一路 BBS

标题: 宋志标:社会不需要卧底记者 [打印本页]

作者: bridged    时间: 6-21-2015 11:28
标题: 宋志标:社会不需要卧底记者

石扉客在微博上对卧底记者平地起波澜这事感到失望,选择了自动失语。他也认为,仅从一种报道技术来说,卧底采访并无神秘之处,不存在伦理问题与法律风险。他对这种喧哗采取了远距离的态度,做壁上观。一个老派卧底记者以冷淡心态拱手:爷不惹你丫。

说无可说,实际上的映射出的处境是退无可退。卧底高考考场这事揭露之后,围绕事件本身的波澜很快散尽,其退潮速度之快,相较于卧底采访这种方式的历史同期水平,显现了一个非常大落差。替考本身并无聚焦成一个重要的议题,这可能是卧底采访行动没有料到的。

怎么看待这种卧底方式的孤绝与其影响的爆冷?一个直截了当的答案是:社会已经不需要卧底记者。与卧底记者及卧底采访相联系的社会环境,已经发生了扭转,斗转星移了。与其说是卧底采访的式微,不如说是社会溃散的一个表现,人心上已然不古。

卧底采访迄今不到二十年,其经历了繁盛与走低的过程。它的兴起源自“新闻监督”的媒体—社会认知结构,媒体对于自身的社会角色做出了“不遑多让”的理解与执行,自引为独立第三方势力,也在立法、行政、司法之外自重于第四种权力。

在今天看来,这显然是一种不合时宜的新闻价值观。在这种价值观的指导下,新闻生产机制赋权记者以极大的信托;传媒以不信任的取态立场周旋在政府以及其他所谓的公权力之外,媒体为社会代言,卧底采访成为必然采取的手段,反过来强化“新闻监督”的理论框架。

这种“新闻监督”的框架之强大,不仅让市场化媒体为之倾倒,提供了绝大多数的卧底记者及其采访成果,就连党报也开始模仿这种风气。以媒体为主要存在指标的社会,得以在政府与民众之间建构起来。当然也建筑得不够牢靠,毕竟制度带有很强的反弹能力。

后来发生的环境变迁,以国家力量大力倡导之。一种更加稳定的整体框架覆盖下来,传媒与政府的关系受到重新审视,“新闻监督”的认知框架不符合评估重建的要求。一种旨在消除传媒与政府离心力、与社会向心力的政治重建进程,席卷社会各个主体。

这个时候,社会的“看门狗”如果不服来战,必定要被痛打成“落水狗”。这个蜕变的保守过程相当精细,报偿与报复的清单都明摆着。介于突发报道与深度报道之间的卧底报道,因为这两头的拆毁,必定站不住脚。卧底采访遭到价值观与职业基础两个方向的强拆。

南都的高考卧底采访,选择的题材属于老旧,在没来得及将替考与更大范围的社会问题进行联系之前,影响力就被瓦解了。这个瓦解的力量不止来自与严密的维稳吸收,广大受众也是“与有荣焉”,充当了消音的海绵体。从某种程度上来说,它们可能说的是同一个意思。

当言之凿凿地提示卧底采访的“法律风险”,对记者最终进入考场感觉气愤……诸如此类。我们看到“社会”的反弹与过去显著不同。所有的反应都与现实的社会情形保持步调一致。这种重叠可视为“帮腔”,可以解释石扉客的“无语”,“保卫社会”成了“破坏社会”的。

最后的卧底记者很容易就发现,武艺“失传”了,过去“货与”苍生的看家本领,成了一种受鄙夷的桥头杂耍。一直被默认为盟友的“大众”叛变为围观群众,采用了精致且粗俗的评价。真正的风险并非来自法律,而是来自疏离卧底记者的社会情境。

南昌高考丑闻有可能是卧底记者孤独求败的最后一个动作,人们已经无法理解这种建立在远古新闻观之下的具体行动。人们像观赏一个史前动物化石那样,指出它不够干净,没有用上他们常用的洁厕灵去清洗过。人们认为它是肮脏的,是异类,与自己不是同个世界。

既然社会已经成了这样,导致卧底记者相当尴尬,其制造的作品显得与环境格格不入,而且过于抽象,以致于要配上冗长的解说才能吸引微弱的关注。卧底采访从隐形的无名英雄,变成了不体面的人。社会已经学会了排斥他们,社会拒绝匹配,实质上也不配拥有。

2015年6月9日星期二 22:51

作者: choi    时间: 6-21-2015 18:45
The issue is conclusively resolved against reporters and their employers: trespass.

The following correctly state the law:
Journalists and Trespass. in Pennsylvania Newspaper Handbook. Pennsylvania News Media Association, undated
panewsmedia.org/legal/publications/newspaperhandbook/trespass-photographer-and-journalist
("This is because entering upon the land of another without their consent is trespass, and the First Amendment does not give journalists the right to trespass. Courts have traditionally upheld a person's right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (and their right to privacy), as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, to outweigh a journalists interest in acquiring news.  This general concept has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court, which held in the case of Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972), that newsmen have no constitutional right of access to the scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is excluded. Numerous other court decisions have expanded upon this general rule. Most notably is Wilson v Layne, 526 US 603 (1999), which deals with media 'ride-alongs' * * * Finally, journalists may be committing trespass if the use misrepresentation or fraud to violate someone's private space or gains intimate details of one's life. This concept applies to individuals and businesses alike. An example of this concept is Food Lion v. Capital Cities/A.B.C., 194 F.3d 505, (4th Cir.(N.C.) 1999), where two journalists posed as employees for Food Lion grocery stores and gained access to areas of the store that were off limits to the general public. The court found that there was trespass in this case because the journalists violated a duty of loyalty towards Food Lion because they were hired as employees. However, this does not mean that every journalist investigating a business will be guilty of trespass. The court in the Food Lion case indicated that if a journalist used misrepresentation (such as posing as a phony customer [or a tester]) to gain access to a business, such action will not constitute a trespass if it occurs in a public area (such as a doctor's office or a showroom floor)")




欢迎光临 一路 BBS (http://www.yilubbs.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2