來(lái)源 | 西西弗評(píng)論

　　本文系作者授權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)載

　　西方媒體越墮落，越極端，他們的公信力流失得就越快。

　　01

　　2月13日，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》刊發(fā)了一篇報(bào)道，宣稱在WHO（世界衛(wèi)生組織）對(duì)中國(guó)的新冠溯源調(diào)查中，中國(guó)拒絕向WHO提供關(guān)鍵數(shù)據(jù)。

　　文中重點(diǎn)“引用”了四名WHO專家團(tuán)成員的言論。

　　然而，文章刊發(fā)后，四名被引用專家中的兩人(擁有英美兩國(guó)國(guó)籍的Peter Daszak和丹麥專家Thea Fischer)，在社交媒體上直接發(fā)言，反駁《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的報(bào)道，并稱報(bào)道歪曲了專家的言論，是虛假報(bào)道。

　　澳大利亞專家Dominic Dwyer和德國(guó)專家Fabian Leendertz，好像沒有社交媒體賬號(hào)，但兩個(gè)人都有一個(gè)視頻采訪。采訪的原始內(nèi)容與這些西方媒體的報(bào)道也大相徑庭。

　　紐約時(shí)報(bào)的這個(gè)報(bào)道，以及類似的報(bào)道，在其他西方媒體上也比比皆是。

　　WHO的專家們非常憤慨，話說(shuō)得很重。

　　比如擁有英美兩國(guó)國(guó)籍，目前在美國(guó)居住的Peter Daszak，這樣說(shuō)紐約時(shí)報(bào)：

“聽聽、聽聽！我們花時(shí)間和記者解釋了我們?cè)谥袊?guó)長(zhǎng)達(dá)一個(gè)月疲憊工作中的關(guān)鍵發(fā)現(xiàn)，而我們同事所說(shuō)的話卻在工作還沒開始前就被（媒體）斷章取義地用來(lái)編自己的報(bào)道，這真的令人失望。《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》，你真無(wú)恥！”

　　一名知名的美國(guó)科學(xué)家，把“Shame on you” 這三個(gè)字用在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》這家西方世界最負(fù)盛名的媒體上，令我大吃一驚。這三個(gè)字充分顯示了科學(xué)家的憤怒。

　　Daszak還說(shuō)：“這不是我在世衛(wèi)組織任務(wù)中的經(jīng)歷，作為動(dòng)物和環(huán)境工作組的負(fù)責(zé)人，我感到中國(guó)同行們坦率并值得信任，我們確實(shí)獲得了關(guān)鍵的新數(shù)據(jù)，我們也了解到更多關(guān)于病毒傳播途徑的信息。”

　　另一名紐約時(shí)報(bào)文章中提到的丹麥科學(xué)家Thea Fischer也很憤怒，她說(shuō)：

“這也不是我在流行病學(xué)團(tuán)隊(duì)得到的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，中國(guó)方面和國(guó)際流行病學(xué)團(tuán)隊(duì)建立了良好的關(guān)系，（我們）進(jìn)行的熱烈討論也反映了（中國(guó)方面的）高度參與。我們說(shuō)的話被故意歪曲，這為重要的科學(xué)工作蒙上陰影。”

　　02

　　大家有興趣可以看一下《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道的全文（原文放在文末了）。

　　我這里簡(jiǎn)單給大家看看《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》是怎么扭曲專家們的原始言論，惡意帶節(jié)奏的。

　　比如，紐約時(shí)報(bào)文章中引用了Fischer（費(fèi)舍爾）教授的這樣一段話。

“It was my take on the entire mission that it was highly geopolitical,” Dr. Fischer said. “Everybody knows how much pressure there is on China to be open to an investigation and also how much blame there might be associated with this.”

　　“我對(duì)整個(gè)任務(wù)的看法是，這個(gè)任務(wù)是高度地緣政治化的，”費(fèi)舍爾博士說(shuō)。“每個(gè)人都知道中國(guó)受到了多大的壓力，（這些壓力）要求中國(guó)對(duì)調(diào)查持開放態(tài)度，也知道可能會(huì)有多少（對(duì)中國(guó)）責(zé)怪與此相關(guān)。”

　　如果我們單獨(dú)看這樣一句話，費(fèi)舍爾博士的意思其實(shí)是，西方社會(huì)政治化新冠疫情，給了中國(guó)巨大的壓力，中國(guó)背了很大的鍋。

　　原話本身是在為中國(guó)抱不平。

　　但《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》在這段話之前，寫了很長(zhǎng)一段話，說(shuō)中國(guó)給WHO施加壓力。之后又寫了一長(zhǎng)段話，說(shuō)WHO團(tuán)隊(duì)無(wú)奈尋求妥協(xié)。

　　這種春秋筆法，就把費(fèi)舍爾博士口中所說(shuō)的，西方給中國(guó)巨大的壓力，完全曲解成了費(fèi)舍爾抱怨中國(guó)給WHO施壓。

　　費(fèi)舍爾博士說(shuō)的，是“Pressure ON China”，不是“Pressure From China”。

　　《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的這種寫法，真是非常陰險(xiǎn)狠毒！

　　澳大利亞廣播公司記者 Bill Birtles，在推特上發(fā)了一段視頻采訪。

　　他的推特是這么寫的：

“澳大利亞世衛(wèi)組織#covid專家團(tuán)隊(duì)成員Dominic Dwyer說(shuō)，盡管沒有明確的發(fā)現(xiàn)，但澳大利亞/歐盟最初呼吁的國(guó)際調(diào)查是值得的。他說(shuō)，中國(guó)科學(xué)家提供了大量此前未發(fā)表的數(shù)據(jù)......但在獲取數(shù)據(jù)方面存在緊張關(guān)系和明顯的政治壓力。”

　　那么事實(shí)又是如何？

　　澳大利亞專家，Dominic Dwyer，在視頻訪談中，確實(shí)提到了政治壓力（Political Pressure)。但他明確地說(shuō)，這種壓力并非中國(guó)給專家團(tuán)隊(duì)的壓力，而是外界給中國(guó)的政治壓力。專家團(tuán)隊(duì)并沒有受到什么壓力。

　　但在這個(gè)澳大利亞記者的推特上，卻故意曲解專家的意思，然后在政治壓力這幾個(gè)字上大做文章。

　　當(dāng)澳大利亞記者問Dwyer，你對(duì)中國(guó)方面提供的資料是否滿意時(shí)，Dwyer的回答是：“比較滿意，當(dāng)然也沒有可能100%確認(rèn)所有的事情。”

　　而記者在寫文章中，比較滿意這個(gè)表述就根本沒出現(xiàn)過。

　　Dwyer說(shuō)，由于語(yǔ)言不同，在調(diào)查證據(jù)和線索時(shí)遇到了不少困難。

　　而在媒體報(bào)道中，“由于語(yǔ)言不同”這個(gè)原因被刻意的省略了。

　　Dwyer提到了有些場(chǎng)合的工作氣氛是緊張的，但他馬上說(shuō)，中方團(tuán)隊(duì)都是專業(yè)友好的，都是好人（Good Human)。

　　同樣的，后半句在西方媒體報(bào)道中也被省略了。

　　在紐約時(shí)報(bào)文章的結(jié)尾，引用了Daszak的兩段話。一段是Daszak形容這個(gè)調(diào)查令人情緒低落（ emotionally draining）。采訪中幾個(gè)專家都提到這個(gè)調(diào)查非常辛苦，一天工作十五個(gè)小時(shí)，還需要接觸早期患者，閱讀他們的案例和不幸的故事，所以情緒低落。

　　但紐約時(shí)報(bào)在長(zhǎng)篇累牘的報(bào)道中，虛構(gòu)中國(guó)給調(diào)查組施壓，給調(diào)查組制造困難之后，再用這個(gè)情緒低落的詞，讓讀者潛意識(shí)中認(rèn)為，調(diào)查組情緒低落是因?yàn)橹袊?guó)的干擾和施壓。

　　同樣，結(jié)尾引用Daszak的這段話：“ 世界并沒有意識(shí)到，你知道，他們（中國(guó)）是第一個(gè)遭遇這個(gè)東西的人，” Daszak博士說(shuō)，“他們那時(shí)不知道問題有多糟糕?！?/p>

　　“The world doesn’t realize, you know, that they were the first to get this thing,” Dr. Daszak said, “and they didn’t know how bad it was.”

　　這句話的本意是什么呢？

　　其實(shí)是說(shuō)中國(guó)是閉卷考試，病毒爆發(fā)時(shí)，對(duì)情況完全不了解，應(yīng)對(duì)難度遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)大于后面的其他國(guó)家。

　　但在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的筆下，給讀者的印象卻是，專家認(rèn)為病毒是從武漢起源，認(rèn)為中國(guó)政府隱瞞病毒的嚴(yán)重性。

　　03

　　作為媒體，尋求真相，找社會(huì)中的負(fù)面，提出批評(píng)，都是可以接受和應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)的。

　　但前提是，媒體的報(bào)道必須建立在事實(shí)之上。

　　可新冠疫情這件事，已經(jīng)被西方世界高度政治化了。

　　忽視科學(xué)，把新冠疫情地緣政治化的，不是我們，而是西方國(guó)家的政府和媒體。

　　因?yàn)楦叨日位?，西方?guó)家的政府和媒體，就可以無(wú)視科學(xué)，無(wú)視真相，信口雌黃，肆意抹黑。

　　現(xiàn)在，把一切事情都政治化，意識(shí)形態(tài)化的，恰恰就是那群叫囂著“客觀、中立、言論自由”的西方媒體。

　　前幾天，托馬斯·弗里德曼稍微說(shuō)了兩句正常的話（說(shuō)中國(guó)高鐵比美國(guó)快，中國(guó)內(nèi)部團(tuán)結(jié)努力奮進(jìn)），就被美國(guó)媒體說(shuō)成親華親共。

　　要知道，弗里德曼長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)對(duì)中國(guó)的態(tài)度，已經(jīng)屬于非常不友好的那種了。

　　由此可見，美國(guó)現(xiàn)在真的是“談華色變”。

　　反華已經(jīng)是他們“不可侵犯”的政治正確。

　　04

　　有些朋友很擔(dān)心，覺得新冠疫情之后，各國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)的印象都在快速下跌，好感變少，惡感變多。

　　坦率地說(shuō)，這是事實(shí)。

　　但這并沒什么可擔(dān)心的。

　　有句俗話：不招人妒是庸才。

　　你原本比別人落后很多，現(xiàn)在卻做得還比別人還好，自然會(huì)被人攻擊和嫉妒。

　　在西方媒體極端化意識(shí)形態(tài)化，天天抹黑中國(guó)的今天，西方老百姓對(duì)中國(guó)的印象能好嗎？

　　但這個(gè)事情我們根本沒必要著急。

　　西方媒體越偏激，越罔顧事實(shí)，我們?cè)綉?yīng)該高興。

　　因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)谧詺чL(zhǎng)城，摧毀自己的公信力。

　　我這個(gè)年齡段中的很多人，原本對(duì)西方媒體的信任，是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)的媒體的。

　　這種信任是怎么逐步喪失的呢？

　　恰恰就是當(dāng)西方媒體對(duì)我們身邊事情的報(bào)道，和我們了解的到事實(shí)真相截然不同時(shí)，我們自然就不會(huì)再信任他們。

　　以今天提到的這個(gè)事情為例：

　　當(dāng)WHO的專家，發(fā)現(xiàn)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》對(duì)他們親身經(jīng)歷的事情，親口所說(shuō)的觀點(diǎn)肆意歪曲時(shí)，他們對(duì)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的信任自然就會(huì)動(dòng)搖。

　　他們也會(huì)懷疑，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》對(duì)中國(guó)的其他報(bào)道，比如關(guān)于新疆，香港的報(bào)道，是不是也完全不符合真相？

　　“多行不義必自斃。”

　　就讓西方媒體，在作死的路上越走越遠(yuǎn)吧。

　　他們?cè)綁櫬?，越極端，越政治化，他們的公信力流失得就越快。

　　附件：

　　《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道原文：

　　On W.H.O. Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data

　　The information could be key to determining how and when the outbreak started, and to learning how to prevent future pandemics.

　　By Javier C. Hernández and James Gorman

　　Chinese scientists refused to share raw data that might bring the world closer to understanding the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, independent investigators for the W.H.O. said on Friday.

　　The investigators, who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the Chinese city of Wuhan, said disagreements over patient records and other issues were so tense that they sometimes erupted into shouts among the typically mild-mannered scientists on both sides.

　　China’s continued resistance to revealing information about the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, the scientists say, makes it difficult for them to uncover important clues that could help stop future outbreaks of such dangerous diseases.

　　“If you are data focused, and if you are a professional,” said Thea K?lsen Fischer, a Danish epidemiologist on the team, then obtaining data is “l(fā)ike for a clinical doctor looking at the patient and seeing them by your own eyes.”

　　For 27 days in January and February, the team of 14 experts for the World Health Organization led the mission to trace the origins of the pandemic. Several say their Chinese counterparts were frustrated by the team’s persistent questioning and demands for data.

　　Chinese officials urged the W.H.O. team to embrace the government’s narrative about the source of the virus, including the unproven notion that it might have spread to China from abroad, according to several members of the team. The W.H.O. scientists responded that they would refrain from making judgments without data.

　　“It was my take on the entire mission that it was highly geopolitical,” Dr. Fischer said. “Everybody knows how much pressure there is on China to be open to an investigation and also how much blame there might be associated with this.”

　　In the end, the W.H.O. experts sought compromise, praising the Chinese government’s transparency, but pushing for more research about the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019.

　　It remains unclear if the compromise will work. Chinese officials told the team that they did not have enough time to compile detailed patient data and only provided summaries. The W.H.O. scientists said they were continuing to press their counterparts in China for the raw data and other information.

　　The team members considered the trip, which ended this week, as a win mostly because they feel there is enough good will that talks and studies will continue. But they acknowledged there is too little information so far to answer critical questions.

　　And they were criticized already for handing the Chinese side a public relations victory at a closing news conference by endorsing the contentious idea that the virus might have spread by frozen food products.

　　On the crucial question of when the outbreak started, the team said it had not turned up evidence yet that it was earlier than China has reported. But the team was stymied at times by the lack of detailed patient records both from early confirmed cases, and possible ones before that.

　　“We asked for that on a number of occasions and they gave us some of that, but not necessarily enough to do the sorts of analyses you would do,” said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist on the W.H.O. team, referring to the confirmed cases.

　　The news that Chinese officials did not share raw data with the W.H.O. experts was reported earlier by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Wall Street Journal.

　　The Chinese scientists also acknowledged they had discovered that 92 people were hospitalized in Wuhan as early as October 2019 with symptoms such as fever and coughing. The Chinese experts said they had found no trace of Covid-19 in those people, but the tests were incomplete. The W.H.O. team members said more research was needed.

　　Any indication that the outbreak started earlier than December 2019 would leave China open to more criticism; Chinese officials have been widely criticized for initially trying to cover up the outbreak, and acting too late to stop it from spilling over into the rest of the world.

　　This was never going to be an easy trip.

　　The W.H.O. mission was embroiled in politics even before it began. For months, some officials in China and the United States accused each other, without evidence, of unleashing the virus on the world. China pushed back against pressure from Western countries to allow an independent inquiry into the source of the virus.

　　After months of negotiations, Beijing relented after the W.H.O., which is beholden to member countries like China, agreed to cede control over key parts of the inquiry to Chinese scientists.

　　And the logistics of the trip made already fraught relations even more tense. The W.H.O. team was forced into quarantine for the first two weeks, so meetings were conducted on Zoom. And even when the members emerged, rules to thwart outbreaks in China meant that the team could not gather with their counterparts for meals and informal talks.

　　It has been difficult to get an understanding of how the Chinese side viewed relations; several of the Chinese scientists assisting in the mission did not respond to requests for comment.

　　The W.H.O. team, which is expected to release a full report about its findings in coming weeks, is still pressing Chinese officials to conduct exhaustive checks of blood samples for signs that the virus might have been circulating earlier. The experts are also asking China to more deeply investigate the wildlife trade in Wuhan and the surrounding area for clues about how the virus might have jumped from animals to humans.

　　It is unclear how fully the Chinese government — which remains in firm control of research into the origins of the virus — will cooperate.

　　When the experts arrived in Wuhan last month, they set out to find the earliest known cases of Covid-19, asking Chinese officials to examine records for patients who had been hospitalized with symptoms such as fever and cough as early as October 2019.

　　Chinese scientists, after a review of 76,000 records at 233 medical institutions in Wuhan, told the W.H.O. team that they had found 92 individuals who fit that description. The government performed antibody tests on two-thirds of those people and reported that they were not positive for Covid-19. (The other third either died or declined to be tested, the Chinese scientists said.)

　　The W.H.O. scientists were frustrated by the Chinese government’s reluctance to explain how they had gathered the data, according to interviews with team members.

　　Dr. Fischer said she would have expected to find many more cases of individuals who were hospitalized with such symptoms in a city the size of Wuhan.

　　In heated discussions, Dr. Fischer recounted, the W.H.O. experts urged the Chinese scientists to conduct a more thorough search. The team also expressed concerns about the reliability of antibody tests administered so long after the infections. Testing any original nose or throat swabs would be useful, but Dr. Dwyer said there were none.

　　Chinese officials agreed to look more broadly at samples in Wuhan blood banks in 2019, though they said that they had not yet obtained permission to do so.

　　The W.H.O. experts ultimately concluded that there was no evidence yet that the virus was transmitting on a wide scale in China before December 2019, but that more research definitely was needed.

　　Chinese commentators have seized on that finding to build on the government’s mantra that it was possible that China was not the source of the outbreak, and to urge the W.H.O. to look elsewhere.

　　The W.H.O. team said it would look, but that they were skeptical.

　　“I think it started in China,” Dr. Dwyer said after the trip. “There is some evidence of circulation outside China, but it’s actually pretty light.”

　　The seafood market in Wuhan where the outbreak was first noticed.

　　During the visit, Chinese scientists also urged the W.H.O. team to consider the frozen-food theory that has gained traction in the country.

　　The W.H.O. team ultimately agreed to explore in more detail how the virus might spread through frozen food. But in interviews, team members said the focus for now would be on frozen wildlife products sold in China — not imported food.

　　The idea that the virus might have initially spread to humans from frozen wildlife products is a “very unlikely scenario,” said Fabian Leendertz, a German zoonotic disease specialist and a member of the team. He said the team agreed to include the frozen food theory among its hypotheses “to respect, a bit, the findings” of the Chinese scientists.

　　Peter Daszak, a member of the W.H.O. team and the president of EcoHealth Alliance in New York, said the trip was emotionally draining, as he and the team came to terms with the trauma of the early days of the pandemic. The team interviewed some of the first people to fall ill with Covid-19 in Wuhan, as well as medical workers.

　　“The world doesn’t realize, you know, that they were the first to get this thing,” Dr. Daszak said, “and they didn’t know how bad it was.”

　　緩緩君：985高校工科男，時(shí)代華語(yǔ)圖書簽約作者。有一些故事，也有一些觀點(diǎn)；有一點(diǎn)理性，也有一點(diǎn)溫度，已出版《我就喜歡這樣的你》。公眾號(hào)：緩緩說(shuō)（huanhuanshuo520）