2012年6月20日 星期三

SCMP總編輯被質疑自我審查

《南早》編輯質疑自我審查
李旺陽死訊變細 總編:我的決定 不喜歡應知怎做

2012年6月20日

Vic:或許會有人認為《南華早報》早已「陷匪」,會出現今天這種羞家的事不足為奇。但看完相關報道,我仍不禁為這份香港老牌英文報紙之淪落感到悲哀,為香港的新聞自由憂心。

Asia Sentinel的報道說:「What is emerging from the SCMP newsroom is that Wang Xiangwei lacks people skills, organizational ability and respect for time. He has been known to confirm appointments with his subordinates which then drift by for hours or days. He is dismissive of subordinates who query his edicts. He does not share his vision for the paper or articulate any clear editorial philosophy for his journalists. His news conference style is not participative.」實際情況如何,外人不得而知,但至少「He is dismissive of subordinates who query his edicts」應該是真的。從王向偉回覆審稿編輯Alex Price的情況看來,這位擔任吉林省政協的總編輯,很有典型共產黨幹部的架子,而且很沒教養;若非如此,又怎麼會這麼回答同事客氣、合理的詢問:「I don't have to explain to you anything. I made the decision and I stand by it. If you don't like it, you know what to do.」

編輯自主並不意味著編輯面對質疑時,不必向外界解釋自己的決定。李旺陽事件是大事,王向偉將事發翌日的報道縮短為不起眼的簡訊,是完全站不住腳的專業失誤:如果不是出於政治上的自我審查,就是新聞判斷嚴重出錯。曾經輝煌的百年大報,落在媚共商人和這樣的總編輯手上,嗚呼!
-----------------

【明報專訊】六四民運人士李旺陽離奇吊頸自殺事件發生翌日,《南華早報》當天以簡訊報道事件,被報社一名外籍編輯質疑是否有自我審查,發電郵給總編輯王向偉要求解釋,換來「這是我下的決定……如果你不喜歡,你應該知道怎樣做」的回應。兩大傳媒組織、3間大學新聞系學者表示關注,認為南華早報須向公眾交代來龍去脈。

南華早報副總編輯譚衛兒昨晚接受本報查詢時表示,未清楚事件詳情,需向相關編輯了解,不便回應。

副總編:未清楚事件詳情

浸會大學新聞系助理教授杜耀明稱,報章作為社會公器,總編輯有必要向公眾清晰交代事件來龍去脈。身兼支聯會主席的立法會議員李卓人說,王向偉的言論對員工有恐嚇之嫌,該報作為國際有影響力的英文報章,難免令國際質疑本地傳媒是否已遭審查,有必要向外間明確交代(見另稿)。

本報記者昨午致電王向偉,他得悉記者身分後,回應「正在開會」,之後掛斷電話。其後記者再多次致電,至截稿前王未再接聽。據知,他日前由北京返港,親自出席黃昏編輯會解畫,稱作為總編輯,要處理很多事,亦有很多限制如死線,否認自我審查,強調此後亦有大篇幅處理,但始終未能具體說明當日為何要變成簡訊。

聞記者致電 王向偉掛斷電話

發電郵的兼職編輯Alex Price昨晚回覆本報時表示,一直沒有機會與王向偉見面,現階段不便回應事件,並指希望當面與王對話,了解後始決定如何處理。

本月6日,李旺陽被揭發在醫院窗口離奇吊頸死亡,翌日本港主要媒體均以顯著篇幅報道,同日《南華早報》的印刷第一版,包括向學校、酒店等派發的訂戶版,以相當於中文報章600字的篇幅,在A8頁中國版約佔六分之一頁大小報道,並有兩名記者的署名。但其後印製的第二版即零售版,則將新聞濃縮成100字的簡訊,置於A6版左上方,網上版更失去此則新聞的蹤影,直至中午過後始重新上載原裝版本。

原600字篇幅 變100字簡訊

Alex Price於報道見報日、即本月7日晚發電郵給王向偉,表示不少人奇怪為何有關報道簡單處理,希望王解釋。王向偉3分鐘後回覆稱,「決定是我下的」( I made that decision) 。Alex再發電郵,關注事件是否有「自我審查之嫌」,王反駁「沒必要向你解釋」,更表明「若你不喜歡,你應該知道怎樣做」( If you don't like it, you know what to do)。

Alex 認為回覆具恐嚇性,「擔心任何人對編輯決定提出質疑,均會被要求閉嘴或離開」,重申當其他媒體以大篇幅報道事件,向總編輯提出如此質疑亦屬合理,惟王向偉否認出言恐嚇,拒再說明(見圖)。

編輯:南早公信力危在旦夕

即使Alex前日再發電郵,提出南華早報其後曾以專題、社論等顯著篇幅報道李旺陽事件,反映有其重要,然而首日確是做細了這則新聞,又稱新聞道德和該報的公信力危在旦夕,促王向偉向員工及公眾交代,惟一直未獲回覆。

據了解,相關人士不滿王向偉未有交代,遂向全體員工發出有關電郵,有員工再廣發傳媒,令事件曝光。

 《南華早報》訂戶版有關李旺陽事件的報道,原佔4欄,有相當篇幅(左圖,紅框示),但到正式發售的零售版時,卻被縮減成簡訊。(明報製圖)

Alex Price: Hi Xiangwei ... A lot of people are wondering why we nibbed the Li Wangyang story last night. It does seem rather odd. Any chance you can shed some light on the matter?

王向偉: I made that decision.

Alex Price: Any chance you say why? It's just that to the outside world it looks an awful lot like self-censorship ...


王向偉: I don't have to explain to you anything. I made the decision and I stand by it. If you don't like it, you know what to do.


Alex Price: I am concerned by the intimidatory nature of your reply. A very strange editorial decision was made and everyone is wondering why. Many other news organisations splashed with the Li Wangyang story yet we reduced it to a brief. In such circumstances it is quite reasonable to ask the editor why the decision was made. Of course he may decline to say why; there could be any number of reasons, and he may well want to keep them to himself. But if the question was polite and reasonable than [then] I see no reason why the response should not be equally polite and reasonable.  As it stands, I am concerned.  I am now worried that anyone who wishes to raise issue with an editorial decision - no matter how much that decision appears to go against good journalism -  will be  told to shut up or leave. I am further concerned that my justifiable concern on this matter as a journalist may lead to the termination of my employment.

I look forward to a chat where you can put my mind at rest.

王向偉: I don't think my answer is anyway intimidatory and I don't know why you have formed your opinion.


Alex Price: Xiang Wei; A good man died for his cause and we turned it from a story into a brief. The rest of Hong Kong splashed on it. Your staff are understandably concerned by this. News is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations. Please explain the decision to reduce the suspicious death of Li Wangyang to a brief. I need to be able to explain it to my friends who are asking why we did it. I'm sorry but  your reply of "it is my decision, if you don't like it you know what to do" is not enough  in such a situation. Frankly it seems to be saying "shut up or go". The SCMP has subsequently splashed on Li Wangyang, had a focus page devoted to the matter, plus editorials, two  columns by yourself and other stories. Yet on the day it counted we reduced the story to a nib.

Journalistic ethics are at stake. The credibility of the South China Morning Post is at stake. Your staff - and readers - deserve an answer.
I look forward to  hearing it.


「已成社會事件」記協議員促交代


【明報專訊】兩個傳媒組織及3間大學新聞系學者,表示關注事件,要求澄清是否判斷失誤或自我審查。多名立法會議員敦促管理層交代,建議有關記者可向資訊科技及廣播事務委員會正式投訴,以交立法會討論。

記者協會主席麥燕庭表示,《南華早報》的處理手法有別一般傳媒,令人關注有關安排是否屬自我審查還是評估失誤。另外,她無法理解為何王向偉對下屬的合理要求一直未有清晰回應,她又指事件已引起公眾關注,成社會事件,有必要清楚交代,記協已正式向王向偉提出質疑,至今未獲回覆。

新聞行政人員協會主席趙應春稱,雖然近日傳媒鋪天蓋地報道李旺陽事件,但主編確有權決定報道如何處理,但他認為,作為開明的傳媒管理層,面對員工以至公眾質疑,應作具體說明。

浸大新聞系助理教授杜耀明認為,《南早》有關做法反映有高層自我審查,或是對新聞無知,兩者皆有必要清晰交代,「若認為有充分理據,更應交代」。他說,王向偉身為地方政協,有「淡紅」色彩,「很難不令人聯想(決定)與此有關」。杜耀明稱,若傳媒機構視報章為公器,應向社會交代,又指單是今次已影響其公信力,更莫論該報早前連串懷疑自我審查事件。

中大新聞與傳播學院教授蘇鑰機說,李旺陽之死毫無疑問是大事件,令人懷疑管理層自我審查,《南華早報》近來對連串重大事件的處理手法,已影響公信力,管理層應向公眾和內部員工詳細說明事件,以釋疑慮。

樹仁大學新傳系系主任梁天偉表示,王向偉出任《南早》總編輯後,該報對牽涉內地新聞的取態明顯有變,李旺陽事件遭簡單處理,意味有關人士太接近中央,相信其說法而採取同樣口徑,某程度屬自我審查。

李永達建議正式投訴

立法會資訊科技及廣播事務委員會兩名委員劉慧卿和李永達均指事件屬政治審查,促《南早》管理層解畫,但目前立法會有大量工作須處理,今屆難在會內跟進。李永達建議有關記者向委員會正式投訴,以便跟進。

總編為吉林省政協

【明報專訊】今年初正式接掌《南華早報》,成為該報近11年來第十名總編輯的王向偉,於內地出生和受教育,曾是英文《中國日報》記者,現為吉林省政協委員。

現年47歲的王向偉,1982年入讀北京外語大學,於1989年六四事件後受聘《中國日報》,其後到倫敦深造,1996年加入《南華早報》任中國經濟評論員。他於今年初上任總編輯時,曾向全體編採部人員發信,自言雖在內地長大,但深明同事關注《南早》未來編採方向,強調自己一直視香港為家,又說會忠於香港人,捍衛核心價值。


沒有留言:

張貼留言