超级军网克鲁格曼：美国媒体的中国综合症（刊于《纽约时报》）
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 18:00:18
The China Syndrome
By Paul Krugman
New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 13 May 2003
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.
In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.
Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it, punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.
A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants. The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.
The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naïve not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news ????utive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that ????utive that the administration could punish any network running that story.
Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.
We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)The China Syndrome
By Paul Krugman
New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 13 May 2003
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.
In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.
Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it, punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.
A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants. The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.
The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naïve not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news ????utive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that ????utive that the administration could punish any network running that story.
Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.
We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
By Paul Krugman
New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 13 May 2003
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.
In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.
Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it, punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.
A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants. The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.
The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naïve not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news ????utive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that ????utive that the administration could punish any network running that story.
Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.
We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)The China Syndrome
By Paul Krugman
New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 13 May 2003
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."
Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.
What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors — the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.
In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire — which includes Fox News and The New York Post — is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service — which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated — from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.
Can something like that happen in this country? Of course it can. Through its policy decisions — especially, though not only, decisions involving media regulation — the U.S. government can reward media companies that please it, punish those that don't. This gives private networks an incentive to curry favor with those in power. Yet because the networks aren't government-owned, they aren't subject to the kind of scrutiny faced by the BBC, which must take care not to seem like a tool of the ruling party. So we shouldn't be surprised if America's "independent" television is far more deferential to those in power than the state-run systems in Britain or — for another example — Israel.
A recent report by Stephen Labaton of The Times contained a nice illustration of the U.S. government's ability to reward media companies that do what it wants. The issue was a proposal by Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to relax regulations on media ownership. The proposal, formally presented yesterday, may be summarized as a plan to let the bigger fish eat more of the smaller fish. Big media companies will be allowed to have a larger share of the national market and own more TV stations in any given local market, and many restrictions on "cross-ownership" — owning radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in the same local market — will be lifted.
The plan's defects aside — it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people — what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naïve not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
And the implicit trading surely extends to news content. Imagine a TV news ????utive considering whether to run a major story that might damage the Bush administration — say, a follow-up on Senator Bob Graham's charge that a Congressional report on Sept. 11 has been kept classified because it would raise embarrassing questions about the administration's performance. Surely it would occur to that ????utive that the administration could punish any network running that story.
Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" — a large minority — that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.
We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
美国新闻界中的中国综合症
多维社记者叶慕予报导：美国麻省理工大学著名经济学家、专栏作家克鲁格曼(PAUL KRUGMAN)最近在专栏文章中说﹐看看如下这一矛盾现象﹕BBC是英国政府拥有的媒体﹐人们很自然地认为﹐BBC应该会支持英国政府的立场﹐然而事实上﹐在伊拉克战争中﹐BBC没有﹐恰恰相反﹐它非常努力地--在该台的批评者看来﹐过于努力了--试图保持中立﹔美国的电视网都是私有的﹐然而它们的行为如与国有媒体无异。
耶鲁大学《全球化研究中心网络刊物》转载了克鲁格曼的评论文章。
克鲁格曼说﹐在伊拉克战争期间﹐发生了一件很好笑的事情﹐即很多美国人不收听美国电视台的新闻﹐而且收听英国BBC新闻﹐这些美国公众觉得﹐他们希望能够听到不同于美国新闻网上传播的观点﹐用BBC负责人的话说﹐“美国的新闻网都被包裹在美国国旗之中﹐并以爱国主义取代不偏不倚的报导。”
先且不管战争本身的对错﹐看看如下这一矛盾现象﹕BBC是英国政府的媒体﹐人们很自然地认为﹐BBC应该会支持英国政府的立场﹐然而事实上﹐BBC没有﹐恰恰相反﹐它非常努力地--在该台的批评者看来﹐过于努力了--试图保持中立﹔美国的电视网都是私有的﹐然而它们的行为如同国有无异。
如何解释这种矛盾现象﹖
克鲁格曼说﹐可能同中国综合症有关﹐即﹐媒体大亨默多克(Rupert Murdoch)拥有的新闻集团(News Corporation)在同中国政府打交道时显示出来的问题。在美国拥有福克斯新闻网(Fox News)以及纽约邮报(New York Post)的默多克媒体帝国是出名的爱国主义的吹鼓手。但是﹐正如杂志所指出的﹐虽然默多克的爱国是出了名的﹐这种爱国主义却并没有妨碍他迎合中国政府的胃口﹐以让自己进入中国这个巨大的市场﹐也没有妨碍他命令他的出版公司取消出版一本抨击中国政府的书籍。
这种在中国发生的事情会在美国上演吗﹖
克鲁格曼说﹐当然可能。美国政府可以通过决策﹐特别是同媒体管理规则有关的决策﹐来奖赏那些让自己高兴的媒体公司﹐惩罚那些不听话的媒体﹐这就造成了美国媒体向政府邀宠的动机。而另一方面﹐美国的媒体都是私有的﹐因此﹐不象BBC那样会受到严格的审视﹐以确保不会成为执政党的工具。
因此﹐克鲁格曼说﹐如果美国的媒体对美国政府远比英国BBC或者以色列的媒体对它们的政府温顺﹐公众丝毫不要感到奇怪。
克鲁格曼说﹐最近，记者拉巴顿(Stephen Labaton)发表文章非常出色地说明了美国政府如何奖赏那些听话的媒体的。据拉巴顿的报导﹐美国联邦交通委员会主席鲍威尔(Michael Powell)提议放松对媒体所有权的管制。概括地说﹐该提议就是允许新闻界大鱼吞并小鱼﹐大的媒体公司可以进一步扩大它们在新闻业的市场份额﹐同时允许交叉所有权﹐很多有关的管制都将被取消。
克鲁格曼指出﹐先撇开这一提议本身的缺陷--该提议将进一步减少新闻界中的多样化--不谈﹐围绕这一提议而产生的幕后交易让他非常吃惊。美国的一家媒体公司就致信鲍威尔说﹐该公司可以放弃对他的提议中某部分的反对﹐已换取鲍威尔在另外问题上的让步。
这种幕后交易肯定蔓延到新闻报导的内容。美国联邦民主党籍参议员格拉汉姆指责布什政府至今拒绝公开国会911攻击报告﹐因为担心该报告中的一些内容可能让布什政府非常难堪。克鲁格曼指出﹐想象一下﹐如果某媒体公司的管理人员对此事进行跟踪报导﹐该公司及其管理人员会有什么好结果﹖
同时﹐此前一直防止媒体出现明目张胆的党派色彩的那些正式规则与道德原则现在也要么被抛弃﹐要么被无视。福克斯新闻网的卡夫托(Neil Cavuto)是新闻节目主持﹐而不是评论员﹐但在美国攻占伊拉克首都巴格达之后﹐他却在节目中明目张胆地说﹐“那些反对‘自由伊拉克行动’的人﹐在美国军队攻占巴格达之前﹐你们有病﹐现在你们也有病。”
克鲁格曼说﹐这就是美国媒体的所谓公正与平衡。
多维社记者叶慕予报导：美国麻省理工大学著名经济学家、专栏作家克鲁格曼(PAUL KRUGMAN)最近在专栏文章中说﹐看看如下这一矛盾现象﹕BBC是英国政府拥有的媒体﹐人们很自然地认为﹐BBC应该会支持英国政府的立场﹐然而事实上﹐在伊拉克战争中﹐BBC没有﹐恰恰相反﹐它非常努力地--在该台的批评者看来﹐过于努力了--试图保持中立﹔美国的电视网都是私有的﹐然而它们的行为如与国有媒体无异。
耶鲁大学《全球化研究中心网络刊物》转载了克鲁格曼的评论文章。
克鲁格曼说﹐在伊拉克战争期间﹐发生了一件很好笑的事情﹐即很多美国人不收听美国电视台的新闻﹐而且收听英国BBC新闻﹐这些美国公众觉得﹐他们希望能够听到不同于美国新闻网上传播的观点﹐用BBC负责人的话说﹐“美国的新闻网都被包裹在美国国旗之中﹐并以爱国主义取代不偏不倚的报导。”
先且不管战争本身的对错﹐看看如下这一矛盾现象﹕BBC是英国政府的媒体﹐人们很自然地认为﹐BBC应该会支持英国政府的立场﹐然而事实上﹐BBC没有﹐恰恰相反﹐它非常努力地--在该台的批评者看来﹐过于努力了--试图保持中立﹔美国的电视网都是私有的﹐然而它们的行为如同国有无异。
如何解释这种矛盾现象﹖
克鲁格曼说﹐可能同中国综合症有关﹐即﹐媒体大亨默多克(Rupert Murdoch)拥有的新闻集团(News Corporation)在同中国政府打交道时显示出来的问题。在美国拥有福克斯新闻网(Fox News)以及纽约邮报(New York Post)的默多克媒体帝国是出名的爱国主义的吹鼓手。但是﹐正如杂志所指出的﹐虽然默多克的爱国是出了名的﹐这种爱国主义却并没有妨碍他迎合中国政府的胃口﹐以让自己进入中国这个巨大的市场﹐也没有妨碍他命令他的出版公司取消出版一本抨击中国政府的书籍。
这种在中国发生的事情会在美国上演吗﹖
克鲁格曼说﹐当然可能。美国政府可以通过决策﹐特别是同媒体管理规则有关的决策﹐来奖赏那些让自己高兴的媒体公司﹐惩罚那些不听话的媒体﹐这就造成了美国媒体向政府邀宠的动机。而另一方面﹐美国的媒体都是私有的﹐因此﹐不象BBC那样会受到严格的审视﹐以确保不会成为执政党的工具。
因此﹐克鲁格曼说﹐如果美国的媒体对美国政府远比英国BBC或者以色列的媒体对它们的政府温顺﹐公众丝毫不要感到奇怪。
克鲁格曼说﹐最近，记者拉巴顿(Stephen Labaton)发表文章非常出色地说明了美国政府如何奖赏那些听话的媒体的。据拉巴顿的报导﹐美国联邦交通委员会主席鲍威尔(Michael Powell)提议放松对媒体所有权的管制。概括地说﹐该提议就是允许新闻界大鱼吞并小鱼﹐大的媒体公司可以进一步扩大它们在新闻业的市场份额﹐同时允许交叉所有权﹐很多有关的管制都将被取消。
克鲁格曼指出﹐先撇开这一提议本身的缺陷--该提议将进一步减少新闻界中的多样化--不谈﹐围绕这一提议而产生的幕后交易让他非常吃惊。美国的一家媒体公司就致信鲍威尔说﹐该公司可以放弃对他的提议中某部分的反对﹐已换取鲍威尔在另外问题上的让步。
这种幕后交易肯定蔓延到新闻报导的内容。美国联邦民主党籍参议员格拉汉姆指责布什政府至今拒绝公开国会911攻击报告﹐因为担心该报告中的一些内容可能让布什政府非常难堪。克鲁格曼指出﹐想象一下﹐如果某媒体公司的管理人员对此事进行跟踪报导﹐该公司及其管理人员会有什么好结果﹖
同时﹐此前一直防止媒体出现明目张胆的党派色彩的那些正式规则与道德原则现在也要么被抛弃﹐要么被无视。福克斯新闻网的卡夫托(Neil Cavuto)是新闻节目主持﹐而不是评论员﹐但在美国攻占伊拉克首都巴格达之后﹐他却在节目中明目张胆地说﹐“那些反对‘自由伊拉克行动’的人﹐在美国军队攻占巴格达之前﹐你们有病﹐现在你们也有病。”
克鲁格曼说﹐这就是美国媒体的所谓公正与平衡。
说的好：这就是美国媒体的所谓公正与平衡。
前几天竟然还有一猪脑的人跟我说什么美国的新闻自由，气的我费了好多墨水。现在有些中国人被美国人的屁一熏就变成猪脑了，比SARS还难治，真希望有预防的疫苗。
好文章，应该让很多的人看看！
黑黑，中国人自古就不短汉奸的～，冰山1949 说的好！
黑黑，中国人自古就不短汉奸的～，冰山1949 说的好！
如果一些中国媒体对新闻的报道用可气来表达的话，那美国的
媒体对新闻的报到就非用可恶来形容了，中国媒体有时只是不
利新闻隐瞒不报，而美国呢？它不但是不利新闻隐瞒不报而且
还涅造一些假新闻来混崤视听捏造事实，实属可误。在美国根
本不存在任何言论自由，有的只是媒体造假的自由。大家一定
要清醒！[em23]
媒体对新闻的报到就非用可恶来形容了，中国媒体有时只是不
利新闻隐瞒不报，而美国呢？它不但是不利新闻隐瞒不报而且
还涅造一些假新闻来混崤视听捏造事实，实属可误。在美国根
本不存在任何言论自由，有的只是媒体造假的自由。大家一定
要清醒！[em23]
关于这一点，我想有不少中国人其实早就心知肚明了，只不过在以前的那种大环境下，占很大比例的中国人是很信任老美的，因此没人会大张旗鼓的说些大部份人不爱听的话。我在读初中的时候，只要一说老美什么不好，班上大部份人就会怒目相向，骂我个狗血淋头，那时候就感到很悲哀：我们把别国的政府奉若神明，对本国政府却视如粪土，最起码，这就是一个大大的笑话！ 不过这十年来，情况有了很大的变化，老美的狐狸尾巴是无论如何都会露出来的，中国人也不会一直傻下去！