2013.04.17 中国对David Barboza获得普利策奖的反应

shiyi18

China Reacts to David Barboza's Pulitzer Prize
The news that The New York Times reporter -- who reported on the massive wealth of former Premier Wen Jiabao -- won the Pulitzer has sparked a divided reaction on the Chinese internet.

By Minami Funakoshi
APRIL 17, 2013
SHARE

David Barboza banner.jpg

David Barboza of The New York Times is pictured during the announcement of Pulitzer Prize winners at the New York Times newsroom in New York on April 15, 2013. (Reuters)
David Barboza, the Shanghai Bureau Chief of The New York Times, won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for exposing the wealth amassed by the extended family of former premier Wen Jiabao. The report, which tackles head-on the politically sensitive topic of corruption by high-level officials, led the Chinese government to block Web access to both the English and Chinese versions of the New York Times entirely.

On Sina Weibo, China's Twitter, a popular user with the handle "Pretending to be in New York" (@ 假装在纽约) posted the following comment on April 15th, the day the Pulitzer Prizes were announced:

The Pulitzer Prize for reporting just released: the New York Times claims four awards, one of which was awarded for that well-known China-related report. That piece won the prize for international reporting.
Although the user was careful to avoid mentioning Wen Jiabao's hidden family assets, Chinese censors apparently found it unacceptable nonetheless. Within 24 hours, the tweet was swept clean off of Weibo.

Tea Leaf Nation collected some of the comments the thread gathered before its deletion. Though few, and perhaps not fully representative, they provide a brief insight into Chinese online reaction to this topic.

TLNLogo_Horizontal-215
MORE FROM TLN
Time is Running Out for China's Social Security System
The Chinese Web's Negative Comments About a Victim of the Boston Bombing
In China's Flu Scare, Social Media is a Double-Edged Sword
Some Web users saw the incident as an American conspiracy to undermine Chinese leadership through news reporting. "China is resolutely opposed to any country, any person, using the Pulitzer journalism prize to interfere with China's internal affairs and defile its former leaders," commented @小子子懒到死. "This is definitely an American imperialist [conspiracy]," wrote @ 鸟博9.

Some, on the other hand, congratulated David Barboza and the New York Times. User @彥Ianni wrote, "That famous NYT article received special mention -- congratulations! A Pulitzer Prize in international reporting! What a courageous journalist." @ Salt_Lee wrote,"Congratulations on that famous report!"

Others responded in genuine -- or perhaps feigned -- confusion, pointing out how common such scandals are in China. "Which report [did the NYT receive the award for]? The one about amassed wealth? Or the one about swimming pigs?" asked user @柠檬树559, referring to the recent flood of dead pigs in Shanghai's Huangpu River. "I would like the source for that report. It's the one related to high-level government corruption, I'm assuming?" wrote @别打马赛克啊.

For Chinese netizens, censorship is a fact of life. Over the years, they have found ways to circumvent the regulations, such as inventing codes to discuss sensitive topics. In order to gain access to David Barboza's censored report, some users requested links or screenshots. Besides demonstrating netizen ingenuity, this also suggests that there are many Chinese citizens who may have heard about, but have never actually read, the report in question.

"They censored the article before I had the time to read it. I remember thinking at that time that the reason I couldn't access it is because the snowstorm in New York interfered with their internet," wrote @忠于原味wer. "Even if you give us the link, we probably can't open it. Please post an image of the report so that we can all see it," requested @特种大猫.

Many web users prophesied the expurgation of the tweet posted by "Pretending to be in New York" as well -- yet another sign of increased netizen familiarity with the un-written codes of online censorship.

"'Pulitzer Prize' will become a sensitive term," forecasted @双宿. "I reckon the Chinese government will announce tomorrow that the 'Pulitzer Price has no public credibility.' But they can't force other people's mouths shut, and we can't cover our own eyes. Our government is truly foolish," criticized @风莽莽.


However, despite such predictions, the news itself is not completely off-limits on the Web. "Pulitzer Prize for reporting" is one of the trending topics on Weibo, and some posts that explicitly mention David Barboza's name remain untouched. Most such posts, however, do not touch upon the actual content of Barboza's report.

Still, there are some daring posts that, surprisingly, are uncensored on Weibo. User @高万喜 wrote, "The NYT journalist David Barboza wins this year's Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for his report on the $2.7 billion fortune of 'the clan high up in the starry heavens.'" The "clan high up in the starry heavens" is a code for the extended family of Wen Jiabao.

Another user, @colin在重庆, also skirted the censors by tweeting the news in English:

Awarded to David Barboza for his striking exposure of corruption at high levels of the Chinese government, including billions in secret wealth owned by relatives of the prime minister, well documented work published in the face of heavy pressure from the Chinese officials.
Why are these posts not censored, while the post by"Pretending to be in New York" is? Perhaps the user "Pretending to be in New York" was censored because of his status as a widely followed, vocal social critic on Weibo. Perhaps the other posts escaped deletion through their ingenuity, or sheer good luck.

And, perhaps, it is just a matter of time until the censors hone back in.

This post also appears at Tea Leaf Nation, an Atlantic partner site.
Minami Funakoshi is a contributor to Tea Leaf Nation.



中国对David Barboza获得普利策奖的反应
报道前总理温家宝巨额财富的《纽约时报》记者获得普利策奖的消息，在中国互联网上引发了不同的反应。

作者：Minami Funakoshi
2013年4月17日
分享

David Barboza的横幅.jpg

2013年4月15日，《纽约时报》的David Barboza在纽约的《纽约时报》新闻编辑部宣布普利策奖得主时的照片。(路透社)
纽约时报》上海分社社长大卫-巴尔博萨（David Barboza）因揭露前总理温家宝的大家庭所积累的财富而获得2013年普利策国际报道奖。这篇报道直面高层官员腐败这一政治敏感话题，导致中国政府完全封锁了《纽约时报》的英文和中文版本的网络访问。

在中国的新浪微博上，一个名为 "假装在纽约"（@ 假装在纽约）的热门用户在4月15日，即普利策奖公布的当天发表了以下评论。

普利策报道奖刚刚公布：《纽约时报》声称获得了四个奖项，其中一个奖项是那个著名的与中国有关的报道。那篇报道获得了国际报道奖。
尽管该网友小心翼翼地避免提及温家宝的隐秘家庭资产，但中国的审查人员显然还是认为这是不可接受的。在24小时内，这条微博被从微博上扫除干净。

茶叶国收集了这条微博被删除前的一些评论。虽然数量不多，而且可能不具有完全的代表性，但它们提供了对中国网上对这一话题的反应的简要见解。

TLNLogo_Horizontal-215
更多来自TLN的信息
中国社保系统的时间已经不多了
中国网络对波士顿爆炸案受害者的负面评论
在中国的流感恐慌中，社交媒体是一把双刃剑
一些网络用户认为该事件是美国人通过新闻报道破坏中国领导层的阴谋。"中国坚决反对任何国家、任何个人利用普利策新闻奖干涉中国内政，污蔑中国前领导人，"@小子子懒到死评论道。"这绝对是美帝国主义的[阴谋]，"@鸟博9写道。

另一方面，一些人向大卫-巴尔博萨和《纽约时报》表示祝贺。用户@彥Ianni写道："《纽约时报》那篇著名的文章得到了特别提及 -- 祝贺！"。普利策奖的国际报道! 多么勇敢的记者。" @Salt_Lee写道，"祝贺那篇著名的报道！"

其他人以真正的--或许是假装的--困惑来回应，指出这种丑闻在中国是多么普遍。"[《纽约时报》因哪篇报道获奖]？关于积累财富的那篇？还是关于游泳的那篇？"用户@柠檬树559问道，指的是最近上海黄浦江的死猪泛滥。"我想知道该报告的来源。我想是与政府高层腐败有关的那篇吧？"@别打马赛克啊写道。

对于中国网民来说，审查制度是生活中的一个事实。多年来，他们已经找到了规避法规的方法，比如发明代码来讨论敏感话题。为了获得David Barboza的审查报告，一些用户要求提供链接或截图。除了展示网民的聪明才智，这也表明有许多中国公民可能听说过，但从未真正读过有关报告。

"我还没来得及看，他们就把文章删了。我记得当时我想，我之所以无法访问它，是因为纽约的暴风雪干扰了他们的网络。"@忠于原味儿写道。"即使你给了我们链接，我们可能也无法打开它。请贴出报告的图片，让我们都能看到。"@特种大猫要求。

许多网友预言 "假装在纽约 "发布的推文也会被删除--这是网民对网络审查制度的未写代码越来越熟悉的又一迹象。

"'普利策奖'将成为一个敏感词，"@双宿预测说。"我估计中国政府明天会宣布，'普利策奖没有公信力'。但他们不能强迫别人闭嘴，我们也不能遮住自己的眼睛。我们的政府真的很愚蠢。"@风莽莽批评道。


然而，尽管有这样的预测，新闻本身在网络上并非完全是禁区。"普利策报道奖 "是微博上的热门话题之一，一些明确提到大卫-巴尔博萨名字的帖子仍未被触及。然而，大多数这样的帖子并没有触及巴尔博萨报告的实际内容。

不过，还是有一些大胆的帖子，令人惊讶的是，在微博上没有受到审查。用户@高万喜写道："《纽约时报》记者大卫-巴尔博萨因其对'高高在上的星空中的氏族'27亿美元财富的报道而获得今年的普利策国际报道奖"。"高高在上的家族 "是温家宝大家族的代号。

另一个用户@colin在重庆，也通过用英语发推特来避开审查。

授予David Barboza，以表彰他对中国政府高层腐败的惊人揭露，包括总理亲属拥有的数十亿秘密财富，在面对中国官员的巨大压力下发表的有据可查的作品。
为什么这些帖子没有被审查，而 "假装在纽约 "的帖子却被审查？也许 "假装在纽约 "的用户被审查是因为他在微博上是一个被广泛关注的社会批评家的身份。也许其他的帖子通过他们的聪明才智，或者纯粹的好运气而逃脱了删除。

而且，也许只是时间问题，直到审查员重新开始审查。

这篇文章也出现在大西洋的一个合作伙伴网站--茶叶国。
Minami Funakoshi是《茶叶国》的撰稿人。