新加坡《联合早报》对于美国《华盛顿邮报》针对本报长篇报道的回应
美国《华盛顿邮报》今日（当地时间7月24日）刊登长文《北京立场的回声，在新加坡引起焦虑》（In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing’s positions generate anxiety），以其既定的思维方式和自身议程，设定报道视角与方式，以此出发组织材料与论证，对《联合早报》做了大量具偏颇性评论与不公正陈述，让人遗憾。
新加坡《联合早报》是一家立足新加坡，放眼亚太与全球的新闻媒体。我们力求公正平衡报道，既大量参考国际通讯社的报道，在北京、上海、重庆、广州/深圳、台北、香港、东京、首尔、吉隆坡也有特派记者或特约记者，追踪本区域发展和大国外交，同时刊登呈现多元视角的文章。
对于《华盛顿邮报》的质疑，本报此前在回复记者提问时已给予完整回答。这些答复并未充分反映在其报道中。
《联合早报》严肃看待媒体传播信息的使命与我们对维持中立的坚持，我们的报道中，既有来自中国的论述，也有西方的论述，包括中西方官员的政策宣示、学者分析、媒体报道、评论等。事实上，我们大量引用和采用国际通讯社的信息与国际评论，目的就是让我们的读者、让广大受众能看到更丰富、多元，以至对立的视角与信息。
作为一家新加坡媒体，《联合早报》兼容中西方的观点，但保持我们自身立场的独特性与独立性。中国读者阅读《联合早报》网络版接近30年，我们努力让中国受众阅读到中国国内媒体不一定报道的国际信息与视角，《联合早报》网也曾经历过多次长期被屏蔽。
《华邮》选择性地忽略一些事实，刻意突出和拼凑一些信息，引述不知名的离职和在职的记者，形塑《联合早报》的负面形象，让我们既有感慨，又不觉意外。在当前的国际地缘政治形势下，非友即敌的思维蔓延，让《联合早报》更坚定地相信，我们不应受到任何一方的压力而改变编辑方针。我们会继续致力于保持客观，不被各方力量挤压，不卷入中美博弈之中。
《华盛顿邮报》此前对本报的采访与所提出的问题，我们的完整回复如下：
问题一、《联合早报》如何筛选专栏作者，你能否证实这些固定专栏作者是否有获得报酬？
问题二、《华盛顿邮报》发现，《联合早报》的两位固定专栏作家丁松泉和邓清波都是中共党员。丁松泉隶属于浙江省教育厅，曾担任教育厅机关报和期刊的副主编。他不仅在湖州学院任教，还是该校中共党委委员。邓清波则是湖南省委网信办网络宣传评论和社会工作处处长。为什么这两位作家都被称为中国时事评论员，而没有说明他们与中共的关系？早报编辑部领导层不知道他们的完整职务吗？早报是否向他们支付了稿费？
回答：早报的正式立场只呈现在社论，言论版旨在呈现多元观点（包括美国与日本的学者），不代表早报看法，这包括中共和中国官方的， 不能以人废言。中国作为本区域所有国家的最大贸易伙伴，了解北京官方怎么想具有参考价值。中共举国体制意味着许多称作民间的单位或个人其实背后都有官方背景，这是观察当代中国的常识。《华邮》也通过采访发表许多反映官方立场的学者的观点，同样不注明他们的党籍身份。早报尽可能查证所有作者的背景，但尊重作者的自我介绍。刊登的稿件都有微薄稿费，这是本地华文报的传统。
问题三、《华盛顿邮报》对《联合早报》有关台湾、中国大陆和香港抗议活动、新疆和其他话题的文章进行了数据分析，涵盖了早报在2022年发表的关于这些特定话题的所有文章。我们注意到，总体而言，与包括独立媒体在内的其他来源相比，早报更多地参考、引用和发表亲中共或官方的消息来源。例如，在一些课题上，早报最常转载的是《中国时报》和《联合报》的报道，而这两家报纸都是亲中共的台湾报纸。此外，我们分析了近期关于中国白纸抗议活动的报道，发现第一批文章都引用中国官方信息来源，而没有进一步说明背景，包括重复官方对乌鲁木齐火灾原因的论述。至少有九篇报道提到了“外国干涉”抗议活动的指控，但没有提供相反的观点。对早报记者和前记者的采访表明，早报缺乏提供更平衡观点的动力，以避免冒犯读者群。还有受访者说，有一种做法是，在关乎新加坡核心利益的课题上，早报站出来或进行更中立或平衡的报道，但在不被认为关乎新加坡核心利益的话题上，则任由采用北京的叙事，最好也能就这些问题作出回应。
回答：我们也大量引述国际通讯社与西方正规媒体关于中港台地区的报道。当我们报道中国或任何一个地方的新闻时，所在地的正式数据和信息是首要来源。相对而言，我们报道的台湾新闻并不多，多数是我们驻地记者写的，在选择素材时，并没有根据其政治倾向性作为选择引用的标准。我们在报道中国时，原则是同时报道中国与其他国家怎么说，前提是信源可靠，或者我们到现场采访。我们追求的论述不是西方的论述，也不是北京的论述，而是作为新加坡媒体的论述。我们也为此收到过亲中或不亲中读者的强烈谩骂，但那不会动摇我们的基调。
问题四、有记者表示，新任中国大使孙海燕，相当强势而且直白地要求新加坡媒体协助对中国进行正面报道。《联合早报》是否抵制这些要求，《联合早报》是否曾经拒绝发表她的评论或来函？
回答：相当多不同国家的驻新加坡大使跟我们接触，包括中国大使。我们采访他们也刊登他们的来稿，最后一次刊登的是日本大使的评论。去年11月，孙大使来函对我们社长的专栏做出回应，我们根据给予回应的原则刊登她的文章。
问题五、《联合早报》的编辑方针是否将能否进入中国纳入考虑？
回答：根据一些西方媒体的定义，你如果不反中，你就是亲中，而且在他们的眼里，你不只亲中，还亲中共。这样的一种认知和界定，不只太过简单化，甚至还存有恶意。我们在报道中国的新闻时，就像报道其他新闻一样，都力求客观和中立，以事实为根据，不夹带评论或预设的立场。的确，在一些新闻事件上，我们报道的角度，未必是跟着西方媒体起舞，但如果就因此就把我们归入亲中共的阵营，那未免太过草率和武断。
我们在中国有数百万的读者，他们到我们的数码平台来，正是因为我们新闻的角度和解读，与中国国内的媒体有别。这些读者是我们所珍惜的，因为对他们来说，我们是他们跟外面的世界联系的一个重要窗口，我们也从不把他们能到我们平台来浏览，当成是理所当然的。在少数必要的情况下，对于一些新闻课题和内容，我们会对中国的市场，和全球其他的市场，做更细致的处理，但我们的底线是，这样的分化处理，不能抵触我们的新闻专业原则。《联合早报》做新闻和不做新闻的理由不是为了封不封网。我们不是为了反对中国或支持中国而存在，也不是为了反对和支持哪一国，我们的宗旨是把翔实的、有质量的信息带给读者，呈现不同的观点。
客观事实是，在中国大陆境内也遇到浏览器打不开我们的文章，或者完全打不开任何文章，但我们继续秉持一贯的方针。在中西方对立日益尖锐的时代，我们坚持不站队的原则，也拒绝在压力下被迫站队。
问题六、请评论你们跟商汤科技和合作关系。商汤科技因为被指涉嫌侵犯维吾尔少数民族人权而被美国政府制裁。
回答：《联合早报》与商汤科技签署了为期一年的合作备忘录，探索利用人工智能技术来优化我们的视觉内容，为读者提供更好的沉浸式的阅读体验。这是我们与不同伙伴合作，进行创新推进数码化旅程的一部分。新加坡《联合早报》无意卷入中美大国博弈中。
The Washington Post’s feature article “In Singapore, Loud Echoes of Beijing’s Positions Generate Anxiety” (published on 24 July) made biased comments and unfair statements about Lianhe Zaobao, based on its journalistic perspective and approach on pre-established perspectives and agendas, and presented its materials and arguments as such. This is unfortunate.
Lianhe Zaobao is a Singapore news media with an eye on the Asia-Pacific region and the world. We strive to provide fair and balanced reporting, and in doing so draw extensively from international news sources and the first-hand reports of our correspondents and writers in Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Guangzhou/Shenzhen, Taipei, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and Kuala Lumpur who track regional developments and major power diplomacy. Our publication also features articles with diverse perspectives.
We had earlier provided comprehensive responses to the questions raised by The Washington Post, which were not adequately reflected in their reporting.
Lianhe Zaobao takes its mission of delivering information seriously and remains committed to neutrality. Our reporting features viewpoints from China and the West, including policy statements from officials, analyses from academics, media coverage and commentaries. In fact, we extensively quote and use information from international news agencies and commentaries to offer our readers and audiences broad, diverse, and sometimes opposing perspectives and information.
As a Singapore news media, Lianhe Zaobao takes in Chinese and Western viewpoints while preserving our unique stance and independence. Lianhe Zaobao has had an online presence in mainland China for nearly 30 years, making efforts to provide Chinese audiences with international information and perspectives that may not be covered by domestic media. Lianhe Zaobao has also experienced several periods of prolonged blocks.
The Washington Post has selectively left out some facts while intentionally highlighting and putting together some information, and citing anonymous former and current journalists to paint a negative image of Lianhe Zaobao, which is regrettable but not surprising to us. Amid the current international geopolitical situation, the idea that “if you are not with us, you are against us” is spreading. Now more than ever, Lianhe Zaobao believes that we should not be pressured by anyone into changing our editorial direction. We remain committed to staying objective; we will not be pressured by any party, and do not wish to be embroiled in China-US rivalry.
Below are the complete set of questions raised by the Washington Post to Lianhe Zaobao for this story and our responses in full:
Q1. How does Lianhe Zaobao select opinion columnists for the newspaper? Can you confirm that regular columnists are paid?
Q2. The Washington Post has found that two regular columnists, Ding Song Quan and Deng Qingbo are both Communist Party officials. Ding is part of Zhejiang province’s Department of Education, where he was the deputy editor-in-chief of their official newspapers and periodicals. He doesn’t just teach at Huzhou College, but is also part of the Chinese Communist Party committee of that school. Deng Qingbo, meanwhile, is the director of the online propaganda and comment division of the Hunan Provincial Party Committee’s Cyberspace Administration Office. Why have both these writers been described as China affairs commentators, without their Communist Party affiliation? Were their full positions not known by Zaobao’s editorial leadership? Have the two been paid by Zaobao for their opinion contributions?
LHZB: Lianhe Zaobao’s official position is only carried in its editorials. Lianhe Zaobao aims to feature a broad spectrum of views in the Forum Opinion section, including those approving of the Chinese approach and articles criticising it. The contributors of these articles include academics and experts from the US and Japan, as well as those from China; we do not want to discard certain views out of hand solely based on the columnist’s background. These pieces do not represent Lianhe Zaobao’s views. Given that China is the largest trading partner of most countries in this region, understanding the thinking of the authorities in Beijing has its value. In the CCP’s “whole nation” system, so-called private agencies or individuals may often have an official background — this is well known among observers of modern China. The Washington Post has also published interviews of academics reflecting the official position, also without indicating their partisanship. As far as possible, Lianhe Zaobao verifies the background of all writers, while respecting how they wish to describe themselves. Lianhe Zaobao also publishes writers from China who prefer to publish anonymously or under a pseudonym due to their contradictory positions on sensitive issues from the Chinese government. There is a modest fee for published articles, which is the practice for Chinese-language newspapers in Singapore.
Q3. The Washington Post did a data analysis of Zaobao’s articles on topics like Taiwan, protests in China and Hong Kong, Xinjiang and other topics, covering all articles published in 2022 on those specific topics. We noted that overall, Zaobao references, cites and publishes pro-CCP or state sources more than any other sources, including independent media. For example, Zaobao most often on these topics republished stories from China Times and United Daily News, both pro-CCP Taiwanese newspapers. Further, we analyzed the coverage of the recent ‘blank paper’ protests in China and found the first articles all referencing Chinese state sources, without further context, including repeating the state narrative of the cause of the Urumqi fire. At least 9 stories mentioned “foreign interference” accusations in the protests, without providing a contrasting view. Interviews with reporters and former reporters for Zaobao have indicated that Zaobao isn’t incentivized to provide a more balanced view, as to not offend the reader base. Others have said that there is a practice for standing up or having more neutral/balanced reports on issues core to Singapore, but then letting Beijing’s narrative run on topics that are not considered as core to Singapore. It would be good to have a response to these questions as well.
LHZB: All our journalists and editors working on China reporting are proficient in both English and Chinese languages and we obtain our information from a great variety of sources. As a result, besides Chinese sources, we also cite or quote a lot from international news agencies and Western mainstream media reports on mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. When we report on China or any location, official local data and information is the primary source. Reports on Taiwan are usually filed by our correspondents based there; when quoting from other media, we do not intentionally select the sources according to their political leanings. When we report on China, the principle is to concurrently report what China and other countries are saying, on the premise that the information sources are reliable, or that we have first-hand interviews. The narrative we are after is not the Western narrative or Beijing’s narrative, but a Singapore media’s narrative. And for that, we have also been strongly criticised by pro-China or anti-China readers. But this will not deter us from our fundamental intentions.
Q4. Reporters have suggested that the new Chinese ambassador, Sun Haiyan, has been quite strong and vocal in asking media across Singapore to help tell positive stories of China. Has Zaobao pushed back against this? Have their been instances where Zaobao has declined to run op-ed pieces or letters from her?
LHZB: Quite a number of ambassadors have been engaging us, including China’s ambassador. We interviewed them and published articles contributed by them. The latest was from the Japanese ambassador. Last November, Ambassador Sun sent one in response to our editor-in-chief’s column. We published that by our guiding principle of giving the right of reply.
Q5.Does Zaobao factor its access in China in its editorial decisions in Singapore?
LHZB： Based on the definitions of some Western media platforms, if you’re not anti-China, you must be pro-China. And in their eyes, you’re not only pro-China, but pro-CCP. Such perceptions and definitions are too simplistic and even malicious. We cover China news as we would other news — being objective, neutral, fact-based and without critique or preconceived notions. Indeed, we may not be dancing to the West’s tune when we report on certain topics. But to categorise us as a pro-CCP media because of this seems to be overly rash and arbitrary.
We have millions of readers in China who visit our digital platforms because the perspective and interpretation of our reports are different from that of the local Chinese media outlets. We cherish these readers because to them, we are an important window for them to connect to the outside world. And we have never taken the fact that they are able to access our platform for granted. The reason why Lianhe Zaobao reports or does not report news is not dependent on whether we will be blocked in China. We also do not exist to oppose or support China, nor to oppose or support any country. Our mission is to bring informative and quality information to our readers, and to provide a broad spectrum of views.
The objective fact is that there are instances where our users in mainland China cannot access particular reports, or any report for that matter, but we maintain our usual stance. Amid intensifying China-US rivalry, we stick to the principle of not taking sides and refuse to be forced into taking sides under pressure.
Q6. I Would like to have your comment on your partnership with Sensetime, which has been sanctioned by the US government because of alleged complicity in human rights abuses against the Uyghur minority.
LHZB：The one-year non-binding arrangement between Lianhe Zaobao and SenseTime International is designed to explore ways of using AI technology to improve visual content presentation and user experience. This is part of our digitisation journey where we develop digital innovations with a broad range of content, media and technology partners. Lianhe Zaobao has no wish to be embroiled in US-China contests.
2023年7月25日
《联合早报》原文链接：https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20230725-1417359
《华盛顿邮报》英文链接：https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/singapore-china-news-influence-lianhe-zaobao/
