When a construction dispute broke out at a coal mine in Luliang County, Yunnan Province and escalated to a conflict involving over 100 people and the police, media reports were quick to label those involved as "unruly people," "having ulterior motives," "a small minority," and "people who don't know the facts" (不明真相)

The phrase "people who don't know the facts" is not new. It in fact dates as far back as a Lu Xun essay published in a collection in 1935: "However, they could take on an air of understanding and speak nonsense, deceiving people who don't know the facts." In later years, the phrase has been used often by official press to describe people involved in mass incidents, with the Luliang mass incident being no exception.

However, in what may be a tidal change, Yunnan provincial publicity department officials reacted to media reports by issuing a notice at the end of August for the media to cease using labels like "people who don't know the truth." Such characterizations, officials stated, were unfair, especially as a portion of mass incidents could be explained by some government officials' poor policies, work ethic, and procedure implementation. Further, officials exhorted the media to quickly but carefully examine evidence before reporting breaking news so as to not misrepresent the masses. Should news reports continue to use harmful labels, it would lead to "intensif[ying] the contradictions and exacerbat[ing] the problem; … [and] only increase the chasm between them [the people and officials] or even set them up in opposition."

The provincial department's move has been met with mixed reactions. We are providing a number of Chinese editorials that reflect general attitudes towards the publicity notice.

One commentator praised the decision [ZH], remarking that it hailed a breakthrough in media openness:

As a news worker in this industry for over 20 years, this is the first time I've seen [such proposals]. The propaganda department is the Party's propaganda department, but the Party's propaganda department is holding a strict stance towards the Party and the government, while having an open-minded stance towards the media.  This isn't just good news for the media, but it is also good news for the people; this is a concrete embodiment of 'the government for the people.'

Others have approached the news with a measure of criticism. Tong Dahuan of CCTV.com [ZH] underscores the necessity of dropping the labels and sets it in context:

"This really isn't a new line of thought in governance, but is actually a basic demand in modern-day democratic and rule by law societies. If societies cannot even attain this basic requirement, then people will always come across unreasonable governments and officials. Should this be the case, where do people go for truth, for reason? Not only would people be simply placed in a 'deviant' group, they could also be grouped with others who have 'mental illnesses,' or are 'threats to public order,' and so forth. As a result, people's freedoms are constrained. Additionally, in societies without truth or reason, where do people find fairness and justice? [These societies] follow the law of the jungle: those least afraid of death and with the hardest fists are regarded as the norm; harmony and stability are far off."

A commentator from Southern Metropolis Daily [ZH] considers the possible implications of the notice, and takes account of the damage that has already been done. He also notes the irony of the government ordinance, given that it is often officials who label the masses; the media simply reports what is said at the top:

… We need only to analyze the background social mentality of these words and clichés. Actually, we only need to see who said them, who is using them, when they are using them, and what effectiveness they have in order to understand. …  While the spirit of this notice may seem to be unusual, generally speaking, the government is not only the solver of different problems, but also when power is improperly exercised, they are the original instigators; when the media reports on breaking news, it's got to quickly report the facts, carefully report the cause, avoid making rash pronouncements, and impose officialese and clichés on the public. This is already well known to the public. Today, the bureau of public opinion channeling has started to examine its conduct, and [said] it would no longer uphold its former practices or even exacerbate problems by using these rigid labels. Reality will respond to these progress-seeking changes.

However, with the large number of "masses who don't know the facts," is it possible for them to throw off these societal and political labels now that the media and the publicity department are carefully advancing? It is still unclear. This feeling of uncertainty's source stems from the same logic as that behind "people who don't understand the facts" and "having ulterior motives." Within the relations of public authorities and the people, saying "you don't understand" means you don't understand, whether or not you understand. This kind of logic has obscured what was an originally clear sense of public responsibility, and has pushed the wishes and hopes of the people to the limits of tolerance.

The notice's effectiveness is still unclear. Indeed, recent government notices claiming to loosen restrictions on the media have consistently come up empty. Wu Yi, a sociology professor from Huazhong University of Science and Technology [ZH], takes another angle in looking at the situation. According to Wu, the key to change is not solely to remove these labels from the masses, but rather to create an environment in which the news can be open and transparent. By creating a channel through which people can learn the truth, officials and citizens will be avoid a number of future conflicts.