Via the China Digital Times, this outstanding excerpt from the transcript of Wednesday's IOC/BOCOG press conference (the ninth in a wretched series, we are informed). I've excised some back and forth between the question and response:

South China Morning Post: Mr. Wang and Giselle, we did get to know there were 77 applicants to the protest. First question is: would you consider these parks a success or would they be part of the lasting legacy of the Games? Those few people in China who are not happy can now go to similar zones. Is there, if I look into history, is there any correlation between Chairman Mao's '100 flower campaign' and the protest parks? Giselle, does it make a mockery of the best practice of the IOC that they persuade of the host city to do? Thank you very much.

Wang Wei: On the issue of demonstration, the basic situation has been already announced by the authorities. And I think you should be satisfied with that. The demonstration parks are announced. There are three places on the basis of Chinese law. The idea of demonstration is to hoping to resolve issue it is not demonstrating for the sake of demonstration. We are actually quite happy to hear that many of the 77 cases have been resolved. Now the resolution of these protests was through dialogue and communication. And this is also a part of way to do in Chinese culture. For instance, in China, if somebody wants to complain to courts or they want to launch a protest to the courts, the courts probably first engaged mediation first to see whether dialogues are a possible solution. Even for civil cases, for instance, people want to get divorce, the community tries to mediate fist.

The Chinese cultural always emphasis the concept of harmony, so if it can be resolved through mediation and the divorce is withdrawn, then everybody is very happy about that. Other countries may not think that is very good but in China, we think it is a good thing. Of course, if you insist on divorce, you can go through the legal process to get the divorce. So I think for these people who want to demonstrate or protest, this is my personal opinion, is that they want to find a solution to their problem and once there is a solution, they will be satisfied. Of course, solution should come through legal means and not through demonstration. But now the Chinese law also accepts possible to use this method. I think that is a characteristic of Chinese law. You mentioned just now Mao Zedong led a ‘100 flowers bloom’ that is in an attempt to let everybody to express their opinion. I think everybody has the right to speak. Nobody said that you don’t have the right to speak. This is another thing. This is not the same as demonstrating. Thank you.

"Chinese culture always emphasizes the concept of harmony." In principle perhaps. In practice, I can safely say after four years here, less so. Still, track record to date: Zero protests approved. Very harmonious. You have to give Wang props for having the data points to support his thesis. You also have to admire the bureaucracy's perfect ability "resolve" these cases. How they might be resolved Imagethief will leave to his readers to imagine.

Reading through the transcripts, all of which are online here, gives you a real sense of the formula at work. Completely anodyne opening statements followed by probing questions from foreign media that receive mostly anodyne answers, and (generally later in the process) softball questions from Chinese media that receive mostly anodyne answers. One wonders why anyone is showing up at this point.

The transcripts themselves a sloppy bit of work, and seem not have been copy edited at all. I understand that there is probably a bit of pressure to get them up quickly, but still it's a bit of a shocker. They read like they've been transcribed and proofed by Chinese speakers, if at all. (In one transcript Wang Wei explains how they are "cramping down" on scalpers, which sounds really painful.)

But that's mostly a style issue, and it doesn't have much to do with the actual content. Which isn't to say that content might not be an issue. From that same session:

Fox News Radio - Mr. Wang Wei, Mr. Timo Lumme, Madam Davies, who makes the decision on the content of the transcripts of these briefings because they are not accurate.

Wang Wei - I think you can consulate [sic] with the website. It is the website that makes the final content. I think they are doing that according to what actually happened.

Fox News Radio - Ok, I accepted that. Thank you.

Imagethief has e-mailed the Fox News Radio journalist to ask if he has indeed "accepted that". I'll advise on any response I get.

However, the issue of transcripts is interesting. In China it is common practice for an organization hosting a press conference or interview to record the session and prepare a transcript for distribution to attending media. Occasionally these get printed wholesale, which can be uncomfortable for incautious spokespeople. Talk to local PR professionals and you'll often hear about how the transcripts are necessary for "lazy journalists." Maybe. But Imagethief thinks this is less an indicator of the energy of Chinese journalists than one of those unfortunate habits like the "transportation claim" that has been enshrined as standard practice, and to which all parties in the process, Chinese journalists included, have got too comfortable with.

There is nothing inherently wrong with providing a transcript to journalists who have often anyway recorded the interview themselves. In fact, when dealing with foreign spokespeople and interpreters, a translated Chinese transcript can be a big help to journalists trying to find relevant material. The problem is that such transcripts are often "cleaned up" prior to distribution. Much of this is relatively innocent, and has to do with fact checking and ensuring correct terminology survives interpretation. But it can go beyond that, with misstatements corrected, messages tightened, and that sort of thing. Even so, most of the time this is minor stuff that isn't going to shake the pillars of society. Journalists don't seem to care because it saves them doing their own transcription or listening back to sixty minutes of fluff to find the twenty seconds of quotable insight.

But like the transportation claim, no matter innocently employed it's a symptom of the unfortunately cozy relationship between press and PR in China. And when people get too comfortable with something, it's easier to abuse. Thus, it wouldn't surprise me to find that BOCOG are editing the transcripts of the press conferences. They don't seem to be removing entire questions, since there are plenty of pointy ones still in there. But it doesn't stretch the imagination too far to picture them editing the responses or softening charged language. There is no video or audio provided by BOCOG that would enable comparison.

Of course, it's also perfectly likely that they're simply sloppy and in a rush. But in China, a transcript issued by the hosts of a press conference is always a little bit suspect.