写给华尔街三名记者的一封信：请恪守媒体人的原则与灵魂，并致美国记者协会（中文全文附后）

Dear Miss Kate, Miss Aruna and Mr. Cezary:

On October 22, the Wall Street Journal published your report, China’s Pursuit of Fugitive Businessman Guo Wengui Kicks Off Manhattan Caper Worthy of Spy Thriller, which reported some of the contacts between official from China’s Ministry of State Security and Guo Wengui. The report writes about situation when four officials from China’s Ministry of State Security met with Guo Wengui, and cited insiders in the White House and documents given by Guo.

I have no objection to your report and actually it's a good story to say. But after repeated deliberation, there are a few serious problems that have forced me to write to you and submit the letter to SPJ.

First, in the report, you quoted Guo Wengui’s files which show that he was persecuted by Chinese government. What needs to be stressed is that these files are false documents. Not only Chinese government, but lawyer Wen Yunchao, Teng Biao and at least thousands of others pointed out that the documents are fake.

As professional journalists, I'm sure that you captured this vital point, then, why didn’t you indicate in time in your report that Guo Wengui’s files were widely considered to be forged or at least controversial?

I looked through your report, and find it at last in the 18th paragraph below the picture of documents, i.e., the second paragraph to the last that says with only a few words of understatement, “Beijing has said the document is a forgery.”

This is a typical and irresponsible way of writing that deliberately mislead the readers. Due to the hassle of the long report, most readers will not browse through the end, which means that many of them can't see the simple statement at the end of the report.

I ask you, as professional media , if you report Guo Wengui’s events out of serious and objective media ethics, would you still write the report in this way? Will it highlight your rigorous and objective attitude if you mislead readers to believe in Guo Wengui’s forged papers? Can the standard of your work represent the Wall Street Journal's professional level?

Second, it is true that events of Guo Wengui have become sensitive and complicated due to legal issues that are added by political colors. But it doesn't change the fact that Guo has insulted and offended women. If you don’t believe in the previous content, can you accept and promote Guo Wengui's practice of abusing "Ma Rui is pig, and if she rape a pig, the pig commits a suicide" in his live broadcast. Do you despise women's rights and ignore the network humiliation of the victim just like this?

Harvey Weinstein sex scandal got picked up by all the major news services, but medias became blind when Marui was raped and Guo Wengui used social media to expose Marui’s privacy and abuse her. I want to ask you, what is your report’s principle, objectivity or optional negligence based on color or race. If Marui is a white, will you report Guo Wengui indiscriminately and describe him as a political symbol and try to get him off?

Third, many medias and network have revealed a great deal of record and video evidence that Guo had bribed Chinese officials and tried to win support of Britain and American reporters such as Michael Forsythe, Tony Blair and others since this year. This evidence makes it clear that Guo is trying to bribe everyone he contacts. It is also evident that his disclosure is fabricated and fabled.

I am not opposing to your report about Guo Wengui, but the way you deliberately hid some relevant details and cited so-called “people familiar with the situation” makes me wonder with every reason that during the process you wrote the story, Guo had tried to bribe you. Whether you have reaped the benefits is a problem I can not leave alone.

Besides, there are reasons to be sceptical the people you cited are puppets bought off and controlled by Guo Wengui. Given this, dare you swear to god that your report is rigorous, objective and compatible with American media’s value?

Fourth, I know that the Wall Street Journal is opposing President Trump. There’s no problem in it, the society in America is a free one, people have the right to support or oppose the President. Whether support or opposition, when being presented in a news report, it should not be tinged with the tendency of opposing for the sake of opposition.

According to your report, people who have been cited 21 times should be some senior advisers in the White House. President Trump was chosen by the people, his staff and team represent for the interest of America. If this team could forge ahead in unity, it would be a good news for people of America and the whole world.

However, the way you wrote the journal may put the team in a state of mutual suspicion. If the government can not focus on the developing of America because of mistrust, then who is to blame? Is it President Trump, the government, or you who tried to polarize the government?

In this world, China and America have become the progressive role models of this great era. Set aside ideological differences, if both countries could deepen mutually beneficial cooperation in economy, legislation, security, environmental protection and other fields, it would good news for people in these two and even the whole world.

It doesn’t make sense to me why someone would want to hinder the development of the world, why someone tried so hard using a clown and criminal to impede China-US cooperation, why someone attempted to deter people with a cheat and exhibitionist, who is of no political and economic values, from pursuit of well-being.

If there really is someone as described above, I have to say, the tycoon named Guo Wengui, who used to trap officials and medias through bribery and bugging, has successfully repeated the tricks in America, you and your so-called insiders have been bribed and become his puppets.

Because of this, I urge departments such as the American news management office and Journalists Association to launch a careful investigation into the biased report about Guo Wengui to maintain the credibility of American medias, clear names of the three journalists under questioning and reply to tens of thousands of netizens who had voted to question the journalists.

Written by @TwiZhanJ, a humble and ordinary Twitter user who cares about universal values and human development.


写给华尔街三名记者的一封信：请恪守媒体人的原则与灵魂，并致美国新闻管理机构

尊敬的凯特、阿鲁纳女士，塞尔瑞先生：

10月22日，华尔街日报刊登一篇由你们执笔的，题为《中国国安人员赴美劝返郭文贵，各方交锋堪比谍战片》的报道，文章主要援引白宫知情人和郭文贵提供资料等方式，报道了中国国安人员与郭文贵接触的一些情况。

首先，我对你们报道该起新闻事件没有异议，可以说这是一篇看起来很不错的报道，但仔细推敲下来，有几个严重问题使我不得不给你们写信，并同时将信件提交给美国的新闻管理机构。

第一、你们在报道中引用了郭文贵用以证明其受到中国政府迫害的文件。但需要指出的是，这几份文件，在郭文贵出示后即已被广泛证实为虚假文件。除了中国政府的声明，温云超、滕彪律师等至少数千名网友均指证该文件却系伪造。

作为专业的新闻人，我相信几位一定捕捉到了这个至关重要的信息点，那么，为什么在阁下的报道中，并没有及时指出郭文贵所出示的文件被舆论广泛评价为伪造、或至少存在争议性的重要情况呢？

我翻遍阁下的报道，终于在你们配发这几份文件图片的十八个自然段之后，也就是文章倒数第二段才看到了轻描淡写的几个字：“北京方面指出这份文件是伪造的”。

这是一种典型的刻意误导读者选择性相信的不负责任的笔法，因为，由于文章的冗长，大多数读者并不会一直看到结尾，也就是说，他们会因为没有看到你们刻意安排在文末的简陋声明，而误以为郭文贵出示的文件就是真的。

我请问，作为一个专业的媒体人，假如你们报道郭文贵事件完全是出于严谨客观的媒体伦理，你们还会这样安排行文吗？你们刻意误导读者相信郭文贵伪造文件为真的做法，能够凸显你们的严谨客观吗？能够代表华尔街日报专业媒体的专业水准吗？

第二、诚然，由于简单的法律问题被赋予政治色彩，导致郭文贵事件变得敏感而复杂。但是，这并不能改变郭文贵对女性侮辱侵犯的事实。如果你们不相信以前的，那么郭文贵在直播里辱骂“马蕊是猪、马蕊强奸猪猪都会自杀”的做法，就是你们可以接受和弘扬的吗？难道你们就是这样蔑视女权，无视受害者遭遇这样的网络羞辱吗？

好莱坞女星遭韦恩斯坦性侵案发，你们争相奔走报道，马蕊被性侵，郭文贵利用社交媒体曝光其隐私、大肆对其进行辱骂，你们却视而不见。我想请问你们，你们报道的守则，到底是严谨客观，还是基于肤色、种族的选择性忽视和歧视？假如马蕊是一名白种人，你们还会不加选择的报道郭文贵，并试图把他渲染成一个具有政治因素的符号以为其脱罪吗？

第三、今年以来，媒体和网络曝光了郭文贵行贿中国官员、试图行贿收买傅才德、布莱尔等英美媒体人和政要的大量录音和视频证据，这些证据表明，郭文贵不但一直试图行贿和收买和他接触的每个人，更证明他的爆料纯属子虚乌有和凭空捏造。

我不反对你们报道有关郭文贵的事件，但你们这种刻意取舍和通篇援引所谓知情人的报道方式、倾向，使我有足够理由怀疑你们在撰写这篇报道文章的过程中，郭文贵也曾经试图收买和贿赂你们，而你们是否收受了郭文贵的好处，是一个我不能不关注的问题。

此外，我同时还有足够理由怀疑，你们所援引的所谓“知情人”，是已经被郭文贵用金钱收买和控制的傀儡。如此，你们是否还敢于面对上帝发誓你们的报道是严谨的、客观的和符合美国媒体伦理价值的？

第四、我知道，华尔街日报是反对川普总统的。这没有什么问题，美国社会是自由的社会，人们可以支持总统，也可以反对总统。但是所有的支持或反对，当被以基于事实的新闻报道方式呈现出来的时候，就不应该夹带有为了反对而反对的情绪和倾向。

根据你们的报道，被21次引用的“知情人”应该系白宫的高级幕僚，那么我想请问的是，川普总统是美国人民选出来的总统，而他的幕僚和他的团队，是代表美国利益的团队，如果这个团队能够团结、奋进，那将是美国人民乃至世界人民的福音。

反观之，你们在报道中使用所谓“知情人”的做法，却可能使这个团队陷入互相猜忌的状态。如果这个政府因为互相猜忌，而不能集中精力致力于美国人民的发展，那么谁将成为美国历史的罪人？是川普、是政府，还是设法分化这个政府的你们？

当今世界，中美已成为不能阻挡的时代引领，抛开意识形态的差异，如果两国能够在经济、法制、安全、环保等领域全面深入合作，那将是中美两国乃至人类世界的福音。


我十分不能理解的是，为什么有人想要阻挡世界的向前发展，为什么有人在妄想利用一个小丑、罪犯来阻挡中美两国的深度合作，为什么有人在试图用一个在政治经济层面已没有任何价值的骗子、窥阴癖来阻挡中美两国人民共同追求美好生活的意愿？

如果真的有，我只能说，那个叫做郭文贵的亿万富豪，那个曾经用行贿、窃听、收买等肮脏手段围猎官员媒体的人，如今已经在美国成功的故技重演，你们，还有你们背后所谓的“知情人”，已经统统被他围猎收买，成为他的附庸。

鉴此，我希望，我呼吁，我敦促，美国新闻管理办公室等有关机构、记者协会等能够对华尔街日报三名记者倾向性报道郭文贵一事，展开缜密的调查，以维护美国媒体的公信力，同时也为这三名受到质疑的记者讨一个清白，并给参与投票质疑这三位记者的数万网友们，一个答复。

BY：推特战记，一个关注普世价值、人类发展但又十分卑微的普通推特人