In reality, the preferential access may mean reporters without it may be barred from entering courts.

Cao Lin (China Youth Daily): We have heard pleas and vows from the highest to the lowest levels of organs of state power. Yet examples like those of the Yunnan People's Higher Court have been rare. However, this plan has the potential to threaten independent journalism. If reporters are treated differently because of preferential access, it is obviously a case of discrimination. Since we have little knowledge of the 14 reporters, or how they were chosen, we are particularly curious about how far they can go in their criticisms-or if they are going to only work as public relations agents.

In fact, the best way to implement independent journalism is for the courts to refrain from manipulating media reporting. Yunnan's initiative or policies are suspicious in that they smack of reporters being bought off to supply favorable coverage.

Tong Dahuan (Youth Times): The public will benefit much more if the media and courts are kept apart from each other. Despite the Yunnan People's Higher Court's sincerity to improve its work ethic, these specially invited press observers are ineffective in improving the monitoring of courts because of familiarity, which might result in biased reporting.

It is true that the selected reporters are offered more judicial information, but this very information could be only what the courts want the public to know and nothing else. Since a large part of what is on offer for these 14 reporters is well within the right to know of an average citizen, why not make it available to all reporters?

According to the stipulation of the Yunnan People's Higher Court, the reporters will have their preferential access rescinded if they file false reports, or take advantage of their privileges to seek personal gains, which would negatively impact court work. In this sense, the courts are interfering too much into media reporting, which largely damages the ethics of independent journalism.

The right of checking the organs of state power, for either the media or the public, is given by law, and is not something that should be "authorized" by any department.

Greater efficiency

Liang Jiangtao (China Business Daily): The 14 reporters invited by the Yunnan People's Higher Court to closely observe their work are guaranteed more access to navigate the court system in the province.

From this point, courts in Yunnan have voluntarily allowed themselves to be monitored more thoroughly. By cooperating with the mass media, they are attempting to promote the establishment of a more transparent judicial system. This will be beneficial to the system as a whole.

Compared with those being passively supervised, the Yunnan People's Higher Court's idea to subject itself to media scrutiny is encouraging, indicating major progress that will rev up the reform to achieve judicial fairness.

Pu Jia (China Youth Daily): As part of the right to know, journalism is indispensable to the development of democracy. Some argue that this right is natural, which does not need to be "authorized." But in reality, reporters often face difficulties getting first-hand information from courts, especially on unfavorable coverage. The Yunnan People's Higher Court's initiative to expose itself to outside scrutiny, if true to its name, is worth of applause.

Such specially invited observers will definitely help increase transparency in the judicial system.

Yi Hui (Chuncheng Evening News): A number of organs of state power have taken accountability voluntarily before the Yunnan People's Higher Court's initiative. While some reporters are bribed to make up favorable coverage, the 14 specially invited press observers in this case are charged with exposing judicial unfairness in a bid to boost the working efficiency of the courts and investigate failure in daily duties. Then why should it be criticized?