chose to return a shotgun licence to the man who killed five people in plymouth. many people are feared dead in haiti after a strong earthquake struck the south—west of the country. afghanistan's president says his top priority is boosting the armed forces, in his first national address since the taliban stepped up their offensive. as taliban insurgents continue their advance in afghanistan, us troops prepare for a massive airlift of civilians from kabul. flash flooding in turkey kills at least 31 people — as southern europe records one of the hottest summers ever. now on bbc news, the media show.

hello. this week we are asking how hard is it to report on the ground in china and tell the story of that country to the wider world? journalists covering the fatal floods, which included those terrifying scenes from the underground train as it filled up with water, found that their presence was not always welcome. other major titles, including the new york times, increasingly have to rely on stringers as their own reporters are working outside china's borders. and steve vines, the observer's man in hong kong since the 1980s said this week that it was no longer safe for him to be there and has decided to come back to the uk. so what is the situation forjournalists in china and for those trying to cover the country from afar? let me introduce you to my guests. i mentioned steve vines, he is one of them, former china correspondent for the observer, now back in the uk. sha hua is a correspondent for the wall streetjournal based in hong kong. cedric alviani is head

of the east asia bureau for reporters without borders and isjoining us from taiwan. amy qin is china correspondent for the new york times, based in beijing, now works in taiwan, she is on the line from california. and meera selva, deputy director of the reuters institute at oxford university. welcome to all of you, thank you for being a part of the programme, especially those who are joining us at anti—social hours wherever you are in the world. steve, i mentioned your story, it makes sense to start with you. working in hong kong since the 1980s through a pretty amazing passage of history. i mentioned the observer, but you have worked for other outlets as well. how widespread has your work been read and consumed? well, i hate to be somebody to create a surprise at the beginning, but actually more recently i have been working for the opposition, the sunday times, but i did indeed come to hong kong with the observer

and i was working for them as well as a number of other outlets. more recently i have been working quite intensively, both on television and radio, for radio television hong kong, which is the public broadcaster, and those programmes have been subject to considerable censorship. i was a columnist for apple daily, which was the only remaining opposition newspaper in hong kong. that has now been closed down. so i'm running on a very short piece of road, and that was one of the main reasons why i decided that being a journalist in hong kong is very high risk, so high—risk that it would be better not to be there. high—risk in what way? you were running out of options, you say, the roads were narrowing, but you talk about high risk. what specifically are you talking about? well, i mean, the process of arresting and keeping injail journalists has already begun. the process of expelling journalists. i happen to be a permanent

resident of hong kong, they haven't been expelling permanent residents yet, but i'm confident that will start to happen. and the process of making, putting journalists under intense surveillance is very much under way. in other words, hong kong, which used to be the safe base from which you reported on affairs on the chinese mainland, is increasingly coming to resemble the mainland itself. journalism has always been a high—risk occupation on the mainland, and it's tragic to see it becoming so in hong kong. we did put some of the points that that you raised there to the chinese embassy here. as yet, we haven't heard back from them. sha hua, you're based in hong kong for the wall streetjournal. do you recognise the atmosphere that steve has just described there? there is tight state control of media and obviously also a tight control sometimes of the sources that we want to talk to.

and i think there has been insufficient reporting on the sort of tightening grip on a lot of areas in hong kong. now, i'm reporting from hong kong on issues like climate or the vaccine or social issues, so i can't really speak to how it is for hong kong reporters to report on hong kong. i can, ithink, bettertalk about what it's like to be in hong kong and report on mainland china _ and as you do that, and as you seek the voices that you need to hear from to tell those stories, how willing are people to to participate in the journalism that you're seeking to pursue when they know you're from an american newspaper? so i think over the years, the grip of the state has obviously tightened around a lot

of institutions and experts who might in the past have been more willing to speak to us. but i would also say that suspicion of foreign media has increased. and i think part of it we've seen now, for example, with the floods, when some reporters were questioned and possibly even threatened. but there's also a lot of suspicion amongst people who are exposed, who trained in the west, who were educated in the west, who read a lot of western publications. and there's a lot of anger about bias or incorrect reporting. so i've noticed that a lot as well. and i think it's maybe also an interesting aspect to consider, because one thing that i've always noticed, before ijoined the wall streetjournal, which has an extensive china bureau

with more than a dozen reporters covering all aspects of china, i was a correspondent for a german newspaper. it wasjust me reporting on all of china, which is a huge country, a hugely complex country. and it's very, very difficult to switch from cars one day to, let's say, tech surveillance the next day to the education sector, and then maybe write something about, i don't know, like, rivers, you know, and i think it's very easy to get things wrong. the mistakes sometimes get amplified then in the chinese space. and it's often also gets seized upon by, let's say, propaganda outlets or nationalists. but i think underlying all of this is also a structural issue with a lot of media companies that we should actually double down on having more people reporting on china in more depth, with more expertise,

also language expertise. we'll explore that in a bit more detail a little later on because you raise some very interesting points. amy, you're the new york times china correspondent, based in taiwan. and we'll come to the reasons for that in a moment. but how then do you follow what is happening on the ground in china when you're not in china? a great question, and it's something that we have been trying to work- through in the year that we've been expelled from china. _ in taiwan, luckily, i had been- in china personally for about eight years before we were kicked out. and so over that time, i was able to build up. a network of sources. and luckily, i can still tap - into that network and try to get a sense of what's happening on the ground. _ and i make more of an effort now to keep in touch with people. - but of course, that is very difficult because of- surveillance of apps.

it's very difficult to make sure that you are getting the rightl people on the right apps and if the issue is very. sensitive, oftentimes people are not willing to speak, - which is of course, understandable. their own personal safety is at risk. i there are other ways in which we can | try to understand what is happening | in china beyond just what you see on the ground~ _ for example, some journalists have made very innovative use _ of satellite imagery to betteri understand what is happening with the mass internment camps of the uighurs and xinjiang. - and everything, though, isjust. honestly a lot more difficult now. i agree with what sha hua wasjust saying. i we should be doubling down - on our commitment to the region just because even the smallest thing. i remember a few months ago, i was working on a story - about movies in china and how- the movie market was doing really well during the pandemic. and that is a very. non—sensitive story. we just wanted to get a few voices of moviegoers into the story, - something that normally i would have just popped out of the office, -

gone across the street, - talked to a few moviegoers, gone back and wrote up my story. but suddenly something that - would have taken maybe 15 minutes has broadened into a three hour, half day ordeal where i have - to coordinate with my colleagues on the ground in china, - you know, send questions and sort | of have this whole back and forth. | and so it'sjust making our already | limited ability to cover the countryj comprehensively that much more difficult. i but as you say, it's now sources. it's strangers, presumably, who you are calling upon a lot as well. we don't really... not tojust speakfor- the new york times, i think generally there aren't that many stringers in china, in part - because the chinese government has become very tight about who gets . to report in china. you have to have the correct visa. and if you don't have _ an organisation sponsoring you, then that's very difficult. i'm glad you made that point, because there have been several high profile incidents recently involving western journalists. they give the impression that foreign journalists are not

necessarily welcome in china. the bbc�*sjohn sudworth left china with his family. he says he received threats separately. there were two journalists from the los angeles times and deutsche avella who were surrounded by an angry crowd who believed, i think, that they were journalists from the bbc. cedric alviani, this is a good point to bring you in on the conversation from reporters without borders. how do you judge how welcome or otherwise foreign reporters are in china just now? the situation has changed a lot compared to the past decades. china was never an easy country for journalists, but in the year 2000, actually, it was possible for foreign correspondents to lead investigations. it was possible for them to have a lot of sources. and all this has disappeared, and especially since president xijinping got into power and cracked down on independent media independent voices. now, only in the year 2000, the chinese regime has expelled 18

foreign correspondents. this was something unheard of in recent times. i believe the reason is that the chinese regime considers it doesn't need foreign correspondents any more. in the past decades, they needed foreign correspondents to somehow promote the chinese economic development, to promote the chinese successes. and now china has a propaganda apparatus in the world that is sufficient for them to promote this aspect. does it depend where the reporter works, which organisation he or she works for? or is this a view across the board as far as you're aware? yeah, i don't think it relates to a particular media, as long as it's a media that is independent of chinese regimes, sees foreign correspondents now as unwanted witnesses, they have enough power to impart their propaganda narrative through the chinese international media.

which leaves us with more chinese based journalists working in china and covering china. the perception, of course, in the west is that the main chinese media always toes the party line. how fair is that suggestion, in yourview, sha hua? i think there are some topics where you... there's sometimes quite a bit of debate in china and then suddenly something happens and you realise the leadership has come down the line and it's communicated downwards. and then all the publications come out with the same party line, with the same narrative. but before that, there's actually quite a lot of debate. and i think we also have to be aware that there are a lot of publications in china and they're affiliated to different departments, different ministries, and they might actually take different views on certain issues.

i, for example, cover climate. and i think some of my reporting has shown that, you know, the environmental ministry may not necessarily agree with the economic planners or the energy administration. the other thing i would say is, and i think amy most probably knows this quite well, because she covered wuhan when the outbreak first started. some of the best reporting actually came from state affiliated media in the early days. and it was a wonderful reminder how smart and talented chinese reporters at state affiliated publications are. i mean, the first interview with the doctor who sounded the alarm on the coronavirus was actually done by the newspaper affiliated to the beijing communist youth league. i mean, it's very easy to speak about the chinese regime,

but i think it might also be worthwhile to move beyond that and look a little deeper into what's actually underneath it and the complexities. cedric, a quick reaction from you to that, and then i'll bring in other voices. yeah, i totally agree. it's extremely complex. and in the past, it was possible for this media to engage in interviews in a potentially sensitive subjects. like at the time of the sars outburst, there were much more coverage of the disaster. there were much more criticism of the government. this time, it was actually after a short moment when online the chinese could comment on the covid—i9. there has been a wave of propaganda and a wave of censorship that that just made them stop. steve vines, does that tally

with your more recent experience? yes, i mean, it it's always fascinating to speak to reporters and other people who are based in beijing, and then you discover that the experience that they're having is very much the experience that you're having in hong kong. i mean, in the past, just to give you an example, i was always hoping to quote people by name. that's what journalists do. it gives credibility to the quote. i now find myself in recent months and weeks never using people's names unless, of course, they're official spokespeople for an organisation because it's too dangerous. and during the protests, when they were at their height in hong kong in 2019, a lot of young people would say to me, "oh, yes, you can use my name in the paper." and even then i would say to them, you know, it's not my business to get you into trouble. it's my business to report what's going on. i would strongly suggest not using your name.

so this is something which i haven't experienced before in hong kong. but certainly people who are familiar with covering the mainland would do this all the time. amy, i wanted to invite you to tell us briefly why you're in taiwan now, because you left beijing last year and you'd been reporting from china, as in mainland china, for how long at that point? i'd been reporting basically for about seven years, - eight years in china before we were expelled. - and how did you find out? how did you find out that you were having to leave? yeah, it all happened in march 2020, and i know around that time - just the rest of the world _ was starting to understand what was happening with the pandemic. in china, it had broken out

in december orjanuary. . but by then, we were really neck deep in the pandemic— in china, it had broken out in december orjanuary. . and we were a few months and i had gone to wuhan that was ended up i being my last reporting trip in china. _ i'd been evacuated. and then i came backl to beijing where i live. and ijust remember there - was a night in march when ijust happened to wake up in the middle i of the night and i checked my phone and there was just a barragel of messages from colleagues and friends asking how- i was and did you see the news? and that's when i saw _ that the chinese government had announced that they were expelling almost all american journalists - working for three american news - organisations, the washington post, the wall streetjournal- and the new york times. and it was quite a shock. i really wasn't expecting that. the way that the chinese government framed it was that it was _ technically a tit for tat measure against the us government, . i which had earlier moved to limiti the number of chinese journalists working for state run media publications in the us. - but i think because of the sort -

of broader context of what has been happening with foreign media in china, the kind of- constant harassment, - the increasing harassment, the difficulties with visas - and whatnot, we couldn't help but sort of take it as a broader kind of attack— against foreign media. and the expulsion is what? theyjust don't renew the short term visa. is that is that what happens in practice? it meant it didn't matter how much time you had on your visa, you had to get out within a few weeks. and so we all sort of. scattered at that time. it was kind of difficult because of covid. - there were many travel restrictions. and so i ended up going to the us. some people ended up in taiwan. some people have gone to seoul and some people have gone - on to otherjobs as well. and so, yeah, it's- been very unfortunate. was it something the us embassy potentially got involved with at the time in order to help you and others? i can't speak to those direct conversations, | as i certainly wasn't a part i of them, but i can definitely

imagine that they were interested and involved in it as well, - people will remember the fact that the last two australian journalists in china ended up spending their final days in the country living inside the australian embassy before they left. right. yeah. i mean, you know what happened with john sudworth with the bbci and the uk journalists i with australians and also now the us as well. like i said, the us government has, at least in our case, _ the chinese government has stressed that this is part of— a broader us—china politics. this isn't punishment- for our coverage in particular, but it is definitely a very i difficult time for all foreign media operating in china. meera from the reuters institute. tit for tat was mentioned by amy. give us a little bit of context to that. yeah, i mean, first of all, i'm in awe of all your reporting and it's being done under incredibly difficult circumstances and thank you for persevering. i think the tit for tat is part of a global trend of weaponising journalism and journalists

are the casualties. so we have leaders in several countries, including the united states and the previous administration in particular, being very openly critical of their own journalists and their own media outlets, as well as foreign ones, casting aspersions on the integrity ofjournalists, casting aspersions on their political affiliations, implying that they're not independent. and this tit for tat scenario is very, very dangerous because it enables and it emboldens leaders around the world, i think, to use visas and work permits as weapons when they're exactly meant to be neutral, impartial, bureaucratic processes that protectjournalism and protect press freedom. it's really it's really very concerning. because back in march, just looking at what the us did, there were 60 chinese journalists ordered to leave in march 2020 under president trump because he ordered several chinese media organisations to dismiss 60 in retaliation

for what was described as a long standing trend of actions by beijing againstjournalists. i mean, if you look back and back, its hard to determine who started all that, really. well, it shouldn't be who started it. each country should have its laws that protect press freedom and that permit independentjournalism. and each government has a duty to adhere to those laws and use those laws to protect the journalists in their sphere. so if you do believe that the journalists operating in your country are foreign agents or are in fact part of the foreign missions, that's what happened in the us. several chinese state media outlets were reclassified as foreign missions and then treated as if they were embassies. if you're going to do that, you've got to do that because you think that is part of your legal process and that is part of your independent observation, not because it's in retaliation for what happened elsewhere.

i mean, the uk government has also expelled three chinese journalists who they say were spies. this year, of course, ofcom revoked the licence from china global television news. how much do those form a part of this bigger story that you're alluding to? they are very definitely part of the bigger story. cgtn have been part of the china kind of propaganda mission abroad that cedric was referring to. i think it's it's very good that ofcom realised that it's dangerous to allow several kind of state broadcasters which don't allow independent criticaljournalism to be registered in this country, because that then gives them a kind of credibility and a license to operate elsewhere in the world as well. and it is very much playing into the the kind ofjournalism i think what there's kind of almost a disconnect between what's happening on the upper echelons

and how it's affecting journalists on the ground. so these are people's lives. these are people who have moved families and who have built careers and have made plans. and the fact that these plans can be upended at any moment is incredibly unsettling for all foreign correspondents. i think working for any organisation. when you look at organisations like trt world, for example, the turkish one, there are lots of young journalists in britain who did join them because they were an employer that paid well, offered a decent gig in a certain format. you were allowed to report freely on any part of the world as long as it wasn't turkey. so you can't necessarily blame journalists forjoining these organisations, but you do end up with a very, very toxic, jittery environment i think. amy, i mean, that takes me back to you and simply to ask, how hard was it to leave when you've been there for so long, when you've got an established set of work and life patterns in the place that you live and colleagues? how difficult was the upheaval?

it is extremely difficult. you know, i had been- there for quite a long time, some of my colleagues for even longer. - yeah, i mean, ithink, you know, i just being under the constant threat of being kicked out. it makes one wonder if in the future we do get let back in, _ is it just a matter of time? you know, how much longer they could kick you out? - and then it makes life| planning very difficult. and, of course, as well, - you know, china do something of a place that i've studied. i have a lot of personal connection to as well. i and sojust leaving it - on those terms is very sad. and stephen, you probably felt the same to a degree? yes. i mean, i've as you mentioned at the beginning, i've been here a long time that's appeared. i'm still saying here. i'm actually in the uk now for a few days, but i've been in hong kong for 35 years. and leaving hong kong was just heart wrenching. i can't tell you how difficult that was. leaving behind friends and colleagues, being aware that

friends are injail, being aware that there are people who are infinitely more courageous than me, still trying to do whatjournalists are supposed to do under all sorts of threats which now exists. the whole thing is miserable. we must leave it there because time has beaten us. i should say, as i did earlier on, that we did put some of these points to the chinese embassy, but as yet, nothing from them. but thank you very much to all of my guests today — to amy qin, sha hua, meera selva, cedric alviani, and steve vines. the media show will be back at the same time next week. so thank you very much for watching and goodbye. hello, it's a mixed picture this weekend. sunshine for some.

cloud and rain for others. this band of cloud and rain pushing northwards into northern ireland, north wales, parts of northern england. .it . it will also fizzle out through the overnight period. showers becoming confined to northern scotland but we could see more cloud rushing back in to wales and set a single letter on the night brings some messiness and patchy that rain and drizzle. fairly mild once again foremost. could dip down into single figures across parts of scotland and the the frontal system still with us tomorrow bring a lot of cloud and still some patchy rain decorated

morning to parts of wales and self—esteem. still the of and trent. the showers will be mostly confined to the far north of scotland. away from this level of cloud across northern england on the midlands we should see some spells of sunshine through the afternoon. once again across parts of east anglia and south—east england it will help temperatures to around 23, ii for the northern isles. a rather cool day across parts of northern ireland. three sunday night and monday we will lose a rain across parts of england and wales, but keep the show is going across scotland. also a cooler north—westerly when setting up as we head into monday. quite a moist air flow as well. quite a moist air flow as well. quite a moist air flow as well. quite a lot of cloud round as we start monday morning. also one or two showers feeding in on that north—westerly wind. most should have a dry day and the best of any brightness or sunshine will be across eastern counties of scotland and england. certainly a cooler viewing day to start a new week with highs of around 16 — 20. for the

week ahead little change, you can see temperatures around average. could get a bit warmer of a debt by the end of the lake but on most days will be a lot of cloud with a north—westerly wind and also one or two showers but essentially the week ahead is looking fairly quiet and mostly dry.

this is bbc news — with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. a major earthquake hits haiti measured at 7.2 magnitude — the us geological survey warns of widespread disaster. the haitian prime minister says the earthquake has caused several deaths. with fighting reported within a0 kilometres of kabul, the afghan president addresses the nation. translation: our dear country, afghanistan, is in serious - danger of instability. the reintegration of the security and defence forces is our priority and we are taking serious measures to deal with this. in the uk — there are questions for police, about why it chose to return a shotgun licence

to the man who killed five people in the uk's worst mass shooting since 2010.