use unicode setting for traditional Chinese
在中國, 編輯勝利, 和失敗奮鬥在新建新聞自由之間, 共產黨顯然由拘留

In China, an Editor Triumphs, and Fails

Struggle Between New Press Freedoms,
Communist Party Evident by Jailing

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page A01

GUANGZHOU, China – It was past 9:30 p.m. when the reporters finished writing. The presses were scheduled to begin printing the next day's issue of the Southern Metropolis Daily in a few hours, and space for a large headline had been reserved on the front page.

南部的大 都會每日  (The Southern Metropolis Daily)

But when the night editor read their story – an investigative report about a young college graduate who had been detained by local police and beaten to death in custody – he hesitated. Then he picked up a phone and called Cheng Yizhong, the paper's star editor.
Cheng Yizhong and Yu Huafeng
Cheng Yizhong, left, and Yu Huafeng, the Southern Metropolis Daily's general manager, incurred the wrath of local authorities when they published an investigative report about a man who died after being beaten in police custody.           (Family Handout)

Cheng had built the Daily into this southern city's most popular and profitable tabloid, practicing a feisty brand of journalism editors across China were trying to imitate. But a few days earlier, in a clampdown ordered by a new Communist Party leader in the province, he had been stripped of his title as editor in chief. He was now running the paper as deputy editor.

Others in the newsroom had briefed him twice about the article, but given the circumstances, the night editor wanted to check with him one last time, colleagues recalled. The story was certain to anger government officials, and there was still time to pull it. Instead, Cheng gave the order to publish.

The article, published April 25, 2003, spread quickly on the Internet, and newspapers across the country reprinted it. Reporters dug deeper, exposing abuses in a nationwide network of detention camps that purchased and sold inmates like slaves. Put on the defensive by rising public outrage, Beijing ordered the camps closed and abolished a decades-old law that gave police sweeping powers to imprison people at will.

It was a landmark victory for the Chinese press; never before had reporters influenced national policy in such a dramatic fashion. But in March, Cheng was arrested and two of his colleagues were sentenced to long prison terms in a corruption probe that party sources said was an act of retaliation by local officials.

What happened to Cheng highlights a momentous and complex struggle now underway between the country's increasingly independent-minded and profit-driven state media and entrenched interests inside the ruling Communist Party. The outcome could determine the future not only of journalism in China but also of the largest authoritarian political system in the world.

More than a quarter century after China launched economic reforms while continuing to restrict political freedom, the government still owns and controls all of the country's newspapers and television stations. But journalists have fought off party censors in one sensitive subject area after another, and they are waging a daily battle for even greater freedoms.

This push is driven in part by economics. In a sweeping industry overhaul, the government is withdrawing subsidies from state media outlets, holding them responsible for their own profits and losses and opening the door to private investment. The market has led newspapers to set aside propaganda and deliver stories that readers are actually interested in. Many have turned to gossip or entertainment, but there is also a financial incentive to produce a scarce commodity: journalism that challenges the government.

The party is torn about this creeping expansion of media freedoms. It believes a more assertive press can help it fight corruption and improve governance, but is afraid of losing control over an institution critical to its monopoly on power. Regular skirmishing between journalists and officials who want to suppress stories that make them look bad has threatened the party's unity. And as journalists begin to view themselves as watchdogs for the public rather than lap dogs for the party, the government's old methods of control are weakening.
New Journalism

On Sept. 1, 1997, readers who picked up the Southern Metropolis Daily found a different kind of Communist Party newspaper. Instead of the latest pronouncements on Marxism, a quarter of the paper's 16 pages were devoted to the death of Princess Diana. The tabloid stunned its rivals; almost every newspaper in China had covered Diana's death with only a few hundred words.

The tabloid was an experiment launched by a staid party newspaper, the Southern Daily, to grab more advertising in this booming city of 7 million.

Cheng was not yet 30, the youngest member of a three-man committee appointed to set up the paper. He was a party member and a rising star, a peasant's son who landed a job with the Southern Daily after studying literature at Guangzhou's most prestigious university. He had already distinguished himself as a creative editor, so when he volunteered to help start the tabloid, he was named deputy editor.

"It meant more pressure and more work, but he asked to do it," recalled his wife, Chen Junying, a fellow editor at the Southern Daily. "He wanted work that was more honest, and more competitive, and of greater significance."

A quiet man with a youthful face, Cheng threw himself into the project, studying newspapers around the world, writing a 10,000-word plan of action and personally designing the tabloid's masthead using 5th century calligraphy from the Northern Wei dynasty. His wife had just had a baby, but it was the newspaper he doted on.

The newspaper employed fewer than a hundred reporters then, and Cheng edited and laid out several pages each night. He also pioneered a new genre of journalism in China, writing reviews of the foreign films that were becoming widely available on video CDs.

The newspaper bled money at first, and Cheng's bosses had their doubts. In one meeting, Cheng argued it would soon become Guangzhou's top newspaper. His audience burst out laughing, colleagues recalled.

But Cheng kept pushing. The paper became the first in China to offer daily consumer sections – automobiles on Monday and real estate on Thursday, for example. It broke new ground with blowout coverage of World Cup finals in 1998, publishing eight pages a day for 43 consecutive days to the delight of this soccer-crazed nation.

The newspaper also began to distinguish itself with more critical reporting on such social problems as crime and corruption, causing a sensation, for example, with a report on restaurants that used cooking oil extracted from kitchen waste.

While other newspapers avoided angering local officials by muckraking only in other provinces, the Daily focused on hard-hitting reporting in its own city and region.

The strategy worked. Circulation climbed from 80,000 at the end of 1997 to 380,000 a year later. After a talented, young advertising manager, Yu Huafeng, joined the staff, revenues jumped, too. In its third year, circulation reached 610,000 and the paper eked out its first profit.

By 2000, the Southern Metropolis Daily had become both the thickest and most expensive daily newspaper in China, charging about 12 cents for 72 pages. The next year, the party promoted Cheng to editor in chief. Yu became a top deputy and the paper's general manager. The average age of the Daily's 2,200 employees was 27 in 2002. The average age of the members of its senior management was 33.

The newspaper was pugnacious. Once, local officials in the neighboring city of Shenzhen tried to banish it from its newsstands. The next day, a headline on the paper's front page declared, "Someone in Shenzhen Shamelessly Shut Out This Newspaper." A month and a half later, the ban was lifted.

Colleagues described Cheng as an eloquent speaker. At weekly staff meetings, he urged his reporters to remember they were working for the public. In one memo, a reporter recalled, he criticized an article describing the problems caused by the city's prostitutes. He said the paper should sympathize with the weak and concentrate on "supervising" the strong.

"In the newspaper business, we have already learned how to be out of power," Cheng said in an interview distributed by the paper's marketing department in 2002. "Now, we must learn how to act like a newspaper that is in power."

Cheng said the party had given the press a mandate to monitor local officials. But he said he also picked his targets carefully. "In China, supervision by the media can only proceed within the existing system," he said. "Freedom means knowing how big your cage is."

A Brief Victory

A few days after Chen Feng was hired as a reporter at the Southern Metropolis Daily in late March last year, he received a hot tip. A college student told him she had heard that a 27-year-old graphic designer named Sun Zhigang had died in police custody after being detained for failing to carry his temporary residence permit.

Chen was worried the story might be too sensitive. But without hesitating, his editor gave him permission to investigate, he recalled.

Chen, 31, a portly fellow with close-cropped hair, teamed up with a colleague, Wang Lei, 28, who was taller and thinner and sported a goatee and long hair. They found Sun's family, and convinced them to ask a medical examiner for an autopsy. A few weeks later, they learned the results: Sun had been beaten to death.

The two reporters briefed one of the paper's top editors. He immediately expressed interest, they recalled, and issued specific instructions: First, make sure to get every detail right. Second, get the story done fast before propaganda authorities could order the paper not to write about the subject. China has never employed an extensive system of censors. Instead, the party appoints the editors of every newspaper, issues directives banning coverage of specific subjects and relies on journalists to censor themselves. Those who don't comply are fired or demoted, and in some cases, their publications are shut down. On rare occasions, a journalist might be arrested.

Chen and Wang moved quickly, interviewing Sun's friends, employers and relatives as well as medical and legal experts. Then they tried to interview police and were told to go away at two precinct houses and city headquarters. They planned to write the story the next day.

But their editor was worried, they recalled. He said they should have waited until the last day to contact police, because the police might call the propaganda authorities and squash the story. Then he ordered them to write it that night.

The article was splashed across two pages. On the tabloid's front, a large headline read, "The Death of Detainee Sun Zhigang." A smaller one said, "University Graduate, 27, Suddenly Dies Three Days After Detention on Guangzhou Street, Autopsy Shows Violent Beating Before Death."

The public's response was overwhelming. Hundreds of people called and sent faxes to the newspaper to express outrage or tell their own stories of police abuse, and tens of thousands posted messages on the Internet.

Chen and Wang wrote a follow-up story the next day, but local propaganda officials blocked the piece, Chen recalled. The reporters then sent the story to a friend at a Beijing-based newspaper, where it was published a few days later under a pseudonym.

Soon afterward, they recalled, Cheng Yizhong, the star editor, summoned them to his office for a meeting. He urged them to keep digging, even if not all of the stories they wrote could be published. Then he said he hoped their reporting would lead Beijing to abolish the law used to detain Sun.

Chen recalled thinking his editor was crazy. "I thought he might be feverish," he said.

But the pressure for change continued to build. Sun had been detained under a law the party had used to restrict migration for decades, a sort of internal passport system that allowed police to send people without residence permits into any of about 700 custody-and-repatriation centers across the country. Legal scholars began calling for a review of the law, arguing that it violated basic human rights. Journalists began showing how police often detained people at will, forced them to work in the camps and then held them until relatives paid hefty fees.

Cheng kept the Daily at the forefront of the campaign, publishing a series of special reports and editorials. When Beijing announced the decision to abolish the detention system, he put that on the front page, too.

Local Retaliation

Afterward, some senior officials praised the Southern Metropolis Daily's reporting as a model of how the news media could play a constructive role in the party, party sources said.

But the end of the detention system deprived police agencies, a powerful branch of the state, of a lucrative source of income. More important, the story had embarrassed local leaders in Guangzhou and perhaps ruined their careers.

Local officials angry at the media usually go to propaganda authorities to demand that journalists be punished. But Beijing had all but endorsed the Daily's reporting by abolishing the detention camp system, which made it difficult for officials in Guangzhou to take action.

Still, they tried to pressure the newspaper. On the day the story of Sun's death was published, Guangzhou's party secretary angrily threatened to take the Daily to court, journalists said. Later, Cheng received a call from an old classmate who delivered a message from another senior city official warning him to back off, colleagues said.

Soon after Beijing abolished the detention law, Guangzhou party leaders ordered an investigation into the newspaper's finances and investigators began pressuring advertisers for evidence of corruption, party officials and advertisers said.

"They couldn't use the propaganda system to punish the newspaper because it hadn't made any serious mistakes," said one provincial party official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "So they turned to the justice system."

Within a month, prosecutors detained Yu Huafeng, the paper's general manager, and questioned him about a $350 necklace an advertiser had given his wife as a gift after she had a child. Yu replied that he had given the advertiser a $1,000 video camera when his wife had a child, and he showed them the receipt to prove it, according to his wife, Xiang Li.

The authorities refused to release Yu. But Cheng mobilized his own supporters in the party, and the provincial propaganda chief intervened and forced the prosecutors to let Yu go, two party officials said.

The showdown suggested the Daily had more support in the party than its enemies, and Cheng and Yu relaxed, colleagues said. They made plans to launch tabloids like the Daily in other cities, and opened talks with another newspaper to join forces and start one in Beijing.

In mid-October, in what appeared to be an important endorsement, the party's central propaganda department in Beijing approved the newspaper. Cheng was named the new paper's editor in chief.

Clampdown Intensifies

But Cheng had underestimated his enemies in Guangzhou. A year earlier, the party's top official in Guangdong province had departed. His replacement was Zhang Dejiang, a party leader who soon complained that reporters in Guangdong were too difficult to control, according to people who heard his remarks.

It was Zhang who had ordered the March clampdown in which Cheng was demoted to deputy editor, party officials said. He had also fired the editor of another paper and completely shut down a third.

In December 2003, city leaders won permission from Zhang or his deputies to continue the corruption probe of the Southern Metropolis Daily, according to two party officials. Prosecutors detained Yu again, and this time he was not released.

But Cheng refused to tone down the paper's coverage. Ten days after Yu's arrest, the Daily reported a world exclusive: Health authorities in the city had identified a suspected case of SARS, the first in China in several months.

The next day, the city confirmed the report and said it had been planning to make the announcement all along. Zhang was embarrassed and furious, a party official said, but because of the government's failed cover-up of the first SARS outbreak, it would have been difficult for him to punish the newspaper for the disclosure.

Instead, the corruption probe intensified. In early January 2004, prosecutors interrogated about 20 editors and business managers at the newspaper, including Cheng.

But even as the pressure grew, the Daily won some of the nation's top journalism honors and announced that circulation had topped 1.4 million and 2003 profits would approach $20 million, making it one of the country's most successful papers.

At the end of January, Zhang turned the screws tighter. At a large gathering of party discipline officials, party sources said, he asked sarcastically whether the party still owned the Daily. Then he declared that the media couldn't just monitor others; someone had to monitor them, too.

One of his deputies accused the Daily's executives of stealing state funds, essentially convicting Yu before trial, the officials said.

A few days later, Cheng delivered a defiant speech to his staff. Dressed in a black jacket and a cotton shirt and sitting at the head of a conference table in a room with more than 100 senior staff members, Cheng said a clash between the newspaper and "a few powerful individuals" had been building since the Sun Zhigang article was published, according to witnesses and a copy of the speech.

"Some people are sharpening their weapons. . . . This storm was bound to come sooner or later," he said. "We are already prepared. For the progress of the nation, the development of society and the happiness of the people, it is worth suffering some inconvenience and misery!"

"Whatever happens," he vowed, "we must not give up our ideals and beliefs."

A few weeks later, a local court convicted Yu of corruption for transferring bonus funds from the paper's advertising department to the newsroom, a common practice at many newspapers. The court also convicted him of bribery for paying a bonus to a supervisor at the Southern Daily, Li Minying.

In March, Yu was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Li received an 11-year sentence for accepting a bribe. The next day, police arrested Cheng.

The moves stunned the newspaper's supporters because there seemed to be no evidence of any crime and because the amount of money involved was relatively small. Journalists across the country signed petitions in protest, and many who had campaigned against the detention law began lobbying on behalf of the Southern Metropolis Daily.

As public outcry grew, three retired party chiefs in Guangdong wrote letters to Zhang urging him to review the case, arguing it had jeopardized the province's reputation as a pioneer of economic reform, party officials said. In an unusually public sign of division within the leadership, a Beijing magazine reported on two of the letters.

In June, the courts reduced Yu's sentence to eight years and Li's to six years on appeal. Cheng remains in prison but has not yet been charged with a crime, a sign that party leaders have not decided what to do.

The Southern Metropolis Daily is still publishing, but editors are more careful about criticizing local authorities. Almost all of the paper's key ad salesmen have resigned, and dozens of reporters have quit. In the first quarter of the year, officials said, the paper lost $1.5 million.

But the new tabloid started by Cheng in Beijing has adopted the aggressive style of the old Daily and appears to be prospering. "This is the way it works," said a senior editor in Guangzhou who spoke on condition of anonymity. "For every two steps forward, there is a step backward. But we're still going to keep pushing."

© 2004 The Washington Post

在中國, 編輯勝利, 和失敗奮鬥在新建新聞自由之間, 共產黨顯然由拘留

廣州, 中國- 這是通過9 3 下午0 點當申報人完成書寫。按預定開始次日列印南部的大都會每日的問題在幾時數, 並且空間為一個大標題被預留了在首頁。

城編譯了每日入這個南部的城市的最普遍並且有益的小報, 實踐新聞事業編輯一個易怒的品牌橫跨中國設法仿效。但幾個日及早, 在取締由一位新建共產黨領導命令在省, 他被剝離了他的稱謂作為總編輯。他現在運行本文當代理編輯。

其他人在廣播電臺兩次簡報了他關於條款, 但給情況, 夜班編輯想檢查與他一上次, 同事被收回。故事肯定激怒政府官員, 並且有寂靜的時候拉扯它。反而, 城發布命令發布。

文章, 快速被發表2003 年4月25 日, 傳播在網際網路, 和報紙全國各地重印了它。申報人開掘了更深, 暴露惡習在的隔離營一個全國性網路採購和賣出同屋同居人像從屬。投入防禦由上升的公共暴行, 北京定購了陣營被關閉和廢除了給警察轉移力量監禁人任意的十年老法律。
the editors
城Yizhong, 被留下, 和于・華風, 南部的大都會每日總經理, 招致了地方政府憤怒當他們發布了一個調查報表關於死在被摔打在警察監管以後的人工。

這是一次地標勝利為中國按; 如今有的申報人影響了國家政策這樣劇烈的時尚。但在3月, 城被拘捕了並且二他的同事被判了刑對長式監禁在毀壞探針當事人來源說是報復行動由局部官員。

什麼現在發生在城高亮度顯示重大和複雜奮鬥進行中在國家(地區)之間的越來越independent-minded 和贏利被驅動的狀態媒體和確立的利息在ruling 共產黨裡面。通話結果能確定遠期不僅新聞事業在中國而且最大的獨裁政治系統在世界上。

更多比一個四分之一世紀在中國以後展開了經濟改革當繼續制約政治自由, 政府擁有和仍然控制所有國家(地區)的報紙和電視臺。但新聞記者戰鬥了當事人檢查員在一個敏感主題範圍在另以後, 並且他們從事一次每日爭鬥為更加偉大的自由。

這推進被驅動一部分被經濟。在詳盡的行業檢修, 政府提取補貼從狀態媒體出口, 拿著他們負責任對他們自己的贏利和損失和對專用投資打開門。市場帶領報紙留出宣傳和提供故事, 閱讀程式實際上是感興趣。許多轉向了閒話或招待, 但有並且一個財務刺激生產一件缺乏商品: 質詢政府的新聞事業。

當事人被撕毀關於媒體自由這爬行擴展。它相信更加斷言的按能幫助它與毀壞戰鬥和改進統治, 但害怕對機構的丟失的控制重要對其獨佔在力量。正常skirmishing 在想要壓制故事做他們查找壞的新聞記者和官員之間威脅了當事人的團結。並且當新聞記者開始觀看自己作為監視器為共享而不是哈叭狗為當事人, 控制政府的老方法減弱。新建新聞事業

在1997 年9月1 日, 整理的閱讀程式南部的大都會每日查找了一种另外共產黨報紙。代替最新的宣言在馬克思主義, 本文的16 頁四分之一致力了於戴安娜公主死亡。小報使其敵手震驚; 幾乎每張報紙在中國用唯一幾百個詞報道了戴安娜的死亡。

小報是實驗由一個固定的黨報, 南部的每日生成, 劫掠廣告在這個興旺的城市7 百萬。

城不是30, 三人工委員會的最年輕的成員被任命設置本文。他是黨員和一個上升的星, 得到一個工作與南部的每日在學習文件以後在廣州的最有名望的大學的農民的兒子。他已經區別自己作為一位創造性的編輯, 因此當他志願幫助開始小報, 他命名代理編輯。

"它意味更多壓力和更多工作, 但他要求做它," 收回了他的妻子, 陳・Junying, 一位傢伙編輯在南部的每日。"他想要是更加誠實的工作, 並且競爭, 和偉大意義。"

安靜的人工與一張年輕的面孔, 城猛撞入項目, 學習報紙在世界, 寫10,000 詞行動計劃和私有設計小報的masthead 使用第5 世紀書法從北韋朝代。他的妻子有一個嬰孩, 但這是他溺愛的報紙。

報紙比一百個申報人然後使用了較少, 並且城編輯了和計劃了幾頁□夜。他並且作早期工作在新聞事業一種新建風格在中國, 寫廣泛變得可利用在錄影CDs 外國電影的回顧。

報紙起初流血了貨幣, 並且城的上司有他們的疑義。在你見面, 城爭論了它很快會成為廣州的頂面報紙。他的聽眾破裂了笑, 同事被收回。

但城繼續推進。在星期一在星期四本文成為了一在中國提供每日消費者部分- 汽車和房地產, 例如。1998 年它中斷了新基地以世界盃最終爆胎覆蓋範圍, 發布八頁每日43 個連貫日對這個足球發狂的國家歡欣。

報紙像罪行和毀壞並且開始區別自己以更加重要報告關於如此社會問題, 導致一種感覺, 例如, 以一個報表關於使用烹調用油從廚房廢物被提取的餐館。

當其它報紙避免激怒局部官員由muckraking 只在其它省, 每日集中於hard-hitting 報告在其自己的城市和區域。

方法運作。循環上升了從80,000 在後期的1997 年到380,000 一年以後。在有天才以後, 年輕廣告經理, 于・華風, 參加了人員, 收入跳, 也是。在其第三年, 循環到達了610,000 並且本文補充了不足在其第一贏利之外。

在2000 年以前, 南部的大都會每日成為了最厚實和最昂貴的日報在中國, 充電大約12 分為72 頁。明年, 當事人促進了城對總編輯。于成為了一位高級代理和本文的總經理。在2002 年每日的2,200 員工的平均年齡是27 。其高級管理的成員的平均年齡是33 。

報紙是好鬥的。一旦, 局部官員在深圳鄰居城市設法驅逐它從其報攤。次日, 一個標題在本文的首頁宣稱, "某人在深圳無恥地關閉了在這張報紙之外。" 一月份和一半以後, 禁令被取消了。

同事描述了城作為一位雄辯的報告人。在每週人員會議上, 他敦促他的申報人記住他們工作為共享。在一份通知單, 申報人被收回, 他批評了條款描述問題由城市的妓女造成。他說本文應該同情微弱和集中在"監督" 強。

"在報紙商業, 我們已經學會怎麼是出於力量, 2002 年" 城說在一次面試被分配由本文的營銷部門。"現在, 我們必須學會怎麼行動像是在力量的報紙。"

城認為當事人給按一個雇佣契約監控局部官員。但他說他仔細地並且採摘了他的目標。"在中國, 監督由媒體能只進行在現有的系統之內," 他說。"自由意味知道多麼大您的籠子是。"


幾個日在陳・Feng 每日雇用了作為一個申報人在南部的大都會在3月下旬去年之後, 他接受了一個熱的要訣。大學生告訴了他她聽見了一位27 歲的圖表設計師說出太陽Zhigang 名字死了在警察監管在被扣留使不以後運載他的臨時住宅許可證。

陳擔心故事也許是太敏感的。但沒有猶豫, 他的編輯給了他權限調查, 他收回了。

陳, 31, 一個肥胖的傢伙與close-cropped 頭髮, 與同事, Wang 列伊, 28 合作, 是更高和稀釋劑和炫耀山羊鬍子和長式頭髮。他們找到太陽的系列, 和說服他們要求一名醫療檢驗員驗屍。幾個星期後, 他們學會了結果: 太陽被打死了。

二個申報人簡報了本文的頂面編輯的當中一個。他立即表達了利息, 他們收回了, 和發行了特定指令: 首先, 保證得到每詳細資料權利。其次, 得到故事快速地完成在宣傳當局能下令本文不寫關於主題之前。中國從未使用了檢查員一個廣泛的系統。反而, 當事人任命每張報紙編輯, 問題方針取締特定主題覆蓋範圍和依靠新聞記者檢察自己。那些不依從被射擊或被降職, 和在某些情況下, 他們的發行被關閉。極少數情況下, 新聞記者也許被拘捕。

陳和Wang 快速搬走了, 採訪太陽的朋友、雇主和親戚並且醫療和法律專家。然後他們設法採訪警察和告訴努力去做在二個界域房子和城市總部。他們計劃次日寫故事。

但他們的編輯擔心, 他們收回了。他說他們應該等待直到最後日與警察聯繫, 因為警察也許叫宣傳當局和壓故事。然後他下令他們寫它那夜。

條款飛濺了橫跨二頁。在小報的前線, 一個大標題讀了, "被拘留者太陽Zhigang 死亡。" 一更小你認為, "大學畢業生, 27, 突然死三個日在拘留在廣州街道, 驗屍顯示猛烈拍打以後在死亡之前。"

公眾回應巨大。上百人叫的和被發送的傳真對報紙對明確暴行或講警察惡習他們自己的故事, 並且十倍千位宣佈了消息在網際網路。

陳和Wang 次日寫了跟催故事, 但局部宣傳官員阻攔了片斷, 陳被收回。申報人然後寄發了故事到朋友在一張基於北京的報紙, 它被發布幾天後以假名。

很快之後, 他們收回了, 城Yizhong, 星編輯, 被召喚他們對他的辦公室為會議。他敦促他們繼續開掘, 既使不是所有故事他們寫能被發布。然後他說他希望他們報告會帶領北京廢除法律使用扣留太陽。

陳被收回認為他的編輯是瘋狂的。"我認為他也許狂熱," 他說。

但壓力為更改繼續編譯。太陽被扣留了根據當事人□去□常制約遷移數十年的法律, 承認警察全國各地發送人沒有住宅許可證入任何大約700 個監管和遣送回國中心的有點兒內部護照系統。法定學者開始要求法律的回顧, 爭辯說, 它違犯了基本的人權。新聞記者開始顯示怎麼警察任意經常扣留了人, 迫使他們工作在陣營和然後拿著他們直到親戚支付了重的費用。

城保留了每日在市場活動、發布的一系列的專題報告和社論的最前方。當北京宣佈決策廢除拘留系統, 他投入了那在首頁, 也是。


之後, 一些高級官員稱讚了南部的大都會每日的報告作為設計怎樣新聞媒體能充當在當事人的一個建設性的角色, 當事人來源說。

但拘留系統的末端剝奪了警察局, 狀態的一個強有力的分行, 一個賺錢的收入來源。更加重要, 故事使局部領導困窘在廣州和或許破壞了他們的事業。

局部官員惱怒對媒體通常去宣傳當局需求, 新聞記者被懲罰。但北京有所有除了支持每日的報告由廢除隔離營系統, 使它難為官員在廣州採取行動。

但是, 他們設法迫使報紙。在日太陽的死亡故事被發布了, 廣州的黨書記惱怒地被威脅送每日上法庭, 新聞記者說。以後, 城接到了一個電話從提供一個消息從其它資深市政府官員警告他退出的一個老同學, 同事說。

在北京廢除了拘留法律之後, 廣州黨的領導安排了對報紙的財務進行調查並且調查員開始迫使登廣告者為毀壞、當事人官員和登廣告者的證據說。

"他們不能使用宣傳系統懲罰報紙因為它未犯任何嚴肅的錯誤," 說一位省當事人官員, 講話不願透露姓名。"如此他們轉向了司法系統。"

在一月份之內, 檢察官扣留了于・華風, 本文的總經理, 並且問他登廣告者$350 項鏈給了他的妻子因為禮品在她有子項之後。于回復, 他給了登廣告者一$1,000 攝像機當他的妻子有子項, 並且他顯示他們收貨證明它, 根據他的妻子, Xiang 李。

當局拒絕釋放于。但城動員了他自己的支持者在當事人, 並且省宣傳院長干預了和迫使檢察官讓于走, 雙方官員說。

攤牌比其敵人建議了每日有更多技術支持在當事人, 並且城和于放鬆了, 同事說。他們做計劃生成小報像每日在其它城市, 和被打開的談話以其它報紙協力和開始一在北京。

在十月中旬, 在什麼看來是一本重要背書, 當事人的中央宣傳部在北京審批了報紙。城被命名了新建紙的總編輯。


但城低估了他的敵人在廣州。一年更加早期, 當事人的高級官員在廣東省離去了。他的替換是張・Dejiang, 很快抱怨的黨的領導申報人在廣東太難以至於不能控制, 根據人聽見他的評論。

這是命令了3月取締城被降職對代理編輯, 當事人官員說的張。他並且射擊了其它紙編輯和完全地關閉了第三。

在2003 年12月, 城市領導贏取了權限從張或他的代理每日繼續南部的大都會的毀壞調查, 根據雙方官員。檢察官再扣留了于, 和他未釋放的這時候。

但城拒絕降低調子本文的覆蓋範圍。十個日在于的拘捕, 每日被報告世界排除之後: 衛生局在城市辨認了SARS 被懷疑的事例, 一在中國在幾月份。

次日, 城市證實了報表和認為它計劃一直做公告。張是困窘和憤怒的, 當事人正式前述, 但由於第一SARS 爆發的政府的未通過的cover-up, 它會是難為他懲罰報紙為描述。

反而, 毀壞探針增強了。於上旬2004 年1月, 檢察官詢問了大約20 個編輯和業務經理在報紙,

但既使壓力增長, 被贏取一些國家的頂面新聞事業榮譽稱號和每日宣佈, 循環名列前茅1.4 百萬和2003 贏利會接近$20 百萬, 做它國家(地區)的最成功的紙的當中一個。

在底1月, 張轉動了螺絲更緊。在當事人學科官員大彙聚, 當事人來源認為, 他諷刺地問是否當事人仍然擁有了每日。然後他宣稱, 媒體不能僅監控其他人; 某人必須監控他們, 也是。

他的代理的當中一個指責了每日董事竊取狀態資金, 重要判罪于在試算之前, 官員說。

幾天後, 城發表了一次反抗演說對他的人員。穿戴在黑色夾克和棉布襯衣和坐在一張會議桌的頭在一個屋子裡以超過100 名高級職員成員, 城認為碰撞在報紙和"幾強有力的單個之間" 編譯從太陽Zhigang 條款被發布了, 根據證人和演講的複製。

"某些人員削尖他們的武器。..這場風暴一定遲早來, "他說。"我們已經準備著。為國家的進展, 社團的發展和人民的幸福, 它值得遭受一些不便和苦難!"

"什麼發生," 他發誓, "我們不能放棄我們的理想和信仰。"

幾個星期後, 一個局部法院判了罪于毀壞為調用的附加資金從本文的廣告部對廣播電臺, 普遍做法在許多報紙。法院並且判了罪他賄賂為支付附加對監督員在南部的每日, 李・Minying 。

在3月, 于被判了刑對12 年在監獄裡。李接受了11 年監禁為收受賄賂。次日, 警察拘捕了城。

移動使報紙的支持者震驚因為那裡似乎是沒有任一種罪行的證據和因為介入的相當數量貨幣相對地小。新聞記者全國各地簽署了請願在拒付, 並且許多競選反對拘留法律開始遊說代表南部的大都會每日。

當公共喊叫增長, 三院長在廣東給張寫信敦促他覆核案件的退休的當事人, 爭論它危害了省的名譽作為經濟改革的先驅, party 官員說。在部門的一個異常地公共符號在領導之內, 北京雜誌報告關於二信函。

在6月, 法院使于的句子到八年和李降低的到六年在呼籲。城保留在監獄裡但未被充電以罪行, 符號, 黨的領導未決定什麼做。

南部的大都會每日仍然發布, 但編輯小心關於批評的地方政府。幾乎所有本文的關鍵廣告推銷員辭了職, 並且許多申報人放棄了。在第一季度, 官員認為, 本文丟失了$1.5 百萬。

但新建小報開始了由城在北京採取了進取的樣式老每日和看上去繁榮。"這是方式這有效," 一位資深編輯說在講話不願透露姓名的廣州。"為每二個進步, 有後退。但我們仍然繼續推進。"

© 2004 華盛頓郵報


if you support our work,
please consider helping us sustain our site

home page
table of contents

contact the editor

thank you to Tom of ICH for his inspiratiion, help and support!