it's you're watching bbc news. 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 in jail 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 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 street journal, 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 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 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 i 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 l 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 gettingj the right people on the right apps and if the issue is veryl 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, is just honestly a lot - more difficult now. i agree with what sha hua wasjust saying. i we should be doubling i down on our commitment to the regionjust 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 movie—goers - into the story, something that normally i would have just - popped out of the office, gone across the street, i talked to a few - movie—goers, gone back and wrote up my story. but suddenly something that would have taken maybe 15 i 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, sendj questions and sort of have this whole back and forth. - and so it'sjust making our

already limited ability- to cover the country. comprehensively that much more difficult. but as you say, it's now sources. it's stringers, presumably, who you are calling upon a lot as well. not to just speak for- the new york times, i think generally there aren't that many stringers in china, . in part because the chinese l government has become very tight about who gets to report in china. i you have to have the correct visa. i 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 welle 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 your view? 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 subject. 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 just made them stop. steve vines, does that tally with your more recent experience? yes, i mean, 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 will happened in march 2020, and i know around that l time just the rest of the world was starting to understand - what was happening with the pandemic. i but by then, we were really neck deep in the pandemicl in china, it had broken out in december orjanuary. . and we were a few months, and i had gone to wuhan. that ended up 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 of the night - and i checked my phone, i and there wasjust a barrage 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 i american news organisations — the washington post, | the wall street journal and the new york times. and it was quite a shock. - i really wasn't expecting that. the way that the chinese i government framed it was that it was technically a tit - for tat measure against the us government, which had earlier moved to limit the number- of chinese journalists- working for state—run media publications in the us. but i think because of the sortj of broader context of what has been happening with foreign media in china, the kind- of constant harassment, i 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. i 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 theirfinal 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 of journalists, 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 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 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 longstanding trend of actions by beijing against journalists. i mean, if you look back and back, it's 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 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 kind ofjournalism i think 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. 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, just being under the constant threatl of being kicked out. it makes one wonder- if in the future we do get

let back in, is itjust 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 been here a long time. 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 in jail, being aware that there are people who are infinitely more courageous than me, still trying to do what journalists 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 feels a little like our weather has been sulking so far this week — kind of stuck in a rut of greyness and lingering cloud. it's not in a great hurry to get out of that position through today, either. we did see some sunshine on wednesday across central and eastern england, and i'm hopeful we will see some for at least a time today — this break in the clouds ahead of a weak weather front coming in from the west. so through the morning,

some sunnier skies working their way eastwards, perhaps something a bit brighter behind that band of showery rain further west for the afternoon. but still, a lot of cloud for many of us, and temperatures a little down for the time of year. a few heavier showers roaming around through the evening, but overnight, guess what — it's all pretty quiet and light winds, a lot of cloud, quite misty and murky around the coast and the hills. friday daytime, looking at that chart, you think, oh, things might start to get moving. well, not in any great hurry, i'm afraid. this weather front will push some rain into northern ireland through the day, throwing some showers towards wales, as well. potentially, though, with a strengthening southerly breeze, we could break the cloud up a little more across southern and eastern england. looking pretty gloomy and murky there across scotland and generally across the northern half of the uk. for the weekend, this low will make a bit more effort, and friday into saturday, this front pushes slowly

further eastwards. the notable thing that it does, though, is drag up some warmer air from the south for central and eastern england. so after a week where temperatures have sat below average, we could see some significantly warmer weather, at least briefly this weekend — but there is a price to pay. saturday, we will see, i think, temperatures into the mid—20s across central and eastern england with some sunshine. but coming into the west, heavier and more persistent rain, some strengthening winds, as well as that area of low pressure finally gets down to business. for sunday, even more widespread showers, i think, as the low pressure sits across the uk. and we start to lose that southerly airstream as the low shifts, temperatures edge down yet again. a bit drierfor monday, but still on the cool side.

welcome to bbc news — i'm lewis vaughanjones. our top stories... president biden says us troops could stay in afghanistan beyond the end of the month — if more time is needed to get every american out of the country. the taliban strengthens its grip on power as many afghans desperately try to flee before it's too late. who will help us? the people of haiti hit by saturday's powerful earthquake — say there's still no assistance. and thosands are moved to safety as firefighters continue to battle wildfires from the french riveria to greece.