On October 22, the Wall Street Journal published your report, China’s Pursuit of Fugitive Businessman Guo Wengui Kicks Off Manhattan Caper Worthy of Spy Thriller, which reported some of the contacts between official from China’s Ministry of State Security and Guo Wengui. The report writes about situation when four officials from China’s Ministry of State Security met with Guo Wengui, and cited insiders in the White House and documents given by Guo.
I have no objection to your report and actually it's a good story to say. But after repeated deliberation, there are a few serious problems that have forced me to write to you and submit the letter to SPJ.
First, in the report, you quoted Guo Wengui’s files which show that he was persecuted by Chinese government. What needs to be stressed is that these files are false documents. Not only Chinese government, but lawyer Wen Yunchao, Teng Biao and at least thousands of others pointed out that the documents are fake.
As professional journalists, I'm sure that you captured this vital point, then, why didn’t you indicate in time in your report that Guo Wengui’s files were widely considered to be forged or at least controversial?
I looked through your report, and find it at last in the 18th paragraph below the picture of documents, i.e., the second paragraph to the last that says with only a few words of understatement, “Beijing has said the document is a forgery.”
This is a typical and irresponsible way of writing that deliberately mislead the readers. Due to the hassle of the long report, most readers will not browse through the end, which means that many of them can't see the simple statement at the end of the report.
I ask you, as professional media , if you report Guo Wengui’s events out of serious and objective media ethics, would you still write the report in this way? Will it highlight your rigorous and objective attitude if you mislead readers to believe in Guo Wengui’s forged papers? Can the standard of your work represent the Wall Street Journal's professional level?
Second, it is true that events of Guo Wengui have become sensitive and complicated due to legal issues that are added by political colors. But it doesn't change the fact that Guo has insulted and offended women. If you don’t believe in the previous content, can you accept and promote Guo Wengui's practice of abusing "Ma Rui is pig, and if she rape a pig, the pig commits a suicide" in his live broadcast. Do you despise women's rights and ignore the network humiliation of the victim just like this?
Harvey Weinstein sex scandal got picked up by all the major news services, but medias became blind when Marui was raped and Guo Wengui used social media to expose Marui’s privacy and abuse her. I want to ask you, what is your report’s principle, objectivity or optional negligence based on color or race. If Marui is a white, will you report Guo Wengui indiscriminately and describe him as a political symbol and try to get him off?
Third, many medias and network have revealed a great deal of record and video evidence that Guo had bribed Chinese officials and tried to win support of Britain and American reporters such as Michael Forsythe, Tony Blair and others since this year. This evidence makes it clear that Guo is trying to bribe everyone he contacts. It is also evident that his disclosure is fabricated and fabled.
I am not opposing to your report about Guo Wengui, but the way you deliberately hid some relevant details and cited so-called “people familiar with the situation” makes me wonder with every reason that during the process you wrote the story, Guo had tried to bribe you. Whether you have reaped the benefits is a problem I can not leave alone.
Besides, there are reasons to be sceptical the people you cited are puppets bought off and controlled by Guo Wengui. Given this, dare you swear to god that your report is rigorous, objective and compatible with American media’s value?
Fourth, I know that the Wall Street Journal is opposing President Trump. There’s no problem in it, the society in America is a free one, people have the right to support or oppose the President. Whether support or opposition, when being presented in a news report, it should not be tinged with the tendency of opposing for the sake of opposition.
According to your report, people who have been cited 21 times should be some senior advisers in the White House. President Trump was chosen by the people, his staff and team represent for the interest of America. If this team could forge ahead in unity, it would be a good news for people of America and the whole world.
However, the way you wrote the journal may put the team in a state of mutual suspicion. If the government can not focus on the developing of America because of mistrust, then who is to blame? Is it President Trump, the government, or you who tried to polarize the government?
In this world, China and America have become the progressive role models of this great era. Set aside ideological differences, if both countries could deepen mutually beneficial cooperation in economy, legislation, security, environmental protection and other fields, it would good news for people in these two and even the whole world.
It doesn’t make sense to me why someone would want to hinder the development of the world, why someone tried so hard using a clown and criminal to impede China-US cooperation, why someone attempted to deter people with a cheat and exhibitionist, who is of no political and economic values, from pursuit of well-being.
If there really is someone as described above, I have to say, the tycoon named Guo Wengui, who used to trap officials and medias through bribery and bugging, has successfully repeated the tricks in America, you and your so-called insiders have been bribed and become his puppets.
Because of this, I urge departments such as the American news management office and Journalists Association to launch a careful investigation into the biased report about Guo Wengui to maintain the credibility of American medias, clear names of the three journalists under questioning and reply to tens of thousands of netizens who had voted to question the journalists.
Written by @TwiZhanJ, a humble and ordinary Twitter user who cares about universal values and human development.
