The article excerpted below needs no introduction, and neither does its author, Joseph Kahn, of The New York Times. I will restate that it is must reading if you have any interest in China and its chances of ever attaining a free press.
BEIJING, May 2 - During the Cultural Revolution, China's propaganda department often made hyperbolic charges against intellectuals - capitalist roaders, enemies of the people - accused of betraying Mao Zedong.
So when Jiao Guobiao, a journalism professor at Beijing University, was searching for words to describe China's still all-powerful censors and standard-setters more than 30 years later, he borrowed from its lexicon of vitriol.
The department is spiteful like the Nazis, he wrote in a recent essay. It thinks itself infallible like the pope. In the 1950's it covered up the starvation of millions of people. Today, he charged, it lies about SARS.
"Their censorship orders are totally groundless, absolutely arbitrary, at odds with the basic standards of civilization, and as counter to scientific common sense as witches and wizardry," he wrote in the article - which has been widely circulated by Internet in Beijing despite, not unpredictably, being banned by the Communist Party's propaganda department.
Such explicit outbursts of dissent are still rare in China. But Mr. Jiao is not alone in expressing frustration that, even after a long-awaited transition to a new generation of leaders some 18 months ago, China's political scene remains stultifying. Intellectuals, Mr. Jiao said, are "supposed to act like children who never talk back to their parents."
The leadership team headed by the president and party chief Hu Jintao that many hoped would tolerate more open debate has instead slapped new restrictions on free speech and the press that some say remind them of the repressive years after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.
State security agents have been scouring the Internet and pressing charges against people who use it to distribute information or express opinions deemed unfavorable. The authorities harassed scholars who took part in a debate about constitutional changes, disappointing some who believed that Mr. Hu had once invited discussion about how to strengthen the rule of law.
The political environment may reflect a seasonal shift to tight controls during the spring Communist Party meetings and a state of high alert ahead of the 15th anniversary of the June 4, 1989, crackdown.
But some see worrying signs that the leadership remains instinctively hostile to political discussion and more independent news media. Scholars say they now suspect that Mr. Hu is not as forward-looking as they had once hoped, and at any rate he must still defer to Jiang Zemin, the military chief, who handed the formal reins of power to Mr. Hu in late 2002 but by many accounts remains a domineering influence.
"I don't think we had a real transfer of power or a turning point in leadership," said He Weifang, a law professor at Beijing University. "There was a moment after Mr. Hu took control when people were optimistic, but now things are even tighter than before."
There is much more by Mr. Kahn, a really fine reporter and wordsmith who we are fortunate to have covering China for The New York Times at this critical juncture for the future of the legendary Middle Kingdom.
