Here?s one memorable part of the coverage of the Chinese government?s censorship Friday of The New York Times?s Chinese-language Web site: the word ?harmonized.?
The word crops up in a Washington Post story about the Chinese government?s decision to block The Times?s Chinese-language site. It has to do with reaction to the David Barboza article on the vast wealth of the Chinese prime minister ? reaction that also was deemed inappropriate for viewing.
A respected professor at a Chinese university posted a comment about the article, The Post reported, but that comment lasted only one minute.
?It?s already been harmonized,? an observer noted. Read: deleted.
There surely was less harmony for advertisers on The Times?s Chinese site, whose ads also were blocked from millions of viewers.
Nor could there have been much harmony for those at The Times who deal with advertising revenue, a difficult enough proposition as a discouraging third-quarter earnings report made clear on Thursday.
The episode is an extreme example of an enduring newspaper-world fact: journalism and business interests don?t always go hand in hand.
The Times did exactly what one would hope and expect: It published a great story without undue regard for the short-term business consequences.
And, given The Times?s financial challenges and its major effort to become a true global news organization, that took guts.
On Friday, I interviewed the publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. about the story, the censorship and what it means for The Times?s global push.
?I?m very proud of this work,? he said of the story. ?Our business is to publish great journalism. Does this have a business impact? Of course.?
Mr. Sulzberger said the publication of the article was preceded by ?conversations with the Chinese government to discuss it.?
?They wanted to air their concerns ? which I listened to, as I should,? Mr. Sulzberger said. ?And eventually, we made a decision to publish.?
The timing is awkward, in that The Times began the Chinese-language site only this past summer, and this month a similar effort in Brazil was announced for next year.
But that timing ?was not in my control,? Mr. Sulzberger said. ?That has to do with when the story is ready to go.?
Those who advertise on the Chinese-language site did not receive advance warning of the story and its likely consequences, he said.
?We didn?t tell them, any more than we would tell any advertiser about a story that was coming.?
But now, he said, The Times?s advertising department is talking with advertisers, ?and we?ll work with them? to remedy their lost advertising.
Joseph Kahn, the foreign editor, told me that he knew when the reporting on this story began ? about a year ago ? that it would be a ?threshold issue? for the Chinese government.
?I expected it to test the limits of what they would tolerate from the foreign media,? he said. (In speaking with me, he emphasized that Mr. Barboza?s direct editor on the story was Dean Murphy, a deputy business editor.)
?For us, this is just classic New York Times investigative journalism,? Mr. Kahn said. ?It?s what reporters do. For them, this is not what reporters do. This is what reporters are banned from doing.? He said he believed that, by various means, the story is still getting out in China and that ?it has done nothing to diminish the reputation of our journalism.?
Mr. Kahn said that as recently as Wednesday, Mr. Sulzberger and the executive editor, Jill Abramson, met with Chinese government representatives at The Times. But the focus of that conversation was not about the journalism ? it was about a political and cultural differences.
In short, Chinese officials were making the case that The Times not publish the article.
?I?m gratified ? there?s no other word to describe it,? Mr. Kahn said about The Times?s decision to publish it. ?People cite the Pentagon Papers, but that involved defying a legal order.?
This decision, and others like it that may follow, Mr. Kahn said, have the potential to be more costly, given The Times?s global strategy.
?This may be a taste of the Pentagon Papers of the future,? he said.
This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: October 26, 2012
A previous version of this article said The New York Times launched a Portuguese-language Web site in Brazil this past month. The Times announced its plans for the Web site this month, but it has not launched. It will launch in 2013.
my morning jacket roger goodell psychosis dianna agron million hoodie march tebow trade mike the situation
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.