In the fall of 2004, the New York Times published an article predicting the retirement of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin from his post as head of China's Central Military Commission. That prediction proved true, apparently much to the embarrassment of China's leaders.

Less than two weeks later, Zhao Yan, a researcher with the Times' Beijing bureau, was arrested on charges of fraud and leaking state secrets to the media. Zhao was held for 21 months in a Chinese jail before finally being tried in June 2006 in closed proceedings at which he was not allowed to call any witnesses in his defense. The state secrets charge was thrown out, but the court upheld the fraud count.

Zhao's case, and those of other journalists imprisoned in China, are documented in a special report titled "Falling Short: As the 2008 Olympics Approach, China Falters on Press Freedom," published by the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The CPJ was founded in 1981 and responds to attacks on the press worldwide. According to its website, CPJ "documents hundreds of cases every year and takes action on behalf of journalists and news organizations without regard to political ideology."

To maintain its independence, CPJ accepts no government funding; it is funded solely through private contributions. Its board of directors includes representatives from major news organizations and prestigious schools of journalism, including Columbia University.

In this column I can't summarize the entire 80-page report, which was two years in the making and released in August, but I'll try to hit the highlights. I encourage everyone to read the full report at cpj.org/Briefings/2007/Falling_Short/China.china.pdf.

In 2007, China imprisoned at least 29 journalists because of their work. The majority of those (24 of the 29) were jailed on "anti-state" charges, a broad category that "typically involve(s) reporting and commentary that promote democracy or embarrass (Communist) party leaders," the report states.

While this number is down from 31 in 2006, "(it) still makes China the world's leading jailer of journalists, a notorious distinction it has held for eight consecutive years," CPJ reports.

Control of the mass media in China takes many forms. The most widespread and effective censorship comes from the Chinese government itself. By law, all news outlets in China are overseen by a state agency. CPJ reports that on the national level, Xinhau News Agency, China Radio International, China Central Television, Guangming Daily, and the People's Daily newspapers are under the control of the central party leaders. "Provincial and municipal party authorities oversee regional and local newspapers and television stations," according to the CPJ report.

Other methods of suppression listed in the report include violent attacks on the media and civil defamation suits. Unlike the United States, in China truth is not a defense in libel suits. That means, the truer the news reports of political corruption, the more likely it is for the journalist to be sued -- and lose. "Since local courts do the bidding of local party bosses," the CPJ report states, "such cases are usually decided against journalists."

Off-limits are stories involving the military; religion, especially the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement; ethnic conflict; major health concerns (the 2002 SARS epidemic being a classic example); and, of course, the internal workings of the Chinese government and the Communist Party.

Cyberspace controls are also in place. According to the CPJ report, in 2007 an estimated 137 million people were online in China -- about 10 percent of the mainland population -- and subscriptions were on the rise. They still are.

So is Internet censorship. The Chinese government demands, as a condition for doing business in the country, that Internet providers "filter searches, block Web sites, delete content, and monitor e-mail traffic," CPJ reports.

Among the firms listed in the report as acceding to the Chinese government's demands are the following (and these have been widely reported in the U.S. media, as well):

* Microsoft, which has been criticized for deleting a prominent journalist's blog.

* Yahoo, which "turned over e-mail account information that led to the arrest and imprisonment of a journalist and several other dissidents."

* Google, which has launched a search engine that conforms to Chinese censorship regulations.

For those journalists who violate censorship orders, Chinese authorities close publications, reassign personnel to lesser paying jobs, or, as noted earlier, imprison them.

All of this continues as the United States and other nations prepare to participate in the summer Olympics in Beijing in August.

In 2001, the International Olympic Committee said it was awarding Beijing the 2008 Olympic Games based on assurances that Chinese authorities would allow the media "complete freedom" and would apply "no restrictions to coverage."

The CPJ reports that the day before the IOC named Beijing as the host city -- July 12, 2001 -- Wang Wei, vice president of the Beijing Olympic organizing committee, announced at a news conference, "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."

Such declarations by Chinese officials have continued, even as their arrests of journalist have continued. On Feb. 15, 2006, Liu Zhengrong, deputy chief of the Internet Affairs Bureau of the State Council Information Office, told the official China Daily newspaper, "No one in China has been arrested simply because he or she said something on the Internet."

That same day, CPJ reports, 15 journalists were being held in Chinese jails for their online writings.

The world media have questioned the IOC about the apparent contradiction between what China promised and what it has delivered. The CPJ report quotes Hein Verbrugger, head of the IOC Coordination Committee for the Beijing games, at a May 18, 2006, news conference in Beijing:

"In this country there are laws, and they have to be respected ... As long as the media behaves in the normal way, then I'm sure there will be no problems ... If it's in the law, then it is in the law."

Microsoft, AOL and Google have responded similarly to the media when questioned about their roles in blocking Internet sites and monitoring individual e-mails and instant text messaging. The standard reply goes something like this: If you're going to get permission to operate in a country, then you have to follow that country's laws.

I'm sure the fact that the country in question has billions of potential cash-carrying customers makes being a party to blatant censorship and violation of privacy much easier to rationalize.

To be fair to China, in the face of mounting international concern, it has relaxed its rules for the foreign media. On Jan. 1, 2007, the Chinese government announced that "some restrictions on foreign journalists conducting interviews with Chinese sources would be lifted, and ... foreign correspondents would be allowed to travel around the country more freely.

"But for those (journalists) who venture beyond the sports venues to capture a wider view of China, and who rely on local journalists to help them, a different set of rules applies. And, if non-Olympic events suddenly become newsworthy during the Games, every journalist should be prepared to work in an environment that has been traditionally unfriendly and hostile to the media, no matter how economically and technically advanced China has become," the CPJ report warns.

It is important to note that the new "relaxed" guidelines expire in October 2008, and they apply only to foreign journalists working in China, not to their local counterparts. The latter have told CPJ that their conditions have not changed. They also worry about what will happen after the Olympics have ended, the global spotlight on Beijing is turned off and the foreign media have gone home.

So why is all of this a concern to a journalism teacher in western Kansas? Because I teach at a university that has partnerships with a number of Chinese universities. Because students from these universities are coming in increasing numbers to do their graduate work on our campus. Because I have been privileged to have some of these wonderful, bright, inquisitive students in my classes. That is why what is happening in China this year at these Olympics -- and in the months following -- is really personal with me.

Because despite my best efforts to teach my students about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, despite my best efforts to teach them about the enormous responsibility the media have to inform and educate, I know the world that I am sending my Chinese journalism students back to.

And that scares me to death.

Linn Ann Huntington is a longtime journalism educator who lives and works in Hays.