July 19, 2007
Photo of the Day: Fake water, fake buns, now fake story?
Update: EastSouthWestNorth translates a story from Southern Metropolis Daily tracing how the story of the bogus buns was found to be fake, and says kudos to the netizens who raised the following doubts from the beginning:
1. How can you eat something that had been soaked in caustic soda? The spice cannot cover up the taste. How big must a bun store be in order to maintain the normal profits after accounting for the caustic soda, flour, pork and spice materials as well as water, electricity, rent and labor? You must make "at least 1,000 yuan more per day." So how many buns do you have to sell in order to realize that? Is it possible that nobody could taste the difference after so many years?Truth: According to Zi, caustic soda was not used during the filming. The caustic soda comment was added to enhance the audio-visual impact.
2. The film angles did not appear to be made stealthily. Many of the shots came from very good angles. Some of the shots did not appear to come from a hidden camera.
Truth: This was not a stealth job. This was a fixed set-up.3. Throughout the report, the Industry and Commerce Department never made clear what the stall workers did wrong. In the end, the Industry and Commerce Department banned them because they had neither public health permit nor business license, not because they were using cardboard to make bun fillings. There was not even a mention of the term "waste cardboard boxes" from the Industry and Commerce Department.
Truth: The Industry and Commerce Department made a sweep of all the conceivable shops and stalls that could be selling breakfasts in the Chaoyang district and did not find anyone using cardboard to make bun fillings.4. A netizen concluded: there may have been a rumor that cardboard was being use to make bun fillings; the reporter was intrigued; he found a few migrant workers and staged a "news story" in which the reporter discovered and filmed how waste cardboard was being turned into bun fillings.
Truth: The netizen's speculation was very close to the results of the investigation.
Photo from shoodoop.
Share with us how you see Shanghai, or China! Simply post your photos on Flickr, tag them with "shanghaiist", and we'll select one favorite image per day. Or you can simply email your photos to photos[at]shanghaiist.com.
| 
In light of covering fake stories, or perhaps providing legitimacy to a faked story designed to make a real story appear fake, you might want to think a little harder here, Shanghaiist. The Chinese Government will do absolutely anything at the moment to divert attention away from the international media storm that has latched onto their less than stellar food and drug safety. Like executing the former head of the governing body of food and drug safety for instance. Or banning imports of Evian water and Tyson chicken. Or, dare I say, jail a journalist!
"You have a mat, and it’s got some conclusions written on it, and you back up next to the mat, and think about a question, and then you jump to a conclusion!"
Well said. This stinks of a coverup. And I might as well add, that Shanghaiist has been ivaluable in opening up Shanghai a little bit more for me for a year or so, but I see a big drop in quality the last couple of months. Hope its just the heat. Maybe I should jsut read and believe the China Daily, like you recommend we do.
Hi Guests,
I actually sensed some sarcasm in Kenneth's "Damn, it was such a believable fake story wasn't it?" I could be wrong.
I am sorry you are not enjoying Shanghaiist. And yes, it is your right to choose to read another site that you feel provides you with the information you desire better than we do.
It is also your right to post a comment — you can even do this anonymously, as you chose to do. When you disagree with what a contributor writes or when you don't like the way he or she writes something, readers like you can voice your opinions or objections or even offer helpful information that adds value to the original story.
But, and I have said this before, it is important to remember that Shanghaiist is a site written, for readers like you, by an ever-rotating team of unpaid volunteers. We do not have an office. We do not have an editorial calendar. Contributors, because they are unpaid, are not assigned stories. They, by and large, write what they feel like when they feel like it. An editor may ask the writer to clarify some things, or change some things, and they might fix some grammatical or spelling errors (or they might scrap a post altogether). It all depends on how much time the editor has at the moment — we all have other full-time jobs.
It is your right to complain and criticize, and we do enjoy hearing from our readers. We also realize we will never make everyone happy. I think having an independent and uncensored online source of information is very important for Shanghai, and we are doing our best to provide that. There is obviously a need for it — we have several thousand readers every day. But it's not always easy, especially when you have virtually no budget to work with. We do what we can.
If you care about Shanghaiist and you think you can help make the site better, please contact us: info@shanghaiist.com. But remember, contributors are unpaid. And if you'd like to help solve that problem, persuade someone to buy an ad.
Thanks again for reading the site and letting us know how you feel.
Dan
Another from the Complaint Dept:
I can understand now why the the stories are so bad, lack of motivation. The writers at Shanghaiist aren't journalists in my eye, they are summarizers of other journalists' work.
They wrap it all up and put a little opinion in there which is dry (sour) at best.
I liked reading Shanghaiist last summer, but now it all seems like the writers down care that much anymore, and post as much as they can with filler substance. There isn't much about expatriate views and events anymore.
It's very pessimistic and 'I hate China' or 'Look how crappy it is' talk.
If the hold up is about lack of motivation due to pay, the owner of this site needs to pay these guys from advertising or something. There is a large reading base here. (from what I believe.)
bottom line:
I don't check this site as much as I used to.
It's easy to criticize. Even more so for NON-PAYING customers.
The best way to justify a criticism is to show how you can do it better -- unpaid and "unmotivated".
Otherwise, think a little bit more about the time and effort the writers here put in in scouring the web, only to have arrogant and unappreciative readers spit on them.
If you still think it's easy, you are not thinking hard enough.
By the way, you are actually paying the Shanghaiists a compliment by assuming they are journalists.
YF Wong
Hello Guest No. 4,
We are aware that there are many topics that don't get covered on Shanghaiist — Shanghai is a big city, there is a lot going on. It's not that we choose to ignore these topics, it's that the right writer hasn't come along with an interest in covering these topics. Apply here: info@shanghaiist.com
I don't think most people consider the people who write for city blogs to be journalists. I believe the proper term is "bloggers."
I disagree with this statement: "It's very pessimistic and 'I hate China' or 'Look how crappy it is' talk." But you are entitled to your opinion.
Believe it or not, we get complaints that the site features too much about "expatriate views and events." Go figure.
An finally, with regard to money: Shanghaiist would have to sell a lot more ads before anyone involved (including the editors) makes any real money from this. Money cannot be someone's primary motivation when it comes to writing for a city blog — it's their passion for a certain aspect of the city that should be the main driving force. Why? Because there is very little money to go around when it comes to city blogs, especially those based in China and written in English.
Again, sorry you are not happy with the free content on this site. We hope to win you back soon, but feel free to keep the complaints coming.
Thanks,
Dan
Referring to Guest #4 (not me) - maybe it was because last year they had this interesting English chappy writing fun and insightful well-written articles?
Or possibly not :)
The idea here is that you take everything posted on the internet with a grain of salt. Shanghaiist, to me, is more a blog than a source of objective journalistic news. The difference is that the contributors' opinions play a large role in defining the content of any post. If you've trained yourself to be sensitive to "government propaganda," it's not hard to pick out which part of a blog post contains facts and which part is editorial opinion.
I visit Shanghaiist because I don't have the time to sift through hundreds of websites for interesting stories related to the city, and Shanghaiist provides a multi-faceted look at the city all in one location. Whether you agree with the contributor's opinion or not, the original source articles are always responsibly supplied. You can always form your own opinions from the original sources.
I can understand people disliking the topics a blog covers, or the lack of content, or poorly-written (boring) articles. But I have a hard time understanding why people complain about the fact that a blog may be biased -- which is practically innate to blogs.
I'm guest number 4:
I'm not trying to offend anyone, so if you became offended by my comments; I apologise. However, I never said anything about being biased, I encourage opinion from all sides. I mentioned how the writing was dry and it really truly sounds unmotivating (to me).
I encourage the "bloggers" to keep writing, I call them journalists, because that's essentially what all bloggers are now. Journalists can (and do) write columns and editorials. A Blog is just one big column which refers to others'. In this global world we're in now, we are all eyes, ears, and tongues for the rest of the world.
In any sense, I truly have seen a significant change in the content. There doesn't have to be a bunch of expatriate stuff, but it seemed a little more community oriented before (no pun intended). I encourage more Chinese involvement too. I'm perfectly fine with that.
Lately I have honestly been dissatisfied with the thrown together posts, and that's what I wanted to express (in a non threatening and unintrusive way).
When I see a post I like, I'll post a positive comment, and I have before will do when I find something good.
Thanks Shanghaiist for listening to my rambles. :-)
The news about the "fake" news gets me suspicious. Could it be the Chinese government's damage control?
Hellooooooo everyone,
I thought it was just about time that I as the author of this post responded with my two cents (or 'fen') worth, particularly with regards to some of the views of Guest #4 (or #9).
1. We have never touted ourselves as journalists at Shanghaiist, but believe it or not, some of our correspondents have written for such established media as The Economist and Newsweek, etc.
2. As for the comment on how Shanghaiist is full of the "very pessimistic and 'I hate China' or 'Look how crappy it is' talk, I can only suggest that both editors of this website are NOT masochistic and have been here in Shanghai for 5 years (and counting).
3. With regards to the comment that there isn't a lot of "expatriate views and events" on Shanghaiist anymore, I could point you to a whole host of other complainers who say they stopped reading Shanghaiist because it is just so full of "rock music and parties" / "the Catholic agenda" / "the gay agenda" (Gawd, isn't that ironic). Really, it is just about finding the right balance, isn't it?
4. And yes, we often act as "summarizers of other journalists' work". But as often as we find ourselves quoting other journalists and bloggers, rest assured you will find other journalists and bloggers quoting Shanghaiist. There is something about the circular flow of information in the media world. "A" quotes "B", "B" quotes "C", "C" quotes "A" and on and on we go. This is as true in the blogosphere as it is in print media and the world of the newswires. Believe it or not, AP, AFP and the NY Times quote Xinhua and China Daily as often as it is the case vice versa.
Finally, I can only reiterate Dan's point that it is your God-given right to read other sites that you feel meet your informational needs. For our part, we will continue scouring the internet to put together "thrown-together posts" that Shanghaiist's growing readership feels drawn to, and as we do so, please feel free to continue reading and commenting here ;-)
Peace out,
Kenneth
If China wasn't so crappy and bad there wouldn't be as much to write about.
nanheyangrouchuan
Kenneth, nobody at Shanghaiist has ever written for The Economist per se. They wrote/write for a business newsletter published by the group.
Newsweek is absloute crap.