e-magazine
The Hot Zone
China's newly announced air defense identification zone over the East China Sea aims to shore up national security
Current Issue
· Table of Contents
· Editor's Desk
· Previous Issues
· Subscribe to Mag
Subscribe Now >>
Expert's View
World
Nation
Business
Finance
Market Watch
Legal-Ease
North American Report
Forum
Government Documents
Expat's Eye
Health
Science/Technology
Lifestyle
Books
Movies
Backgrounders
Special
Photo Gallery
Blogs
Reader's Service
Learning with
'Beijing Review'
E-mail us
RSS Feeds
PDF Edition
Web-magazine
Reader's Letters
Make Beijing Review your homepage
Hot Links

cheap eyeglasses
Market Avenue
eBeijing

Forum
Print Edition> Forum
UPDATED: June 1, 2008 NO. 23 JUN. 5, 2008
Should the Media Apologize For Inaccurate Reporting?
The judgment has set off much debate
 
Share

On March 24, 2007, it was reported that cancer-causing chemicals were found in towels produced by Hailong Textile Factory in Jinzhou City, Hebei Province. An investigation by a program called Weekly Quality Report on the News Channel of China Central Television (CCTV) blamed the contamination on the use of an industrial dye.

After the program was aired, Jinzhou's quality watchdog banned the use of the industrial dye in question. A government-designated textile quality supervisory institution subsequently announced that Hailong's towels were substandard. The factory later went bankrupt.

Under the request of Meng Linmao, Hailong's owner, the local quality watchdog reexamined the factory's products and concluded that, although Hailong's towels were substandard, they did not contain any cancer-causing compounds such as Benzidine as was reported. Meng filed a lawsuit against CCTV for ruining Hailong's reputation and demanded that the national TV broadcaster apologize for the defamation and put right the negative impacts the business had suffered.

After more than a year in process, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court passed judgment on this case in early May. The court ruled that CCTV's report had been made out of concern for the health safety of the public. "Though no cancer-causing substance was found in Hailong's towels, there are quality deficiencies in them. The factory should accept CCTV's critical report," the court said.

The judgment has set off much debate.

Many argue that the media's supervisory power should be balanced. If the reports are about public figures or government departments, and there are elements that are not true, the public should show tolerance. In the case of businesses or ordinary citizens, the media should take full responsibility if reputation is defamed.

Others say that the media serve a vital role as the eyes of society and as long as their intentions are pure and they report the facts as they find them, then any mistakes they make in reporting should be tolerated by the public.

Public watchdog

Sheng Dalin (www.qq.com): Why should Hailong bear criticism from the public and the media? There is no full explanation in the court ruling, but I can find at least these reasons to prove the judgment is reasonable:

First of all, no evidence shows that CCTV had a motive to cause harm to Hailong. Moreover, the exposure was targeting "towels," which is a kind of commodity, instead of an individual.

Second, despite the inaccurate information about Benzidine contamination, the major part of CCTV's report was true, that is, although the blame for cancer-causing substance in the towel was baseless, Hailong's towels were substandard.

News reports must be objective and tell the truth, but objectivity and truth are not absolute. Reporters can only try to approach the truth by keeping on reporting the issue, because they have a limited field of vision, with limited means of interview. However, news reports must be time-effective. Thus faulty reports are unavoidable. All these are decided by the nature of news reporting.

More importantly, news keeps changing. It's quite possible that what journalists recognize as black is later found to be white. As long as the journalists are telling the public what they discover, they are telling truth. Some people may ask, "Why not make the report when the truth is uncovered?" The problem is no one is certain when the truth will be found.

The media and journalists are the "eyes" of the public and they deserve to be well protected. If they are blamed because they sometimes can't have a clear vision, the eyes will close. Therefore, we should show enough tolerance to the media's mistakes, as long as the basic facts are there and journalists have no evil intention.

Bi Shicheng (Huashang Daily): Recent years have seen many lawsuits triggered by news reports and most end up in failure on the part of the media. In some cases, indeed, the mistakes in reports are due to journalists' limited knowledge of relevant issues, which may result in businesses being hurt. Still, in many cases the media are helpless when losing a lawsuit.

When the media try to exercise their supervisory power, they always encounter many obstacles. Therefore, as long as the major part of a report is correct, slight mistakes should be tolerated.

In reality, such tolerance never comes easily-in a critical report, even if 99 percent of the report is true, as long as 1 percent or one sentence is wrong, a lawsuit might be launched against the media organization involved. As a result, the organization is asked by the court to make apology and compensation.

In order to avoid risks, the media sometimes demand that the subjects of criticism to endorse relevant reports. This is, however, almost impossible to achieve.

To create a sound environment for the media to fulfill their supervisory role, we need legal guarantees to ensure that public rights are always prioritized over individual ones.

Li Shaoqiang (Information Times): Supervision from the media will help to promote social and public interests and it's unwise to deny the media's supervisory function just because of several faulty reports. Otherwise, the media will be reluctant to exercise their supervisory power, which can only result in more losses in public interests. Therefore, even if mistakes exist in the reports, the media should be tolerated as long as they are not ill-intended.

In Hailong's case, the factory's economic losses come at the cost of protecting the media's supervisory power and the public's right to know. Actually, the factory can try to make the truth known by inviting other media to investigate.

Admit mistakes

Liu Changfeng (www.gmw.cn): By making the report on "contaminated towels," CCTV originally wanted to take the responsibility of informing the public of harmful products. In this sense, they are not to be criticized. However, CCTV did make a mistake in this report that has caused huge damage to the factory's reputation. The journalists who made the report are not experts in quality testing, so they can be forgiven for the mistake; but CCTV should be accountable under civil laws.

Since the court has ruled that it did make a false report, CCTV must apologize for the wrongs. Never should the national TV broadcaster be exempted from such an obligation, or other media will follow this irresponsible and arrogant example. If this happens, no one can be sure that the media will not make false reports just because they don't like certain businesses, as they know the court will ask those criticized to exercise tolerance.

Bi Xiaozhe (www.bandao.cn): As far as a business is concerned, to some extent, its reputation is as important as its lifeline. A good reputation will bring huge profits. If it is exposed to the public as a producer of substandard commodities, not only will it lose trust from the public, but it might also be eliminated by tough market competition. As the national TV broadcaster, CCTV almost has an indubitable authority. To be exposed to society by CCTV as a problematic business is almost a "death sentence."

A false report may leave a business in debt and it may have to struggle many years before it resumes normality. However, the media's apologies may help to lessen the negative impacts to a large extent. In Hailong's case, the court did not ask CCTV to do so, but announced that "the safety of towels is related to the public's interests and thus the towel producer must be tolerant to criticism on commodity quality from the media." CCTV has actually violated Hailong's legitimate rights, but why is it exempted from making an apology to the victim?

The judgment is unfair to Hailong and makes it impossible for the business to safeguard its rights and interests.

Objectivity and authenticity are the soul of news reports. CCTV should respect the legitimate rights of every business during reporting.

Ma Longsheng (www.qianlong.com): Maybe, CCTV's reports can only be defined as "partially inaccurate" and people know that such "partially inaccurate" reports sometimes are unavoidable. But its huge negative impacts on Hailong are undeniable. Therefore, it's acceptable for Hailong to ask for an apology from CCTV.

The court exempted CCTV from apologizing to the textile factory for the reason that the exposure was not ill-intended. In my opinion, however, "to show necessary tolerance" should not be used as a judicial principle to judge a case. Since the defendant did make a mistake, why should the accuser tolerate its mistakes? No matter it is a critical report or a false report, as long as the CCTV has hurt Hailong's reputation, CCTV must explain the truth to the public.

If CCTV was asked to apologize to Hailong, other media would realize that they must act responsibly in the process of interviewing and reporting and they would better exercise their supervisory power.

Ye Chuanlong (hlj.rednet.cn): While manufacturers should try to ensure the quality of their products and be supervised, the media must tell the truth about commodity quality when problems are found. This is basic professional ethics for the media.

Actually, the media are special businesses and their commodities are the news programs. Thus, they must first of all be critical to their own products and act in a more responsible way to ensure that every program meets certain standards.

The media must be responsible for what they say, especially authoritative media like CCTV, because they are of tremendous influence to the whole country. A mistaken report may lead to huge losses to a business and damage its reputation and image. Sometimes, it may even ruin the business. Therefore, Hailong's demand for an apology from CCTV is reasonable.

Strangely, the court did not back the factory, but instead told it to restrain itself and show tolerance. When Hailong tolerates the false report by CCTV, who is to tolerate the towel maker? If the legal system is well-developed, both the businesses and the media should act under the legal framework. If CCTV is exempted from any punishment and allowed to refrain from saying sorry, it will continue to act arrogantly. Actually, to say sorry to Hailong will not damage CCTV's image at all, but instead it will appear responsible in front of nationwide audience.

Dear Readers,

"Forum" is a column that provides a space for varying perspectives on contemporary Chinese society. In each

issue, "Forum" will announce the topic for an upcoming

issue. We invite you to submit personal viewpoints

(in either English or Chinese).

Upcoming Topic: Should buskers be allowed in

Chinese cities?

E-mail us at byao@cipg.org.cn

Please provide your name, telephone number, zip code and

address along with your comments.

Editor: Yao Bin

 



 
Top Story
-Protecting Ocean Rights
-Partners in Defense
-Fighting HIV+'s Stigma
-HIV: Privacy VS. Protection
-Setting the Tone
Most Popular
 
About BEIJINGREVIEW | About beijingreview.com | Rss Feeds | Contact us | Advertising | Subscribe & Service | Make Beijing Review your homepage
Copyright Beijing Review All right reserved