Many people may still remember the performance of Shanghai media during the pandemic lockdown in April last year:
At that time, it was rumored online that the sidewalks of the Bund had grown grass because no one had been active there. There were pictures to prove it. The Oriental Pearl Tower, which is several hundred meters long, was standing there, but Shanghai media dared to come forward to refute the rumor. They sent a reporter to investigate on the spot, saying that the place where the grass grew was not the “Bund” that everyone usually refers to, and asked everyone not to spread rumors.
Shanghai-style rumor-refuting has left a deep impression on people with the performance of Shanghai media in a series of hot news events.
Well, after the Shanghai woman’s car accident and blood transfusion rescue incident fermented for many days, Shanghai-style rumor-refuting came again.
As a former media person, I will combine this report to let everyone watch the excitement and understand some tricks.
First of all, I have to say that this title is quite good. Five questions to the truth, restore the process. Those who don’t know the situation think that the reporters are standing on the public’s position to question fairness. After reading it, I realized that they were assigned the task to help the Shanghai Municipal Health Commission refute rumors.
But since the title is so high, you should at least pretend to be, but I didn’t expect that the first few paragraphs would reveal the truth.
The joint interview reporting team composed of many reporters from Shanghai United Media Group’s Shangguan News and The Paper News, through days of on-site investigation, “clarified” the before and after of the incident.
You are doing a joint interview report, and even two media outlets have published the same article. How can you make people believe that you are doing a “investigative report”?
Moreover, you, a group of reporters, under the official organization, interviewed the parties who had already agreed on their statements one by one. Don’t pretend that the interview is difficult, okay? What are you talking about, “days of on-site investigation” for a collective interview that has been arranged? It’s really embarrassing for people in the industry to see…
Let’s talk about the specific content of the report. For one of the core facts that the public is concerned about, whether there are official personnel donating blood must be the focus of the investigation and interview, and it must be verified by multiple parties, right?
The reporter learned from the government staff of Ali that indeed, cadres and employees donated blood for the injured woman, but it was not officially organized.
To be honest, if I were the editor, I would definitely return the manuscript for supplementary interviews when I saw the reporter writing like this. Because it is easy to find the official report of the Ali Fire Brigade in the previous public information:
While saying that there was no official organization to donate blood, the fire brigade said that it immediately organized and actively donated blood. Such an obvious contradiction, the reporter must ask a question out of professional ethics.
Of course, there is room for discussion as to whether the organization of the leaders of the fire brigade is considered an official organization, but with such obvious and powerful written evidence, can the reporter just turn a blind eye?
Refuting rumors is a good thing, and donating blood to save lives is also a great thing, but refuting rumors should always come up with solid investigation conclusions to respond to public questions. Can’t you just let an unnamed Ali government staff say whatever they want? After all, reporters are people with thinking and discrimination abilities, not a recording pen with automatic transcription function.
And the identity of the “aunt” that people are most concerned about. What the public really cares about is whether there is anyone behind the scenes exercising privileges and causing inequality in terms of life safety. The performance of the Shanghai joint interview reporting team in refuting rumors is disappointing again.
According to the report of The Paper News, the rumored aunt with great energy is only a retired worker from a handicraft factory, 60 years old this year, and has a daughter-in-law working in a bank, who played an important role.
After the incident, the “aunt” contacted her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law asked for help from the leaders of the unit. During this period, many enthusiastic people relayed the information, and finally contacted the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government Office in Tibet.
Not to mention whether this ultra-long information transmission channel really exists, just to say that this process involves many state-owned enterprises or government leading cadres, it should not be simply described as “many enthusiastic people relaying”.
Are you really concerned about the aunt’s name? What you care about is whether public officials or powerful people have used their power and influence to violate regulations in this process. What you care about is whether your relatives can replicate this lifeline that allows the Health Commission to issue a letter when they are in danger!
When it comes to the most important part, it is blurred with a stroke, and then the conclusion is drawn that “there is no action caused by personal relationships”. How can this rumor-refuting be convincing?
In fact, based on personal experience, I think the general outline of the story mentioned in the above report is roughly correct. Whether it is mobilizing doctors or mobilizing blood donation, it is undoubtedly a good thing to save lives. Even if some human relationships are mixed in, we, as Chinese, can understand.
If you really want to refute rumors, it is enough to clarify the absurd rumors such as “compulsory blood donation for all civil servants” and “queue jumping for liver transplantation”.
The matter of finding relationships to have the Shanghai Health Commission or the Shanghai Office in Tibet issue a letter is definitely not a treatment that ordinary people can fairly enjoy. A few days ago, the media also interviewed the Shanghai Health Commission, asking whether it could coordinate with other places to donate blood for the injured, and it was not surprisingly pushed to the hospital where the incident occurred, and it would not intervene.
The fact that “Sister Blood Tank” was able to be saved must be due to the factors of human relationships. This is the basic common sense that all Chinese people know in their hearts, and you can’t refute it.
What’s more, your posture level is not enough, and your news interview business ability is not up to par. You use this half-baked information of “many enthusiastic people relaying” to refute rumors…
Just this, and you still want everyone to accept the conclusion that “everything is done in public”, it’s too naive.
As the “masses without aunts”, please forgive me for not accepting the Shanghai media’s rumor-refuting.
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.