The man I admire most is surnamed Liu, and he has won a major international prize. The things he has done have stirred up the fighting spirit of our people, and while he has for the moment disappeared from our sight, I am confident that his spirit will live on.

According to the WiseNews Chinese language publications database, a total of 40 news articles in mainland Chinese print media today include the keyword “Liu Xiaobo” (刘晓波). Of these, 39 are re-runs of the most recent official Xinhua News Agency release on the Nobel Peace Prize. In that release, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs blasted a resolution from the U.S. House of Representatives congratulating Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo on his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, saying it “toyed with the truth and confused black and white.”
What was article number 40 dealing with Liu Xiaobo today?
It was an editorial in Beijing Daily, the official Party mouthpiece of the Beijing city leadership, criticizing the Nobel Peace Prize as a “tool of Western values and ideology,” and snidely suggesting that this year’s prize be given instead to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
A translation of the Beijing Daily editorial follows:

Why not give the peace prize to Julian Assange?
(北京日报)
December 10, 2010
If we want to talk about someone who is now a figure in the global spotlight, then who, if not Julian Assange? The founder of the Wikileaks website has been the subject of a worldwide manhunt by Western nations led by the United States, and all because he wanted to release a number of secrets that could not be spoken. Based on what we know, Assange, who was arrested in London on December 7, will have to face a two-year jail term . . .
Assange’s misfortunes tell us that the freedom of speech that America advocates is not an absolute freedom, that it is a matter of kind and degree, and that it has its limits. Ordinarily, if you say vicious things about the American government, talk about its problems, or even openly critical the American government, this is nothing very remarkable. But this time Assange has dared expose the truth, airing out before the world a number of things and remarks that the American government wouldn’t dare make public, make transparent or share with others — and this has stepped over the line of America’s freedom of expression. And the worldwide manhunt [for Assange] is no surprise.
And this brings us back to the Nobel Peace Prize. According to the decision by the Nobel Committee and the remarks of a number of other Westerners [concerning Liu Xiaobo], considering the acts of free speech in which this Assange has personally participated, opposing all on his own the “government violence” of several Western nations, could he not be regarded as a “fighter for freedom of expression”? Why don’t the noble members of the Nobel Committee claim that the Peace Prize is given “in the defense of freedom of expression,” and then give it to this Assange who has been persecuted, chained and jailed by the West?
Everyone knows, of course, that this is impossible. . . . and the question of who can and who cannot obtain the prize is now entirely a matter of the likes and dislikes of the United States, NATO and the nations of western Europe, and depends on whether or not the recipient of the prize can become a tool for Western forces in attacking countries with different ideologies. Even if this tool is serving out a prison sentence for violating the law, so long as the tool can serve its purpose, they see nothing wrong with awarding them the Peace Prize.
Look through the name list of those who have received the Nobel Peace Prize, from Sakharov, who advocated division in the former Soviet Union, to Gorbachev, who single-handedly disintegrated his own nation, then to the Dalai Lama, who pursued “Tibetan independence” through violent terrorist activities, and to Liu Xiaobo, who is now serving a sentence for violating Chinese laws — all are tools of the West in promoting its values and ideology.
Assange wears the placard of “freedom of expression,” and this placard itself is something the West habitually uses to flaunt itself and intimidate others. But his actions [Assange’s] have actually jabbed at the American government and made Americans very unhappy. There is little hope, therefore, that he will be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. If Mr. Nobel knew just how his Nobel Prize was being so spoiled, I wonder what he would think!

Frontpage photo by Esther Dyson available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.

Over the weekend, Modern Express (现代快报), a newspaper published by the Jiangsu bureau of the official Xinhua News Agency, ran an article called “China’s muckrakers: walking the razor’s edge.” The article reviewed in a general sense the current state of investigative reporting in China, drawing on interviews with CMP fellows Wang Keqin (王克勤) and Liu Chang (刘畅), and Oriental Morning Post reporter Jian Guangzhou (简光洲).
Although the article is at points perhaps a bit melodramatic, it nevertheless is a good basic look at the practice (and practitioners) of what is often in China called “supervision by public opinion,” or yulun jiandu (舆论监督).
On a related note, Rednet.cn (红网) ran an interesting editorial yesterday decrying the abuse of the power of “supervision by public opinion” and the practice of “news extortion,” essentially the use of purported investigative news reports to extract payoffs from companies or government agencies.
The Rednet editorial, which bears a mildly conservative Party tone — criticizing, for example, the pursuit of “negative reports” — makes a very interesting statement about Party and government policy on “cross-regional reporting,” or yidi jiandu (异地监督), media from one administrative region reporting stories in another in order to avoid censure from their immediate Party and government superiors.
It is widely known in journalism circles in China that a 2004 document at the highest levels of the CCP effectively prohibited the practice of “cross-regional reporting,” but there have rarely ever been open references to this document, and the practice has continued where media are capable of pushing.
The Rednet editorial says at one point: “The Central Propaganda Department and the General Administration of Press and Publications have a document clearly stipulating that various regional media and industry publications cannot carry out cross-regional and cross-industry supervision by public opinion.” It’s not clear exactly what the document referenced here is, but it is presumably the same one cited by journalists since 2004.

China’s muckrakers: walking the razor’s edge
Modern Express (现代快报)
December 5, 2010
Wang Keqin, Jian Guangzhou, Liu Chang . . . At first glance you might find these names unfamiliar. But the inside stories they have exposed are ones with which you are undoubtedly familiar — the Shanxi vaccine scandal, the Sanlu poisoned milk scandal, the Fanshi mining disaster cover-up . . . Each time it is their reports that allow us to face head on the shocking and harrowing truth. Each time it is their reports that promote social progress, carrying us closer to safe and light-filled lives. They are the “muckrakers” (扒粪工) of China’s news landscape, they are China’s investigative reporters, they are the conscience of society, and the watchdogs standing guard over our interests.
On November 29, Jianghuai Morning News reported how a reporter from their newspaper was attacked by a mob outside a hospital while reporting on a medical malpractice claim, and how one male attacker threatened: “We’ll kill you however it pleases us.” This unpredictable danger is something investigative reporters deal with on a regular basis. The process of exposing inside stories is never smooth going, and investigative reporters must endure not only the threat of physical harm, but also the risk of lawsuits and threats to the safety and well-being of their family members. Motivated by a thirst for the truth and ideals of professional journalism, they plod ahead. They push on, all for a dream.
In the “2010 Honorary Prizes for Promoters of the China Dream,” held by [Guangdong’s] Southern Weekly newspaper, Wang Keqin, who has been called “China’s top investigative reporter” stood alongside [economist] Wu Jinglian (吴敬琏), [film director] John Woo (吴宇森) and others to be honored. As Wang Keqin stood onstage at Peking University’s Memorial Hall (北大百年讲堂) as a representative of the media world, the China dream of the media was shown before all — [the hope] that power will be better regulated, and that our society will be more pure. Without a doubt, the investigative reporters of which Wang Keqin, Jian Guangzhou and Liu Chang are representative are the trailblazers of the China dream for the media. And the condition in which they live merits greater attention from society.
It was harder to reach Wang Keqin than I supposed at first. Not answering unknown calls is a habit he has developed over years of risky work. After a colleague introduced Wang Keqin he finally returned my call. It was only just past three in the afternoon, but the voice on the line was extremely weary. Wang Keqin told me that after years of working as an investigative reporter, he’s become accustomed to resting whenever the opportunity comes, so whenever he has a spare moment, whatever the time, he makes it a point to sleep for a bit. “As soon as I get working, it can be days before I get any sleep,” he said.
This middle-aged man, 46 years old, has been called China’s top investigative reporter, and colleagues have even dubbed him “China’s Lincoln Steffens” (a reference to the great American muckraker). Wang’s first major story was “Securities Black Market in Lanzhou Washes Out ‘Stockholders'”, a 2001 investigation that shook the securities industry . . . Hundreds are now locked up in jail because of these early reports, but Wang Keqin too paid the price. In November 2001, a five million yuan price was put on his head by forces in the criminal underworld, and he was eventually fired by his publication.
China Economic Times, a newspaper whose motto is “responsible to the reader, responsible to history,” has become the latest launching ground for Wang Keqin’s work. Here he has found an environment well suited to his investigative nature. In 2002, [in his first major report for China Economic Times] Wang Keqin completed his expose, “The Inside Story of Beijing’s Taxi Cartels,” which again shook the whole country.
Since that report, other exposes have come, including “An Investigation into the Truth Behind AIDS in Xingtai, Hebei”, and “Shanxi’s ‘Poisonous Coal'”. Wang Keqin’s most recent investigative report, published in March this year, was “An Investigation into Careless Vaccination in Shanxi.” One after another these revelations have come out, all at the hands of this middle-aged man, and it has been said that he “is like an army unto himself, with infantry and cavalry at his fingertips, riding in terrible waves.”
Wang Keqin’s phone conversations are often interrupted, because he often receives calls from informants and others with grievances to air out. But he takes this in stride. “I can’t handle many of these complaints. I’m only one person after all, and I have limited energy,” he said. On Wang Keqin’s microblog, the personal message function is open to all, and this is also an important source of story leads. At times, he’ll receive more than a hundred messages in a single day. Most of these, of course, he cannot possibly deal with, and he feels sorry he can do nothing for these people seeking help — but
what option does he have.
“My greatest torment is facing the eyes of all of these people desperately seeking help, and knowing I have no way of reporting all of their stories,” Wang said. The unique torments of this profession, says Wang Keqin, should also serve as the basic driving force of investigative reporters. If you feel cold at the pains suffered by others, he says, you are not cut out to be a journalist.
There is a limit to what one person can accomplish, and “China needs many more professional investigative journalists,” says Wang. This is something that deeply affects Wang Keqin, China’s top investigative reporter. With this in mind, he is determined to spend more time taking part in various lectures and training, telling more and more young people about his experiences working as an investigative reporter over the years, such things as how to preserve evidence and how to protect oneself. “There are also times when a reporter must learn the art of makeup,” Wang Keqin laughs. “Once, after completing an interview, I had to make myself up as a peasant in order to get away from the scene safely.”
Wang Keqin now spends a great deal of energy as well on gathering together his interviews and experiences for a book that might be valuable for more investigative reporters. “The book should be ready next year or the year after,” he says. “Right now, the portion about my interviews and reporting experiences is basically finished, and I’m in the process of organizing the background stories of my exposes.” Most recently, Wang Keqin has traveled to Guangzhou to share his experiences on investigative reporting with young journalists there.
[Article again addresses the dangers to Wang Keqin and his family members]
But Wang Keqin continues to work on. “There is no way I can see such pain and look the other way,” he says. This is what drives him on. Wang sums up his own journalism principles as “treating people as people, judge other’s feelings by one’s own; speak as a human being, and act as a human being” (把人当人，将心比心；说人话，做人事).
He believes that supervision by public opinion [or “watchdog journalism”] is useful on three levels. First, in a micro-level sense, it protects the rights of particular citizens, directly assisting concrete victims. Secondly, in a mid-level sense, it can influence the public policies of local governments or even the central Party and government, not only helping the people concerned but more importantly serving as a force of change for the larger system nationwide. Thirdly, in a macro-level sense, investigative reporting is a revealing of the truth, and when the truth is continually conveyed to the public, this can have an additive effect (累加效应). This impact is gradual, and we can’t always see it happening or put our finger on it, but it is the most important overall impact.
As to the future prospect of investigative reporters [in China], Wang Keqin, who says he believes he “can still keep going for another 10 years,” remains optimistic overall.
While there are many limitations, and perhaps half of all reports cannot ever be published owing to various pressures, and even while he jokes that “in opposition to controls, I’m tilting at windmills,” Wang Keqin still feels that there’s so much to do in a China in the midst of transition, and that there are so many inside stories to be exposed.
“要想达到美国上世纪初扒粪运动的高度，我们需要更多的调查记者，只要有心去做，题材多的是，空间也总是有的，毕竟他们不可能什么都管得到。”
“问题奶粉掘墓人”简光洲:面对诱惑和风险
说出事实不容易
揭黑记者们面临的各种风险中，拳打脚踢已经是小菜一碟，公权力或明或暗的介入，让揭黑报道随时有夭折的可能。于揭黑记者本人而言，来自资本的收买是风险之一，滥用的公权力更会让他们面临被拘留、被通缉这样的风险。
简光洲这个名字为人熟知，是因为2008年轰动全国的“三鹿奶粉事件”。2008年9月11日，简光洲供职的《东方早报》率先点名披露三鹿问题奶粉事件，随即引发中国乳业持续至今的三聚氰胺风波。这次让三鹿破产，让中国乳业伤筋动骨的揭黑报道，被称作“中国乳业的9·11事件”，简光洲本人也因此被称作“英雄记者”“中国的良心”。
事实上，在此之前，简光洲已经做了五六年的揭黑报道，其间经历的种种危险，同样不逊于王克勤。但在简光洲心里，感觉到危险最近的一次，仍然是三鹿事件报道签发前的那个晚上。“当我把稿子上传到编辑部后，心中其实也有过一些害怕和犹豫，我担心这个报道出来后，我明天还能否回到这个办公室，继续从事自己喜欢的新闻工作。毕竟对方是市值100多亿的乳业巨头，能量肯定大得很，且当时正值残奥会，类似的问题也相当敏感。”
报道签发之前，简光洲的脑海中甚至已经见到了自己站在被告席上的样子。但一个个不足一岁的孩子全身麻醉后被推进手术室的场面，让简光洲良心难安。“如果你有孩子，你是否能够这样含糊其辞？”
很多婴儿的母亲留言更让他作出决定，即使被起诉，还是要点名。“我不是说我有多高尚，我只是想说出一个事实。在这个社会，面对着各种诱惑与风险，要说出一个简单的事实其实并不容易。”
现在回想起来，这的确是一次冒险。一年之后，简光洲才获知，就在东方早报报道刊发的当天，有关部门就让查查简光洲是谁。同样，《东方早报》在三鹿问题奶粉报道刊发之后，面对众多媒体的采访要求，也一概予以婉拒。“来自各方面的压力，让报社和我本人当时都不知道事态会向什么方向演变，在情况明朗之前，我们只能保持沉默。”
事态的演变无法控制，来自各方面非正常因素的干扰，在简光洲眼里，是比自己人身安全更大的危险。“比如说最近越来越多的抓记者事件，一些地方的公安机关，成了一些地方领导对抗舆论监督的工具。甚至为公司所利用，比如说仇子明报道上市公司内幕遭警方通缉的案子。如果真是打官司，我们倒也不怕，好歹是按程序来嘛，是可以预知的。最可怕的就是通过非正常程序对你施加压力，这些危险是你不可预知的。”
好在，让简光洲感觉危险最近的三鹿奶粉事件，最后在媒体集体推动和中央领导的重视下，终于按照一条正常的轨道演变下去了——三鹿的破产，不仅让中国乳业痛定思痛检视自身，并且让中国的乳业安全提到了前所未有的高度。
“实话说，作为一个调查记者，三鹿奶粉的报道出来后，我的任务基本上就算是完成了，这就像是点燃炸药的引线，至于它什么时候爆炸，爆炸范围能有多广，就是我无法控制的了。”
多年的调查记者经历，危险时刻已经记不清有多少次了，但简光洲一直在为朴素的新闻理想坚持着。他说：在市场经济的浪潮面前，很多记者们早就已经丢掉了先辈们具有的名誉和使命感。作为一个调查记者，简光洲能做的，就是用一篇篇报道找回那些记者失去的尊严，“如果你不去做的话，就什么都改变不了。”
但简光洲有时候仍然会感到明显的无力感，在他所做的调查报道中，会有三四成的报道因为各种外部力量的干扰而夭折。这种很多时候毫无道理可言的干扰，让他和所供职的报社倍感无奈。
谈到这个话题，简光洲有着与王克勤类似的感慨：中国的调查记者太少了。简光洲想象中的情形应该是，媒体之间能够形成合力，调查记者之间能够互通有无，你这边不能做的我来做；我这边不能做的，就交给你来做。并且，简光洲认为，聪明的记者可以跑在各种压力前面，在干扰到来之前就把稿子发出来，“让他们在后面追，这样你就主动了。”但现实与他想象中的情形相距甚远，并没有那么多的人愿意跟他们一样，冒着各种风险去做一个调查记者。
与王克勤一样，深感中国调查记者太少的简光洲也经常会受到邀请与一些高校新闻系的学生分享下他的经验与梦想，他说“新闻是个理想主义者的职业，可以妥协，但永远不要放弃梦想”。简光洲还经常引用尼采的一句话来作为他演讲的结尾，“那些没有消灭我们的东西，将使我们变得更加强大。”
“十佳曝光勇士”刘畅:离开客观就离开了真相
虽然现在已经是中青报综合采访部主任，更多的时间用在管理上；在中青报上也时常能看到他针砭时弊的评论文章，但提起刘畅，人们还是很自然地把他和调查记者这个“职业”联系在一起。自1992从业以来，刘畅作为一个调查记者，采写了很多脍炙人口的调查性报道。其中2002年写就的《山西繁峙矿难系列报道》已经成了调查性报道的经典。
提起调查记者这个话题，刘畅考虑得更多的是调查记者自身的问题，调查记者的责任，调查记者应该恪守的新闻伦理等等。在他看来，虽然目前的调查环境还很糟糕，这两年发生了许多针对调查记者的伤害甚至暴力事件，但克服困难报道真相，是一个调查记者的天职。“当你从事这份工作时，你就应该想到它可能带给你的危险和困难。”
在接听电话前，刘畅刚刚参加了人民大学关于调查记者的一个研究会。他认为目前国内存在调查性报道这个文体，但是不能说有调查记者这个职业，“目前专职的调查记者人不多。”他的这种认识和复旦大学新闻学院张志安博士的观点类似。
虽然早在上个世纪80年代开始，在中青报就有了调查性报道，但是中国的调查记者被公众普遍知晓是在2003年。刘畅记得那一年年底新浪网做了一个“中国调查记者的崛起和彷徨”的专题，那一次全国的一些调查记者在北京聚首、沟通。刘畅说，他和王克勤就是在那次聚会上相识的。“那是中国调查记者第一次在公众面前集体亮相。”
崛起与彷徨，这两个词的并列很有意味，可以把它理解为“在彷徨中崛起”。刘畅认为，经过7年时间的实践，随着一系列恶性事件被曝光，国内的调查记者进入公众视线，他们成了人们信赖的人群，一些调查记者甚至成了“明星”。
虽然调查记者普遍感到公众的信任，但7年来，调查记者的工作环境似乎并没有得到改善。不久前，一位媒体研究者在新浪微博上公布了一份他自己统计的“2010
中国记者被打不完全档案”，竟然有接近30起调查记者被打事件。刘畅介绍说今年记者节的时候，央视放了一个片子，片子分上下两部分：第一部分是各地记者挨打，受伤被送进医院治疗的情况；第二部分是部分记者利用职务之便进行敲诈、犯罪的报道。这说明记者这个行业是复杂的，刘畅说，我们在为我们工作环境恶化感到不满的时候，也要时刻对自己的工作保持一份必要的警醒。
在刘畅看来，被媒体曝光的、被滥用的“权力”为了他们的利益，肯定会拼命遮蔽真相。但正是因为有遮蔽，调查记者的工作才有意义。
“时代造就了调查记者广阔的生存空间。”刘畅介绍说，空间越大，其实对调查记者的要求越高。“调查记者有公平正义的职业理想，悲天悯人的职业情怀，但同时必须有客观理性的职业表达。”刘畅说，追求公平正义是每一个调查记者的从业底线，但调查记者作为一个新闻工作者，也必须恪守自己的职业伦理，而职业伦理，是靠记者的专业精神和专业素质体现出来的。调查记者要对事实负责，公正、全面地叙述真相，这是一种公共表达，不能掺杂私人情感；调查记者在调查过程中，心态一定要平和，要给当事的各方以平等发出声音的机会。刘畅说，目前媒体特别注重影响力，注重轰动效应，这里有一个边界，就是客观，你离开了客观，就离开了真相，就背离了调查记者的工作初衷。
提到经微博报道和全国同行的强烈声援，被通缉的调查记者被“解救”的事情，刘畅认为，在互联网时代，一个不法官员会在网上被穷追猛打；一个调查记者的权利被侵犯，经互联网传播，几乎会引起所有媒体同行的声援。“互联网时代，有利于调查记者，或者从更大范围说，有利于媒体工作者形成一个共同体，这个共同体作用是明显的。仇子明由被通缉到获得自由，这个共同体发挥了决定性作用。”
“调查记者是时代的守望者，我们可能泪流满面，可能拍案而起，但是我们绝不绝望。”作为调查记者中的前辈，刘畅相信，无论有多大的困难，一个优秀的调查记者始终都会坚定地走在寻找真相的路上。
2010年记者被打不完全档案(据新民网，网友薛陈子整理)
媒体 时间 事件
江淮晨报 11月25日 合肥现代(女子)妇科医院记者被打
南方都市报 11月7日 记者在东莞虎门采访一宗纠纷时遭治安员围殴
西安晚报 9月1日 记者暗访油毛毡黑作坊遭十几人围殴
山东电视台 8月10日 记者在德州采访火灾时遭一群黑衣人殴打
北京电视台 8月1日 郭德纲徒弟李鹤彪殴打记者
每日经济新闻 7月30日 报社遭到疑似霸王集团员工冲击，记者被打
中央电视台 7月5日 记者在山西运城采访防洪水库建别墅时被打
生活新报 3月27日 记者采访昆明城管与小贩冲突时，遭多名执法人员围殴
□快报记者 赵勇 倪宁宁