【新唐人2013年04月26日讯】雅安地震后，“豆腐渣工程”、“红十字会被网友喊滚”、“救灾物资被扣押或倒卖”等丑闻被相继曝光，中共当局立刻发表禁止社会力量、民间团体、以及个人前往灾区的通知。日前，党媒《人民日报》甚至发表了要求国内外媒体不要前往灾区“添乱”的评论文章，被诸多媒体和资深记者认为是当局在借机加强新闻管制，以防止更多丑闻被曝光。
4月24号，中共喉舌《人民日报》发表评论文章，要求媒体记者不要到灾区采访，否则会打扰救援工作，并表示，包括媒体在内的各种社会力量，在灾区现场的作用“添乱大于贡献”。
原《河北人民广播电台》编辑、自由撰稿人朱欣欣：“记者真实的报导灾区的情况不能称为干扰，把灾区各方面真实的情况报导出来，让人们了解灾情，一个是满足大家了解灾区的愿望，同时也能让灾区救灾的工作能够透明、公开。”
《人民日报》评论说：“与灾区有关的重要信息，政府都会通过微博、网站公布。”但民众多表示：对官媒的信任度极低。
大陆博客作家刘逸明：“只要是官方的媒介发布的信息，我想都是很值得怀疑的。因为官方媒体弄虚作假由来以久，所以现在如果没有其他的媒体来报导佐证，我想很多消息读者是不愿意相信的。”
媒体人朱欣欣也认为，只通过官方或官方指定的某几个媒体发布的报导，不可能达到信息的真实与平衡，而信息的真实全面必须依赖于多方面的客观报导，这是基本常识。
朱欣欣：“记者要想真正的让公众了解灾情，必须得深入现场，得掌握第一手的材料，而不是只是转达、转述官方的新闻发言人，官方的一些说法，必须得直接面对现实、真实的情况，才能把灾区真实的情况告诉公众。”
官方认为，媒体在灾区会挤占各种资源，造成救援道路拥堵，但有网友质问，《新华社》派出的121人庞大报导队伍，相当于所有外媒记者的总和，难道就不占资源吗？
官方的另一个观点是，没有“媒体伦理”的记者，会只为了顾全自己的采访而影响救援工作。对此，也有人用事例反驳官方，说﹕北川、汶川地震时，为采访而阻止救援人员抢救，造成伤者死亡或强闯手术室，延误手术进度的几名记者，恰恰全部来自于《中央电视台》采访组。
刘逸明：“如果是添乱，那为什么有的媒体记者可以去呢？新华社、人民日报、央视三大媒体。说明他们怕人多嘴杂，有很多东西可能见不得人，不希望普通的媒体记者能够到现场去进行报导。”
资深媒体人普遍认为，官方不希望其他媒体前往灾区的主要原因，是担心实情被过多的曝光会威胁到中共的统治。
刘逸明：“记者多了，因为每个媒体都报导的话，就有可能他们报导的内容、情况跟官方一些媒体的报导有出入，有出入的话就容易让民众、让外界知道事实真相是什么样的，所以他们不愿意看到，希望能够垄断舆论。”
刘逸明还表示，《人民日报》发表这个文章，实际上就是在限制媒体的新闻报导。他所说的所谓干扰，可能是干扰了官方的一己私利，官方是站在自己立场，而不是站在公众的立场说话。
而中国独立新闻工作者、《经济学周报》前副总编高瑜也指出，《人民日报》这种垄断舆论，剥夺新闻自由的做法，只能激起更多民众的反感，以及公正媒体及记者的反抗。
采访/朱智善 编辑/张天宇 后制/李智远
Journalists Discouraged from Going to Earthquake-hit Areas
Scandals about the Ya’an earthquake
continue to be exposed.
These have included mention of jerry-built buildings,
China’s Red Cross was told to “Scram!” by netizens,
and relief supplies were seized or resold.
The Chinese Communist Party authorities
have issued a notice.
It bans social groups and individuals
from going to the earthquake-hit regions.
Now, a commentary published in the People’s Daily
discourages journalists from going there, too.
Media professionals comment that the CCP is
tightening control over the media, to prevent the exposure of more scandals.
On April 24, the People’s Daily, a CCP mouthpiece,
published a commentary.
The article discouraged journalists from going
for interviews in quake-hit regions,
this was said to be something which would
“hinder the relief work”.
The review alleged that for all social groups
including media,
their arrival at the disaster areas
would “cause troubles rather than be helpful”.
(Ex-editor, Hebei state radio station) Zhu Xinxin:
“Reporting of the true situation in quake-hit areas
cannot be called causing trouble.
News coverage should inform the public about
the real situation there,
this would help to keep details on progress
of relief work transparent.”
The official review alleged that “All important
information related to the damaged areas will
be released on official micro-blogs and websites.”
Many people never the less expressed
their distrust of official media.
(China blog writer)Liu Yiming: “All the news
items released by official media are doubtful.
The official media has been known
to be fraudulent.
So if there are no reports from other media,
people won’t believe what the official media say, I think.”
Zhu Xinxin holds the same view. He says that news
coverage by official media or by a few designated media
cannot fully reflect the reality of the situation.
Only extensive reporting can present the
authenticity and completeness of information,
this is simply common sense, Zhu Xinxin remarks.
Zhu Xinxin: “To get first-hand information about
the disaster, reporters have to arrive on the scene.
They should avoid becoming spokesmen who only
reproduce or forward the authorities’ remarks.
They have duties to report on the real situation,
and to inform the public about the truth.”
The review article claimed that the
media at the scene would occupy all resources and
cause road congestion which would hinder rescue teams.
A netizen posed the question, “Xinhua News Agency has
sent 121 journalists there, which is the equivalent of the total number of foreign reporters.
That isn’t deemed to be interfering with or
using up resources, is it?”
The commentary argued that the reporters who
“lack professional ethics” will impede rescue work,
as they would only pursue interviews.
Some netizens refuted the view with some facts
that happened in rescuing victims in the Beichuan and Wenchuan earthquakes.
At the scene, a CCTV journalist, in order to ensure
interviews, prevented rescue workers from progressing,
this resulted in the death of a survivor.
Another CCTV journalist forcibly broke into an
operating theatre, interrupting surgery in progress.
Liu Yiming: “Speaking of making trouble,
how come some reporters are allowed to go there?
Reporters from the Big Three media, Xinhua News Agency,
the People’s Daily and CCTV, were all given green lights.
This shows that the authorities fear reporters
from other media going to the scene.
There may be some truth still hidden from public.
So they don’t want reporters from other media
to report at the scene.”
Many media professionals believe that the reason
behind all this, is that more exposure of the truth will threaten the CCP’s rule.
Liu Yiming: “Other reporters’ coverage may differ from
that of the official media.
The difference will offer clues to the public,
triggering an exposure of the truth.
That’s against the authorities’ wishes,
they’ve always wanted to control the media.”
Liu Yiming indicates that the essence of
this commentary is to restrict media reporting.
The alleged interference may refer to affecting
the authorities’ one-sided interest.
Liu remarks that this article spoke for the authorities,
rather than for the public.
China’s independent journalist Gao Yu comments.
The People’s Daily’s voice is against freedom of media.
She warns that the act will only arouse more public
resentment and resistance from impartial media and reporters.
