In February, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post published an interview with detained publisher Gui Minhai in which he criticized Sweden, his other country of citizenship, for sensationalizing and politicizing his case and using him "like a chess piece." As with its 2016 interview with detained legal assistant Zhao Wei, the Post’s coverage of a prisoner’s politically convenient statements made under likely coercion stirred up worries that the newspaper has become subservient to Beijing following its acquisition in 2015 by mainland tech giant Alibaba.
New York Times’ Javier C. Hernández revisited these fears at the end of March. The piece prompted vigorous discussion, with journalists, academics, activists and others argue both against and in defense of the Post. The Gui interview was a key focus of its critics. Pressed by the BBC’s Stephen McDonnell, former SCMP editor-in-chief Wang Xiangwei agreed that Gui’s confession was forced and that the Post’s coverage "could have been more direct and forceful" on this point.
SCMP’s role in the Gui story was highlighted again last week with the publication of a detailed report, summarized by CDT, into China’s use of forced televised confessions as instruments of domestic propaganda and foreign policy over the past five years. Rights NGO Safeguard Defenders explored the identities of the confessors, the various threats, abuses, and deceits used to coerce them, and the authorities’ motives for doing so. Both Wang Xiangwei and his successor Tammy Tam were personally identified on page 71 of the report as culpable figures at "the first English-language, non-state media that collaborated with the Chinese police to circulate a televised confession."
The report prompted Gui’s daughter Angela to write to Tam seeking explanation. The Post published their exchange on Wednesday:
[…] Reading the report, do you feel any regret? I don’t know if the publicity department at the Communist Party of China called or emailed you, or contacted someone else; but, in the end, as editor in-chief, you decided it was a good idea to send a journalist to cover the “interview”.
The “interview” – a scripted point-by-point rebuttal of the criticism against China’s treatment of my father – might as well have been a statement from the Foreign Ministry. You know this of course. Yet, after dispatched reporter Phila Siu returned, you still decided to run the story, knowing these could not possibly be my father’s own words. Why?
With this report, the torture and threats against loved ones employed in forcing suspects to “confess” have now been laid bare. Does this change anything for you? More than anything, if a similar situation arises, will you make a different decision? […] [Source]
Tam replied:
[…] With regard to your father’s case, I assure you categorically that we did not collaborate with the Chinese authorities to portray your father as speaking freely while in custody, as the report incorrectly alleges. We provided the facts and context, including a photograph showing him between two guards, and our reporter also talked to your father’s friends so as to shed more light on the circumstances. All this allowed our readers to judge for themselves whether he was under duress.
As journalists, we are often faced with difficult decisions. In this case, we were required to choose between interviewing your father in a stage-managed setting and having no access at all. We made the decision to go ahead on news merit, and stand by our professional judgment. We note that other reputable news organisations facing similar controlled circumstances in the region have also proceeded with reporting. […] [Source]
The exchange triggered a new wave of discussion, this time less mixed in tone. The Financial Times’ Wang Feng, an SCMP alumnus, commented:
I'll say one thing: I could not imagine the Post publishing something like this back in the day. https://t.co/ivqSNwN2UA
— Wang Feng 王丰 (@ulywang) April 18, 2018
Cornell University’s Magnus Fiskesjö, a friend of Gui’s, replied:
The Alibaba-@SCMP_News is not a newspaper any more. It's a disgrace. Its editor is lying shamelessly. No "reputable news organisations" would stoop to lining up with Xinhua et al, to pretend-"interview" a torture victim in between the torture sessions. https://t.co/zsr3AMqZX0
— Magnus Fiskesjö (@Magnus_Fiskesjo) April 18, 2018
Here the editor #TammyTam of @SCMP_News had another chance to apologize for her paper's attending the special-invite, atrocious, coerced, fake, parading of #GuiMinhai in Febr. She did not take it. Shame on her, shame on her 'paper.' After this she can't say she is a journalist
— Magnus Fiskesjö (@Magnus_Fiskesjo) April 18, 2018
Others were also critical, including Reuters editor Gerry Doyle and NGO founder Peter Dahlin, whose televised confession in 2016 was featured prominently in the Safeguard Defenders report:
it's a really remarkable doubling down on bad editorial judgment. hard to overstate.
— Gerry Doyle (@mgerrydoyle) April 18, 2018
(1) Remarkable response from #TammyTam and @SCMP_News to @angelagui_ – what a failure to act like an adult. Not to mention containing obvious lies. Note: no direct unqualified negation of collaboration with police. https://t.co/iXvabxgFcE
— Peter Dahlin (彼得·达林) (@Peterinexile) April 18, 2018
(2) The only news merit was that #GuiMinhai was forced to speak against himself – to publish the forced words, knowing they were not his, has no news value at all. #TammyTam @SCMP_News @angelagui_ https://t.co/iXvabxgFcE
— Peter Dahlin (彼得·达林) (@Peterinexile) April 18, 2018
(3) Hilarious that #TammyTam avoids even mentioning @RSDLmonitor report #SCRIPTEDandSTAGED in her response. @SCMP_News – unlike almost all others – have not had any coverage on report at all. Complete silence. One wonder why… https://t.co/iXvabxgFcE
— Peter Dahlin (彼得·达林) (@Peterinexile) April 18, 2018
you'd think this would be obvious–that providing a platform for a forced confession isn't doing the public a service, it's doing the *state* a service
— Gerry Doyle (@mgerrydoyle) April 18, 2018
And from others:
Whether SCMP regrets the report is probably the wrong question to ask. "Why you? Who arranged this interview? Who did you contact in the process? How did you get approval from the Chinese government?" would be the more difficult to dodge.https://t.co/t1ckLouAVd
— Sandra F Severdia (@underbreath) April 18, 2018
"I hope we share another very human quality – that we learn from those mistakes and at least try to avoid repeating them." @angelagui to @SCMP_News 's Tammy Tam on coverage of #GuiMinhai's 3rd 'confession'. From Tam's reply, it's clear she does not. https://t.co/NDcu5TPwiW
— RSDL monitor (@RSDLmonitor) April 18, 2018
SCMP editor Tammy Tam clueless over Gui's forced exchange: "In this case, we were required to choose between interviewing your father in a stage-managed setting and having no access at all." This wasn't simple "access," nor was it really an "interview." https://t.co/D2MVajdZEO
— China Media Project (@cnmediaproject) April 18, 2018
would be good if tammy can expand on what the thinking behind her "professional judgment" was for this and what this means for future coverage, given that she says she stands behind this decision
— lokman tsui (@lokmantsui) April 18, 2018
SCMP editor believes that it is up to her readers to judge if a forced confession is actually forced. https://t.co/rwxqldeYTN
— GreatFire.org (@GreatFireChina) April 18, 2018
Good that @SCMP_News published and responded to @angelagui_ but it doesn't explain or excuse their disgraceful coverage of her fathers (scripted) "interview"…. https://t.co/qwQ6MNo0nR
— Gray Sergeant (@GraySergeant) April 18, 2018
1/3 Agreed https://t.co/h0LIs88nFn but this ethical issue is clear cut & unjustifyable. Just report on the state media circus and fakery, pls don't join in. The collaboration w/the Chinese authorities was criticised widely and lets down the rest of the paper.
— Tom Grundy (@tomgrundy) April 18, 2018
2/3 This was ex-editor @wangxiangweihk's tweet in question.
There must be some regrets at the Post b/c I hit refresh & watched in real-time as editors scrambled to update the *headline *sub-head and *body of the piece to make circumstances clearer amid criticism. pic.twitter.com/HHMHwKILzC
— Tom Grundy (@tomgrundy) April 18, 2018
3/3 @garyliu The Post hasn't been transparent — how, when & with whom was the 'scoop' arranged? Likewise with Zhao Wei story.@RSDLmonitor's report was covered widely from the NYT to the Guardian – why did SCMP ignore?
— Tom Grundy (@tomgrundy) April 18, 2018
