Saturday, April 18, 2009

China Times is not a newspaper
王良芬 is not a reporter

China Times's New York correspondent 王良芬 reported that the 2008 Nobel Economist Paul Krugman stated that signing ECFA is a good thing. Liberty Times pointed out that this was a lie, that Krugman did not say that (see below). 王良芬 wrote a rebuttal, as follows. The full text can be found at the end. In the following quote, the emphais is mine.

... 以下是國務院網站的記者會英文紀錄。

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Professor. John Zang (臧國華) with CTI-TV of Taiwan. I have two questions for you. I have come from Washington for you for this occasion. Sir, you are going to Taiwan next month for a visit. People in Taiwan, a lot of them, will be looking to you for advice and probably for suggestions as to how best to come out of this economic abyss.

謝謝,謝謝你,教授,來自台灣中天電視的臧國華,我有兩個問題請教你,我為你從華府來出席這個場合。 你下個月將訪問台灣,很多台灣人非常期待你的建議,如何從這經濟深淵脫困。

Second question: The government of President Ma Ying-jeou is thinking about signing or negotiating a baby FTA in the name of economic cooperative framework agreement. But the opposition party has concerns about possible jeopardy to Taiwan’s sovereignty. What do you think about that? Thank you very much, sir, appreciate it.

第二個問題,馬英九總統想要和簽署名為ECFA的雛形自由貿易協定,但是反對黨關切這會危害到台灣主權。你認為如何呢?非常謝謝你,我很感激。

MR. KRUGMAN: Okay. About the second, I don’t really – unless I know – knew something more about it. I mean, there is – you know, free trade agreements, all – all such agreements do involve some sacrifice of national autonomy. They – we do this all the time. Now it’s usually been a good thing. It sort of depends on what. I mean, there – so I can’t really – can’t really comment on that without knowing something more about it.

王良芬 here supplied evidences that she lied in her original report:
  • It was 臧國華 who suggested that ECFA was a FTA. To me ECFA is not. In fact, no one except a tiny clique of KMT elites knows what it is - it is the clique's secreat. How could anyone, Krugman included, know that ECFA is a FTA when its content is a secret?
  • Krugman commented that FTA was usually a good thing. His comment was not about ECFA, which he admitted not knowing much. He declined to make further comment because of his lack of knowledge.

王良芬 really loved Krugman's mention of FTA's causing sacrifice of some national autonomy. She wrote

「所有這樣的自由貿易協定都牽涉到犧牲國家自主,他們—我們一直這麼做,現在這通常是一件好事」。克魯曼以犧牲 「國家自主」(national autonomy),回答臧國華的「主權」(sovereignity)之問,這段政治性的回答是針對ECFA而來.
What 王良芬 seems to be selling is that it is OK for Taiwan to lose some national autonomy, because Krugman said so. Did she ask whether ECFA is an equitable treaty so that China also loses some national autonomy? Or, is it OK for Taiwan to lose some national autonomy unilaterally? Why is it that, as a reporter, she never question KMT for the content of ECFA? Why is she helping KMT to force ECFA on Taiwanese? Answer:

China Times is not a newspaper; it is a KMT/CCP propaganda machine.

王良芬 ia not a reporter; she exhibits neither professionalism nor ethics befitting a reporter.
Will American or Japaanese tolerate things like China Times and 王良芬 on their soil?

自由時報 :還原現場 克魯曼沒說簽ECFA是好事

還原現場 克魯曼沒說簽ECFA是好事
整理:編譯陳成良
克魯曼十三日在紐約外國新聞中心記者會上的問答全文,刊載於美國國務院網站(fpc.state.gov/121662.htm),他根本沒說過「兩岸簽署ECFA是好事」這句話。(取材自美國國務院網站)

〔編譯陳成良/綜合報導〕諾貝爾經濟學獎得主克魯曼(Paul Krugman)到底有沒有如中國時報十五日的報導,在紐約一場記者會上說過「兩岸簽署ECFA是好事」?還原克魯曼當天的談話內容,就可以看出中時是以不實標題誤導大眾,克魯曼根本沒說過這句話。

克魯曼:未了解前 無法評論

該篇報導由中時駐紐約特派記者王良芬執筆,刊出的標題為「克魯曼:兩岸簽署ECFA是好事」,隨即被國內中央社、中廣等廣電媒體以及奇摩等各入口網站轉載,標題一字不改地強力放送,中國官方媒體與新聞網站也據此大力宣稱克魯曼支持兩岸簽署ECFA。

還原克魯曼十三日在紐約外國新聞中心記者會上回答ECFA台灣的中天電視台記者提問的內容,就可以看出克魯曼答覆時對於台灣這個個案,在尚未進一步了解前,他無法做出評論。顯然,他的說法在上述報導中遭到嚴重扭曲。

中時標題誤導 扭曲克氏說法

無獨有偶,去年十一月中時駐華盛頓特派記者劉屏在「美國到底怎麼看扁案」一文中,也把美國國務院發言人麥柯馬克期待台灣司法能夠公正的「have every expectation」這一句話,拗成美國「相信」台灣司法公正性並加以背書,誤導視聽,引發各界非議,前美國在台協會理事主席白樂崎甚至親自出馬指正 劉屏嚴重扭曲的譯文,為他上了一堂英文課。事實上,在外交辭令中,「have every expectation」是指因擔憂而期望,也就是美方擔心、也會緊盯扁案後續發展的情況。


中國時報 還原現場?自由時報沒人在現場 就讓我們來還原真相

  • 2009-04-17
  • 王良芬

國人有一句話:Half truth is not whole truth. 更有一句話:Half truth is a whole lie.不論是在法庭或是媒體,若要還原真相,就得還原全部真相,否則就是謊言。

《自由時報》針對本人在中時的報導,指稱標題「兩岸簽署ECFA是好事」誤導大眾,該報引用國務院網站為消息來源,卻未將內容刊登完全,就逕下結論攻擊中時,既然如此,就讓我們來還原真相,而且是全部的真相。

諾貝爾獎經濟學家克魯曼的記者會四月十三日在紐約舉行,台灣媒體有中時、中天、中視、聯合報和中央社等出席,沒有看到《自由時報》有人在現場。記者會開始後,中天駐華府特派員臧國華首先發問,克魯曼隨後回答,以下是國務院網站的記者會英文紀錄。

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Professor. John Zang (ph) with CTI-TV of Taiwan. I have two questions for you. I have come from Washington for you for this occasion. Sir, you are going to Taiwan next month for a visit. People in Taiwan, a lot of them, will be looking to you for advice and probably for suggestions as to how best to come out of this economic abyss.

謝謝,謝謝你,教授,來自台灣中天電視的臧國華,我有兩個問題請教你,我為你從華府來出席這個場合。 你下個月將訪問台灣,很多台灣人非常期待你的建議,如何從這經濟深淵脫困。

Second question: The government of President Ma Ying-jeou is thinking about signing or negotiating a baby FTA in the name of economic cooperative framework agreement. But the opposition party has concerns about possible jeopardy to Taiwan’s sovereignty. What do you think about that? Thank you very much, sir, appreciate it.

第二個問題,馬英九總統想要和簽署名為ECFA的雛形自由貿易協定,但是反對黨關切這會危害到台灣主權。你認為如何呢?非常謝謝你,我很感激。

MR. KRUGMAN: Okay. About the second, I don’t really – unless I know – knew something more about it. I mean, there is – you know, free trade agreements, all – all such agreements do involve some sacrifice of national autonomy. They – we do this all the time. Now it’s usually been a good thing. It sort of depends on what. I mean, there – so I can’t really – can’t really comment on that without knowing something more about it.

克魯曼先生:好的,關於第二個問題,我不是真的清楚,除非我知道更多,我的意思,就是,你知道,所有這樣的自由貿易協定都牽涉到犧牲國家自主,他們—我們一直這麼做,現在這通常是一件好事,這有點看情形。我是說,這樣,我實在不能,我實在不能對我不知道更多的事評論。

大家看完原文之後,我們一起來還原真相吧:

1. 臧國華提問係針對ECFA而來,他在問題清楚說了economic cooperative framework agreement,並解釋這是雛形的自由貿易協定。克魯曼的回答中,雖未重複ECFA的名稱,但是以「所有的這樣的貿易協定」回應,ECFA為自由貿易 協定的其中一類型,克魯曼此語當然把ECFA包括在內。

2. 台灣的 「主權」是ECFA問題中心,克魯曼答說:「所有這樣的自由貿易協定都牽涉到犧牲國家自主,他們—我們一直這麼做,現在這通常是一件好事」。克魯曼以犧牲 「國家自主」(national autonomy),回答臧國華的「主權」(sovereignity)之問,這段政治性的回答是針對ECFA而來。

3. 克魯曼說了:牽涉到犧牲「國家自主」之後,接著說:「我們一直這麼做,現在這通常是一件好事」,參照前後文句,以及問答內容,克魯曼還是延續ECFA的問題在回答,即是所有的自由貿易協定,包括 ECFA這樣的自由貿易協定在內,通常都是一件好事。

4. 克魯曼在說完「現在這通常是一件好事」之後,在話語收尾時,補上「這有點看情形。我是說,這樣,我實在不能,我實在不能對我不知道更多的事評論」,以為前 面的話語緩衝,表示在通常之外,因他不知道更多的內容,所以「這有點看情形」,所以實在不能說了,答覆就到這裡。

無論是在中外記者會,經常可見記者提問時,內容說得很清楚,但對方回答時未必會重複,通常以蓋泛通稱回答,甚至以虛擬主詞帶過,但是檢視問 答前後文,當可明白受訪人所指為何。這就是為什麼美國新聞稿中,在引用受訪人話語時,經常在文句裡加括弧註釋,幫助沒有目睹整個訪談的讀者瞭解。

如果許多美國受訪人一樣,克魯曼在回答時,在口語表達方便上,無需句子都以ECFA當主詞,但是我們對照前後問答內容,以及具有特殊政治性的用字,如「國家自主」,這段回答當是針對ECFA而來,包括「這通常是一件好事」。

媒體當學習法庭,Half truth is not whole truth. Half truth is a whole lie.