Global Times 与《环球时报》的阴阳脸
本文标题所谈的不是两家报纸，而是一家，并且是被北京赋予"对外塑造国家形象、争夺话语权"的重大外 宣使命，对内弘扬"全世界都嫉妒我们好"的媒体重镇。我之所以要专为这张报纸写篇文章，乃是因为最近该报再度发生了被国内媒体同行称为"报格分裂"的事 情：2011年8月9日，在Global Times上出现的Exclusive：Ai Weiwei breaks his silence （作者Liang Chen），就未曾出现在《环球时报》上。
也就是说，承担外宣使命的Global Times需要通过对艾未未的采访，向世界释放一些符合中国政府需要的信息，表明艾未未现在已经可以"自由发言"了，咱们中国是有言论自由的！同时又试图 借这一政府赐予"独家信息"抬高Global Times在英文报界的地位。这种把戏是Global Times玩得轻车熟路的老套路。远的不说，就在今年3月30日就玩过一票。那一天，Global Times以"Three outspoken academics"（三个直陈时弊的学者）为题对张鸣、陈丹青和贺卫方作了报道。针对这一Global Times 游戏，贺卫方在微博上发表感叹，"我们又一次看到，在中 国，媒体管理尺度的'内外有别'。该报中文版也能如此坦率真诚，尊重事实，遵循传媒伦理，那该多好。" 我认为贺卫方这评价是因为对大外宣的目的缺乏深入了解，从实质上描画，我更愿意这种内外表现不一称之为"阴阳脸"。
但这家《环球时报》引起我关注，却远比上述时间要早。该报在2006年制造的一起以假乱真的谎言曾引起我注意。当时德国新发布一部纪录片，片名叫 Losers and Winners，译成中文就是"失败者与胜利者"。这部纪录片我看过，主题是比较在德国工人与在德中资企业工作的中国工人的各自境况，大致意思是德国工人 权利意识强，待遇高，但却因此增加企业成本，导致企业大量外迁而失去工作。中国工人经常加班，工资低，还要忍受极为恶劣的工作及生活条件，但却因此得到了 工作。纪录片因此发出的疑问是：中德两国工人，到底谁是胜利者？谁是失败者？
德国之声于2006年11月13日发文介绍这部纪录片，此后获《环球时报》"创造性地"转载。德国之声这篇文章标题与片名"失败者和胜利者"相同；而《环 球时报》则将标题改为"德国之声：中国工人的干劲让德国人震撼"，"妙剪回春"地将一篇比较两国工人各自深陷于其中的困境变成了德国人赞扬中国工人的题 目，中国劳工在权利方面的"失败者"形象一扫而光。我就此事写过一篇"中国媒体制造的陷阱"， 在对照德国之声与《环球时报》"转载"之文的差异后，指出《环球时报》通过剪接、断章取义及有意曲解等手法，把一部揭露中国工人地位低下饱受盘剥的纪录 片，硬生生地说成了是记录中国工人远渡重洋到欧洲展示吃苦耐劳精神并让老外们感动至深的片子，同时还借外媒的口表达了中国只要凭着艰苦奋斗，就能迅速超越 发达国家。
《环球时报》的恶劣谎言远不止这一次。2008年在关于德国之声中文部副主任张丹红事件上，《环球时报》更是屡屡只登有利于张丹红的片面之辞，有意 忽视张丹红被解职的真正原因是撒谎并将自己负责的媒体公器私用作为泄私愤的工具，有意误导国内读者，以为张丹红只是帮中国说了几句"公道话"，因而在德国 遭受了种族歧视被解职。
该报这种撒谎的阴阳脸特性，等到Global Times于2009年4月20日创刊之后愈加突显。由于 Global Times肩负"让世界了解中国"的外宣使命，因此与《环球时报》的报道内外有别。英文版为了打造"公信力"，只好有时收起那副令人讨厌的喉舌嘴脸，扮演 "尊重事实"的角色，因此Global Times的内容，或者是根本未出现于《环球时报》上，或者是以与Global Times很不相同的面孔出现于《环球时报》。
Global Times与《环球时报》这种阴阳脸特性终于引起中国传媒业界关注，并因此使该报在Global Times开办的第二年成为中国媒体的热点话题——媒体本身成为媒体的热点话题，这可能也算得上新闻史上的一大奇迹。北京外国语大学国际新闻传播系教授展 江撰文"《环球时报》的报格分裂"，谈到Global Times与《环球时报》的不同。他举的例子是两者对德国伯尔基金会的一份报告的报道。2010年6月14日，德国伯尔基金会公布概述德国七家有影响媒体 2008年对华报道的基本状况。在比较之后，展江认为，Global Times比较准确地报道了伯尔基金会报告的主旨，而《环球时报》则失实甚至编造他人观点、断章取义，与国内其它中文媒体相比，《环球时报》"在失实甚至 编造他人观点方面走得最远"。
《环球时报》因其充当"爱国主义号角"的报道风格，被称为"愤青大本营"、"爱国贼老窝"、"商业民族主义"等。《南方人物周刊》今年6月11日就 此采访了该报总编胡锡进，这篇采访名为"《环球时报》不高兴"，展示了该报掌门人胡锡进的办报理念以及这张报纸的前世今生，值得做为研究资料备存。
胡锡进对这份报纸的政治使命阐释得很透彻，Global Times要"做国际视角的中国新闻"，《环球时报》则是要做"中国视角的国际新闻"，即扮演阴阳脸角色。胡总编也是个心理素质极好的高人，一人在两个剧 场上来回穿梭且不陷于精神错乱。但问题在于，信息的发布不等于信息的到达，信息的到达更不等于信息被受众按照发布者的意图解读，在西方社会，公信力是媒体 的生命之源。由于有北京的强力支持，这家以阴阳脸示人的《环球时报》不差钱，差的只是公信力。
The "Double-faced characteristic" of Global Times and Huanqiu Shibao
Written on August 20, 2011
(translated by krizcpec)
http://hqlenglish.blogspot.com/2011/08/double-faced-characteristic-of-global.html
The two papers mentioned in the title are actually two versions of the same paper, a key media stronghold that Beijing has given the crucial external propaganda missions of "shaping the national image and competing for the right to speak" abroad, and promoting the idea that "the whole world is jealous of how good we are" at home. It is because of something happened recently that I wrote an article specifically on this paper, something that Chinese media practitioners refer to as a reflection of the split in the character of that paper.
On August 9, 2011, the English version of the paper ran an exclusive: Ai Weiwei breaks his silence (authored by Liang Chen). That story did not appear in its Chinese version.
What that meant was, through that interview with Ai Weiwei, the external propaganda vehicle of Global Times was required to release to the world news that suit the needs of the Chinese government: Ai Weiwei is now "free to speak"; there is freedom of speech in China. At the same time, the paper attempted to use the "exclusive story" that the government has granted them to lift its own status among English newspapers. This is a trick Global Times often employs and to which the paper has got totally accustomed.
Not long ago on March 30 it also employed this trick. On that day, Global Times published an article "Three outspoken academics"（三个直陈时弊的学者）on Zhang Ming, Chen Danqing and He Weifang. In response to the Global Times report, He Weifang commented on Weibo, "Once again we see in this country the different sets of media control applied to media targeting market at home and abroad. How nice would it be if the Chinese version of that paper could be as frank, sincere, respectful to the facts and in compliance with media ethics."
I see this remark of He Weifang as an indication that he doesn't have an in-depth understanding of the purpose of Great External Propaganda. Base on the true nature of this inconsistency, I would prefer to call it as the "double-faced characteristic".
The paper caught my attention far earlier than that. Back in 2006 it fabricated a misleading lie. At that time, a documentary called Losers and Winners was released in Germany. The theme of that documentary was to compare the respective situations of the German workers and the Chinese ones working for Chinese businesses in Germany. While German workers have stronger awareness in their rights and get high pay, they increase business costs. Thus result in a mass exodus of businesses and have their jobs axed; their Chinese counterpart often work overtime, get low pay, and have to endure extremely poor working and living conditions – yet because of these, they get hired. The documentary then raised the question: German and Chinese workers, who exactly are winners, and who are losers?
On November 13, 2006 Deutsche Welle published an article about this documentary, which was "creatively" reproduced on Huanqiu Shibao later on. The article on Deutsche Welle bore the same title as the documentary; Huanqiu Shibao had changed that title into "Deutsche Welle: vigor of Chinese workers shocks Germans", thereby transformed an article that compared the plights in which workers of the two countries are trapped respectively into one that showed the Germans commendation for the Chinese workers. The "loser" image of Chinese workers regarding their rights was swept away completely.
In response to this, I wrote an article "Traps made by theChinese media (中国媒体制造的陷阱)". In it I compared the differences between the original article and the reproduced one and then pointed out that by employing such techniques as clipping, quoting out of context, and studied distortion, Huanqiu Shibao made a documentary that revealed the low status and the exploitation the Chinese workers suffered sound like one that documented the Chinese workers who traveled great distance to Europe and deeply moved the foreigners with their willingness to cope with harsh lives and exhausting work. And at the same time through the mouth of foreign media Huanqiu Shibao expresses the idea that with diligence in arduous conditions, China can swiftly surpass developed countries."
This wasn't the only instance that Huanqiu Shibao told damned lies. In 2008, with respect to the incident about Zhang Danhong, deputy director of the Chinese department of Deutsche Welle at the time, Huanqiu Shibao often published only those one-sided statements that were in favor of Zhang, deliberately ignored the true reasons for Zhang's dismissal: she lied and turned the public media vehicle with which she was in charge into a private tool to vent her personal anger; intentionally misled readers inside China into thinking that Zhang was sacked because of racial discrimination that resulted from her attempt to speak "fairly" on China.
The double-faced characteristic of that paper became even more obvious after its English version, Global Times, was launched on April 20, 2009. Since Global Times has the external propaganda mission of "getting the world to know China", its reports are not identical with Huanqiu Shibao. To obtain credibility, Global Times has to set aside its face of a mouthpiece, playing the role of "respecting the facts". Therefore, reports that run on Global Times would either make no appearance on, or be published very differently on Huanqiu Shibao.
Finally the double-faced characteristic of Global Times and Huanqiu Shibao caught the attention of Chinese Media industry. In the year following the launch of Global Times, it and its Chinese version became a hot topic in Chinese media. A media itself became a hot topic in the media, that probably could be seen as extraordinary in media history.
Zhan Jiang, professor of Department of international media, Beijing Foreign Studies University, wrote an article about the differences of Global Times and Huanqiu Shibao, "the split of character of Huanqiu Shibao". The example he cited was the reports from both on a report by the German Böll Foundation. On June 14, 2010, the German Böll Foundation published an overview of [basic situation of/ how] seven influential German media reported on China in 2008. After making a comparison, Zhan Jiang concluded that Global Times accurately reported the theme of the Böll Foundation report; whereas Huanqiu Shibao did it inaccurately, it even fabricated views of others and quoting the source out of context. Compared with other Chinese media, Huanqiu Shibao "went farthest in fabricating views of others".
Because of its approach to report as "a horn of patriotism", Huanqiu Shibao has been dubbed as "the base camp for Fenqing (Angry Youth)", "the nest of patriotic thieves", "commercial nationalism" and so on. Regarding this, Southern People Weekly had an interviewed with Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of Huanqiu Shibao on June 11. That interview, entitled "Huanqiu Shibaois not happy", revealed Hu's philosophy of running a newspaper and the past and present of Huanqiu Shibao, and is worth keeping for research purpose.
Hu Xijin has very thoroughly interpreted the political mission of the paper: Global Times is to run China's news with a global perspective; Huanqiu Shibao, global news with a China perspective. In brief, this means playing the double-faced role. Editor Hu is a person with excellent psychological quality. He manages to switch back and forth two different drama settings without going insane.
The problem is, information sent doesn't mean it's received; information received doesn't mean it would be interpreted in the way the sender had hoped. In Western societies, credibility is the source of life to media. But with Beijing's strong backing, this double-faced Huanqiu Shibao doesn't lack money, what it lacks is nothing other than credibility.
Categories: 民主社会 | 
标签："Global Times", 何清涟, 何清涟博客, 环球时报, 美国之音中文博客 | 
Leave a reply
18 comments
您收到此邮件是因为您订阅了 Google 网上论坛的"参考消息(G4G)"论坛。
要向此网上论坛发帖，请发送电子邮件至 go2group@googlegroups.com。
要取消订阅此网上论坛，请发送电子邮件至 go2group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com。
若有更多问题，请通过 http://groups.google.com/group/go2group?hl=zh-CN 访问此网上论坛。
其实"对外塑造国家形象、争夺话语权"也是个幌子，它们自己是个什么嘴脸、国外怎么看待它们，它们未必就不知道，现在这些党媒争着往外跑，恐怕是准备在土共完蛋时能先找到安全的庇护所吧。
应了那句老话，又要当婊子又要立牌坊!
管教中国共产党猪猡 用笔杆子行不通 中共猪们就怕子弹和煤气罐
其实中共人也是这样的阴阳脸，它们基本特征是人前一套、人后一套；台前一套、台后一套；见上奴颜奉承、见下则飞扬跋扈！这是马教长期假大空培养出来的！
办阴阳报的人是阴阳人吗？
他们这份英文版在海外有市场莫？
共产党的痞子教育成就了一大批胡锡进式的老愤青。君不见长城内外，从各级党政机关、科研机构到舆论喉舌，从军队到地方，从城市到农村，清一 色的痞子当家，霸道、流氓、蛮横、无教养，虚荣、谄媚、贪婪、无廉耻，这实在是当今典型的中国特色。将这些下流手段搬到媒体在国际舞坛上亮相，不以为耻反 以为荣，同这样的人和这样的政府还能奢谈什么"公信力"呢？说黑社会还抬举了，实在只是个流氓团伙。
何老师这篇搏文涉及好几个非常有意思的话题。关于Global Times 与《环球时报》的阴阳脸的问题，我想分享几点：
1 语言是中共宣传无法突破的障碍，一涉及英文外宣，要在英文媒体世界有一席之地，中共的媒体不得不尊重事实，说几句人话。但从正面角度解读，这也未必不是一件好事。
2 消费媒体的英文读者很精明，有很高的"media savvy" 我党的宣传用语根本走不出去。英文媒体对中国已经有了广泛影响，特别在金融科技方面读者甚多。但在社科，哲学还有差距。非常看好未来的发展前景。接触英文 媒体的读者自身的分辨能力也会提高，所以党的宣传会更加没有市场。
3 语言的确有巨大的power,我想如果中国人有1/10通英文，那中共的党文化就没有存在的可能。在香港，台湾，新加坡这些英文普及的地区，根本不担心中共宣传的挑战。本来英语文化就极为丰富，可以说，一个好莱坞就顶十个中宣部。
4 英文有许多地方是中文可以学习的地方，这种语言学上的比较非常有敏感性，但的确非常有意思，因为语言是思维的载体。英文的词汇定义精确，语法关系更加严 峻，的确值得学习。特别有意思的是，在英语口语中，贬义词的运用已经相当罕见，中文中冒犯他人的词汇更频繁，体现社会中人们相互尊重的程度。通过语言可以 了解社会。当然词汇的选择体现个人修养，但反过来语言也会影响个人的价值观念，从积极的意义讲，这种跨语言的影响力也是不可忽视的。
最后，希望Global Times 在英文媒体中有更多的公信力，然后带动《环球时报》的改变，让中文读者也能享受到客观，公众的新闻。
再加几句，中共对一则新闻的两种报道，的确是阴阳分裂，其实要平衡两者需要很高的创造力。这带来了许多黑色幽默般的喜剧色彩，联想到张伟国和林迪两位总是能拿这种笑话来嘲弄中共的尴尬。
许多在文革中长大，受过党文化洗礼的人不太有幽默感，真是希望有时间能把这些观察改编为更可乐的笑话和大家分享。条条大路通罗马，我是非常非常喜欢 The daily show with Jon Stewart中的智慧，以自嘲来讽刺，将来中文的翻版不会太远。经历过中共苦难的人，已经到来开始可以开怀的时刻。
我们村子里的所谓村官， 全是靠拳头打上去地痞流氓。回老家和他们说话，全都是一口的假话， 套话，酒话和带有流氓威胁性的狠话， 虽是同村人， 我是尿尿都不想朝那方向了。
赖昌星中国的厦门远华走私案查到中央部级层面告终 江泽民的干预江的老部下贾庆林1994至1996年间任福建省委书记贾妻林幼芳还主管福建外贸 正值远华发达期 中纪委书记贺国强在1996至1999年担任福建省长，国家副主席习近平1995年任省委副书记兼福州市委书记 1999年则接任省长 在当时都躲过一劫。这是个巨大的笑话 当年福建上上下下90%各部门官员涉案 这叫无为 要他们主政有何用？赖昌星走私普通货物 决不能判刑 判罚则可以说得过去 按照国际贯例 应无罪!!!有罪过的应该是执政当局为要!!!
中共黄俄特供匪帮扮了90年的阴阳脸了，应该是快要死了。中共黄俄特供匪帮90年来一贯弄虚作假坑蒙拐骗指鹿为马颠倒黑白数典忘祖违逆伦理 丧尽天良。随着中小学教育普及和大学不断的大规模扩招，中国年轻人的平均文化程度已经有了很大的提升，中共黄俄特供匪帮一直以来愚弄百姓的那一套假大空的 把戏已经基本没有市场了。
自由民主必胜。专制独裁必败。独裁者必然灭亡。利比亚人民已经胜利了。下一个是叙利亚，再下来就是伊朗和北韩，然后就是中国大陆了。历史站在中国人 民一边。以世界首富胡匪锦涛为首的中共黄俄特供匪帮猖狂不了几天了。自由民主均富公义博爱的新中国行将到来。残酷剥削压榨屠杀中国人民的中共黄俄流氓伪政 权必将迅速崩溃。
Global Times 与《环球时报》的阴阳脸，是中共语言歧视的一种体现。对于只通中文的读者，中共骗你没商量，如果你懂英文，那中共不得不说一些人话。
中国人和其他民族没差别，不应该被自己的政府歧视。
中共对中文读者的恶劣歧视，随意限制中文表达，导致中文语言退化，文化沙漠化。对于中共的要求很简单，就是对大家用中文说实话。
前几天还提到利比亚，没想到一夜之间独裁倒台，在此热烈祝贺利比亚人民颠覆独裁政府成功！真是让人欣慰的消息。一直想去这些独裁倒台的地区一起庆祝，分享快乐，不过现在独裁政府不剩几个，机会真的不多了。
现在国内中文媒体对利比亚的报道准确及时，力度也不弱，让中国人都看到了一个用武力镇压民众的独裁政权在众目睽睽之下倒去。不得不佩服中文媒体的成绩。这次真的没有阴阳脸，赞！
读了何老师写的"中国媒体制造的陷阱"，想到这陷阱这成的语言倒退，带来的思维混乱，可能是一个很好的学术课题。
如果说语言是思维的载体，那在中共荒诞的审查制度和胡编滥造的宣传政策下，人们的思维逻辑会受到深远的影响。在党文化最深处的领袖们，普遍口才欠 佳，都习惯性地逃避媒体，怕一张口就犯错。能在记者会上秀口才的，好像已经是上个世纪的事了。最近李克强在港大用英文演讲两分钟，就受到普遍的赞扬，真是 难得一见风气。
如果用普通的逻辑测验来测试的话，可以想象受党欺骗宣传多的民众会不及格。如果在测试中，加上党惯用的政治逻辑，更能弄混民众思维。有机会的话做一做这样的研究，一定能学术发表。
中共崇尚"精英治国"，其实也可以认同，但是靠媒体的"阴阳脸"来当精英实在是"Pathetic",对不对？
做一个调查，来这看帖子的网友都是哪里人？1）华人华侨；2）海外留学生；3）国内翻墙出来的
這個…對於前面的pupil說
"在香港，台湾，新加坡这些英文普及的地区，根本不担心中共宣传的挑战。"
這點,我是懷疑的
因為我在臺灣也看過不少人宣稱
六四事件是美國CIA幕後操控.美國協防台灣是美帝國主義者的陰謀
…等等
可見中共觀點的海外行銷還不算太失敗