I agree that surfing online is a good way to observe what some Chinese people are concerned about. And Weibo, thanks to its huge usergroup, does include many interesting stories in China. However it's problematic to rely so heavily on Weibo as an information source. For example, in the latest Economist, there is a small piece called "Congress Watching" with a subtitle "Heard in the Hutong". As the title indicates, it's a gossiping piece, most of overhearings are posted by Weibo users. Among them is a taxi passenger who complains about the removal of all taxi window handles in Beijing according to a government directive in the name of security. The passenger wrote on his Weibo that the he was suffering from the driver's fart during the ride because of the closed window. It was a funny post on Weibo and went viral soon. I had a big laugh when reading it on my Weibo, however I found it weird that The Economist chose to re-post it in its newspaper. Given a more than $100 subscription fee per year, I guess I'm probably expecting more than gossips from The Economist.
In The Economist, pieces on China and other developing countries are very different from those on OECDs. When it talks about the US and EU, it does a good job in integrating small stories into big ideas with analytical statements. But when it talks about China, articles are most detail-oriented, filled with micro-observations rather than analysis. If I think about how Chinese media report foreign news, I think The Economist does a great job in reporting China; but if we raise the standard a little bit, let's say there is still room for improvement.
First comes the question of research methodology. When you want to introduce a country where the information is opaque, the data is always wrong and interviewees don't tell the truth, what should be a possible approach? Even in academia, most scholars working on China have problems in applying the same methodologies used by their OECD-focused counterparts due to the lack of public information, and have to rely more heavily on informal channels, such as personal connection with insiders and social media like Weibo. The difficulties of conveying timely information are foreseeable for journalists in China. However the piece on Wen's hidden wealth in NYTimes shows that in spite of the above difficulties, valuable discoveries can be found in publicly available information sources. David Barboza, the reporter, claimed to the gather all the data in his piece from public sources, but it took him more than a year to process all the information and finally find out the truth. When the information is half disclosed and mixes truths and lies, it's not easy to ferret out the facts. But isn't that journalists' job?
Then comes the concern about accuracy. When you can't get a full picture of facts, but fragmented pieces from a jigsaw puzzle, it's vital for the journalist to infer like a detective. And that's when mistakes can happen. It's crucial to have the news correct, therefore it is a natural choice for journalists to play conservative and report "unbiased" fragments only. However it always makes sense to add some analysis, no matter how accurate it can be, the reasoning will help the audience think and understand better. I once worked with an archaeologist, and most of his work is trying to put pieces together in a puzzle to depict history, which includes a lot of assumptions and deductions. He can make mistakes, but that never undermines his reputation as a great archaeologist. Journalists who make up news to attract eyes are despicable, but a few reasoning that help audience build up the full picture should be awarded.
I still like The Economist, just don't feel that happy paying for Weibo Briefs every week.
 |
| http://goo.gl/5n4W9 |
No comments:
Post a Comment