http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/asia/biden-faults-china-on-foreign-press-crackdown.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
I agree that rejecting American journalists' visas is not a good way to
fight anti-China bias in America. But I no longer trust the American media
's claim of the Chinese authorities linking visa rejection to journalist's
reportings. They need stronger proof than just saying so, because US media
's credibility is near 0, after nonexistant WMDs in Iraq and incomplete
coverage of Jimmy Kimmel and biased reporting of Diaoyudao spat.
Ideally, in future the flow between China and USA would be free.
Journalists should have the freedom to work wherever they want and say
whatever they want to say. They will also be hold responsible for racism,
dishonesty and other unprofessional conduct as journalist.
NY Times and Bloomberg are the ones being impacted by non-renewal of
journalist visas. They claim their problems stemmed from past reportings
relating the CCP leaders' family wealth.
I hope they work this out civilly and preserve journalistic independence (
though given the performance of most of US media, I'm not sure how much they
had in the beginning).
I wonder whether NY Times/Bloomberg report on Abe/Bush/Romney family's total
wealth, including all their brothers and sisters and in laws and etc.
Fact of life is, American journalists do need to exercise self-censorship
working all over the world: not just in China, but also in Japan, Saudi
Arabia, Israel, even inside US itself. Not every dirty laundry is
newsworthy. Touching/broadcasting dirty laundries do carry business risks.
Going to someone's home and rifle through their X-in-law's business
papers, while often results in interesting journalism, also carry business
risks. It's just business.
China is not a very stable country. Destablizing it from bottom is harder
than destablizing it from the top. Even the US is not so very stable anymore,
handle with care and only if you earned your goodwill cred.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/technology/security/snowden-new-york-times/index.html?iid=s_mpm
No comments:
Post a Comment