September 28, 2011
by Marta Cooper
“Detained” reporter refutes New York Times article
We’ve been alerted to a debate that has arisen regarding our post on Monday 26 September, in which we noted that the New York Times had reported that a journalist investigating a sex slavery scandal in China’s Henan province had been “detained” and accused of “revealing state secrets”.
The journalist in question, Ji Xuguang, posted a message on Weibo saying that, contrary to online rumours, he had not been “arrested” (although his previous Weibo postings stated he had indeed been accused of revealing state secrets). Yet the term “arrested” was never used in the New York Times’ article: Jacobs stuck with “detained”.
In an email conversation, the article’s author, Andrew Jacobs, told me that the issue boils down to a “parsing of language.” He clarified:
Everything in that article was based on Mr. Ji’s own published words, both in an article he wrote and in his Weibo postings.
On Weibo, he sent out a message at 11:20 am alerting followers he was being questioned at his hotel by two men who refused to identity themselves. “I will probably be taken away. Please help,” is what he wrote and posted a picture of two men sitting on a couch. He said he would likely not be allowed to do any more reporting on the subject.
Jacobs added he believed Ji had been “detained” in the sense that “he was not allowed to waltz away from his questioners, which is why he asked his Weibo followers for help.”
Online questions put to Ji asking him if he had been “arrested” seems to have been where the semantics issue occurred. According to Jacobs, his research assistant called Ji and explained the difference between “detained” and “arrested”. His assistant reportedly said:
He [Ji] said he was sorry if his “Weibo clarification” had caused us any trouble, but he had to tweet his clarification because the Henan authorities were using this “dispute” against him. He said he was hauled out of bed by his boss early one morning because Henan authorities accused him of getting the New York Times to exaggerate the story, so he had to come out and tell the truth, which is that he was not arrested.
With limited information of the events to hand, one could argue that “detained” was an extreme choice of words; perhaps “held for questioning” would have been a safer option. For Adam Minter, a writer based in Shanghai, the Times has its own agenda when it comes to reporting on China. He told me,
I find it very hard to believe that Jacobs and his editors are so naive as to believe that Times’ readers won’t assume an arrest when the words “detained,” “China,” and “security agents” are thrown together.
(Incidentally, this would not be the first time the paper has come under fire for their coverage and fact-checking in the People’s Republic.)
In his Weibo messaging refuting the Times, Ji added that he is safe and that an apology had been issued by officials in the city of Luoyang, where his reporting of a sex dungeon scandal had taken place.
1 Trackbacks
8 Comments
September 28, 2011
Marta, I think it’s pretty shameful that suppodedly objective, unbaised professional journalist has to resort to weasl on a Chinese phrase that means both “detained” and “arrested” (trust me, I’m a native speaker).
I have repeatedly tring to urge Andrew Jacobs to fact check without success. Two days ago when I emailed him, he accused me of trying to malign him and blocked me. Here are his own words:
“It’s not even worth engaging you Charles as you are so desperate to malign me and prop up government officials who are clearly engaged in illegal activity.
This is our last exchange on any matter involving China; your emails are hereby blocked.
I suggest you do two things: a) move to China and b) get a life.”
And as you’ve noted, this ain’t the first time NYT has failed to fact check:
- Last month Jacobs touted a jailed anti-corruption activist. Qi Chonghuai turned out to be an ex-fellon convicted of child rape, and was found guilty of an on-line negative rumor extortion racket.
- Last year, John Markoff of NYT cited a blogger who claimed there was “China Code” in the Aurora malwar that hacked Google. Turns out the code was a well know device algorithm, the Nibble CRC, and has been around for decades.
None of these twist of fact and half truth were ever corrected.
September 28, 2011
And let’s look at the picture Ji posted – was it a couch in the hotel lobby? Anyone thinks two men who didn’t ID themselves as police (Ji said these men never “flashed the badge”) can take away people in hotel lobby without catch flack with hotel security, is a little out of touch with the real world.
September 29, 2011
So let me get this straight. A source claims that Jacobs cooked a story and his response? He orders his assistant to call the source and patiently explain the difference between words “arrested” and “detained,” and then report back what the source had to say about those differences. My guess is that the Chinese reporter could probably tell Jacobs a thing or two about the difference between being detained and arrested – if Jacobs could have been bothered to (or capable of) calling the source himself. What a condescending, truly awful reporter. Where does the NYT find these people?
September 29, 2011
What is very clear is that Mr. Jacobs does not speak Chinese. Why elese would he require his assistant to call Ji? If he did speak, even at a junior high level, he would know the difference between the two words. But he rather insists on having an English translation. Can’t the NYT find better reporters?
September 29, 2011
Charles, I don’t recall ever seeing a Chinese security guard intervene in an actual security problem. You’re a little out of touch with China if you think that a hotel security guard interfering with a couple of PSB-looking guys is anything remotely approaching a given.
September 29, 2011
Marta, here’s the photo of the lobby couch:
http://weibo.com/1710546672/xpkSU4sGv
Ji is a good 20-30 feet away from the two men. How someone can say he’s “detained” is beyond me.
October 3, 2011
@MAC, the picture is right there, see for yourself. If you are insinuating China is some 3rd world African country where hotel guests are not protected, you’re out of your gourd.
October 3, 2011
@ShanShen
And word weasling is all he’s got. The phrase “拘捕” is literally composed of the two words “detain” & “arrest”.
Leave a comment