Does Caixin really have "privilege"?

The novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) has been ravaging the mainland for more than a month, and the imaginary turning point has not yet come. Among the many incidents involving major public interests after the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, few mainland media have been able to continuously and in-depth report and carry out limited accountability like today's pneumonia epidemic. If you know anything about the mainland's news regulation in recent years, you will be surprised by the media reports after the lockdown.

Media such as Caixin, Caijing, Sanlian Life Weekly, China News Weekly, Beijing News, and Beijing Youth Daily have all performed well in reporting on the epidemic. The picture of how the new crown virus pneumonia came to this. Among them, the discussion and dissemination caused by Caixin's report is particularly prominent. From the earliest interview with Guan Yi, to the out-of-stock magazine in several consecutive issues, to the recent continuous report on the nursing home in Wuhan, Caixin has won wide acclaim.

However, doubts about Caixin's "privilege" have emerged in the praise. For example, Zhang Xuezhong, a legal scholar who has been completely banned by the mainland authorities, wrote an article "Caixin should not be the object of our praise, but the object of our reflection." , the article states:

Caixin is not a model of free speech, but a symbol of our general lack of free speech.

If everyone or every news organization can report like Caixin without being suppressed, but Caixin's reporting is better than others, then I will definitely give Caixin a thumbs up. If only Caixin can enjoy this kind of treatment, why should I like it? In this case, the existence of Caixin is not a manifestation of freedom of speech, but a manifestation of the privilege of speech. Its existence is only an existence licensed by power.

If some fields are restricted to other media, only Caixin can report, and you don’t need to worry about retaliation, then Caixin, as a special existence, will only further highlight the status quo that we are deprived of freedom of speech. To praise Caixin is to praise our own lack of freedom of speech.

You know, Caixin existed for many years before the outbreak, but we were not spared this disaster because of its existence. But this catastrophe would most likely be averted if freedom of speech and the press had been universally enjoyed by all of us.

Soon, Xiaoshu refuted Zhang Xuezhong's "Caixin should not be the object of praise":

When Nanzhou was extremely hated by the meat-eaters in the temple, they shot at Nanzhou with this kind of malicious speculation on the rivers and lakes; The speculative arrow shot at Yanhuang Chunqiu. The purge of Nanzhou and the purge of Yanhuang Chunqiu finally fulfilled their wishes. When there was only one Caixin left in the Chinese public opinion circle, and when Caixin traced the truth of the epidemic with great courage, the arrow of their baseless malicious speculation was shot at Caixin again.

Of course, universal freedom of speech must be pursued, but universal freedom of speech is by no means in conflict with the little limited freedom of speech in reality, and should never be opposed. The pursuit of universal freedom of speech and the cherishing of the little freedom of speech in reality should be equally important. When we do not have universal freedom of speech, one of the entry points to the pursuit of universal freedom of speech is to start from what we have a little limited freedom of speech, and to gradually expand and universalize it, rather than based on dark conspiracy theories , Destroy it based on malicious speculation. The latter is undoubtedly detrimental to the process of freedom of speech, and is objectively the accomplice of the temple meat eaters who hate this little bit of limited freedom of speech.

I think Zhang Xuezhong's original intention was not to "shoot the arrow of malicious speculation at Caixin" as Xiao Shu said, but to call for universal freedom of speech and the press.

So, does Caixin really have the so-called "privilege"? If so, where does this "privilege" come from?

Caixin's reporters and editors never think they have so-called privileges. Today, a senior Caixin reporter posted on Moments, "Sister has made up her mind to change her surname to Zhao, and even plans to mobilize all her colleagues to have the surname Zhao, because if you don't change, you will be sorry for the society. The expectations of the previous person." The sarcasm was beyond words.

Yes, Caixin's previous blockbuster reports were all done with great effort by its editorial team. Many times Caixin has resisted pressure to publish these reports. At the same time, Caixin and other media are under the same regulatory pressure. Once the Central Propaganda Department issues a ban on a negative event, the ban will have the same effect on all media in mainland China. Caixin has no privilege to ignore the ban.

In fact, speculation about Caixin's "deep background" and "background" has been circulating for many years, and all speculation can actually be attributed to speculation about Caixin and Caixin's founder, Ms. Hu Shuli. So, what is the background of Hu Shuli, who was named "the most dangerous woman in China" by the American "Business Week"?

In 2010, The New Yorker's China correspondent Evan Osnos wrote a feature on Hu Shuli, "The Forbidden Zone," which should be the most detailed report on Hu Shuli known so far. (Original: https://www.douban.com/doubanapp/dispatch?uri=/note/71491559/)

The article describes Hu Shuli as follows:

Hu Shuli started Caijing in 1998 with two computers and a borrowed conference room, and since then she has shown near-perfect judgment in leading the magazine—how much candor And provocation is something this regime can tolerate.

As a result, Hu Shuli got a series of exclusive news and gradually established contacts with those later senior officials. This list is unparalleled: Today, Gao Xiqing is in charge of China's $200 billion sovereign wealth fund, Wang Qishan A deputy prime minister and economic policy maker, Zhou Xiaochuan is the governor of the central bank. Many in Beijing have wondered how much these early ties protected Hu Shuli, but she insists people overestimate her proximity to power.

Every report is revising Hu Shuli's calculation of how far he can go. Gradually, Hu Shuli was able to sense precisely when a sensitive topic could be safely reported.

I asked Cheng Yizhong: Why is Hu Shuli's experience so different? Caijing, he said, has reached a height that puts it outside the sphere of influence of lower-level bureaucrats. But he also pointed out the difference: his reporting was aimed at fundamentally reducing the power of the police, while Caijing's focus was on improving the work of the government. “The topic of Caijing doesn’t affect the underlying ruling system, so it’s relatively safe,” he added. “I’m not criticizing Hu Shuli, but Caijing is in some ways arguing for a more powerful or relatively more powerful person. Good interest group service."

Unsurprisingly, Hu Shuli sees things a little differently: "We don't think about this or that group -- we think about the system as a whole, and everything that can achieve reform."

From this report, we can see Hu Shuli's growth trajectory: he was born in a compound, worked as a Red Guard when he was a child, participated in going to the mountains and the countryside when he was a teenager, supported the protesters during the June 4th, and was suspended for 18 months after that. A loyal opposition.

The most accurate summary of Hu Shuli and Caixin Media is that they have no privileges, but have been testing the boundaries of press freedom. When the sexual assault incident of Zhu Jun broke out in 2018, the Central Propaganda Department quickly imposed a ban on major media. Caixin reported the incident despite the ban. The final result was that the editor-in-chief was called to criticize him, saying, "You guys. If you report again, you will be shut down.” When swine fever ravaged the mainland last year, various media received the ban early. After receiving the ban, Caixin still asked reporters to write 30,000 words of swine fever manuscripts. In order to test the pressure, the editorial department It was decided to divide the manuscript into three articles, and a large number of official documents were added to the first published manuscript. After publishing, it was found that there was nothing to do before deciding to continue publishing the remaining two swine fever manuscripts.

For Caixin's editorial team, they never think they have any privileges, and they often complain that the supervision is getting stricter. border.