CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Not Enough Facts In Evidence
[See Series Introduction -- the Editors]
By Daisy Hao
A Chinese journalist, Zhao Yan, had a special job--working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of the New York Times. Since September 17, he has been detained by Chinese authorities for "providing state secrets to foreigners."
There are a lot of debates and remarks on the Internet about this case. Some criticize that China is moving backwards on human rights; some are worried about the freedom of journalism in China. All these remarks are based on an assumption--that Zhao Yan was detained for reporting Jiang Zemin's retirement. In my opinion, this assumption is worth discussing.
According to the presumption of his colleagues and friends, the so-called "leaking state secrets" charge is linked to an article published in The New York Times on September 7, 2004, revealing Jiang Zemin's retirement from the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the transfer of full leadership to President Hu Jintao. The story proved to be accurate on September 19, when Mr. Jiang's resignation was officially announced.
Here is a truth: Zhao Yan was detained by Chinese authorities. And the accusation is leaking national secrets.
Here is an assumption: the secret might be the retirement of Jiang Zemin.
As a matter of fact, no one really knows what is the so-called "secret." Even the New York Times said that the Chinese authorities have not told them what secret information Zhao Yan allegedly revealed, or to whom.
As a student majoring in journalism, I am told all the time to never present any information before I can verify it myself and never to take anything for granted. So, I don't think it is proper to make any comment, especially sharp comments, before we are clear about the whole issue.
How come we combined a truth with an assumption as a premise for a later series of logical inferences and as the base for remarks?
Let's come back to the case itself. First of all, focusing on Zhao's special job, I have something else to say. As we know, large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, with great reputations attract many people who want to work for them. And most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help assemble and sort out information from official sources, newspapers and the Internet, and to assist in translations.
Working there is an extremely special job; and you must consider the risks because it is not a government organization. In some sense, it is a business and you are working for a foreign company whose product is news for people in another country. However, you are working on the mainland, so you should obey the law here; meanwhile, you work for a foreign organization which has a different system and style, and you have to follow your boss's principles. In addition, some rules and laws in China are often considered unreasonable or ridiculous by your foreign colleagues and boss. Thus, there is a conflict in most cases: being committed to your job and being loyal to your country.
It is an open secret that some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive. Therefore, you should keep the national honor and laws in mind, and make every decision deliberately.
Apart from that, we should think about other questions concerning this issue. Is it real that the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement led to Zhao Yan's misfortune? Who is the source of the news?
The New York Times foreign editor confirmed that Zhao Yan had been working for the newspaper as a researcher, not as a reporter, and that he was not the source of the information about the retirement of Jiang Zemin. Almost everyone knows that large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, have their own sources of information. Is it possible for Chinese authorities not to know this? Moreover, it is said in Joseph Kahn's article that the information came from a high-level source inside the government.
In other words, Zhao Yan is not the source that leaked the information, nor the one who investigated or dug up the information. Besides, in China, people such as Zhao Yan are little potatoes. You must remember, the state system and conditions are different between China and Western countries. Such little potatoes have no way to seek or get inside information about the government and the Party by themselves--unless people inside the government leak the information.
Now, the sky is clear. Zhao Yan is not the one who leaked the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement. What he did was present news to the public. As a student majoring in journalism, my teachers taught me the principles of journalism and the personalities and abilities we should possess and process to be a journalist; no one taught me that pursuing and presenting truth is a crime. I think that the Chinese authorities also understand this. Therefore, it is unlikely that they detained Zhao Yan for reporting this news. In other words, he was detained for leaking national secrets, and the secret is something else--something that we don't know.
That is a piece of news worth investigating by journalists. What is the real reason the State Security Bureau detained him and what is the secret he leaked? I'd like to devote all my time, energy, and intelligence to figuring out the answers, because I resolve to be a good journalist. But, now, it is beyond my reach.
My wish is that some day I am able to investigate this kind of mystery on my own and report the truth hiding under the complicated, puzzling surfaces to the public. This is the most basic responsibility and also the ultimate objective of a journalist, every where.
By Daisy Hao
A Chinese journalist, Zhao Yan, had a special job--working as a researcher for the Beijing bureau of the New York Times. Since September 17, he has been detained by Chinese authorities for "providing state secrets to foreigners."
There are a lot of debates and remarks on the Internet about this case. Some criticize that China is moving backwards on human rights; some are worried about the freedom of journalism in China. All these remarks are based on an assumption--that Zhao Yan was detained for reporting Jiang Zemin's retirement. In my opinion, this assumption is worth discussing.
According to the presumption of his colleagues and friends, the so-called "leaking state secrets" charge is linked to an article published in The New York Times on September 7, 2004, revealing Jiang Zemin's retirement from the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission and the transfer of full leadership to President Hu Jintao. The story proved to be accurate on September 19, when Mr. Jiang's resignation was officially announced.
Here is a truth: Zhao Yan was detained by Chinese authorities. And the accusation is leaking national secrets.
Here is an assumption: the secret might be the retirement of Jiang Zemin.
As a matter of fact, no one really knows what is the so-called "secret." Even the New York Times said that the Chinese authorities have not told them what secret information Zhao Yan allegedly revealed, or to whom.
As a student majoring in journalism, I am told all the time to never present any information before I can verify it myself and never to take anything for granted. So, I don't think it is proper to make any comment, especially sharp comments, before we are clear about the whole issue.
How come we combined a truth with an assumption as a premise for a later series of logical inferences and as the base for remarks?
Let's come back to the case itself. First of all, focusing on Zhao's special job, I have something else to say. As we know, large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, with great reputations attract many people who want to work for them. And most foreign bureaus in China employ local people to help assemble and sort out information from official sources, newspapers and the Internet, and to assist in translations.
Working there is an extremely special job; and you must consider the risks because it is not a government organization. In some sense, it is a business and you are working for a foreign company whose product is news for people in another country. However, you are working on the mainland, so you should obey the law here; meanwhile, you work for a foreign organization which has a different system and style, and you have to follow your boss's principles. In addition, some rules and laws in China are often considered unreasonable or ridiculous by your foreign colleagues and boss. Thus, there is a conflict in most cases: being committed to your job and being loyal to your country.
It is an open secret that some Chinese assistants have had trouble with the authorities over the years when the newspapers they worked for wrote on subjects considered politically sensitive. Therefore, you should keep the national honor and laws in mind, and make every decision deliberately.
Apart from that, we should think about other questions concerning this issue. Is it real that the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement led to Zhao Yan's misfortune? Who is the source of the news?
The New York Times foreign editor confirmed that Zhao Yan had been working for the newspaper as a researcher, not as a reporter, and that he was not the source of the information about the retirement of Jiang Zemin. Almost everyone knows that large foreign media organizations, like The New York Times, have their own sources of information. Is it possible for Chinese authorities not to know this? Moreover, it is said in Joseph Kahn's article that the information came from a high-level source inside the government.
In other words, Zhao Yan is not the source that leaked the information, nor the one who investigated or dug up the information. Besides, in China, people such as Zhao Yan are little potatoes. You must remember, the state system and conditions are different between China and Western countries. Such little potatoes have no way to seek or get inside information about the government and the Party by themselves--unless people inside the government leak the information.
Now, the sky is clear. Zhao Yan is not the one who leaked the news of Jiang Zemin's retirement. What he did was present news to the public. As a student majoring in journalism, my teachers taught me the principles of journalism and the personalities and abilities we should possess and process to be a journalist; no one taught me that pursuing and presenting truth is a crime. I think that the Chinese authorities also understand this. Therefore, it is unlikely that they detained Zhao Yan for reporting this news. In other words, he was detained for leaking national secrets, and the secret is something else--something that we don't know.
That is a piece of news worth investigating by journalists. What is the real reason the State Security Bureau detained him and what is the secret he leaked? I'd like to devote all my time, energy, and intelligence to figuring out the answers, because I resolve to be a good journalist. But, now, it is beyond my reach.
My wish is that some day I am able to investigate this kind of mystery on my own and report the truth hiding under the complicated, puzzling surfaces to the public. This is the most basic responsibility and also the ultimate objective of a journalist, every where.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home