- 外媒：習近平訪美之際中國對美投資創歷史最高 [2015/09]
- （轉載）習近平訪美，力促中美互利共贏 [2015/09]
- President Xi to show rising China's global role in US state visit [2015/09]
- 中國人學英語究竟錯在哪兒 [2013/10]
- 清華民生經濟研究院成立 [2015/01]
- 權力獵手郭文貴流亡美國 [2017/03]
- 讓你的人氣上漲的十句英語口語 [2013/10]
- 郭文貴自曝持多國護照 疑為多面間諜（圖） [2017/03]
- 揭秘「謝陽遭酷刑」真相:為迎合西方憑空捏造 [2017/03]
- 胡舒立要起訴郭文貴 發嚴正聲明 [2017/03]
- 英語中「無所謂」的8種犀利表達 [2013/11]
- 最In的英文短句精選 [2013/12]
- 鍛煉英語思維的9個句子 [2013/12]
- 揭秘達賴勾結美國邪教內幕（圖） [2016/03]
- 8歲男童通過國家英語三級 創全國最低齡紀錄 [2014/08]
- Chinese cult leader gets life in prison [2015/11]
- 悲哀的學生：校園裡的八大墮落文化(雙語) [2014/11]
- 世界十大房價最貴城市 有七個在中國(雙語) [2015/08]
- 法式旋律 標緻設計實驗室製造未來鋼琴 [2014/11]
Dear Miss Kate, Miss Aruna and Mr. Cezary:
On October 22, the Wall Street Journal published your report, China』s Pursuit of Fugitive Businessman Guo Wengui Kicks Off Manhattan Caper Worthy of Spy Thriller, which reported some of the contacts between official from China』s Ministry of State Security and Guo Wengui. The report writes about situation when four officials from China』s Ministry of State Security met with Guo Wengui, and cited insiders in the White House and documents given by Guo.
I have no objection to your report and actually it's a good story to say. But after repeated deliberation, there are a few serious problems that have forced me to write to you and submit the letter to SPJ.
First, in the report, you quoted Guo Wengui』s files which show that he was persecuted by Chinese government. What needs to be stressed is that these files are false documents. Not only Chinese government, but lawyer Wen Yunchao, Teng Biao and at least thousands of others pointed out that the documents are fake.
As professional journalists, I'm sure that you captured this vital point, then, why didn』t you indicate in time in your report that Guo Wengui』s files were widely considered to be forged or at least controversial?
I looked through your report, and find it at last in the 18th paragraph below the picture of documents, i.e., the second paragraph to the last that says with only a few words of understatement, 「Beijing has said the document is a forgery.」
This is a typical and irresponsible way of writing that deliberately mislead the readers. Due to the hassle of the long report, most readers will not browse through the end, which means that many of them can't see the simple statement at the end of the report.
I ask you, as professional media , if you report Guo Wengui』s events out of serious and objective media ethics, would you still write the report in this way? Will it highlight your rigorous and objective attitude if you mislead readers to believe in Guo Wengui』s forged papers? Can the standard of your work represent the Wall Street Journal's professional level?
Second, it is true that events of Guo Wengui have become sensitive and complicated due to legal issues that are added by political colors. But it doesn't change the fact that Guo has insulted and offended women. If you don』t believe in the previous content, can you accept and promote Guo Wengui's practice of abusing "Ma Rui is pig, and if she rape a pig, the pig commits a suicide" in his live broadcast. Do you despise women's rights and ignore the network humiliation of the victim just like this?
Harvey Weinstein sex scandal got picked up by all the major news services, but medias became blind when Marui was raped and Guo Wengui used social media to expose Marui』s privacy and abuse her. I want to ask you, what is your report』s principle, objectivity or optional negligence based on color or race. If Marui is a white, will you report Guo Wengui indiscriminately and describe him as a political symbol and try to get him off?
Third, many medias and network have revealed a great deal of record and video evidence that Guo had bribed Chinese officials and tried to win support of Britain and American reporters such as Michael Forsythe, Tony Blair and others since this year. This evidence makes it clear that Guo is trying to bribe everyone he contacts. It is also evident that his disclosure is fabricated and fabled.
I am not opposing to your report about Guo Wengui, but the way you deliberately hid some relevant details and cited so-called 「people familiar with the situation」 makes me wonder with every reason that during the process you wrote the story, Guo had tried to bribe you. Whether you have reaped the benefits is a problem I can not leave alone.
Besides, there are reasons to be sceptical the people you cited are puppets bought off and controlled by Guo Wengui. Given this, dare you swear to god that your report is rigorous, objective and compatible with American media』s value?
Fourth, I know that the Wall Street Journal is opposing President Trump. There』s no problem in it, the society in America is a free one, people have the right to support or oppose the President. Whether support or opposition, when being presented in a news report, it should not be tinged with the tendency of opposing for the sake of opposition.
According to your report, people who have been cited 21 times should be some senior advisers in the White House. President Trump was chosen by the people, his staff and team represent for the interest of America. If this team could forge ahead in unity, it would be a good news for people of America and the whole world.
However, the way you wrote the journal may put the team in a state of mutual suspicion. If the government can not focus on the developing of America because of mistrust, then who is to blame? Is it President Trump, the government, or you who tried to polarize the government?
In this world, China and America have become the progressive role models of this great era. Set aside ideological differences, if both countries could deepen mutually beneficial cooperation in economy, legislation, security, environmental protection and other fields, it would good news for people in these two and even the whole world.
It doesn』t make sense to me why someone would want to hinder the development of the world, why someone tried so hard using a clown and criminal to impede China-US cooperation, why someone attempted to deter people with a cheat and exhibitionist, who is of no political and economic values, from pursuit of well-being.
If there really is someone as described above, I have to say, the tycoon named Guo Wengui, who used to trap officials and medias through bribery and bugging, has successfully repeated the tricks in America, you and your so-called insiders have been bribed and become his puppets.
Because of this, I urge departments such as the American news management office and Journalists Association to launch a careful investigation into the biased report about Guo Wengui to maintain the credibility of American medias, clear names of the three journalists under questioning and reply to tens of thousands of netizens who had voted to question the journalists.
Written by @TwiZhanJ, a humble and ordinary Twitter user who cares about universal values and human development.
寫給華爾街三名記者的一封信：請恪守媒體人的原則與靈魂，並致美國新聞管理機構
尊敬的凱特、阿魯納女士，塞爾瑞先生：
10月22日，華爾街日報刊登一篇由你們執筆的，題為《中國國安人員赴美勸返郭文貴，各方交鋒堪比諜戰片》的報道，文章主要援引白宮知情人和郭文貴提供資料等方式，報道了中國國安人員與郭文貴接觸的一些情況。
首先，我對你們報道該起新聞事件沒有異議，可以說這是一篇看起來很不錯的報道，但仔細推敲下來，有幾個嚴重問題使我不得不給你們寫信，並同時將信件提交給美國的新聞管理機構。
第一、你們在報道中引用了郭文貴用以證明其受到中國政府迫害的文件。但需要指出的是，這幾份文件，在郭文貴出示后即已被廣泛證實為虛假文件。除了中國政府的聲明，溫雲超、滕彪律師等至少數千名網友均指證該文件卻系偽造。
作為專業的新聞人，我相信幾位一定捕捉到了這個至關重要的信息點，那麼，為什麼在閣下的報道中，並沒有及時指出郭文貴所出示的文件被輿論廣泛評價為偽造、或至少存在爭議性的重要情況呢？
我翻遍閣下的報道，終於在你們配發這幾份文件圖片的十八個自然段之後，也就是文章倒數第二段才看到了輕描淡寫的幾個字：「北京方面指出這份文件是偽造的」。
這是一種典型的刻意誤導讀者選擇性相信的不負責任的筆法，因為，由於文章的冗長，大多數讀者並不會一直看到結尾，也就是說，他們會因為沒有看到你們刻意安排在文末的簡陋聲明，而誤以為郭文貴出示的文件就是真的。
我請問，作為一個專業的媒體人，假如你們報道郭文貴事件完全是出於嚴謹客觀的媒體倫理，你們還會這樣安排行文嗎？你們刻意誤導讀者相信郭文貴偽造文件為真的做法，能夠凸顯你們的嚴謹客觀嗎？能夠代表華爾街日報專業媒體的專業水準嗎？
第二、誠然，由於簡單的法律問題被賦予政治色彩，導致郭文貴事件變得敏感而複雜。但是，這並不能改變郭文貴對女性侮辱侵犯的事實。如果你們不相信以前的，那麼郭文貴在直播里辱罵「馬蕊是豬、馬蕊強姦豬豬都會自殺」的做法，就是你們可以接受和弘揚的嗎？難道你們就是這樣蔑視女權，無視受害者遭遇這樣的網路羞辱嗎？
好萊塢女星遭韋恩斯坦性侵案發，你們爭相奔走報道，馬蕊被性侵，郭文貴利用社交媒體曝光其隱私、大肆對其進行辱罵，你們卻視而不見。我想請問你們，你們報道的守則，到底是嚴謹客觀，還是基於膚色、種族的選擇性忽視和歧視？假如馬蕊是一名白種人，你們還會不加選擇的報道郭文貴，並試圖把他渲染成一個具有政治因素的符號以為其脫罪嗎？
第三、今年以來，媒體和網路曝光了郭文貴行賄中國官員、試圖行賄收買傅才德、布萊爾等英美媒體人和政要的大量錄音和視頻證據，這些證據表明，郭文貴不但一直試圖行賄和收買和他接觸的每個人，更證明他的爆料純屬子虛烏有和憑空捏造。
我不反對你們報道有關郭文貴的事件，但你們這種刻意取捨和通篇援引所謂知情人的報道方式、傾向，使我有足夠理由懷疑你們在撰寫這篇報道文章的過程中，郭文貴也曾經試圖收買和賄賂你們，而你們是否收受了郭文貴的好處，是一個我不能不關注的問題。
此外，我同時還有足夠理由懷疑，你們所援引的所謂「知情人」，是已經被郭文貴用金錢收買和控制的傀儡。如此，你們是否還敢於面對上帝發誓你們的報道是嚴謹的、客觀的和符合美國媒體倫理價值的？
第四、我知道，華爾街日報是反對川普總統的。這沒有什麼問題，美國社會是自由的社會，人們可以支持總統，也可以反對總統。但是所有的支持或反對，當被以基於事實的新聞報道方式呈現出來的時候，就不應該夾帶有為了反對而反對的情緒和傾向。
根據你們的報道，被21次引用的「知情人」應該系白宮的高級幕僚，那麼我想請問的是，川普總統是美國人民選出來的總統，而他的幕僚和他的團隊，是代表美國利益的團隊，如果這個團隊能夠團結、奮進，那將是美國人民乃至世界人民的福音。
反觀之，你們在報道中使用所謂「知情人」的做法，卻可能使這個團隊陷入互相猜忌的狀態。如果這個政府因為互相猜忌，而不能集中精力致力於美國人民的發展，那麼誰將成為美國歷史的罪人？是川普、是政府，還是設法分化這個政府的你們？
當今世界，中美已成為不能阻擋的時代引領，拋開意識形態的差異，如果兩國能夠在經濟、法制、安全、環保等領域全面深入合作，那將是中美兩國乃至人類世界的福音。
我十分不能理解的是，為什麼有人想要阻擋世界的向前發展，為什麼有人在妄想利用一個小丑、罪犯來阻擋中美兩國的深度合作，為什麼有人在試圖用一個在政治經濟層面已沒有任何價值的騙子、窺陰癖來阻擋中美兩國人民共同追求美好生活的意願？
如果真的有，我只能說，那個叫做郭文貴的億萬富豪，那個曾經用行賄、竊聽、收買等骯髒手段圍獵官員媒體的人，如今已經在美國成功的故技重演，你們，還有你們背後所謂的「知情人」，已經統統被他圍獵收買，成為他的附庸。
鑒此，我希望，我呼籲，我敦促，美國新聞管理辦公室等有關機構、記者協會等能夠對華爾街日報三名記者傾向性報道郭文貴一事，展開縝密的調查，以維護美國媒體的公信力，同時也為這三名受到質疑的記者討一個清白，並給參與投票質疑這三位記者的數萬網友們，一個答覆。
BY：推特戰記，一個關注普世價值、人類發展但又十分卑微的普通推特人
On October 22, the Wall Street Journal published your report, China』s Pursuit of Fugitive Businessman Guo Wengui Kicks Off Manhattan Caper Worthy of Spy Thriller, which reported some of the contacts between official from China』s Ministry of State Security and Guo Wengui. The report writes about situation when four officials from China』s Ministry of State Security met with Guo Wengui, and cited insiders in the White House and documents given by Guo.
I have no objection to your report and actually it's a good story to say. But after repeated deliberation, there are a few serious problems that have forced me to write to you and submit the letter to SPJ.
First, in the report, you quoted Guo Wengui』s files which show that he was persecuted by Chinese government. What needs to be stressed is that these files are false documents. Not only Chinese government, but lawyer Wen Yunchao, Teng Biao and at least thousands of others pointed out that the documents are fake.
As professional journalists, I'm sure that you captured this vital point, then, why didn』t you indicate in time in your report that Guo Wengui』s files were widely considered to be forged or at least controversial?
I looked through your report, and find it at last in the 18th paragraph below the picture of documents, i.e., the second paragraph to the last that says with only a few words of understatement, 「Beijing has said the document is a forgery.」
This is a typical and irresponsible way of writing that deliberately mislead the readers. Due to the hassle of the long report, most readers will not browse through the end, which means that many of them can't see the simple statement at the end of the report.
I ask you, as professional media , if you report Guo Wengui』s events out of serious and objective media ethics, would you still write the report in this way? Will it highlight your rigorous and objective attitude if you mislead readers to believe in Guo Wengui』s forged papers? Can the standard of your work represent the Wall Street Journal's professional level?
Second, it is true that events of Guo Wengui have become sensitive and complicated due to legal issues that are added by political colors. But it doesn't change the fact that Guo has insulted and offended women. If you don』t believe in the previous content, can you accept and promote Guo Wengui's practice of abusing "Ma Rui is pig, and if she rape a pig, the pig commits a suicide" in his live broadcast. Do you despise women's rights and ignore the network humiliation of the victim just like this?
Harvey Weinstein sex scandal got picked up by all the major news services, but medias became blind when Marui was raped and Guo Wengui used social media to expose Marui』s privacy and abuse her. I want to ask you, what is your report』s principle, objectivity or optional negligence based on color or race. If Marui is a white, will you report Guo Wengui indiscriminately and describe him as a political symbol and try to get him off?
Third, many medias and network have revealed a great deal of record and video evidence that Guo had bribed Chinese officials and tried to win support of Britain and American reporters such as Michael Forsythe, Tony Blair and others since this year. This evidence makes it clear that Guo is trying to bribe everyone he contacts. It is also evident that his disclosure is fabricated and fabled.
I am not opposing to your report about Guo Wengui, but the way you deliberately hid some relevant details and cited so-called 「people familiar with the situation」 makes me wonder with every reason that during the process you wrote the story, Guo had tried to bribe you. Whether you have reaped the benefits is a problem I can not leave alone.
Besides, there are reasons to be sceptical the people you cited are puppets bought off and controlled by Guo Wengui. Given this, dare you swear to god that your report is rigorous, objective and compatible with American media』s value?
Fourth, I know that the Wall Street Journal is opposing President Trump. There』s no problem in it, the society in America is a free one, people have the right to support or oppose the President. Whether support or opposition, when being presented in a news report, it should not be tinged with the tendency of opposing for the sake of opposition.
According to your report, people who have been cited 21 times should be some senior advisers in the White House. President Trump was chosen by the people, his staff and team represent for the interest of America. If this team could forge ahead in unity, it would be a good news for people of America and the whole world.
However, the way you wrote the journal may put the team in a state of mutual suspicion. If the government can not focus on the developing of America because of mistrust, then who is to blame? Is it President Trump, the government, or you who tried to polarize the government?
In this world, China and America have become the progressive role models of this great era. Set aside ideological differences, if both countries could deepen mutually beneficial cooperation in economy, legislation, security, environmental protection and other fields, it would good news for people in these two and even the whole world.
It doesn』t make sense to me why someone would want to hinder the development of the world, why someone tried so hard using a clown and criminal to impede China-US cooperation, why someone attempted to deter people with a cheat and exhibitionist, who is of no political and economic values, from pursuit of well-being.
If there really is someone as described above, I have to say, the tycoon named Guo Wengui, who used to trap officials and medias through bribery and bugging, has successfully repeated the tricks in America, you and your so-called insiders have been bribed and become his puppets.
Because of this, I urge departments such as the American news management office and Journalists Association to launch a careful investigation into the biased report about Guo Wengui to maintain the credibility of American medias, clear names of the three journalists under questioning and reply to tens of thousands of netizens who had voted to question the journalists.
Written by @TwiZhanJ, a humble and ordinary Twitter user who cares about universal values and human development.
寫給華爾街三名記者的一封信：請恪守媒體人的原則與靈魂，並致美國新聞管理機構
尊敬的凱特、阿魯納女士，塞爾瑞先生：
10月22日，華爾街日報刊登一篇由你們執筆的，題為《中國國安人員赴美勸返郭文貴，各方交鋒堪比諜戰片》的報道，文章主要援引白宮知情人和郭文貴提供資料等方式，報道了中國國安人員與郭文貴接觸的一些情況。
首先，我對你們報道該起新聞事件沒有異議，可以說這是一篇看起來很不錯的報道，但仔細推敲下來，有幾個嚴重問題使我不得不給你們寫信，並同時將信件提交給美國的新聞管理機構。
第一、你們在報道中引用了郭文貴用以證明其受到中國政府迫害的文件。但需要指出的是，這幾份文件，在郭文貴出示后即已被廣泛證實為虛假文件。除了中國政府的聲明，溫雲超、滕彪律師等至少數千名網友均指證該文件卻系偽造。
作為專業的新聞人，我相信幾位一定捕捉到了這個至關重要的信息點，那麼，為什麼在閣下的報道中，並沒有及時指出郭文貴所出示的文件被輿論廣泛評價為偽造、或至少存在爭議性的重要情況呢？
我翻遍閣下的報道，終於在你們配發這幾份文件圖片的十八個自然段之後，也就是文章倒數第二段才看到了輕描淡寫的幾個字：「北京方面指出這份文件是偽造的」。
這是一種典型的刻意誤導讀者選擇性相信的不負責任的筆法，因為，由於文章的冗長，大多數讀者並不會一直看到結尾，也就是說，他們會因為沒有看到你們刻意安排在文末的簡陋聲明，而誤以為郭文貴出示的文件就是真的。
我請問，作為一個專業的媒體人，假如你們報道郭文貴事件完全是出於嚴謹客觀的媒體倫理，你們還會這樣安排行文嗎？你們刻意誤導讀者相信郭文貴偽造文件為真的做法，能夠凸顯你們的嚴謹客觀嗎？能夠代表華爾街日報專業媒體的專業水準嗎？
第二、誠然，由於簡單的法律問題被賦予政治色彩，導致郭文貴事件變得敏感而複雜。但是，這並不能改變郭文貴對女性侮辱侵犯的事實。如果你們不相信以前的，那麼郭文貴在直播里辱罵「馬蕊是豬、馬蕊強姦豬豬都會自殺」的做法，就是你們可以接受和弘揚的嗎？難道你們就是這樣蔑視女權，無視受害者遭遇這樣的網路羞辱嗎？
好萊塢女星遭韋恩斯坦性侵案發，你們爭相奔走報道，馬蕊被性侵，郭文貴利用社交媒體曝光其隱私、大肆對其進行辱罵，你們卻視而不見。我想請問你們，你們報道的守則，到底是嚴謹客觀，還是基於膚色、種族的選擇性忽視和歧視？假如馬蕊是一名白種人，你們還會不加選擇的報道郭文貴，並試圖把他渲染成一個具有政治因素的符號以為其脫罪嗎？
第三、今年以來，媒體和網路曝光了郭文貴行賄中國官員、試圖行賄收買傅才德、布萊爾等英美媒體人和政要的大量錄音和視頻證據，這些證據表明，郭文貴不但一直試圖行賄和收買和他接觸的每個人，更證明他的爆料純屬子虛烏有和憑空捏造。
我不反對你們報道有關郭文貴的事件，但你們這種刻意取捨和通篇援引所謂知情人的報道方式、傾向，使我有足夠理由懷疑你們在撰寫這篇報道文章的過程中，郭文貴也曾經試圖收買和賄賂你們，而你們是否收受了郭文貴的好處，是一個我不能不關注的問題。
此外，我同時還有足夠理由懷疑，你們所援引的所謂「知情人」，是已經被郭文貴用金錢收買和控制的傀儡。如此，你們是否還敢於面對上帝發誓你們的報道是嚴謹的、客觀的和符合美國媒體倫理價值的？
第四、我知道，華爾街日報是反對川普總統的。這沒有什麼問題，美國社會是自由的社會，人們可以支持總統，也可以反對總統。但是所有的支持或反對，當被以基於事實的新聞報道方式呈現出來的時候，就不應該夾帶有為了反對而反對的情緒和傾向。
根據你們的報道，被21次引用的「知情人」應該系白宮的高級幕僚，那麼我想請問的是，川普總統是美國人民選出來的總統，而他的幕僚和他的團隊，是代表美國利益的團隊，如果這個團隊能夠團結、奮進，那將是美國人民乃至世界人民的福音。
反觀之，你們在報道中使用所謂「知情人」的做法，卻可能使這個團隊陷入互相猜忌的狀態。如果這個政府因為互相猜忌，而不能集中精力致力於美國人民的發展，那麼誰將成為美國歷史的罪人？是川普、是政府，還是設法分化這個政府的你們？
當今世界，中美已成為不能阻擋的時代引領，拋開意識形態的差異，如果兩國能夠在經濟、法制、安全、環保等領域全面深入合作，那將是中美兩國乃至人類世界的福音。
我十分不能理解的是，為什麼有人想要阻擋世界的向前發展，為什麼有人在妄想利用一個小丑、罪犯來阻擋中美兩國的深度合作，為什麼有人在試圖用一個在政治經濟層面已沒有任何價值的騙子、窺陰癖來阻擋中美兩國人民共同追求美好生活的意願？
如果真的有，我只能說，那個叫做郭文貴的億萬富豪，那個曾經用行賄、竊聽、收買等骯髒手段圍獵官員媒體的人，如今已經在美國成功的故技重演，你們，還有你們背後所謂的「知情人」，已經統統被他圍獵收買，成為他的附庸。
鑒此，我希望，我呼籲，我敦促，美國新聞管理辦公室等有關機構、記者協會等能夠對華爾街日報三名記者傾向性報道郭文貴一事，展開縝密的調查，以維護美國媒體的公信力，同時也為這三名受到質疑的記者討一個清白，並給參與投票質疑這三位記者的數萬網友們，一個答覆。
BY：推特戰記，一個關注普世價值、人類發展但又十分卑微的普通推特人
- [03/11]胡舒立要起訴郭文貴 發嚴正聲明
- [03/11]郭文貴自曝持多國護照 疑為多面間諜（圖）
- [03/11]權力獵手郭文貴流亡美國
- [12/07]美國不是犯罪人員的避風港
- [12/07]郭文貴指使他人銷毀會計資料 非法拘禁
- [12/07] 致華爾街日報記者的公開信（中英文）
- 查看：[ccc6的.最新博文]
- 查看：[大家的.最新博文]
- 查看：[大家的.熱點雜談]
評論 (0 個評論)
ccc6最受歡迎的博文
其它[熱點雜談]博文更多
- 法道濟：川普共和天命屬，楚襄鄭袖江山誤
- light12：種族主義
- kylelong：轉基因農作物的危害列表
- 花名雞仔：談政治說國家大事還不如聊聊自己說說見聞實在得多
- 劉小雨：怎麼樣的才算是「少兒不宜」！
- fanlaifuqu：笑話？
- light12：左派
- 劉龍珠律師：劉龍珠律師法律評論：美國真黑暗，殺人兇手被法官稱為「好人」
- qxw66：也說王滬寧
- 花名雞仔：說說租房的事，我個人認為貸款買舊房做收租佬比做其它划算，
- 僑報郭劍：北京大妞逛美國有話要說
- tantianxing：馬雲阿里該不該對其電商平台上的假冒偽劣貨負責？
- 劉小雨：開天窗，中國式行為藝術
- 公子沈：沒把低端人口清理到集中營就算不錯了
- 舌尖上的世界：米開朗基羅的老師
- ryu：中國主辦世界網際網路大會竟被諷太監研討性高潮
- 劉龍珠律師：劉龍珠律師法律評論：為了保護孩子，性罪犯必須一棍子打死！
- qxw66：特朗普的稅改---監守自盜
- 異域堂：我看王岐山的「回鍋」
- kzhoulife：特朗普同志減稅，絕不是美帝亡我之心不死