The Beijinger was one of the first English-language media outlets to report, way back in February, that Bob Dylan’s tour of China was unlikely to happen due to the excessive financial demands of the Taiwanese promoter. So we were a little surprised when major newspapers including The Guardian and the New York Times claimed earlier this month that the tour had been canceled due to the Ministry of Culture refusing Dylan permission to play on the mainland.

The Guardian even ran this – dare we say it – stupid piece of “commentary” asking whether Dylan being “banned” would do him some good: “Could it help to restore his credibility as the prophet from Desolation Row?”

The Ministry of Culture has since denied they ever received an application to perform from the Dylan camp, and after initially reporting the “Dylan banned” line, Atlantic journalist and former China correspondent James Fallows has acknowledged the Ministry of Culture probably had nothing to with Dylan not coming to China.

Over the weekend, Fallows posted a summary of the whole saga. The post didn’t really add anything new in terms of information, but it did include one interesting email Fallows received from a reader in New York:

“I live in Washington heights and walk my dog each night about 11. So do my neighbors who also have a Labrador Retriever. [My neighbor] is Bob Dylan's road manager. I bumped into him Tuesday night. He just came back from touring in Japan and Korea with Dylan. He says there never was a China trip planned. The whole thing is a story concocted by a promoter and that Dylan had nothing to do with planning any China tour.”

Admittedly an email from some guy who claims he lives next door to Dylan's tour manager is not exactly a ironclad source, but there seems little doubt the entire tour was, at best, little more than a promoter's proposal.

The story demonstrates the lack of caution employed by the Western press in swallowing “banned in China stories.” On the other hand, local authorities don’t do themselves any favors with their lack of transparency and generally censorial attitudes. As Fallows notes, “When people know you've shut down some kinds of expression, they're willing to believe you've shut down others even when you haven't.”