Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A26-G11
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号:A26-G11

Release Date: September 8, 2003
发布日:2003年9月8日

Topic: No Press Freedom in China after SARS (Statement to CECC by Ciping Huang)
标题:萨斯肆虐之后,中国新闻自由前景仍然黯淡(黄慈萍在美国国会中国事务委员会上的发言)



Original Language Version: English
(English at beginning, Chinese version at the end)
Please visit our website if you have problem to read Chinese in this issue
此号以英文为准(英文在前,中文在后)

The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China.  We appreciate your assistance and help in any means.

We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic
governance on this planet. 

You are welcome to use or distribute this release.  However, please credit with
this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Press Freedom in China after SARS

-- Statement to CECC by Ciping Huang on September 8, 2003

My name is Ciping Huang.  Today, I am making a statement on behalf of the Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, regarding the current news media and information channels being controlled by the Chinese government.

Early last spring, the China press got unexpected world attention because of SARS. The initial cover-up by the government resulted in terrible consequences including panic and many deaths in China.  However, only after the disease spread overseas and caused an international outcry, was the Chinese press loosened and allowed to give out the number of deaths and related health information, trustworthy or not.  As a result, kindhearted people around the world have an increased hope for Chinese press freedom. As an old saying said: a loss may turn out to be a gain; the SARS storm might bring a positive reform to the Chinese press.

Of course, the world should welcome each step of progress towards democracy and freedom, no matter how small the step might be, if only it is a sincere step. However, people must be wary of illusions or wishful thinking. Without a systematic guarantee in China, any step forward could be easily taken away by the government. 

The freedom of the Chinese press has long been a goal that Chinese people have pursued. During the 1989 Tiananmen democracy movement, many young people sacrificed their lives for this goal.  For a short few days, the Chinese people thought they gained that freedom, only be crushed by tanks and the government propaganda machine later on.  Now there are still many people both on the China mainland and abroad struggling hard to get even one private newspaper or magazine published in China.  So far, has anything changed? The only one real voice to be heard in China is the voice from government. Non-governmental approved voices are cut and muted. 

The sad reality is: China has not gained more press freedom since SARS.

Even during the seeming opened crack of reporting on SARS, very little attention was given to the Chinese government's decree to "severely punish the rumor spreaders".  Several dozen people were arrested for spreading the news about SARS.

In June 2003, the Chinese Communist Party Central Propaganda Department criticized more than 10 major well known newspapers and magazines, such as <Beijing Communication>, <Three-United Life Weekly>, <Finance> etc. The cited issues included SARS and the reporting on corrupted officials. After this criticizing, some "sensitive articles" had to be "killed" before publishing.  Especially those articles reporting on Doctor Jiang (who first appealed to open truth on SARS) got tight censorship by the government and many articles were cut. Due to the new regulations, SARS reporting is not a free topic but has a very clear and disciplined line that the most journalists have no guts to cross.  The forbidden topics also include: the North Korea nuclear crisis, the nuclear submarine 361 explosion case, and Zhou ZhengYi, the top corruption case in Shanghai. (See Attachment 1, all the 5 attachments are in Chinese.)

In recent months, the government has had more meetings to call for "The Reform of China Press and Publication."  The proposals included cutting the number of totally controlled newspapers, clarifying the "Party's disciplines" and emphasizing the purpose of propaganda etc.  However, as Cai YongMei, The executive editor of Hong Kong's <Open> magazine (Kai1Fang4) analyzed: "I think the government doesn't want to lose the control of media. Light issues and non-sensitive topics might get loosened, but serious topics, or those they think are principal issues will be held as tightly as before". (See Attachment 2)

Last month, the veil over this "reform" was finally lifted.  The Chinese government finally decreed their detailed regulations without a sign of real reform.  These regulations demonstrated further the hard-line face of the central government that tries to make a successful and strict control over the news media.  In particular, the regulations ask for strict censorship, and include dismissing and appointing the leaders. (See Attachment 3)

Also in the summer, the Chinese news media and universities and academic/research institutes received notices from the government clearly stating prohibitions to discuss certain issues, in particular modifying the constitution, political reforms, and the 1989 Tiananmen democracy movement.

We want to emphasize that China has a long way to go towards real press freedom.  The root of the problem lies in the system, which has been there for over half a century under the Chinese Communists' rule. The following facts are some of our highest concerns.  The problems still exist after SARS.

1)  There is no real private press in China and no independent journalism under the Chinese Communists' one-party leadership.

So far, except for some pointless papers and local small magazines (e.g. equivalent to "how to do make-up"), China doesn't have a single newspaper or magazine owned by a non-government agent or company. The registration of a press is a very complicated and strict step. The government at any time can easily crush a newspaper or magazine agent/company if it violates the government regulations, or even just displeases some officials.

2)  Internet Censorship is a serious abuse of the basic human right of "right to knowledge."

If you are in China and open "google" or "yahoo", you won't be able to find many web sites that you can see in other countries. Since August 31 this year, Chinese government shutdown the search machine "google" in China again.  Just before every political event, Internet become one more place for the Chinese Communists to tight their "strict strike" control.  According to latest report by Central Agency, the government has 300,000 people policing the Internet, including 30,000 professional work for the National Security Department, to monitor and filter news and e-mails, to shutdown websites and to give warnings to people who make "undesirable" web pages or posts on the Internet. Unless technically specially handled, E-mails from dissidents such as me are often rerouted through the police bureau before reaching the intended recipients, and are often rejected and even be confiscated without acknowledgement.  In some cases, the recipients are harassed, or interrogated by the secret police.  It surely is amazing that while this government has failed to control "forbidden pornographic materials" on the Internet, it is able to put a pretty good handle on the dissident voices and even just plain news.

The censoring not only applies to the news and articles posted in foreign web sites, but also to local people who join "chat rooms". Liu Di, a 19 years old college girl, has been detained for months because of some words and essays she posted in a chat room.

Yet, this type of the censorship is just part of the integral policing system in China.  As the other side of traffic, I was told by a friend whose sister worked to examine the mails from overseas that 1/3 of all mails went through inspection, beyond even "targeted mails".  In addition, phone tapping is common and public knowledge in China, and is not just applied to the dissidents and activists.

3) Brave journalists and liberal editors often get in trouble, and some are put in prison just because they report the truth or speak from conscience.

While over all, Chinese people are the victims of the Chinese Communists' propaganda machine; Chinese news media workers are the direct victims.  In the last 5 decades, many of them lost their freedom or even lives for it.  One of my friends, Wu XueCan, who was an editor for People's Daily, was put in prison and tortured after the 1989 Tiananmen movement for his effort to bring truth to the people.

Many liberal editors and reporters got laid off or even put in prison for reporting on corrupted officials, on the common people's suffering, or just expressing (or even just allowing) a different view from the government.  They make a long list.  Here, I want to mention a few:

a) Gao Qinrong, a journalist who reported about corruption on the irrigation system flaw in ShanXi Province, received 13 years in prison. (Attachment 4 is an article written by Yu Jie, an established scholar in China, about Gao.)

b) Qi YanChen, editor, was prosecuted for "spreading anti-government messages via the Internet" by submitting articles to places such as the pro-democracy electronic newsletter VIP reference. He was sentenced 4 years.

c) Teng ChunYan, an American citizen and a Falun Gong practitioner, received 3 years in prison for serving as a source on Falun Gong for news organizations.

d) An Jun was the founder of the China Corruption Monitor.  His writings were used as evidence of anti-state activities and he was sentenced 4 years. (Interestingly enough, An's verdict was not announced until April 19, 2000, the day after the UN high commission on human rights failed to pass a US sponsored resolution to condemn Chinese human rights abuses.)

e) Jiang QiSheng, journalist and political dissident, just finished 4 years jail time in May for his pro-democracy articles including an essay to honor June 4 victims.

f) Huang Qi, Internet publisher and web host, is still in prison for publishing stories about human rights abuses, governmental corruptions, and 6.4 Tiananmen.

g) Yang ZiLi, etc. (4 youths), was sentenced lately (after SARS) for academic discussion.

4) To survive one must to speak the Party's tongue.
  
It is very common for editors to have to cut some "sensitive sentences" when they review articles in newspapers or magazines. The most sensitive parts are not pornography issues, but those related to the political issues. There is no evidence for a change in this situation.

From very reliable channels, I know that the editors working in newspapers and magazines can only have part of their own minds, if they care about their life or their family's future. They consistently have meetings to "listen to the government's opinion", that usually announce some "important regulations" of how to report certain sensitive events. "Keep the same tone with Party" is the first rule for all journalists in China. Some of my editor friends say that they don't have their own tongue but the Party's tongue.

5) China has been rated "the second worst country for freedom of press and speech.".  The bias, misleading, even false news serve for Chinese government's agenda.

On sensitive issues, only the government will have the right to decide if the news can be opened to the public, and when and how. For example, the unemployed workers' unrest in Northeast China will be suppressed in any newspaper with the "reason" of "not disturbing the stability of the country". Early this year, in my home town, Hefei City, when thousands students took to the streets to protest the wrongful deaths of their fellow students, no reports appeared for days in the official news media even though the city residents knew something happened because of the paralyzed traffic and angry crowd. 

Government events cannot be revealed on time without the Party's control. Most of them become "top secrets". The Chinese people have little chance to know what their "people's government" does or will do.  Even foreign correspondents based in China cannot get timely news - they face routine surveillance and need special permission for leaving their city of residence.

For important world events, even though some city people can watch the news from foreign satellite broadcasts (not very easily), most will be influenced by the media controlled to report only the news the government wants people to believe.  For example, the reporting of the Iraq war was totally biased -- Saddam became a "hero" in the reports.  Of course, this case is only one of many illustrating how the controlled news media has been misleading many Chinese people in an effort to realize the government's own agenda. Dislike and even hate of America is on the agenda.  One of the most noticeable expressions is that the news media becomes the government's tool to fan up "nationalism".  Many more examples can be found that cover almost all important world events, such as the North Korea Nuclear crisis, Taiwan across the Strait, and the American pilots being shot down in HaiNan, China.

6) The Chinese people don't trust the news if it is presented by the Chinese government.

Chinese people do not have faith in the Chinese government.  They always know that their government cheats.  They do not trust the government and what it says.  Yet, for fear of their lives, their freedom, and their families, most people could not and do not dare to voice their hope for a free press.

During the beginning period of SARS, Chinese people, especially those living in the big cities such as Beijing, Nanjing, and Shanghai, relied on the news sent by their overseas relatives. Some of my friends who worked in the USA told me that they were very busy looking for SARS news and were sending it immediately back to China so that their family members would have a timely updated true picture of the cases.

Those people who don't have oversea relatives usually rely on BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, or other overseas media since they have less confidence on their own government's report.  Everybody knows the phrase "In China, we only have one voice."
 
After SARS, Chinese people still do not have confidence in the government media, especially on political issues or other important issues.

Attachment 5 is an article on the subject that was written by an overseas Chinese who returned to China.

7) Foreign Investment and Internet will not bring free press to China.

Many foreigners, especially foreign investors, argue that their investment will bring freedom including press freedom to China.  The Chinese government has also quietly encouraged such kind of notion, including making academics and Western politicians believe in it.  On the other hand, Chinese government rightly pointed out that 'the News Media is a special enterprise that does not follow the rule of "who invests in it, owns it".  The government specifically stated that "the news media is a state enterprise" which applies to all the newspapers.

Similar ideas apply to the Internet.  The Internet and advanced computer technology have become the tools for government monitoring and suppression of dissidence.  It is a shame that a US company like Yahoo! has voluntarily cooperated with the Chinese government's requirements and made the guarantee to filter contents disliked by the government.  It is more a shame for Western companies to work closely with the Chinese government to create the product "Golden Shield" which blocks information transfer and tracks addresses and messages to help make state policing the best in the world.  (For detail about "Golden Shield", please visit an article on DaJiYun at: http://www.dajiyuan.com/gb/2/5/6/n188071.htm.)  What is the difference between doing these things and the exporting of high military technology to China a few years ago? 

Here we urge the freedom and democracy loving American people and the US congress to examine these issues and to prevent these moneymaking deals on the price of Chinese people's human rights and freedom.

To summarize our statement, there is no press freedom in China, even after SARS. The support and effort from the outside world will always be necessary and important. But first, we must know the real picture and what is really happening in China. Any credence or wishful belief of press freedom coming soon in China is not only concluding a wrong judgment, but also might hurt the people who have been and will be sacrificing their lives for China's press freedom.  The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and IFCSS wish you can carefully evaluate the situation based on valid facts and continuously push the Chinese government for the better.

Thank you.


Ciping Huang
Executive Director, Wei Jingsheng Foundation
Human Rights Committee Chair, IFCSS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well.  You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org.  Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.

For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org

To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:
www.WeiJingSheng.org and
www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human
rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union
Base.

You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
1-516-384-1958 for emergency or
Wei Jingsheng Foundation office in Washington DC at: 1-202-543-1538 (Wei WU)
Fax: 1-202-543-1539
Wei Jingsheng Foundation's address is: 415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite #2, Washington, DC 20003-3810, USA

This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org and weijingsheng.net

You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in
learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement.
To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

***************************************************************************

中文版

Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A25-G11
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号:A25-G11

Release Date: September 8, 2003
发布日:2003年9月8日

Topic: No Press Freedom in China after SARS (Statement to CECC by Ciping Huang)
标题:萨斯肆虐之后,中国新闻自由前景仍然黯淡(黄慈萍在美国国会中国事务委员会上的发言)

Original Language Version: English
(English at beginning, Chinese version at the end)
Please visit our website if you have problem to read Chinese in this issue
此号以英文为准(英文在前,中文在后)

魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。

我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址:
www.weijingsheng.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

萨斯肆虐之后,中国新闻自由前景仍然黯淡

--黄慈萍在美国国会中国事务委员会会议上的发言, 2003年9月8日


我叫黄慈萍,今天代表魏京生基金会和全美中国学生学者自治联合会在此发言,所谈
的议题是关于中国政府所控制的新闻媒体的现状。

去年春季因为萨斯流行,中国新闻得到了世界的关注。萨斯疾病流行初期,中国政府
极力掩盖事实,造成了惨痛的结果,大量的死亡数字震惊了全国。不过,只是到了疾
病波及世界,引起了国际化的紧张之后,中国的新闻界才有些放松,允许公布萨斯死
亡数据以及相关的医疗信息。心底善良的人们因此前所未有地充满希望。正如俗话所
说,坏事可以变好事,人们心想,萨斯风暴也许会带来中国新闻的自由开放。

诚然,人们应当欢迎任何朝着民主自由方向迈进的步伐,不管这个步伐多么微小,只
要它是真诚的一步。但是,充满希望的人们实在应该警惕,因为这样的欢欣也许仅仅
出于幻影和单方面的良好愿望。

中国新闻自由是中国人民长期以来追求的目标。1989年天安门民主运动中,许多年
轻人为这个目标献出了生命。有那么短暂的几天,人们真的以为他们得到了梦寐以求
的新闻自由。但是这个昙花一现的自由很快就被坦克和后来政府的宣传机器压碎了。
现在,海内外的中国人仍然在各个角落坚持奋斗,梦想能够有哪怕一本非官方的报纸
或杂志在中国大陆公开发行。可是至今,人们看到了什么变化吗?什么也没有。人们
能够听到的,还是一种声音,那是来自政府的声音。没有经过政府批准审核的声音都
销声匿迹了。

事实是,萨斯疾病以后,中国的新闻媒介根本没有得到实质性的改变。

即使在萨斯报道看似开放的时期,中国政府的"惩治谣言散布者"的规定没有动摇。
数十人因为"散布谣言"而遭到逮捕。


2003年6月,中国共产党中央宣传部通报批评了10多个著名报刊杂志,例如《北
京信报》、《三联生活周刊》、《财经》等。批评的要点是关于萨斯和腐化的报道。
通报批评以后,一些带有"敏感话题"的文章就遭到扼杀。特别是报道中国第一个公
开萨斯信息的蒋医生的文章,遭到了更严厉的审查,许多文章因此不能得到出版。根
据中央的新规定,萨斯反思不是开放的话题,而是有着明确界限和规定的敏感议题,
一般新闻人士是不敢跨越的。报道受限制的议题还有:北韩核武器危机,核潜艇361
爆炸事件,上海大腐化分子周正毅等等。(见附件1,所有5个附件都是中文原版)。

最近几个月来,政府有过多次称为"中国新闻出版改革"的会议。会议议程包括削减
中央控制的报纸数量,重申党的新闻纪律和宣传目的。但是,如同香港《开放》杂志
主编蔡咏梅指出,尽管中国大陆报刊整顿和治理客观上有利于新闻自由,但目的不是
促进新闻自由。中共宣传部最近严令禁止报导周正毅案,萨斯反思等敏感话题,就充
份说明了这一点。蔡咏梅说:"我只是说客观上有利于新闻自由,但并不是说目的是
促进新闻自由,我觉得不是。我觉得他们不想放松对传媒的控制。我估计,轻松的,
不敏感的就放松,严肃的问题,他们认为原则的问题,一样抓紧。" (见附件2)

上个月,"新闻改革"的帷幕正式揭开。终于中国政府制定了新的新闻规则,新规则
并没有呈现任何实质性的改革迹象。这个新规则再次体现了一贯的一党领导的坚硬面
孔,它将继续成功地严密控制新闻媒介。尤其是,这个规则要求更严格的审查,包括
任免报刊主要负责人等等。(见附件3)

今天夏天,中国新闻媒介机构、大学和研究机构接到了政府的通知,明确规定了禁止
讨论的议题,特别是修改宪法、政治改革、1989天安门事件。

我想要强调的是,中国距离新闻自由还有相当长的道路。在共产党的强权下所存在的
社会问题的症结已经有半个世纪的历史。以下是一些令人担忧的事实,这些问题在萨
斯平息以后仍然存在。

一、在一党专政的中国,没有真正的独立的非官方新闻体系

至今,除了一些无关痛痒的报纸或是地方小报(那种类似"如何化妆"的东西),中
国根本没有一家独立的非官方报纸和杂志。报刊杂志的注册、申请刊号都是非常繁琐
严格的程序。政府任何时候都可以关闭一家报馆或是罢免领导,只要它认为这个报馆
没有遵循党的指示。

二、英特网监察严重妨碍了作为基本人权的"知情权"

如果你在中国,打开"Yahoo!(雅虎)","Goggle(古狗)",你看不到许多可
以在国外看到的网页。自2003年8月31日起,"Goggle"再次被封。据中央社报
道,中国政府目前有30万网警监视及删除新闻和电子邮件,他们随时可以封网,并
随时警告那些在网上发表了不适当言论的网民。仅其安全部门就有三万多专职监控人
员。每到政治敏感期间,英特网变成了政府"严打"的又一个目标。

除非做特别的处理,否则象我这样的持不同政见者,很难把电子邮件发往收件人而不
经过当局的检查,通常这样的邮件会被退回,或是象泡沫一样神不知鬼不觉地消失了。
有的时候,收件人还会受到网警的盘查质询。奇怪的是,政府对于"禁列的黄色图片"
的控制非常无能为力,却对不同政见者的声音甚至普通新闻有非常有效的制约手段。

这种情形不仅发生在来自海外的网页和文章上,而且也发生在国内的"聊天室"。例
如,几个月前,19岁大学生刘荻就是因为在聊天室多说了一些,而被无理拘禁。

这种监察的确是中国整个警察制度的一部分。我的一个朋友的姐姐是做监察海外邮件
工作的。据说1/3的邮件都受到检查,其范围远远超过了"目标"邮件。另外,电话
监听录音在中国是普遍的,也是公开的秘密,它也不单单针对不同政见者和各类活跃
分子。

三、勇敢的记者和开明编辑常常惹火烧身,有些记者因为凭着良心说真话而被投入监


中国百姓是共产党宣传机器的牺牲品,中国新闻媒介工作者更是直接的牺牲品。过去
的50年里,许多新闻工作者为了他们追求的自由献出了自由与生命。我的一个朋友
吴学灿过去是《人民日报》的编辑,因为在1989年天安门事件期间把真象公布于世,
而被投入监狱。

许多思想开放的编辑记者遭到解雇甚至被判刑,仅仅因为他们如实地报道了官员的腐
败、百姓的苦难,或是表达了(甚至仅仅是允许让别人表达了)和政府不同的观点。
这样的编辑和记者的名单可以排成一大串,我只能列出以下几个:

1)高勤荣,新闻记者,因为报道了山西水利系统方面的腐化,被判13年徒刑(见附
件4,国内知名学者余杰写的有关高的文章)

2)綦彦臣,编辑,由于在网上转发民主电子通讯"大参考"里的文章等而被指责为
"通过英特网散布反政府言论",被判刑4年。

3)藤春燕,美国公民,法轮功学员,由提供有关法轮功的消息而被判刑3年。

4)安均,中国腐化监督会的创建者,他的文章被当成"阴谋颠覆政府"的证据,因
而被判刑4年。(有意思的是,安的审判直到2000年4月19日,联合国人权委员
会未能通过美国所支持的一个指责中国践踏人权的决议之后的第二天,才宣布。)

5)江棋生,记者和持不同政见者。今年5月刚服完4年的刑期。判刑的理由是因为
参与民主运动,包括发表纪念六四死难者的文章。

6)黄琦,英特网编辑及主持人,目前仍然在狱中。他是因为发表有关践踏人权的事
例、政府腐化的实情,以及有关六四天安门事件的文章而进监狱的。

7)杨子立等4位青年,最近(萨斯之后)因为参与学术讨论而被判刑。

四、要想活命就要做党的喉舌

在审核文章过程中,编辑们删掉"敏感话题"是常见的事情。最敏感的不是裸体图
片、黄色语句,而是政治论点。目前我们没有看到这方面的任何松动和改变。

根据可靠途径的消息,我得知有些在杂志和报社工作的编辑通常只能有半个自己的头
脑,如果他们想要顾及全家的前途的话。他们时常要参加专门会议,听取政府的声
音。这种会议常常要宣布对当前热门话题报道的"重要原则"。"和党保持基调一
致"是所有中国新闻工作者的座右铭。有些编辑朋友说,他们没有自己的喉舌,而只
能有党的喉舌。

五、中国被评为"世界上言论自由倒数第二的国家",偏见、不实报道、误导是中国
政府的一贯举止

对于敏感话题,只有政府有权利决定是否可以公布新闻、什么时候发表、如何措辞。
例如,中国北方下岗工人的罢工就以"不破坏安定团结"为由而禁止报道。今年年
初,我的家乡合肥市,几千名大学生上街游行抗议同学的非正常死亡,这件事情一连
几天没有得到公开报道,尽管这个事件在合肥市因为交通堵塞造成的不便而人人皆知。

政府的新闻没有党的指示是绝不能按时公布于众的。许多新闻因此成了"最高机
密"。中国人民很少有机会知道他们的"人民政府"如何做以及打算做什么。甚至外
国驻华记者也不能够得到及时的信息,他们同样要遭遇监视,或是必须得到特殊的允
许才能离开他们居住的城市。

对于重大世界新闻,尽管少数的大城市的居民可以通过国外的卫星转播来观看,但是
大多数人还是程度不同地被当局的新闻媒体的报道所影响和控制。举例来说,伊拉克
战争的报道非常片面,撒旦几乎成了英雄人物。由于误导而使人民憎恨美国,这仅仅
是中国政府所控制的新闻媒介误导百姓的众多企图之一。许多迹象表明,中国的新闻
媒介已经成了政府煽动"民族主义"的工具。几乎在各个重大世界新闻的报道上,我
们都可以看到类似的情形,比如北韩核武器危机、台湾事宜、美国飞行员海南撞机事
件等等。

六、中国人民对政府发布的消息持以低信任度

中国人民对政府并没有信任。他们觉得老在受骗,因而不那么相信政府所说的话。但
是大多数人为了自己和家庭的生存而有所恐惧,他们不敢声言对新闻自由的渴望。

在萨斯初期阶段,居住在大城市的百姓,比如北京、南京、上海、广州等地的百姓,
通常要求他们在海外的亲友发送消息。我的一些在美国工作的朋友那一阶段相当繁
忙,一看到萨斯的报道,就往中国发送,以便国内亲人得到及时的真实信息。

那些没有海外亲友的人们,有的就依赖BBC、美国之音、自由亚洲电台,或其他海外
报道,因为他们对自己政府的报道持有相当的怀疑。每个人都知道这句话:"在中
国,我们只有一个声音"。

萨斯以后,中国人们还是没有对政府新闻有充分的信心,特别是那些政治事件或是其
他重要新闻。

附件5 是一个旅居海外的中国人所写的回国观感,其中涉及了百姓对政府新闻的信
任度问题。

七、外国投资和英特网并不能给中国带来真正的新闻自由

许多外国人,特别是外国投资者说,他们的投资将为中国的新闻自由带来新的前景。
中国政府也常常鼓励这种说法,设法让学者和西方政治家相信这个前景。另一方面,
中国政府直截了当地指出:"新闻媒介是特殊机构,不能够遵循'谁投资,谁拥有'
的原则"。政府特别强调,新闻媒体是国家机构,这包括各类报纸。

同样的原则也适用于英特网。英特网和高级计算机技术同样成为政府监视压制持不同
政见者的工具。雅虎(Yahoo!)这样的美国公司实在应该感到耻辱!他们主动与中国
政府合作,同意删除那些政府不满意的内容。更让人耻辱的是一些西方公司和中国政
府并肩战斗,设计并参与了对付中国人民的电讯监控用得金盾工程,用来阻止一些信
息的传递,并纪录来往的地址和邮件等,有效地将中国警察推到了世界第一流。(细
节请参看大记元的文章:http://www.dajiyuan.com/gb/2/5/6/n188071.htm)
这种做法,和几年前向中国政府提供高级军事技术究竟有什么不同?

总而言之,中国没有新闻自由,即使在萨斯之后也还是没有。外部世界对于中国新闻
自由的支持和努力一直是非常必须和重要的。任何一厢情愿的"中国的新闻自由为期
不远"的想法,不仅是错误的结论,而且是对中国人民利益的伤害,也对不起那些为
了中国新闻自由付出代价甚至牺牲了生命的人们。魏京生基金委员会和全美学自联希
望你们能够根据可靠的事实,仔细地评估现状,利用你们的地位和能力继续推动中国
政府向好的方向迈进。

谢谢倾听。

黄慈萍
魏京生基金委员会执行主任
中国学生学者自治联合会人权委员会主席
 

 

/ Chinese News / DOC / Home / Labor / Law / OCDC / Wei Jingsheng  / WJSF /


This site is produced and maintained by the Wei Jingsheng Foundation Internet  Program. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. 本网站由Wei Jingsheng Foundation Internet  Program 制作和管理。与其它网站的链接不应被视为对其内容的认可。
 

This site is maintained and updated by WJSF   

Copyright 2002 Wei Jingsheng Foundation