I tend to believe that it wasn't a copy and paste mistake, afterall it was just a reproduction of foreign news. It may 'harm' a bit of the board of editors' political correctness, yet this sort of could-be try-and-error 'mistake' gets score in the Chinese media hall of fame.

The mistake was worse than just using a Reuters report in full - I'm sure the CD paid for report so it would have had the right to use it, as long as it was attributed. But the bulk of the article came from AP. The original Reuters report had a fairly negative focus, most which was removed when it was tacked onto the "Agencies" story. To consciously remove a whole lot of stuff and not notice the Big One - that's really careless.

By the way, there's something in the cardboard baozi post that is triggering one of the GFW's censorship programs. Going through various proxies and trying to hit the escape button just before the axe falls, I've managed to download as far as "Zan discusses how Zi's lack of professional ethics". Can't get any further. You couldn't identify the forbidden word(s) or character(s) and split them so we can read the rest, could you?

cat: I didn't mean to imply that CD stole the Reuters article, and I should probably remove "in full" from that sentence in light of the other editing they did.

I had a lot of trouble posting the cardboard baozi article at first, too. I ended up removing all of the hanzi for the people's names, adding HTML entities to the agency abbreviations and that particular journalist's name. It seemed to work for me, but I'll take another look. It's frustrating, since the whole thing is taken from mainland sources, none of which get filtered in Chinese (by the firewall, at any rate. The wise webmasters at Sina deleted Zan's blog post there).

China Daily Nincompoops & Friends need Attention:
I think the copy-and-paste mess is just the latest doing of China-bashers & mean-minded OLYMPIC 2008 party- poopers: simple SABOTAGE at China Daily, by contemptible/despicable types ("English language polishers"! And their incompetent employers).

"...but pointing out each and every instance is sort of like, oh, running a tank back and forth over a pig carcass..."

Outstanding. That bit of imagery really brought a smile to my morning.

Cat's comment that she's "sure the CD paid for report [sic]" prompts me to mention that any article in the Shenzhen Daily attributed to 'agencies' was lifted off the internet - the most common source being Yahoo News. Needless to say, the only payment made was to the paper's ISP.

Cheers

@ mary: Thank you for providing a clear illustration of the problem. You are absolutely correct to describe the inclusion of the information in question as sabotage, and you have generously clarified exactly what is being sabotaged.

You have done this first by calling our attention to what is obviously not being sabatoged: the original AP and Reuters reports (after all, the "contemptible/despicable" types at the China Daily whom you mention weren't in any way responsible for their content). Second, you help us to understand the true nature of the problem by observing that the inclusion of the information in question reflects incompetence on the part of the responsible Party.

Thank you again for your contribution to this discussion, and I look forward to more of your comments in the future!

Cheers

du yisa. I thought that if a story is on yahoo news then it is free to be used (as long as the original source is attributed), as opposed to a subscription service such as factiva where a fee must be paid for each click?

therefore, I am not sure that shenzhen daily was actually doing anything wrong.

Hi Mike. I believe you're right, but afaik, if Yahoo posts a story attributed to USA Today, etc. and the Shenzhen Daily posts the same story attributed to 'Agencies', the latter violates fair use under US copyright law, as it does not properly identify the original source.

In any case, many of the stories taken off the internet and published in the SZ Daily are run without any attribution whatsoever. Many sections of the paper (business, industries, sports, etc.) have almost no original content whatsoever. Many of the stories in these sections are unattributed.

Cheers

1. CCP is just fine & has been for half-century & more of Governance.
2. China Daily's incompetence is example of needed house-cleaning -- a universal experience & routine (presumably).
3. Despicable & contemptible types EXPLOIT THAT INCOMPETENCE.
4. Both failings need attention of CCP, for housecleaning.
5. Hope this further "contribution" is "acceptable" to all?

Dear Mary

Well, I, for one, very much appreciate your comments. In this case, item 1 on your list goes right to the heart of the matter. It is precisely the unquestionable validity of this assertion that demands dangerous information be limited to despicable & contemptible types, and kept away from the general public.

This strategy is necessary because, whereas bogus information may be publicly debunked (cf the 'cardboard baozi' case), genuinely incriminating information can only damage one's standing with the people. Given this, I entirely agree that what we are witnessing is brazen exploitation by despicible & contemptible types, and that a thorough housecleaning is in order.

Thank you again for your further contribution.

JEEZ! How did the wearisome, shop-worn ideas of "dangerous" & "bogus" information appear in this setting? Unfortunately (possibly) for me, I only understand plain sentences & clear thinking, as taught at school (perhaps they are the same thing). Life is too short to waste on pointless verbal gymnastics.

Excellent!

You're obviously a clear thinker, so let me ask you a plain question. Here is the text in question, posted on and subsequently expunged from the China Daily website:

"Security was tight around Tiananmen Square, where troops crushed pro-democracy demonstrations in 1989 with huge loss of life, as crowds gathered for the celebrations."

If this information is neither "dangerous" nor "bogus", why, precisely, was it deleted? I'm looking forward to an answer that is neither wearisome nor shop-worn.

Please do edify.

1. The "information" contained in the "text in question" is INDEED bogus.
2. At the drop of a pin, it reappears & is regurgitated, endlessly, ad nauseum -- thanks to China bashers. (The "information" itself is hardly "incriminating", or "dangerous", or in need of a "strategy". It is simply bogus).
3. It's reappearance in CHINA DAILY (thickly populated by "foreign language polishers") brings up the CURRENT TOPIC: Is it despicable & contemptible to bite the hand that feeds you? (YES, in my book).
4. SO: the issue NOW is the Employee-Employer relationship: NOT THE JUNE 4 CONTROVERSY.
5. Repeat: the issue is: Is there SOMETHING WRONG with China Daily, whose job-description surely is NOT China-bashing? If CD appears to China-bash (much to the merriment of yet MORE despicable types -- who think nothing of a shred-of-honour in the EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP) I am sufficiently annoyed, to comment: is this a nest of vipers, in need of house-cleaning?
6. So why does the subject (employees & employers) become TWISTED AGAIN, into the ONE STRING FIDDLE with one-theme -- endlessly rehashing June 4? Talk about skillful propaganda...!
7. The world comprises PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE, as follows:
8. PAST: The CCP has deservedly WON in China: GET OVER IT.
9. PRESENT: The CCP continues to IMPROVE CHINESE LIVES. Huge job, helped by well-wishers -- both Chinese & foreign: and there are many foreign well-wishers -- though not at CD, apparently.
10.FUTURE? Science, Economic Construction, Religion-Culture (for starters) are the path to a better Future; in other words, ENOUGH CONSTRUCTIVE EFFORT IS NEEDED WORLDWIDE, to engage human minds worldwide, not only in China. Do we not all want Paradise-on-Earth?
11. DWELLING BITTERLY IN THE PAST, is not only defeatist & destructive, it is also puerile & crippling.
12. For example: The highly productive U.S. Economic Model, emulated the world over, is based upon the past destruction of the Native American population. Does the World berate (endlessly) the U.S. for that destruction, or does it emulate the progress achieved by U.S.? It too had a Civil War & moved forward. Should China not do the same? (Germany has done so & Korea follows).
14. These ONE-STRING FIDDLES, HARPING ENDLESSLY upon the one theme of June 4, makes me wonder: what sort of people indulge in this inanity & why?

Sorry, I wasn't able to follow the logic of your argument past assertion #1. How is the information bogus? Exactly what is bogus? You repeat this claim in your second assertion, that it is repeated 'at the drop of a pin [sic]'. How is "DWELLING BITTERLY IN THE PAST" (assertion #11) possible when that past does not exist?

Or are you saying that the reason fiddles harp about June 4 is because they haven't accepted the outcome of the Chinese Civil War, which is now entirely in the "PAST" (assertion #8), and that the world should just move on? If so, isn't this the same as saying that we should accept the fact that Taiwan is a sovereign nation with its own political system, currency and armed forces, and that to argue otherwise is to dwell bitterly in the past, which "is not only defeatist & destructive, it is also puerile & crippling" (assertion #11)?

Next, do I understand correctly that you are claiming the recent incident at the China Daily has nothing whatsoever to do with history, the relationship between citizen and state, or between media and government, but only obtains to "the Employer-Employee relationship" (assertion #4)?

If so, what's the connection between this incident and your remarks about the "PAST", "PRESENT" and "FUTURE", the CCP, "Paradise-on-Earth" and "the highly productive U.S. Economic Model" (all caps in original)? It seems to me that if you want to make a case about "the Employer-Employee relationship", it really isn't necessary to invoke "Science", "Religion-Culture", "Paradise" etc. rather than, say, PRC labor law.

Finally, I share your concern that there is "SOMETHING WRONG" at the China Daily, and agree that it unquestionably obtains to "the Employer-Employee relationship". However, I'm not sure we agree about what this "SOMETHING" is, as I'm unable to follow the logic of your argument.

Thanks again for your interesting contributions to this discussion.

Cheers

It's reappearance in CHINA DAILY (thickly populated by "foreign language polishers") brings up the CURRENT TOPIC: Is it despicable & contemptible to bite the hand that feeds you? (YES, in my book)
SO: the issue NOW is the Employee-Employer relationship: NOT THE JUNE 4 CONTROVERSY

If there's NO JUNE 4 CONTROVERSY, there won't have this act(s) of civil disobedient (presumably), or employee disobedient (if you like). They're not there to be feed, IN MY BOOK.

Seemingly, CD has been penetrated by some "Counter-Revolution-Class-Enemies", SO: a purge is needed to restore "political purity", IN YOUR BOOK.

The CCP WILL deservedly WIN again: GET OVER IT, based on your jungle-competition hypothesis.

1. Sorry to hear that you couldn't make it past "assertion 1". (Admittedly, I DID "wander" beyond the ONE-STRING of June 4!)
2. I think the rest-of-the-reading-world should find everything clear enough; they can judge & disagree or not, as Absurdfool has done. THAT is probably more important anyway, since "there is none so BLIND, as he who WILL NOT see.
3. My summary is this: CCP has accomplished much good for its people & that is EXACTLY what GOOD Governments should do. I think good deeds should be recognized & praised, and therefore do not like to see the CCP kicked-at-will by every Tom, Dick & Harry, including ethically-challenged types.

Dear Mary

I completely agree that "ethically-challenged types" are a common problem in China. For example, the cosseted offspring of cadres who study at exorbitant foreign institutions, using lucre their parents cheated from the people, whose desire to justify their own illegitimate privilege makes them so blind they simply will not see atrocities such as mass murder even when presented with overwhelming evidence, are without doubt among the most odious societal parasites imaginable.

In fact, it is precisely this type of parasite that has necessitated so much attention from the government, as it threatens to vitiate the state unless it is forcibly extirpated. It is already the case that the vast majority of PRC citizens neither trust nor respect their government, expressly because of the tendency of its representatives to bite the hand that feeds them - which is of course the Chinese people. I am sure you agree that such behavior is unmitigatedly despicible, and deserves nothing but contempt - which, of course, is just what it gets from the general population.

So you see, I agree with you. What happened on June 4 is not the problem. It is simply one of many events extending to the present, and to focus excessively on this particular incident deprives us of the ability to recognize its underlying causes, which of course continue to this day.

I also agree with you that the CCP has accomplished much good for its people, and its history - in which it murdered, tortured and starved far more of its people than even the Japanese did - should not distract us from that fact. By allowing its people to better themselves, it is doing exactly what good governments should do. Bad governments, in contrast, concentrate wealth and power in the hands of greedy elites, at great cost to the common population. This often causes them to fall.

Actually, there's no need to worry about what "every Tom, Dick & Harry" says about the CCP. Its record speaks for itself. As long as it keeps doing what good governments should do, and stays away from those things which cause bad governments to fall, it will keep the support of its people, no matter what anyone says. If not, nothing anyone says will save it.

Anyway, those who cry loudest about such things tend to be afflicted with a guilty conscience, which I'm sure does not obtain in your case. I'm happy we agree. We can all work together to build a better future.

Cheers

Oh dear. I seem to have landed in Alice-in-Wonderland, where the Mad Hatter stated to Alice: "Words mean WHATEVER I want them to mean!" My ignorance in this area (how can "agreement" ALSO mean "disagreement?) obviously needs remediation, so maybe I should not presume to "contribute" further to this learned discussion, until I return with a certificate from Alice-in-Wonderland University. Then again, maybe not: Life is too short to waste on non-sense.

Hey I got my degrees at A.W.U! Professors at A.W.U are all a bunch of topologists who spend way too much time on the hookah!

Mary, are you sure we disagree? If you disagree with my previous comment, it means you take one or more of the following positions (listed in the order the contrary positions appear in the original):

1. Government cheating the people is good, and is something we can all be proud of.

2. It's good to pretend documented atrocities never actually happened, and we should all act accordingly.

3. People who do both #1 & #2 above are admirable.

4. Corruption is good for the government, and helps to strengthen the state. Accordingly, the current government in China is not concerned about corruption.

5. The overwhelming majority of PRC citizens trust and respect government officials, and admire them for the manner in which they enrich themselves.

6. The only thing that matters in China is what happened on June 4.

7. What happened on June 4 has no connection either to the past or present.

8. The CCP has accomplished no good for its people.

9. The atrocities committed by the CCP during its history (Great Leap Forward, Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Anti-Rightist Campaign, etc.) totally invalidate its current accomplishments.

10. Governments that help the general population to improve themselves are bad. Governments that help themselves at the expense of the general population are good.

11. Bad governments are very stable, whereas good governments cause their own downfall.

12. What the China Daily says about the CCP is more important than what the government actually does.

Needless to say, every one of these assertions looks like total nonsense to me, but this is what it means to disagree with what I wrote. Are these really the positions you take? Even if you were a writer whose comments consisted entirely of empty catchphrases and unsupported pronouncements, rather than reasoned argument, you could hardly be expected to believe anything so patently ridiculous.

Of course, someone divorced from reality and unfamiliar with logic, who doesn't know how to conduct an argument, refuses to address any questions and only knows how to make pronouncements like a tin-pot propaganda minister, as though saying something somehow made it so, might mistakenly advocate similar positions, without even being aware of it. Needless to say, this would be abominably stupid. Therefore, I assume your intent must be something else.

Or perhaps you agree with the Cheshire Cat, that when you use a word, it means just what you choose it to mean, neither more or less - which is to say that you can use them as it suits you and disregard anything that blatantly contradicts what you want them to mean, including the very words you yourself have chosen.

I submit that perhaps you are being overly modest regarding your ignorance in this area.

Cheers

Thank you Jay, for helpful information about AWU. Now, I cannot wait to start Topology classes there, I am sure they will be enjoyable. (But I will refrain from the hookah!).

Correction: The quote "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less," which I paraphrased in my previous comment, was made by Humpty Dumpty, in Through the Looking Glass, not the Cheshire Cat - or the Mad Hatter, for that matter (which are characters in Carroll's previous book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland).

Needless to say, the "quotation" by the Mad Hatter cited by mary in her comment on 20 August occurs in neither book. It is bogus.

Cheers