Journalistic Guidance - 新闻导向
Here is the official statement as published in Beijing News report on February 3, 2006:
“从除夕至今，全市火警数量比去年同期略有增加，因燃放烟花引起的火警略有赠加，但没有因燃放烟花爆竹致死的市民，也没有一个因燃放烟花导致摘眼球的病例。” 昨晚，在市消防局会议室举行的新闻发布会现场，北京市政府副秘书长、市烟花办主任李伟就今年除夕至正月十五，全市安全及禁改限进行了阶断性发布。
[in translation] "From Chinese New Year's Eve up to now, the total number of fires is slightly more than in the same time period last year, as the number of fires caused by fireworks has increased slightly. There were no civilian deaths as a result of fireworks, nor were there any damaged eyes as a result of fireworks." Last evening, at the press conference in the Fire Department's conference room, the Beijing City Government deputy secretary general and the City Fireworks Office director Li Wei made an interim report about the safety and limited relaxation on the firework ban between Chinese New Year's Eve and the Fifthteenth Day of the first month of the new year.
新闻导向
带三个表 @ 2006-02-04 02:18
什么是新闻导向呢？就是所有人都知道风往西边吹，但是你一定要用看上去很像事实的证据证明风其实是往东边吹的，然后让人们同意并接受你的观点。如果你做到了，你就疏导成功。比如，北京交通拥挤，老百姓常常抱怨，于是你就说，交通拥挤是经济繁荣的体现，塔克拉玛干沙漠交通顺畅，但是那里没法发展经济。所以说，凡是交通问题严重的地方，肯定经济繁荣，五谷丰登，林茂粮丰，人民安居乐业，生活一片祥和。所以北京要大力发展交通拥挤事业，才能体现出北京的经济繁荣。这就叫正确导向。你想啊，谁愿意去塔克拉玛干沙漠生活啊，那里连只鸟都飞不过去。
这几天，北京的媒体有关燃放烟花爆竹的新闻很多，基本上是，今年北京燃放烟花爆竹，没有引起火灾，没有人眼睛炸伤，没有造成空气和环境污染。而早些年，如果我的记忆没有出问题的话，我能清晰的记得，每年春节期间有关燃放烟花爆竹的负面新闻都很多，我不知道今年除夕夜有没有记者到北京同仁医院（专门医治眼睛的医院）蹲点，反正在过去，报纸上都会有记者从同仁医院发回报道，说除夕夜有多少人因为放鞭炮把眼睛炸伤，报道中不乏耸人听闻的描写，以此提醒人们放鞭炮要小心，同时也多少暗示人们这种行为不该提倡。
但是，今年北京解禁了，其实你解禁就解禁吧，本来禁放就是件挺不光彩的事情，但是，我们一定要把好正确新闻导向的关，比如，满大街的都是“燃放鞭炮是您的权力,依法燃放是您的义务”标语。说实话，我作为一个公民，到底有什么权力，他们从来不告诉我，但是燃放鞭炮这件事，他们一定要突出我的权力。您瞧，您干这种事我们都可以保护您了，我活了38年，头一次感受到了我还有权力--仅仅是放炮的权力。而且，很奇怪的是，我不知道北京市各级政府部门的人是不是法律白痴，权力和权利他们都没搞清楚，权力是什么？政治上的强制力量，职责范围内的支配力量。你可以说警察有抓人的权力。而权利总是和义务相对，既然后面有“义务”，前面就该是“权利”。但是一个燃放鞭炮的区区小事，居然上升到“权力”的高度，我不知道是他们真是法盲还是有意而为之。如果他们连这个常识都不懂，可想而知，他们把公民的权利放在了一个什么位置上了。不过想想到也能想明白，他们什么时候把公民的权利放在眼里了？所以，一旦他们强调公民权的时候，“力”和“利”就分不清了。唉，他们真让人操心。
而且我就奇怪了，怎么今年北京人民燃放烟花爆竹就没出事呢？也没人提环境污染了，也没有火灾了，也没人炸伤了，真是和谐社会啊。反正，不管是禁止和解禁他们总有理。
记得曾经有个记者这样问丘吉尔：“您觉得做个政治家要有什么条件？”丘老师回答：“政治家要能预言明日、下月、来年及将来发生的一些事情。”记者又问：“那要预言错了呢？”丘老师回答：“那就再编一个理由。”
所谓新闻导向，说白了，不就是“再编一个理由”么。
http://lydon.yculblog.com/post.1085049.html
[Translation from EastSouthWestNorth]
Journalistic Guidance
What is journalistic guidance? That is when everybody knows that the wind is blowing towards the west, but you insist on having some seemingly factual evidence to prove that the wind is actually blowing the east. Then you persuade people to accept your viewpoint. If you can do that, you have successfully guided people.
For example, the traffic in Beijing is congested and the citizens complain about it frequently. So you say that traffic congestion is the indicator of economic prosperity. The traffic in Taklamakan desert is very sparse, but economic development is impossible there. Therefore, places with serious traffic congestion are definitely economically flourishing, abundant in goods and supplies and their people must be prosperous and living in harmony. Therefore, Beijing must actively promote projects that cause traffic congestion in order to deonstrate that the city is economically flourishing. This is known as proper guidance. You begin to think: Who wants to go and live in the Taklamakan desert? Even birds are unable to travel across it.
During the past few days, the Beijing media have carried a lot of news about fireworks. Bascially, it is said that the fireworks have not led to any fire disasters, no one got injured in the eyes, and there was neither air nor environmental pollution. In years bygone, if my memory serves me correctly, I can clearly remember that there were numerous negative stories about fireworks during the spring festival. I don't know if any reporters went to Beijing's Tongren Hospital (note: an eye-specialty hospital) on the night of New Year's Eve this time to stake the place out. In years past, the newspapers always reported from Tongren Hospital about the number of people with eye injuries caused by firecrackers. The reports also carried some shocking descriptions to remind people to be careful when they set off firecrackers, as well as hinting that this sort of activity should not be promoted.
But this year, Beijing rescinded the ban. Actually, if you want to rescind the ban, you can just go ahead. After all, it is not exactly a glorious thing to rescind a ban. But we must serve the function of providing proper journalistic guidance. For example, there are posters saying "Setting off firecrackers is your power, setting them of in accordance with the law is your obligation" all over the streets. Frankly speaking, I am a citizen but they have never told me what kinds of power I have. But on this matter of setting off firecrackers, they have to highlight my power. You see, when you do this type of thing, we can protect you. I have lived for 38 years, and this is the first time that I feel that I have some power -- if it is only the power of setting off firecrackers.
Also, it is strange, but I wonder if the various department levels of the Beijing Municipal Government are illiterate about the law because they were not able to distinguish between power and right. What is power? The ability to forcefully coerce in politics and the ability to govern in your area of responsibility. Thus, you can say that the police have the power to arrest people. Rights are always counterposed against obligations. If there is an obligation behind, then there should be a right up front. But to elevate the trivial matter of setting off firecrackers to the height of 'power,' I cannot tell if they are illiterate about the law or else they must be doing this deliberately. If they don't even have this commonsense knowledge, then one can imagine where they put the rights of the citizens. But if we think about this, we may be understand then that they have never valued citizen rights. Therefore, when they wanted to emphasize citizen rights, they could not distinguish between "power" and "right." (Sigh), they really make people worry.
Furthermore, I am curious about why there were no accidents when the Beijing people set off fireworks this year? Nobody is talking about environmental pollution. No fire disasters. This is really a harmonious scoeity. No matter what, they are always right whether they issue a ban or rescind a ban.
I remember that a reporter once asked Winston Churchill: "What are the requirements for a politician?" Churchill responded: "A politician must be able to predict certain things that will happen tomorrow, next month, next year and further in the future." The reporter asked further: "What if the predictions are wrong?" Churchill replied: "Then you just make up another reason."
Frankly speaking, the so-called journalististic guidance is just "making up another reason."
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060205_1.htm