China) can access them and judge for themselves.

Damian Grammaticas Article written by Damian Grammaticas Damian Grammaticas China correspondent

Uncovering China's illegal ivory trade

Demand for ivory in China has pushed levels of poaching to new highs. The BBC's Damian Grammaticas investigates China's illegal ivory traders.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 135.

    Typing in all caps and yelling doesn't mean you have freedom of speech, but it definitely puts your netiquette into question.
    typing in all caps, meaning emphasizing! One of the core netiquette is RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE, & KEEP FLAME WARS UNDER CONTROL.
    @ CXu
    Why would I bother to post anything about bo xi lai or the blind man? Instead, I would challenge you to ask Theresa May why Mr. Neil Heywood's Chinese wife was not granted visa for the UK when he applied for before he died. He could have been still living with his family happily in his country which refused his wife's visa.

  • rate this

    Comment number 134.

    How can I make a comment on your latest rubbish article?

  • rate this

    Comment number 133.

    @33 et al.
    The idea that suppression is a Maoist innovation only shows the ignorance of the post writers. Suppression has been the constant tool of every Chinese dynasty ever since Ying Zheng made himself the First Emperor of Qin. Even the Tang, the most open dynasty China ever, ran pogroms against Buddhists and Daoists. Not that that makes suppression any better.
    Having lived in China for more than 12 years I find this post a fair summary of ordinary Chinese attitudes. Those attitudes arose long before 1949 and are found in most overseas Chinese communities too. Go and ask them!

  • rate this

    Comment number 132.

    @130, @131

    interesting, surely not some anti-China moderators at the objective and impartial BBC?

    Let's respond the same again to no.131 shall we? though not verbatim, here we go with the Russia=China nonsense:

    1. British fighter jets scrambles against chinese military aircraft probing british airspace.

    2. Chinese espionage conducting assasinations on UK soil.

    3. Chinese gas supplies to europe deliberately disrupted.

    4. Chinese threatens pre-emptive attacks on NATO missile sites.

    5. Chinese nuclear warheads programme for British cities.

    Substituting 'Russia' with 'China'. Stupidity.

  • Comment number 131.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.


Comments 5 of 135



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.