这显然是对担忧的一种承认，而引发它的则是托马斯·L·弗里德曼(Thomas L. Friedman)上周末在《纽约时报》上发表的一篇题为《致习近平主席的一封信》的专栏文章。在这篇文章中，弗里德曼对习近平主席说：“我认为，您眼看着就要犯下一个极其可怕的错误了。” 是什么错误呢？或许是拒绝向美国的两个媒体机构《纽约时报》和彭博社(Bloomberg)的二十多名记者发放工作签证。此事尚无定论，不过两周内就必然会有结果。这两个媒体机构都发表了文章，讲述高层领导人及其家族所织就的财富权力网，细节十分丰富。 弗里德曼说，习近平似乎认为美国记者的报道已经“越过红线”。 “您似乎认为，游戏规则是外国新闻媒体、地方媒体和社交媒体可以随心所欲地报道地方和省级的腐败事件和社会抗议事件——实际上，这样的报道是中央政府追查和遏制腐败的一种途径——然而，类似关注绝不能触及中共最高领导人的财产交易，”他写道。 但弗里德曼又写道，“越过红线的究竟是谁？我们认为，是您的一些同事及其子女胃口巨大的贪婪之心，以及促使这些行为曝光的新技术。” 周二，《环球时报》做出了回应。虽不应视该报的评论文章必然反映了高层领导的看法，但在大部分问题上，它们都紧跟共产党的步伐。 《环球时报》的文章称，“在弗里德曼看来”，《纽约时报》和彭博社的那些“敏感报道是‘心脏病发作前的一种警告’”，不过文章没有具体说明这些报道的内容。但是，美国的媒体机构都在写“中国公众最关心的话题”。 以下是完整引文：“过去两年，随着中国互联网的发展和公众对国家政治事务更广泛的参与，西方多家主流媒体一直试图从中国公众最关注的话题上取得突破。”这里的话题指的可能是官员腐败等话题。领导人们已发出警告，腐败可能导致共产党下台。在调查中，腐败经常是导致民众愤懑不满的主要问题之一。 文章继续说：“它们可能会制造不小的轰动，或直接设置中国的政治议程。如果成功，这些媒体将成为中国舆论的中心。” 接下来的内容似乎是文章的重点：西方记者正在努力破坏中国的稳定，控制中国。 “弗里德曼理应很了解中国。他应该知道，信息安全是中国的核心安全问题之一。中国愿意与世界交流，但中国不会把自己的议程设置权交给西方媒体，”文章写道。 “弗里德曼应该理解，如果对西方媒体在中国的操作听之任之，就是中国当局失职。”文章结尾说，西方媒体“将受到我们的智慧和意志的挑战”。 在中国最接近于市政厅的网络博客空间里搜索弗里德曼那篇文章引发的反应，广受欢迎的新浪微博上只出现了11条结果。这一结果有些出人意料，因为弗里德曼的著作《世界是平的》(The World Is Flat)在受过教育的中国精英阶层中广为人知，而这些人中许多都是微博用户。 引人关注的话题，如果相关帖子的数量有限，就通常意味着遭到了审查，为了验证这一点，我们尝试发表和弗里德曼有关的帖子。这个帖子被新浪微博拒绝，给出的提示称，发帖被隐藏，因为“不适宜”对外公开，这表明该话题受到了审查。 搜索英文关键词Thomas Friedman，只出现了两篇相关帖子，其中一条对他持批评态度。 “一直不喜欢Thomas Friedman，”名为“thomasluo骆轶航”的微博用户写道，“如果你读过《世界是平的》，就会发现他根本不希望资源的全世界分布，他满脑子都是诸如‘中国人和印度人抢了美国人工作’之类的腐朽念头。这次致信中国国家元首虽事出有因，但威胁驱逐中国记者实现对等报复也暴露了他混蛋的一面——美国政府从来不像左翼文人那么傻逼。” 用户名为“谓无谓有四世”的博主在另一篇帖子中贴出：“抱歉，您在12月16日发表的微博已被管理员加密。此微博不适宜对外公开。” 用中文名字弗里德曼作为关键词搜索，只搜到了九篇帖子。其中一篇明显表示支持，其他帖子基本上缺乏逻辑性，甚或包括侮辱性语言。 名为“虫仔扛住”的用户的帖子就属于第二种。该用户写道：“这畅销书作家显然被弱智读者宠坏了，他的那番话，不过是抄捷径取悦美国人的反华情绪而已。” 徐轶青的帖子则是支持的那一个。他说：“封禁海外媒体极其愚蠢。将部分调查性报道外包给有公信力的海外媒体，是弥补制度缺陷的有效的方式。” “弗里德曼有一点讲对了，发生变化的不是海外媒体的报导方式和趣味，而是贪腐向党的最高层蔓延。要避免勃列日涅夫式的贪腐横行，必须有强力的制度变革，民族自尊心不管用。现在的中国，有点自信过了。” 附：环球时报回应原文：China can't cede agenda-setting to Western media Columnist Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times has written an open letter to the Chinese president, demanding China remove the block on Bloomberg's website, and some Chinese-language websites of mainstream Western media such as the NYT and The Wall Street Journal. He also requested visa renewal for correspondents of the NYT and Bloomberg. Their sensitive reports, according to Friedman, are "a warning heart attack." This is not the first time that Friedman has written such a letter. More than two years ago, he wrote to the then Chinese leader under the name of China's State Security Ministry about what the Arab Spring could offer China. Western journalists often express their incomprehension toward China's Internet regulations from their own perspectives. The influence of mainstream Western media in China has been declining. Their survival and influence in the West has also been squeezed by the Internet, which worries them. In the past two years, with the development of China's Internet and the public's wider participation in the country's political affairs, many mainstream Western media have been trying to make breakthroughs from topics that the Chinese public is most concerned about. They would create quite a stir or directly set China's political agenda. If successful, they will be at the center of China's public opinion sphere. No matter if these reports are the result of Western journalists' individual impulse, or collective efforts of the newsroom, they highly conform to the West's strategy in interfering China's political agenda-setting and future policy orientation. Friedman supposedly understands China well. He should have known that information security is among China's core security concerns. China is willing to communicate with the world, but it won't yield its own agenda-setting rights to the Western media. Friedman should understand that Chinese authorities are breaching their duty if they allow Western media to work in China unchecked. In the letter, Friedman strongly emphasized the importance of letting Western media participate in information communication in China. But Western media have never left China. They are sources from which many Chinese media outlets pluck information about the West. But we are clear where the traps could be. Information technology brought by the Internet has added the uncertainties in a society, which China needs time to adapt itself to. Many storms from the West created by the Internet are from within, which indicate that the West has also set boundaries for information flow. No country would allow its information gate open wide unguarded. China and the West may have further frictions over opinions which may evolve into diplomatic discord. Even so, China's stance should never change. China should have its own judgment. The Western media will have an advantage in public discourse for a long time and would like to become a force that can influence China. But they will be challenged by our wisdom and determination. 事情挺复杂，刻苦钻研真正的社会主义政治才能较好地解决问题。引者注 | |||
