獲「獨家專訪」趙威懺悔　被指淪中共喉舌　南早：外界質疑屬抹黑

立場新聞 2016/07/25 15:04

    去年底被大陸企業阿里巴巴收購的《南華早報》，本月初刊出維權律師助理趙威的獨家「專訪」，引述趙威稱對維權工作感到後悔，而趙威至今仍然下落不明，令外界質疑《南早》為何能夠聯絡趙威、背後是否公安當局安排。英國《衞報》引述消息人士指出，《南早》「專訪」趙威是由一個神秘中間人安排，《南早》員工亦不知其身份，一名《南早》員工則向《衞報》表示，目前《南早》編輯室內，對今次的趙威「專訪」感不滿及憤怒。報道引述《南早》回應稱，外界對趙威專訪的質疑，是對《南早》有意抹黑（paint in a negative light）。
    《南早》於天津公安宣佈准趙威取保候審後四日（11日），刊出趙威的獨家專訪，以趙威「後悔」參與維權活動為標題，引述趙威稱「我現在明白我走錯了路，為自己曾做過的事懺悔」。這篇專訪引起廣泛質疑。趙威的丈夫游明磊以及其代表律師嚴華豐，均表明至今未能聯絡趙威，亦不明白《南早》記者為何能夠訪問趙威，質疑訪問是由當局安排。
    港大中國傳媒研究計劃編輯班志遠認為，今次事件令外界質疑《南早》的編採獨立，《南早》應對今次訪問的內情作出交代。
    《衞報》報道詳述《南早》在被阿里巴巴收購前後的染紅爭議，並引述一名前《南早》員工指，《南華早報》曾經是亞洲最佳英文報章之一，今日卻已淪為喉舌，令人傷感。報道又引述消息報道指，2014年《南華早報》的六四廿五週年報道《Voices from Tiananmen》，雖然獲得新聞獎項嘉許，但當時參與報道的記者及編輯，現已全數離開《南華早報》，近年《南早》亦出現離職潮。
    《南早》指《衞報》偏頗　質疑趙威專訪屬「抹黑」
    《衞報》報道又公開《南早》以「一群編輯」名義，對該報查詢的回應，對《衞報》作出多項指控，字裏行間充滿火藥味。「《南早》一群編輯」指《衞報》「有選擇性」、「偏頗」地訪問與《南早》有關的人物，又指外界對趙威專訪的質疑，是對《南早》有意抹黑（paint in a negative light）。該回應強調《南早》將繼續保持獨立、批判，不認同《衞報》所描繪的「末日」式將來，並要求《衞報》以要求《南早》的准則來要求自己。

    In an emailed statement, signed by “the editors” of the SCMP, the newspaper said it was “tempted to conclude” that questions being raised over its interview with Zhao were an attempt “to paint the South China Morning Post in a negative light”.

    [...] the SCMP’s editors accused the Guardian of “selective bias” in its choice of interviewees.  They said: “Our stand has not changed before or after we changed ownership and it is this: the South China Morning Post’s future will continue to depend on independent, critical journalism.

    “We continue to be able to attract the talented and committed professionals we need to do that job. Thus, unlike you, we are not inclined to take the doomsday scenarios you have painted too seriously.

    “[We] hope you aspire and live up to the same standards of critical independent journalism you demand of us.” 

    對於《南早》為何可以訪問到趙威，該回應則指《南早》著重保護秘密消息來源，因此不明白為何《衞報》要對《南早》的專業操守作出批評。

    “Like the Guardian and other principled news organisations, the South China Morning Post treats the protection of confidential sources as sacrosanct,” the SCMP’s editors said. “We therefore fail to understand why the Guardian is attempting to impugn our professionalism for maintaining a policy on sources that the Guardian follows as well.”