About the article "Flowers" and more

After reading "About "Is This Year OK" and the author's reply", I was very touched, and I also resonated with the worries and doubts in it. I would like to add from some other perspectives why I must insist on expressing doubts.

One of the important reasons is that this kind of thing is too common. Zooming out a little further, in previous reports on the White Paper Movement, my friend A also experienced a similar incident. Another insider, B, mentioned A and his/her personal information during the interview. The reporter directly wrote the information into the article without ever asking A. It wasn't until A's friend (not related to the White Paper Movement) took a screenshot of the reported picture and asked him: "This description is just you, is this about you?" He didn't know that he had been "reported."

This incident caused him a lot of trouble. Later, someone went to the media to communicate. The other party initially disagreed with the modification and believed that A had nothing to be afraid of because he had done nothing wrong. However, A had been interrogated for other matters before, and was also searched from time to time at that time, so daily life required a lot of caution. It wasn’t until he insisted that the editor agreed to revise the manuscript.

Zooming out a little further, I have heard reporting issues involving information security protection more than once during other social movements across the Taiwan Strait and other places. For example, C, whom I have contacted, told me that his underage activist friend D decided to appear in the report under his real name due to lack of relevant knowledge. After his friends saw the report, they were worried about his safety. After spreading the awareness of self-protection to him, D (and his friends) told reporters that he needed to change his name to a pseudonym, but this matter also encountered many obstacles.

I can't be the only one who has heard of more than one such incident. In the replies below the post of the author of "Flowers", I saw a lot of criticisms made by him in a sarcastic way. When someone tried to discuss it from the perspective of the safety of actors and related people, there were frequent comments calling him "pink". , teasing the other party to ask the leader for instructions when speaking, or sarcastic comments on the questioning, which makes people very worried about the current news environment.

I also don't understand some people's criticism of anonymous responses. I don’t know who the anonymous people are, but in my imagination (yes, imagination, you can criticize me for saying something unfounded), the reason why I feel the need to say something after seeing it is probably because I have a relationship with The people involved are connected to some degree. The reason for wanting to remain anonymous may be because I am already under some degree of surveillance. And if the reason for anonymity is because they have done brave things in life, and this has cost them, how can you still criticize them for succumbing to fear? Even if not, in order to protect your own safety and just have a discussion related to news reports and discuss the matter, what's the problem with being anonymous?

The whole thing confuses me greatly. How to better protect the safety of interviewees, parties and related people has always been my top priority since I started studying journalism. Friction between reporters and interviewees is all too common. When reporting on human rights issues, I often need a lot of time to build trust with the other party, take the initiative to explain to the other party the risks of reporting (because the other party may not understand), and even confirm it more than once, but I still encounter the other party who temporarily changes their mind, or finally tells them Me, he can't trust me. I feel helpless and sometimes sad. I feel that I have also put in a lot of emotional labor and endured significant mental pressure. But firstly, entering this field and the attendant costs are my personal choices. Secondly, This is indeed the norm in my opinion, and I cannot make any decisions for the other party because of my identity and experience.

Some people say that saying "we" anonymously is either cheating or stealing. But speaking "we" anonymously is how many social movements in this land express their voices. In white paper or other sports-related communication, many times the relationship network we form is a network where "we don't know who the other person is, we only know that the person is trustworthy." I don't even want to know who the other person is, because if I don't know, if I face interrogation one day, I can more easily say that I don't know. On the other hand, how could knowing help?

Similarly, in reporting, apart from anything else, what real help does some information that is made public without consent actually have? If a piece of information, whether I know it or not, does not affect my empathy for the people in the report, but if the relevant departments know it, it will put them in more danger, then I would rather not know it or read it. arrive.